Docstoc

April Monthly Meeting of the

Document Sample
April Monthly Meeting of the Powered By Docstoc
					   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.
                      (chris.thompson@jhu.edu)
                   Institute for Policy Studies
                   Johns Hopkins University

                               and

                        David Bosser
                      (david_bosser@ubalt.edu)
                  Job Opportunities Task Force
                          Baltimore



                       (December 9, 2004)
The ‘business case’ for workforce training…


             Workforce training has proven benefits for employers:
             • shorter time to performance and increased retention rates     1

             • reduced scrap rates    2

             • increased productivity and rate of productivity growth    3

             • complement other investments in new physical capital     4

             • increased total shareholder return        5

             • increased profit margins     6

             • increased company income per employee             7

             • increased price-to-book ratios      8




                         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‛!
                                          Sources: listed over




                                                   i
                                                 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.

6    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.

7    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.

8    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




                                                                 ii
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;




                                                  iii
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




                                                iv
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).




                                                   v
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



                                                vi
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




                                                vii
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



                                                viii
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.




                                                ix
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




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


                                         CONTENTS
                                                                                      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




                                               xi
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 Training 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




     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.



                                                                                         2
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


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

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)

  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.




                                                            3
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


           Non-Credit                                                 13,362 students
           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.




                                                            4
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


(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




                                                    5
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


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.




                                                             6
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


‚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%
     Share of adult population or samples




                                            50.0%




                                                                                                         28.6%
                                                                                    22.8%                                                      23.6%
                                            25.0%
                                                                                                                                  18.6%                                         18.3%


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

                                                              gr                        ip                  cy
                                                                                                              )                           r.                 r.                     er
                                                        9th                       od                                                   eg                  eg                      h
                                                                               ,n                        len                    no
                                                                                                                                   d                     .d                    hig
                                                    han                     gr.                       iva                  .,                         soc                   or
                                              ss
                                                 t
                                                                      2th
                                                                                                    qu                  oll                        As                  gr
                                            Le                                                cl.
                                                                                                  e                  c                                               de
                                                              t    o1                     in                      me                                            ch
                                                          9th                           d(                     So                                             Ba
                                                                                  gra
                                                                             HS                                                                                               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‛.



                                                                                                                    7
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________




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.
                                                                        Gender
for occupational skills training. The demographics
                                                                            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
                                                 Programs




                                                                                                                                 $10,770,451




                                                                                                                                                            $10,328,059
                    $12,000,000




                                                                                                                         $6,625,245
                                                                               $6,582,734




                                                                                                                                                    $6,528,751
                                                                                                       $6,418,719
                                                                            $5,205,489
                    $10,000,000




                                                                                                    $5,050,704
    Total funding




                                                                                                                    $4,145,206




                                                                                                                                               $3,799,308
                                                       $3,549,836

                     $8,000,000
                                     $2,302,495


                                                    $2,293,915
                                   $1,460,298




                                                                    $1,377,245




                                                                                            $1,368,015
                                                  $1,255,921




                     $6,000,000
                                  $842,197




                     $4,000,000
                     $2,000,000
                            $0
                MITP
                PWQ
                                    1995            1996               1997                    1998                     1999                       2000

                BOTH                              Source: MD DBED, Business Investment Programs, 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.




                                                                    9
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________




                      Chart 3. Employees trained by the MITP and PWQ programs, 1995-
                                                    2000




                                                                                                                                                                           13,959
                                                                                                                                                  13,169
                                                                                                                         11,042
                                       14,000
       Number of employees




                                       12,000




                                                                                                                                                                   9,060
                                                                                                         8,097
                                       10,000




                                                                                                                                          6,746
                                                                                                                                  6,423
                             trained




                                        8,000




                                                                                                 4,937




                                                                                                                                                           4,899
                                                                             4,613
                                                        4,022
                                        6,000




                                                                                             3,381
                                                      3,346




                                                                                                                 2,945
                                                                        2,584
                                        4,000                   2,029




                                                                                     1,556
                                                676




                                        2,000
                                           0
                                 MITP             1995              1996                 1997                1998                     1999                     2000
                                 PWQ
                                                                 Source: MD DBED, Business Investment Programs , 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


       PWQ           $    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%



  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.




                                                            11
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


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.



(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


  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



                                                             12
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


population) participated. Another 2,000 inmates remained on waiting lists for academic or
occupational training programs. 17

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



  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

  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
________________________________________________________________________________________________


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
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 system 22:

          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


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



                                                    14
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


        Machinist*                                   12
        Maintenance Electrician*                      8
        Insulation Worker                             6
        Plumber*                                      6
        Cement Mason                                  5
        Maintenance Mechanic*                         4
        Building Maint. Repairer                      3
        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:



                                                15
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________




            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.




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



                                                          16
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


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.



                Chart 4. Training expenditures by employee type, 2002

         Customer serv.                                                                      17%
     Other professionals                                                               15%
       Production emps                                                                 15%
       First-line supvsrs                                                  12%
                   IT staff                                     9%
       Senior managers                                          9%
        Sales employees                                    8%
          Admin. emps.                             6%
      Middle managers                         5%
               Executives                4%

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

                                                        Share of total




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.

‚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.




                                                    17
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________




                               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%




5. How do organizations deliver training to their employees?

Use of different training
delivery methods by U.S.                                Chart 6. Learning delivery methods, 2002
organizations in 2002 is shown
                                                                  72.1%
in Chart 6.                                     80.0%
                                                60.0%
Traditional classroom learning
                                                40.0%
still dominates the picture and                                                      15.4%              12.5%
accounts for 72% of all training                20.0%
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.




                                                             18
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


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                      LEVEL 1                                              75%




                                            "Kirkpatrick level"
companies. They are
                                       LEVEL 2                          41%
simple to implement, but
yield the least information.           LEVEL 3               21%
The Level 2 ‚learning‛
                                       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 Professional; Scientific; and Technical Services                29    14%
Residential Care Facilities‛ is
                                         3 Administrative and Support Services                             15    7%
grouped with ‚Hospitals‛,
                                         4 Educational Services                                            10    5%
then ‚healthcare accounted
                                         5 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities                          9    4%
for one in four placements for
                                           1
this sample group. The                       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         Health Care and Social Assistance        60      30%
                                          Business Services                        51      25%
trainees with industry placement
                                          Hospitality/Tourism                      16       8%
information in the study sample,
                                          Construction                              5       2%
93 (or 46%) were placed in one of
                                          Bioscience                                0       0%
the 11 industries expected to add         Computer, Internet and Data Services      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 Registered nurses                                                                  17   9%
            2 Miscellaneous clerical occupations                                                 14   7%
            3 Attendants, hospitals, morgues, and related health services                        13   7%
            4 Interviewing clerks                                                                12   6%
            5 Occupations in administrative specializations 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;




                                                22
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


    (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 9 th 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
                                                                                                                                                                    29.7%


                                 35.0%
                                                                                                28.7%
                                                                                               28.6%
                                                                                              27.0%
      Share of total adult pop




                                 30.0%
                                                                          22.8%




                                                                                                                                                                            22.8%
                                                                                                                      22.4%
                                                                                                                     21.7%




                                 25.0%
                                                                                                                  18.6%




                                                                                                                                                            18.3%




                                 20.0%
                                                                                   13.1%
                                                                                  11.7%




                                 15.0%
                                                       8.4%

                                                     7.0%




                                                                                                                                           6.1%




                                 10.0%
                                                                                                                                          5.2%
                                                  4.7%




                                                                                                                                        3.4%




                                 5.0%
                                 0.0%
                                                                                .
                                                      gr .                  ipl                 y)                   .
                                                                                                                                       egr
                                                                                                                                           .                  er
                                               9t h                     d                    nc                  egr                                       igh
                                            an                   r.,
                                                                     no
                                                                                       iva le                 od                c. d                  rh
                                        s th                   hg                                        ., n                sso                    .o
                                    s                      t                       equ               ol l                A                       egr
                                  Le                   -1 2                   cl .                 ec                                          d
                                                  9t h                   d(
                                                                            in
                                                                                              So
                                                                                                 m                                   ch.
                                                                                                                                   Ba
                                                                   gra                                                                                     BALT CITY
                                                                HS
                                                                                           Highest level reached                                           MD
     Source: ba sed on ra w da ta from Cynthia
     Ta euber, U.S. Bur. Of the Census                                                                                                                     US A




                                                                                                   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 9 th 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       WERE 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.


                                                  24
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


(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).




                                                    26
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________




                  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 need a                    13,186       total of the lines below:                    6,998                7         4
                                                                                                                1
           High School dip/GED               7,300     enrolled in GED/ABE through                   3,650
                                                          BCCC
                                                                                                                1
                                             4,345     adults served through Adult                   2,173
                                                          Ed/Literacy Services
                                                                                                                3
                                              677      Adult Life and Literacy Skills                  677
                                                          completions through DPSCS
                                                                                                                2
                                              376      HS dips earned through YO                       107
                                                                                                                3
                                              352      GEDs earned through DPSCS                       352
                                                                                                                2
                                              136      GEDs earned through YO                              39



 34,000 adults need a post-              17,181       total of the lines below:                    8,950                4         2

                                                                                                                1
           secondary qualification         10,800      students enrolled for credit at               5,400
                                                          (BCCC, inc. 2775 enrolled in
                                                          Perkins CTE-funded training)
                                                                                                                1
                                             3,262     TCA customers participated in                 1,631
                                                          voc./community coll programs
                                                                                                                3
                                             1,000     trained through MITP/PWQ                      1,000
                                              829      EZ residents in EBMC-suported
                                                         training
                                                                                                                4
                                              579      Career Center Network clients                   386
                                                          enrolled in training services
                                                                                                                3
                                              353      occupational skills completions                 353
                                                          through DPSCS
                                                                                                                5
                                              208        enrolled in college through YO                    30
                                                                                                                3
                                              150      completed apprenticeships                       150
                                                       through MATP
       1                                                            4
           assumes two-year cycle                                       18-month data annualized
       2                                                            5
           Feb 2000 through Sep 2004 total, annualized                  18-month data annualized, with two-year cycle
       3
           data received are already 12-month basis




                                                                    27
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


(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 WAGE
                                                            TIONS        (no.)     (%)      (low)    (high)   (avge)*
      Level I:
         Short-term OJT                                        22       26,050     38.4%     $6.50   $13.75    $9.69
      Level II:
         High School plus moderate-term OJT                    14       11,130     16.4%     $8.75   $28.00 $14.59
         High School plus long-term OJT                        6          1,560     2.3%     $9.75   $21.50 $15.29
      Level III:
         Related work experience                               8          3,930     5.8% $11.75      $24.00 $18.63
         Vocational training                                   4          7,310    10.8%     $8.25   $20.50 $16.31
         Associates degree                                     5          5,440     8.0% $15.25      $32.50 $22.35
      Level IV:
         Bachelor's degree                                     11         6,880    10.1% $17.25      $32.50 $24.64
         Work experience plus degree                           6          5,490     8.1% $22.25      $40.00 $32.33


         All categories                                        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.




                                                            30
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


        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
                                                             HS/GED                                2,651   70.6
MOED data is ‚self-reported‛ and 38% of adults
                                                             College                                 318     8.5
(1,428) are listed as ‚missing‛ this particular data
                                                           ( Missing                                   4 )
item, which is only asked of job seeker customers
                                                          "Highest grade completed" - Adults
moving into staff-assisted services: we need to
                                                             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
Network ‚pre-registrants‛ over an 18-month period28               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 month    29 (both on the supply side).

In sum, the total supply (of MOED job seeker

  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.




                                                              31
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
________________________________________________________________________________________________


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-      PROJECTED JOB OPENINGS               CCN JOB        RATIO OF JOB
                                                              TIONS       2000-2010       18-mnth avge       SEEKERS *       SEEKERS TO
                                                                         (no.)    (%)     (no.)   (%)        (no.)    (%)    PROJECTED
                                                                                                                                 JOB
                                                                                                                              OPENINGS
  Level I:
     Short-term OJT                                              22      26,050   38.4%   3,908   38.4%      4,422 20.7%         1.1
  Level II:
     High School plus moderate-term OJT                          14      11,130   16.4%   1,670   16.4%
     High School plus long-term OJT                              6        1,560   2.3%      234   2.3%
  Level III:                                                                                                16,256 76.1%         4.5
     Related work experience                                     8        3,930   5.8%      590   5.8%
     Vocational training                                         4        7,310   10.8%   1,097   10.8%
     Associates degree                                           5        5,440   8.0%      816   8.0%
  Level IV:                                                                                                    662    3.1%       0.2
     Bachelor's degree                                           11       6,880   10.1%   1,032   10.1%
     Work experience plus degree                                 6        5,490   8.1%      824   8.1%


     All categories                                              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




                                              35
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                                                                 BWIB-WSEC
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________




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




                                                                                                                                     6
                                                                                                                                    ,28
          $15,000




                                                                                                                                $14
                                                                                                                               4
                                                                                                                              ,04
                                                                                                                             $13
          $12,500



          $10,000



            $7,500



            $5,000




                                                                                                                255
                                                                                                              997
                                                                                                             787


                                                                                                            $2,
                                                                                                          498


                                                                                                          $1,
                                                                                                         391
            $2,500




                                                                                                         $1,
                                                                                                        179
                                                                                                        177
                                                                                                        125




                                                                                                      $1,
                                                                                                     $1,
                                                                                                      8




                                                                                                    $1,
                                                                                                    $1,
                                                                                                    $1,
                                  $92
                                     3
                                     6
                                     7
                                     9
                                    1
                                    5




                                $69
                                $67
                                $65
                                   8
                                   7
                                   5




                               $59
                               $59
                                  9




                               $50
                                  8
                                 6




                              $43
                              $41
                              $40
                                 7

                                 0




                             $35
                                6
                                1
                                8




                             $29
                             $28
                            $19

                            $20
                            $15
                            $15
                           $12
                     $16




               $0
                           #24




                           #22




                           #23



                           #26

                           #25
                          WQ




                           ITP
                            #4

                            #8

                            #7




                            #3

                            #5



                            #2



                            #6




                            #1




                            #9
                           #15

                           #17




                           #14



                           #10



                           #21



                           #20

                           #19

                           #13



                           #18




                           #12

                           #16



                           #11
                           TH
                          Q

                          Q

                          Q




                          Q

                          Q



                          Q



                          Q




                          Q




                          Q
                        BO




                       LM
                        TP




                        TP




                        TP



                        TP

                        TP
                         Q

                         Q




                         Q



                         Q



                         Q



                         Q

                         Q

                         Q



                         Q




                         Q

                         Q



                         Q
                       LP
                      PW

                      PW

                      PW




                      PW

                      PW



                      PW



                      PW




                      PW




                      PW
                     PW

                     PW




                     PW



                     PW



                     PW



                     PW

                     PW

                     PW



                     PW




                     PW

                     PW



                     PW
                     MI




                     MI




                     MI



                     MI

                     MI
                      N
                    AL




                    AL
                   LI
                 AL




                                                                   Grantee by program
                                                   (* PWQ's 50:50 employer dollar match requirement not included)



                                                                          36
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                                                                 BWIB-WSEC
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



          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
             "Workforce training/business competitiveness" 1                             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




                                                                                               37
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
_______________________________________________________________________________________________




                 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.




                                                            38
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
_______________________________________________________________________________________________


                                          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.




                                                              39
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
_______________________________________________________________________________________________




        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%
                                             3
          4    Self-Employed Workers                                 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




                                                           40
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
_______________________________________________________________________________________________


                                Placement occupations of trainees
      OCCUPATION                                                           PLACEMENTS 1
                                                                            (no.)      (%)

     REGISTERED NURSES                                                       17         9%
     MISCELLANEOUS CLERICAL OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C.                              14         7%
     ATTENDANTS, HOSPITALS, MORGUES, AND REL. HEALTH SER.                    13         7%
     INTERVIEWING CLERKS                                                     12         6%
     OCCUPATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIZATIONS, N.E.C.                   7          4%
     MISCELLANEOUS SALES OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C.                                 6          3%
     TRUCK DRIVERS, HEAVY                                                    6          3%
     HOUSEHOLD AND RELATED WORK                                              5          3%
     PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C.                            5          3%
     COMPUTING AND ACCOUNT-RECORDING OCCUP., N.E.C.                          4          2%
     TRAILER-TRUCK DRIVERS                                                   4          2%
     BILLING AND RATE CLERKS                                                 3          2%
     MEDICAL SERVICE CLERKS, N.E.C.                                          3          2%
     OCCUPATIONS IN PSYCHOLOGY                                               3          2%
     ACCOUNTING AND STATISTICAL CLERKS                                       2          1%
     CASHIERS AND TELLERS                                                    2          1%
     COMPUTER AND PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT OPERATORS                             2          1%
     DOMESTIC SERVICE OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C.                                    2          1%
     FOOD AND BEVERAGE PREP. AND SERV. OCCUP., N.E.C.                        2          1%
     HOUSEKEEPERS, HOTELS AND INSTITUTIONS                                   2          1%
     JANITORS                                                                2          1%
     MANICURISTS                                                             2          1%
     MISCELLANEOUS MANAGERS AND OFFICIALS, N.E.C.                            2          1%
     OCCUPATIONS IN COMPUTER SYSTEMS TECH. SUPPORT                           2          1%
     OCCUPATIONS IN EDUCATION, N.E.C.                                        2          1%
     OCCUPATIONS IN GRAPHIC ART WORK, N.E.C.                                 2          1%
     OCCUPATIONS IN MEDICINE AND HEALTH, N.E.C.                              2          1%
     OCCUP. IN MOVING AND STORING MATERIALS AND PROD., N.E.C.                2          1%
     PROTECTIVE SERVICE OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C.                                  2          1%
     SECRETARIES                                                             2          1%
     SERVICE INDUSTRY MANAGERS AND OFFICIALS                                 2          1%
     SHIPPING, RECEIVING, STOCK, AND RELATED CLERICAL OCCUP.                 2          1%
     STENOGRAPHY, TYPING, FILING, AND RELATED OCCUP., N.E.C.                 2          1%
     TRUCK DRIVERS, LIGHT                                                    2          1%
     TYPISTS AND TYPEWRITING-MACHINE OPERATORS                               2          1%
     WAITERS/WAITRESSES, AND RELATED FOOD SERVICE OCCUP.                     2          1%
     WELDERS, CUTTERS, AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C.                       2          1%
     ACCOUNTANTS, AUDITORS, AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS                          1          1%


                                                                                    (continued)




                                                  41
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
_______________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Placement occupations of trainees (continued)

         OCCUPATION                                                                                      PLACEMENTS 1
                                                                                                         (no.)   (%)

        ARC WELDERS AND CUTTERS                                                                            1     1%
        ATTENDANTS AND SERVICE., PARK. LOTS AND AUTO. SERV. FACIL.                                         1     1%
        ATTENDANTS, GOLF COURSE, TENNIS CT., SKAT. RINK, AND REL.                                          1     1%
        BOOKKEEPERS AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS                                                                1     1%
        BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL MACHINE REPAIRERS                                                          1     1%
        CHEFS AND COOKS, HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS                                                            1     1%
        COMPUTER-RELATED OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C.                                                               1     1%
        DARKROOM OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C.                                                                       1     1%
        EXCAVATING, GRADING, PAVING, AND RELATED OCCUP., N.E.C.                                            1     1%
        FABRICATING MACHINE OCCUPATIONS                                                                    1     1%
        GENERAL INDUSTRY MECHANICS AND REPAIRERS                                                           1     1%
        HAIRDRESSERS AND COSMETOLOGISTS                                                                    1     1%
        HOISTING AND CONVEYING OCCUPATIONS                                                                 1     1%
        HOME ECONOMISTS AND FARM ADVISERS                                                                  1     1%
        INFORMATION AND MESSAGE DISTRIBUTION OCCUP., N.E.C.                                                1     1%
        INVESTIGATORS, ADJUSTERS, AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS                                                  1     1%
        MACHINISTS AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS                                                                 1     1%
        MEATCUTTERS, EXCEPT IN SLAUGHTER. AND PACKING HOUSES                                               1     1%
        MECHANICAL ENGINEERING OCCUPATIONS                                                                 1     1%
        METALLURGY AND METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING OCCUPATIONS                                               1     1%
        MISCELLANEOUS COOKS, EXCEPT DOMESTIC                                                               1     1%
        MISCELLANEOUS FOOD AND BEVERAGE PREPARATION OCCUP.                                                 1     1%
        MISCELLANEOUS METALWORKING OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C.                                                     1     1%
        MISC. OCCUP. IN FAB., ASSEM., AND REPAIR OF METAL PROD. N.E.C.                                     1     1%
        MISCELLANEOUS OCCUP. IN MACHINE INSTALLATION AND REPAIR                                            1     1%
        MISCELLANEOUS PERSONAL SERVICE OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C.                                                 1     1%
        MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL WORK OCCUPATIONS, N.E.C.                                                  1     1%
        OCC. IN ASSEM. AND REPAIR OF ELEC. COMPON. AND ACCESS. N.E.C.                                      1     1%
        OCCUP. IN ASSEM., INSTALL., AND REPAIR OF TRANSMIS. & DISTRIB. LINES                               1     1%
        OCCUPATIONS IN COMPUTER SYSTEM USER SUPPORT                                                        1     1%
        OCCUP. IN INSTALLATION AND REPAIR OF ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS, N.E.C.                                   1     1%
        OCCUPATIONS IN LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE, N.E.C.                                                       1     1%
        OCCUPATIONS IN MATHEMATICS                                                                         1     1%
        OCCUP. IN PROCESS. OF FOOD, TOBACCO, AND REL. PRODUCTS, N.E.C.                                     1     1%
        OCCUPATIONS IN PROCESSING OF METAL, N.E.C.                                                         1     1%
        OCCUPATIONS IN SOCIAL AND WELFARE WORK                                                             1     1%
        OCCUPATIONS IN SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND PROGRAMMING                                                    1     1%
        PACKAGING OCCUPATIONS                                                                              1     1%
        PRODUCTION CLERKS                                                                                  1     1%
        ROOFERS AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS                                                                    1     1%
        ROUTE SALES AND DELIVERY OCCUPATIONS                                                               1     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 INDUSTRY MANAGERS                                         1     1%

        TOTAL                                                                                             196    100%
    1
        Includes only those 196 trainees out of 216 with information on occupation of their placement.




                                                                 42
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
                                                                                                              place-
                                                                                                             ments 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
               Serving Workers, Including Fast Food
               Medical and Health Services                    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.




                                                            43
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
_______________________________________________________________________________________________




                                 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%




                                                44
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
_______________________________________________________________________________________________



                 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%




                                                   45
The State of Workforce Training in Baltimore, 2004                                  BWIB-WSEC
_______________________________________________________________________________________________




                                              46

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:12
posted:7/24/2011
language:English
pages:58