Apprenticeship Listening Funding Session 2

Executive summary

California’s Employment Training Panel (ETP) held its second and final listening session on how to allocate apprenticeship funding. Staff presented survey results and four possible allocation models, then gathered stakeholder comments. The discussion centered on balancing fairness and workforce demand with support for established apprenticeship programs, while ensuring that allocation rules are transparent and administratively workable.

The subcommittee said it would develop a recommendation for the full panel, with a target of bringing it to the April panel meeting. Staff expected roughly four weeks of work following the session.

Survey and allocation models

• The survey was sent to roughly 250 stakeholders; the presentation also referenced 57 responses out of 221. A commenter raised concerns about the relatively small response count.
• Survey topics included stakeholder and program characteristics, apprentice counts, priorities for equitable funding, and preferred models. Write-in responses mentioned per-apprentice funding, performance, program size, priority groups, new programs, workforce needs, and regional factors.
• The four models presented were:
  1. Symmetrical scaling: Apply the same proportional reduction to eligible funding requests so total awards fit the available funding.
  2. Per-apprentice base rate: Fund based on a flat rate per registered apprentice, potentially with a cap and adjustments for program size. The discussion also raised how one sponsor’s multiple occupations or programs would be handled.
  3. Established and emerging program pools: Divide funding between established, historically performing programs and newer or emerging programs.
  4. Established-program and workforce-demand pools: Scale funding by trade for established programs, while directing a separate pool toward state or regional workforce demand.

Main operating and policy issues

• Transparency: Several stakeholders urged ETP to publish the funding formula, eligibility rules, and rationale, and to communicate how the formula was developed. They said unclear allocation processes undermine confidence.
• Program size and caps: Some speakers argued that equal awards can treat programs with very different apprentice populations unfairly. Suggestions included small, medium, and large program tiers, with caps or adjusted funding levels. One commenter suggested that most JATCs have fewer than 100 apprentices and proposed considering 500 or more as a possible “very large” threshold. These were suggestions, not agreed criteria.
• Umbrella sponsors and multiple trades: Stakeholders differed on whether a sponsor should receive one contract covering multiple programs or separate contracts for each occupation. One possible approach was a single contract listing eligible trades and apprentice counts, with minimum program-size requirements and safeguards against excessive duplicate awards.
• Rural and regional conditions: A speaker noted that a canceled project can have a more severe employment impact in rural areas, where alternative work may be limited. This supported considering regional conditions, workforce demand, and potentially more flexible retention treatment for small programs.
• Apprenticeship quality and scope: Traditional apprenticeship representatives emphasized employment-linked training, classroom instruction combined with on-the-job training, good wages and benefits, and a pathway to sustained work. Some cautioned against treating short-term training or job-preparation programs as equivalent to apprenticeship. Others argued that emerging sectors and populations need dedicated investment to broaden access.
• Journey-level and pre-apprentice training: Several traditional-program representatives supported including journey-level training—such as safety, recertification, and new-technology instruction—in apprenticeship funding. One also advocated for pre-apprentice training. Other comments questioned whether apprenticeship dollars should be limited to apprentices, particularly given the limited funding pool.
• Performance and verification: Suggested measures included whether programs earn their awarded funds, meet wage requirements, and result in employment and retention. ETP staff noted that employment and retention are already part of its requirements. The session also discussed using apprentice-count data from the Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS), but stakeholders cited delays and cumbersome data entry; some favored program reporting or additional verification instead.

Stakeholder positions and examples

• Option 2 (per-apprentice rate) drew support from several traditional apprenticeship representatives, often with proposed changes: account for multiple trades under an umbrella sponsor, consider journey-level training, define caps carefully, and make the formula public.
• Option 4 (state/regional workforce demand) was supported by representatives focused on expanding apprenticeship into emerging sectors and underserved regions.
• Option 3 (established and emerging program pools) was supported by the International Rescue Committee representative, who emphasized targeted access investments for refugees and other new American job seekers.
• A proposed variation was to use Option 2 for traditional programs and a separate pool or approach for newer programs. Another speaker suggested a hybrid of Options 1 and 2: establish a baseline funding level, then provide an additional pool for larger programs.
• A consultant speaking for traditional JATCs said that historically 25% of funding had been allocated to traditional apprenticeship programs. The speaker cited an overall cap of about $850,000 and a recent individual award cap of $362,000 as evidence of competition for funds.
• Local 39 (Stationary Engineers): Its training director said the program serves a little over 300 apprentices, graduates more than 60 apprentices per year from a four-year program, and operates six schools. He argued that larger programs with substantial operating demands should not receive the same allocation as programs just starting up.
• NorCal Carpenters: A representative cited 362 apprentices across programs submitted under an umbrella structure and favored a per-apprentice approach that recognizes eligible programs within the umbrella.
• UA Local 483 (Sprinkler Fitters): Its training director described coverage across nine counties, about 140 apprentices (down from roughly 300 when work was stronger), and about 700 journey-level members. He said roughly 85% of training activity was funded through the union and agreement rather than ETP, and described ETP funds as supporting additional equipment, classes, and training capacity.
• International Rescue Committee: Representatives said the organization had served more than 30,000 people through California workforce programs over ten years. One described resettling more than 9,000 Afghan clients since 2021 and 250 recent arrivals; another said 43% of the population served had a high level of English. They emphasized bridge programs, vocational English, and other supports to help clients access apprenticeship pathways.
• Several traditional-program representatives said apprenticeship funding should support programs that provide a clear employment pathway, rather than short programs without comparable job outcomes.

Action points raised

• Publish a clear, repeatable funding formula and communicate how it was developed.
• Model the effects of per-apprentice rates, program-size tiers, caps, and separate pools before adopting an approach.
• Define how umbrella sponsors, multiple occupations, and minimum eligible program sizes will be treated.
• Determine which population counts qualify for funding: apprentices only, or also pre-apprentices and journey-level workers.
• Assess reliable ways to verify active apprentice counts, including the limitations and timing issues of DAS records.
• Consider performance criteria that are measurable and feasible for ETP to administer, while recognizing existing employment and retention requirements.
• Consider whether different funding approaches are needed for established programs and emerging sectors.

Presenters and sources

The presentation was delivered by Willie Atkinson, Assessment and Programs Manager, with Michelle Irwin, Program Projects Manager, credited for contributing to the presentation. The session was chaired by the apprenticeship-funding subcommittee; the roll call named Rebecca Bettencourt, Gretchen Newsome, and Jennifer Fothergill (the auto-generated transcript renders some names inconsistently).

Other staff named in the opening included Executive Director Jessica Grimes, Assistant Director and Senior Advisor Peter Cooper, Assistant Director and Chief Counsel Kumani Armstrong, and staff member Stefan.

Public comments came from Cami Peer (NextGen California and Apprenticeships for America), Kelly Greer (Strategy Workplace Communication), Matt Frediani (Stationary Engineers Local 39), Tony Hernandez (NorCal Carpenters), Christine Hall (Western Electrical Contractors Association), Alex Beltran (Finishing Trades Institute of Northern California and Nevada Trust), Jana Mann and Kendra Mitchell (International Rescue Committee), Latimer Batat (Batat Advisories), and Steven Miles (Sprinkler Fitters UA Local 483).

Written comments were also noted from Yvonne Grant (International Prediabetes Center, Inc.) and Justin Miller (Healthcare Integrated Services), plus one late submission whose author was not identified in the transcript.