Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

Funded by the Ford Foundation

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

Research prepared by

Bret Halverson Ph.D.

October 2011

Hostos

Community College

Acknowledgements The Division of Continuing Education & Workforce Development at Hostos Community College would like to thank the Ford Foundation for its generous support of this research.

The mission of The Division parallels the mission of Hostos Community College, that is, to provide access to higher and postsecondary educational opportunities leading to intellectual growth and socio-economic mobility. The Division accomplishes this through the delivery of educational and job training services to individuals not served by the traditional instructional activities of the College in order to maximize workforce performance, career development and self-enrichment.

The views expressed in this report are solely those of the author.

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations Research prepared by

Bret Halverson Ph.D.

October 2011

Funded by the Ford Foundation

1

Introduction

The combined impact of demographic changes and a financial crisis has led to the most severe loss of jobs across the country since the Great Depression. They have significantly changed the prospects for employment for all groups—but particularly for low-income immigrant populations with low literacy levels. Although 2010 Census reports indicate the slowest growth in population since the 1930s, 56% of that growth is accounted for by the Hispanic population that now makes up 16% of the overall population in the United States.

While the immigration rate has declined over the past decade, immigrants represent a significant portion of the population—particularly in major cities such as New York City. Contrary to common misconceptions, immigrants are spread broadly across a wide range of occupations in most metropolitan areas (Kallick 2010). As a report from the Fiscal Policy Institute noted: Immigrants work in jobs across the economic spectrum, and are business owners as well. Although immigrants are more likely than U.S.-born workers to be in lower-wage service or blue-collar occupations, 24 percent of immigrants in the 25 metro areas work in managerial and professional occupations. Another 25 percent work in technical, sales, and administrative support occupations. In fact, in 15 of the 25 metro areas, there are more immigrants in these two higher-pay job categories taken together than there are in service and blue-collar jobs combined. And, immigrants are also entrepreneurs. Immigrants account for 22 percent of all proprietors’ earnings in the 25 largest metro areas—slightly higher than their share of the population. (Kallick 2009)

Despite the diversity of the increasing number of foreign-born individuals, significant numbers of this population have low literacy levels and face multiple barriers to employment; yet currently few services or none at all are available to prepare them for opportunities in an increasingly competitive labor market. The current fiscal crisis makes it unlikely that this will be resolved in the near future. As a recent Brookings Institution study noted, “for the time being, metropolitan areas facing shrinking budgets, unemployment and greater demand for social services will feel the challenges of maintaining programs that benefit immigrants—due to both fiscal constraints and the current polarized atmosphere around immigration” (Allard 2010, Singer 2010).

1

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

2

Project Scope of Work a. Review the labor market and demographic data across the country and New York City to determine what is needed from the workforce system for low-income, low-skilled populations. b. Conduct a review of the literature of approaches that engage low-income populations in effective workforce initiatives, with particular emphasis on immigrants with lower skills. c. Identify promising strategies from other areas of the country that might be applicable in New York City to address issues of service access. d. Interview national experts on how New York City compares with other areas of the country. e. Identify and document the key players and services in New York City with particular emphasis on the Bronx and in Manhattan. f. Consider implications.

3

The Changing Economy

Prior to the year 2000, the workforce field was dominated by short-term “work first” strategies that emerged from a widely held view that workforce programs are not effective, in spite of evidence that those which were more intensive tend to be more successful with low-income individuals. The past ten years have seen a significant change in thinking about workforce development strategies—particularly for low-income populations. The driving force behind this shift has been recognition that changes in the economy require new approaches. These economic changes were described in the Aspen Institute’s 2003 Growing Fast Together or Growing Slowly Apart: How will America work in the 21st Century.

The report identified three key problems:

• The Worker Gap - For the past 20 years, businesses have relied on the dramatic growth of the native-born workforce to provide an expanding supply of new workers. The growth is now over.

• The Skills Gap - For 20 years, technology and a better-educated workforce capable of taking advantage of it have boosted our productivity. However, just as our needs for an educated workforce accelerate, the gains in education are slowing down.

• The Wage Gap - The gap in earnings between workers at the bottom and those at the top is widening and likely to expand. For women, wages at the bottom have been essentially stagnant for the past twenty years, while pay at the top has risen sharply. Meanwhile, men at the lower end are actually paid significantly less than they were two decades ago; however, they still earn more than lower-end women, while men at the top earn much more than before. Sizeable racial gaps persist as well. (Aspen Institute 2003)

2

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

Compounding these problems, the United States economy has lost more than 8 million jobs since December 2007 in what is now called the Great Recession. The impact of the Great Recession has accelerated a number of long-term market trends; polarization of job growth across high and low skilled occupations; rising wages for higher educated workers; falling wages for less educated workers; and labor market losses for males (Autor 2010). The Great Recession has had an impact on every segment of the population; a cohort of retirees has been compelled to return to the workforce; the baby boom’s vocational finish line has been pushed back; and recent college graduates, many of whom have had to choose between jobs below their level of qualification or the unemployment line, have been dubbed the boomerang generation. However, no group has suffered as disproportionately as low-income individuals with low skill levels.

In a time of record unemployment, postsecondary education and training are vital. The share of jobs in the U.S. economy that required postsecondary education has increased by 21 percent in the past 35 years, and this trend will continue in the coming decade. Sixty-one percent of the middle class and 81 percent of the upper class have had postsecondary education and training (Holzer 2009). Those with only a high school diploma earn 33 percent less than those with an associate’s degree and 62 percent less than those with a bachelor’s degree (Holzer 2009). Postsecondary education and training are undeniably the gateways to the middle and upper classes.

The economy is changing, and there are strong demand and good pay for a wide range of middle-skill jobs. Harry Holzer defines middle-skill jobs as “those that generally require some education and training beyond high school but less than a bachelor’s degree”; they may call for “associate’s degrees, vocational certificates, significant on-the-job training, previous work experience, or some college—but less than a bachelor’s degree” (Holzer 2009). Middle-skill jobs now account for nearly half of all occupations. They include jobs in skilled crafts, transportation, sales and healthcare—a field in which openings are expected to increase dramatically over the next decade (Holzer 2009). A shift to a “greener” economy is expected to generate demands for technicians in equipment installation, maintenance, and repair, as will increased federal spending on the modernization of infrastructure. There is a strong need for well-trained personnel in fields that cannot be outsourced to foreign labor: police and firefighters, legal aid and protective services, and culinary labor. Strong basic skills are required in all of these areas (Holzer 2010). As Harry Holzer points out: The demand for middle-skill workers will remain robust relative to its supply, especially in key sectors of the economy.

Accordingly, accommodating these demands will require increased U.S. investment in high-quality education and training in the middle as well as the top of the skill distribution. The demand for many middle-skill occupations is rising fast enough to generate not only strong employment growth, but also rapid growth in wages. (Holzer 2009) As the skill-levels required for available jobs continue to increase, low-income communities have been disproportionately affected. The New York Times (May 16, 2010) noted that:

College degrees are simply not necessary for many jobs. Of the 30 jobs projected to grow at the fastest rate over the next decade, only seven typically require a bachelor’s degree according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Among the top 10 growing job categories, two require college degrees: accounting (a bachelor’s) and post secondary teachers (a doctorate). But this growth is expected to be dwarfed by the need for registered nurses, home health care aides, customer service representatives and store clerks. None of these jobs require a bachelor’s degree.

3

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

Overall, the impact of the widespread job loss since December of 2007 has not been as great for immigrants, including those with low skills, as it has for native born populations (Hall 2011). The Pew Hispanic Center found that in the oneyear period from the second quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2009, foreign-born workers who make up 15.7% of the labor force in the US gained 656,000 jobs, while native-born workers lost 1.2 million jobs (Kochhar 2011).

However, as Bob Hebert observed, “even as the hiring of immigrants picked up during that period, those same workers experienced a sharp decline in earnings” (The New York Times, November 20, 2010). This decline has made immigrant workers more economically vulnerable.

Most labor market economists predict a slow job recovery in the next ten years. A recent article in the Washington Monthly (May-June 2010) noted,

Anthony Carnevale and Jeff Strohl of the Georgetown University Center on Education forecast that about 47 million jobs will become available in the next decade, as workers in existing jobs retire and as newly created jobs come on line. About 30 million of these new positions will require a post secondary education. Of these, 14 million will demand only a two-year associate’s degree, one-year certificate or some college short of a bachelor’s degree. These ‘middle skill occupations’ include jobs in information technology (network managers), business services (managing temp workers, running institutional food operations) and especially health care (nurses, nurse assistants and medical technicians). Starting salaries range from about $25,000 to more than $40,000 and grow substantially from there. In fact, about 30 per cent of people with one and two year college credentials make more than people with bachelor’s degrees. (Merisotis and Jones 2010)

While New York City has experienced a shorter downturn than most other areas of the country, it is anticipated that job growth here will remain slow in many sectors over the next few years.

4

New York State and New York City Demographic Trends

The demographic structure of New York State is consistent with the forces shaping the nation’s population. Its large baby boomer population is aging. The population characteristics of New York State are distinctive in a number of ways—shaped by foreign immigration, high levels of domestic-in-and-out migration, and the high fertility rates of the state’s large and growing ethnic populations. New York State ranked 46th in population growth in the past ten years with a 2.6% increase.

New York City’s population between 2000 and 2010 grew by only 2.1% to 8,175,133 despite the growth of the Asian (+32%) and Hispanic (+8.1%) populations. These trends are expected to continue in the future. The impact of this demographic shift in New York State and New York City has important implications for the current capacity of the social service delivery system to meet the needs of low-income populations with low literacy levels and multiple barriers to employment.

Nationally, 14% of the working-age individuals in the United States are National Assessment of Adult Literacy Skills (NAALS) Level 1 status, which means that one cannot balance a checkbook, is totally illiterate, or can read a single sentence. New York City’s population is significantly worse off. The levels in Brooklyn (37%), the Bronx (41%), and Queens (46%) show poorer outcomes. The current workforce system in New York City is not equipped to address this challenge, or even to provide the type of long-term, comprehensive and intensive services that are required to prepare this population for the current labor market.

4

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

5

New York City Economy and Workforce System

A. New York City Economy Until the 1970s, the structure of New York City economy resembled those of most other major cities in the United States. The drastic cutbacks prompted the city’s fiscal crisis fundamentally changed the structure of its economy. For example, the young adult unemployment rate in the late 1960s was lower in New York City than most other major cities, but by 1980 New York City was being called the “youth unemployment capital of the nation.”

As a result of the breadth of its economy, New York City has experienced a shorter downturn during the recent Great Recession, and job recovery here has been slightly quicker than in most other areas of the country because of the City’s economic diversity. As a result, workforce programs here are still able to find areas of the economy that have openings for entry-level jobs (e.g. health care). New York City lost about 147,000 jobs from year to year. Its unemployment rate in December 2009 was above that of the nation at 10.5%—with the number of unemployed (418,000) reaching the highest level in 35 years. As of March 2011, the unemployment rate in New York City had dropped to 8.8%. Overall, the New York City economy gained back 63,600 of the 141,000 jobs lost from April 2008 through September 2009.

The private sector job growth in New York City (21,000) in January accounted for nearly a third of this sector’s growth in the nation.

As Table 1 shows, New York City has four private job sectors—health care and social assistance, professional services, finance, and retail—and the government sector, each of which provides over 10% of the jobs. A similar pattern is evident in Table 2, which provides the current list of major employers in New York City. The economy of the Bronx is narrower, with health care and social assistance providing over 35.2% of all jobs. The other two areas of major employment in the Bronx are the government and retail sectors.

New York City Labor Market

Table 1

New York City Job Sectors Health Care and Social Assistance Government Professional Scientifics & Technical Service Finance & Insurance Retail Trade Accommodation and Food Service Administrative and Support & Waste Mgmt Educational Services Information Other Services Wholesale Trade Real Estate, Rental & Leasing Transportation and Warehousing Construction Manufacturing Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Mgmt. of Companies Utilities

Total Jobs

Bronx

June 2010

June 2011

Change

583,000

588,000

0.8%

571,000

542,000

323,000

% of Private Jobs

% of All Jobs

3rd Quarter 2010

% of Private Jobs

% of All Jobs

18.3%

15.6%

81,189

39.0%

35.2%

-5.2%

na

14.4%

22,311

N/A

9.7%

333,000

3.3%

10.4%

8.9%

3,226

1.6%

1.4%

312,000 303,000

316,000 305,000

1.4% 0.5%

10.1% 9.5%

8.4% 8.1%

4,090 26,340

2.0% 12.6%

1.8% 11.4%

258,000

268,000

3.9%

8.3%

7.1%

13,633

6.5%

5.8%

195,000

203,000

4.3%

6.3%

5.4%

7,415

3.6%

3.2%

163,000 163,000 162,000 138,000

182,000 162,000 159,000 143,000

11.7% -0.8% -1.7% 3.1%

5.7% 5.0% 5.0% 4.5%

4.8% 4.3% 4.2% 3.8%

12,413 3,218 8,003 9,714

6.0% 1.6% 3.8% 4.7%

5.4% 1.4% 3.5% 4.2%

118,000

119,000

0.8%

3.7%

3.2%

9,518

4.6%

4.1%

104,000

105,000

0.8%

3.3%

2.8%

5,923

2.8%

2.6%

113,000 77,000

108,000 74,000

-4.4% -4.3%

3.4% 2.3%

2.9% 2.0%

9,543 6,538

4.6% 3.1%

4.1% 2.8%

68,000

65,000

-4.6%

2.0%

1.7%

3,507

1.7%

1.5%

63,000 16,000

66,000 16,000

3.6% 0

2.1% .1%

1.8% .004%

1,319

0.6%

0.6%

3,730,000

3,754,000

1.0%

230,713

Source: New York City Labor Market Information Service analysis of New York State Department of Labor

5

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

Table 2

New York City’s Largest Employers Number of New York City Employees 2009

% # of Employees Change Company-wide 2010

2010

1.

City of New York

156,888

152,836

-2.6

2.

3.

NYC Department of Education Metropolitan Transportation Authority

123,726 69,762

121,225 66,240

-2.0 -5.0

4.

5.

United States Government NYC Health and Hospitals Corp.

54,200 37,778

52,800 36,964

-2.6 -2.2

2,840,000

6.

7.

State of New York J.P. Morgan Chase & Co

27,410 22,066

26,500 24,927

-3.3 13.0

n/d 239,831

8.

Citigroup Inc.

24,383

24,442

0.2

260,000

9.

North Shore-LU Health System

18,506

19,872

7.4

43,568

10. Continuum Health Partners Inc.

18,338

18,974

3.5

19103

11. Mount Sinai Medical Center

17,504

18,386

5.0

18810

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

NYU Langone Medical Center Macy’s Inc. Columbia University Montefiore Medical Center New York University City University of New York Morgan Stanley Consolidated Edison Inc. New York-Presbyterian Hospital Bank of America Verizon Communications Inc. Memorial SloanKettering Cancer Center MediSys Health Network Inc.

14,772 n/d 14,751 14,339 13,857 13,074 n/d 12,675 11,747 12,000 12,600 11,083 11,000

15,705 15,100 15,080 14,828 14,351 13,090 13,000 12,348 12,217 12,000 11,100 10,929 10,622

6.3 ---2.2 3.4 3.5 0.1 ----2.6 4.0 0.0 -11.9 -1.4 -3.4

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

Time Warner Cable Inc. Archdiocese of New York Barclays Capital American Airlines Personal-Touch Home Care Inc. Credit Suisse Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Bank of New York Mellon Corp.

Port Authority of NY & NJ Time Warner Inc. Deutsche Bank AG News Corp.

10,263 n/d 10,000 n/d 8,000 n/d n/d 7,400 6,977 7,803 6,217 6,000

10,337 10,265 10,000 8,600 8,500 7,856 7,500 7,000 6,777 6,686 6,030 6,000

0.7 ---0.0 ---6.3 -------5.4 -2.9 -14.3 -3.0 0.0

31,355 102,602 51,000

37. Bloomberg LP 38. American International Group Inc.

5,250 6,752

5,700 5,600

8.6 -17.1

12,800 63,000

39. Maimonides Medical Center 40. PricewaterhouseCoopers

5,555 5,115

5,578 5,342

0.4 4.4

NYPD, FDNY, NYC Human Resources Administration, NYC Dept. of Sanitation

161,718

NYC Transit Authority, Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North Commuter Railroad, Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority King’s County Hospital Center, Bellevue Hospital Center, Elmhurst Hospital Center, Jacobi Medical Center

15746

J.P Morgan Chase Bank, J.P Morgan Securities, J.P Morgan Partners, One Equity Partners Citibank, Citi Institutional Clients Group, Citi Private Bank LIJ Medical Center, Lenox Hill Hospital, Staten Island University Hospital, Forest Hills Hospital Beth Israel Medical Center, St. Luke’sRoosevelt Hospital Center, Long Island College Hospital, NY Eye & Ear Infirmary Mount Sinai Hospital, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital of Queens Bloomingdale’s

16048

62542 Consolidated Edison Co. of New York 18028 288,000 194400 11469

Merrill Lynch, U.S. Trust Verizon Wireless, Empire City Subway Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, Brookdale University Hospital & Medical Center, Flushing Hospital Medical Center, Peninsula Hospital Center

n/d 147500 78250 14,500 50,100 35,700 48,000

Source: Crain’s New York Business April 11,2011

6

Selected Subsidiaries

Time Inc., HBO, Turner Broadcasting Fox Entertainment Group (U.S.), Star (Asia), Bsky B (U.K.), HarperCollins (U.S.) Chartis, Sun America Financial Group, International Lease Finance Corp., United Guaranty Corp.

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

B. New York City Workforce System Until recently, the New York City workforce system has consisted of a set of fragmented activities that were undertaken in response to available funding from federal and state agencies and some private sources. As a result, New York City historically had not been recognized as a leader in innovative approaches to workforce development. In the 1980s, the Koch administration initiated some innovative efforts such as City Works, and an active business community to promote innovative workforce efforts through the New York City Partnership.

However, the downturn in the economy in the early 1990s led to a period of limited public and private investment in workforce services. One of the major factors contributing to this was the widely held view “that current workforce programs do not work.” By the end of the 1990s the focus was on “short-term work first” approaches and the City administration was being widely criticized for not spending its Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funds. However, in the late 1990s private funders in New York City (e.g., Robin Hood, Tiger and The Clark foundations) began to provide significant support for job training services that achieve effective outcomes.

Since 2003, the Bloomberg administration and private funders in New York City have significantly expanded their support for innovative strategies to connect low-income populations with jobs in a rapidly changing labor market. Over the past ten years, New York City has made considerable progress in building a more coherent workforce system because the current mayoral administration has placed greater emphasis on job training, in spite of WIA funding being tied to strategies designed for more job-ready individuals. In 2003, Mayor Bloomberg disbanded the New York City Department of Employment and split workforce development services between two separate agencies. Since that time, the Department of Small Business Services (SBS) has administered the activities for adults and dislocated workers, and the Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) has been responsible for programs that target youth.

In its 2006 report, the Mayor’s Commission on Economic Opportunity identified workforce strategies as key to assisting the working poor and young adults move out of poverty. On the Commission’s recommendation, the Mayor of the City of New York’s Center for Economy Opportunity (CEO) has since supported a broad range of innovative workforce strategies through New York City agencies, including sector-based career centers, Jobs Plus, Civic Justice Corps, and the Young Adult Internship initiatives.

CEO has focused on identifying strategies that are proven to be effective through concrete evidence and sought to expand them within New York City. For example, the New York City Workforce Funders partnered with SBS on a series of initiatives to advance the use of sector strategies in New York City. The success of the New York City Sectors Initiative demonstration project enabled SBS to make the case to the Center for Economic Opportunity to invest in three sector career centers in transportation, health care, and advanced manufacturing. It is projected that these three centers will place or obtain wage gains for 2500 placements in 2011 (a 25% increase from 2010). As a result, the New York City workforce system has a growing number of service providers who are implementing sectoral strategies with good results.

Since 2003, SBS has significantly expanded and improved the Workforce1 One Stop system. Last year, the nine Workforce Centers placed more than 31,000 participants—up from fewer than 2000 in 2003. The capacity of the Workforce1 centers continues to be expanded each year, with initiatives such as the Community Partners2 programs and other efforts to increase services for specific populations.

One example is the New York State Department of Labor’s Immigrant Workforce Project (IWP), which operates at the Queens, Brooklyn and Bronx centers. IWP offers more and better job-related services to immigrant and limited English proficient workers. IWP coordinators train other one-stop staff on how assist customers from other cultures. These coordinators also help the One-Stop system develop relationships with community-based organizations and other public agencies that serve immigrant and limited English proficient workers, propose new programs and services to meet the needs of these populations more effectively, and provide direct counseling services to the customers.

7

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

In addition, SBS has worked to improve the current dislocated worker delivery system that awards individual training grants (ITGs) to eligible training institutions for skills training. The use of these ITGs is currently dominated by proprietary schools (see Table 3). This pattern does not appear to be typical of other major urban areas such as Los Angeles, where ITGs are allocated more evenly to community colleges and community-based organizations. In New York City in 2010, proprietary schools were awarded 92% of the funding, with CUNY campuses (4.4%), community-based organizations (2.7%), and private colleges (0.7%) receiving the remainder.

Table 3

New York City Dislocated Worker System ITG’s 2010

A. Proprietary Schools New Age Training 1,416,627.50 Clinton Institute 842,850 Career Quest 748,250 Compu 21 Corporation 673,083 Access Careers (Brooklyn & Queens) 669,450 ACE Computer Training Center 654,100 (Manhattan & Queens) Ferrari Driving School 642,800 Pro Data 448,475 SAM Consulting Services 416,525 International Development Institute 389,800 (Brooklyn & Manhattan) American Training Center 363,930 New Horizons Computer Learning Center 308,425 AI Soranos Professional Truck Driving School 299,300 Alliance Computer Solutions 255,752 Roadway Driving School 211,400 Northside Driving School 206,800 GENY 178,175 Noble Desktop LLC 176,038 New York Business Institute 173,304 The New Millennium Training Center 164,700 1st Security Preparation & Placement Inc. 161,590 Chiron Training Center (including Brooklyn) 158,100 New York Paralegal School 157,050 Americana Commercial Driving Corp.

155,700 Valastro International Academy 152,780 Queens Auto School Inc (Astoria & Corona) 146,150 B. CUNY Borough of Manhattan CC Kingsborough CC City College Queens College Baruch College New York City Tech Lehman College College of Staten Island LaGuardia CC Brooklyn College Hostos CC Queensborough Community College Bronx Community College York College Medgars Evers Total (4.4%)

202,500 86,970 84,695 79,290 53,267 35,250 27,626 22,444 18,295 12,435 10,792 7,700 6,538 6,190 6,163 660,154

Total 8

Code One Inc. 144,400 Basi Security Training 139,750 New Technologie Information Institute 125,413 ABC Training Center 117,075 RescueOne 115,440 Ando International 112,278 Bronx Career Training & Placement Centers 111,420 Security Works 102,180 Able Technologies 101,450 Net Com Information Technology 99,396 Blue Steel Security Guard Training School 99,130 Technology Career Centers 90,200 Bus and Car Driver Training School 87,000 Focus Career Group 85,700 Homeland Security Consultants Inc. 81,150 Real Estate Education Center 80,000 Start Fresh NY Ltd. 76,000 Mega Security ( Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens) 69,085 Alfred Barton Security Services 66,950 New York School of Design 66,300 Efficient Care Training Center 64,370 Emergency Care Programs Inc. 57,500 Secronitas Security Services USA 56,550 Cambridge Business Institute 54,150 Totally Cool Driving Inc. 53,400 EDP School of Computer 53,000 Other 1,265,450 Total ( 92.1%) 13,745,889 C. Community Based Organizations St. Nick’s Alliance Chinese American Planning Council CAMBA Highbridge Community Life Center Agudath ICD NMIC Total (2.74%)

164,300 141,900 65,000 18,000 7,600 7,500 5,500 409,800

D. Private Colleges Pace University Wagner College Pratt Institute Total ( 0.7%)

81,170 25,931 2,572 109,673

14,925,516

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

The funding available for workforce services remains very mixed, with less public funding being provided at a time when the needs are increasing for a growing number of low-income individuals. While New York City has benefited from the short-term infusion of ARRA funds over the past eighteen months, this follows a steady decline of public investment in workforce services (See Table 4). During the first year of the federal WIA funding, New York City received more than $125.6 million. In 2010, however, New York City received only $60.8 million, a reduction of more than 51%. Similar reductions can be seen at the state level over the past decade. Analysis conducted by the Center for an Urban Future and the New York State Association of Employment and Training Professionals found that between 2003-2004 and 2005-2006, funding for state-originated workforce services expenditures declined by more than $270 million.

Funding Allocations for WIA Program

Table 4 New York City

Program Year 2000-2010

Program Year

Adult

Youth

Dislocated Worker

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

$43,946,848 $42,141,940 $38,025,449 $33,365,687 $35,775,498 $36,112,495 $29,536,390 $30,639,335 $27,503,404 $26,520,154 $22,965,809

$43,304,402 $43,656,729 $40,614,959 $33,721,628 $35,421,985 $35,095,172 $28,890,500 $29,722,425 $26,396,955 $25,082,830 $21,782,233

$38,357,532 $28,803,882 $17,965,597 $23,247,641 $24,874,481 $26,139,628 $19,108,017 $17,734,270 $12,524,168 $15,820,032 $16,055,382

Total WIA

Change Total

Cumulative Change%

$125,608,782 $114,602,551 $96,606,005 $90,334,956 $96,071,964 $97,347,295 $77,534,907 $78,096,030 $66,424,527 $67,423,016 $60,803,424

n/a $11,006,231 $29,002,777 $35,273,826 $29,536,818 $28,261,487 $48,073,875 $47,512,752 $59,184,255 $58,185,766 $64,805,358

n/a -8.76% -23.09% -28.08% -23.51% -22.50% -38.27% -37.83% -47.12% -46.32% -51.59%

On the positive side, significant growth has occurred in private support for workforce services in New York City. The City is fortunate in that it has a large and active private funding community that invests in new, innovative strategies and supports community-based occupational skills training. The New York City Workforce Funders conducts a yearly survey of private funding for workforce services in New York City. As Table 5 shows, private foundation giving for workforce services in New York City increased from $18.4 million in 2004 to over $43.9 million in 2008; despite a drop over the past two years, private giving still exceeded $40 million in 2009 and 2010.

New York City Workforce Funders

Table 5

Results of the Survey of Workforce Development Giving by Workforce Funder Members in New York City (2004-2010) Year

# of Funders Reporting

Adult Direct

% Change

Youth Direct Services

% Change

Total Direct Service Giving

2004

20

$11,034,404

n/a

$4,866,000

n/a

$15,900,404

2005

16

$15,471,250

40.21%

$8,004,000

64.49%

2006

20

$14,932,500

-3.48%

$14,763,745

2007

24

$19,606,850

31.30%

2008

23

$20,875,500

2009

26

2010

26

% Intermediary % Change Activities Change Giving

% Change

$2,509,500

n/a

$18,409,904

n/a

$23,475,250 47.64%

$1,651,480

-34.19%

$25,126,730

36.48%

84.45%

$29,696,245 26.50%

$3,622,500

119.35%

$33,318,745

32.60%

$15,045,045

1.91%

$34,651,895 16.69%

$5,730,794

58.20%

$40,382,689

21.20%

6.47%

$16,965,500

12.76%

$37,841,000

9.20%

$6,081,500

6.12%

$43,922,500

8.77%

$22,702,125

8.75%

$12,695,599

-25.17% $35,397,724

-6.46%

$6,204,950

2.03%

$41,602,674

-5.28%

$24,329,829

7.17%

$12,223,000

-3.72%

3.26%

$3,739,500

-39.73%

$40,292,329

-3.15%

$36,552,829

n/a

Total Giving

9

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

6

Promising Workforce Strategies

A review of the literature and interviews with a group of national workforce experts who are familiar with New York City were conducted to identify promising strategies for serving low-income workers, with particular emphasis on immigrants with low skills. While the literature review strongly supports comprehensive, integrated, and intensive approaches for working with low-income individuals, the public funding sources for these services continue to be disjointed, often administered by different agencies and only capable of providing services to a small percentage of those who need them. As a result, integrated approaches that combine public workforce, literacy, and case management funding are difficult to put together in spite of the significant progress New York City has made in creating a more coherent workforce system, primarily through mayoral leadership and the growth in private funding. The literature review clearly demonstrates that we do not currently have a system in the United States (and that includes New York City) to connect low-income individuals with low skills with the kind of comprehensive preparatory services that they need to succeed in today’s labor market.

However, after Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act in the late 1990s, a number of promising practices have emerged, particularly on the demand side (e.g., working more closely with employers) and mainly supported by private funders. The national experts who were interviewed confirmed that demand-side strategies have the greatest potential for making the workforce system more effective.

The most promising strategies (e.g., sector strategies, career pathways, and middle skills strategies) involve employers as full partners in their delivery. A brief description of each of these strategies follows.

A. Sectoral Approaches A sectoral employment development strategy (or a “sector strategy” to use industry jargon) is defined as a systemic approach to workforce development, typically on behalf of low-income individuals, that involves the following actions:

• Targets a specific industry or cluster of occupations, working to develop a deep understanding of industry dynamics and the specific competitive situation and workforce needs of the industry’s employers within the region; • Intervenes through a credible organization or set of organizations, crafting solutions tailored to that industry and its region; • Supports workers in improving their range of employment-related skills and the quality of opportunities for work available to them; • Creates lasting changes in the labor market system which are positive for workers and employers. The “systems” that sectoral initiatives typically seek to change or influence include those related to industry practices, education and training, public regulations, and/or fiscal policies. (Aspen Institute—Workforce Strategies Institute 2009)

10

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

A recent study by Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) affirms the effectiveness of this approach. In 2003, P/PV launched the Sectoral Employment Impact Study to evaluate whether mature, nonprofit-led sector-focused programs could increase the earnings of disadvantaged workers and job seekers. P/PV selected three different organizations in Boston, Milwaukee and New York City to participate in the study. Findings from The Tuning In to Local Labor Markets study indicate:

…that program participants earned about $4,500, 18 percent—more than the control group over the course of the two-year study period and $4,000—29 percent—more in the second year alone.

Study participants were also more likely to find employment, work more consistently, work in jobs that paid higher wages, and work in jobs that offered benefits. Furthermore, there were earnings gains for each subgroup analyzed, including African Americans, Latinos, immigrants, formerly incarcerated individuals and young adults. The study also examines the strategies employed by the three organizations that took part in the study, as well as the common elements that likely contributed to their success. (Maguire 2010)

While sector strategies have been developed throughout the country for the past fifteen years, the most coordinated effort is being supported by the National Fund for Workforce Solutions. In 2007, the Annie E. Casey, Ford and Hitachi foundations and the United States Department of Labor, building on the Investing in Workforce Intermediaries Project, formed the National Fund for Workforce Solutions. The mission of the Fund is to improve employment, training, and labor market outcomes for low-income individuals.

The Fund’s vision is that its support will improve both the quality of jobs and the capacity of workers. It will promote change at three levels—individual, institution, and system—leading to better jobs, better workers, and a better workforce development system. The Fund uses a Workforce Partnership Model. The key functions of workforce partnerships include using a “dual customer approach,” serving businesses looking for qualified workers and job seekers and workers looking to advance their careers; organizing multiple institutions and funding streams around common goals; providing or brokering services—training and supports—that help workers gain access to the initial rungs on the ladder to economic opportunity and advancement; serving a variety of workers but recognizing and addressing the special needs of lower-skilled, lower-wage workers and job seekers; reducing turnover and increasing the economic mobility of workers; testing and adapting innovative approaches to workforce problems; and catalyzing improvements in public systems and business employment practices.

The Fund’s key strategy is the creation of a new national funding intermediary. Its investors will capitalize this effort with $30 million to $50 million in grant funds. The Fund will use this money to increase the number of successful local and regional workforce partnerships, and to expand the scale of existing partnerships. In July 2010, the National Fund for Workforce Solutions (NFWS) was awarded a $7.7 million two-year grant through Jobs for the Future by the Corporation for National and Community Service’s Social Innovation Fund. This grant will expand the NFWS targeted training and technical assistance to at least 23,000 low-income individuals over three years while addressing the critical skill needs of more than 1,000 employers. The funds will dramatically increase economic opportunities for disadvantaged workers and job seekers through investments in regional workforce collaborative that partner with employers to identify jobs and career pathways in high-growth industries. The Fund is currently funding 31 regional collaboratives, including one in New York City.

11

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

B. Career Pathways Career Pathways approaches have now been implemented across the country at both the state and local levels. In a recent assessment of the New York State Career Pathways program, Tom Hilliard noted: “A career pathways system is a series of connected education and training programs and support services that enable individuals to secure employment within a specific industry or occupational sector and to advance over time to successively higher levels of education and employment in that sector. A high-functioning career pathway system builds a series of stepping-stones that enable disadvantaged youth and adults to reach economic self-sufficiency. The core components of career pathways include: • Multiple entry points, e.g., from adult education, English as a Second Language (ESL) and workforce training programs, not simply through high school.

• Innovations in program content and delivery, e.g., flexible scheduling, contextualization and integration of bridge programs.

• Sequence of education and training leading to credentials with value in the labor market.

• Support services that include career assessment and counseling, case management, childcare, financial aid and job placement.

• Strong role for employers in pathway development, worksite training and contribution resources.

At each point along the pathway, the provider should prepare participants for the next levels of education and employment, and also motivate the participants to advance by exposing them to available opportunities.” (Hilliard 2011).

The Pathways to Prosperity report goes on to state: “The career pathways model is based upon postsecondary credential attainment, and community colleges are frequently described as the ‘linchpin’ of career pathways. The postsecondary component is essential because changes in the economy have increased the educational requirements for long-term economic success. The landmark Tipping Point study sponsored by Columbia University’s Community College Research Center found that low-skilled adults reach the ‘tipping point’ for increased earnings after roughly one year of postsecondary education and training and a marketable credential. Community colleges are essential partners in establishing career pathways that extend to stable and family-supporting jobs.

“‘Career Pathways’ is a framework and series of steps leading to a postsecondary credential,” notes Brandon Roberts, a leading national expert on career pathways and workforce development. “People do need interim skills and credentials along the way, as work is a fundamental part of their life, but the goal and series of steps is to a postsecondary credential or ultimately a degree” (Hilliard 2011).

Career pathways have been adopted particularly at the state level. The leaders in this field include Arkansas, Kentucky, Washington and Wisconsin. New York State, through collaboration between New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the New York State Department of Labor, has supported a statewide Career Pathways initiative since 2008. Unlike other states, New York does not have community colleges at the center of the initiative, a decision made by the State legislature.

12

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

C. Middle Skills Strategies In the past few years as changes in the labor market have accelerated, considerable interest has arisen in what are termed middle skills jobs. These are jobs with good growth prospects that require some training beyond high school but not a four-year degree.

The push to adopt this middle skills strategy has been led by the National Skills Coalition’s Skills2Compete initiative.

Led by a broad coalition of business, labor and education leaders, the campaign has been adopted in 13 states including New York. In a report to initiate the Skills2Compete campaign in New York State, it was noted that although the recession has halted current employment growth overall, middle skill growth (including new jobs and replacement) will account for nearly 40 percent of all openings between 2008 and 2018 (Wall Street Journal March 15, 2011). The Campaign in New York states the following: Every New York resident should have access to the equivalent of at least two years of education or training past high school—leading to a vocational credential, industry certification, or one’s first two years of college—to be pursued at whatever point and pace makes sense for individual workers and industries. Every person must also have access to basic skills needed to pursue such education. (Skills2Compete New York 2011) D. Community College-Community Based Organization Collaborations Community colleges have a critical role to play and are successfully moving low-income individuals into career-ladder work opportunities. However, operating alone (and particularly on the short term, non-degree side of their business), community colleges have not been particularly effective with low-income individuals with low basic skills because of the lack of resources available to provide these services. Community colleges and community-based organizations in New York City have until recently rarely worked together to address this issue.

Community College-CBO collaborative strategies have stronger potential for implementing the comprehensive approach that is needed to work effectively with low-income individuals. Community-based organizations tend to be most effective in supporting individuals with low basic skills. Community colleges have a competitive advantage in providing training that is customized to the needs of employers. Working together, community colleges and communitybased organizations can be much more effective than they are acting separately.

Strong evidence of the potential of this approach can be found in a three-year Aspen Institute demonstration project (Courses to Employment, funded by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation) designed to examine how partnerships between community colleges and nonprofit organizations can help low-income adults achieve greater success in postsecondary education and ultimately in the workforce. The six partnerships between community college and non-profit organizations are the following: • Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County, Shoreline Community College, Seattle Washington (automobile technician training and career advancement) • Capital IDEA and Austin Community College, Austin and Round Rock, Texas (high demand nursing and allied health professions) • Institute del Progresso Latino, Association House of Chicago, Wright College Humboldt Park Vocational Center and National Council of La Raza, Chicago, Illinois (healthcare career ladder approach for underemployed Latino workers) • Mott Community College and Flint STRIVE, Flint, Michigan (health care career ladder approach) • Community Career Development Inc., Los Angeles Valley Cottage, East Los Angeles College, Los Angeles, California (transportation) • Northern Virginia Family Service and Northern Virginia Community, Fairfax County, Virginia (business and medical office administration) (Conway 2011).

13

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

E. Innovative Approaches to Integrating Basic Skills into Workforce Programs In spite of the fact that a growing percentage of the population, including a large share of immigrants, has low basic skill levels, little effort has been made to develop a system to meet these needs. As a recent CLASP report noted: “Federal adult education, funded by Title II of the Workforce Investment Act allocates $560 million per year to provide basic skills instruction to under-educated adults. Services reach about 2.4 million students among a pool of 93 million adults with low basic skills who are eligible for and need these services to upgrade their skills” (Foster 2011). The CLASP report goes on to add: “In 2007-2008 the average spending on these lower-educated adults and youth was $700-$900.

By contrast the average spending per student in elementary and secondary school systems in the same year was more than ten times as large—$10,041” (Foster 2011).

While the current system offers neither sufficient nor appropriate services, increasing interest is being focused on what does work for populations with low basic skills. As the CLASP study pointed out, “Although few rigorous research studies examine which types of intervention improve postsecondary education for those whose basic skills are low, we can learn from the tremendous amount of experimentation and informal evaluation of innovative programs on the state and local level.”

Research suggests there are several workforce development strategies that can improve outcomes, and these approaches tend to be most successful in combination with one another. One method is the acceleration of basic skills delivery by using more hours of instruction and raising expectations for attendance and progress. Another is the basic skills education contextualization that links math and language curricula to students’ workforce training programs. Washington State’s I-BEST program and the Center for Employment Training have effectively used this approach.

An additional strategy is the provision of broad supportive services to help low-skilled individuals overcome the barriers that are erected by living in poverty. Support for this can be found from a study of CUNY’s Accelerated Studies in Associate Programs (ASAP). ASAP graduates overwhelmingly cite “enhanced supportive services–financial aid, free access to text boards, a transportation card and comprehensive academic, social and interpersonal support—as the reason they were able to complete their educational program.” (Lindeman 2009)

F. Financing Strategies While the current workforce education system is woefully underfunded and, considering the current fiscal challenges, likely to remain so for some time, there is growing interest among policymakers in identifying sources to finance new workforce approaches. The financing strategies that have potential for supporting direct services and intermediary activities include the following: SNAP (formerly Food Stamps); Employment and Training 50 percent match funds; Unemployment Insurance funds or employer taxes; general obligation bonds; program-related investments; and tuitionbased strategies, including lifelong learning accounts (Prince 2007). A more detailed description of each of these strategies and their current use is displayed in Table 6.

While the research and policy community continues to produce a great number of publications on workforce strategies, including analysis of the changes in the economy, demographic changes and identifying best practices, very few of these are focused on putting theory into practice. Most are prepared by researchers and policy analysts, with little or no input from practitioners or even from intermediaries who work closely with staff members at the program level. Although significant progress has been made in some areas nationally and in New York City, much remains to be done. At a “Beyond JTPA and Welfare to Work: Building a Workforce Development Infrastructure in New York City” conference in 1999, William Grinker noted that “we spend too much time debating policy at the expense of coming to grips with the nitty gritty of delivering quality workforce services.” In his keynote speech, Grinker made the case for focusing on the improvement of management at the individual service provider and system level. “The community-based not-for-profit sector has managers who are hungry for help with the bread and butter problems of running their organizations. And yet we often get excited by new policies, but lose interest when it comes to the details of translating theory them into practice” (Grinker1999).

14

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

Financing Strategies

Table 6 Financing Strategy

Description of Strategy

Use of Strategy

SNAP (Food Stamp) Employment and Training 50 percent match funds

This program is to help Food Stamps recipients who are not receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to enter employment activities through participation in specified job search, training, education or workfare activities that promote self sufficiency The program provides employment and training services to clients aged 16-59 who are receiving food assistance, unless exempted by law. A key provision of the US Department of Agriculture guidelines for these programs allows states that use nonfederal state or local funds to draw a 50% match in federal funding for every dollar spent on employment-related services for SNAP Employment and Training participants.

Widely used by the states including New York

Unemployment Insurance

This involves funding jobs training activities through some form of Unemployment Insurance (UI) offset, reserve tax, assessment or fee. Unemployment Insurance funds for job training are typically available to employers through grants—employers usually submit proposals in partnership with training providers.

This financing strategy is widely used – 23 states in 2006. New York uses UI related taxes not to fund training programs, but to fund other workforce activities such as job placement and counseling services.

Bond Financing

This involves workforce organizations assessing tuition charges for their services. A number of states have funded job training through the sale of general obligation bonds. The proceeds from bond sales are used to finance training programs and in some cases, the operation of intermediaries that administer them. The bonds are retired through a diversion of the state payroll tax associated with the newly trained workers. Once the bonds are retired, the funds return to the state general fund.

Not widely used – 3 States in 2006. Not used in New York

Program Related Investments

Program related investments are recoverable loans or grants that enable private foundation in projects offering

Not widely used currently in workforce development

Tuition Based Strategies

This involves workforce organizations assessing tuition charges for their services

Not widely used

Source: Heath Prince Strategies for Financing Workforce Intermediaries: Working Papers Jobs for the Future July 2007

15

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

While in New York City, the workforce funders have invested in a series of citywide capacity building efforts, it is evident from the review of literature that the challenge of putting more theory into practice is not being addressed much more effectively in 2011. This will only change if public and private funders significantly increase their support for direct services, along with appropriate training and technical assistance for organizational and program activities.

However, while this seems unlikely in the current socio-economic environment, leaders in the research community have recently questioned the overemphasis of the narrow approach to evaluation in “Why things work is the missing ingredient in the works agenda� (Granger 2010). In commenting about the stress placed on having a random controlled trial evaluation, the President of Public/Private Ventures noted:

While this work is important, too little attention is being paid to actually making programs more effective—that is, improving the on ground practices and implementation of social programs. And there is a very real risk that the current evidence-based trend will quash organizations whose work has not yet been or cannot be conveniently evaluated. Too many innovations happening at the program level go unnoticed by researchers, funders and policymakers. Too many evaluations examine programs that are poorly implemented, too young or too inadequately funded, which produces inevitably disappointing results, even though the models behind the programs might work given more time and better execution. Too few programs are based on clear evidence-based theories about how they can accomplish their goals. And too few nonprofits have the capacity or receive the technical assistance needed to better use their data to strengthen their programs. In the rare instances when programs are proven to work little is known about how to successfully scale up these programs without diluting their impact. (Shmavonian 2011)

16

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

7

Conclusion

The review of the literature, interviews with national experts, and the analysis of the current New York City workforce system highlight the need for new collaborative approaches to connect low-skilled individuals, and particularly those who are immigrants, with a rapidly changing labor market. Community colleges are critical institutions in any strategy to move low-skilled populations into entry-level jobs in growth areas of the economy. Workforce services need to focus on growth areas that offer opportunities for neighborhood residents.

In the current labor market, it is vitally important to put in place a stronger set of strategies to improve outcomes for low-skilled individuals. This can be accomplished through partnerships with employers, unions and community-based organizations. A major obstacle is that the current feeder system to post-secondary education and training is fragmented and woefully under-resourced. In order to provide essential services, it will be necessary for various institutions to partner more effectively. As a community college in the South Bronx, Hostos can create a pipeline for neighborhood residents to acquire the skills and credentials they need to succeed in our society through collaboration.

1The

New York City Department of Small Business Services and the New York City Workforce have partnered together since 2004 on the New York City Workforce Innovation Fund (WIF) to expand sectoral strategies in New York City.

The latest project is the New York Alliance for Careers in Health Care (NYACH), which is an employer-led workforce partnership. NYACH is working with the major trade associations, a healthcare union, and City University of New York to identify opportunities for entry-level workers and to broker high quality training to fill these jobs. NYACH builds upon the New York City Sectors Initiative (NYCSI), a previous project of the WIF, which supported two workforce partnerships in health care and biotechnology; the Sector Strategies Practicum, a capacity-building program for training workforce development organizations in building sectoral workforce partnerships; and the experience of SBS in launching and operating three sector-focused Workforce1 Centers.

2The Community Partners Program is a partnership between the Workforce 1 Career center system and job training, educational, and social services providers to partner on increasing job placement rates. Last year, 5000 placements were made through the program.

17

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

Bibliography Allard, Scott W., and Benjamin Roth. “Strained Suburbs: The Social Service Challenges of Rising Suburban Poverty,” Brookings, Washington, D.C., (October 2010).

Alliance for Excellent Education. “Education as a Data-Driven Enterprise: A Primer for Leaders in Business, Philanthropy, and Education,” Alliance for Excellent Education. (March 2011).

Alssid, Julian L., Melissa Goldberg, Sarah M. Klark. “Building a Higher Skilled Workforce: Results and Implications from the Bridgeconnect National Survey,” Workforce Strategy Center. (November 2010).

Annie E. Casey Foundation. “Strengthening Workforce Policy: Applying the Lessons of the Jobs Initiative to Five Key Challenges,” Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD. (2007).

Aspen Institute. “Grow Faster Together. Or Grow Slowly Apart. How Will America Work in the 21st Century?”

Frankfurt Balkind NY, Washington, D.C. Autor, David. “The Polarization of Job Opportunities in the U.S. Labor Market: Implications for Employment and Earnings,” Center for American Progress, Washington D.C., (April 2010).

Blank, Rebecca. “Economic Change and the Structure of Opportunity for Less-Skilled Workers,” Focus Vol. 26 No. 2. (Fall 2009).

Bridgeland, John, Jessica Milano, and Elyse Rosenblum. “Across the Great Divide: Perspectives of CEOs and College Presidents on America’s Higher Education and Skills Gap,” Alliance for Excellent Education. (March 2011).

Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce. “Brooklyn Labor Market Review,” Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce. New York, NY. (Winter 2011).

Carnevale, Anthony P., Nicole Smith and Jeff Strohl. “Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education Requirements Through 2018,” Georgetown University. (June 2010).

Center for an Urban Future. “Central New York’s New Workforce,” Center for an Urban Future. New York, NY. (April 2009).

Center for an Urban Future. “Update: Still Lost in Translation,” Center for an Urban Future. New York, NY. (November 2007).

Choitz, Vickie, Louis Soares and Rachel Pleasants. “A New National Approach to Career Navigation for Working Learners,” Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C. (March 2010).

City of New York. “One System for One City: The State of the New York City Workforce System: Fiscal Year 2010,” City of New York, New York, N.Y. (May 2011).

CLASP. “Funding Career Pathways and Career Pathway Bridges: A Federal Policy Toolkit for States,” CLASP, Washington, D.C. (May 2010).

CLASP. “Recommendations to Refocus WIA Title II on Career and Postsecondary Success,” CLASP, Washington, D.C. (November 11, 2009).

Complete College America. “Certificates Count: An Analysis of Sub-baccalaureate Certificates,” Complete College America, Washington D.C. (December 2010).

Conway, Maureen. “The Price of Persistence: How Nonprofit—Community College Partnerships Manage and Blend Diverse Funding Streams,” The Aspen Institute, Washington D.C. (February 2011).

Conway, Maureen, Amy Blair and Allison Gerber. “A Survey of Program Activities,” The Aspen Institute, Washington, D.C. (March 2008).

Dougherty, Kevin J., and Marianne F. Bakia. “Community College and Contract Training: Content, Origins, and Impact,” Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY. (February 2000).

18

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

Education Commission of the States. “Improving Hispanic Achievement: Implications for State Policy,” Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO. (October 19, 2010).

Fiscal Policy Institute. “Immigrants and the Economy: Contribution of Immigrant Workers to the Country’s 25 Largest Metropolitan Areas with a Focus on the Five Largest Metro Areas in the East,” Fiscal Policy Institute. (December 2009).

Foster, Marcie, Julie Strawn, and Amy Ellen Duke-Benfield. “Beyond Basic Skills: State Strategies to Connect Low-Skilled Students to an Employer-Valued Postsecondary Education,” CLASP, Washington, D.C. (March 2011).

Frey, William H. “America’s Diverse Future: Initial Glimpses at the U.S. Child Population from the 2010 Census,” Brookings, Washington, D.C. (April 2011).

Frey, William H. “Did the 2010 Census Tell Us Anything New?” Brookings. (April 9, 2011).

Fry, Richard. “Hispanics, High School Dropouts and the GED,” PewResearchCenter, Washington, DC. (May 13, 2010).

Ganzglass, Evelyn, Keith Bird, and Heath Prince. “Giving Credit Where Credit is Due: Creating a Competency-Based Qualifications Framework for Postsecondary Education and Training,” CLASP, Washington D.C. (April 2011).

Garr, Emily. “The Landscape of Recession: Unemployment and Safety Net Services Across Urban and Suburban America,” Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, Washington, D.C. (March 2011).

Gershwin, Mary, Tammy Coxen, Brian Kelley and Gary Yakimov. “Building Tomorrow’s Workforce: Promoting the Education & Advancement of Hispanic Immigrant Workers in America,” Corporation for a Skilled Workforce. (May 2007).

Grinker, William. “Framing the Discussion Beyond JTPA and Welfare to Work: Building a Workforce Development Infrastructure Conference Executive Summary Pocantico Conference Center,” The Clark Foundation and New York Community Trust.

(November 11, 1999).

Hall, Matthew, Audrey Singer, Gordon F. De Jong, and Deborah Roempke Graefe. “The Geography of Immigrant Skills: Educational Profiles of Metropolitan Areas,” Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, Washington, D.C., (June 2011).

Hamilton Project, The. “Creating 21st Century Jobs: Increasing Employment and Wages for American Workers in a Changing World,” Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C. (December 2010).

Hageage, Ana. “Plugged In: Positive Development Strategies for Disconnected Latino Youth: A Report of the NCLR Escalera Program,” National Council of La Raza, Washington D.C. Hilliard, Thomas. “Pathway to Prosperity,” Center for an Urban Future, New York, N.Y. (February 2011).

Hilliard, Thomas J. “College Access Challenge Grants: Including Adult Learners, Strengthening Student Success,” The Working Poor Families Project. (Fall 2010).

Holzer, Harry J. “Workforce Development as an Antipoverty Strategy: What Do We Know? What Should We Do?,” Focus Vol. 26, No. 2. (Fall 2009).

Holzer, Harry J., Julia I. Lane, David B. Rosenblum, and Fredrik Andersson. “Where Are All the Good Jobs Going?: What National and Local Job Quality and Dynamics Mean for U.S,” Russell Sage Foundation.

Holzer, Harry J., Robert I. Lerman. “The Future of Middle-Skill Jobs,” Brookings, Washington, D.C. (February 2009).

Institute for Higher Education Policy. “Initial College Attendance of Low-Income Young Adults,” IHEP, Washington, D.C. (June 2011).

Jenkins, Davis. “Get with the Program: Accelerating Community College Students’ Entry Intro and Completion of Programs of Study,” Community College Research Center, New York, NY. (April 2011).

Jobs for the Future. “Improving Workplace Opportunities For Limited English-Speaking Workers: An Overview of Practice in Manufacturing Sector,” The Manufacturing Institute, Washington, D.C. (2006).

19

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

Kallick, David Dyssegaard. “Across the Spectrum: The Wide Range of Jobs Immigrants Do,” Fiscal Policy Institute. (April 2010).

Kneebone, Elizabeth. “The Recession. Poverty, and the Suburbs,” The New Republic. (October 7, 2010). http://www.tnr.com/print/blog/the-avenue/78242/the-recession-poverty-and-the-suburbs Kochhar, Rakesh, C. Soledad Epinoza and Rebecca Hinze-Pifer. “After the Great Recession: Foreign Born Gain Jobs; Native Born Lose Jobs,” Pew Hispanic Center, Washington, D.C. (October 29, 2010).

Kuder, “Career Pathways as a Systemic Framework: Rethinking Education for Student Success in College and Careers,” League for Innovation in the Community College, Phoenix, AZ. (2007).

Labor Market Information Service. “January 2011 New York City Providers’ Job Report,” Labor Market Information Service.

New York, NY. (January 2011).

Liebowitz, Marty, and Judith Combes Taylor. “Breaking Through: Helping Low-Skilled Adults Enter and Succeed in College and Careers,” Jobs for the Future, Boston, MA. (November 2004).

Linderman, Donna, and Zineta Kolenovic. “Early Outcomes Report for City University of New York: Accelerated Study in Associate Programs,” City University of New York and New York City Center for Economic Opportunity. (2009).

Maguire, Sheila, Joshua Freely, Carol Clymer, Maureen Conway and Deena Schwartz. “Tuning In to Local Labor Markets: Findings from the Sectoral Employment Impact Study,” Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia, PA. (July 2010).

Manyika, James, Susan Lund, Byron Auguste, Lenny Mendonca, Tim Welsh, and Sreenivas Ramaswamy. “An Economy that Works: Job Creation and America’s Future”, McKinsey Global Institute, Washington, D.C. (June 2011).

Martinson, Karin, and Pamela Holcomb. “Innovative Employment Approaches and Programs for Low-Income Families,” The Urban Institute Center on Labor, Human Services and Population, Washington, D.C. (February 2007).

McIntyre, Douglas A. “Poverty Threatens the Suburbs”. (October 7, 2010) http://247wallst.com/2010/10/07/poverty-threatens-the-suburbs/ Meristotis, Jamie P., and Stan Jones. “Degrees of Speed,” Washington Monthly. (May/June 2010).

Mishel, Lawrence. “Education is Not the Cure for High Unemployment or for Income Inequality,” Economic Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. (January 12, 2011).

Moore, Elizabeth, and Emma Oppenheim. “Learning in Context: Preparing Latino Workers for Careers and Continuing Education,” National Council of La Raza, Washington, D.C. (2010).

Morgan, Julie Margetta, and Ellen-Marie Whelan. “Profiting from Health Care: The Role of For-Profit Schools in Training the Health Care Workforce,” Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C. (January 2011).

Mullin, Christopher M. “A Sound Investment: The Community College Dividend,” American Association of Community Colleges, Washington, D.C. (March 2011).

National Commission on Adult Literacy. “Reach Higher, America: Overcoming Crisis in the U.S. Workforce,” Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy. (June 2008).

National Employment Law Project. “Where the Jobs Are: A First Look at Private Industry Job Growth and Wages in 2010,” National Employment Law Project, New York, NY. (August 27, 2010).

Osterman, Paul. “Community Colleges: Promise, Performance, and Policy,” The American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. (June 2010).

Osterman, Paul. “College for All? The Labor Market for College Educated Workers,” MIT Sloan School of Management.

(May 2008).

Osterman, Paul. “Employment and Training Policies: New Directions for Less Skilled Adults,” MIT Sloan School. (October 2005).

20

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

Osterman, Paul. “Improving Job Quality: Policies Aimed at the Demand Side of the Low Wage Labor Market,” MIT Sloan School.

Parker, James T. “Doing Business Together: Adult Education and Business Partnering to Build a Qualified Workforce,” Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy, New York, NY. (February 8, 2011).

Passel, Jeffrey S. and D’Vera Cohn. “Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010,” Pew Hispanic Center, Washington, D.C. (February 1, 2011).

Pearson Foundation Community College Student Survey: Summary of Results, Pearson Foundation. (2010).

Prince, Heath. “Strategies for Financing Workforce Intermediaries: Working Papers,” National Fund for Workforce Solutions. (2007).

Santiago, Deborah A. “Excelencia in Education: Roadmap for Ensuring America’s Future By Increasing Latino College Completion,” Excelencia in Education.

Shmavonian, Nadya. “Priorities for a New Decade Making (More) Social Programs Work (Better),” Public/Private Ventures.

(March 2011).

Singer, Audrey and Jill H. Wilson. “The Impact of the Great Recession on Metropolitan Immigration Trends,” Brookings, Washington, D.C. (December 2010).

Soares, Louis. “Working Learners: Educating Our Entire Workforce for Success in the 21st Century,” Center for American Progress.

Washington, D.C. (June 2009).

Spence, Robin. “Sound Investments: Building Immigrants’ Skills to Fuel Economic Growth,” Economic Mobility Corporation, New York, N.Y. (December 2010).

Stephens, Rosanna Perry. “Charting a Path: An Exploration of the Statewide Career Pathway Efforts in Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin,” Seattle Jobs Initiative. (May 2009).

Sum, Andrew and Ishwar Khatiwada. “Vanishing Work Among U.S. Teens, 2000-10: What a Difference a Decade Makes! Four Million Missing Workers in June 2010,” Center for Labor Market Studies, Boston, MA. (July 2010).

Symonds, William C., Robert B. Schwartz and Ronald Ferguson. “Pathways to Prosperity: Meeting the Challenge of Preparing Young Americans for the 21st Century,” Pathways to Prosperity Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education. (February 2011).

Taylor, Paul, Richard Fry, Wendy Wang, Daniel Dockterman and Gabriel Velasco. “College Enrollment Hits All-Time High, Fueled by Community College Surge,” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (October 29, 2009).

Treschan, Lazar, and David Jason Fischer. “From Basic Skills to Better Futures: Generating Economic Dividends for New York City,” Community Service Society. New York, NY. (September 2009).

U.S. Department of Labor. “The Hispanic Labor Force in the Recovery”, U.S. Department of Labor. (March 31, 2011).

Wall Street Journal. “Many Workers lacking Skills for New Jobs,” Wall Street Journal. (March, 15, 2011). A22.

Whitmore, Richard, and Camille Esch. “Pathway to the Baccalaureate: How One Community College is Helping Underprepared Students Succeed,” New America Foundation, Washington, D.C. (April 2010).

Wilcyznski, Michelle, Andrea Mayo, and Axie Breen. “New York’s Forgotten Middle-Skill Jobs: Meeting the Demands of a 21st-Century Economy,” National Skills Coalition, New York, N.Y. (March 2011).

Women’s Economic Security Campaign. “Aiming Higher: Removing Barriers to Education, Training and Jobs for Low-Income Women”.

Workforce Strategies Initiative. “Update: Issue 4,” The Aspen Institute, Washington, D.C. (April 2007).

21

Hostos

Community College

Division of Continuing Education & Workforce Development

Eugenio MarĂ­a de Hostos Community College, 500 Grand Concourse, Bronx, NY 10451 http://www.hostos.cuny.edu/cewd/