**The 21st-Century Community College:**

**A Strategic Guide to Maximizing Labor Market Responsiveness**

**Volume 1**

**Unleashing the Power of the Community College**

**September 2004**

Keith MacAllum

Karla Yoder

with

Anne Rogers Poliakoff.

Academy for Educational Development

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

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 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

**Volume 1**

**Unleashing the Power of the Community College**

**[Contents]{.smallcaps}**

Preface and Purpose of This Guidebook v

Acknowledgments viii

The Time Is Now 1

A Closer Look at Labor Market Responsiveness 5

Key Lessons Learned 11

Overcoming Impediments 14

The Responsive Community College in Context 16

The Promise of Labor Market Responsiveness 18

Afterword: A Vision for the Future 20

Notes 23

Appendix A: The Colleges: Who They Are and Why They Were Chosen 24

Appendix B: Members of the Community College Labor Market Responsiveness
Advisory Committee 27

**[Preface: The Community College Labor Market Responsiveness
Initiative]{.smallcaps}**

The Community College Labor Market Responsiveness (CCLMR) Initiative was
created by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and
Adult Education (OVAE), to develop and disseminate information and tools
enabling community colleges, as a unique and critical component of
America's education and training system, to keep pace with the needs of
a diverse student 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
the indicators and measures by which market responsiveness can be
judged; 2) identify the policies and practices community colleges have
put in place to facilitate and support labor market responsiveness; 3)
pinpoint the steps colleges can take to improve labor market
responsiveness and the quality of customized programs they offer to
students; and 4) disseminate that knowledge to the field.

This guidebook is the main tool for this dissemination effort. In
writing the guide, Westat and AED relied heavily upon case study
analysis of more than 30 community colleges in 10 diverse labor markets,
especially hundreds of interviews and discussions conducted with college
leaders, local employers and economic development professionals. To
augment the case studies, we collected standardized data across all
colleges using surveys and document review, conducted statistical
analyses, reviewed the relevant literature, and consulted with experts.

This report does not represent findings from an experimentally designed
study carried out in a controlled setting. Rather, it represents an
extensive analysis of the work being undertaken by multiple community
colleges. This is a new area of study, and no preliminary analysis has
been conducted that was ready to be subjected to a more rigorous
research design. Given these methodological constraints, the report
cannot assert a direct causality between any of the identified
characteristics and particular student labor market outcomes. This
study, however, can lay the groundwork for future research that would
use an experimental or quasi-experimental design to test the impacts of
the characteristics identified.

Nonetheless, documenting current practice across a sample of more than
30 colleges, something that has never been done as extensively as in
this study, may provide value to college leaders. As more colleges
review these materials and take action based on the collected
professional wisdom documented, we expect to advance the field of
knowledge about how community colleges can better respond to and provide
leadership in preparing students for labor market success.

In addition to this guidebook, other useful products listed below have
emerged from the research component of this initiative. These are
available at
[www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae](http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae)
:

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

-   Research appendices to *The 21st-Century Community College* (Westat,
    forthcoming)

**[Purpose of This Guidebook]{.smallcaps}**

Aiming to help all community colleges unleash their potential for
workforce and economic development the Office of Vocational and Adult
Education of the U.S. Department of Education sought to identify ways
college leaders can improve those programs and services that most
directly affect the ability of citizens to compete in today's
increasingly demanding skill-based labor market, and the ability of
employers to compete in today's challenging global market. The result is
this guidebook, which has three major goals. The first goal is to
**share up-to-date information on labor market responsiveness**. Based
on contemporary research, this guide explains what is meant by "labor
market responsiveness," delineates factors associated with becoming more
responsive, and clarifies why labor market responsiveness is so
important to community colleges in the 21st century.

The second goal is to **offer practical guidance to college
administrators seeking to take actions that will allow them to maximize
their labor market responsiveness**. We believe college leaders will be
especially interested in learning how their colleagues across the nation
have endeavored to make their colleges more responsive to labor market
conditions.

The third goal is to **encourage community college administrators to
engage in a critical self-assessment process**. The guiding questions
that appear throughout the guidebook and the self-assessment tools
provided suggest a process that will help college leaders and top
officials to identify gaps in programs and services as well as
opportunities for promoting action on campus.

This guidebook is directed to you, the top leadership at community
colleges as presidents, boards of trustees, and the senior
administrators and deans responsible for the colleges' missions and
programs. In turn, we expect that you will share portions of this guide,
or its entirety, with others---faculty, staff, employers, economic
development professionals, and public officials. Involving the broader
campus and community in self-assessment and strategic planning is an
important step toward becoming increasingly anticipatory of and
responsive to local and regional workforce development needs.

\[begin text block\]

***The nation's community colleges provide the most logical---and, for
all practical purposes, the only---foundation for building a broad-based
workforce development system that can respond to local and regional
needs.** Julian Alssid, Workforce Strategy Center^1^*

\[end text block\]

The guidebook has three volumes. In ***Volume 1***, we provide an
overview of labor market responsiveness. We define what it is, explain
why community colleges need to be intentional in their responsiveness to
labor market conditions, and show how responsive colleges can more
effectively contribute to the economic development of their communities.
Volume 1 previews the main lessons learned from the literature and
case-study research. We encourage college leadership, in particular the
president and members of the board of trustees, to read through Volume 1
to obtain a common grounding on the issues. Volume 1 provides the
information necessary to enlighten and motivate community college
leaders toward decisions that will maximize their labor market
responsiveness.

***Volume 2*** is the heart of the guidebook. Drawing from in-depth case
studies of more than 30 colleges, it presents a roadmap for action. Each
of Volume 2's seven modules explores a different facet of the community
college that contributes to labor market responsiveness. These modules
are expected to function as practical guides that can be used
independently of one another and referenced time and again as each
college president and his or her team progresses through the processes
of self-reflection and strategic planning. In each, broad findings and
lessons learned are explained in great detail and numerous examples from
colleges are presented. Throughout the seven modules, there are guiding
questions that will cause presidents and their staff to reflect on
current structures, policies, procedures, and programs at your college.
Each module closes with a brief summary of lessons learned. Interspersed
between the seven modules, we have included detailed information on
especially relevant resources and practical advice that have general
applicability to labor market responsiveness culled from other sources.

***Volume 3*** contains two practical tools to guide each team through a
self-assessment process and a wealth of resources to help them build a
strategic plan. The first tool, keyed directly to the seven modules in
Volume 2, helps each college to reflect on the internal structures,
policies, and practices that inhibit or promote responsiveness. The
second tool helps the college to systematically look outward to its
community to determine specifically what programs and services will best
meet the needs of its service area. Both of these are designed to be
completed by a team, including leadership, administrators, faculty, and
even community partners. We have also included an annotated bibliography
of documents and reports to inform effective thinking and planning, in
addition to an annotated listing of organizations and projects that
stand ready to provide assistance to colleges as they strive to become
more labor-market responsive.

**[Acknowledgments]{.smallcaps}**

The authors wish to thank, first and foremost, the countless individuals
at the participating colleges who provided open access to their
institutions and programs. Their professionalism, enthusiasm, and
creativity served to inspire us. The participating 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, El Centro, Mountain View, North Lake, Richland), Dallas,
> Texas
>
> Gaston 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, Palos Hills, Ill.
>
> Mountain Empire Community College, Big Stone 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, Iowa
>
> Seminole 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.

We are especially grateful for the generous time and valuable guidance
of the CCLMRI Review Committee Members.

Roy Church, president, Lorain County Community College, and Mary Ellen
Duncan, president, Howard Community College, graciously shared their
expertise and perspective as reviewers of the guidebook.

Kent Phillippe, senior research associate at the American Association of
Community Colleges, and Jeffrey Schwartz, education program manager,
Appalachian Regional Commission, provided valuable contributions to the
research design, site selection, and product development. J. Noah Brown,
Vice-President for Public Policy, Association of Community College
Trustees, graciously shared his expertise and perspective as a reviewer
of the guidebook.

This project was conceived and informed by staff in the Office of
Vocational and Adult Education including Hans Meeder, deputy assistant
secretary; Joan Athen, special assistant for community colleges; Andrew
Abrams, research analyst; and Burt Carlson, acting chief, Effective
Practices and Dissemination Branch.

Fieldwork was completed by Sarah Demma, Patsy Flannigan, Robert Harmon,
and Amy Shimshak of Westat; Bryna Shore Fraser, Mark Johnson-Lewis,
Keith MacAllum, Anne Rogers Poliakoff, and Karla Yoder of AED.
Additional material was collected by Ian Petta and Regina Yudd of
Westat.

Louis Jacobson of Westat served as the principal investigator of the
CCLMR project. Alex Ratnofsky, senior vice president, Westat, provided
invaluable oversight and leadership.

The graphic designer was Jel Montoya, AED.

**[The Time Is Now]{.smallcaps}**

The story is told of a Midwestern community college located in a town
that was facing a major economic downturn. Historically productive
plants were soon to be shut down as the existing technology was becoming
obsolete and production was slated to be moved elsewhere. Everyone saw
that the writing was on the wall. Eventually, the plants closed, jobs
were lost, and the entire town suffered, just as predicted. Looking
back, a staff member of the community college said, "The saddest thing
is, we saw this thing coming. We talked about it a lot, but we never
took action." Ten years later, faced with another economic shift, the
community college was at the forefront of envisioning the area's
economic future, recruiting new industry, and retraining dislocated
workers for the new opportunities under development. Community members
recognized the economic development resource they had in their community
college, and the transition was markedly less painful. Clearly,
community colleges have a vital role to play in ensuring that their
communities effectively anticipate and respond to the economic
challenges and opportunities they face.

Many believe that as community colleges enter their second century of
service, their role as engines of economic development will come to the
fore. Twenty-first century community colleges will be characterized by
their pivotal role in a seamless system of education, workforce
development, and economic development**.** As Norton Grubb observed,
"Modern community colleges have a major responsibility for preparing the
nation's current and future mid-skilled workforce, which accounts for
three-fourths of all employees in the United States."^2^

\[begin text block\]

**Now more than ever, it is critical that all community colleges realize
their potential to strengthen the U.S. economy by meeting the workforce
development needs of its citizens and employers.**

\[end text block\]

The need for 21st-century community colleges to become flexible,
market-responsive providers of postsecondary education, worker
retraining and certification, and continuing education stems from the
need for ever-evolving job skills in a continually changing work
environment. Global competition contributes to increased pressure on
business and industry to be more productive. The demand for skilled
labor grows. As a result, the training needs of employers have expanded
and accelerated. Communities that prosper are ever more dependent on
employers that respond to the need for skilled labor.

\[begin text block\]

> The ability of a company to be competitive in this new economic
> environment requires a capacity to improve productivity, to innovate,
> and to push innovations to market faster than competitors. None of
> this can be accomplished without a skilled frontline workforce that
> can harness the tools of technology and quickly adapt to changes in a
> global economy.

Bob Templin, Northern Virginia Community College3

\[end text block\]

Health-care, manufacturing, and information technology-based companies
spend more dollars every year on training to upgrade the skills of their
workforce. The demand for training has created a market for contract
training and curriculum development that community colleges are uniquely
qualified to meet. At the same time, with the increase in training
budgets, competition for this market has expanded both from private
vendors and from within the companies themselves. Although many
community colleges have become more market-responsive, securing such
training contracts, others have been less successful.

Workforce development is almost universally accepted as a key component
of economic development. The time is right for community colleges to
fully embrace and achieve their potential as engines for economic
development. With a network of 1,600 community college campuses and
countless on-site training facilities, this potential is vast. Our
community colleges are well positioned to contribute statewide and
locally. At their best, they work closely with business and industry to
offer a continuum of training---from students without workforce
experience to veteran employees upgrading their skills to advance in
their jobs or make career transitions.

\[begin text block\]

***The mission of community colleges is evolving because the communities
within which they are situated are changing.***

*Debra Bragg, University of Illinois^4^*

\[end text block\]

While recognizing the potential of community colleges to promote
economic development, it is important to remember that their missions
are multifaceted. Community colleges are well aware of the multiple
roles that they play---in providing opportunities for students to earn
associate degrees and to prepare for transfer to four-year colleges, for
adult members of the community to pursue continuing education and
avocations, and for new and incumbent workers to obtain vocational
training in the form of certification and other specialized programs.
Colleges need to balance these and other functions if they are to
maximize their role in workforce and economic development in response to
changing conditions. As our nation undergoes a continuous technological
and economic evolution, the importance of the workforce development
mission of community colleges rises to the fore. For many of them, this
will require significant institutional change before the potential for
meeting local labor market needs is fully realized. How effectively
community colleges transform themselves into market-responsive
institutions determines how effectively they will support the economic
development of their communities.

Market-responsive community colleges with high-quality career-oriented
programs are able to anticipate local community needs, secure contracts
to custom-build programs for employers, deliver courses and credentials
that align with current and future workplace needs, and accurately
evaluate training outcomes. Over the course of their 100-year history, a
growing number of America's community colleges have become highly
responsive to labor market conditions. Several of these colleges have
been recognized by the American Association of Community Colleges, the
National Alliance of Business, and the National Council for Continuing
Education and Training, among other organizations, as exemplary in their
efforts to advance the linkages between education and training and
economic development.

**Yet, not every community college fully recognizes its potential in
meeting these goals nor are they equally capable of providing
career-oriented training.** Colleges vary with respect to the economic
conditions in which they operate, the dynamism of their leadership, the
resources allotted by state and local funding sources to the vocational
training mission, the nature of local training needs and interests, and
the extent to which they must compete with other providers of vocational
training in their area. In his landmark 1994 study *The Contradictory
College*, Kevin Dougherty found most community colleges to be "much less
responsive to the demands of the labor market" than many observers
contend, stating that the typical community college "dances to the music
of the labor market but does so only clumsily."^5^

\[begin text block\]

***Community colleges, for many reasons, are moving to the forefront of
workforce and economic development due primarily to their location at
the grass-roots level in their service regions. Today's community
colleges offer far more than the traditional vocational and general
education programs of the recent past, yet many still need to adopt a
more market-driven approach to workforce and economic development
programming.** Richard Drury, Challenging Management Development,
Inc.^6^*

\[end text block\]

Others have likewise doubted the ability of community colleges to be
tightly linked to local labor market demands. They cite the oversupply
of graduates in some vocational fields, the inability of other graduates
to find employment directly related to their training, and the reliance
of some employers and industries on proprietary schools. For researchers
like Dougherty, the weak connection between output and demand is
explained by "the fact that the community college's vocational effort
has been governed by nonmarket as well as market criteria."

Nevertheless, as local economies and employment outlooks change, some
community colleges are able to respond. Some even anticipate these
changes. Looking to better serve their students and employer partners,
these colleges have become more aggressive in their outreach to their
communities. Leadership at these colleges tends to assume an
anticipatory stance. College presidents and boards of trustees have
gathered adequate information to point the institution toward the most
promising set of economic and workforce opportunities. Leaders have
improved internal responses to these opportunities by confronting the
institution's structural and cultural weaknesses. And these institutions
have developed strong relationships and partnerships, and committed
resources adequate to overcome obstacles.

The specific strategies employed by market-responsive community colleges
are not identical. Although any college can serve economic and workforce
needs, these needs vary according to the local economy, the size and
strength of the business community, the types of industries that
dominate, the level of demand for specific skill sets, and the changing
demographics of the community. Moreover, college structures and
strategies are shaped by state and local policy, funding arrangements,
and local history. Therefore, there is no "one size fits all" approach
to labor market responsiveness.

**Yet, market-driven community colleges do tend to share fundamental
characteristics.** The literature on market-responsive community
colleges, published over the last 10 years, suggests that they share the
following important traits:^7^

-   Leadership committed to the goal of making the college
    market-responsive;

-   Internal response mechanisms that influence campus organizational
    structure and culture;

-   Conscious and deliberate efforts to nurture business and other
    partnerships; and

-   Thoughtful and strategic approaches to building stronger connections
    to the local economy.

Volume 2 of this guidebook introduces a wide range of colleges across
the United States that have taken steps, sometimes incremental,
sometimes bold, toward reorganizing themselves as educational and
training institutions that are market-responsive. In our fieldwork, we
visited with staff at more than 30 colleges in 10 diverse labor markets.
(See Appendix A for a listing of the specific colleges and their labor
markets.) Through these case studies, as well as through a review of the
literature and consultation with experts, we discovered how colleges
approach their workforce and economic development missions, how they
design effective programs, and the creative ways that they overcome
obstacles. This guide presents the cumulative experience of these
colleges as well as the strategies that their presidents, boards, and
other top officials have used to pilot their transformation. Volume 2
describes the practical steps they have taken on their journey toward
becoming ever more responsive to their labor markets, and perhaps more
importantly, anticipatory of future needs, regardless of the economic
environment that they face. This guidebook provides community college
leaders with the encouragement, information, and resources with which to
take action now. Volume 3 provides a self-assessment tool to help
colleges reflect on internal structures, policies and practices that
inhibit and promote responsiveness.

**[A Closer Look at Labor Market Responsiveness]{.smallcaps}**

By now, most community college leaders have a general sense of what is
meant by the term "labor market responsiveness." They recognize the role
that colleges can play in workforce preparation, workforce development,
and economic development. Community colleges are increasingly key
players in developing technology parks, hosting small business
incubators, offering entrepreneurship development, partnering in
business recruitment, and conducting applied research to name a few. The
preponderance of activity at community colleges, however, remains
centered on education and training. Therefore this guide carefully
examines the important contribution that labor market responsiveness
makes to economic development through a better prepared workforce. Using
this lens, we sought to establish a definition of "labor market
responsiveness" that focuses attention on workforce development.

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

\[begin text block\]

> **A labor-market-responsive community college delivers programs and
> services that align with and seek to anticipate the changing dynamics
> of the labor market it serves.  These programs and services address
> the educational and workforce development needs of both employers and
> students as part of the college\'s overall contribution to the social
> and economic vitality of its community.**

\[end text block\]

This definition highlights several important facets of market
responsiveness:

-   First, it distinguishes programs, such as courses or certificate
    programs, from services, such as small business development,
    industry recruitment, and corporate consulting, while identifying
    both as equally important. Although analyses of labor market
    responsiveness often emphasize noncredit programs, it is important
    to note that this definition does not distinguish between credit and
    noncredit programs, because both are important components of a
    comprehensive strategy.

-   Second, this definition draws attention to the importance of
    aligning these programs and services with local conditions and
    recognizes the fact that local conditions are constantly changing.
    In other words, one size does not fit all, and what worked yesterday
    may not work tomorrow.

-   Third, this definition indicates that to be responsive means to be
    anticipatory. Even the most nimble community colleges, which can
    develop new courses of study in a matter of months, must constantly
    look ahead to ensure that new programs are in place by the time that
    business and industry need them.

-   Fourth, a college's service area is not restricted to its locality.
    More and more colleges are responding to markets that extend far
    beyond county, state, or even national borders. Economies and
    markets do not recognize political or geographic boundaries.

-   Fifth, this definition incorporates academic education as well as
    vocational education and workforce development. The traditional hard
    lines---between academic education and vocational training, between
    credit and noncredit courses---are increasingly blurred.

-   Sixth, it recognizes that the constituencies who benefit from labor
    market responsiveness include students, employers, the community as
    a whole, and the college itself. Responsiveness enables the college
    to better serve all of its customers.

-   And lastly, the definition asserts that the community's economic
    vitality, and by extension the region's, depends upon meeting the
    mutually reinforcing needs of students and employers. By addressing
    the supply side and the demand side, and by aligning the educational
    and training needs dictated by each, the community college enhances
    the overall well-being of the community in which it is located.

What does this definition mean in practice? It means going the extra
mile to develop programs to meet community needs perhaps not immediately
obvious. **Colleges take markedly varied paths toward market
responsiveness, shaped to a great degree by surrounding community
conditions and internal institutional capabilities.** Each community
college is unique in its approach to and relationship with its local
market, and each labor market presents a unique set of conditions and
opportunities.

\[begin text block\]

***The community colleges are very well adapted to meeting the needs of
local employers. They\'re flexible, they\'re able to say to an employer,
\'What do you need?\' and \'We\'ll educate the people for the kind of
workers you need.\'***  *President George W. Bush^8^*

\[end text block\]

There exists a wide range of effective approaches to determine and meet
economic needs, some simple, some complex. The more well-known
approaches include contract and customized training programs, new
certification and credentialing programs, and increased flexibility with
respect to course delivery, scheduling, and location. However,
forward-thinking college leaders tend to incorporate a variety of
mutually reinforcing strategies, approaches, and techniques to position
the institution as responsive.

Contextual factors, such as changing local demographics and industrial
mix, inevitably influence the choice and effectiveness of these
approaches. Depending on local conditions, context can either enhance or
inhibit their implementation. The important lesson is that a college's
ability to serve its constituents and contribute to economic development
is directly related to its ability to design, develop, and implement
practical approaches that take into account these contextual factors
while tightening the linkages between what the college offers and what
the community needs. Let's take a closer look at three instructive
examples to see how community colleges have tackled the issue of labor
market responsiveness in practice.

**The Institute for Manufacturing Productivity at York Technical
College**

The Institute for Manufacturing Productivity (IMP) at York Technical
College in South Carolina is an effort to meet both local and national
workforce needs in the area of manufacturing, and to improve the
productivity of manufacturing industries in the United States. In 2002,
the college built a 20,000-square-foot facility, today filled with
millions of dollars of equipment -- machine tools, simulators, and CAM
software, in partnership with about 15 companies. The executive vice
president of the college characterized the IMP as "the college's niche
right now."

Okuma America, a machine tool manufacturer with its Western hemisphere
headquarters in Charlotte, N.C., is a key partner in the IMP.
Historically, Okuma maintained a training division with a physical
facility on a company site. During the 1990s, Okuma leadership realized
they no longer wanted to support their own training center. When York
Tech approached the company in 2001, asking Okuma to place several
machines in the college's new facility, the company suggested a
larger-scale partnership. That year, Okuma moved its entire corporate
training center to the IMP. Okuma donates the training equipment and
York Tech employs company trainers. The IMP conducts training almost
every week for employees, customers, and suppliers from North and South
America, and sells Okuma equipment off the floor. The president of York
Tech noted that he plays a major role in maintaining this valuable
partnership through his personal involvement.

The IMP also functions as Charmilles Technologies' application and
demonstration center for the Southeastern United States and is now
building a metrology lab with a grant from the Tyco Electronics
Foundation. The IMP conducts training and product development for other
national and international companies, including General Motors,
Ingersol-Rand, Harley Davidson, Federal-Mogul, Honda, and Siemens,
serving hundreds of incumbent employees. The facility provides office
space to technical people from the partner companies. Laboratories,
classrooms, and offices are named for the major donors to the effort.
The institute also serves as a training ground for York Tech students in
machining and industrial technologies.

The college capitalizes on the opportunity to interact weekly with
manufacturers, suppliers, and their employees from around the country,
staying current on training needs and future trends in the industries
represented by those visiting the center. York Tech conducts follow-up
with the home companies of those trained, not just on their satisfaction
with the training received but to learn what lies ahead for those
industries.

The IMP also plays a consulting role, assisting local industry in
identifying in-house manufacturing, process, and operational
improvements. A success story in this realm involves a core pin that
Tyco Electronics bought for \$50-75 a piece in the United States. The
company was considering getting the parts from China for about \$47. The
director of the IMP assembled a team of local industry experts and a
Tyco employee, who performed hours of research to create a new method
for manufacturing core pins and succeeded in creating a process to
produce them for about \$9 a piece. This team gave the process to Tyco
and trained a company technician, feeling that they had made a
significant contribution to keeping manufacturing in the United States.

**Nursing Program Partnership With the University of Chicago Hospitals
Academy**

A three-way partnership---between the Moraine Valley Community College
Nursing Program, the University of Chicago Hospitals (UCH), and the UCH
Academy (UCHA)---offers qualified UCH employees the opportunity to
complete an associate's of applied science degree in nursing. The
partnership responds to projected nursing shortages, a crisis evident to
hospitals attempting to hire nursing staff, and thoroughly documented in
labor market analyses. By training its employees to become nurses, the
UCH realized it could "increase capacity and the number of students
matriculating with nursing degrees, not just compete for the existing
talent." The Nursing at the Forefront Scholarship pays 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 Moraine Valley about bringing the
college's nursing program to UCH. UCHA and the college had an existing
relationship, having partnered on previous efforts, such as a medical
terminology program. The excellent reputation of Moraine Valley's
nursing program also attracted UCHA---as its executive director noted,
"one of the finest degree completion nursing programs in the state."

Given the opportunity to contribute to the social good, the leadership
of Moraine Valley was enthusiastic about the invitation. "The board is
so pleased and proud of this program, because it was absolutely the
right thing to do," one administrator explained. Not only would the new
program help those on the long waiting list for admission to the college
nursing program, but it also addressed a social crisis---the shortage of
nurses.

Support from the college's top leadership was critical, because the
logistics of creating the program were very challenging and required
consistent administrative support. The willingness of senior
administrators to tackle this challenge reflected the college's
organizational culture, which values risk-taking, vision, and continuous
improvement. The nursing program's faculty members were initially very
cautious, wanting to ensure that the UCHA program would be of identical
quality as Moraine Valley's. Thanks to an organizational structure that
permits creative strategies for scheduling courses and compensating
faculty, one result is that Moraine Valley nursing faculty, not
adjuncts, travel into Chicago to deliver the program. UCHA pays an
annual stipend of \$10,000 to cover the college's additional
responsibilities incurred by this partnership. Moraine Valley covers the
cost of faculty assignments at UCHA, as all clinical staff faculty are
full-time faculty members at Moraine Valley. The college absorbs the
travel costs, and UCHA covers the cost of additional instructional
materials required by the program.

The program began in spring 2002. Each cohort of 18 new students must
meet UCHA's eligibility requirements as well as Moraine Valley's
admission requirements. Some prospective nursing students on Moraine
Valley's waiting list have become employees of UCH in order to get into
the new program. The UCH system is already seeing results. UCH employs
all the students, many as nursing assistants, and they are smoothly
assimilated into the organization. Formal evaluations, comparing
employees who learned through tuition reimbursement outside of UCHA with
its cohort learners, have found that 90 percent of cohort learners are
still employed by the UCH system while 50 percent of the tuition
reimbursement group has left by the time they receive their degree. It
appears that cohort learners feel a greater affiliation with the
organization where they trained.

**The Professional Automotive Training Center at Shoreline Community
College**

Shoreline Community College\'s Professional Automotive Training Center
(PATC) is a nationally recognized, award-winning initiative. The center
houses the college's automotive factory training programs sponsored by
General Motors, American Honda, Toyota, and DaimlerChrysler. The center
offers two-year technical training programs specific to each
manufacturer's technical needs. Dealerships sponsor students for the
duration of the program. Students alternate each quarter taking classes
at the PATC and working in a dealership. Students who complete the
program receive an associate degree as well as factory certification. Of
those who enter, approximately 90 percent complete the program and 100
percent are placed in jobs.

Shoreline's automotive program began in the late 1980s when an
instructor in the college's manufacturing technician program explored
the need for automotive technicians in the Puget Sound region. The
college conducted research by talking to representatives from the Puget
Sound Automotive Dealers Association (PSADA), comprising more than 260
new car dealers. Personal leadership by the president, the vice
president for academic affairs, and the vice president for
administrative services, in collaboration with PSADA, particularly the
association's executive director, was instrumental in Shoreline's
success.

Beginning with a partnership with GM, the initiative has expanded to
include four major corporations. The program, geared to both emerging
and incumbent workers, is overseen by the college's Business,
Automotive, and Manufacturing Division, which is part of academic
affairs and primarily state-funded. Over the years, the college's
partnerships with the PSADA, as well as with the dealers and the
factories, have greatly expanded. For example, the PSADA's headquarters
has been housed in the program's center since the 32,000-square-foot
building was constructed in 1992, through private money raised by the
college foundation and donated by area banks, business leaders, and
dealerships. As a tenant of the building, the PSADA provides the
infrastructure for the automotive division in terms of secretarial
support, office equipment, and building maintenance.

Shoreline's partnerships with dealerships are an integral part of the
program's success. In addition to internships and employment, dealers
provide students with tools and equipment during their training. The
college also relies on its partnerships with the sponsoring factories.
For example, they provide the college with new vehicles for training
purposes and upgrade training for instructors. Most of the training
equipment is loaned to the college from various manufacturers. For
example, Snap-On Tools loaned the college \$400,000 worth of equipment,
and Hunter Engineering Corporation supplies the college with alignment
equipment.

Relationships with high school automotive programs are crucial to the
PATC as well. The college is an active participant in the Automotive
Youth Educational System (AYES) and has partnered with more than 16 high
schools in the state. The program has an advisory committee of dealers
that meets three times a year with instructors and the dean of the
automotive division. Through these meetings, the college is able to
determine how well the dealers' needs are being addressed and identify
needs that have not been met.

These vignettes describe innovative programs that go beyond the
traditional and expected institutional responses to changing needs.
These community colleges determined specific local workforce needs and
responded with creative solutions to those needs. The programs are
far-reaching and strategically planned. Once we had heard numerous such
stories, through interviews with more than 200 individuals at more than
30 community colleges, we acquired a clear picture of
labor-market-responsive strategies and an appreciation for their range.
We then set about to determine what accounts for the varying ability of
colleges to enact these strategies, beyond the influences of their
differing economic contexts. We focused on factors over which community
college leaders have the most control. Our research question---and the
question we believe college leaders want answered---became, **What
specific things do effective colleges do that enable them to be more
market-responsive?**

\[begin text block\]

***Community colleges are specially situated to address the unique
workforce and education needs of any given community. I have long
admired the community colleges\' ability to adapt and evolve with the
ever-changing face of today\'s students. Community colleges have long
been at the forefront of meeting the education needs, transfer
opportunities, and training needs of emerging workforces, and I applaud
their continued effort.** Rep. Michael N. Castle, chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Education Reform^9^*

\[end text block\]

Even the casual reader of these three stories alone will note emerging
themes. All three colleges successfully addressed such issues as
partnership, organizational flexibility, information gathering,
strategic planning, resource development, and leadership. We found that
the answers to the research question we had posed could be organized
into seven broad dimensions that promote or inhibit a college's ability
to be labor-market-responsive. It is these dimensions of the community
college that leaders must address in order to maximize labor market
responsiveness:

1.  Leadership and governance

2.  Organizational structure and staffing

3.  Organizational culture

4.  Resources and funding

5.  Information and data

6.  Relationship-building

7.  Partnerships

These seven dimensions provide a useful way to examine the factors that
colleges need to address to improve their labor market responsiveness.
Although we have separated them for the purposes of discussion, in
reality they form an integrated, mutually reinforcing set of practices,
policies, and philosophies. Addressing any one in isolation is unlikely
to result in the intended outcome. In and of themselves, these
dimensions do not equal labor market responsiveness. Instead, they
represent the dimensions of college life and practice that leaders must
successfully manage on the path towards becoming more
labor-market-responsive. Volume 2 of this guide is organized into seven
modules informed by authentic and practical examples that guide colleges
toward self-assessment and action. A self-assessment questionnaire in
Volume 3 may be helpful in prioritizing the areas on which to focus
attention, thus determining the most useful modules of Volume 2.

**[Key Lessons Learned]{.smallcaps}**

As a preview of Volume 2, we offer a brief summary of key lessons and
strategies explored in its seven modules. Examining this overview may
enable you and your team to determine which modules to explore in
greater detail.

***Leadership and governance***

The leadership of top college officials---the president, the board of
trustees, the vice presidents, and the deans---underlies and influences
each of the other six dimensions.

-   Effective leaders make market responsiveness one of their college's
    priorities and communicate this mission internally and externally.

-   They maintain a regional, national, or even international outlook,
    conveying a vision that extends beyond the college's traditional
    service area.

-   Leaders inform themselves about economic and workforce trends and
    function as a key conduit for bringing information back to campus
    and putting it to work.

-   Leaders effectively portray the college as a workforce development
    partner in the community and build relationships with powerful
    people, in the process often acquiring the resources needed to start
    new, large-scale programs.

***Organizational structure and staffing***

The reporting structure of community colleges reflects their priorities.
At responsive colleges, the continuing education or workforce
development division no longer suffers from second-class status in
comparison with credit programs, and this is reflected in the senior
administration.

-   Responsive colleges tend to centralize relevant services into one
    division to support larger efforts and provide clients with a single
    point of contact. However, no one division should hold sole
    responsibility for an institution's labor market responsiveness.

-   Responsive colleges bridge the traditional credit-noncredit divide,
    and staff collaborate across these divisions in mutually supportive
    ways.

-   Because collaboration requires faculty and staff to play expanded
    roles, the college invests in professional development to help
    everyone succeed in these new roles.

***Organizational culture***

In responsive colleges, new values, attitudes, and orientations toward
market-responsive activities prevail over traditional mindsets. The
culture is entrepreneurial, flexible, open-minded, innovative, and
collaborative.

-   A cultural hallmark of a responsive college is how well its staff
    members reflect and respond to diverse cultures and changing
    populations in the surrounding communities, in the effort to meet
    their needs.

-   Responsive colleges involve business and industry in curriculum
    development to ensure that credit courses meet employer needs.

***Resources and funding***

Successful labor market responsiveness requires adequate resources.
College leadership assumes responsibility for identifying and accessing
these resources.

-   Responsive colleges access a wide variety of resources beyond state
    funding, including grants, state initiatives, federal funds, in-kind
    donations, and employer partnerships.

-   Responsive colleges are creative and entrepreneurial in fundraising,
    securing new funds through legislation or providing college services
    on a fee-for-service basis, for example.

-   Local funding is crucial, whether obtained through increased county
    support or bond initiatives to construct new facilities.

-   Staff dedicated to seeking new funding sources and writing proposals
    are essential, as are the fundraising efforts of the president and
    trustees.

***Information and data***

Effective community college leaders rely on solid data and current
information to inform their strategic planning and decision-making.

-   Key types of information concern local and regional economic and
    workforce trends and employer needs.

-   Personal contacts with employers and the economic development
    community are crucial for gathering up-to-the-minute information on
    local needs and trends. To make program decisions and evaluate
    market responsiveness, hard data are usually required.

-   Enrollments in career-oriented programs often serve as a proxy for
    the needs of the market and employers. However, responsive colleges
    seek out any mismatches between enrollments and employer needs in
    high-wage occupations and address the imbalance by promoting
    interest and enrollment in these programs.

***Relationship-building***

Responsive colleges develop relationships with an expanded set of
constituencies---a broader range of employer partners and economic
development groups, planning groups, community-based organizations,
K--12 systems, four-year educational institutions, political leaders and
power brokers, the department of social services and Workforce
Investment Boards (WIB), industry associations, and unions.

-   Forming relationships with other community colleges is also
    important---for information-sharing, for regional collaboration, and
    for jointly accessing large grants.

-   The president, trustees, and the workforce development division take
    the lead in relationship-building, but it is considered the
    responsibility of everyone, including faculty and administrators in
    for-credit programs.

-   Colleges find new avenues to market their responsive services to
    employers and students. They convey messages to potential partners
    about the institution's quality as a training provider, its
    flexibility, and its proactive and problem-solving approach.

***Partnerships***

Effective colleges partner with employers and associations based on
strategic priorities. They assess local labor market needs and determine
how the college could most effectively meet them. They consider future
trends and partner with emerging and expanding industries.

-   The most responsive colleges partner with leaders---large employers
    and innovative industries when possible.

-   Responsive colleges ask partners not for resources, but rather how
    the college can help accomplish mutual goals.

-   When partnering, effective colleges emphasize long-term benefits
    over short-term gains.

-   Successful partnerships often lead to expanded or entirely new
    partnerships.

**[Overcoming Impediments]{.smallcaps}**

As community college leaders initiate strategic planning around the
design and development of labor-market-responsive programs and
approaches, they will inevitably encounter an array of barriers. Some of
these barriers are very real; others are more a matter of perception or
misinformation. The box at right lists some of the impediments most
commonly invoked. Yet this guidebook provides many examples of community
colleges that, having faced these same barriers, found effective
strategies to address and overcome them.

**Common Barriers to Market Responsiveness**

"That's not our mission."

"Noncredit programs and career-oriented programs are second-class at
this college."

"All our students transfer to four-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 and academically oriented."

"We're unionized."

"There aren't any companies in our district to partner with."

"We don't have enough information on which to base that kind of effort."

"The accreditation procedures for credit programs prevent that kind of
flexibility."

The findings presented in this guidebook confirm that through a
combination of self-reflection, strategic planning, and strong
leadership, all community colleges are able to enhance their labor
market responsiveness, regardless of the specific barriers that they may
initially encounter. Resistance to change is to be expected. A sober
assessment of unique challenges, a clear plan for moving forward, and
the application of proven remedies will help manage the change process.
The tools provided in Volume 3 are a beginning step in assessing the
environment surrounding your college and its unique barriers and in
taking stock of factors internal to the college that might hinder your
institution from reaching its potential in labor market responsiveness.

**[The Responsive Community College in Context]{.smallcaps}**

**An important lesson emerging from our study is that colleges in
dramatically diverse environments, with very different enrollments and
budgets, launched highly innovative and highly useful programs (see
appendix).** This confirms the premise that regardless of the unique
challenges and opportunities a community college faces, its leadership
can succeed in enhancing its labor market responsiveness. However, it is
critical to recognize that the context in which the college
operates---the local economy, the local workforce, and the history and
circumstances of the institution itself---do affect the college's
capacity for innovation.

No doubt, community colleges with solid financial assets, healthy
enrollments, and a supportive economic environment start out at an
advantage. Substantial enrollments and budgets indicate that these are
(a) the administrative resources to devote to designing and securing
funds for effective market-responsive programs, and (b) the educational
resources to create cooperative programs with businesses and economic
development groups. Financial support from local government brings not
only new dollars but also represents the buy-in from local civic leaders
that rewards and recognizes the college's efforts to meet local
education and training needs.

A campus in proximity to major high-tech employers is an asset because
its location presents rich partnership opportunities that will reinforce
the college's role in contributing to local and regional prosperity.
While a suburban location is not inherently an advantage, most major
high-tech firms, especially headquarter operations, are located in
suburbs.

A campus in a predominantly blue-collar community has an advantage
because such populations are more likely to seek training in order to
gain employment, advancement, or new careers. Community colleges in
affluent areas often face high demand for programs geared toward
students looking to transfer to a four-year institution and
leisure-oriented continuing education. Community colleges in low-income
areas must address the pressing need for basic education. A community
college that must respond to demands for these types of programs,
regardless of their importance, may have difficulty freeing up the
resources and attention to devote to career-oriented programs.

The policies and funding practices of state governments and governing
boards establish another context within which community colleges
operate. Centralized statewide workforce and economic development,
operated through the state community college system, may offer important
resources and funds to some colleges. Some state systems provide
information resources, for example, giving colleges access to outcome
data on the employment of their graduates, occasionally matched to wage
records. State funding formulas, including the extent to which these
cover the costs of noncredit programming, may limit a college's ability
to tap these resources for career-oriented programming.
Performance-based funding systems and regional accreditation agencies
may also limit a college's ability to focus on labor market outcomes.
Thus, if colleges are constrained by the state, having strong local
support provides the freedom to be substantially more innovative.

However, these advantages and disadvantages do not determine which
colleges will become more market-responsive. The challenges differ, but
whether a college is situated in a high-growth, high-tech environment or
a more rural region, the pursuit of a labor-market-responsive mission
will require its leadership to engage in strategic efforts and secure
additional resources.

\[begin text block\]

***America\'s community colleges play a critical role in expanding
access to the skills and knowledge students of all ages need to be
competitive in an ever-changing global economy. The high-quality
education and training community colleges provide are increasingly
developed in partnership with business. This trend means students are
better prepared to meet the needs of the local and regional workforce, a
development that must continue for the benefit of students across the
nation***. *Senator Judd Gregg, chairman of the Senate Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee^10^*

\[end text block\]

**Colleges, whatever their circumstances, need to recognize that
impediments to market responsiveness can be overcome through investment
of effort and innovation.** Careful self-assessment and strategic
planning enable a college to recognize its environmental assets and
liabilities, and, as many colleges have demonstrated, to move on,
working within and even building successfully upon what appeared to be
constraints. Our case studies suggest that in various circumstances --
whether small or large, rural or urban or suburban, financially
comfortable or facing lean times, receiving more state support or less
-- colleges can successfully maximize their potential. The bottom line
is, as one economic developer observed, "No matter where you are or what
obstacles you face, you can do more."

**[The Promise of Labor Market Responsiveness]{.smallcaps}**

The value of being a labor-market-responsive college extends well beyond
the college itself, beyond its students, beyond its public- and
private-sector partners. Many community colleges have demonstrated that
by developing programs to address employer and industry needs and
continually seeking ways to engage in the region's economic development,
they improve not only the employment prospects of their students but
also the economic outlook for their communities and regions as well.

Colleges that maximize their responsiveness enable displaced workers to
transition from one career to another, employed workers to upgrade or
learn new skills, and students to prepare for meaningful careers. Such a
college is also a magnet to industries and employers because its
training capacity promises a steady supply of properly trained workers.

Although community colleges have historically pursued multiple missions,
their emergence as trainers of choice has brought to the forefront their
potential as engines of workforce and economic development, improving
the economy of their communities and simultaneously the employment
outlook of their students.

\[begin text block\]

***The avenues to acquiring \[new\] skills are many, and one effective
tool that we have developed to facilitate the transition to a new job or
profession has been our community colleges. These two-year institutions
have been in the forefront of teaching the types of skills that build on
workers\' previous experiences to create new job skills.***

*Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve^11^*

\[end text block\]

**The journey to labor market responsiveness requires thoughtful
self-reflection and strategic planning.** Maximizing a college's
responsiveness is a function of effectively managing the seven
dimensions discussed in this guide. A focus on any one or two dimensions
is not sufficient. Guided by visionary leadership and governance, built
on an appropriate organizational structure, staffed by empowered
professionals, nurtured by a conducive organizational culture, supported
through adequate resources and funding, informed by solid data and
current information, inspired by strategic relationship- building, and
delivered through innovative partnerships, the community college of the
21st-century can realize its full potential as an engine of economic
development.

**Afterword: A Vision for the Future**

*The Center for Workforce Preparation at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
in conjunction with the American Association of Community Colleges
(AACC), conducted a series of regional forums to identify promising
practices that will build the capacity of chambers of commerce and
community colleges to develop the workforce necessary to keep their
communities competitive in today's and tomorrow's economy.*

*Participants were asked to imagine themselves five years in the future
telling a group of business associates about their local
market-responsive community colleges. Here are some aspects of their
vision*:

• Community colleges are the "trainers of choice" for local businesses.

• Businesses play an important and active role in the development of
community colleges' strategic plans by providing richer quantitative
data on specific job needs.

• Community colleges design career-ladder approaches to certificates,
with course sequences drawn from associate degree programs.

• Community colleges blur the lines between credit and noncredit
courses.

• Community colleges, workforce investment boards, chambers, and local
business leaders meet regularly to keep current on the changing
marketplace.

• Community colleges offer flexible training options and multiple
delivery systems.

• One-stop centers are located on community college campuses, presenting
an educational environment instead of a governmental social-service
stigma.

• Community colleges collaborate with each other to meet specific
workforce needs in the community and region.

• Bridge programs have been created with schools and universities to
seamlessly serve students K--16.

• The community college system has a "center for excellence" that
provides resources to the system and that helps gauge supply and demand
in the local labor market.

• There is a bridging of internal service delivery "silos" to achieve
the set of economic goals and objectives set by the community**.**

• Workforce investment boards develop regional economic centers at
community colleges.

• Small businesses are able to cost-effectively create contracts with
community colleges.

• The return on investment from market-responsive community colleges is
equal to that of regional economic development.

**[Notes]{.smallcaps}**

1.  Julian Alssid, (Executive Director, Workforce Strategy Center) in a
    discussion with the Authors, February 11, 2004.

2.  W. Norton Grubb, *Working in the Middle: Strengthening Education and
    Training for the Mid-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 and Challenges for the New
    Vocationalism in American Community Colleges," in *The New
    Vocationalism in Community Colleges*, ed. Debra D. Bragg, New
    Directions for Community Colleges, Number 115 (San Francisco:
    Jossey-Bass, Fall 2001).

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

6.  Richard L. Drury, "[The Entrepreneurial Community College: Bringing
    Workforce, Economic and Community Development to Virginia
    Communities](http://www.vccaedu.org/inquiry/)," *Inquiry 6,*
    Virginia Community College System, (Spring 2001).

7.  See *Documented Characteristics of Labor Market-Responsive Community
    Colleges and a Review of Supporting Literature* (Westat and AED,
    Washington, D.C. 2003) available at
    [www.nccte.org](http://www.nccte.org/) and at
    [www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/](http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cclo/cclmr.html)

8.  President George W. Bush, remarks made at South Arkansas Community
    College, April 6, 2004 available at
    <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040406-6.html>.

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

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

11. Alan Greenspan, "The Critical Role of Education in the Nation's
    Economy," Remarks at the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce 2004
    Annual Meeting, Omaha, Nebraska, 20 February 2004.

**APPENDIX A**

**[The Colleges: Who They Are and Why They Were Chosen]{.smallcaps}**

The Community College Labor Market Responsiveness Initiative team
systematically gathered information from a variety of sources. We began
by synthesizing the existing literature on labor market responsiveness.
We invited expert opinion from researchers, practitioners, and
policy-makers. An analysis of the accumulated literature produced a set
of general findings and themes. These findings were then converted into
research hypotheses and areas of inquiry that were put to the test using
a strategically selected sample of colleges.

Our original charge from the U.S. Department of Education was to
carefully examine 10 community colleges that presented the
characteristics documented in the literature associated with exemplary
labor market responsiveness.  As we began identifying such colleges, we
came to the important realization that they exist in and serve unique
labor markets. Thus, to better understand the context in which they
operate, and the internal and contextual variables associated with labor
market responsiveness, we agreed with the Department of Education to
examine small sets of colleges serving the same labor market.  This
afforded the research team an opportunity to compare and contrast
variations across colleges facing similar contextual circumstances.

The study design then evolved from an analysis of 10 "exemplary"
community colleges to an analysis of multiple colleges serving 10
distinct labor market areas. Colleges in the final sample include those
with a national reputation for being market-responsive; those that
appeared to have similar assets and liabilities but did not attract
national notice; and those that lacked some of the assets of the
nationally prominent colleges, but were in the same labor market. For
seven of the 10 labor markets, we chose three colleges to include in the
final sample. The rural community colleges, located in different states,
each served different labor markets. Finally, two of the areas are
served by community college districts, and in these cases, we were able
to collect and include data from more than three colleges. Thus, the
final sample contained more than 30 community colleges. The
participating colleges, organized by labor market area, are presented in
figure 1.

The colleges in the study sample vary with respect to size, geographic
location, overall budget, student populations, funding stream, and other
variables reflecting the full range of community colleges in the United
States.

Field researchers conducted case studies of these community colleges to
determine how they anticipate and respond to the changing needs of
business and industry in their communities. This approach offered the
opportunity to tease out the different strategies that colleges employ
when faced with comparable economic and market conditions. It also
provided the opportunity to observe how varying contexts influence
college behavior and responsiveness. We sought to critically examine the
differences in the colleges' 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,
and external relationships and partnerships.

Examining these colleges, our field teams set out to collect and
organize lessons learned that others could fruitfully apply in their own
settings. A comprehensive analysis of these colleges led to the findings
and recommendations presented in the guidebook.

**F[igure]{.smallcaps} 1: Colleges in Study Sample by Labor Market
Area**[^1]

+----------------+----------------+----------------+-------------------+
| **Labor        | ## Colle       | ## Colle       | ## Co             |
| Market**       | ge 1/President | ge 2/President | llege 3/President |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-------------------+
| Charlotte,     | Central        | Gaston/        | York Tech, S.C./  |
| N.C.           | Piedmont/      |                |                   |
|                |                | Patricia       | Dennis Merrill    |
|                | Anthony Zeiss  | Skinner        |                   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-------------------+
| Chicago, Ill.  | Moraine        | Oakton/        | Malcolm X/        |
|                | Valley/        |                |                   |
|                |                | Margaret Lee   | Zierre Campbell   |
|                | Vernon Crawley |                |                   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-------------------+
| Metropolitan   | Anne Arundel,  | Montgomery,    | Northern          |
| D.C.           | Md./           | Md./           | Virginia/         |
|                |                |                |                   |
|                | Martha Smith   | Charlene       | Robert Templin    |
|                |                | Nunley         |                   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-------------------+
| Greater        | Valencia/      | Seminole       | Indian River      |
| Orlando, Fla.  |                |                |                   |
|                | Sanford        | E. Ann McGee   | Edwin Massey      |
|                | Shugart        |                |                   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-------------------+
| Quad Cities,   | Kirkwood, Iowa | Black Hawk,    | Scott, Iowa       |
| Iowa/Ill.      |                | Ill.           |                   |
|                | Norm Neilsen   |                | Patricia Keir     |
|                |                | Keith Miller   | (Chancellor)      |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-------------------+
| Springfield,   | Springfield    | Holyoke        | Asnuntuck, Conn.  |
| Mass.          | Tech           |                |                   |
|                |                | William        | Martha McLeod     |
|                | Andrew         | Messner        |                   |
|                | Scibelli       |                |                   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-------------------+
| Seattle, Wash. | Bellevue       | Shoreline      | Green River       |
|                |                |                |                   |
|                | Jean Floten    | Holly Moore    | Richard Rutkowski |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-------------------+
| Rural Colleges | South          | Mountain       | Walla Walla,      |
|                | Piedmont, N.C. | Empire, Va.    | Wash.             |
|                |                |                |                   |
|                | John McKay     | Terrance       | Steven VanAusdle  |
|                |                | Suarez         |                   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-------------------+
| San Diego,     | San Diego      |                | Palomar           |
| Calif.         | District:      |                |                   |
|                |                |                | Richard Jones     |
|                | Mesa /         |                |                   |
|                | Constance      |                |                   |
|                | Carroll        |                |                   |
|                |                |                |                   |
|                | Miramar / Ron  |                |                   |
|                | Manzoni        |                |                   |
|                |                |                |                   |
|                | San Diego City |                |                   |
|                | / Terrence     |                |                   |
|                | Burgess        |                |                   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-------------------+
| Dallas, Texas  | Dallas County  |                |                   |
|                | District /     |                |                   |
|                | Jesus Carreon  |                |                   |
|                | (Chancellor):  |                |                   |
|                |                |                |                   |
|                | Richland       |                |                   |
|                | Mountain View  |                |                   |
|                | North Lake     |                |                   |
|                | Brook Haven    |                |                   |
|                | Eastfield      |                |                   |
|                | Cedar Valley   |                |                   |
|                | El Centro      |                |                   |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+-------------------+

To examine the economic and social environment of each of the 10 labor
market areas, the team first reviewed published documents and gathered
regional and county-level data from the U.S. Census Bureau and from the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The team also reviewed college mission
statements, organizational charts, budgets, student enrollment
information, student handbooks, promotional materials, course
catalogues, and college fact books, as well as documents collected on
site---including meeting minutes, program reports, curriculum samples,
and where possible, data describing or assessing the impact of college
programs on business recruitment, retention, and growth.

Data collection activities (primarily document review, on-site visits,
and phone interviews) occurred between August and December 2003. To
ensure cross-site consistency, semi-structured, open-ended interview
protocols were used to guide interviews and focus group discussions
with college administrators, college faculty, and community partners.
The team interviewed organizations and individuals beyond the college,
including employers, community-based organizations, and economic
development agencies.

Data analysis resulted in three broad but not mutually exclusive
categories of variables related to labor market responsiveness that we
named contextual, internal and external. Used primarily to structure the
case studies, these categories helped the team organize the features and
factors that appear to be correlated with labor market responsiveness
across the numerous colleges participating in the study.

**Contextual variables** are those that exist independently of the
college and reflect conditions and features of the environment in which
the college operates. These include:

-   State-level polices and funding formulas

-   Community demographics

-   Local labor market conditions

-   Economic trends and conditions

-   The community orientation toward the community college specifically
    and higher education in general

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

-   Leadership

-   Organizational structure

-   Organizational culture

-   Internal resource allocation

-   Internally developed data

**External variables** are those that exist in relationship to the
college and are manifested through the interplay between the college and
its context. Thus, "external" variables capture the interaction between
internal practices and the surrounding context. These include:

-   College funding (i.e., local and non-formula funding)

-   Relationship-building (formal and informal)

-   Partnership operation

-   Externally developed data

The guidebook recognizes the significance of contextual factors, but
mainly addresses those factors over which college presidents, trustees,
and administrators have greater control, namely, the internal and
external variables listed above. Volume 2 examines in detail these
variables and their relationship to labor market responsiveness.

**APPENDIX B**

> **[Members of the Community College Labor Market
> Responsiveness]{.smallcaps}**

**[Advisory Committee]{.smallcaps}**

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 Demonstrations

> Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor,
> Washington D.C.

Larry Warford, Senior Consultant for Workforce Development

League 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.

[^1]: ^^ In Dallas, all of the colleges were part of a single community
    college district. In San Diego, the colleges were in two community
    college districts. In those cases, we examined the organizational
    structures at the district level and drew examples from among the
    colleges in those districts. Because rural colleges each serve a
    unique labor market but share similar characteristics, we selected
    three rural colleges in different states to constitute one case
    study.