Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 352 450
1111""
CE 062 507
AUTHOR Wulf, Douglas; And Others
TITLE Evaluation of the Job Retraining Program.
INSTITUTION Iowa State Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Des Moines.
PUB DATE Jul 91
NOTE 57p.
PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS Adult Vocational Education; Community Colleges;Dislocated Workers; *Educational Administration;Educational Finance; *Educational Planning;Educational Policy; Education Work Relationship;Government School Relationship; Inservice Education;
*Job Training;ltLabor Force Development;Postsecondary Education; Reentry Workers;*Retraining; *School Business Relationship; StatePrograms; Two Year Colleges
IDENTIFIERS *Iowa
ABSTRACTIowa's Job Retraining Program was evaluated through a
review of operations, surveys/interviews with community college
staff, and survey responses from 43% of the business participants.
Resulting recommendations were as follows: (1) retaining the program
in the Department of Economic Development rather than transferring it
to the state's 15 community colleges; (2) improving program planning
by having the community colleges submit a list of "probable"
applications for the first 6 months of the fiscal year and then
another for the second 6 months; (3) eliminating the requirement that
businesses meet only one of three crite is to be eligible for a grant
or forgivable loan or at least providing a measurable way to judge an
increase in the quality of positions; (4) encouraging smaller
companies to participate by proposing alternative funding and
reducing or eliminating the required one-to-one match; (5) asking the
Department of Education to offer community colleges some incentives
for providing Job Retraining Program instructors; and (6) using a
single form on which businesses can provide available information for
evaluation. (The document describes the program, its operation, and
the comments of program staff; summarizes the survey and interviews
with the staff of participating community colleges; and reports the
results of the survey of business participants.) (CML)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
***********************************************************************
yr1. I
-eti= , r
.0
tis
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOttrce,ot Educational Research and Improvement
EDIJCATIONA LRESOURCES
INFORMATIONCENTERERIC)
This document has been reproduced asreceived Irom the person or organizationoriginating it
0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproductrOn quality
Points of view or opinions stated m this docu-
ment do not neCeSsarily represent officialOERI position or policy
"PERMISS;ZDN TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).
DENNIS C. PROUTYDIRECTOR
515/281-5279
July 1991
STATE OF IOWALEGISLATIVE FISCAL BUREAU
The Honorable Bob ArnouldChairperson of the Legislative CouncilState Capitol
Dear Chairperson Arnould:
STATE CAPITOLDES MOINES. IOWA
50319
During the 1989 Legislative Session, the General Assembly passed House File 550, whichrequired the Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB), to conduct an evaluation of the Job RetrainingProgram of the Department of Economic Development. Interest in this Program wasprompted by the recognition of the General Assembly that Iowa businesses have a need toretrain employees, modify operational processes, and retool equipment in order to maintain acompetitive edge in a rapidly changing technological environment.
The Program has operated for two fiscal years, and 90 companies have been awarded $3.3million in financial assistance. These projects will provide retraining to approximately 14,000Iowa employees, at an average State cost of $256 per employee.
The report contains several recommendations and policy options presented for the Departmentof Economic Development and General Assembly's consideration. Additionally, theLegislative Council is asked to extend the study through the end of FY 1993, to provide anopportunity to measure some of the economic impacts of the Program.
The LFB received the cooperation of the Department of Economic Development and thirteenof the Iowa community colleges in the collection of information necessary for the completionof this report. Additionally, 43% of the businesses receiving assistance provided informationabout the Program from their perspective.
The report was prepared by Douglas Wulf (project supervisor), John Hawley, Sue Lerdal andJon Studer, with assistance from Nicole Navara. If you have any questions regarding thisreport or wish to see copies of the specific questions asked in the business or communitycollege surveys, please contact Douglas Wulf (281-3250) or John Hawley (281-7799).
Respectfully submitted,
D o las P. WulfPrincipal Legislative Analyst
Introduction
Iowa has developed a variety of programs aimed at assisting businesses to maintain a competitiveadvantage and train employees to obtain the skills necessary to assure a well-trained and productive
work force. The majority of the programs have been aimed at business start-up or expamica and the
training of new employees. However, the Legislature has determined that there is also a demand
among existing businesses which need to adopt new technologies and diversify product lines in order
to retain competitive and viable operations. These companies often are not adding staff, but have aneed to retool both the physical plant and the equipment and machinery base.
In an effort to provide assistance to companies in this situation, the General Assembly passed HouseFile 550 (The Job Retraining Act) creating the Job Retraining Program at the Department ofEconomic Development (DED) during the 1989 Legislative Session. The Job Retraining Program isdesigned to assist companies in retraining current employees in areas where new technologies arebeing implemented through retooling, and without the training provided, the companies will losetheir competitiveness and ultimately lay off employees. It was the intention of the Legislature theProgram benefit both businesses and employees. Businesses would benefit by maintaining viability
in a competitive world market. Employees would benefit by increasing the overall skill level ofIowa employees, thus increasing the pool of employees which have the skills necessary for thedemands of the future job market. The Program would, if it operated as intended, help Iowa firms
maintain or even expand their respective market share, foster business expansion, stimulate jobcreation in some industries, and at a minimum insure job retention.
Included in the Legislation was a mandate that the DED prepare and submit an Annual Report prior
to each Legislative Session on the progress of the Program. The first Annual Report was submittedto the Legislative Fiscal Committee on June 12, 1991 and copies are available from the DED or the
Legislative Fiscal. Bureau (LFB).
Additionally, the LFB was required to conduct an evaluation of the Program. The LFB wasinstructed to, at a minimum, consider the following items in its review of the Program:
1. The number of loans, forgivable loans, or grants provided.
2. The number of loans defaulted.
3. The average size of the business receiving retraining assistance.
4. The effect of the programs upon wages of participating workers and nonparticipating
workers.
5. The effect of retraining programs on the State's economy.
This report includes a three-phase review of the Program. First, a descriptive overview of the
Program, its operations within the DED and the comments of Program staff about its operation.Second, a summary of the results of a survey and interviews with community colleges involved inidentifying businesses with retraining needs and assisting those businesses in the application and
- 1 -
4
training process. Finally, a review of the results of a phone survey with a sample of businessparticipants.
Program Operations At DED
The Job Retraining Program legislation provides that a business can apply for assistance from theDED which would enable it to retrain employees to meet its retooling needs, provided that thebusiness will retrain existing employees. A participating business can use the assistance provided topay for basic adult education (math, reading, etc.) which are necessary for the employee to functionsuccessfully in the workplace, or to pay for job specific training (training required to handle newmachinery, new methodologies, new management practices, etc.). Additionally, vocational and skillassessment services and testing, training facilities, equipment essential to the training, trainingmaterials and supplies, college and company administrative expenses, and salaries of the trainers areappropriate Program-related expenses.
According to the DED, applications are submitted by Iowa's community colleges on behalf of thebusinesses which are applying for assistance. The colleges market the Program and recruit eligiblebusinesses for participation. After an application is received, the DED conducts a review of theapplications and can accept, deny, or request modification of the application. Each project is scoredon a variety of factors established in the administrative rules for the Program. Among the factorsincluded are the following:
1. The quality of the jobs to receive the retraining.
2. Whether there is a new operation or market diversification involved.
3. Whether there is a new manufacturing process being established.
4. Past performance of the retraining agency.
5. Feasibility of the retraining project.
6. The need of the company for the project to avoid layoffs.
7. The viability of the company.
8. The level of company funds being invested in retraining.
Initially, a panel of 7 members (6 staff from DED and one representative from the Department ofEducation) met formally to discuss each application and jointly determine if a project should receivefunding. However, the Department has modified its procedure so that 4 DED staff membersindependently review the applications and only meet as a panel if there are significant problems withthe application or a member feels that the application should be denied.
Businesses must demonstrate how the retooling efforts impact the skill needs of their employees,provide a minimum matching financial contribution of one-to-one, illustrate how theretooling/retraining project will open new or diversified market opportunities or create a new
- 2 -
manufacturing or managerial process, and explain the feasibility of the retraining plan. In order toreceive a forgivable loan or a grant, businesses must also show one of the following:
1. A net increase in the number of employment positions.
2. A net increase in the wages paid to participating workers.
3. A net increase in the quality of the employment positions held by participating workers.
Once the applications are approved, a contract is drawn up with the business, the sponsoringcommunity college, and the DED all as signatories. The award is then advanced to the communitycollege which in turn reimburses the business for actual retraining expenditures. CommunityColleges charge the business fees for the services they provide. Fees charged to the businesses varyby project and by community college for the application and administration of the projects.Application fees charged to date range from $55 to $1,500 and an administrative fee may either becharged as a part of the instructional costs if the community college does the training or as apercentage of the award (ranging from 10% to 13.97%). A 13.86% administrative fee is permittedunder the Iowa Industrial New Jobs Training Program (280B Program) and evidently an assumptionhas been made that a similar fee is permitted under the Job Retraining Program. The 280B Programprovides similar types of training for businesses creating new jobs for new or expanding businesses.
The majority of the training has been conducted by trainers from the community colleges either atthe community college or at the business site. However, some of the projects have utilized in-housetrainers or trainers from the private sector with the funds merely passing through the communitycollege for audit and accounting purposes. The community colleges still charge the administrativefee to those businesses which elect to nave someone other than community college faculty orassociates conduct the training.
Program Funding Allocations
Currently, program funding is allocated on a formula based upon the population of the communitycollege district. (Appendix A provides a breakdown of the allocations made to each communitycollege for FY 1990 and FY 1991). Awards are determined by the DED, the Department ofRevenue and Finance approves the amount and then funds are dispersed to the community collegesby the DED. The Program allows community colleges to sponsor more applications for funds thanare available to the college with the understanding that if funds allocated are not fully utilized bysome community colleges the funds will become available for other projects after March 1. Fundingfor FY 1991 was reduced from $2.0 million to $1.5 million as a result of the deappropriationsduring the 1991 Legislative Session. The General Fund appropriation is $1.0 million for FY 1992.
Analysis of the Training Program
Appendix B details the total number of projects receiving funding for FY 1990 was 36 (a total of 38were approved, but 2 businesses declined) and in FY 1991 was 54. Of these, all single businessapplications received forgivable loans. Consortium applications, or applications to provide similar
3
training to a number of businesses at the same time, were funded with grants. Funding levelsranged from $4,464 to $50,000, with an average award being $36,515.
One eligibility requirement for the funding is that a business must match the funding requested at aminimum of one-to-one. Matching levels ranged from $9,152 to $1,000,000, with an averagebusiness investment of $118,075. The average ratio of business investment to State funding wasthree-to-one. Not all of the businesses investments were cash, as the Program allows investment inequipment and staff time to be counted toward the match.
The size of the businesses receiving funding ranged from 9 to 2,770 employees. The averagenumber of employees was 508. The following is a breakdown of the number of employees and thenunper of businesses receiving awards in each size range.
Number of Employees Number of Businesses
50 employees or less 13
51 - 100 employees 16
101 - 250 employees 17
251 - 500 employees 15
501 - 1000 employees 16
1001 or more employees
Total 90
There are 13,721 employees that will receive training through this Program the first two fiscal yearsat a total cost of $3.3 million. The average per employee State cost of training is $256, with a rangeof $46 to $4,167 per employee. Smaller companies were more likely than larger companies to traina larger percentage of the total employees of the business.
Types of training provided included a wide array of machine specific training, cross-training ofpersonnel, basic skills training, supervisory skills training, and management skills training. Below isa breakdown of the number of projects providing various types of training. (Note that the number oftypes of training provided are more than the number of business participants due to the fact thatmany businesses provided multiple types of training for various levels of employees.)
1. Machine or process specific training - 12
2. Basic education or basic skills related to industry - 13
3. Team, supervisory, and management training (e.g., Statistical Process Control, QualityCircles, Team Building, Total Quality Management, Just-in-Time) - 46
4. Computer related skills - 14
4 -
7
5. Training trainers - 5
6. Miscellaneous other training - 5
Success Rates and Economic Impacts
As noted by the DED in the Annual Report presented to the Legislative Fiscal Committee on June12, 1991, it is too early to quantify the results of the Program on the success of training and impacts
on the economy. Only a few companies have completed all phases of the training, which can takeup to two years. Questions that need to be addressed in this area cannot be answered until at leastthe companies which were funded during FY 1990 complete the training and further data can becollected.
Efforts are currently in process to collect sufficient information on the companies that complete (orfail to complete) the contracted training schedule. Working with the Department of EmploymentServices (DES) and the LFB, the DED has developed a set of measures for which data is or will beavailable to provide the information necessary to answer questions in this area. Examples ofquestions to be addressed include:
1. Were the contract requirements met?
2. Did the employees completing training receive the salary increases noted in theproposals?
3. Have the companies retained the staffing levels they had prior to the training or have theyexpanded or reduced the number of employees?
4. Has the company's market share increase or declined?
5. Are individuals who were trained still employed by the business? Still in the industry?Still in the State?
6. How have businesses which utilized the Program fared in comparison to other businessesin the same industry and region?
This type of information will be made available largely through the DES data banks, and datacollection is expected to begin early in FY 1992.
DED Staff Concerns and Recommendations
Staff of the DED stated that the Program has been operating satisfactorily. After several initialmodifications of the procedures for reviewing and approving applications, the methodology has beenconstant for approximately the past year.
In relation to the application procedures, the DED staff noted in the Annual Report that largerbusinesses were at a distinct advantage in completing all application requirements as much of thenecessary data was already being collected by them. Smaller businesses often had to create a new or
- 5 -
8
modified record-keeping system to accommodate the Program. This concern was raised bybusinesses which were interviewed and by some community college staff. The DED recommendedchanges to the application procedure relating to financial and other documentation, some of whichwere adopted during the 1991 Legislative Session in HF 498 (Iowa Retraining Act), which shotildreduce the increased paperwork for smaller businesses.
The DED would like to have the ability to establish simplified procedures for smaller companiesrequesting assistance at levels under $5,000, and procedures for paying consulting fees to experts towork with companies over several years rather than the current two-year limit for the training. Thelatter situation was also noted by some of the respondents in the business survey.
Finally, the DED staff stated that the relationship with the community colleges needs to beimproved. According to the DED, some colleges were committing more funds for projects thanwere available for the fiscal year. This results in projects having to be carried over to the next fiscalyear, or only partial funding provided in the first fiscal year and the remaining funding coming fromthe following fiscal year's allocation. The DED staff noted that this causes confusion for somebusinesses which believe that the DED may be delaying the project after all the effort the businessput into the application process.
The DED also believed that certain programs offered by different colleges could be utilized bybusinesses in other districts, but that the competition between the colleges was not conducive tosharing programs on a regular basis.
Results Of Survey Of/And Interviews With Community College Staff
In order to obtain the views of the community colleges a survey instrument was designed and sent tothe colleges' designees for this Program. All but two of the colleges responded to the questionnaire.Additionally, two of the community colleges were selected for more in depth input and staff of theLFB visited each location and conducted an in-depth interview. The results of the survey andinterviews are summarized below. A summary of the responses to the survey instrument ispresented in Appendix C.
As with any new Program, it takes time for administrative rules to be adopted and implemented,staff to be hired, and for potential applicants to become familiar with the Program. Comments fromthe community colleges were varied on many of the issues which were discussed. It was apparentthat community college implementation and satisfaction with the Program varied depending upon thesize of the community college and their understanding of the governmental oversight process.
Program Solicitation
The com nity colleges develop and utilize a file of businesses with which they contact andcommunicate a regular basis. When a new program such as the Job Retraining Program isinstituted, the community colleges notify the businesses in the file of the opportunities for funding
- 6 -
and the process for application. Nearly all of the businesses receiving assistance from this Programwere notified in this manner. The remainder either inquired of the community college upon hearingof the Program or learned of the Program through trade publications or the Department of EconomicDevelopment's (DED) Digest. a monthly publication.
The procedure for soliciting businesses appears to work effectively provided the communitycolleges' files are inclusive of all eligible businesses in their area and they notify business of theopportunities for Program eligibility. Some businesses may be missed through this approach, andone business specifically mentioned that better advertisement of the Program in trade journals wouldbe helpful to small businesses.
Application Procedure
To participate in this Program, businesses must complete an application. The community colleges'provide assistance to the businesses during the application processes. The community collegessubmit the applications to the DED on behalf of the businesses. If the applications are incomplete orunclear, they are returned to the community college for clarification. In some cases, the DED hascontacted the businesses directly for additional information or explanations.
As noted above, the DED review panel initially met monthly as a review committee to evaluate anddiscuss applications. The process has been streamlined by dispersing applications to committeemembers for review and comments as the applications arrive at the DED. The community collegeshave some concern with the turn-around time for the applications and would like to see the processexpedited even further. This was also a concern noted by at least two businesses that responded tothe business survey. One business noted that it had taken 5 months to receive notification from theDED of the,award and another stated that it had only two weeks notice from the community collegeto complete all necessary paperwork for the application.
The community colleges stated that the DED could improve the process by setting an internalone-week deadline for turn-around after the application has been received. To do this, the DEDcould assign two personnel to review all applications under the Program. This would expedite theprocess over using a team approach, it would eliminate delay due to leave and other commitments,and would provide greater consistency in application evaluation.
There were some complaints from the community colleges about the amount of information requiredin the applications themselves. Most of the required information in the applications was specified inthe original legislation. The legislation was amended during the 1991 Legislative Session tostreamline several of the requirements, some of which were deemed to be unnecessary and somewhich provided an advantage toward larger businesses. The community colleges suggested that theDED should review the application with input from the community colleges and seek to eliminatethe criteria not related to the Program itself.
- 7 -
0
Award Notification
In at least one case, a business had been notified of a pending award by the DED, although thecommunity college board of directors had not given final approval for community collegeparticipation. The businesses were later notified of the denial of award after receiving approvalfrom the DED. As the community colleges are the link between business and the DED, it wouldreduce the potential for dissatisfaction among the applicants if the community colleges were assignedthe responsibility to notify the business of approval/denial of the application following the decisionof the local board of directors.
Program Funding Allocations
Currently, Program funding is allocated on a formula based upon the population of the communitycollege district (Appendix A). Allocatnns are calculated by the DED and then funds are dispersedto the community colleges via the State Treasurer's Office. The community colleges would prefer toreceive direct appropriations from the State and conduct the application review process themselves.The colleges state this would expedite the application process, would reduce the amount ofbureaucracy, and would reduce administrative costs in the DED.
Comments
Community colleges would like to see greater resources provided by the State to fund this Program.It appears that the current funding level is not enough to meet the current and future demand forretraining funds. The community college representatives state that the demand for job retraining willincrease dramatically in the future due to the rapid technological changes in the way business isconducted and the increasing need to remain competitive with national and foreign business.
The community colleges were impressed with the way that this Program benefits the existingindustry base in the State and does not focus on new business starts or relocations like most of theother job training programs.
The community colleges indicated that benefits to the business includes:
upgrades of workers skills and provides more marketable work force;
improves competitiveness;
assists the lower rank and file of employee rather than only the administrative level of thebusiness;
provides a positive attitude for employees and for employers toward State government;
provides assistance to smaller companies;
encourages diversification;
s educes production costs;
improves the relationship between companies and community colleges.
- 8 -
Results of Survey of Business Participants
In an effort to determine the views of business participants about the program and to identify anyconcerns or recommended changes from the businesses perspective, a telephone survey wasdeveloped by staff of the LFB. Staff contacted and obtained responses from 43% of the businessparticipants. Based on the information collected, it is clear that Program participants are satisfiedwith the Program and the interaction with community college and the DED staff. However, severalconcerns were noted by various businesses and are discussed below.
Program Solicitation
Businesses were asked to explain how they initially heard about the Program. Only two of therespondents had not initially heard of the Program through a community college. Of those, one hadread about the Program in a trade brochure and the other learned about the Program through otherbusiness contacts.
Application Procedure
The businesses were also asked to critique the application process and the paperwork involved in theon-going administration of the Program. Most believed that the application materials collected werereasonable and that the community colleges provided sufficient help, when necessary, to clarify andcomplete the application in the appropriate manner. While the requested material was viewed asnecessary given this is a "government" program, most felt it was lengthy and should be reduced ifpossible. Particularly smaller companies felt that it became a tedious, cumbersome process toassemble all the required information, but it was viewed as acceptable due° to the amount ofassistance provided by the community college staff. However, without that assistance severalindicated they would have not been able to compile all the information necessary.
The additional paperwork involved in the Program resulted in minimal additional work for thecompanies involved. Only a few companies indicated it was necessary to establish additionalrecord-keeping practices in order to maintain the appropriate materials, and those were companieswith fewer than 100 employees. Several companies noted that the record-keeping requirements andthe assistance provided by the community colleges in better organizing already collected informationhas helped with other internal record-keeping needs.
When asked specifically about the level of assistance provided through community colleges and theDED, almost universally the businesses reported the assistance received was good to excellent.More businesses (95%) cited the assistance of the community college than the DED (15%) as beinguseful to them. This was not an unexpected result as the community colleges work more closelywith these business than the DED would have a need to. Among those who indicated they had directcontact with the DED staff, the comments were positive and the businesses believed they weretreated appropriately.
-9
.k. 4
Training Program
The majority of respondents noted that they had not completed the training program at the time ofthe survey. In fact, according to the DED only five companies have completed the training whichthe Program is helping to fund. Those companies in the process of conducting the training aresatisfied with the training the staff are receiving. Several noted that the training has already provenbeneficial and that continued training will be modeled after the current training process.
Larger companies were more likely to use internal or a combination of internal and outside trainerswhile small companies all used outside trainers.
Impact of Training on Business
While it is too soon for most business to determine the effects of the training employees arereceiving on productivity and business viability, many respondents indicated positive results alreadyin evidence or had expectations of benefits to come. Typical responses to the training being receivedinclude the following:
The training is essential to the survival of the business.
Training makes the employees more valuable (productive and knowledgeable) to thecompany and in the job market.
Helps the company reduce costs of inefficient processes and practices.
It is a developmental tool for the staff and the company and will help us maintain or gainmarket share in the future.
Enables employees to solve more problems on their own and be more creative.
Lets the employees know we value them and are willing to invest in them to assure theirfuture and ours (serves as motivator for them).
Provides managers with a better understanding of the way subordinates can provide inputinto the operation and the benefits of teamwork.
Provides cross-training for employees in several skill areas which benefits the companyand the employee.
To stay competitive in the long-term this type of training (retraining) is necessary formost companies in a competitive and changing environment.
Impact of Funding
Companies were asked if training would have been undertaken without the financial assistanceprovided through the Program. Of those responding, approximately 35% said they would have beenunable to conduct the training at this time without the financial assistance. Another 60% of thebusinesses acknowledged that some training would have been undertaken regardless, but that thefunding allowed more depth, quicker start-up, and better planned training than they would otherwise
- 10 -
have been able to pursue. Two companies said they would have done the same or similar trainingwithout the funding provided, but that it allowed those resources to be used in other areas of thecompany.
Future Demand for Retraining/Retooling
All companies noted that there would be a continuing need for retraining to enable Iowa firms toremain competitive and current with available technology. Several companies noted they hadincreased their training budget substantially and one indicated an increase from $40,000 in 1990 to$2,000,000 for 1992 to provide employee training. Several noted that assistance such as thatprovided by this Program is essential to maintaining Iowa businesses, particularly small businesses.
EggammsaledirsatamAkificatim
While many companies stated that it was too early in the training program to recommend anychanges, several noted that even though the paperwork was not extremely taxing, the Programshould look at streamlining the amount of information required for the application process. This wasthe recommendation most often noted. Among other comments were the following:
Increase the amount of funds that can be applied for, large companies have needs that aremuch larger than the $50,000 limit.
Consider using a property tax credit rather than direct appropriation of funds.
Clarify definitions of requirements of the Program (e.g., what is allowed for expenses,training costs, etc.)
Improve public relations and advertising, would not have heard of the Program if acolleague had not mentioned it. Don't just rely on community colleges to notify allbusinesses.
Allow funding of trade seminars and sponsor trade shows in Iowa for small businesseswhere new products, approaches, and technologies may be shared.
Community colleges should provide more lead time when funds are available for theapplication process.
Development of people skills and team building among employees should be weighted ashigh as increasing hard technology in the funding ratings in the application process.
Better communication of deadlines from community colleges.
Future Business Trends
Finally, when asked about plans to diversify product lines or increase employment in the nearfuture, most companies either did not know or were unwilling to discuss the issue at this time.However, a few noted that the reason for the training was product change or additional productlines.
Findings And Recommendations
The specific items which the LFB was directed to investigate were the following:
I. The number of loans, forgivable loans, or grants provided.
Based on the information reviewed from the applications, no loans were provided; onlyforgivable loans and grants were issued to applicants. Of the participants, only consortiatraining projects received grants (7) and the remaining projects received forgivable loans(83). The DED commented that no business would apply for the funding if it had toaccept a standard loan. The LFB was able to identify only two of the participatingcompanies which had applied for and utilized any type of loan within the last three yearsfor training purposes. These were from the Iowa Community Economic BettermentProgram and the federal Small Business Administration, both provide forgivable loanprograms.
2. The number of loans defaulted.
To date no loans have defaulted, as the few projects that have finished the training havebeen in compliance with the contract (prior to final audit). Should any of the companiesfail to complete the training or not comply with the comply with the contractualarrangements, the DED will determine the extent of default and require repayment of aportion or all of the forgivable loan.
3. The average size of the business receiving retraining assistance.
The average number of employees among businesses being provided assistance throughthis Program is 508, with a range of from 9 to 2,770 employees.
4. The effect of the Program upon wages of participating workers and nonparticipatingworkers.
Of those businesses receiving assistance, 24 specified that wages of employees wouldincrease as a result of the training provided. iimong those projects, projected increases inthe amount of the wage varied from $0.05 per hour to $2.00 per hour. Currently, theLFB and the DED are working with the DES to determine whether these increasesactually occurred and the likelihood that the employees would have received similarincreases without the retraining, and what changes were made in the salaries ofnonparticipating staff as well as salaries in the county and the industry on a statewidebasis.
5. The effect of the retraining programs on the State's economy.
The effects of the training projects on the State's economy cannot be estimated at thistime, as so few of the companies involved have completed the training. It will benecessary to follow the progress of the individual companies for at least a year after the
- 12 -
project training ends to begin to estimate the impact on the economy. Currently, the LFBand the DED are working with the DES to collect both pre- and post-project data on thebusinesses that have participated to enable the estimation of the economic impact of theProgram.
Based on the review by the LFB of the Job Retraining Program, the following recommendations and
policy alternatives are offered.
1. The coordination of the Job Retraining Program should remain in the DED. Since thisProgram is operated through 15 different community colleges, it is necessary to have acentral authority to coordinate and direct the Program. If Program coordination weretransferred to community colleges, the consistency provided through the DED applicationreview and Program monitoring and the accompanying administrative costs would bedispersed 15 different ways. This would actually increase administrative costs at theexpense of central accountability of State dollars.
2. To improve Program planning for each fiscal year, the community colleges should submita "probable" list of applications for the first six months of the fiscal year and the secondsix months of the fiscal year. Some of the community colleges had planned to expendadditional FY 1991 funds which were to be reallocated after March 1, but which weredeappropriated. This caused some frustration among community colleges and businesses.
3. The current statute requires a business to meet one of three criteria to be eligible for agrant or forgivable loan. They include: A) a net increase in the number of employmentpositions; B) a net increase in the wages paid to participating workers; or, C) a netincrease in the quality of the employment positions held by participating workers. Themajority of projects have been forgivable loans with only criteria "C" being met. Sincean increase in the quality of an employment positions is a subjective decision and difficultto measure, it is recommended that the current statute be changed to eliminate thisrequirement. If the requirement remains, the DED should provide an objective/measurable way to judge an increase in the quality of an employment position to remainwithin the intent of the law.
4. The DED should develop a proposal for an alternative funding mechanism for smallercompanies of an employee size range determined by the DED, and consider eitherreducing or eliminating the required funding match of one-to-one. A different formulacould be established to encourage the smaller companies to utilize the Program formeeting retraining needs. This should be presented to the Economic DevelopmentAppropriations Subcommittee during the 1992 Legislative Session for consideration.
5. The DED should request that the Department of Education, which is currentlyestablishing rules for sharing incentives at community colleges, include incentives to haveJob Retraining Program specialized instructors. This would permit the communitycolleges to share instructors for the Program, rather than have the instructors'specialization duplicated in more than the number of community colleges offeringspecialized instruction to employees in need of the retraining.
- 13 -
6
6. The DED and the community colleges should review their current evaluation forms anddesign a single form that will provide the information beneficial to both withoutduplicating the evaluation process for the business involved in the Program.
7. The Legislative Council should consider continuing this review through the end of FY1993. This will allow all projects which received funding during FY 1990 to completetheir individual training projects, and to allow at least one year for the collection offollow-up information relevant to the wages, level of employment, and business successof the companies which received assistance.
Departmental Response
The DED has reviewed the report and prepared a written response which is included in Appendix D.
- 14 -
if
Appendix A
- 15 -
Job
Ret
rain
ing
Pro
gram
For
mul
a A
lloca
tion
MA
S #
Com
mun
ity C
olle
geC
ityS
hare
Fac
tor
FY
199
0A
lloca
tion
FY
199
0A
ctua
lU
tiliz
atio
n
FY
199
0F
orm
ula
Allo
catio
nvs
. Act
ual
FY
199
1A
lloca
tion
FY
199
1T
o-D
ate
Util
izat
ion
FY
199
1F
orm
ula
Allo
catio
nvs
. Act
ual
1N
orth
east
Iow
a T
echn
ica!
Inst
itute
Cal
mar
8.64
998
161,
091
100,
000
61,0
9120
0,49
40
200,
494
2N
orth
Iow
a A
rea
Com
mun
ity C
olle
geM
ason
City
4.83
434
90,0
3110
0,00
0(9
,969
)11
2,05
310
0,00
012
,053
3Io
wa
Lake
s C
omm
unity
Col
lege
Est
herv
ille
2.97
279
55,3
630
55,3
6368
,905
68,3
1958
64
Nor
thw
est I
owa
Tec
hnic
al C
olle
geS
held
on2.
8423
352
,934
54,0
04(1
,070
)65
,881
18,7
1447
,167
5Io
wa
Cen
tral
Com
mun
ity C
olle
geF
ort D
odge
5.82
988
108,
572
100,
000
8,57
213
5,12
813
1,45
23,
676
6Io
wa
Val
ley
Com
mun
ity C
olle
geM
arsh
allto
wn
3.66
941
68,3
3788
,404
(20,
067)
85,0
5275
,536
9,51
67
Haw
keye
Inst
itute
of T
echn
olog
yW
ater
loo
6.78
082
126,
281
139,
990
03,7
09)
157,
170
152,
056
5,11
49
Eas
tern
Iow
a C
omm
unity
Col
lege
Dav
enpo
rt9.
0864
316
9,21
919
3,97
5(2
4,75
6)21
0,61
014
4,45
066
,160
10K
irkw
ood
Com
mun
ity C
olle
geC
edar
Rap
ids
10.8
6501
202,
342
200,
000
2,34
225
1,83
525
2,36
0(5
25)
11D
es M
oine
s A
rea
Com
mun
ity C
olle
geD
es M
oine
s18
.439
934
3,41
226
5,96
377
,449
427,
410
518,
065
(90,
655)
12W
este
rn Io
wa
Tec
h C
omm
unity
Col
lege
Sio
ux C
ity6.
6716
412
4,24
850
,000
74,2
4815
4,63
911
,819
142,
820
13Io
wa
Wes
tern
Com
mun
ity C
olle
geC
ounc
il B
luffs
6.88
234
128,
172
50,0
0078
,172
159,
523
92,6
9666
,827
14S
outh
wes
tern
Com
mun
ity C
olle
geC
rest
on2.
9224
54,4
250
54,4
2567
,737
067
,737
15In
dian
Hill
s C
omm
unity
Col
lege
Ottu
mw
a5.
8993
310
9,86
511
2,08
7(2
,222
)13
6,73
811
6,47
620
,262
16S
outh
east
ern
Com
mun
ity C
olle
geB
urlin
gton
3.65
339
68,0
3866
,639
1,39
984
,680
83,3
671,
313
99.9
9999
$ 1,
862,
330
$ 1,
521,
062
$ 34
1,26
8$
2,31
7,85
6$1
,765
,310
$ 55
2,54
6
19
LFB
:G :
\Ret
rain
\Allo
c
20
Appendix B
Com
mun
ity
#C
oll
Bus
ines
s
1E
aste
rn Io
wa
Alc
oa
Job
Ret
rain
ing
Pro
gram
of P
ro e
ct
Mac
hine
spe
cific
trai
ning
on
new
col
d m
ill
proc
ess
equi
pmen
t for
pro
duct
ion
and
supe
rvis
ory
indi
vidu
als.
2D
MA
CC
Brid
gest
one/
Ski
lls tr
aini
ng fo
r m
aint
enan
ce w
orke
rs &
Fire
ston
eS
tatis
tical
Pro
cess
Con
trol
for
man
agem
ent a
nd
prod
uctio
n em
ploy
ees.
3Io
wa
Wes
tern
J.P
. Ind
ustr
ies
Just
-in-T
ime
trai
ning
for
cellu
lar
man
ufac
turin
g
arra
ngem
ent a
nd p
rodu
ctio
n em
ploy
ees.
4D
MA
CC
Eco
nom
y D
ata
Sta
tistic
al P
roce
ss C
ontr
ol tr
aini
ng fo
r
man
agem
ent a
nd p
rodu
ctio
n em
ploy
ees.
5D
MA
CC
John
Dee
reP
artic
ipat
ive
man
agem
ent &
gro
up p
robl
em
solv
ing
for
wag
e &
sal
arie
d em
ploy
ees.
6E
aste
rn Io
wa
John
Dee
reC
ontin
uous
Impr
ovem
ent P
roce
ss tr
aini
ng fo
r
wag
e &
sal
arie
d em
ploy
ees.
7H
awke
ye T
ech
John
Dee
reS
kills
bui
ldin
g in
pre
para
tion
for
Com
pute
r
Num
eric
ally
Con
trol
led
trai
ning
for
prod
uctio
n
mac
hine
ope
rato
rs.
8E
aste
rn Io
wa
Qua
d C
ity T
imes
Mac
hine
Spe
cific
for
prod
uctio
n em
ploy
ees
resu
lting
from
inst
alla
tion
of n
ew p
roce
ssin
g
equi
pmen
t.9
DM
AC
CC
omm
erci
al P
rintin
gS
tatis
tical
Pro
cess
Con
trol
for
man
agem
ent &
wag
e em
ploy
ees.
10D
MA
CC
Car
roll
Man
ufac
turin
gS
afet
y &
Cus
tom
er S
ervi
ce tr
aini
ng fo
r
man
agem
ent &
wag
e em
ploy
ees.
11K
irkw
ood
Qua
ker
Oat
sM
aint
enan
ce G
oss
Tra
inin
g to
sup
port
inst
alla
tion
of a
utom
ated
pro
duct
ion
equi
pmen
t.
12H
awke
ye T
ech
Koe
hrin
g C
rane
sQ
ualit
y C
ircle
, Sup
ervi
sory
Ski
lls, A
uto
-Cad
,
Wel
d T
estin
g fo
r su
perv
isor
y, w
age,
&
oper
atio
ns s
uppo
rt p
eopl
e.
LFB
:G: \
Pro
ject
6act
rain
A.,
4,
* of
Em
ploy
ees
Incr
ease
Avg
.O
ther
Job
Tra
inin
g
Hou
rly W
age
Aw
ards
Afte
rB
usin
ess
Sta
teN
ame
ofT
otal
C'
Tot
alR
etra
ined
Tra
lnin
inve
st.
Aw
ard
Pr
ram
sS
Am
ount
Riv
erda
le1,
000
102
No
150,
000
50,0
00N
A (
1)
Des
Moi
nes
1,68
979
No
170,
359
50,0
0028
0B (
2)$7
83,5
21
Atla
ntic
274
260
Yes
100,
000
50,0
0028
0B$9
7,00
0
NE
BIT
(3)
$13,
500
Des
Moi
nes
5030
No
15,7
7215
,550
CE
BA
(4)
$275
,000
Ank
eny
1,51
742
7N
o45
8,06
150
,000
NE
BIT
$38,
070
Dav
enpo
rt75
020
0N
o40
5,00
050
,000
NE
BIT
$22,
690
Wat
erlo
o2,
770
36N
o80
,000
50,0
00C
usto
miz
ed$3
5,56
6
Tra
inin
g
Dav
enpo
rt37
522
Yes
355,
300
50,0
00N
A
Des
Moi
nes
112
60N
o82
,097
21,2
5028
0B$1
0,56
4
Car
roll
5223
Yes
66,1
0048
,750
280B
$44,
671
CE
BA
$35,
000
SB
A (
5)$3
67,0
00
Ced
ar R
apid
s1,
365
97N
o1,
000,
000
50,0
00N
A
Wav
erly
600
154
No
121,
820
32,5
4228
0B*4
2,91
5
Pag
e 1
Job
Ret
rain
ing
Pro
gram
Com
mun
ity#
Col
lege
Bus
ines
sT
ype
of P
roje
ct13
Indi
an H
ills
Fai
rfie
ld A
lum
inum
Just
-in-T
ime
for
shor
t pro
duct
ion
runs
, Sta
tistic
al
Pro
cess
Con
trol
for
shor
t pro
duct
ion
runs
for
sala
ried
& w
age
empl
oyee
s.
14N
IAC
CF
leet
guar
d
15N
W IA
Tec
hH
arva
rd In
dust
ries
(KO
OM
IA)
16N
W IA
Tec
hK
-Pro
duct
s
17E
aste
rn Io
wa
Mar
ley
Pum
p
18H
awke
ye T
ech
Qua
mac
o
19In
dian
Hill
s
20N
EIC
C
21N
EIC
C
John
Dee
re
John
Dee
re
Fle
xste
el
22Io
wa
Cen
tral
WC
I Lau
ndar
y
23Io
wa
Cen
tral
Land
0' L
akes
24D
MA
CC
Del
evan
LFB
:G: \
Proj
ects
\ R
etra
in
24
Bas
ic S
kills
ass
essm
ent &
res
ultin
g tr
aini
ng
avai
labl
e fo
r al
l em
ploy
ees.
Dec
isio
n-M
akin
g &
Pro
blem
Sol
ving
for
all
empl
oyee
s.
Man
ufac
turin
g R
equi
rem
ents
Pla
nnin
g re
sulti
ng
from
inst
alla
tion
of c
ompu
teriz
ed p
lann
ing
syst
em fo
r al
l em
ploy
ees.
Sta
tistic
al P
roce
ss C
ontr
ol fo
r su
perv
isin
g
grou
p &
mac
hine
sho
p em
ploy
ees,
& in
dust
rial
mat
h &
blu
eprin
t rea
ding
in th
e m
achi
ne s
hop.
Com
pute
r N
umer
ical
Con
trol
led
mac
hine
tool
s &
insp
ectio
n eq
uipm
ent f
or m
achi
ne o
pera
tors
&
Insp
ecto
rs, &
blu
eprin
t rea
ding
for
all
empl
oyee
s.
Dra
fting
& C
ompu
ter
Aid
ed D
esig
n fo
r ho
urly
empl
oyee
s.
Com
pute
r N
umer
ical
Con
trol
for
mac
hini
sts,
cnc
oper
ator
s &
sup
ervi
sors
.
Qua
lity
Impr
ovem
ent f
or a
dmin
istr
ativ
e,
upho
lste
ry p
lant
, met
al p
lant
, & p
rintin
g &
sam
plin
g em
ploy
ees.
Fro
ntlin
e Le
ader
ship
for
supe
rvis
ors
&
man
ager
s in
the
Pre
ss O
pera
tions
& W
orki
ng
for
nons
uper
viso
ry e
mpl
oyee
s in
the
Pre
ss
Ope
ratio
ns.
Tot
al Q
ualit
y M
anag
emen
t for
sup
ervi
sors
&
man
ager
s.
Tot
al Q
ualit
y M
anag
emen
t for
pro
duct
ion
&
sala
ried
empl
oyee
s.
City
# of
Em
ploy
ees
Incr
ease
Avg
.
Hou
rly W
age
Afte
rT
rain
ing
Bus
ines
sIn
vest
Sta
teA
war
d
Oth
er J
ob T
rain
ing
Aw
ards
Nam
e of
Pro
gram
sT
otal
$ A
mou
ntT
otal
Ret
rain
ed
Fai
rfie
ld14
813
6N
o48
,356
12,0
87C
DB
G (
6)$2
51,5
00
NE
BIT
Lake
Mill
s57
852
0N
oN
A50
,000
Cus
tom
ized
$5,1
20
Tra
inin
g
Roc
k V
alle
y21
521
5N
o83
,000
21,5
72C
usto
miz
ed$3
,314
Tra
inin
g
Ora
nge
City
209
209
No
247,
655
32,4
3228
0B$1
20,0
00
Dav
enpo
rt84
84N
o12
2,73
343
,975
NE
BIT
$1,0
00
Win
thro
p11
11Y
es50
,400
7,96
028
0B$2
1,00
0
JTP
A (
7)$9
,541
Ottu
ma
909
46N
o25
6,35
350
,000
NE
BIT
$12,
449
280B
$45,
000
Dub
uque
520
320
No
559,
860
50,0
00C
usto
miz
ed$7
,995
Tra
inin
g
Dub
uque
739
349
Yes
403,
436
50,0
00JT
PA
$9,3
03
Web
ster
City
1,21
221
0N
o18
7,15
950
,000
JTP
A$1
28,9
92
280B
$585
,000
NE
BIT
$19,
616
Labo
r M
gmt.
$4,4
24
Cou
ncil
Tra
inin
g
For
t Dod
ge29
829
8N
o16
5,34
950
,000
NE
BIT
$4,2
84
Des
Moi
nes
449
449
No
137,
148
50,0
00N
A
Page
2
Job
Ret
rain
ing
Pro
gram
#C
omm
unity
Col
lege
Bus
ines
sT
ype
of P
roje
ctC
ity
* of
Em
ploy
ees
Incr
ease
Avg
,
Hou
rly W
age
Afte
rT
rain
ing
Bus
ines
sIn
vest
Sta
teA
war
d
Oth
er J
ob T
rain
ing
Aw
ards
Nam
e of
Pro
gram
sT
otal
$ A
mou
ntT
otal
Ret
rain
ed
25D
MA
CC
IMT
Insu
ranc
eP
C T
rain
ing
thru
Inte
ract
ive
Vid
eo In
stru
ctio
n fo
rD
es M
oine
s24
140
Yes
294,
775
50,0
00N
A
(With
drew
thei
r A
war
d)C
ustr
omer
Ser
vice
I,pr
esen
tativ
es, R
ate
Ana
lyst
s, W
ord
Pro
cess
ors,
Typ
eset
ters
,
Sec
reta
ries,
and
P.R
. Coo
rdin
ator
.
26M
rkw
ood
Pen
ford
Pro
duct
sT
rain
ing
in s
peci
alty
che
mic
al s
tarc
h
man
ufac
turin
g fo
r op
erat
ors
& m
anag
ers.
Ced
ar R
apid
s28
418
Yes
814,
723
50,0
00N
A
27K
irkw
ood
Qua
ker
Oat
sM
aint
enan
ce a
ppre
ntic
eshi
p, c
ompu
ter,
&
safe
ty tr
aini
ng fo
r m
echa
nics
, ele
ctric
ians
,
engi
neer
s, s
uper
viso
rs &
man
ager
s.
Ced
ar R
apid
s1,
365
71Y
esN
A50
,000
NA
28K
irkw
ood
Con
sort
ium
App
rent
ices
hip
mat
h, b
luep
rint r
eadi
ng,
Mon
ticel
lo/
1,19
553
Yes
132,
500
50,0
0028
08$4
9,00
0
(Cas
cade
Die
Mol
d,m
etal
lurg
y, &
bas
ic m
achi
ne s
hop
prac
tices
for
Mus
catin
e/F
RE
D (
8)$4
60,0
00
Man
uf. S
peci
altie
sm
achi
nist
s &
tool
& d
ie m
old
mak
ers.
Ced
ar R
apid
sC
EB
A$5
5,00
0
Inc.
, Ora
l-B, S
quar
e D
CE
BA
$100
,000
Com
pany
)28
08$5
0,00
0
29In
dian
Hill
sR
ockw
ell
For
d 01
Tra
inin
g, G
eom
etric
Tol
eran
cing
&F
airf
ield
472
287
No
143,
455
50,0
0028
0B$6
50,0
00
Inte
rnat
iona
lD
imen
sion
ing,
Ess
entia
ls o
f Mac
hine
Sho
p
Pra
ctic
e, W
eldi
ng, S
hort
Run
SP
C, S
uper
viso
ry
Tra
inin
g &
Tra
inin
g C
oord
inat
ion
will
be
prov
ided
to M
anuf
actu
ring,
Sup
ervi
sory
, Ski
lled
Tra
des,
& P
lant
Sup
port
em
ploy
ees.
30S
outh
Eas
tern
Dup
ont
Sta
tistic
al P
roce
ss C
ontr
ol tr
aini
ng fo
r
man
agem
ent &
man
ufac
turin
g em
ploy
ees.
For
t Mad
ison
291
291
No
60,0
0026
,639
Car
l Per
kins
(9)
280B
31S
outh
Eas
tern
Gre
yhou
nd D
ial
Pos
ition
al/D
epar
tmen
tal A
naly
sis
for
For
t Mad
ison
625
24N
o92
,288
40,0
0028
06$3
15,0
00
empl
oyee
s in
the
C.,
ralit
y C
ontr
ol, E
ngin
eerin
g,
& A
ccou
ntin
g D
epar
tmen
ts.
Car
l Per
kins
$2,1
40
32Io
wa
Val
ley
Whe
eler
Con
solid
ated
Sta
tistic
al P
roce
ss C
ontr
ol tr
aini
ng fo
r
man
ager
s, e
ngin
eers
, est
imat
ors,
book
keep
ers,
dra
ftper
sons
, for
emen
, lea
d m
en,
mac
hine
ope
rato
rs &
pro
duct
ion
empl
oyee
s.
Iow
a F
alls
108
60Y
es73
,785
38,4
04N
A
33Io
wa
Val
ley
Con
sort
ium
(Fis
her
Con
trol
s,
KIO
WA
, & C
oope
r
Man
ufac
turin
g)
Pro
duct
ive
mai
nten
ance
util
izin
g In
tera
ctiv
e
vide
o in
stru
ctio
n fo
r m
aint
enan
ce e
lect
ricia
ns, &
tech
nici
ans,
mac
hine
mai
nten
ance
em
ploy
ees,
plum
bers
& e
lect
ricia
ns.
Mar
shal
ltow
n1,
250
54Y
es25
3,63
050
,000
Cus
tom
ized
Tra
inin
g
$1,0
00
LFB
:G: P
roje
cts\
Ret
rain 0 cl
Pag
e 3
7
Com
mun
ity
#C
olle
ge
34D
MA
CC
35N
IAC
C
Bus
ines
s
AM
AT
CO
Eat
on
36W
. Iow
a T
ech.
Mid
wes
t Ind
ustr
ies
37D
MA
CC
Gre
yhou
nd L
ines
(Aw
ard
deni
ed b
y
DM
AC
C B
oard
)
38H
awke
ye T
ech
Tria
ngle
Pla
stic
s
1D
MA
CC
Eco
nom
y D
ata
Job
Ret
rain
ing
Pro
gram
Typ
e of
Pro
ject
Qua
lity
Impr
ovem
ent E
duca
tion
and
CA
D/C
AM
trai
ning
for
man
agem
ent,
adm
inis
trat
ive,
sal
es,
& s
kille
d m
achi
nist
em
ploy
ees.
Sta
tistic
al P
roce
ss C
ontr
ol C
hart
s fo
r F
ront
line
Lead
ersh
ip, &
Sel
f-M
anag
ed W
ork
Tea
m
trai
ning
for
supe
rvis
ors,
mac
hine
ope
rato
rs, &
visu
al &
pac
k em
ploy
ees.
Hum
an R
elat
ions
and
Saf
ety
trai
ning
to
man
ager
s, s
uper
viso
rs, s
taff
& h
ourly
wor
kers
.
Per
sona
l Com
pute
r us
age
& T
eam
Bui
ldin
g
trai
ning
for
cler
ical
sta
ff, c
ompu
ter
oper
ator
s,su
perv
isor
s, m
anag
ers,
exe
cutiv
es &
oth
er s
taff
mem
bers
.B
luep
rint R
eadi
ng/G
eom
etric
Dim
ensi
onin
g &
Tol
eran
cing
, Qua
lity
Edu
catio
n -
Inte
rnal
Pro
cess
es, S
afet
y T
rain
ing,
& S
uper
viso
r
Tra
inin
g to
Sup
ervi
sors
, Qua
lity
Tec
hnic
ians
,
Eng
inee
ring,
Pro
duct
ion,
Lay
out,
Des
ign,
Pro
duct
ion
Man
ager
s, S
uppo
rt S
taff,
war
ehou
se
staf
f, &
cor
pora
te/ o
ffice
/ sal
es s
taff.
Con
tinue
d S
tatis
tical
Pro
cess
Con
trol
trai
ning
for
addi
tiona
l man
agem
ent,
sale
s, o
ffice
&
prod
uctio
nem
ploy
ees.
2D
MA
CC
3D
MA
CC
Lort
exD
arni
ng M
anag
emen
t prin
cipl
es &
Sta
tistic
al
Brid
gest
one/
Con
tinue
d sk
ills
trai
ning
for
addi
tiona
l
mai
nten
ance
wor
kers
& c
ontin
ued
Sta
tistic
al
Pro
cess
Con
trol
plu
s ba
r co
ding
for
addi
tiona
l
man
agem
ent &
pro
duct
ion
empl
oyee
s.
quilt
ers,
trim
mer
s, b
ondi
ng o
pera
tors
, shi
ppin
g
wor
kers
, rep
air
/rew
ork
wor
kers
& m
anag
ers.
Fire
ston
e
Pro
cess
Con
trol
trai
ning
for
offic
e pe
rson
nel,
# of
Em
ploy
ees
Incr
ease
Avg
.
Hou
rly W
age
Afte
rB
usin
ess
Tra
inin
gIn
vest
Sta
teA
war
d
Oth
er J
ob T
rain
ing
Aw
ards
Nam
e of
Pro
gram
s
Tot
al
S A
mou
ntC
ityT
otal
Ret
rain
ed
John
ston
3119
No
33,4
1330
,413
NA
Bel
mon
d59
526
6N
o10
9,44
750
,000
280B
$450
,000
Cus
tom
ized
$6,6
00
Tra
inin
g
Ida
Gro
ve31
250
No
66,7
0050
,000
NA
Des
Moi
nes
725
272
No
12,3
2011
,082
2808
$145
,633
Win
thro
p10
910
9N
o49
,532
49,4
88C
usto
miz
ed$1
,462
Tra
inin
g
FY
199
0 T
otal
:5,
639
$7,
095,
531
$ 1,
521,
062
Des
Moi
nes
5040
No
31,4
1318
,443
CE
BA
$275
,000
2808
$67,
606
Des
Moi
nes
1,68
991
No
175,
793
50,0
0028
08$7
83,5
21
Des
Moi
nes
4123
No
15,7
7615
,565
Pro
duct
ivity
$10,
287
Enh
ance
men
t
LFB
:G: \
Pro
ject
s\ R
etra
in
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
Pag
e 4
Job
Ret
rain
ing
Pro
gram
Com
mun
ity#
Col
lege
Bus
ines
sT
ype
of P
roje
ct
4D
MA
CC
John
Dee
reC
ompu
ter
Aid
ed D
esig
n &
Pro
duct
Dev
elop
men
t Sys
tem
trai
ning
for
sala
ried
&
prod
uctio
n em
ploy
ees.
5H
awke
ye T
ech
John
Dee
reC
ompu
ter
Num
eric
al C
ontr
ol tr
aini
ng fo
r
mac
hine
ope
rato
rs
6S
outh
Eas
tern
She
affe
r-E
aton
7Io
wa
Wes
tern
Fut
ure
Foa
m
8D
MA
CC
Del
evan
9D
MA
CC
Libr
ary
Bin
ding
10D
MA
CC
11K
irkw
ood
John
Dee
re C
redi
t
Ser
vice
s
Nor
and
12H
awke
ye T
ech
Bla
ckha
wk
Eng
inee
ring
Qua
lity
& C
usto
mer
Ser
vice
, Cel
lula
r
Man
ufac
turin
g, P
roce
ss S
peci
ficat
ions
, &
Sta
tistic
al P
roce
ss C
ontr
ol tr
aini
ng fo
r
prod
uctio
n &
mac
hine
ope
rato
rs; i
nspe
ctor
s &
adju
stor
s; s
et-u
p, m
aint
enan
ce to
ol r
oom
&
mod
el s
hop
oper
ator
s.
Man
agem
ent I
nfor
mat
ion
Sys
tem
trai
ning
for
man
ager
s, s
ales
sta
ff, c
lerk
s, s
ecre
tarie
s, &
adm
inis
trat
ors.
Tot
al Q
ualit
y M
anag
emen
t tra
inin
g in
clud
ing
blue
-prin
t rea
ding
, Man
ufac
turin
g R
equi
rem
ents
Pla
nnin
g (M
RP
II), &
geo
met
ric d
imen
sion
ing
&
tole
ranc
ing
trai
ning
to p
rodu
ctio
n &
sal
arie
d
empl
oyee
s.
Qua
lity
Impr
ovem
ent E
duca
tion/
Impl
emen
tatio
n P
rogr
am tr
aini
ng fo
r
man
agem
ent,
supe
rvis
ory,
adm
inis
trat
ive
&
prod
uctio
n em
ploy
ees.
Key
boar
d ef
ficie
ncy
trai
ning
for
cler
ical
&
cust
omer
ser
vice
sta
ff, c
redi
t ana
lyst
s, &
prog
ram
ana
lyst
s.
Com
pute
r A
ided
Des
ign/
Com
pute
r A
ided
Eng
inee
ring
(CA
D/C
AE
) tr
aini
ng fo
r en
gine
ers,
desi
gner
s, d
rafte
rs, &
sys
tem
adm
inis
trat
ors.
Geo
met
ric d
imen
sion
ing
& to
lera
ncin
g
tech
niqu
es fo
r m
achi
ne o
pera
tors
& m
anag
ers.
City
# of
Em
ploy
ees
Incr
ease
Avg
.
Hou
rly W
age
Afte
rT
rain
ing
Bus
ines
s
Inve
stS
tate
Aw
ard
Oth
er J
ob T
rain
ing
Aw
ards
Nam
e of
Pro
gram
s
Tot
alA
mou
ntT
otal
Ret
rain
ed
Ank
eny
1,51
711
0N
o98
,600
50,0
00N
EB
IT$3
8,07
0
Wat
erlo
o2,
770
40N
o37
6,29
850
,000
Cus
tom
ized
$35,
566
Tra
inin
g
For
t Mad
ison
529
517
No
84,5
8723
,750
NA
Cou
ncil
Blu
ffs66
66Y
es12
2,40
050
,000
CE
BA
$) 2
5,00
0
NE
BIT
$12,
500
280B
$50,
000
W. D
es M
oine
472
472
No
137,
148
50,0
00C
EB
A$5
0,00
0
Des
Moi
nes
100
70N
o30
,179
13,7
80N
A
Des
Moi
nes
388
100
No
126,
230
50,0
0028
0B$5
98,9
85
Ced
ar R
apid
s1,
000
43Y
es77
,759
50,0
00N
A
Ced
ar F
alls
7520
Yes
27,2
1118
,033
JTP
A$3
8,20
5
LFB
:G: \
Pro
ject
s \R
etra
inP
age
5
Com
mun
ityC
olle
geB
usin
ess
13E
aste
rn Io
wa
Col
lis, I
nc,
14In
dian
Hill
sR
ubbe
rmai
d
15D
MA
CC
AC
ME
Prin
ting
16D
MA
CC
Kem
in In
dust
ries
17D
MA
CC
Qua
llis
18K
irkw
ood
DA
D M
anuf
actu
ring
19K
irkw
ood
Rur
al C
onso
rtiu
m
(Kna
pp C
reek
Rab
bitr
y, E
llis
Des
igns
, Hei
rloom
Bas
kets
, Ker
slak
e
Far
m, P
ort 0
' Joh
nny,
Hox
Hol
low
Ham
s,
Cou
ntry
Blo
omer
s,W
apsi
Woo
dsG
arde
ns, &
Fai
rfax
Mar
ket &
Gre
en H
ouse
)
Job
Ret
rain
ing
Pro
gram
Typ
e of
Pro
ject
Indu
stria
l mat
h, s
tatis
tical
pro
cess
con
trol
,
blue
prin
t rea
ding
, com
pute
r nu
mer
ical
con
trol
, &
com
mun
icat
ion/
man
agem
ent s
kills
trai
ning
for
engi
neer
s, m
achi
ne o
pera
tors
, pro
duct
ion
empl
oyee
s &
sup
ervi
sors
.Ju
st-I
n-T
ime
stra
tegi
es &
Mat
eria
ls R
esou
rce
Pla
nnin
g (M
RP
II) fo
r as
sem
bler
s, m
aint
enan
ce,
com
pute
r op
erat
ors,
man
age
rs &
sup
ervi
sors
,cl
erks
, mat
eria
l han
dlin
g &
sch
edul
ing
staf
f.
Qua
lity
impr
ovem
ent E
duca
tion/
Impl
emen
tatio
n P
rogr
am fo
r m
anag
ers
&su
perv
isor
y st
aff.
Sta
tistic
al P
roce
ss C
ontr
ol &
Tea
m P
robl
em
solv
ing.
Sta
tistic
al P
roce
ss C
ontr
ol &
Tea
m P
rob:
arn
Sol
ving
Impl
emen
tatio
n fo
r lin
e &
offi
ce s
ta;-
.
lab,
qua
lity
cont
rol,
com
poun
ding
, & w
areh
ouse
staf
f, m
echa
nics
, man
ager
s &
sup
ervi
sors
.
Pla
nt s
afet
y &
con
tinuo
us p
roce
ss im
prov
emen
t
for
fore
men
& w
eldi
ng, p
olis
hing
, eng
inee
ring
&ad
min
istr
ativ
e st
aff.
Mar
ketin
g, b
usin
ess
skill
s, c
ompu
ter
skill
s, &
prod
uctio
n te
chni
ques
for
man
ager
s, m
arke
ters
,pr
oduc
ers,
& s
ales
rep
rese
ntat
ives
.
City
# of
Em
ploy
ees
Incr
ease
Avg
.
Hou
rly W
age
Afte
r
Tra
inin
g
Bus
ines
s
Inve
st.
Sta
teA
war
d
Oth
er J
ob T
rain
ing
Aw
ards
Nam
e of
Pro
gram
s
Tot
al
$ A
mou
ntT
o1.4
iR
etra
ined
Clin
ton
6045
Yes
157,
194
44,4
50JT
PA
$12,
690
Cen
terv
ille
255
227
Yes
94,1
1150
,000
280B
$298
,000
NE
BIT
$3,3
17N
EB
IT$5
,949
Des
Moi
nes
9260
No
18,4
80N
A
Des
Moi
nes
123
123
No
134,
430
50,0
00C
EB
A G
rant
$25,
000
CE
BA
Loa
n$7
5,00
0C
EB
A G
rant
$25,
000
CE
BA
Loa
n$2
5,00
028
08$5
1,0
X28
08$1
47,4
45Io
wa
Res
ourc
es$1
2,50
0D
es M
oine
s97
60N
o27
,791
24,0
77N
A
Cec
1r
Rap
ids
4141
No
24,0
0020
,000
CE
BA
$30,
000
Ced
a; R
apid
s15
15N
o17
,779
12,3
60
LFB
:G: \
Pro
ject
s \R
etra
inP
age
6
Job
Ret
rain
ing
Pro
gram
#C
omm
unity
Col
lege
Bus
ines
sT
ype
of P
roje
ctC
ity#
of E
mpl
oyee
s
Incr
ease
Avg
.
Hou
rly W
age
Afte
rT
rain
ing
Bus
ines
s
Inve
stS
tate
Aw
ard
Oth
er J
ob T
rain
ing
Aw
ards
Nam
e of
Pro
gram
sT
otal
$ A
mou
ntT
otal
Ret
rain
ed
20K
irkw
ood
Wey
erha
euse
r P
aper
Mec
hani
cal a
nd m
aint
enan
ce s
kills
trai
ning
.C
edar
Rap
ids
200
6Y
es39
,000
25,0
00N
A
21Io
wa
Cen
tral
Pos
itech
Tot
al q
ualit
y m
anag
emen
t, te
chni
cal s
kills
,
man
ager
ial a
nd s
uper
viso
ry s
kills
.
Laur
ens
8157
Yes
53,4
1850
,000
NA
22E
aste
rn Io
wa
Siv
yer
Ste
el C
orp.
Bas
ic m
ath/
read
ing
skill
s, q
ualit
y im
prov
emen
t,
qual
ity c
ontr
ol, t
echn
ical
cas
ting
skill
s.
Bet
tend
orf
295
295
Yes
69,5
3350
,000
NE
BIT
$1,2
90
23N
W IA
Tec
hC
oilc
raft,
Inc.
DA
CU
M T
rain
ing
- de
velo
p a
curr
icul
um fo
r
ongo
ing
trai
ning
and
job
task
ana
lysi
s.
Haw
arde
n23
414
2Y
es54
,392
50,0
00N
A
24K
irkw
ood
Tho
mas
& B
etts
Cor
p.Jo
b ta
sk in
vent
ory,
Sta
tistic
al P
roce
ss C
ontr
ol
tool
s, tr
aini
ng tr
aine
rs.
Iow
a C
ity14
985
Yes
292,
600
50,0
00N
A
25Io
wa
Lake
sIA
Lak
es R
esor
tS
uper
viso
ry tr
aini
ng, c
usto
mer
ser
vice
trai
ning
.A
rnol
ds P
ark
300
256
No
18,4
1818
,319
NA
Con
sort
ium
26Io
wa
Lake
sLa
kes
Are
a B
usin
ess
Sta
tistic
al P
roce
ss C
ontr
ol.
Spi
rit L
ake/
Mi
544
544
No
184,
266
50,0
00C
DB
G$6
0,00
0
Con
sort
ium
Qua
lity
Coa
litio
n$5
,000
Pro
duct
ivity
Enh
ance
men
t$4
,110
27K
irkw
ood
CR
ST
, Inc
.T
rain
trai
ners
.C
edar
Rap
ids
350
350
Yes
32,0
0020
,000
2808
$100
,000
28In
dian
Hill
sF
airf
ield
Alu
min
umM
etho
ds fo
r ac
hiev
ing
wor
ld c
lass
tota
lF
airf
ield
782
10N
o52
,029
50,0
0028
05$8
95,0
00
Cas
tings
,
Roc
kwel
l,
Lund
,
Shi
vver
s
prod
uctiv
e m
aint
enan
ce.
Fai
rfie
ld
Ottu
mw
a
Cor
ydon
NE
BIT
$22,
302
29D
MA
CC
Car
roll
Man
ufac
turin
g,S
tatis
tical
Pro
cess
Con
trol
, res
pira
tor
trai
ning
,C
arro
ll81
77N
o58
,712
36,3
5428
08$4
6,67
1
Sto
ne P
rintin
gha
zard
com
mun
icat
ion
team
pro
blem
-sol
ving
CE
BA
$35,
000
SB
A L
oan
$105
,000
34LF
B:G
:\Pro
ject
s\R
etra
inP
age
7
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
Job
Ret
rain
ing
Pro
gram
Com
mun
ityC
olle
geB
usin
ess
Typ
e of
Pro
ject
City
# of
Em
ploy
ees
Incr
ease
Avg
.
Hou
rly W
age
Afte
rT
rain
ing
Bus
ines
sIn
vest
Sta
teA
war
d
Oth
er J
ob T
rain
ing
Aw
ards
Nam
e of
Tot
alP
rogr
ams
Am
ount
Tot
alR
etra
ined
30Io
wa
Wes
tern
Pax
ton
&
Vie
rling
Ste
el
Sta
tistic
al P
roce
ss C
ontr
ol, t
eam
pro
blem
-
solv
ing
tech
niqu
es, a
pplie
d pr
blem
sol
ving
.
Car
ter
Lake
181
90N
o95
,895
42,6
96N
A
31In
dian
Hill
sC
orpo
rate
Ed
Res
ourc
eM
icro
soft
Win
dow
s pr
ogra
m tr
aini
ng.
Fai
rfie
ld57
15N
o21
,920
16,4
76N
A
Fai
rfie
ld S
oftw
are
Inc.
,
Adv
ance
d In
fo M
gmt
Fai
rfie
ld
Fai
rfie
ld
32Io
wa
Cen
tral
Bag
el W
orks
Spe
cial
ized
mac
hine
spe
cific
ope
ratio
n tr
aini
ng.
Ells
wor
th16
16N
o16
,913
14,4
16N
A
33Io
wa
Cen
tral
Ark
o La
bora
torie
sS
p9ci
lized
trai
ning
in fe
rmen
tatio
n, fr
eeze
dry
ing,
EU
SA
test
ing
and
man
agem
ent s
kills
.
Jew
ell
99
No
52,8
4032
,096
NA
34K
irkw
ood
Pro
ctor
& G
ambl
eB
asic
ele
ctric
ity, p
ower
dis
trib
utio
n sy
stem
s,
mot
or a
pplic
atio
ns.
Iow
a C
ity70
317
Yes
106,
479
50,0
00N
A
35K
irkw
ood
Pep
co L
itho
Inc.
Sta
tistic
al P
roce
ss C
ontr
ol, t
eam
wor
k, p
roce
ss
impr
ovem
ent t
echn
ique
s an
d T
otal
Qua
lity
Ced
ar R
apid
s34
34N
o57
,145
25,0
00N
A
Man
agem
ent.
36S
outh
Eas
tern
The
Dia
l Cor
pora
tion
Tot
al Q
ualit
y M
anag
emen
t for
a w
orld
cla
ss
envi
ronm
ent.
For
t Mad
ison
625
70N
o16
0,30
046
,860
NA
37D
MA
CC
John
Dee
reC
ompu
ter
skill
s in
stru
ctio
n.D
es M
oine
s1,
517
403
No
65,1
7550
,000
NA
Des
Moi
nes
Wor
ks
38D
MA
CC
Pire
lli A
rmst
rong
Tire
Erg
onom
ic tr
aini
ng fo
cuse
d on
avo
idin
g
cum
ulat
ive
trau
ma
diso
rder
s &
des
ign
tool
s to
prev
ent i
t.
Des
Moi
nes
1,08
51,
035
No
61,0
0050
,000
NA
39N
W IA
Tec
hH
arva
rd In
dust
ries
Sta
ndar
dize
d tr
aini
ng o
f scr
ew m
achi
ne
oper
atio
n an
d tr
ain
trai
ners
.
Roc
k V
alle
y71
71N
o9,
786
9,78
6N
A
40D
MA
CC
Don
nelly
Mar
ketin
gT
rain
trai
ners
In P
C a
pplic
atio
ns &
sof
twar
e
utili
zatio
n.
Nev
ada
314
181
No
32,0
1015
,846
NA
41D
MA
CC
Ste
elW
orks
, Inc
.S
tatis
tcia
l Pro
cess
Con
trol
, tea
m p
robl
em-
solv
ing.
Des
Moi
nes
152
90N
o48
,911
25,5
20N
A
LFB
:G: \
Pro
ject
s \ R
etra
inP
age
8
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
MIL
ILE
Job
Ret
rain
ing
Pro
gram
*C
omm
unity
Col
lege
Bus
ines
sT
ype
of P
roje
ct
# of
Em
ploy
ees
Incr
ease
Avg
.
Hou
rly W
age
Afte
rT
rain
ing
Bus
ines
s
inve
st.
Sta
b%
Aw
ard
Oth
er J
ob T
rain
ing
Aw
ards
Nam
e of
Pro
gram
s
Tot
al
$ A
mou
ntC
ityT
otal
Ret
rain
ed
42H
awke
ye T
ech
Vik
ing
Pum
pS
tatis
tical
Pro
cess
Con
trol
, PC
Usa
ge,
supe
rvis
ory
deve
lopm
ent.
Ced
ar F
alls
770
243
No
53,5
7734
,023
NA
43N
W IA
Tec
hN
OB
L La
bora
torie
sT
ape
trai
ning
ses
sion
s on
bio
logi
cal w
ork.
Sio
ux C
ente
r21
21N
o9,
152
4,46
4N
A
44N
W IA
Tec
hN
OB
L La
bora
torie
sT
ape
trai
ning
ses
sion
s on
bio
logi
cal w
ork.
Sio
ux C
ente
r21
20N
o9,
152,
4,46
4N
A
45S
outh
Eas
tern
Haw
keye
Ste
el P
dts
Sta
tistic
al P
roce
ss C
ontr
ol.
Hou
ghto
n11
770
Yes
23,0
6012
,757
Car
l Per
kins
$1,8
00
46Io
wa
Val
ley
Mon
fort
Tot
al Q
ualit
y M
anag
emen
tM
arsh
allto
wn
1,23
715
0Y
es55
,296
50,0
00N
A
47H
awke
ye T
ech
John
Dee
reA
sses
smen
t, ba
sic
asse
mbl
y, c
ompu
ter
conc
epts
.W
ater
loo
1,00
013
0N
o38
7,50
050
,000
Car
l Per
kins
$35,
566
Ret
rain
ing
$100
,000
48N
IAC
CW
hite
-New
Idea
Man
ufac
turin
g re
quire
men
ts p
lann
ing.
Cha
rles
City
630
60N
o85
,390
50,0
00N
A
49K
irkw
ood
Cur
ries
Com
pany
Man
agem
ent,
cust
omer
ser
vice
, pro
duct
ion,
Mas
on C
ity49
186
No
64,8
7850
,000
280B
$565
.000
orde
r en
try
and
proc
essi
ng.
Car
l Per
kins
$6,2
52
50Io
wa
Cen
tral
Um
than
Tru
ckin
gT
echn
ical
ser
vice
s, c
omm
erci
al d
river
s lic
ense
,
supe
rvis
ory
skill
s.
Eag
le G
rove
428
251
No
83,7
4234
,940
NA
51Io
wa
Val
ley
Gen
pak
Sta
tistic
al p
roce
ss c
ontr
ol, p
rintin
g.Io
wa
Fal
ls10
032
No
25,5
3625
,417
NA
52W
. Iow
a T
ech.
VT
Indu
strie
sQ
ualit
y an
d pr
oduc
tivity
trai
ning
.H
olst
ein
202
101
No
19,2
1911
,819
NA
53W
. Iow
a T
ech.
Mid
wes
t Ind
ustie
sE
rgno
mic
s tr
aini
ngId
a G
rove
163
120
No
14,0
0012
,500
Ret
rain
ing
$50,
000
54W
. Iow
a T
ech.
Tur
Pak
Foo
dsE
rgon
omic
s tr
aini
ng.
Sio
ux C
ity32
032
0N
o38
,635
38,3
3028
08$3
1,00
0
FY
199
1 T
otal
:7,
620
$4,
245,
672
$ 1,
816,
021
Gra
nd T
otal
:13
,259
$11
,341
,203
$ 3,
337,
083
a.J'
LFB
:G: \
Pro
ject
s \ R
etra
inP
age
9a
0
NO
TE
S:
1) N
A =
Not
app
licab
le, n
ot a
vaila
ble,
or
not e
nter
ed o
n th
e R
etra
inin
g A
pplic
atio
n.
2) 2
80B
= T
he Io
wa
Indu
stria
l New
Job
s T
rain
ing
Pro
gram
.
3) N
EB
IT =
The
fede
rally
fund
ed N
ew a
nd E
xist
ing
Bus
ines
s an
d In
dust
ry T
rain
ing
oper
ated
thru
the
Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
catio
n.
4) C
EB
A =
The
Com
mun
ity E
cono
mic
Bet
term
ent A
ccou
nt.
5) S
BA
= T
he U
nite
d S
tate
s S
mal
l Bus
ines
s A
dmin
istr
atio
n.
6) C
MG
= T
he fe
dera
lly fu
nded
Com
mun
ity D
evel
opm
ent B
lock
Gra
nt.
7) J
TP
A =
The
fede
rally
fund
ed J
ob T
rain
ing
Par
tner
ship
Act
.
8) F
RE
D =
The
Fun
ding
Rur
al E
cono
mic
Dev
elop
men
t Pro
gram
fund
ed fr
om th
e Io
wa
Com
mun
ity D
evel
opm
ent L
oan
Pro
gram
.
9) C
arl P
erki
ns =
Fed
eral
fund
s fo
r vo
catio
nal e
duca
tion.
LFB
:G: \
Pro
ject
s \ R
etra
inP
age
10
Appendix C
- 17 -
42
JOB
RE
TR
AIN
ING
PR
OG
RA
M C
OM
MU
NIT
Y C
OLL
EG
E S
UR
VE
Y
Col
lege
Bus
ines
sC
ity
Par
ticip
ants
Ent
erin
g
Ret
rain
ing
Par
ticip
ants
Com
plet
ing
Ref
rain
ing
DE
R
Eva
luat
ion
Inte
rnet
Evo
lust
ion
App
licat
ion
Fos
Tra
inin
g
Cas
t
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
151
(fl)
cmcm
eles
iew
eren
wsm
en
V' 1
990
DM
AC
CA
MA
TC
OJo
hnst
on19
In P
rogr
ess
Mon
adP
lann
ed$1
,100
$30,
413
DM
AC
CB
ridge
ston
ofF
irest
one
Des
Moi
nes
79in
Pro
gres
sP
lann
edP
lann
ed*1
,500
$50,
000
DM
AC
CC
arro
ll M
anuf
actu
ring
Car
rel
23in
Pro
gram
Pla
nned
Pla
nned
$1,5
00*4
9,75
0
DM
AC
CC
omm
erci
al P
rintin
gD
as M
oine
seo
In P
rogr
ess
Pla
nned
Pla
nned
$700
*21,
250
DM
AC
CD
olm
anD
es M
oine
s44
945
1Y
esY
es$1
,500
$50,
000
DM
AC
CE
cono
my
Dat
aD
es M
oine
s30
30Y
esY
es$7
00$1
5,55
0
DM
AC
CG
reyh
ound
Lbw
sD
es M
oine
sP
roje
ct d
enie
d by
Com
mun
ity C
olle
ge B
oard
of D
iract
ors.
DM
AC
CIM
T In
sura
nce
Des
Moi
nes
Pro
ject
pro
posa
l with
draw
n by
IMT
Insu
ranc
e.
DM
AC
CJo
hn D
eere
Ank
eny
427
800
Yes
Yes
*1,5
00*5
0,00
0
low
s W
este
rnJ.
P. I
ndus
trie
sA
tlant
ic28
020
0Y
esY
es$0
NA
Eas
tern
low
sA
koa
Riv
erda
le10
2In
Pro
gres
sN
oN
o*1
,500
$0
Eas
tern
Iow
aJo
hn D
ave
Dav
enpo
rt30
018
3N
oY
es$1
,500
*18,
000
WW
I:Io
wa
Mar
ley
Pum
pD
aven
port
8484
No
Yes
$8,5
00$4
3,97
5
Eas
tern
low
sQ
uad
City
Tin
esD
aven
port
2222
No
No
*1,5
00$0
Haw
key'
Tec
hJo
hn D
eers
Wat
erlo
o38
38Y
esY
es$1
,500
*8,0
00
How
keys
Tec
hK
oshr
ing
Cra
nes
Wav
erly
154
In P
rogr
ess
Yes
Pla
nned
$1,5
00*2
,500
Haw
k ly
e T
ech
Ous
mac
oW
inth
rop
11In
Pro
gres
sY
esP
lann
ed15
00$0
App
licat
ion
Fee
and
Adm
inis
trat
ive
Fes
An
expl
anat
ion
of C
olum
ns 4
-8 a
ppea
rs o
n th
e la
st p
egs.
4 3
LFB
:CC
Sur
vey
Pag
e 1
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
44
JOB
RE
TR
AIN
ING
PR
OG
RA
M C
OM
MU
NIT
Y C
OLL
EG
E S
UR
VE
Y
Par
tkip
ents
Ent
erin
g
Par
ticip
ants
Coo
l 111
011
DE
R
Eve
lind
en
Into
rno,
Eva
luat
ion
P4a
pika
tion
Fee
Tra
inin
g
Cos
t
Col
lege
Bus
ines
sC
ityR
etra
inin
gR
etra
inin
g
ft)f2
)(3
)(4
)(5
)(3
)(7
)(8
)
esw
erw
anw
ams
(3)
Haw
key.
Tec
hT
riang
le P
last
ics
Win
thro
p10
0in
Pro
gram
sY
esP
lann
ed*1
,500
$12,
325
Indi
an H
ills
Fai
rfie
ld A
lum
inum
Foi
rfie
ld13
8In
Nov
asP
lann
edP
lann
ed$5
00N
A
Indi
an H
ills
John
Dea
rsO
ttum
a48
in P
rogr
ess
Pla
nned
Pla
nned
$1,5
00N
A
Indi
an R
R:
Roc
kwel
l Int
erna
tiona
lF
airf
ield
287
In P
rogr
ess
Pla
nned
Pla
nned
$1,5
00N
A
Iow
a C
ontr
olLa
nd 0
' Lak
esF
ort D
odge
298
In P
rogr
ess
Mon
adP
lann
ed$1
,500
$0
Iow
a C
ontr
olW
C! L
aund
ryW
ebst
er C
ity29
8in
Pro
gres
sP
lann
edP
lann
ed$1
,500
$0
Iow
a V
alle
yC
onso
rtiu
m (
Fis
her
Con
trol
s,
KIO
WA
, & C
oope
r
Mar
shal
ltow
n
low
s V
alle
y
Man
ufac
turin
g)
Whe
eler
Con
solid
ated
Iow
a F
ells
low
s V
alle
y C
omm
unity
Col
lege
did
not
res
pond
to th
e S
urve
y.
Kirk
woo
dC
onso
rtiu
m (
Cas
cade
Die
Mol
d,
Man
uf. S
peci
altie
s In
c., °
rol,
Squ
are
D C
ompa
ny)
Mon
ticel
lo,
Mus
catin
e,
Ced
ar R
apid
s
Kirk
woo
d C
omm
unity
Col
lage
did
not
res
pond
to th
e S
urve
y.
Kirk
woo
dP
onia
rd P
rodu
cts
Cod
er R
apid
s
Kirk
woo
dQ
uoko
r O
ats
Cod
er R
apid
s
Kirk
woo
dU
TA
Iow
a C
ity
NE
ICC
Has
ten]
Dub
uque
349
417
Pla
nned
Yes
$500
NA
NE
ICC
John
Dee
reD
ubuq
ue32
010
9P
lann
edY
oe$5
00N
A
NIA
CC
Eat
onB
eim
ond
288
In P
rogr
ess
Yes
No
$0N
A
NIA
CC
Fis
etgu
ord
Lake
Min
a52
0In
Pro
gres
sY
esN
o$0
$31,
000
NW
IA T
abH
arva
rd In
dust
ries
Roc
k V
alle
y21
521
5Y
esY
es$5
00N
A
NW
IA T
ech
IfPro
duct
sO
rang
e C
ity20
920
9Y
esY
es$5
00N
A
LFB
:CC
Sur
vey
Pag
e 2
4645
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
MA
RE
JON
RE
TR
AIN
ING
PR
OG
RA
M C
OM
MU
NIT
Y C
OLL
EG
E S
UR
VE
Y
Col
lege
Bus
ines
sC
ity
Par
ticip
ants
Ent
erin
g
Ret
rain
ing
Par
ticip
ants
Cam
p M
IN
Ret
rain
ing
DE
D
Eva
luat
ion
infe
rnal
Eva
luat
ion
App
licat
ion
Fee
Tra
inin
g
Cos
t
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(1)
(6)
(9)
Sou
th E
aste
rnD
upon
tF
art M
adis
on29
1lti
Pro
gres
sP
isna
edN
s$1
,000
$0
Sou
th E
aste
rnG
rryh
ound
Dia
lF
ort M
adis
on48
In P
rogr
ess
Ple
nned
No
$1,5
00$0
W. l
aws
Tec
h.M
idw
est I
ndus
trie
sId
a G
rove
102
102
Yes
Yes
61,5
00*5
0.00
0
DM
AC
CA
CM
E P
rintin
gD
as M
oine
s60
In P
rogr
ess
Plu
med
Pla
nned
*900
*18,
480
DM
AC
CB
ridge
ston
e, F
irest
one
Das
Moi
nes
91In
Pro
gres
sP
lann
edP
lann
ed*"
i00
$50,
000
DM
AC
CC
arro
ll M
anuf
actu
ring,
Sto
neC
arro
ll
Prin
ting
77In
Pro
gres
sP
lann
edP
lann
ed*1
,500
$38,
354
DM
AC
CD
elev
enW
. Das
Moi
nes
472
In P
rogr
ess
Pla
nned
Ple
nned
$1,5
00$5
0,00
0
DM
AC
CE
cono
my
Dol
esD
es M
oine
s40
In P
rogr
ess
Pla
nned
Pla
nned
$800
*18,
443
DM
AC
CJo
hn D
eem
Ank
eny
110
In P
rogr
ess
Pla
nned
Pla
nned
$1,5
00$5
0,00
0
DM
AC
CJo
hn D
eers
Cre
dit S
ervi
ces
Des
Moi
nes
100
In P
rogr
ess
Pla
nned
Pla
nned
$1,5
00$5
0,00
0
DM
AC
CK
erlin
Indu
strie
sD
es M
oine
s12
3In
Pro
gres
sP
lann
edP
lann
ed$1
,500
$50,
000
DM
AC
CLi
brar
y B
indi
ngD
es M
oine
s70
In P
rogr
ess
Pla
nned
Pla
nned
*850
*13,
780
DM
AC
CLo
rtex
Des
*lif
t!!23
in P
rogr
ess
Pla
nned
Pla
nned
$800
$15,
565
DM
AC
CD
usk
Des
Moi
nes
80In
Pro
gres
sP
lann
edP
lann
ed$9
00$2
4,07
7
LFB
:CC
Sur
vey
Pro
3
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
48
JOB
RE
TR
AIN
ING
PR
OG
RA
M C
OM
MU
NIT
Y C
OLL
EG
E S
UR
VE
Y
Col
lege
Bus
ines
sC
ity
Par
ticip
ants
Ent
erin
g
Ret
rain
ing
Par
ticip
ants
Com
piet
ing
Ret
rain
ing
DE
O
Eva
luat
ion
Inte
rnal
Eva
luat
ion
App
licat
ion
he
Tra
inin
g
Cas
t
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
15)
MI
(7)
PR
'P
A
1111
1111
1110
1111
11M
111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
0111
Eas
tern
Iow
aC
orm
, Inc
.C
hnte
n45
in P
ragr
ess
No
Yea
$7,3
00*
*44,
450
Eas
tern
low
sS
hyer
Sto
ol C
orp.
Bet
tand
orf
295
in P
rogr
ess
Na
Yes
*8,0
00*
$40,
850
Haw
keyo
Tec
hB
leck
lune
k E
ngin
eerin
gC
edar
Fah
20In
Pro
gres
sY
esP
lann
ed$1
,000
83,7
70
Haw
key'
Tec
h
low
s C
entr
al
John
Dee
re
Pos
ited
Wat
erlo
o
Laur
ens
35
No
resp
onse
on
the
Sur
rey
In P
rogr
ess
Yes
Pla
nned
$1,0
00$9
,600
low
s C
entr
alIA
lake
s R
esor
t Con
sort
ium
Arn
old:
Por
k24
1In
Pro
gres
sP
lann
edP
lann
ed$0
NA
Iow
a la
kes
Lake
s B
usin
ess
Con
sort
ium
Spl
it la
kelM
iford
241
In P
rogr
ess
Pla
nned
Pla
nned
$0N
A
Indi
an H
ills
Rub
berm
aid
Cen
terv
ille
227
In P
rogr
ess
Pla
nned
Pla
nned
$4,5
45N
A
Indi
an H
ills
Fai
rfie
ld A
lum
inum
Cas
ting:
Roc
kwel
l, Lu
nd, S
hisv
ors
Fai
rfie
ld, O
ttum
we,
Cor
ydon
10In
Pro
gres
sP
lann
edP
lann
ed$4
,545
NA
Iow
a W
este
rnF
utur
e F
oam
Cou
ncl B
luffs
8886
Yes
Yes
$0N
A
low
s W
este
rnO
wen
Indu
strie
sC
arte
r la
ke90
90Y
esY
es$0
NA
Kirk
woo
dC
RS
T, I
nc.
Ced
ar R
apid
sK
irkw
ood
Com
mun
ity C
olle
ge d
id n
ot r
espo
nd to
the
Sur
vey.
Kirk
woo
dD
AD
Man
ufac
turin
gC
edar
Rap
ids
Kirk
woo
dN
oran
dC
ider
Rap
ids
App
licat
ion
Flo
end
Adm
inis
trat
ive
Fee
4 9
5 0
LFB
:CC
Sur
vey
Pag
e 4
BE
ST
CO
PY
MIL
AB
LE
JOB
RE
TR
AIN
ING
PR
OG
RA
M C
OM
MU
NIT
Y C
OLL
EG
E S
UR
VE
Y
Col
lege
lusi
rwat
City
Par
ticip
ants
Ent
erin
g
Ret
rain
ing
hrtle
lpor
ts
Com
plet
ing
Ret
rain
ing
OM
Eva
luat
ion
Inte
rnal
Eva
luat
ion
App
lind
en
Fee
Tra
inin
g
Cos
t
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(1)
(8)
(5)
Kirk
woo
dR
ural
Con
sort
ium
(K
napp
Ced
er R
apid
s
Cro
ok, R
abbi
try.
Elio
Des
igns
,
Hei
rloom
Bas
kets
, Ker
slak
e
Fm
k P
od 0
' Joh
nny,
Hox
Hol
low
Ham
s, C
ount
ry
Blo
omer
s, W
apsi
Woo
ds
Gar
dens
, &F
airf
ax M
arke
t &
Sm
ithey
*K
irkw
ood
Com
mun
ity C
olle
ge d
id n
ot r
espo
nd to
the
Sur
vey.
Kirk
woo
dT
hom
as &
Bet
ts C
orp.
Iow
a C
ity
Kirk
woo
dW
eyer
haeu
ser
Pap
er C
o.C
edar
Rap
ids
NW
IA T
ech
Cok
reft,
Inc.
Haw
arde
n14
214
2Y
esY
es$5
00$5
6,31
2
Sou
th E
aste
rnS
heaf
fsas
ton
For
t Med
ian
512
In P
rogr
ess
Pla
nned
No
$500
$0
NO
TE
S:
NA
Not
mai
labl
e, n
et o
ppic
eble
, or
no r
espo
nse
on th
e su
rvey
.
Col
umn
4: B
y re
trai
ning
cen
tred
, the
num
ber
of p
artic
ipan
ts e
nrol
led
in th
e re
trai
ning
pro
ject
or
the
actu
al n
umbe
r of
part
icip
ants
whi
ch w
ere
intie
lly e
nrol
led
in th
e P
rogr
am.
Col
umn
5: B
y re
trai
ning
con
trac
t, th
e nu
mbe
r of
par
ticip
ents
com
plet
ing
the
ram
blin
g pr
ojec
t.
Col
umn
6: D
id th
e D
epar
tmen
t of E
cono
mic
Dev
elop
men
t (D
EW
req
uest
an
eval
uatio
n of
the
retr
aini
ng p
roje
ct?
Col
umn
1: O
ther
then
the
OE
D s
alva
tion
in C
olum
n 6,
did
the
com
mun
ity c
olle
ge p
erfo
rm e
n ev
olue
tion
of th
ere
trai
ning
pro
ject
?
Col
umn
8: B
y re
trai
ning
con
trac
t, th
e 'm
ount
of t
he e
pphc
atio
n fe
e fo
r th
e fe
min
ine
mitt
cha
rged
to th
e bu
sine
ssby
the
com
mun
ity c
olle
ge.
Col
umn
9: T
he to
tal c
ost o
f tra
inin
g ch
orgs
d to
the
empl
oyer
if th
e tr
aini
ng is
con
duct
ed b
y th
e co
mm
unity
col
lege
.
r
LFB
:CC
Sur
vey
Pag
e 5
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
Appendix D
- 19 -
TERRY E. BRANSTAD, GOVERNOR
July 15, 1991
Dennis F outy, DirectorLegislative Fiscal BureauState CapitolLOCAL
Dear Mr. Prouty:
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTALLAN T. THOMS, DIRECTOR
The Department of Economic Development has received a draft copyof the Legislative Fiscal Bureau's evaluation of the Iowaretraining Program. We appreciate the thoroughness of the LFBstaff in reviewing this complex program, and we generally agreewith their findings and recommendations. Our responses to thespecific recommendations listed on pages 13 and 14 follow.
1. The Department agrees.
2. The Department currently receives informal, verbalprojections from community college personnel regardingRetraining activity throughout the year. We would certainlyconsider more formal methods of notification, and willpursue this matter with the community colleges.
3. The Department has noted that some quality of job issues arenot readily quantifiable, such as when employees are givenownership in their positions, and their morale andproductivity therefore improves. More importantly, we wouldlike to point out that criteria "C" is defined in thelegislation and does include criteria which are objective innature. This definition refers to turnover, dollar value ofwages, full-time vs. part-time, etc.
4. The Department agrees with this recommendation and plans toexamine alternative mechanisms for serving very smallcompanies.
5. The Department agrees with this recommendation and willpursue it further with the Department of Education,
54
200 EAST GRAND / DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 / 515/242-4700 / FAX: 515/242-4859
6. The Department feels that because the types of training thatare undertaken are so diverse, it would be unfeasible torequire a single evaluation form suitable to all projects.However, we will attempt to identify some common elementsthat can be included in all evaluations.
7. The Department agrees with this recommendation.
There are several other items in the report that bear comment,although most are simply clarifications:
Program Operations at IDED
Page 2 - We would like to elaborate on the composition ofthe Retraining Review Committee. The review committeeinitially consisted of seven members. Six members wereDepartment staff, selected from various work units includingWorkforce Development, Business Development & FinancialAssistance, and Existing Industry. The other member was arepresentative of the Department of Education. Currently,four Department staff independently review the applicationsand the entire committee meets to discuss problematicapplications. In addition, the full committee meets on aquarterly basis to provide oversight and ensure consistencyfor the application review process.
Page three mentions the fees charged by the colleges toparticipating companies for application preparation andadministrative purposes. We wish to note that not allcolleges charge both fees. Some colleges may charge only anapplication fee, while others may only charge anadministrative fee.
IDED Staff Concerns and Recommendations
On page 6, it is mentioned that IDED seeks an improvedrelationship with the community colleges with regard to overcommitting their funds. We actually believe that this issueis due to the limited funds available for the program, whichleads some community colleges to deliberately staggerproject applications so that they cross fiscal years,especially as the March 1 reallocation deadline approaches.
The final paragraph under the same category, the Departmentquestions whether the term "competition" represents thecause of the matter. We do see the need to work inconjunction with the community colleges and the Departmentof Education to better coordinate courses and programsoffered by the various colleges.
Results of Survey Of/And Interviews With Community College Staff
Application Procedure
Page 7 - The Department acknowledges that delays occurred inapproving applications and executing contracts during thefirst several months of actual implementation due to theneed to develop sound procedures, contract formats, andensure common understanding of policies among all thoseinvolved with the program. Since this time, however, wehave implemented a more streamlined review process whichresults in determinations being made within two weeks, andoften within one week. We have achieved this time frameconsistently except for the period during the Spring of 1991when we received an abnormal number of applications justprior to the March 1 reallocation deadline and weresimultaneously awaiting the results of deappropriationsproposals.
Please note that the review criteria reflect therequirements set forth in the Code of Iowa, so we cannotunilaterally simplify them. We will, however, continue toreview with the community colleges, businesses, laborofficials, and other interested parties on an on-goingbasis, all aspects on the program with a view towardcontinually improving the program.
Award Notification
Page 8 - The Department makes the final determinationregarding project awards to business applicants. TheDepartment either notifies the business directly with anaward letter (and sends a copy to the college), or theDepartment sends the award letter to the college, which inturn distributes the letter to the business (three collegeshave requested this process). The community college boardof directors approves the college's business selections forinternal purposes, however,, the board does not give finalaward approval once the application has been submitted tothe Department.
vb
Results of Survey of Business Participants
Recommended Program Modifications
The Department has recently completed a brochure regardingthe Retraining Program, among others. This brochure iscurrently being distributed in an effort to better informall Iowa firms about all of the State's training programs.
I hope this letter proves to be a helpful addition to the reportprepared by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. If there are anyquestions concerning it, please call Jeff Nall, Administrator ofthe Division of Workforce Development at 242-4779.
Sincerely,
Allan T. ThornsDirector
