educational and workforce development actors, systems, and collaborations

Educational and Workforce DevelopmentActors, Systems, and Collaborations

Hostos CommunityCollege

Funded by the Ford Foundation

Research prepared by

Bret Halverson Ph.D.

October 2011

Acknowledgements

The Division of Continuing Education & Workforce Developmentat Hostos Community College would like to thank the FordFoundation for its generous support of this research.

The mission of The Division parallels the mission of HostosCommunity College, that is, to provide access to higher andpostsecondary educational opportunities leading to intellectualgrowth and socio-economic mobility. The Division accomplishesthis through the delivery of educational and job training servicesto individuals not served by the traditional instructional activitiesof 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.

1

The combined impact of demographic changes and a financial crisis has led to the most severe loss of jobs across thecountry since the Great Depression. They have significantly changed the prospects for employment for all groups—butparticularly for low-income immigrant populations with low literacy levels. Although 2010 Census reports indicate theslowest growth in population since the 1930s, 56% of that growth is accounted for by the Hispanic population thatnow 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 popu-lation—particularly in major cities such as New York City. Contrary to common misconceptions, immigrants are spreadbroadly across a wide range of occupations in most metropolitan areas (Kallick 2010). As a report from the Fiscal PolicyInstitute noted:

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

Introduction

Educational and Workforce DevelopmentActors, Systems, and Collaborations

Research prepared by Bret Halverson Ph.D.

October 2011

Funded by the Ford Foundation

1

Immigrants work in jobs across the economic spectrum, and are business owners as well. Althoughimmigrants are more likely than U.S.-born workers to be in lower-wage service or blue-collar occu-pations, 24 percent of immigrants in the 25 metro areas work in managerial and professional occu-pations. Another 25 percent work in technical, sales, and administrative support occupations. Infact, in 15 of the 25 metro areas, there are more immigrants in these two higher-pay job categoriestaken together than there are in service and blue-collar jobs combined. And, immigrants are alsoentrepreneurs. Immigrants account for 22 percent of all proprietors’ earnings in the 25 largestmetro areas—slightly higher than their share of the population. (Kallick 2009)

2

Educational and Workforce Development Actors, Systems, and Collaborations

a. Review the labor market and demographic data across the country and New York City todetermine 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 ineffective workforce initiatives, with particular emphasis on immigrants with lower skills.

c. Identify promising strategies from other areas of the country that might be applicable inNew 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 particularemphasis on the Bronx and in Manhattan.

f. Consider implications.

Prior to the year 2000, the workforce field was dominated by short-term “work first” strategies that emerged from awidely held view that workforce programs are not effective, in spite of evidence that those which were more intensivetend to be more successful with low-income individuals. The past ten years have seen a significant change in thinkingabout workforce development strategies—particularly for low-income populations. The driving force behind this shifthas been recognition that changes in the economy require new approaches. These economic changes were described inthe 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:

Project Scope of Work2

The Changing Economy3

• The Worker Gap - For the past 20 years, businesses have relied on the dramatic growth of thenative-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 takingadvantage of it have boosted our productivity. However, just as our needs for an educated work-force 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 iswidening and likely to expand. For women, wages at the bottom have been essentially stagnantfor the past twenty years, while pay at the top has risen sharply. Meanwhile, men at the lowerend are actually paid significantly less than they were two decades ago; however, they still earnmore than lower-end women, while men at the top earn much more than before. Sizeable racialgaps persist as well. (Aspen Institute 2003)

3


Compounding these problems, the United States economy has lost more than 8 million jobs since December 2007 inwhat is now called the Great Recession. The impact of the Great Recession has accelerated a number of long-term mar-ket trends; polarization of job growth across high and low skilled occupations; rising wages for higher educated work-ers; falling wages for less educated workers; and labor market losses for males (Autor 2010). The Great Recession hashad 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 tochoose between jobs below their level of qualification or the unemployment line, have been dubbed the boomerang gen-eration. 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. econ-omy that required postsecondary education has increased by 21 percent in the past 35 years, and this trend will contin-ue in the coming decade. Sixty-one percent of the middle class and 81 percent of the upper class have had postsecondaryeducation and training (Holzer 2009). Those with only a high school diploma earn 33 percent less than those with anassociate’s degree and 62 percent less than those with a bachelor’s degree (Holzer 2009). Postsecondary education andtraining 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. HarryHolzer defines middle-skill jobs as “those that generally require some education and training beyond high school butless than a bachelor’s degree”; they may call for “associate’s degrees, vocational certificates, significant on-the-job train-ing, previous work experience, or some college—but less than a bachelor’s degree” (Holzer 2009). Middle-skill jobs nowaccount for nearly half of all occupations. They include jobs in skilled crafts, transportation, sales and healthcare—afield in which openings are expected to increase dramatically over the next decade (Holzer 2009). A shift to a “green-er” economy is expected to generate demands for technicians in equipment installation, maintenance, and repair, as willincreased federal spending on the modernization of infrastructure. There is a strong need for well-trained personnel infields that cannot be outsourced to foreign labor: police and firefighters, legal aid and protective services, and culinarylabor. 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 train-ing in the middle as well as the top of the skill distribution. The demand for many middle-skill occupations is risingfast 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 disproportion-ately 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 thefastest rate over the next decade, only seven typically require a bachelor’s degree according to theBureau 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 tobe dwarfed by the need for registered nurses, home health care aides, customer service representa-tives and store clerks. None of these jobs require a bachelor’s degree.

4


Overall, the impact of the widespread job loss since December of 2007 has not been as great for immigrants, includingthose with low skills, as it has for native born populations (Hall 2011). The Pew Hispanic Center found that in the one-year 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 work-ers experienced a sharp decline in earnings” (The New York Times, November 20, 2010). This decline has made immi-grant workers more economically vulnerable.

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

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

The demographic structure of New York State is consistent with the forces shaping the nation’s population. Its largebaby boomer population is aging. The population characteristics of New York State are distinctive in a number ofways—shaped by foreign immigration, high levels of domestic-in-and-out migration, and the high fertility rates of thestate’s large and growing ethnic populations. New York State ranked 46th in population growth in the past ten yearswith 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 thisdemographic shift in New York State and New York City has important implications for the current capacity of thesocial service delivery system to meet the needs of low-income populations with low literacy levels and multiple barri-ers 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 sen-tence. New York City’s population is significantly worse off. The levels in Brooklyn (37%), the Bronx (41%), andQueens (46%) show poorer outcomes. The current workforce system in New York City is not equipped to address thischallenge, or even to provide the type of long-term, comprehensive and intensive services that are required to preparethis population for the current labor market.

New York State and New York City Demographic Trends4

Anthony Carnevale and Jeff Strohl of the Georgetown University Center on Education forecastthat about 47 million jobs will become available in the next decade, as workers in existing jobsretire and as newly created jobs come on line. About 30 million of these new positions will requirea 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 tempworkers, running institutional food operations) and especially health care (nurses, nurse assistantsand medical technicians). Starting salaries range from about $25,000 to more than $40,000 andgrow substantially from there. In fact, about 30 per cent of people with one and two year collegecredentials make more than people with bachelor’s degrees. (Merisotis and Jones 2010)

5


A. New York City EconomyUntil the 1970s, the structure of New York City economy resembled those of most other major cities in the UnitedStates. The drastic cutbacks prompted the city’s fiscal crisis fundamentally changed the structure of its economy. Forexample, the young adult unemployment rate in the late 1960s was lower in New York City than most other majorcities, 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 GreatRecession, and job recovery here has been slightly quicker than in most other areas of the country because of the City’seconomic diversity. As a result, workforce programs here are still able to find areas of the economy that have openingsfor entry-level jobs (e.g. health care). New York City lost about 147,000 jobs from year to year. Its unemployment ratein December 2009 was above that of the nation at 10.5%—with the number of unemployed (418,000) reaching thehighest 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 growthin 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 evi-dent in Table 2, which provides the current list of major employers in New York City. The economy of the Bronx isnarrower, with health care and social assistance providing over 35.2% of all jobs. The other two areas of major employ-ment in the Bronx are the government and retail sectors.

New York City Economy and Workforce System5

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

New York City Bronx

New York City Labor MarketTable 1

Job Sectors June 2010 June 2011 Change % of % of 3rd Quarter % of % ofPrivate Jobs All Jobs 2010 Private Jobs All Jobs

Health Care and 583,000 588,000 0.8% 18.3% 15.6% 81,189 39.0% 35.2%Social AssistanceGovernment 571,000 542,000 -5.2% n a 14.4% 22,311 N/A 9.7%Professional Scientifics 323,000 333,000 3.3% 10.4% 8.9% 3,226 1.6% 1.4%& Technical ServiceFinance & Insurance 312,000 316,000 1.4% 10.1% 8.4% 4,090 2.0% 1.8%Retail Trade 303,000 305,000 0.5% 9.5% 8.1% 26,340 12.6% 11.4%Accommodation 258,000 268,000 3.9% 8.3% 7.1% 13,633 6.5% 5.8%and Food ServiceAdministrative and 195,000 203,000 4.3% 6.3% 5.4% 7,415 3.6% 3.2%Support & Waste MgmtEducational Services 163,000 182,000 11.7% 5.7% 4.8% 12,413 6.0% 5.4%Information 163,000 162,000 -0.8% 5.0% 4.3% 3,218 1.6% 1.4%Other Services 162,000 159,000 -1.7% 5.0% 4.2% 8,003 3.8% 3.5%Wholesale Trade 138,000 143,000 3.1% 4.5% 3.8% 9,714 4.7% 4.2%Real Estate, 118,000 119,000 0.8% 3.7% 3.2% 9,518 4.6% 4.1%Rental & LeasingTransportation 104,000 105,000 0.8% 3.3% 2.8% 5,923 2.8% 2.6%and WarehousingConstruction 113,000 108,000 -4.4% 3.4% 2.9% 9,543 4.6% 4.1%Manufacturing 77,000 74,000 -4.3% 2.3% 2.0% 6,538 3.1% 2.8%Arts, Entertainment 68,000 65,000 -4.6% 2.0% 1.7% 3,507 1.7% 1.5%and RecreationMgmt. of Companies 63,000 66,000 3.6% 2.1% 1.8% 1,319 0.6% 0.6%Utilities 16,000 16,000 0 .1% .004%

Total Jobs 3,730,000 3,754,000 1.0% 230,713

6


Number of New York % # of Employees SelectedCity Employees Change Company-wide Subsidiaries

2010

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

1. City of New York 156,888 152,836 -2.6 NYPD, FDNY, NYC Human ResourcesAdministration, NYC Dept. of Sanitation

2. NYC Department of Education 123,726 121,225 -2.03. Metropolitan Transportation Authority 69,762 66,240 -5.0 NYC Transit Authority, Long Island Rail

Road, Metro-North Commuter Railroad,Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority

4. United States Government 54,200 52,800 -2.6 2,840,0005. NYC Health and Hospitals Corp. 37,778 36,964 -2.2 King’s County Hospital Center, Bellevue

Hospital Center, Elmhurst Hospital Center,Jacobi Medical Center

6. State of New York 27,410 26,500 -3.3 n/d7. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co 22,066 24,927 13.0 239,831 J.P Morgan Chase Bank, J.P Morgan

Securities, J.P Morgan Partners, OneEquity Partners

8. Citigroup Inc. 24,383 24,442 0.2 260,000 Citibank, Citi Institutional Clients Group,Citi Private Bank

9. North Shore-LU Health System 18,506 19,872 7.4 43,568 LIJ Medical Center, Lenox Hill Hospital,Staten Island University Hospital,Forest Hills Hospital

10. Continuum Health Partners Inc. 18,338 18,974 3.5 19103 Beth Israel Medical Center, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, Long IslandCollege Hospital, NY Eye & Ear Infirmary

11. Mount Sinai Medical Center 17,504 18,386 5.0 18810 Mount Sinai Hospital, Mount Sinai Schoolof Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital of Queens

12. NYU Langone Medical Center 14,772 15,705 6.313. Macy’s Inc. n/d 15,100 ---- 15746 Bloomingdale’s14. Columbia University 14,751 15,080 2.215. Montefiore Medical Center 14,339 14,828 3.4 1604816. New York University 13,857 14,351 3.517. City University of New York 13,074 13,090 0.118. Morgan Stanley n/d 13,000 ---- 6254219. Consolidated Edison Inc. 12,675 12,348 -2.6 Consolidated Edison Co. of New York20. New York-Presbyterian Hospital 11,747 12,217 4.0 1802821. Bank of America 12,000 12,000 0.0 288,000 Merrill Lynch, U.S. Trust22. Verizon Communications Inc. 12,600 11,100 -11.9 194400 Verizon Wireless, Empire City Subway23. Memorial SloanKettering Cancer Center 11,083 10,929 -1.4 1146924. MediSys Health Network Inc. 11,000 10,622 -3.4 Jamaica Hospital Medical Center,

Brookdale University Hospital & MedicalCenter, Flushing Hospital Medical Center,Peninsula Hospital Center

25. Time Warner Cable Inc. 10,263 10,337 0.726. Archdiocese of New York n/d 10,265 ---- n/d27. Barclays Capital 10,000 10,000 0.0 14750028. American Airlines n/d 8,600 ---- 7825029. Personal-Touch Home Care Inc. 8,000 8,500 6.3 14,50030. Credit Suisse n/d 7,856 ---- 50,10031. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. n/d 7,500 ---- 35,70032. Bank of New York Mellon Corp. 7,400 7,000 -5.4 48,00033. Port Authority of NY & NJ 6,977 6,777 -2.934. Time Warner Inc. 7,803 6,686 -14.3 31,355 Time Inc., HBO, Turner Broadcasting35. Deutsche Bank AG 6,217 6,030 -3.0 102,60236. News Corp. 6,000 6,000 0.0 51,000 Fox Entertainment Group (U.S.), Star

(Asia), Bsky B (U.K.), HarperCollins (U.S.)37. Bloomberg LP 5,250 5,700 8.6 12,80038. American International Group Inc. 6,752 5,600 -17.1 63,000 Chartis, Sun America Financial Group,

International Lease Finance Corp., UnitedGuaranty Corp.

39. Maimonides Medical Center 5,555 5,578 0.440. PricewaterhouseCoopers 5,115 5,342 4.4 161,718

2009 2010

New York City’s Largest EmployersTable 2

7


B. New York City Workforce SystemUntil recently, the New York City workforce system has consisted of a set of fragmented activities that were undertak-en in response to available funding from federal and state agencies and some private sources. As a result, New York Cityhistorically had not been recognized as a leader in innovative approaches to workforce development. In the 1980s, theKoch administration initiated some innovative efforts such as City Works, and an active business community to pro-mote 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 inworkforce services. One of the major factors contributing to this was the widely held view “that current workforce pro-grams do not work.” By the end of the 1990s the focus was on “short-term work first” approaches and the City admin-istration was being widely criticized for not spending its Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funds. However, in the late1990s private funders in New York City (e.g., Robin Hood, Tiger and The Clark foundations) began to provide signif-icant 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 sup-port for innovative strategies to connect low-income populations with jobs in a rapidly changing labor market. Overthe past ten years, New York City has made considerable progress in building a more coherent workforce system becausethe current mayoral administration has placed greater emphasis on job training, in spite of WIA funding being tied tostrategies designed for more job-ready individuals. In 2003, Mayor Bloomberg disbanded the New York CityDepartment 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, andthe 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 assist-ing the working poor and young adults move out of poverty. On the Commission’s recommendation, the Mayor of theCity of New York’s Center for Economy Opportunity (CEO) has since supported a broad range of innovative work-force 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 toexpand them within New York City. For example, the New York City Workforce Funders partnered with SBS on a seriesof initiatives to advance the use of sector strategies in New York City. The success of the New York City SectorsInitiative demonstration project enabled SBS to make the case to the Center for Economic Opportunity to invest inthree sector career centers in transportation, health care, and advanced manufacturing. It is projected that these threecenters will place or obtain wage gains for 2500 placements in 2011 (a 25% increase from 2010). As a result, the NewYork City workforce system has a growing number of service providers who are implementing sectoral strategies withgood results.

Since 2003, SBS has significantly expanded and improved the Workforce1 One Stop system. Last year, the nineWorkforce Centers placed more than 31,000 participants—up from fewer than 2000 in 2003. The capacity of theWorkforce1 centers continues to be expanded each year, with initiatives such as the Community Partners2 programsand 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 theQueens, Brooklyn and Bronx centers. IWP offers more and better job-related services to immigrant and limited Englishproficient workers. IWP coordinators train other one-stop staff on how assist customers from other cultures. Thesecoordinators also help the One-Stop system develop relationships with community-based organizations and other pub-lic agencies that serve immigrant and limited English proficient workers, propose new programs and services to meetthe needs of these populations more effectively, and provide direct counseling services to the customers.

8


In addition, SBS has worked to improve the current dislocated worker delivery system that awards individual traininggrants (ITGs) to eligible training institutions for skills training. The use of these ITGs is currently dominated by pro-prietary 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 Cityin 2010, proprietary schools were awarded 92% of the funding, with CUNY campuses (4.4%), community-basedorganizations (2.7%), and private colleges (0.7%) receiving the remainder.

A. Proprietary SchoolsNew Age Training 1,416,627.50Clinton Institute 842,850Career Quest 748,250Compu 21 Corporation 673,083Access Careers (Brooklyn & Queens) 669,450ACE Computer Training Center 654,100(Manhattan & Queens)Ferrari Driving School 642,800Pro Data 448,475SAM Consulting Services 416,525International Development Institute 389,800(Brooklyn & Manhattan)American Training Center 363,930New Horizons Computer Learning Center 308,425AI Soranos Professional Truck Driving School 299,300Alliance Computer Solutions 255,752Roadway Driving School 211,400Northside Driving School 206,800GENY 178,175Noble Desktop LLC 176,038New York Business Institute 173,304The New Millennium Training Center 164,7001st Security Preparation & Placement Inc. 161,590Chiron Training Center (including Brooklyn) 158,100New York Paralegal School 157,050Americana Commercial Driving Corp. 155,700Valastro International Academy 152,780Queens Auto School Inc (Astoria & Corona) 146,150

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

New York City Dislocated Worker System ITG’s 2010Table 3

B. CUNYBorough of Manhattan CC 202,500Kingsborough CC 86,970City College 84,695Queens College 79,290Baruch College 53,267New York City Tech 35,250Lehman College 27,626College of Staten Island 22,444LaGuardia CC 18,295Brooklyn College 12,435Hostos CC 10,792Queensborough Community College 7,700Bronx Community College 6,538York College 6,190Medgars Evers 6,163Total (4.4%) 660,154

C. Community Based OrganizationsSt. Nick’s Alliance 164,300Chinese American Planning Council 141,900CAMBA 65,000Highbridge Community Life Center 18,000Agudath 7,600ICD 7,500NMIC 5,500Total (2.74%) 409,800

D. Private CollegesPace University 81,170Wagner College 25,931Pratt Institute 2,572Total ( 0.7%) 109,673

Total 14,925,516

9


The funding available for workforce services remains very mixed, with less public funding being provided at a time whenthe needs are increasing for a growing number of low-income individuals. While New York City has benefited from theshort-term infusion of ARRA funds over the past eighteen months, this follows a steady decline of public investmentin 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%. Similarreductions can be seen at the state level over the past decade. Analysis conducted by the Center for an Urban Futureand the New York State Association of Employment and Training Professionals found that between 2003-2004 and2005-2006, funding for state-originated workforce services expenditures declined by more than $270 million.

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

New York City Program Year 2000-2010

Funding Allocations for WIA ProgramTable 4

Program Year Adult YouthDislocated Total Change CumulativeWorker WIA Total Change%

2000 $43,946,848 $43,304,402 $38,357,532 $125,608,782 n/a n/a2001 $42,141,940 $43,656,729 $28,803,882 $114,602,551 $11,006,231 -8.76%2002 $38,025,449 $40,614,959 $17,965,597 $96,606,005 $29,002,777 -23.09%2003 $33,365,687 $33,721,628 $23,247,641 $90,334,956 $35,273,826 -28.08%2004 $35,775,498 $35,421,985 $24,874,481 $96,071,964 $29,536,818 -23.51%2005 $36,112,495 $35,095,172 $26,139,628 $97,347,295 $28,261,487 -22.50%2006 $29,536,390 $28,890,500 $19,108,017 $77,534,907 $48,073,875 -38.27%2007 $30,639,335 $29,722,425 $17,734,270 $78,096,030 $47,512,752 -37.83%2008 $27,503,404 $26,396,955 $12,524,168 $66,424,527 $59,184,255 -47.12%2009 $26,520,154 $25,082,830 $15,820,032 $67,423,016 $58,185,766 -46.32%2010 $22,965,809 $21,782,233 $16,055,382 $60,803,424 $64,805,358 -51.59%

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

New York City Workforce FundersTable 5

Year # of Adult % Youth % Total Direct % Intermediary % Total %Funders Direct Change Direct Change Service Change Activities Change Giving ChangeReporting Services Giving Giving

2004 20 $11,034,404 n/a $4,866,000 n/a $15,900,404 n/a $2,509,500 n/a $18,409,904 n/a

2005 16 $15,471,250 40.21% $8,004,000 64.49% $23,475,250 47.64% $1,651,480 -34.19% $25,126,730 36.48%

2006 20 $14,932,500 -3.48% $14,763,745 84.45% $29,696,245 26.50% $3,622,500 119.35% $33,318,745 32.60%

2007 24 $19,606,850 31.30% $15,045,045 1.91% $34,651,895 16.69% $5,730,794 58.20% $40,382,689 21.20%

2008 23 $20,875,500 6.47% $16,965,500 12.76% $37,841,000 9.20% $6,081,500 6.12% $43,922,500 8.77%

2009 26 $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%

2010 26 $24,329,829 7.17% $12,223,000 -3.72% $36,552,829 3.26% $3,739,500 -39.73% $40,292,329 -3.15%

10


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

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

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

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

Promising Workforce Strategies6

• Targets a specific industry or cluster of occupations, working to develop a deep understandingof industry dynamics and the specific competitive situation and workforce needs of the indus-try’s employers within the region;

• Intervenes through a credible organization or set of organizations, crafting solutions tailoredto that industry and its region;

• Supports workers in improving their range of employment-related skills and the quality ofopportunities for work available to them;

• Creates lasting changes in the labor market system which are positive for workers andemployers. The “systems” that sectoral initiatives typically seek to change or influence includethose related to industry practices, education and training, public regulations, and/or fiscalpolicies. (Aspen Institute—Workforce Strategies Institute 2009)

11


A recent study by Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) affirms the effectiveness of this approach. In 2003, P/PV launchedthe Sectoral Employment Impact Study to evaluate whether mature, nonprofit-led sector-focused programs couldincrease 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 studyindicate:

While sector strategies have been developed throughout the country for the past fifteen years, the most coordinatedeffort is being supported by the National Fund for Workforce Solutions. In 2007, the Annie E. Casey, Ford and Hitachifoundations 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, andlabor 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 promotechange at three levels—individual, institution, and system—leading to better jobs, better workers, and a better work-force development system. The Fund uses a Workforce Partnership Model. The key functions of workforce partnershipsinclude using a “dual customer approach,” serving businesses looking for qualified workers and job seekers and work-ers looking to advance their careers; organizing multiple institutions and funding streams around common goals; pro-viding or brokering services—training and supports—that help workers gain access to the initial rungs on the ladder toeconomic opportunity and advancement; serving a variety of workers but recognizing and addressing the special needsof lower-skilled, lower-wage workers and job seekers; reducing turnover and increasing the economic mobility of work-ers; testing and adapting innovative approaches to workforce problems; and catalyzing improvements in public systemsand business employment practices.

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

…that program participants earned about $4,500, 18 percent—more than the control group overthe 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 jobsthat paid higher wages, and work in jobs that offered benefits. Furthermore, there were earningsgains for each subgroup analyzed, including African Americans, Latinos, immigrants, formerlyincarcerated individuals and young adults. The study also examines the strategies employed by thethree organizations that took part in the study, as well as the common elements that likely con-tributed to their success. (Maguire 2010)

12


B. Career PathwaysCareer Pathways approaches have now been implemented across the country at both the state and local levels. In a recentassessment of the New York State Career Pathways program, Tom Hilliard noted:

The Pathways to Prosperity report goes on to state:

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

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

“A career pathways system is a series of connected education and training programs and supportservices that enable individuals to secure employment within a specific industry or occupationalsector and to advance over time to successively higher levels of education and employment in thatsector. A high-functioning career pathway system builds a series of stepping-stones that enable dis-advantaged youth and adults to reach economic self-sufficiency. The core components of careerpathways 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, contextualizationand 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 andcontribution resources.

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

“The career pathways model is based upon postsecondary credential attainment, and communitycolleges are frequently described as the ‘linchpin’ of career pathways. The postsecondary compo-nent is essential because changes in the economy have increased the educational requirements forlong-term economic success. The landmark Tipping Point study sponsored by ColumbiaUniversity’s Community College Research Center found that low-skilled adults reach the ‘tippingpoint’ for increased earnings after roughly one year of postsecondary education and training anda marketable credential. Community colleges are essential partners in establishing career pathwaysthat extend to stable and family-supporting jobs.

13


C. Middle Skills StrategiesIn the past few years as changes in the labor market have accelerated, considerable interest has arisen in what are termed middleskills 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 includ-ing New York. In a report to initiate the Skills2Compete campaign in New York State, it was noted that although therecession has halted current employment growth overall, middle skill growth (including new jobs and replacement) willaccount for nearly 40 percent of all openings between 2008 and 2018 (Wall Street Journal March 15, 2011). TheCampaign in New York states the following:

D. Community College-Community Based Organization CollaborationsCommunity colleges have a critical role to play and are successfully moving low-income individuals into career-ladderwork 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 ofthe lack of resources available to provide these services. Community colleges and community-based organizations inNew York City have until recently rarely worked together to address this issue.

Community College-CBO collaborative strategies have stronger potential for implementing the comprehensiveapproach that is needed to work effectively with low-income individuals. Community-based organizations tend to bemost effective in supporting individuals with low basic skills. Community colleges have a competitive advantage in pro-viding training that is customized to the needs of employers. Working together, community colleges and community-based 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 (Coursesto Employment, funded by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation) designed to examine how partnerships between commu-nity colleges and nonprofit organizations can help low-income adults achieve greater success in postsecondary education andultimately in the workforce. The six partnerships between community college and non-profit organizations are the following:

Every New York resident should have access to the equivalent of at least two years of education ortraining past high school—leading to a vocational credential, industry certification, or one’s firsttwo years of college—to be pursued at whatever point and pace makes sense for individual work-ers and industries. Every person must also have access to basic skills needed to pursue such educa-tion. (Skills2Compete New York 2011)

• 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 (highdemand nursing and allied health professions)

• Institute del Progresso Latino, Association House of Chicago, Wright College HumboldtPark Vocational Center and National Council of La Raza, Chicago, Illinois (healthcare careerladder 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 AngelesCollege, Los Angeles, California (transportation)

• Northern Virginia Family Service and Northern Virginia Community, Fairfax County,Virginia (business and medical office administration) (Conway 2011).

14


E. Innovative Approaches to Integrating Basic Skills into Workforce ProgramsIn spite of the fact that a growing percentage of the population, including a large share of immigrants, has low basicskill levels, little effort has been made to develop a system to meet these needs. As a recent CLASP report noted: “Federaladult education, funded by Title II of the Workforce Investment Act allocates $560 million per year to provide basicskills instruction to under-educated adults. Services reach about 2.4 million students among a pool of 93 million adultswith low basic skills who are eligible for and need these services to upgrade their skills” (Foster 2011). The CLASPreport 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 morethan ten times as large—$10,041” (Foster 2011).

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

Research suggests there are several workforce development strategies that can improve outcomes, and these approachestend to be most successful in combination with one another. One method is the acceleration of basic skills delivery byusing more hours of instruction and raising expectations for attendance and progress. Another is the basic skills educa-tion contextualization that links math and language curricula to students’ workforce training programs. WashingtonState’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 barri-ers that are erected by living in poverty. Support for this can be found from a study of CUNY’s Accelerated Studies inAssociate Programs (ASAP). ASAP graduates overwhelmingly cite “enhanced supportive services–financial aid, freeaccess to text boards, a transportation card and comprehensive academic, social and interpersonal support—as the rea-son they were able to complete their educational program.” (Lindeman 2009)

F. Financing StrategiesWhile 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 newworkforce approaches. The financing strategies that have potential for supporting direct services and intermediary activ-ities 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 tuition-based strategies, including lifelong learning accounts (Prince 2007). A more detailed description of each of these strate-gies 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 theseare focused on putting theory into practice. Most are prepared by researchers and policy analysts, with little or no inputfrom practitioners or even from intermediaries who work closely with staff members at the program level. Although sig-nificant progress has been made in some areas nationally and in New York City, much remains to be done. At a “BeyondJTPA 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 nittygritty of delivering quality workforce services.” In his keynote speech, Grinker made the case for focusing on theimprovement of management at the individual service provider and system level. “The community-based not-for-prof-it sector has managers who are hungry for help with the bread and butter problems of running their organizations. Andyet we often get excited by new policies, but lose interest when it comes to the details of translating theory them intopractice” (Grinker1999).

15


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

Unemployment Insurance

Bond Financing

Program Related Investments

Tuition Based Strategies

Financing Strategy Description of Strategy Use of Strategy

Financing StrategiesTable 6

This program is to help Food Stamps recipients whoare not receiving Temporary Assistance for NeedyFamilies to enter employment activities through par-ticipation in specified job search, training, educationor workfare activities that promote self sufficiencyThe program provides employment and training serv-ices to clients aged 16-59 who are receiving foodassistance, unless exempted by law. A key provisionof the US Department of Agriculture guidelines forthese programs allows states that use nonfederalstate or local funds to draw a 50% match in federalfunding for every dollar spent on employment-relat-ed services for SNAP Employment and Training partic-ipants.

This involves funding jobs training activities throughsome form of Unemployment Insurance (UI) offset,reserve tax, assessment or fee. UnemploymentInsurance funds for job training are typically avail-able to employers through grants—employers usuallysubmit proposals in partnership with trainingproviders.

This involves workforce organizations assessingtuition charges for their services. A number of stateshave funded job training through the sale of generalobligation bonds. The proceeds from bond sales areused to finance training programs and in some cases,the operation of intermediaries that administerthem. The bonds are retired through a diversion ofthe state payroll tax associated with the newlytrained workers. Once the bonds are retired, thefunds return to the state general fund.

Program related investments are recoverable loans orgrants that enable private foundation in projectsoffering

This involves workforce organizations assessingtuition charges for their services

Widely used by the statesincluding New York

This financing strategy is widelyused – 23 states in 2006. NewYork uses UI related taxes not tofund training programs, but tofund other workforce activitiessuch as job placement and coun-seling services.

Not widely used – 3 States in2006. Not used in New York

Not widely used currently inworkforce development

Not widely used

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

16


While in New York City, the workforce funders have invested in a series of citywide capacity building efforts, it is evi-dent from the review of literature that the challenge of putting more theory into practice is not being addressed muchmore effectively in 2011. This will only change if public and private funders significantly increase their support fordirect 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 haverecently questioned the overemphasis of the narrow approach to evaluation in “Why things work is the missing ingre-dient in the works agenda” (Granger 2010). In commenting about the stress placed on having a random controlled trialevaluation, the President of Public/Private Ventures noted:

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

17


The review of the literature, interviews with national experts, and the analysis of the current New York City workforcesystem highlight the need for new collaborative approaches to connect low-skilled individuals, and particularly thosewho are immigrants, with a rapidly changing labor market. Community colleges are critical institutions in any strategyto move low-skilled populations into entry-level jobs in growth areas of the economy. Workforce services need to focuson 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 forlow-skilled individuals. This can be accomplished through partnerships with employers, unions and community-basedorganizations. A major obstacle is that the current feeder system to post-secondary education and training is fragment-ed and woefully under-resourced. In order to provide essential services, it will be necessary for various institutions topartner more effectively. As a community college in the South Bronx, Hostos can create a pipeline for neighborhoodresidents 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 CityWorkforce 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 themajor trade associations, a healthcare union, and City University of New York to identify opportunities for entry-level workers and to broker high quality trainingto fill these jobs. NYACH builds upon the New York City Sectors Initiative (NYCSI), a previous project of the WIF, which supported two workforce partnershipsin health care and biotechnology; the Sector Strategies Practicum, a capacity-building program for training workforce development organizations in building sec-toral 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 topartner on increasing job placement rates. Last year, 5000 placements were made through the program.

Conclusion7

18


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 theBridgeconnect 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 Presidentson 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 Through2018,” 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 DiverseFunding 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).

Bibliography

19


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

Fiscal Policy Institute. “Immigrants and the Economy: Contribution of Immigrant Workers to the Country’s 25 Largest MetropolitanAreas 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 Studentsto 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 QualificationsFramework 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 InfrastructureConference 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 ChangingWorld,” 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 EscaleraProgram,” 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 ofStudy,” 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 inManufacturing Sector,” The Manufacturing Institute, Washington, D.C. (2006).

20


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 BornLose 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 andCareers,” 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 AssociatePrograms,” 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 theHealth 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).

21


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! FourMillion 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 PreparingYoung 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 UnderpreparedStudents 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 a21st-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-IncomeWomen”.

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

Hostos CommunityCollege

Division ofContinuing Education & Workforce Development

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

educational and workforce development actors, systems, and collaborations

Documents

workforce developmentactors

percent of immigrants

metro areas

workforce performance

overall population

percent work

current fiscal crisis

delivery of educational