ETP Apprenticeship Funding Listening Session 1

Purpose and process

The California Employment Training Panel (ETP) convened the first of two listening sessions to gather stakeholder feedback on how apprenticeship funding could be distributed more equitably.

ETP staff presented four possible allocation models for public comment. No decisions or action items were made; the input will inform a subcommittee recommendation to the full panel.

Staff surveyed 221 apprenticeship stakeholders; 57 responded. The survey included eight questions: four about respondent and program characteristics, and four about funding. Thirty-five respondents provided narrative comments on hybrid models.

The presentation described survey themes but did not provide detailed rankings or response counts for the funding questions. Staff also declined to discuss the total funding available.

Funding models presented

• Model 1 — Symmetric scaling: Apply the same proportional reduction or scaling factor to eligible funding requests, based on total available funds relative to total approved requests.
• Model 2 — Per-apprentice base rate: Allocate funding using a flat rate per registered apprentice. One contract per sponsor may cover multiple occupations, subject to a cap, with funding weighted by program size.
• Model 3 — Hybrid allocation: Split funding between established, historically performing programs and new or emerging programs.
• Model 4 — Hybrid state and regional workforce demand: Use two pools: proportional scaling for established or trade programs, and funding for programs aligned with state and regional workforce demand.

Staff clarified that Model 3’s “new and emerging” pool could support new programs generally, while Model 4 ties its newer-program pool specifically to workforce demand.

Survey themes and stakeholder feedback

Survey narratives raised considerations including a flat per-apprentice rate, incentives for priority populations and new sponsors, emerging occupations, program size, regional needs, workforce demand, performance, apprentice counts, and program length.

Other recurring themes included the perceived fairness of the current per-apprentice approach; differences between large and small programs; limiting awards to one contract per organization; supporting programs across sectors; and prioritizing new programs or programs without RSI.

• Models 2 and 1 drew support from established trade-program representatives, who emphasized large apprentice cohorts, sustained training investment, and proven outcomes. Some argued that a funding cap could disadvantage larger programs; others supported proportional scaling as a fair approach.
• Models 3 and 4 drew support from stakeholders seeking room for innovation, emerging industries, and more accessible entry routes. Advocates cited barriers faced by refugees, immigrants, English-language learners, young adults, and other under-resourced groups.
• Model 4 was favored by several commenters as a way to preserve established programs while also investing in new pathways tied to regional labor needs. One commenter proposed adding a protected pool for under-resourced and first-time entrants.

Commenters cautioned that performance measures need consistent definitions. For example, “completion” could mean finishing program hours or passing a journeyman exam; these may reflect different workforce outcomes.

Other questions raised for consideration included:

• Whether completion, graduation, retention, or job-placement outcomes should influence allocations, and how to define them consistently.
• Whether upfront-training programs qualify if ETP funding excludes first-year apprentices. This was raised by a commenter but not answered during the session.
• Whether unused funds in a new-program or regional pool could be shifted to established programs.
• How proposed regional funding would interact with other workforce-development funding.

Examples and metrics cited by commenters

• A Los Angeles County electrical apprenticeship representative reported bringing in 650+ apprentices the prior year and expecting to exceed that number in the current year. The program described three-to-five-year apprenticeships, a monthly women’s mentorship group with 130+ participants, and a direct-entry pathway serving 100+ veterans annually.
• A Joint Journeyman and Apprentice Training Trust representative reported 150+ new first-year apprentices, 500+ apprentices overall, and more than 100 journeymen and 50 tradespeople taking training. The representative said the program’s graduation rate had more than doubled over six years and that it received 900+ applications in the current year.
• A University Lab Partners representative pointed to growing Southern California demand in biotechnology, diagnostics, and advanced manufacturing, and described potential apprenticeship roles such as laboratory technicians, biomanufacturing associates, and clinical research support workers.
• An International Rescue Committee representative described literacy, numeracy, and language barriers that can prevent refugees, immigrants, and English-language learners from entering registered apprenticeship programs. The representative advocated funding accessible pathways and preparatory training.
• One commenter asserted that the funding at issue had typically represented about 25% of the total ETP funding budget. This was a stakeholder statement, not an ETP-confirmed figure.

Process and next steps

The second listening session was announced for March 27, 2:30–4:30 p.m., in Sacramento, with in-person and virtual participation.

Written comments could be submitted by March 26 using the email address listed in the meeting agenda.

Presenters and sources

• ETP staff presenters: Willie Atkinson, Assessment Programs Division Manager; Michelle Irwin, Program Project Manager.
• Chair: Rebecca Bettencourt.
• Subcommittee/panel members: Gretchen Newsome and Jennifer Fathergill (the subtitle spelling varies).
• Other ETP staff identified: Jessica Grimes, Peter Cooper, and Kumani Armstrong.

Public commenters identified in the subtitles:

Anthia Jamarcos (Los Angeles County Electrical Educational and Training Trust Fund); Michelle Rickner (Job Forward); Trish Soyu (Makersville Services); Cheryl Santos (University Lab Partners); Christine Hall and Don Black (Western Electrical Contractors Association); Vladimir Beta (Beta Advisories); David Espinosa; Amber Shin (International Rescue Committee); Andrea Ramos (Joint Journeyman and Apprentice Training Trust); Dr. Ivonne Grant (International Pre-diabetes Center); Chris Jorgensen (Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern California); Deanna Crabiel (San Bernardino Community College District); Anna Gray; Aaron Earlywine (Merge Opportunities); Oscar Mary (Los Angeles Unified School District); and Barbara Garcia (an early-care-and-education apprenticeship program in San Diego County).