A S T R AT E G I C G U I D E T O

Maximizing LaborMarket Responsiveness

The 21st-CenturyCommunity College

VOLUME 1Unleashing the Power of the Community College

The 21st-CenturyCommunity College:A Strategic Guide toMaximizing LaborMarket Responsiveness

Volume 1Unleashing the Power of the Community College

September 2004

Keith MacAllumKarla Yoderwith Anne Rogers Poliakoff

Academy for Educational Development

Prepared for the Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE), U.S. Department of Education, by theAcademy for Educational Development (AED), Washington, D.C., and Westat, Rockville, Md.

ii

This publication was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. MOBIS 6S-23-F-814414 from the

Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) to Westat and the Academy for Educational Development (AED).

Direction was provided by Burt Carlson, Acting Chief, OVAE, Effective Practices Branch. Andrew Abrams served as

the contracting officer's technical representative (COR). The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the

positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education

of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of Vocational and Adult Education

Susan Sclafani

Assistant Secretary

September 2004

This publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Vocational and Adult Education, The 21st-Century Community College: A Strategic Guide to

Maximizing Labor Market Responsiveness, Volume 1 - Unleashing the Power of the Community College,

Washington, D.C., 2004.

To order copies of this publication:

Write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center,

U.S. Department of Education, P. O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244;

or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov;

or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in

your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) should call 1-877-576-7734;

or order online at: www.edpubs.org

This publication is also available on the Department's Web site at: www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae

iii

Volume 1

Unleashing the Power of The Community College

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

The Time Is Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A Closer Look at Labor Market Responsiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Key Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Overcoming Impediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15The Responsive Community College in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17The Promise of Labor Market Responsiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Afterword: A Vision for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Appendix A: The Colleges: Who They Are and Why They Were Chosen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Appendix B: Members of the Community College Labor Market

Responsiveness Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

iv

v

Preface

The Community College LaborMarket ResponsivenessInitiativeThe Community College Labor MarketResponsiveness (CCLMR) Initiative was created bythe U.S. Department of Education, Office ofVocational and Adult Education (OVAE), to developand disseminate information and tools enablingcommunity colleges, as a unique and criticalcomponent of America’s education and trainingsystem, to keep pace with the needs of a diversestudent body and a dynamic labor market.

The main goals of the initiative are to: 1)determine the characteristics of a “market-responsive” community college and identify theindicators and measures by which marketresponsiveness can be judged; 2) identify thepolicies and practices community colleges haveput in place to facilitate and support labormarket responsiveness; 3) pinpoint the stepscolleges can take to improve labor marketresponsiveness and the quality of customizedprograms they offer to students; and 4)disseminate that knowledge to the field.

This guidebook is the main tool for thisdissemination effort. In writing the guide, Westatand AED relied heavily upon case study analysisof more than 30 community colleges in 10

diverse labor markets, especially hundreds ofinterviews and discussions conducted with collegeleaders, local employers and economicdevelopment professionals. To augment the casestudies, we collected standardized data across allcolleges using surveys and document review,conducted statistical analyses, reviewed therelevant literature, and consulted with experts.

This report does not represent findings from anexperimentally designed study carried out in acontrolled setting. Rather, it represents anextensive analysis of the work being undertakenby multiple community colleges. This is a newarea of study, and no preliminary analysis hasbeen conducted that was ready to be subjectedto a more rigorous research design. Given thesemethodological constraints, the report cannotassert a direct causality between any of theidentified characteristics and particular studentlabor market outcomes. This study, however,can lay the groundwork for future research thatwould use an experimental or quasi-experimentaldesign to test the impacts of the characteristicsidentified.

Nonetheless, documenting current practiceacross a sample of more than 30 colleges,something that has never been done asextensively as in this study, may provide value tocollege leaders. As more colleges review these

vi

materials and take action based on the collectedprofessional wisdom documented, we expect toadvance the field of knowledge about how communitycolleges can better respond to and provide leadershipin preparing students for labor market success.

In addition to this guidebook, other useful productslisted below have emerged from the researchcomponent of this initiative. These are available atwww.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae :

Documented Characteristics of Labor Market-Responsive Community Colleges and a Review ofSupporting Literature (Westat and AED, 2003)

Research appendices to The 21st-CenturyCommunity College (Westat, forthcoming)

Purpose of This GuidebookAiming to help all community colleges unleash theirpotential for workforce and economic development theOffice of Vocational and Adult Education of the U.S.Department of Education sought to identify ways collegeleaders can improve those programs and services thatmost directly affect the ability of citizens to compete intoday’s increasingly demanding skill-based labor market,and the ability of employers to compete in today’schallenging global market. The result is this guidebook,which has three major goals. The first goal is to share up-to-date information on labor marketresponsiveness. Based on contemporary research,this guide explains what is meant by “labor marketresponsiveness,” delineates factors associated withbecoming more responsive, and clarifies why labormarket responsiveness is so important to communitycolleges in the 21st century.

The second goal is to offer practical guidance tocollege administrators seeking to take actionsthat will allow them to maximize their labormarket responsiveness. We believe collegeleaders will be especially interested in learning howtheir colleagues across the nation have endeavoredto make their colleges more responsive to labormarket conditions.

The third goal is to encourage community collegeadministrators to engage in a critical self-assessment process. The guiding questions thatappear throughout the guidebook and the self-assessment tools provided suggest a process thatwill help college leaders and top officials to identifygaps in programs and services as well asopportunities for promoting action on campus.

This guidebook is directed to you, the top leadershipat community colleges as presidents, boards oftrustees, and the senior administrators and deansresponsible for the colleges’ missions and programs.In turn, we expect that you will share portions of thisguide, or its entirety, with others—faculty, staff,employers, economic development professionals,and public officials. Involving the broader campusand community in self-assessment and strategicplanning is an important step toward becomingincreasingly anticipatory of and responsive to localand regional workforce development needs.

The guidebook has three volumes. In Volume 1, weprovide an overview of labor market responsiveness.We define what it is, explain why community collegesneed to be intentional in their responsiveness tolabor market conditions, and show how responsivecolleges can more effectively contribute to theeconomic development of their communities.Volume 1 previews the main lessons learned fromthe literature and case-study research. Weencourage college leadership, in particular thepresident and members of the board of trustees, toread through Volume 1 to obtain a commongrounding on the issues. Volume 1 provides theinformation necessary to enlighten and motivatecommunity college leaders toward decisions that willmaximize their labor market responsiveness.

Volume 2 is the heart of the guidebook. Drawingfrom in-depth case studies of more than 30 colleges,it presents a roadmap for action. Each of Volume2’s seven modules explores a different facet of the

The nation’s community colleges providethe most logical—and, for all practical

purposes, the only—foundation for buildinga broad-based workforce developmentsystem that can respond to local and

regional needs. – Julian Alssid, Workforce Strategy Center1

vii

community college that contributes to labormarket responsiveness. These modules areexpected to function as practical guides that canbe used independently of one another andreferenced time and again as each collegepresident and his or her team progressesthrough the processes of self-reflection andstrategic planning. In each, broad findings andlessons learned are explained in great detail andnumerous examples from colleges arepresented. Throughout the seven modules,there are guiding questions that will causepresidents and their staff to reflect on currentstructures, policies, procedures, and programs atyour college. Each module closes with a briefsummary of lessons learned. Interspersedbetween the seven modules, we have includeddetailed information on especially relevantresources and practical advice that have generalapplicability to labor market responsivenessculled from other sources.

Volume 3 contains two practical tools to guideeach team through a self-assessment processand a wealth of resources to help them build astrategic plan. The first tool, keyed directly tothe seven modules in Volume 2, helps eachcollege to reflect on the internal structures,policies, and practices that inhibit or promoteresponsiveness. The second tool helps thecollege to systematically look outward to itscommunity to determine specifically whatprograms and services will best meet the needsof its service area. Both of these are designed tobe completed by a team, including leadership,administrators, faculty, and even communitypartners. We have also included an annotatedbibliography of documents and reports to informeffective thinking and planning, in addition to anannotated listing of organizations and projectsthat are interested in providing assistance tocolleges as they strive to become more labor-market responsive.

viii

ix

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank, first andforemost, the countless individuals at theparticipating colleges who provided openaccess to their institutions and programs.Their professionalism, enthusiasm, andcreativity served to inspire us. Theparticipating colleges were:

Anne Arundel Community College, Arnold, Md. Asnuntuck Community College, Enfield, Conn. Bellevue Community College, Bellevue, Wash.Black Hawk College, Moline, Ill. Central Piedmont Community College,Charlotte, N.C. Dallas County Community College District(Brook Haven, Cedar Valley, Eastfield, ElCentro, Mountain View, North Lake,Richland), Dallas, TexasGaston College, Dallas, N.C.Green River Community College, Auburn,Wash.Holyoke Community College, Holyoke, Mass.Indian River Community College, Fort Pierce,Fla.Kirkwood Community College, Cedar Rapids,Iowa

Malcolm X College, Chicago, Ill.Montgomery College, Montgomery County,Md.Moraine Valley Community College, PalosHills, Ill.Mountain Empire Community College, BigStone Gap, Va.Northern Virginia Community College,Annandale, Va.Oakton Community College, Des Plaines, Ill.Palomar College, San Marcos, Calif.San Diego Community College District (Mesa,Miramar, City College), San Diego, Calif.Scott Community College, Bettendorf, IowaSeminole Community College, Sanford, Fla.Shoreline Community College, Shoreline,Wash.South Piedmont Community College, Polkton,N.C.Springfield Technical Community College,Springfield, Conn.Valencia Community College, Orlando, Fla.Walla Walla Community College, Walla Walla,Wash.York Technical College, Rock Hill, S.C.

x

We are especially grateful for the generous time andvaluable guidance of the CCLMRI Review CommitteeMembers.

Roy Church, president, Lorain County CommunityCollege, and Mary Ellen Duncan, president,Howard Community College, graciously sharedtheir expertise and perspective as reviewers of theguidebook.

Kent Phillippe, senior research associate at theAmerican Association of Community Colleges,and Jeffrey Schwartz, education programmanager, Appalachian Regional Commission,provided valuable contributions to the researchdesign, site selection, and productdevelopment. J. Noah Brown, vice-presidentfor public policy, Association of CommunityCollege Trustees, graciously shared hisexpertise and perspective as a reviewer of theguidebook.

This project was conceived and informed by staffin the Office of Vocational and Adult Educationincluding Hans Meeder, deputy assistantsecretary; Joan Athen, special assistant forcommunity colleges; Andrew Abrams, researchanalyst; and Burt Carlson, acting chief, EffectivePractices and Dissemination Branch.

Fieldwork was completed by Sarah Demma, PatsyFlannigan, Robert Harmon, and Amy Shimshak ofWestat; Bryna Shore Fraser, Mark Johnson-Lewis,Keith MacAllum, Anne Rogers Poliakoff, and KarlaYoder of AED. Additional material was collectedby Ian Petta and Regina Yudd of Westat.

Louis Jacobson of Westat served as the principalinvestigator of the CCLMR project. Alex Ratnofsky,senior vice president, Westat, provided invaluableoversight and leadership.

The graphic designer was Jel Montoya, AED.

1

The Time Is Now

The story is told of a Midwestern communitycollege located in a town that was facing amajor economic downturn. Historicallyproductive plants were soon to be shut down asthe existing technology was becoming obsoleteand production was slated to be movedelsewhere. Everyone saw that the writing wason the wall. Eventually, the plants closed, jobswere lost, and the entire town suffered, just aspredicted. Looking back, a staff member of thecommunity college said, “The saddest thing is,we saw this thing coming. We talked about it alot, but we never took action.” Ten years later,faced with another economic shift, thecommunity college was at the forefront ofenvisioning the area’s economic future,recruiting new industry, and retraining dislocatedworkers for the new opportunities underdevelopment. Community members recognizedthe economic development resource they had intheir community college, and the transition wasmarkedly less painful. Clearly, communitycolleges have a vital role to play in ensuring thattheir communities effectively anticipate andrespond to the economic challenges andopportunities they face.

Many believe that as community colleges entertheir second century of service, their role asengines of economic development will come tothe fore. Twenty-first century communitycolleges will be characterized by their pivotal rolein a seamless system of education, workforcedevelopment, and economic development. AsNorton Grubb observed, “Modern communitycolleges have a major responsibility for preparingthe nation’s current and future mid-skilledworkforce, which accounts for three-fourths of allemployees in the United States.”2 Now morethan ever, it is critical that all communitycolleges realize their potential to strengthenthe U.S. economy by meeting the workforcedevelopment needs of its citizens andemployers.

The need for 21st-century community colleges tobecome flexible, market-responsive providers ofpostsecondary education, worker retraining andcertification, and continuing education stemsfrom the need for ever-evolving job skills in acontinually changing work environment. Globalcompetition contributes to increased pressure onbusiness and industry to be more productive.The demand for skilled labor grows. As a result,the training needs of employers have expanded

2

and accelerated. Communities that prosper are evermore dependent on employers that respond to theneed for skilled labor.

Health-care, manufacturing, and informationtechnology-based companies spend more dollarsevery year on training to upgrade the skills of theirworkforce. The demand for training has created amarket for contract training and curriculumdevelopment that community colleges are uniquelyqualified to meet. At the same time, with theincrease in training budgets, competition for thismarket has expanded both from private vendors andfrom within the companies themselves. Althoughmany community colleges have become moremarket-responsive, securing such training contracts,others have been less successful.

Workforce development is almost universallyaccepted as a key component of economicdevelopment. The time is right for communitycolleges to fully embrace and achieve their potentialas engines for economic development. With anetwork of 1,600 community college campuses andcountless on-site training facilities, this potential isvast. Our community colleges are well positioned tocontribute statewide and locally. At their best, theywork closely with business and industry to offer acontinuum of training—from students withoutworkforce experience to veteran employeesupgrading their skills to advance in their jobs ormake career transitions.

While recognizing the potential of communitycolleges to promote economic development, it isimportant to remember that their missions aremultifaceted. Community colleges are well aware ofthe multiple roles that they play—in providingopportunities for students to earn associate degreesand to prepare for transfer to four-year colleges, foradult members of the community to pursuecontinuing education and avocations, and for newand incumbent workers to obtain vocational trainingin the form of certification and other specializedprograms. Colleges need to balance these and otherfunctions if they are to maximize their role inworkforce and economic development in response tochanging conditions. As our nation undergoes acontinuous technological and economic evolution,the importance of the workforce developmentmission of community colleges rises to the fore. Formany of them, this will require significant institutionalchange before the potential for meeting local labormarket needs is fully realized. How effectivelycommunity colleges transform themselves intomarket-responsive institutions determines howeffectively they will support the economicdevelopment of their communities.

Market-responsive community colleges with high-quality career-oriented programs are able toanticipate local community needs, secure contractsto custom-build programs for employers, delivercourses and credentials that align with current andfuture workplace needs, and accurately evaluatetraining outcomes. Over the course of their 100-year history, a growing number of America’scommunity colleges have become highly responsiveto labor market conditions. Several of these collegeshave been recognized by the American Association ofCommunity Colleges, the National Alliance ofBusiness, and the National Council for ContinuingEducation and Training, among other organizations,as exemplary in their efforts to advance the linkagesbetween education and training and economicdevelopment.

The ability of a company to be competitivein this new economic environment requires

a capacity to improve productivity, toinnovate, and to push innovations to

market faster than competitors. None ofthis can be accomplished without a skilledfrontline workforce that can harness thetools of technology and quickly adapt to

changes in a global economy. – Bob Templin,

Northern Virginia Community College3

The mission of community colleges isevolving because the communities within

which they are situated are changing. – Debra Bragg, University of Illinois4

3

Yet, not every community college fullyrecognizes its potential in meeting these goalsnor are they equally capable of providing career-oriented training. Colleges vary with respect to theeconomic conditions in which they operate, thedynamism of their leadership, the resources allottedby state and local funding sources to the vocationaltraining mission, the nature of local training needsand interests, and the extent to which they mustcompete with other providers of vocational training intheir area. In his landmark 1994 study TheContradictory College, Kevin Dougherty found mostcommunity colleges to be “much less responsive tothe demands of the labor market” than manyobservers contend, stating that the typicalcommunity college “dances to the music of the labormarket but does so only clumsily.”5

Others have likewise doubted the ability ofcommunity colleges to be tightly linked to local labormarket demands. They cite the oversupply ofgraduates in some vocational fields, the inability ofother graduates to find employment directly relatedto their training, and the reliance of some employersand industries on proprietary schools. Forresearchers like Dougherty, the weak connectionbetween output and demand is explained by “thefact that the community college’s vocational efforthas been governed by nonmarket as well as marketcriteria.”

Nevertheless, as local economies and employmentoutlooks change, some community colleges are ableto respond. Some even anticipate these changes.Looking to better serve their students and employerpartners, these colleges have become moreaggressive in their outreach to their communities.Leadership at these colleges tends to assume ananticipatory stance. College presidents and boardsof trustees have gathered adequate information topoint the institution toward the most promising set ofeconomic and workforce opportunities. Leaders haveimproved internal responses to these opportunitiesby confronting the institution’s structural and culturalweaknesses. And these institutions have developedstrong relationships and partnerships, and committedresources adequate to overcome obstacles.

The specific strategies employed by market-responsive community colleges are not identical.Although any college can serve economic andworkforce needs, these needs vary according to thelocal economy, the size and strength of the businesscommunity, the types of industries that dominate,the level of demand for specific skill sets, and thechanging demographics of the community.Moreover, college structures and strategies areshaped by state and local policy, fundingarrangements, and local history. Therefore, there isno “one size fits all” approach to labor marketresponsiveness.

Yet, market-driven community colleges do tendto share fundamental characteristics. Theliterature on market-responsive community colleges,published over the last 10 years, suggests that theyshare the following important traits:7

• Leadership committed to the goal of making thecollege market-responsive;

• Internal response mechanisms that influencecampus organizational structure and culture;

• Conscious and deliberate efforts to nurturebusiness and other partnerships; and

• Thoughtful and strategic approaches to buildingstronger connections to the local economy.

Community colleges, for many reasons,are moving to the forefront of workforceand economic development due primarilyto their location at the grass-roots level intheir service regions. Today’s community

colleges offer far more than the traditionalvocational and general education

programs of the recent past, yet many stillneed to adopt a more market-drivenapproach to workforce and economic

development programming. – Richard Drury,

Challenging Management Development, Inc.6

4

Volume 2 of this guidebook introduces a wide range ofcolleges across the United States that have takensteps, sometimes incremental, sometimes bold,toward reorganizing themselves as educational andtraining institutions that are market-responsive. In ourfieldwork, we visited with staff at more than 30colleges in 10 diverse labor markets. (See Appendix Afor a listing of the specific colleges and their labormarkets.) Through these case studies, as well asthrough a review of the literature and consultation withexperts, we discovered how colleges approach theirworkforce and economic development missions, howthey design effective programs, and the creative waysthat they overcome obstacles. This guide presents the

cumulative experience of these colleges as well as thestrategies that their presidents, boards, and other topofficials have used to pilot their transformation.Volume 2 describes the practical steps they havetaken on their journey toward becoming ever moreresponsive to their labor markets, and perhaps moreimportantly, anticipatory of future needs, regardless ofthe economic environment that they face. Thisguidebook provides community college leaders withthe encouragement, information, and resources withwhich to take action now. Volume 3 provides a self-assessment tool to help colleges reflect on internalstructures, policies and practices that inhibit andpromote responsiveness.

5

A Closer Look at LaborMarket Responsiveness

By now, most community college leaders have ageneral sense of what is meant by the term“labor market responsiveness.” They recognizethe role that colleges can play in workforcepreparation, workforce development, andeconomic development. Community colleges areincreasingly key players in developing technologyparks, hosting small business incubators, offeringentrepreneurship development, partnering inbusiness recruitment, and conducting appliedresearch to name a few. The preponderance ofactivity at community colleges, however, remainscentered on education and training. Thereforethis guide carefully examines the importantcontribution that labor market responsivenessmakes to economic development through abetter prepared workforce. Using this lens, wesought to establish a definition of “labor marketresponsiveness” that focuses attention onworkforce development.

Drawing on the written literature as well as thehundreds of conversations and interviews weconducted, we propose the following definition:

A labor-market-responsive communitycollege delivers programs and services that align with and seek to anticipate thechanging dynamics of the labor market itserves. These programs and services

address the educational and workforcedevelopment needs of both employers andstudents as part of the college's overallcontribution to the social and economicvitality of its community.

This definition highlights several important facetsof market responsiveness:

First, it distinguishes programs, such ascourses or certificate programs, fromservices, such as small businessdevelopment, industry recruitment, andcorporate consulting, while identifying both asequally important. Although analyses of labormarket responsiveness often emphasizenoncredit programs, it is important to notethat this definition does not distinguishbetween credit and noncredit programs,because both are important components of acomprehensive strategy.Second, this definition draws attention to theimportance of aligning these programs andservices with local conditions and recognizesthe fact that local conditions are constantlychanging. In other words, one size does notfit all, and what worked yesterday may notwork tomorrow.

6

Third, this definition indicates that to beresponsive means to be anticipatory. Eventhe most nimble community colleges, whichcan develop new courses of study in a matterof months, must constantly look ahead toensure that new programs are in place by thetime that business and industry need them.Fourth, a college’s service area is notrestricted to its locality. More and morecolleges are responding to markets thatextend far beyond county, state, or evennational borders. Economies and markets donot recognize political or geographicboundaries.Fifth, this definition incorporates academiceducation as well as vocational educationand workforce development. The traditionalhard lines—between academic education andvocational training, between credit andnoncredit courses—are increasingly blurred.Sixth, it recognizes that the constituencieswho benefit from labor marketresponsiveness include students, employers,the community as a whole, and the collegeitself. Responsiveness enables the college tobetter serve all of its customers.And lastly, the definition asserts that thecommunity’s economic vitality, and byextension the region’s, depends uponmeeting the mutually reinforcing needs ofstudents and employers. By addressing thesupply side and the demand side, and byaligning the educational and training needsdictated by each, the community collegeenhances the overall well-being of thecommunity in which it is located.

What does this definition mean in practice? Itmeans going the extra mile to develop programsto meet community needs perhaps notimmediately obvious. Colleges take markedlyvaried paths toward market responsiveness,shaped to a great degree by surroundingcommunity conditions and internalinstitutional capabilities. Each communitycollege is unique in its approach to andrelationship with its local market, and each labormarket presents a unique set of conditions andopportunities.

There exists a wide range of effective approachesto determine and meet economic needs, somesimple, some complex. The more well-knownapproaches include contract and customizedtraining programs, new certification andcredentialing programs, and increased flexibilitywith respect to course delivery, scheduling, andlocation. However, forward-thinking collegeleaders tend to incorporate a variety of mutuallyreinforcing strategies, approaches, andtechniques to position the institution asresponsive.

Contextual factors, such as changing localdemographics and industrial mix, inevitablyinfluence the choice and effectiveness of theseapproaches. Depending on local conditions,context can either enhance or inhibit theirimplementation. The important lesson is that acollege’s ability to serve its constituents andcontribute to economic development is directlyrelated to its ability to design, develop, andimplement practical approaches that take intoaccount these contextual factors while tighteningthe linkages between what the college offers andwhat the community needs. Let’s take a closerlook at three instructive examples to see howcommunity colleges have tackled the issue oflabor market responsiveness in practice.

The community colleges are very welladapted to meeting the needs of localemployers. They're flexible, they're able

to say to an employer, 'What do youneed?' and 'We'll educate the people for

the kind of workers you need.' – President George W. Bush8

7

The Institute for Manufacturing Productivity (IMP) atYork Technical College in South Carolina is an effortto meet both local and national workforce needs inthe area of manufacturing, and to improve theproductivity of manufacturing industries in theUnited States. In 2002, the college built a20,000-square-foot facility, today filled with millionsof dollars of equipment—machine tools, simulators,and CAM software—in partnership with about 15companies. The executive vice president of thecollege characterized the IMP as “the college’sniche right now.”

Okuma America, a machine tool manufacturerwith its Western hemisphere headquarters inCharlotte, N.C., is a key partner in the IMP.Historically, Okuma maintained a trainingdivision with a physical facility on a companysite. During the 1990s, Okuma leadershiprealized they no longer wanted to support theirown training center. When York Techapproached the company in 2001, askingOkuma to place several machines in thecollege’s new facility, the company suggested alarger-scale partnership. That year, Okumamoved its entire corporate training center to theIMP. Okuma donates the training equipmentand York Tech employs company trainers. TheIMP conducts training almost every week foremployees, customers, and suppliers from Northand South America, and sells Okuma equipmentoff the floor. The president of York Tech notedthat he plays a major role in maintaining thisvaluable partnership through his personalinvolvement.

The IMP also functions as CharmillesTechnologies’ application and demonstrationcenter for the Southeastern United States and isnow building a metrology lab with a grant fromthe Tyco Electronics Foundation. The IMP

conducts training and product development forother national and international companies,including General Motors, Ingersol-Rand, HarleyDavidson, Federal-Mogul, Honda, and Siemens,serving hundreds of incumbent employees. Thefacility provides office space to technical peoplefrom the partner companies. Laboratories,classrooms, and offices are named for the majordonors to the effort. The institute also serves asa training ground for York Tech students inmachining and industrial technologies.

The college capitalizes on the opportunity tointeract weekly with manufacturers, suppliers,and their employees from around the country,staying current on training needs and futuretrends in the industries represented by thosevisiting the center. York Tech conducts follow-upwith the home companies of those trained, notjust on their satisfaction with the trainingreceived but to learn what lies ahead for thoseindustries.

The IMP also plays a consulting role, assistinglocal industry in identifying in-housemanufacturing, process, and operationalimprovements. A success story in this realminvolves a core pin that Tyco Electronics boughtfor $50-75 a piece in the United States. Thecompany was considering getting the parts fromChina for about $47. The director of the IMPassembled a team of local industry experts anda Tyco employee, who performed hours ofresearch to create a new method formanufacturing core pins and succeeded increating a process to produce them for about $9a piece. This team gave the process to Tyco andtrained a company technician, feeling that theyhad made a significant contribution to keepingmanufacturing in the United States.

E X A M P L E

1 The Institute for Manufacturing Productivityat York Technical College

8

A three-way partnership—between the MoraineValley Community College Nursing Program, theUniversity of Chicago Hospitals (UCH), and theUCH Academy (UCHA)—offers qualified UCHemployees the opportunity to complete anassociate of applied science degree in nursing.The partnership responds to projected nursingshortages, a crisis evident to hospitalsattempting to hire nursing staff, and thoroughlydocumented in labor market analyses. Bytraining its employees to become nurses, theUCH realized it could “increase capacity and thenumber of students matriculating with nursingdegrees, not just compete for the existingtalent.” The Nursing at the Forefront Scholarshippays 100 percent of an employee’s tuition, fees,and textbook expenses. All coursework, theory,and clinical experiences are offered at UCH.

Three years ago, UCHA approached MoraineValley about bringing the college’s nursingprogram to UCH. UCHA and the college had anexisting relationship, having partnered onprevious efforts, such as a medical terminologyprogram. The excellent reputation of MoraineValley’s nursing program also attracted UCHA—as its executive director noted, “one of the finestdegree completion nursing programs in the state.”

Given the opportunity to contribute to the socialgood, the leadership of Moraine Valley wasenthusiastic about the invitation. “The board isso pleased and proud of this program, becauseit was absolutely the right thing to do,” oneadministrator explained. Not only would the newprogram help those on the long waiting list foradmission to the college nursing program, but italso addressed a social crisis—the shortage ofnurses.

Support from the college’s top leadership wascritical, because the logistics of creating the

program were very challenging and requiredconsistent administrative support. Thewillingness of senior administrators to tackle thischallenge reflected the college’s organizationalculture, which values risk-taking, vision, andcontinuous improvement. The nursing program’sfaculty members were initially very cautious,wanting to ensure that the UCHA program wouldbe of identical quality as Moraine Valley’s.Thanks to an organizational structure thatpermits creative strategies for schedulingcourses and compensating faculty, one result isthat Moraine Valley nursing faculty, not adjuncts,travel into Chicago to deliver the program. UCHApays an annual stipend of $10,000 to cover thecollege’s additional responsibilities incurred bythis partnership. Moraine Valley covers the costof faculty assignments at UCHA, as all clinicalstaff faculty are full-time faculty members atMoraine Valley. The college absorbs the travelcosts, and UCHA covers the cost of additionalinstructional materials required by the program.

The program began in spring 2002. Each cohortof 18 new students must meet UCHA’s eligibilityrequirements as well as Moraine Valley’sadmission requirements. Some prospectivenursing students on Moraine Valley’s waiting listhave become employees of UCH in order to getinto the new program. The UCH system isalready seeing results. UCH employs all thestudents, many as nursing assistants, and theyare smoothly assimilated into the organization.Formal evaluations, comparing employees wholearned through tuition reimbursement outside ofUCHA with its cohort learners, have found that90 percent of cohort learners are still employedby the UCH system while 50 percent of thetuition reimbursement group has left by the timethey receive their degree. It appears that cohortlearners feel a greater affiliation with theorganization where they trained.

E X A M P L E

2 Nursing Program Partnership With theUniversity of Chicago Hospitals Academy

9

Shoreline Community College's ProfessionalAutomotive Training Center (PATC) is a nationallyrecognized, award-winning initiative. The centerhouses the college’s automotive factory trainingprograms sponsored by General Motors,American Honda, Toyota, and DaimlerChrysler.The center offers two-year technical trainingprograms specific to each manufacturer’stechnical needs. Dealerships sponsor studentsfor the duration of the program. Studentsalternate each quarter taking classes at the PATCand working in a dealership. Students whocomplete the program receive an associatedegree as well as factory certification. Of thosewho enter, approximately 90 percent completethe program and 100 percent are placed in jobs.

Shoreline’s automotive program began in thelate 1980s when an instructor in the college’smanufacturing technician program explored theneed for automotive technicians in the PugetSound region. The college conducted researchby talking to representatives from the PugetSound Automotive Dealers Association (PSADA),comprising more than 260 new car dealers.Personal leadership by the president, the vicepresident for academic affairs, and the vicepresident for administrative services, incollaboration with PSADA, particularly theassociation’s executive director, was instrumentalin Shoreline’s success.

Beginning with a partnership with GM, theinitiative has expanded to include four majorcorporations. The program, geared to bothemerging and incumbent workers, is overseen bythe college’s Business, Automotive, andManufacturing Division, which is part ofacademic affairs and primarily state-funded.Over the years, the college’s partnerships withthe PSADA, as well as with the dealers and thefactories, have greatly expanded. For example,

the PSADA’s headquarters has been housed inthe program’s center since the 32,000-square-foot building was constructed in 1992, throughprivate money raised by the college foundationand donated by area banks, business leaders,and dealerships. As a tenant of the building, thePSADA provides the infrastructure for theautomotive division in terms of secretarialsupport, office equipment, and buildingmaintenance.

Shoreline’s partnerships with dealerships are anintegral part of the program’s success. Inaddition to internships and employment, dealersprovide students with tools and equipmentduring their training. The college also relies onits partnerships with the sponsoring factories.For example, they provide the college with newvehicles for training purposes and upgradetraining for instructors. Most of the trainingequipment is loaned to the college from variousmanufacturers. For example, Snap-On Toolsloaned the college $400,000 worth ofequipment, and Hunter Engineering Corporationsupplies the college with alignment equipment.

Relationships with high school automotiveprograms are crucial to the PATC as well. Thecollege is an active participant in the AutomotiveYouth Educational System (AYES) and haspartnered with more than 16 high schools in thestate. The program has an advisory committeeof dealers that meets three times a year withinstructors and the dean of the automotivedivision. Through these meetings, the college isable to determine how well the dealers’ needsare being addressed and identify needs thathave not been met.

E X A M P L E

3 The Professional Automotive Training Centerat Shoreline Community College

10

These vignettes describe innovative programsthat go beyond the traditional and expectedinstitutional responses to changing needs.These community colleges determined specificlocal workforce needs and responded withcreative solutions to those needs. The programsare far-reaching and strategically planned. Oncewe had heard numerous such stories, throughinterviews with more than 200 individuals atmore than 30 community colleges, we acquireda clear picture of labor-market-responsivestrategies and an appreciation for their range.We then set about to determine what accountsfor the varying ability of colleges to enact thesestrategies, beyond the influences of theirdiffering economic contexts. We focused onfactors over which community college leadershave the most control. Our research question—and the question we believe college leaders wantanswered—became, What specific things doeffective colleges do that enable them to bemore market-responsive?

Even the casual reader of these three storiesalone will note emerging themes. All threecolleges successfully addressed such issues aspartnership, organizational flexibility, informationgathering, strategic planning, resourcedevelopment, and leadership. We found that theanswers to the research question we had posedcould be organized into seven broad dimensionsthat promote or inhibit a college’s ability to belabor-market-responsive. It is these dimensionsof the community college that leaders mustaddress in order to maximize labor marketresponsiveness:

1. Leadership and governance2. Organizational structure and staffing3. Organizational culture4. Resources and funding5. Information and data 6. Relationship-building7. Partnerships

These seven dimensions provide a useful way toexamine the factors that colleges need toaddress to improve their labor marketresponsiveness. Although we have separatedthem for the purposes of discussion, in realitythey form an integrated, mutually reinforcing setof practices, policies, and philosophies.Addressing any one in isolation is unlikely toresult in the intended outcome. In and ofthemselves, these dimensions do not equal labormarket responsiveness. Instead, they representthe dimensions of college life and practice thatleaders must successfully manage on the pathtowards becoming more labor-market-responsive.Volume 2 of this guide is organized into sevenmodules informed by authentic and practicalexamples that guide colleges toward self-assessment and action. A self-assessmentquestionnaire in Volume 3 may be helpful inprioritizing the areas on which to focus attention,thus determining the most useful modules ofVolume 2.

Community colleges are speciallysituated to address the unique workforce

and education needs of any givencommunity. I have long admired the

community colleges' ability to adapt andevolve with the ever-changing face oftoday's students. Community colleges

have long been at the forefront ofmeeting the education needs, transferopportunities, and training needs of

emerging workforces, and I applaud theircontinued effort.

– Rep. Michael N. Castle,

Chairman of the House

Subcommittee on Education Reform9

11

Key Lessons Learned

As a preview of Volume 2, we offer a briefsummary of key lessons and strategies exploredin its seven modules. Examining this overviewmay enable you and your team to determinewhich modules to explore in greater detail.

Leadership and governanceThe leadership of top college officials—thepresident, the board of trustees, the vicepresidents, and the deans—underlies andinfluences each of the other six dimensions.

Effective leaders make marketresponsiveness one of their college’spriorities and communicate this missioninternally and externally. They maintain a regional, national, or eveninternational outlook, conveying a vision thatextends beyond the college’s traditionalservice area. Leaders inform themselves about economicand workforce trends and function as a keyconduit for bringing information back tocampus and putting it to work.Leaders effectively portray the college as aworkforce development partner in thecommunity and build relationships withpowerful people, in the process often

acquiring the resources needed to start new,large-scale programs.

Organizational structure and staffingThe reporting structure of community collegesreflects their priorities. At responsive colleges,the continuing education or workforcedevelopment division no longer suffers fromsecond-class status in comparison with creditprograms, and this is reflected in the senioradministration.

Responsive colleges tend to centralizerelevant services into one division to supportlarger efforts and provide clients with a singlepoint of contact. However, no one divisionshould hold sole responsibility for aninstitution’s labor market responsiveness. Responsive colleges bridge the traditionalcredit-noncredit divide, and staff collaborateacross these divisions in mutually supportiveways. Because collaboration requires faculty andstaff to play expanded roles, the collegeinvests in professional development to helpeveryone succeed in these new roles.

12

Organizational cultureIn responsive colleges, new values, attitudes,and orientations toward market-responsiveactivities prevail over traditional mindsets. Theculture is entrepreneurial, flexible, open-minded,innovative, and collaborative.

A cultural hallmark of a responsive college ishow well its staff members reflect andrespond to diverse cultures and changingpopulations in the surrounding communities,in the effort to meet their needs.Responsive colleges involve business andindustry in curriculum development to ensurethat credit courses meet employer needs.

Resources and fundingSuccessful labor market responsiveness requiresadequate resources. College leadershipassumes responsibility for identifying andaccessing these resources.

Responsive colleges access a wide variety ofresources beyond state funding, includinggrants, state initiatives, federal funds, in-kinddonations, and employer partnerships. Responsive colleges are creative andentrepreneurial in fundraising, securing newfunds through legislation or providing collegeservices on a fee-for-service basis, forexample. Local funding is crucial, whether obtainedthrough increased county support or bondinitiatives to construct new facilities. Staff dedicated to seeking new fundingsources and writing proposals are essential,as are the fundraising efforts of the presidentand trustees.

Information and data Effective community college leaders rely on soliddata and current information to inform theirstrategic planning and decision-making.

Key types of information concern local andregional economic and workforce trends andemployer needs. Personal contacts with employers and theeconomic development community are crucial

for gathering up-to-the-minute information onlocal needs and trends. To make programdecisions and evaluate marketresponsiveness, hard data are usuallyrequired. Enrollments in career-oriented programs oftenserve as a proxy for the needs of the marketand employers. However, responsive collegesseek out any mismatches betweenenrollments and employer needs in high-wage occupations and address the imbalanceby promoting interest and enrollment in theseprograms.

Relationship-buildingResponsive colleges develop relationships withan expanded set of constituencies—a broaderrange of employer partners and economicdevelopment groups, planning groups,community-based organizations, K–12 systems,four-year educational institutions, politicalleaders and power brokers, the department ofsocial services and Workforce Investment Boards(WIB), industry associations, and unions.

Forming relationships with other communitycolleges is also important—for information-sharing, for regional collaboration, and forjointly accessing large grants.The president, trustees, and the workforcedevelopment division take the lead inrelationship-building, but it is considered theresponsibility of everyone, including facultyand administrators in for-credit programs. Colleges find new avenues to market theirresponsive services to employers andstudents. They convey messages topotential partners about the institution’squality as a training provider, its flexibility, andits proactive and problem-solving approach.

PartnershipsEffective colleges partner with employers andassociations based on strategic priorities. Theyassess local labor market needs and determinehow the college could most effectively meetthem. They consider future trends and partnerwith emerging and expanding industries.

13

The most responsive colleges partner withleaders—large employers and innovativeindustries when possible.Responsive colleges ask partners not forresources, but rather how the college canhelp accomplish mutual goals.

When partnering, effective collegesemphasize long-term benefits over short-termgains.Successful partnerships often lead toexpanded or entirely new partnerships.

14

15

Overcoming Impediments

As community college leaders initiate strategicplanning around the design and development oflabor-market-responsive programs andapproaches, they will inevitably encounter anarray of barriers. Some of these barriers are veryreal; others are more a matter of perception ormisinformation. The box at right lists some ofthe impediments most commonly invoked. Yetthis guidebook provides many examples ofcommunity colleges that, having faced thesesame barriers, found effective strategies toaddress and overcome them.

The findings presented in this guidebook confirmthat through a combination of self-reflection,strategic planning, and strong leadership, allcommunity colleges are able to enhance theirlabor market responsiveness, regardless of thespecific barriers that they may initially encounter.Resistance to change is to be expected. A soberassessment of unique challenges, a clear planfor moving forward, and the application of provenremedies will help manage the change process.The tools provided in Volume 3 are a beginningstep in assessing the environment surroundingyour college and its unique barriers and in takingstock of factors internal to the college that mighthinder your institution from reaching its potentialin labor market responsiveness.

“That’s not our mission.”

“Noncredit programs and career-orientedprograms are second-class at this college.”

“All our students transfer to 4-year colleges.”

“This community won’t go for it.”

“We’re already labor market responsive.Look at this great program we have over

here.”

“It’s hard to fund career-oriented programs—besides, they cost more to offer than

transfer courses.”

“We’d like to be more market driven,but state funding won’t allow it.”

“The faculty here is very traditional andacademically oriented.”

“We’re unionized.”

“There aren’t any companies in our districtto partner with.”

“We don’t have enough informationon which to base that kind of effort.”

“The accreditation procedures for creditprograms prevent that kind of flexibility.”

Common Barriers toMarket Responsiveness

16

17

The Responsive CommunityCollege in Context

An important lesson emerging from ourstudy is that colleges in dramatically diverseenvironments, with very differentenrollments and budgets, launched highlyinnovative and highly useful programs (seeAppendix). This confirms the premise thatregardless of the unique challenges andopportunities a community college faces, itsleadership can succeed in enhancing its labormarket responsiveness. However, it is critical torecognize that the context in which the collegeoperates—the local economy, the localworkforce, and the history and circumstances ofthe institution itself—do affect the college’scapacity for innovation.

No doubt, community colleges with solidfinancial assets, healthy enrollments, and asupportive economic environment start out at anadvantage. Substantial enrollments and budgetsindicate that there are (a) the administrativeresources to devote to designing and securingfunds for effective market-responsive programs,and (b) the educational resources to createcooperative programs with businesses andeconomic development groups. Financial

support from local government brings not onlynew dollars but also represents the buy-in fromlocal civic leaders that rewards and recognizesthe college’s efforts to meet local education andtraining needs.

America's community colleges play acritical role in expanding access to the

skills and knowledge students of all agesneed to be competitive in an ever-

changing global economy. The high-quality education and training

community colleges provide areincreasingly developed in partnership

with business. This trend meansstudents are better prepared to meet the

needs of the local and regionalworkforce, a development that mustcontinue for the benefit of students

across the nation– Senator Judd Gregg,

Chairman of the Senate Health, Education,

Labor and Pensions Committee10

18

A campus in proximity to major high-techemployers is an asset to a college because itslocation presents rich partnership opportunitiesthat will reinforce the college’s role in contributingto local and regional prosperity. While asuburban location is not inherently an advantage,most major high-tech firms, especiallyheadquarter operations, are located in suburbs.

A campus in a predominantly blue-collarcommunity has an advantage because suchpopulations are more likely to seek training inorder to gain employment, advancement, or newcareers. Community colleges in affluent areasoften face high demand for programs gearedtoward students looking to transfer to a four-yearinstitution and leisure-oriented continuingeducation. Community colleges in low-incomeareas must address the pressing need for basiceducation. A community college that mustrespond to demands for these types ofprograms, regardless of their importance, mayhave difficulty freeing up the resources andattention to devote to career-oriented programs.

The policies and funding practices of stategovernments and governing boards establishanother context within which community collegesoperate. Centralized statewide workforce andeconomic development, operated through thestate community college system, may offerimportant resources and funds to some colleges.Some state systems provide informationresources, for example, giving colleges access tooutcome data on the employment of theirgraduates, occasionally matched to wage records.State funding formulas, including the extent to

which these cover the costs of noncreditprogramming, may limit a college’s ability to tapthese resources for career-oriented programming.Performance-based funding systems and regionalaccreditation agencies may also limit a college’sability to focus on labor market outcomes. Thus,if colleges are constrained by the state, havingstrong local support provides the freedom to besubstantially more innovative.

However, these advantages and disadvantagesdo not determine which colleges will becomemore market-responsive. The challenges differ,but whether a college is situated in a high-growth, high-tech environment or a more ruralregion, the pursuit of a labor-market-responsivemission will require its leadership to engage instrategic efforts and secure additional resources.

Colleges, whatever their circumstances,need to recognize that impediments tomarket responsiveness can be overcomethrough investment of effort and innovation.Careful self-assessment and strategic planningenable a college to recognize its environmentalassets and liabilities, and, as many collegeshave demonstrated, to move on, working withinand even building successfully upon whatappeared to be constraints. Our case studiessuggest that in various circumstances – whethersmall or large, rural or urban or suburban,financially comfortable or facing lean times,receiving more state support or less – collegescan successfully maximize their potential. Thebottom line is, as one economic developerobserved, “No matter where you are or whatobstacles you face, you can do more.”

19

The Promise of LaborMarket Responsiveness

The value of being a labor-market-responsivecollege extends well beyond the college itself,beyond its students, beyond its public- andprivate-sector partners. Many communitycolleges have demonstrated that by developingprograms to address employer and industryneeds and continually seeking ways to engage inthe region’s economic development, theyimprove not only the employment prospects oftheir students but also the economic outlook fortheir communities and regions as well.

Colleges that maximize their responsivenessenable displaced workers to transition from onecareer to another, employed workers to upgradeor learn new skills, and students to prepare formeaningful careers. Such a college is also amagnet to industries and employers because itstraining capacity promises a steady supply ofproperly trained workers.

Although community colleges have historicallypursued multiple missions, their emergence astrainers of choice has brought to the forefronttheir potential as engines of workforce andeconomic development, improving the economyof their communities and simultaneously theemployment outlook of their students.

The avenues to acquiring [new] skills aremany, and one effective tool that we

have developed to facilitate thetransition to a new job or profession has

been our community colleges. Thesetwo-year institutions have been in theforefront of teaching the types of skills

that build on workers' previousexperiences to create new job skills.

– Alan Greenspan,

Chairman of the Federal Reserve11

20

The journey to labor market responsivenessrequires thoughtful self-reflection andstrategic planning. Maximizing a college’sresponsiveness is a function of effectivelymanaging the seven dimensions discussed inthis guide. A focus on any one or twodimensions is not sufficient. Guided by visionaryleadership and governance, built on anappropriate organizational structure, staffed by

empowered professionals, nurtured by aconducive organizational culture, supportedthrough adequate resources and funding,informed by solid data and current information,inspired by strategic relationship-building, anddelivered through innovative partnerships, thecommunity college of the 21st century canrealize its full potential as an engine of economicdevelopment.

21

Afterword: A Vision For the Future

The Center for Workforce Preparation at the U.S.Chamber of Commerce, in conjunction with theAmerican Association of Community Colleges(AACC), conducted a series of regional forums toidentify promising practices that will build thecapacity of chambers of commerce andcommunity colleges to develop the workforcenecessary to keep their communities competitivein today’s and tomorrow’s economy.

Participants were asked to imagine themselvesfive years in the future telling a group of businessassociates about their local market-responsivecommunity colleges. Here are some aspects oftheir vision:

Community colleges are the “trainers ofchoice” for local businesses.Businesses play an important and active rolein the development of community colleges’strategic plans by providing richer quantitativedata on specific job needs.Community colleges design career-ladderapproaches to certificates, with coursesequences drawn from associate degreeprograms.Community colleges blur the lines betweencredit and noncredit courses.Community colleges, workforce investment

boards, chambers, and local business leadersmeet regularly to keep current on thechanging marketplace.Community colleges offer flexible trainingoptions and multiple delivery systems.One-stop centers are located on communitycollege campuses, presenting an educationalenvironment instead of a governmentalsocial-service stigma.Community colleges collaborate with eachother to meet specific workforce needs in thecommunity and region.Bridge programs have been created withschools and universities to seamlessly servestudents K–16.The community college system has a “centerfor excellence” that provides resources to thesystem and that helps gauge supply anddemand in the local labor market.There is a bridging of internal service delivery“silos” to achieve the set of economic goalsand objectives set by the community.Workforce investment boards develop regionaleconomic centers at community colleges.Small businesses are able to cost-effectivelycreate contracts with community colleges.The return on investment from market-responsive community colleges is equal tothat of regional economic development.

22

23

Notes

1. Julian Alssid, executive director, WorkforceStrategy Center in a discussion with theauthors, Feb. 11, 2004.

2. W. Norton Grubb, Working in the Middle:Strengthening Education and Training for theMid-Skilled Labor Force (San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1996).

3. Bob Templin, “The Calm Before the Surge,”Community College Journal (June/July 2002).

4. Debra D. Bragg, “Opportunities andChallenges for the New Vocationalism inAmerican Community Colleges,” in The NewVocationalism in Community Colleges, ed.Debra D. Bragg, New Directions forCommunity Colleges, Number 115 (SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, Fall 2001).

5. Kevin J. Dougherty, The Contradictory College:The Conflicting Origins, Impacts, and Futuresof the Community College (Albany, N.Y.: StateUniversity of New York Press, 1994).

6. Richard L. Drury, “The EntrepreneurialCommunity College: Bringing Workforce,Economic and Community Development toVirginia Communities,” Inquiry 6, VirginiaCommunity College System, (Spring 2001).

7. See Documented Characteristics of LaborMarket-Responsive Community Colleges anda Review of Supporting Literature (Westatand AED, Washington, D.C. 2003) availableat www.nccte.org and atwww.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/

8. President George W. Bush, remarks made atSouth Arkansas Community College, April 6,2004 available athttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040406-6.html.

9. Communication to the U.S. Department ofEducation, July 30, 2004.

10. Communication to the U.S. Department ofEducation, July 29, 2004.

11. Alan Greenspan, “The Critical Role ofEducation in the Nation’s Economy,” Remarksat the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce2004 Annual Meeting, Omaha, Nebraska,February 20, 2004.

24

25

APPENDIX AThe Colleges: Who They Are And Why They Were Chosen

Westat and AED systematically gatheredinformation from a variety of sources. We began bysynthesizing the existing literature on labor marketresponsiveness. We invited expert opinion fromresearchers, practitioners, and policy-makers. Ananalysis of the accumulated literature produced aset of general findings and themes. These findingswere then converted into research hypotheses andareas of inquiry that were put to the test using astrategically selected sample of colleges.

Our original charge from the U.S. Department ofEducation was to carefully examine 10 communitycolleges that presented the characteristicsdocumented in the literature associated withexemplary labor market responsiveness. As webegan identifying such colleges, we came to theimportant realization that they exist in and serveunique labor markets. Thus, to better understandthe context in which they operate, and the internaland contextual variables associated with labormarket responsiveness, we agreed with theDepartment of Education to examine small sets ofcolleges serving the same labor market. Thisafforded the research team an opportunity tocompare and contrast variations across collegesfacing similar contextual circumstances.

The study design then evolved from an analysisof 10 “exemplary” community colleges to ananalysis of multiple colleges serving 10 distinctlabor market areas. Colleges in the finalsample include those with a national reputationfor being market-responsive; those thatappeared to have similar assets and liabilitiesbut did not attract national notice; and thosethat lacked some of the assets of the nationallyprominent colleges, but were in the same labormarket. For seven of the 10 labor markets, wechose three colleges to include in the finalsample. The rural community colleges, locatedin different states, each served different labormarkets. Finally, two of the areas are servedby community college districts, and in thesecases, we were able to collect and include datafrom more than three colleges. Thus, the finalsample contained more than 30 communitycolleges. The participating colleges, organizedby labor market area, are presented in figure 1.The colleges in the study sample vary withrespect to size, geographic location, overallbudget, student populations, funding stream,and other variables reflecting the full range ofcommunity colleges in the United States.

26

Field researchers conducted case studies of thesecommunity colleges to determine how they anticipateand respond to the changing needs of business andindustry in their communities. This approach offeredthe opportunity to tease out the different strategiesthat colleges employ when faced with comparableeconomic and market conditions. It also providedthe opportunity to observe how varying contextsinfluence college behavior and responsiveness. Wesought to critically examine the differences in thecolleges’ programs and relate those differences to

variations we observed in a set of critical factors,such as internal leadership and organization,resource allocation and sources of support, andexternal relationships and partnerships.

Examining these colleges, our field teams set outto collect and organize lessons learned that otherscould fruitfully apply in their own settings. Acomprehensive analysis of these colleges led tothe findings and recommendations presented inthe guidebook.

Figure 1: Colleges in Study Sample by Labor Market Area*

Labor Market Colleges/Presidents

Charlotte, N.C. Central Piedmont/ Gaston/ York Tech, S.C./Anthony Zeiss Patricia Skinner Dennis Merrill

Chicago, Ill. Moraine Valley/ Oakton/ Malcolm X/Vernon Crawley Margaret Lee Zierre Campbell

Metropolitan D.C. Anne Arundel, Md./ Montgomery, Md./ Northern Virginia/Martha Smith Charlene Nunley Robert Templin

Greater Orlando, Fla. Valencia/ Seminole/ Indian River/Sanford Shugart E. Ann McGee Edwin Massey

Quad Cities, Iowa/Ill. Kirkwood, Iowa/ Black Hawk, Ill./ Scott, Iowa/Norm Neilsen Keith Miller Patricia Keir (Chancellor)

Springfield, Mass. Springfield Tech/ Holyoke/ Asnuntuck, Conn./Andrew Scibelli William Messner Martha McLeod

Seattle, Wash. Bellevue/ Shoreline/ Green River/Jean Floten Holly Moore Richard Rutkowski

Rural Colleges South Piedmont, N.C./ Mountain Empire, Va./ Walla Walla, Wash./John McKay Terrance Suarez Steven VanAusdle

San Diego, Calif. San Diego District: Palomar/Mesa / Constance Carroll Richard JonesMiramar / Ron ManzoniSan Diego City / Terrence Burgess

Dallas, Texas Dallas County District / Jesus Carreon (Chancellor):Richland Mountain ViewNorth Lake Brook Haven EastfieldCedar Valley El Centro

* In Dallas, all of the colleges were part of a single community college district. In San Diego, the collegeswere in two community college districts. In those cases, we examined the organizational structures at thedistrict level and drew examples from among the colleges in those districts. Because rural colleges eachserve a unique labor market but share similar characteristics, we selected three rural colleges in differentstates to constitute one case study.

27

To examine the economic and social environment ofeach of the 10 labor market areas, the team firstreviewed published documents and gathered regionaland county-level data from the U.S. Census Bureau andfrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The team alsoreviewed college mission statements, organizationalcharts, budgets, student enrollment information, studenthandbooks, promotional materials, course catalogues,and college fact books, as well as documents collectedon site—including meeting minutes, program reports,curriculum samples, and where possible, datadescribing or assessing the impact of college programson business recruitment, retention, and growth.

Data collection activities (primarily document review,on-site visits, and phone interviews) occurredbetween August and December 2003. To ensurecross-site consistency, semi-structured, open-endedinterview protocols were used to guide interviews andfocus group discussions with college administrators,college faculty, and community partners. The teaminterviewed organizations and individuals beyond thecollege, including employers, community-basedorganizations, and economic development agencies.

Data analysis resulted in three broad but notmutually exclusive categories of variables related tolabor market responsiveness that we namedcontextual, internal and external. Used primarily tostructure the case studies, these categories helpedthe team organize the features and factors thatappear to be correlated with labor marketresponsiveness across the numerous collegesparticipating in the study.

Contextual variables are those that existindependently of the college and reflect conditionsand features of the environment in which the collegeoperates. These include:

State-level polices and funding formulasCommunity demographicsLocal labor market conditionsEconomic trends and conditionsThe community orientation toward the communitycollege specifically and higher education in general

Internal variables are those that exist within theconfines of the institution itself and as such arethose over which the community college has thegreatest degree of control. These include:

LeadershipOrganizational structureOrganizational cultureInternal resource allocationInternally developed data

External variables are those that exist in relationshipto the college and are manifested through theinterplay between the college and its context. Thus,“external” variables capture the interaction betweeninternal practices and the surrounding context.These include:

College funding (i.e., local and non-formulafunding)Relationship-building (formal and informal)Partnership operation Externally developed data

The guidebook recognizes the significance ofcontextual factors, but mainly addresses thosefactors over which college presidents, trustees, andadministrators have greater control, namely, theinternal and external variables listed above. Volume2 examines in detail these variables and theirrelationship to labor market responsiveness.

28

29

APPENDIX BMembers of the Community College Labor MarketResponsiveness Advisory Committee

Tom Bailey Director Institute on Education and the Economy Community College Research Center Columbia University, New York.

Beth Buehlmann Executive Director Center for Workforce Preparation U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

Tony Carnevale Senior Fellow National Center on Education and

the Economy, Washington, D.C.

Phyllis Eisen Executive Director Center for Workforce Success National Association of Manufacturers,Washington, D.C.

Jim McKenney Vice President Economic Development and International

Programs American Association of Community Colleges,Washington, D.C.

Jay Pfeiffer Director Office of Education Accountability

and Information Florida Department of Education, Tallahassee, Fla.

Bill Sanders Director of Workforce Innovation U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.

Steve Wandner Director of Research and DemonstrationsEmployment and Training Administration U.S. Department of Labor, Washington D.C.

Larry Warford Senior Consultant for Workforce DevelopmentLeague for Innovation in the Community

College, Phoenix, Ariz.

Tony Zeiss President Central Piedmont Community College,Charlotte, N.C.

Photo credits:Main cover photo: courtesy of Springfield Technical Community College.Additional photos:Cover (top to bottom)—courtesy of Miami-Dade Community College, Springfield Technical Community College,and Miami-Dade Community College.

30

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education