CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 

COMMUNITY-BASED JOB TRAINING GRANT (CBJTG) PROGRAM 

Lauren Eyster 

Alexandra Stanczyk 

Demetra Smith Nightingale 

Karin Martinson 

John Trutko 

The Urban Institute 

Johns Hopkins University 

Capital Research Corporation 

June 2009 

The Urban Institute 

2100 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

This project has been funded, either wholly or in part, with federal funds from the Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training Administration under contract no. DOLJ061A20358. The contents of this 

publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Labor, nor does mention 

of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement of the same by the U.S. 

government. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization 

that examines the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation. The views expressed are 

those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. 
Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to thank the staff of the Business Relations Group at the U.S. Department 

of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA)—Amanda Ahlstrand, Thomas 

Hooper, Vivian Luna, and Megan Baird—for all their assistance and insight as we wrote this 

report. The help and direction of ETA staff in the Office of Policy Development and Research—

Laura Paulen, our project officer, and Dan Ryan—were also invaluable. We would also like to 

thank two key analysts for this report—Jonathan Pollak at the Johns Hopkins University and 

Sam Hall at the Urban Institute—for their contributions. 
Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V

BASIC FEATURES OF THE CBJTG PROGRAM V

GRANT AWARDS AND LEVERAGED RESOURCES VI

GOALS AND ACTIVITIES OF GRANTEES VII

PRELIMINARY GRANT OUTCOMES VII

CONCLUSIONS VIII

I. INTRODUCTION 1

THE COMMUNITY-BASED JOB TRAINING GRANT PROGRAM 1

THE CBJTG PROGRAM EVALUATION 2

II. THE CBJTG PROGRAM 4

NUMBER OF GRANTS AND YEAR OF AWARD 4

INDUSTRIES 4

ORGANIZATION TYPE 6

PARTNERSHIPS WITH EMPLOYERS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS 7

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF GRANTS 9

TARGET POPULATIONS 10

III. FUNDING AND LEVERAGED RESOURCES 13

AMOUNT OF GRANTS 13

LEVERAGED FUNDS 14

IV. TRAINING AND CAPACITY-BUILDING GOALS 18

TRAINING GOALS 18

CAPACITY-BUILDING GOALS 19

V. PLANNED GRANTEE ACTIVITIES 21

TRAINING ACTIVITIES 21

CAPACITY-BUILDING ACTIVITIES 22

PROPOSED PRODUCTS 24
VI. PRELIMINARY GRANT OUTCOMES 26

COMPLETION OF GRANT ACTIVITIES 26

EARLY CAPACITY-BUILDING OUTCOMES 27

CHARACTERISTICS OF THOSE SERVED BY THE CBJTG PROGRAM 28

VII. CONCLUSIONS 30

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. DESCRIPTIVE TABLES OF GRANT CHARACTERISTICS 

AND PLANNED GRANT ACTIVITIES A-1 

APPENDIX B. TWO-WAY CONTINGENCY TABLES OF GRANT CHARACTERISTICS 

AND PLANNED GRANT ACTIVITIES B-1 

APPENDIX C. DESCRIPTIVE TABLES OF CBJTG OUTCOMES AS OF JUNE 2008 C-1 
Executive Summary 

In an increasingly global and competitive economy, many workers in the United States need to 

upgrade their skills if they are to successfully meet the new demands in the labor market. At the 

same time, businesses, especially those in high-growth industries, face challenges recruiting, 

hiring, and retaining a skilled workforce. Community colleges, as important job-training 

providers, are uniquely positioned to develop a skilled local or regional labor force, but they 

often lack the capacity to respond to the needs of local industry. To strengthen the ability of 

community colleges to address these needs, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) developed the competitive Community-Based Job Training 

Grant (CBJTG) program to invest in building “the capacity of community colleges to train 

workers in the skills required to succeed in high-growth, high-demand industries.”1

Initiated in 2005, CBJTG program focuses on building the capacity of community colleges to 

provide training to workers for high-growth, high-demand industries, such as health care, energy, 

and advanced manufacturing. Over 200 grants were issued beginning in 2005 through 2008, with 

a fourth round of grants issued in early 2009. Grants can be used to (1) increase the capacity of 

community colleges and other institutions to provide training for high-demand jobs through 

strong partnerships with industry, for example, by developing curricula, hiring and training 

faculty, arranging on-the-job experiences, and updating training equipment; and (2) train new 

and experienced workers for high-growth jobs in high-demand industries. 

This is the first report of the evaluation of the CBJTG program, being conducted by the 

Urban Institute, Johns Hopkins University, and Capital Research Corporation. The evaluation 

documents the different models and projects operating with grant funds, examines and assesses 

the implementation of grant-funded projects, and identifies innovative features and potentially 

promising strategies. This report describes the characteristics of the grants awarded through the 

end of 2008. The information presented is based on a review of available documents about the 

grants awarded: the three solicitations for grant applications (SGAs), awarded grantees’ 

statements of work, the most recent quarterly reports grantees submitted to ETA, and databases 

maintained by ETA that include information about each grantee. Subsequent reports will 

examine the implementation of the grant-funded projects, innovations they developed, and 

challenges faced and addressed. 

Basic Features of the CBJTG Program 

As of December 31, 2008, 211 grants have been awarded in three rounds of competition (in 

2005, 2006, and 2008), with the fourth round awarded in early 2009, A majority of grantees 

target health care and advanced manufacturing, which account for over 60 percent of all grantees 

(43 and 18 percent, respectively).2

 

Given that the main focus of the CBJTG program is to support community and technical 

college efforts to build training programs, it is not surprising that nearly 70 percent of the 

 

1

 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, “The President’s Community-Based Job 

Training Grants,” http://www.doleta.gov/business/PDF/cbjt_overview.pdf, March 11, 2008. 2

 Because the round 4 grants were just awarded, we have not included them in the analysis for this report. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program v
grantees are community colleges. Other educational institutions, namely four-year institutions 

and technical colleges, make up slightly over 26 percent of the grantees. 

A key feature of the CBJTG program is strategic partnerships among employers, training 

providers, and other local and regional organizations. The number of organizations that grantees 

identify as partners ranges from 3 to 126, with an average of nearly 18. The types of 

organizations that grantees list as partners vary greatly, but the most common types identified in 

grantee statements of work are employers (93 percent) and workforce investment boards (88 

percent). A majority of grantees also partner with school districts, industry associations, fouryear colleges or universities, and community/nonprofit organizations. 

Grantees are located in nearly every state. Two states, Florida and Texas, have 14 grants 

each, awarded to community colleges and other organizations. Alabama and California also have 

high numbers of grants, 11 and 10, respectively. Only the District of Columbia, Hawaii, South 

Dakota, and Vermont have no grants in the first three rounds. 

Organizations applying for grants are asked to specify if they plan to target particular 

populations or subgroups of individuals for their training programs. Over three-quarters of 

grantees report that they plan to target youth in high school. Most grantees also state that they 

will work with incumbent workers and low-income or disadvantaged populations. Nearly 30 

percent of grantees report that they will target dislocated workers and/or entry-level workers. 

Grant Awards and Leveraged Resources 

Grants awarded by ETA under the CBJTG program range from $500,000 to $3.6 million, with 

the average grantee receiving approximately $1.8 million. The majority of grants (almost 71 

percent) are in the range of $1 to $2 million; 21 percent of grantees received between $2 and $4 

million, and 8 percent of grantees received a grant between $500,000 and $1 million. 

Grantees in the first three rounds were encouraged to use the federal funds provided through 

the CBJTG program to leverage other public and private resources to address workforce 

challenges, and almost all grantees (97 percent) report some planned leveraged resources.3

 The 

amount of resources grantees report they are planning to leverage ranges from $15,000 to almost 

$19.5 million, with an average of slightly over $2.3 million. Community colleges plan to 

leverage more resources than other types of grantees. 

The grantee statements of work also indicate that leveraged funds will come from a range of 

different sources, including educational institutions, businesses and employers, foundations, 

governments, industry associations, nonprofit organizations, and the grantees themselves. The 

workforce investment system is the most prevalent source for planned leveraged resources, 

providing three-quarters of grantees with resources, usually in Workforce Investment Act 

funding for services to program participants. Employers also are a common source of planned 

leveraged resources, providing two-thirds of grantees with cash or in-kind donations, including 

participant scholarships and donations of training equipment and resources. 

 

3

 The round 4 SGA requires grantees to leverage resources. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program vi
Goals and Activities of Grantees 

Grantees describe training and capacity-building goals for their CBJTG project in their 

applications. The training-related goals include increasing participant enrollment levels, 

participant graduation and program completion levels, and employment and earnings for 

graduates and completers. Capacity-building goals include hiring or funding additional faculty 

and program staff; bolstering career awareness and recruitment efforts; developing new or 

expanding current financial aid, scholarship, or tuition assistance programs; expanding the 

number of training program slots; offering assistance to staff on how to provide training (“train 

the trainer”); designing or using new instructional techniques or technology; creating or 

increasing the pipeline of workers from kindergarten through 12th grade (K–12); and improving 

access for underserved or disadvantaged populations. 

All grantees report planning to use their grant funds to operate some job training activity, 

most commonly classroom instruction and internships. Across the grantees, 87 percent report 

that they plan to offer classroom instruction, and 32 percent plan to offer internships. The type of 

training varies somewhat by industry focus. For health care–focused grants, grantees are more 

likely than average to plan classroom instruction and mentorships as a part of their training 

programs. Grantees focusing on the energy sector are more likely than the average grantee to 

plan internships; 43 percent of advanced manufacturing grantees plan apprenticeship programs, 

significantly higher than the percentage of all grantees that plan apprenticeships (32 percent). 

In addition to providing details on their planned training activities, grantees summarize the 

capacity-building activities they are planning to implement. A large majority of grantees (88 

percent) is planning to use the grant to develop recruitment efforts. Eighty-three percent of 

grantees are planning to develop new curricula, 62 percent are planning to revise or expand 

existing training programs, and 54 percent are planning to develop new training programs. 

Nearly half the grantees are planning to use the funds to develop skills certification policies. 

Health care and energy grantees are more likely than the average grantee to plan to expand their 

current training programs, while advanced manufacturing, automotive, and construction are more 

likely than average to develop new programs. Sixty percent or more of grantees in the advanced 

manufacturing, construction, and transportation industries plan to develop new certifications, 

while only 45 percent of all grantees plan this capacity-building activity. 

Grantees also provide information on the products they plan to develop with the funds. A 

large majority of grantees (87 percent) is planning to develop or revise a course or curriculum. 

Seventy-nine percent are planning to use the grant for new equipment or renovated facilities, 70 

percent are planning to use the grant for outreach materials, and 63 percent are planning to 

develop a career ladder program. Health care grantees are more likely than the average grantee to 

create distance learning products, while grantees in the advanced manufacturing, construction, 

and energy industries are more likely than average to plan on curriculum and outreach and 

recruitment products. 

Preliminary Grant Outcomes 

As of December 2008, the original end date of October 31, 2008, for all 70 round 1 grantees had 

passed. However, 69 percent of round 1 grantees and 23 percent of all grantees requested and 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program vii
received no-cost extensions that generally allow them to continue to use grant funds into late 

2009. Thus, as of December 2008, 90 percent, or 189 grantees, are still operational. 

Data reported by grantees and maintained in ETA’s online grantee quarterly reporting system 

provide some early information on activity levels and participant characteristics and outcomes 

through June 2008. This information should be considered preliminary as the data represent an 

early period of operations for many grantees and ETA is currently working with grantees to 

ensure they are accurately reporting on all outcome categories. 

As of June 2008, the grantees reported that 52,147 individuals had started training programs 

and slightly over half of those individuals completed training. Of those that completed training, 

78 percent received a degree or certificate. In addition, grantees report that 30,002 trainees 

entered employment. 

Of the 211 grantees, 145 were serving participants by June 2008. However, the round 3 

grants were awarded in April 2008, so many of these grantees were not yet serving participants 

by June 2008. Across the 145 grantees serving participants in June 2008, the average number of 

trainees is 424, ranging from 1 to 5,889 participants. Participants have started to attend education 

or job training programs at 137 grantees, with an average of 381 participants in training or 

education across these grantees. Since many grants are still operational and some are in the early 

implementation stages, fewer grantees reported having participants who have completed 

education or job training activities or received a degree or certificate. 

Men and women were being served in roughly equal proportions, and whites were the most 

predominant racial group served under the grant programs, followed by African Americans. 

The average grantee reported having leveraged about $115,000 in federal resources and over 

$500,000 in nonfederal resources. 

Conclusions 

While this report provides a preliminary description of the CBJTG program, a few summary 

points emerge from this first review: 

• The CBJTG program is dominated by grants in the health care industry, especially in 

round 1 of the grant competition where they make up over half of the grants awarded. 

This likely reflects the nationwide growth in the health care industry and in the need for 

nurses and other health care workers in many regions of the country. 

• The characteristics of the grants that were awarded changed slightly from round to round. 

As SGAs were revised, the types of organizations as grantees changed as well as the 

partners they identified, the target populations, and the amounts of grant awards and 

leveraged resources. 

• The designs of the training programs by grantees in particular industries are characteristic 

of those industries. Grantees in health care are likely to use classroom training and 

mentorships, whereas grantees in advanced manufacturing are more likely to use 

apprenticeships for their training. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program viii
• The grantees have also made progress accessing planned leveraged resources. Round 1 

grantees have used an average of $1.1 million in federal and nonfederal resources, which 

approaches their average goal of about $1.9 million. Even though grantees in rounds 2 

and 3 have not been in operation as long as the round 1 grantees, they are also making 

progress in reaching their leveraged resource goals. 

• The grantees have made progress in getting their training programs up and running by 

June 2008. About two-thirds of the grantees had at least one participant begin education 

or job training activities, with most serving more than one; as noted earlier, the grantees 

awarded funds through the 3rd CBJTG program SGA began grant operations in April 

2008, so many were still in the planning phase of their grants in June 2008. 

The original completion date for round 1 grantees, October 31, 2008, has passed, but many 

grantees received extensions and are still operational. Only 10 percent of all grantees have 

completed their activities to date. Round 2 grantees are expected to be operational until the end 

of 2009, and round 3 grants extend into March 2011, so much work will continue for the 

grantees. Evaluation activities in 2009 will examine a range of implementation issues and 

outcomes for the grant programs. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program ix
I. Introduction 

In an increasingly global and competitive economy, many workers in the United States need to 

upgrade their skills if they are to successfully meet the new demands in the labor market. At the 

same time, businesses, especially those in high-growth industries, face challenges recruiting, 

hiring, and retaining a skilled workforce. Community colleges, as important job–training 

providers, are uniquely positioned to develop a skilled local or regional labor force, but they 

often lack the capacity to respond to the needs of local industry. The nation’s 1,200 community 

colleges are a central training system in this country—close to 60 percent of all college students 

were enrolled in community colleges in 20001

—yet many of these institutions do not focus on 

connecting students to growth industries in the economy. 

To strengthen the ability of community colleges to address workforce and industry needs, the 

U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) developed the 

Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) program to invest in building “the capacity of 

community colleges to train workers in the skills required to succeed in high-growth, highdemand industries.”2

 The competitive CBJTG program builds on previous industry-focused 

workforce development efforts by ETA, which were designed to train workers in high-demand 

occupations and to meet the workforce needs of industry by partnering with it. 

The Community-Based Job Training Grant Program 

The CBJTG program was established to improve workers’ skills in high-growth industries by 

building the capacity of community colleges to train these workers. Partnerships between 

businesses and training providers are considered key to designing skill development approaches 

that meet the needs of employers, and strategies developed locally and regionally have the 

potential to best meet the needs of the local community of businesses and workers. Therefore, 

CBJTG engages community colleges and other training institutions in community-based, 

demand-driven talent development. 

Initiated in 2005, the CBJTG program issued over 200 grants in three separate rounds 

through 2008, with a fourth round of grants issued in early 2009. 3

 CBJTG has both a training 

and capacity-building objective. Grants can be used to (1) increase the capacity of commun

colleges to provide training in high-growth areas through developing training curricula with local 

industry, hiring qualified faculty, arranging on-the-job experiences with industry, and using upto-date equipment; and (2) train new and experienced workers in high-growth and high-demand 

industries. 

ity 

 

1

 Paul Osterman, “Employment and Training Policies: New Directions for Less-Skilled Adults,” in Reshaping the 

American Workforce in a Changing Economy, edited by Harry J. Holzer and Demetra Smith Nightingale 

(Washington DC: Urban Institute Press, 2007), pp. 119–54. 

2

 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, “The President’s Community-Based Job 

Training Grants,” http://www.doleta.gov/business/PDF/cbjt_overview.pdf, March 11, 2008. 

3

 The first round of 70 grants was awarded in November 2005. The second round of 72 grants was awarded in 

January 2007, and the third round of 69 grants was awarded in April 2008. Almost all grants had a 36-month period 

of performance. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 1
The CBJTG Program Evaluation 

This report is the first of the evaluation of the CBJTG program, being conducted by the Urban 

Institute, Johns Hopkins University, and Capital Research Corporation. The evaluation 

documents the different models and projects operating with grant funds, examines and assesses 

the implementation of grant-funded projects, and identifies innovative features and potentially 

promising strategies. The research design is based on a formal cross-site implementation 

analysis, which involves systematically examining the context within which the projects are 

designed, how the projects are implemented, interagency and intersystem interactions, project 

funding and expenditures, and trainee services and activities. 

Thus, a range of important research questions can be answered through the implementation 

study, including the following: 

• Community college programs and systems. How are investments in community colleges 

building the capacity of these entities to train workers for high-growth, high-demand 

industries? 

• Partnerships. How and to what extent are partnerships with the workforce investment 

system, employers, community-based organizations, and other education and training 

providers involved in the implementation of the grant? 

• Connections with employers and industries. Are the community colleges able to 

establish strong connections with employers in the industry of focus to help them meet 

their workforce needs? 

• Implementation lessons and challenges. What are the lessons learned and challenges 

faced by the grantees in implementing these projects? What grantee characteristics 

contributed to a successful implementation? How will these efforts be sustained in the 

long run? 

The implementation study of the CBJTG program is being conducted in phases. This report 

is based on the first phase, which involves describing the characteristics of the grants awarded 

through the end of 2008. The information presented is based on a review of available documents 

about the grants awarded: the three solicitations for grant applications (SGAs), grantee 

statements of work, the most recent quarterly reports submitted by grantees to ETA, and 

databases maintained by ETA that include information about each grantee. Subsequent reports 

will examine the implementation of the grant-funded projects, innovations they developed, and 

challenges faced and addressed. While this report is based on grantee plans, documents, and 

quarterly reports, future reports will be based on more detailed data collection of grantee 

activities. 

Section II of this report describes general characteristics of grantees based on a review of the 

grantee statements of work submitted as part of their applications to ETA. This includes the type 

of organization, industry focus, primary partners, geographic area and target groups grantees 

plan to emphasize. Section III summarizes grantees’ funding and resources, followed by their 

planned goals (section IV) and planned activities (section V). Section VI presents information on 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 2
grantee activities to date, based on their quarterly progress reports submitted to ETA, and 

conclusions is provided in section VII. Note that the information presented is based on what the 

grantees identified in their statements of work and quarterly reports, and it has not been verified 

by ETA or the Urban Institute. 

The CBJTG program represents an opportunity for community colleges and other training 

institutions to develop innovative and responsive training projects and the capacity to meet 

current and future needs of growing industries and to increase the job skills of U.S. workers. This 

and future reports from the CBJTG evaluation describe the types of projects and initiatives 

developed and present lessons on designing training strategies that could be useful to other 

communities and institutions. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 3
II. The CBJTG Program 

This section describes the basic features of the grants and the grantee organizations. The 

information provided is based on the grantee database developed by ETA’s Business Relations 

Group, which is the program office for these grants, and on the grantee statements of work 

submitted as part of their grant applications. Subsequent sections include more detailed 

information on the grant funding, goals, planned activities, and outcomes to date. 

Number of Grants and Year of Award 

As of December 31, 2008, 211 grants had been awarded in three rounds of competition in 2005, 

2007, and 2008. (Selection of round 4 grantees, which are not included in this report, was 

completed in early 2009.) The number of grants awarded remains fairly consistent across each 

round: 70 grants in round 1, 72 in round 2, and 69 in round 3 (table 2.1). 

TABLE 2.1: ROUNDS OF COMPETITION FOR CBJTGS AND YEAR OF AWARD 

Round of award (program 

year of award) 

Number of 

grantees 

Percent of all 

grantees 

Round 1 (2005) 70 33.2 

Round 2 (2007) 72 34.1 

Round 3 (2008) 69 32.7 

Total 211 100.0 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

The SGA for Round 1 allowed for a grant period of 24–36 months. This was changed in the 

two subsequent SGAs to 36 months. With a few exceptions, the duration of the grants is 36 

months. Seven grantees, all from round 1, have shorter grant periods ranging from 24 to 31 

months. 

Industries 

A majority of grantees target two industries: health care and advanced manufacturing. As shown 

in table 2.2, these two industries are the primary industry of focus for over 60 percent of all 

grantees (43 and 18 percent, respectively).4

 Awards for construction and energy each make up 9 

percent of the grants and are the next most common industries. Slightly over 5 percent of the 

grantees target the transportation industry. Industries that each make up less than 5 percent of the 

total grantees are aerospace/aviation (2 percent), automotive (2 percent), biotechnology (4 

percent), forestry (1 percent), hospitality (2 percent), and information technology (2 percent). 

The “other” industry category is made up of seven grants (3 percent of all grantees): one each in 

the education, engineering and process technology, financial services, geospatial, movie/TV 

production, nanotechnology, and non-sector-specific industries. 

 

4

 Five percent of grantees (11 grantees) report having a secondary industry of focus. Because so few grantees report 

secondary industries, this report only focuses on the grantee’s primary industry. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 4
TABLE 2.2: GRANTEES BY INDUSTRY 

Industry Number of grantees Percent of all grantees 

Advanced manufacturing 37 17.5 

Aerospace/aviation 5 2.3 

Automotive 5 2.3 

Biotechnology 8 3.8 

Construction 19 9.0 

Energy 19 9.0 

Forestry 2 1.0 

Health care 90 42.7 

Hospitality 4 1.9 

Information technology 4 1.9 

Transportation 11 5.2 

Other (education, engineering and process technology, 

financial services, geospatial, movie/TV production, 

nanotechnology, non-sector-specific) 7 3.3 

Total 211 100.0 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

Table 2.3 breaks down this industrial distribution for each round of competition. Over 40 

percent of the grants in health care were awarded during round 1. The proportion of grants in 

industries such as advanced manufacturing, construction, energy, and transportation increased in 

rounds 2 and 3 as the proportion of automotive, biotechnology, and health care grants decreased 

by round 3. 

TABLE 2.3: PERCENT OF GRANTS AWARDED BY ROUND AND INDUSTRY 

Industry Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 

Advanced manufacturing* 15.7 16.7 20.3 

Aerospace 1.4 1.4 4.4 

Automotive 4.3 2.8 0.0 

Biotechnology 4.3 5.6 1.5 

Construction* 7.1 8.3 11.6 

Energy* 2.9 13.9 10.1 

Forestry 2.0 0.0 0.0 

Health care* 54.3 38.9 34.8 

Hospitality 0.0 1.4 4.4 

Information technology 0.0 1.4 4.4 

Transportation* 4.3 7.0 4.4 

Other 2.9 2.8 4.4 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

N= 211 ∗ DENOTES INDUSTRIES WITH MORE THAN 10 GRANTEES. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 5
Among those industries with a relatively large number of grants (defined here as 10 or more), 

most have at least one grant in each region.5

 Transportation and construction are the exception, 

with no grants in the northeast. The advanced manufacturing grants are evenly spread among the 

southeastern, southwestern, and midwestern regions, with 22 percent of grants in each. Health 

care accounts for the highest proportion of grants in every region but the mid-Atlantic, where the 

proportion of grants in advanced manufacturing and construction are equal to those in health care 

at 20 percent. 

Organization Type 

The main focus of the CBJTG program is to build community college capacity to train workers 

for a particular high-growth industry. Thus, it follows that nearly 70 percent of the grantees are 

community colleges.6

 Technical colleges make up another 9 percent of grantees, and other 

educational institutions, namely four-year institutions, make up slightly over 17 percent of the 

grantees. Public workforce investment system organizations such as workforce investment 

boards, One-Stop Career Centers, and state workforce agencies make up nearly 5 percent of the 

grantees. Chart 2.1 shows the percentage of the grantees by type of organization. 

CHART 2.1: PERCENT OF GRANTEES BY

ORGANIZATIONAL TYPE

Community 

College

69.2%

Educational

Institution

17.5%

Technical

College

8.5% Public 

Workforce 

Investment 

System 

Organization

4.7%

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK, N=211

Grantees’ industry focus varies somewhat by the type of grant organization. Grantees in the 

automotive, biotechnology, construction, information technology, and transportation industries 

 

5

 This report uses ETA’s breakdown of regions as follows: the northeastern region is ETA Region I; the midAtlantic region is ETA Region II; the southeastern region is ETA Region III; the southwestern region is ETA 

Region IV; the midwestern region is ETA Region V; and the western region is ETA Region VI. See 

http://www.doleta.gov/regions/ for a breakdown of states by region. 

6

 Grantees that are considered both a community and technical college are counted as a community college in this 

report. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 6
are more likely than average to be community colleges. Grantees in the biotechnology industry 

are more likely than average to be technical colleges, while grantees in the health care industries 

are more likely than average to be other educational institutions, such as universities. Only the 

advanced manufacturing, energy, health care, and hospitality industries have grantees that are 

public workforce investment system organizations (see tables B.43.a and B.43.b in appendix B). 

In round 1, only community colleges, technical colleges, or other educational institutions 

were eligible for funding. In rounds 2 and 3, public workforce investment system organizations 

were permitted to apply to the CBJTG program, and a total of 10 workforce organizations were 

awarded grants in these rounds. The number of grantees that are community colleges grew from 

46 in round 1 to 55 in round 3, while the number of other educational institutions dropped from 

19 to 2 grantees during the same period (see tables B.44.a and B.44.b in appendix B). 

There is some regional variation in grantee organization types. While a majority of grantees 

are community colleges in all regions, the mid-Atlantic region has the highest percentage of 

community college grantees with 100 percent of its grants awarded to community colleges. The 

northeast is next, with 80 percent of its grantees community colleges. The southwest has the 

lowest percentage of community colleges as grantees (52 percent) but has the most other 

educational institutions as grantees (33 percent). In the midwest and the west, 60–65 percent of 

its grantees are community colleges (see tables B.45.a and B.45.b in appendix B). 

Partnerships with 

Employers and Other 

Organizations 

CHART 2.2: PERCENT OF GRANTEES PLANNING TO 

PARTNER WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS

46.9%

52.1%

34.1%

60.7%

93.0%

51.7%52.0%

69.7%

48.8%45.0%

87.7%

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Workforce Investment Board

One-Stop Career Center

Four-Year College

Two-Year College

Industry Association

Employer

Community/Nonprofit Organization

Union

School District

Government

Other

Partner Type

Percent

A key feature of the 

grants is to engage 

employers, training 

providers, and other local 

and regional partners as 

grantees implement their 

programs. Grantees were 

required to have these 

partnerships in place with 

employers and other 

organizations for the grant 

application. The number 

of partners that grantees 

stated would be part of 

their training and 

capacity-building 

activities ranges from 3 to 

126, with an average of 

nearly 18. 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK, N=211

The types of organizations with which the grantees partner vary greatly. As shown in chart 

2.2, the most common types of organizations grantees named as partners are employers (93 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 7
percent) and workforce investment boards (WIBs) (88 percent).7

 Most grantees use school 

districts (70 percent), industry associations (61 percent), four-year colleges or universities (52 

percent), and community or nonprofit organizations (52 percent) as partners. Fewer grantees 

mention partnerships with One-Stop Career Centers (47 percent), other two-year colleges (34 

percent), government agencies (49 percent), and other organizations such as educational 

consortia (45 percent). Unions are the least likely to be a part of the arrangements, with a little 

over 5 percent of grantees naming them as partners. 

The types of partners included by grantees focusing on different industries differ slightly (see 

tables B.14.a and B.14.b in appendix B). Grantees in construction, though, are less likely than the 

average grantee to name a WIB as a partner than those in advanced manufacturing, energy, 

health care, and transportation. Eleven percent of grantees in the construction industry and 16 

percent of grantees in the energy industry report partnering with unions, compared with only 5 

percent of grantees across all industries. 

The types of organizations grantees partner with also differ across the different rounds of 

competition (see tables B.15.a and B.15.b in appendix B). Grantees in round 1 are more likely to 

partner with One-Stop Career Centers (71 percent) than those in the other two rounds (24 and 46 

percent). Grantees in round 3 tend to partner with postsecondary education partners, both twoyear and four-year colleges, more than in the two previous rounds, up to 40 percent and 64 

percent, respectively. This may result from the SGA’s explicit emphasis on education partners in 

later rounds of competition. 

Some regional differences are apparent by type of organizational partnerships, as shown in 

table 2.4. Northeastern grantees are more likely than average to work with One-Stop Career 

Centers in their grant activities, while the opposite is true for mid-Atlantic grantees. Midwestern 

and western grantees are more likely than average to partner with other two-year colleges. Fewer 

grantees in the west work directly with employers—75 percent compared with an average of 93 

percent for all grantees—but more western region grantees plan to work with industry 

associations (68 percent compared with a 61 percent average for all grantees). Finally, fewer 

northeastern grantees partner with school districts (50 percent) than grantees nationwide (70 

percent). 

Several differences exist in the organizational partnerships used by type of grantee 

organization (see tables B16.a and B.16.b in appendix B). For example, technical colleges tend 

to have higher-than-average percentages of connecting with most types of partners, including 

WIBs, two- and four-year colleges, industry associations, employers, and school districts. Other 

institutions, including four-year educational institutions and public workforce investment system 

organizations, are more likely than average to work with One-Stop Career Centers, school 

districts, and community or nonprofit organizations. For the most part, there are few differences 

from the average in the partners that community colleges planned to engage except school 

districts, with which they are less likely than average to have a partnership. 

 

7

 In the SGAs, grantees were required to partner with employers. These partners could be companies, firms, or 

employer or industry associations. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 8
TABLE 2.4: PERCENT OF GRANTEES PARTNERING WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS, 

BY REGION 

Region 

WIB One-Stop Career Centers Two-year college Four-year college Industry association Employer Union School districts Government Community/ nonprofit organization 

Northeast 95.0 70.0 30.0 45.0 65.0 95.0 5.0 50.0 55.0 50.0 

Mid-Atlantic 100.0 30.0 35.0 50.0 60.0 90.0 5.0 70.0 45.0 55.0 

Southeast 86.0 48.0 32.0 50.0 64.0 94.0 0.0 74.0 44.0 48.0 

Southwest 91.3 50.0 21.7 60.9 45.7 97.8 4.3 82.6 58.7 56.5 

Midwest 78.7 42.6 40.4 53.2 66.0 97.9 8.5 66.0 44.7 40.4 

West 85.7 42.9 50.0 46.4 67.9 75.0 10.7 60.7 46.4 67.9 

Percent of all 

grantees 87.7 46.9 34.1 52.1 60.7 92.9 5.2 69.7 48.8 51.7 

Total grantees 185 99 72 110 128 196 11 147 103 109 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N=211. 

Geographic Distribution of Grants 

The grants were awarded across all regions, but some regions have a higher proportion of grants than 

others. The southeast has the most grants awarded at 50, while the southwest and midwest are not far 

behind, with 46 and 47 grants, respectively. The west has the next-highest number of grants with 28 

grants. The northeastern and mid-Atlantic regions have the fewest grants at 20 each. 

TABLE 2.5: GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS WHERE GRANTEES ARE LOCATED 

Region 

Number of 

grantees 

Percent of all 

grantees 

Northeast (Region I) 20 9.5 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 20 9.5 

Southeast (Region III) 50 23.7 

Southwest (Region IV) 46 21.8 

Midwest (Region V) 47 22.3 

West (Region VI) 28 13.3 

Total 211 100.0 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

Grantees are from nearly every state, as shown in Chart 2.3. Two states, Florida and Texas, 

have 14 grants each. Alabama and California also have high numbers of grants, at 11 and 10 

respectively. Only the District of Columbia, Hawaii, South Dakota, and Vermont had no grants 

awarded in the first three rounds. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 9
CHART 2.3: NUMBER OF GRANTEES BY STATE 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N= 211. 

While some grantees focus on specific communities, others operate in multiple communities 

within a state, and several operate in more than one state (see tables A.10 and A.11 in appendix 

A). Six is the highest number of states (including the District of Columbia) involved in any one 

grant. However, most grantees, 91 percent, operate in only one state. 

Target Populations 

Organizations applying for grants through the CBJTG program are asked to specify if they plan 

to target particular populations or subgroups of individuals for their training programs. They can 

provide training to a range of populations; as one SGA states, “including: incumbent workers 

who need new skills for jobs in demand up the career ladder or because the skill needs for their 

current job have changed; untapped labor pools (such as immigrant workers, individuals with 

disabilities, veterans, older workers, and youth); or entry-level workers who need basic skills 

and/or specific occupational skill training.”8

As shown in table 2.6, over three-quarters of grantees report they plan to target youth in high 

school. Most grantees also state that they will work with incumbent workers (65 percent) and 

low-income or disadvantaged populations (56 percent). Nearly 30 percent of grantees report that 

 

8 “Notice of Availability of Funds and Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) for Community-Based Job 

Training Grants,” Federal Register 70, No. 84 (May 3, 2005): 22909. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 10
they will target dislocated workers and/or entry-level workers for their programs. Fewer grantees 

note that they will target particular racial and ethnic groups such as Hispanics (14 percent), 

African Americans (4 percent), and American Indians and Native Americans (3 percent). 

TABLE 2.6: PLANNED TARGET POPULATION OF GRANTEES 

Planned target population Number of grantees Percent of all grantees 

Dislocated workers 63 29.9 

Entry-level workers 61 28.9 

Incumbent workers 138 65.4 

Youth before high school 56 26.5 

Youth in high school 164 77.7 

Hispanics 29 13.7 

African Americans 8 3.8 

American Indians/Native Americans 7 3.3 

Low-income/disadvantaged 118 55.9 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N=211. 

For the most part, grantees indicate that they will target some special population during their 

grant period (see tables B.39.a and B.39.b in appendix B). However, round 2 and 3 grantees are 

somewhat more likely than round 1 grantees to report targeting entry-level and incumbent 

workers. This is possibly because of the bonus points offered to grant applicants in these rounds 

who propose to use WIA funds for tuition for entry-level and incumbent workers. 

Community college grantees—compared with technical colleges, other educational 

institutions and public workforce investment system organizations—show some differences in 

which target populations they plan to serve (table 2.7). Technical colleges are more likely than 

average to target dislocated, entry-level workers, and high school youth, while community 

colleges are more likely than average to propose serving incumbent and dislocated workers. 

Other educational institutions and workforce agencies are more likely than community colleges 

or technical colleges to plan to target Hispanics and youth who are not yet in high school. 

TABLE 2.7: PERCENT OF GRANTEES PLANNING TO TARGET VARIOUS SUBGROUPS, 

BY ORGANIZATION TYPE 

Type of organization 

Dislocated workers 

Entry-level workers 

Incumbent workers 

Youth before high 

school 

Youth in high school 

Hispanics 

African Americans 

American Indians 

Low-income and 

disadvantaged 

Community college 32.9 28.1 67.8 24.0 77.4 13.0 4.8 2.1 56.8 

Technical college 44.4 38.9 61.1 22.2 88.9 0.0 5.6 11.1 55.6 

Other 14.9 27.7 59.6 36.2 74.5 21.3 0.0 4.3 53.2 

Percent of all grantees 29.9 28.9 65.4 26.5 77.7 13.7 3.8 3.3 55.9 

Total number of grantees 63 61 138 56 164 29 8 7 118 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N=211. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 11
A few regional differences in target populations are evident, as shown in table 2.8. Grantees 

in the northeast, mid-Atlantic, and southeast are more likely than the average grantee to plan to 

serve dislocated workers. Grantees in the northeast, southwest, and west are more likely than 

average to target Hispanics as a population of interest. Western grantees are also more likely than 

average to plan to serve low-income and disadvantaged individuals. 

TABLE 2.8: PERCENT OF GRANTEES PLANNING TO TARGET VARIOUS SUBGROUPS, 

BY REGION 

Region 

Dislocated workers 

Entry-level workers 

Incumbent workers 

Youth before high 

school 

Youth In high school 

Hispanics 

African Americans 

American Indians 

Low-income and 

disadvantaged 

Northeast 45.0 20.0 70.0 20.0 70.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 55.0 

Mid-Atlantic 35.0 30.0 80.0 25.0 75.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 

Southeast 36.0 32.0 60.0 28.0 82.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 56.0 

Southwest 23.9 28.3 65.2 28.3 76.1 19.6 8.7 6.5 54.4 

Midwest 27.7 31.9 61.7 29.8 72.3 12.8 4.3 0.47 55.3 

West 21.4 25.0 67.9 21.4 89.3 17.9 0.0 0.0 64.3 

Percent of all grantees 29.9 28.9 65.4 26.4 77.7 13.7 3.8 3.8 55.9 

Total number of grantees 63 61 138 56 164 29 8 8 118 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N=211. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 12
III. Funding and Leveraged Resources 

This section describes grantees’ funding levels and summarizes grantees’ planned leveraged 

funds and the sources of these funds. 

Amount of Grants 

CHART 3.1: PERCENT OF GRANTEES BY AMOUNT 

AWARDED

$500,000 - 

999,999

8.1%

$2,000,000 - 

4,000,000

21.3%

$1,000,000 - 

1,999,999

70.6%

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK, N=211

Grants awarded by ETA through the 

CBJTG program range from $500,000 to 

$3.6 million, with the average grantee 

receiving approximately $1.8 million. 

Chart 3.1 shows the proportion of 

grantees that fall within different ranges 

of grant amounts. The majority of grants 

(almost 71 percent) are in the range of $1 

to $2 million, 21 percent of the grants are 

between $2 and $4 million, and 8 percent 

of the grants are between $500,000 and 

$1 million. 

Table 3.1 displays grant amounts by 

industry. Most grants in each sector are 

in the $1 to $2 million range. Of the 

industries with more than 10 grants, a 

greater percentage of advanced manufacturing and transportation industry grantees, compared 

with grantees in other industries, has grant amounts of $2 to $4 million, while construction and 

energy grantees have a larger-than-average percentage of smaller grants ($500,000 to $1 

million). 

TABLE 3.1: GRANT AMOUNTS BY INDUSTRY 

Industry 

$500,000– 

$999,999 

$1,000,000– 

$1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

$3,999,999 Total (%) 

Advanced manufacturing* 5.4 59.5 35.1 100.0 

Aerospace 20.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 

Automotive 20.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 

Biotechnology 25.0 75.0 0.0 100.0 

Construction* 10.5 84.2 5.3 100.0 

Energy* 10.5 68.4 21.1 100.0 

Forestry 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 

Health care* 6.7 71.1 22.2 100.0 

Hospitality 0.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 

Information technology 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 

Transportation* 9.1 54.6 36.4 100.0 

Other 0.0 85.7 14.3 100.0 

Percent of all grantees 8.1 70.6 21.3 100.0 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N= 211. * DENOTES INDUSTRIES WITH MORE THAN 10 GRANTEES. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 13
Table 3.2 shows the proportion of grantees with each level of award across the three rounds 

of grants. The amount of the grant awards remains fairly consistent over the three rounds of 

awards. The largest percentage (41 percent) of smaller, $500,000 to $1 million, grants was 

awarded in round 1. The percentages of grantees in the mid-range of grant awards, $1 to $2 

million, are fairly close across rounds, with only a 2-point difference between the highest and 

lowest percentages. 

TABLE 3.2: PERCENTAGE OF GRANT AMOUNT BY GRANT ROUND 

Round 

$500,000– 

$999,999 

$1,000,000– 

$1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

$3,999,999 

Round 1 41.2 33.6 28.9 

Round 2 29.4 34.2 35.6 

Round 3 29.4 32.2 35.6 

Percent of all grantees 100.0 100.0 100.0 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N=211. 

Different types of grantee organizations have different average grant awards. Other 

educational institutions, which include various types of four-year postsecondary educational 

institutions, receive a slightly higher percentage of mid-range grants (84 percent) than all 

grantees (71 percent). Public workforce investment system organizations receive no grants under 

$1 million, compared with 8 percent of all grantees, and most of their grants are over $2 million 

(60 percent), compared with 21 percent of all grantees. Technical colleges also had no grants 

under $1 million (see tables B.4.a and B.4.b in appendix B). 

There are few differences in grant 

award amounts among regions. The 

northeast and midwest received higherthan-average percentages of grants 

over $2 million; both received 30 

percent. Grantees in the northeast, midAtlantic, and southeast received higherthan-average percentage (10 percent) 

of grant awards under $1 million (see 

tables B.5.a and B.5.b in appendix B). 

CHART 3.2: PERCENT OF GRANTEES BY AMOUNT OF

PLANNED LEVERAGED RESOURCES

$5,000,000 or 

More

10.0%

$2,000,000 - 

4,999,999

25.1%

$1,000,000 - 

1,999,999

27.5%

$500,000 - 

999,999

23.7%

Less than 

$500,000

13.7%

Leveraged Funds 

Grantees funded through the first three 

CBJTG program SGAs are encouraged 

to use the federal funds provided 

through the CBJTG program to 

leverage other public and private 

resources for their initiatives, and 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK, N=211

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 14
almost all grantees (97 percent) report plans to leverage resources.9

 Only six grantees report that 

they do not plan to leverage any resources from partners. The level of planned leveraged 

resources ranges from $15,000 to almost $19.5 million, with the average amount slightly over 

$2.3 million. The median amount leveraged is about $1,447,000. Chart 3.2 shows the largest 

percentage of grantees, slightly over 27 percent, plans to leverage between $1 and $2 million. 

Over 9 percent of grantees plan to leverage more than $5 million, and almost 14 percent of 

grantees plan to leverage less than $500,000. 

Table 3.3 displays the leveraged resource amounts that grantees proposed in their statements 

of work, by industry. Most industries follow the general patterns of leveraged resources 

discussed above, with the majority of planned leveraged resources between $500,000 and $5 

million. Grantees in the energy sector are more likely than average to have planned mid-range 

($1 to $2 million) levels of leveraged resources, while grantees in the construction sector are 

more likely than average to plan leveraged resources under $500,000. 

TABLE 3.3: PERCENT OF GRANTEES WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF 

PLANNED LEVERAGED RESOURCES, BY INDUSTRY 

Percent of Grantees 

Industry 

Less 

than 

$500,000 

$500,000– 

$999,999 

$1,000,000– 

$1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

$4,999,999 

$5,000,000 

or more 

Percent of 

industry 

Advanced manufacturing* 13.5 18.9 27.0 27.0 13.5 100.0 

Aerospace 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 100.0 

Automotive 0.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 0.0 100.0 

Biotechnology 0.0 62.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 100.0 

Construction* 42.1 21.1 21.1 15.8 0.0 100.0 

Energy* 10.5 21.1 47.4 5.3 15.8 100.0 

Forestry 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

Health care* 11.1 22.2 28.9 27.8 10.0 100.0 

Hospitality 25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 

Information technology 0.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 100.0 

Transportation* 0.0 36.4 0.0 54.6 9.1 100.0 

Other 28.6 14.3 28.6 28.6 0.0 100.0 

Percent of all grantees 13.7 23.7 27.5 25.1 10.0 100.0 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

N= 211. * DENOTES INDUSTRIES WITH MORE THAN 10 GRANTEES. 

Table 3.4 shows the amount of planned resources by different rounds of grant awards. 

Overall, there are few differences in the levels of planned leveraged resources across rounds. 

However, grantees in later rounds are slightly more likely to plan larger levels of leveraged 

resources. Fifty-five percent of grantees with plans to leverage less than $500,000 received their 

grants in round 1, while 49 percent of grantees with plans to leverage between $2 and $5 million 

received their grants in round 3. The breakdown of planned leveraged resources is not surprising 

as solicitations for grants in the second and third rounds gave bonus points for leveraging 

Workforce Investment Act funds. 

 

9

 Leveraged resources can be either cash donations or in-kind contributions (e.g., equipment, training facilities, 

instructors). While some grantees distinguish between cash and in-kind planned leveraged resources, the reporting is 

inconsistent across grantees and the levels of cash versus in-kind resources cannot be accurately reported here. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 15
TABLE 3.4: PERCENT OF GRANTEES WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS 

OF PLANNED LEVERAGED RESOURCES, BY ROUND 

Round 

Less than 

$500,000 

$500,000– 

$999,999 

$1,000,000– 

$1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

$4,999,999 

$5,000,000 

or more 

Round 1 55.2 32.0 31.0 26.4 28.6 

Round 2 20.7 46.0 37.9 24.5 38.1 

Round 3 24.1 22.0 31.0 49.1 33.3 

Percent by levels of 

leveraged funds 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N=211. 

Different types of grantee organizations plan different levels of leveraged resources (table 

3.5). A higher percentage of community colleges (13 percent) plan to leverage larger amounts of 

funding, over $5 million, than the average across all grantees (10 percent). Other educational 

institutions and public workforce investment system organizations are more likely than 

community colleges and technical colleges to plan fewer leveraged resources, under $500,000. 

TABLE 3.5: PERCENT OF GRANTEES WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF 

PLANNED LEVERAGED RESOURCES, BY TYPE OF GRANTEE ORGANIZATION 

Organization type 

Less than 

$500,000 

$500,000– 

$999,999 

$1,000,000– 

$1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

$4,999,999 

$5,000,000 

or more 

Community college 10.3 24.0 28.8 24.0 13.0 

Other educational institution 27.0 29.7 27.0 13.5 2.7 

Public workforce investment 

system organization 20.0 0.0 20.0 50.0 10.0 

Technical college 11.1 22.2 22.2 44.4 0.0 

Percent of all grantees 13.7 23.7 27.5 25.1 10.0 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N=211.

Levels of planned leveraged resources also vary slightly by region (see tables B.9.a and B.9.b 

in appendix B). The southwest has the highest proportion of grantees with planned leveraged 

resources of less than $500,000 at nearly 35 percent. The midwest has the highest share of 

grantees (32 percent) with planned leveraged resources between $2 and 5 million. The southeast 

has one third of grantees with planned leveraged resources greater than $5,000,000. 

The grantee statements of work also indicate that funds would be leveraged from different 

sources, including educational institutions, businesses and employers, foundations, governments, 

industry associations, nonprofit organizations, and the grantees themselves (see table A.13 in 

appendix A). WIBs are the most prevalent source of planned leveraged resources, with 75 

percent of grantees planning to access WIB resources, usually in the form of Workforce 

Investment Act grants for program participants. Employers also are a common source of planned 

leveraged resources, with 66 percent of grantees planning to obtain cash or in-kind donations 

from this group. Employer contributions to the CBJTG projects take different forms including 

participant scholarships, recruitment of incumbent workers and donations of training equipment 

and resources. However, grantees were over five times more likely to plan to leverage resources 

with employers than with industry associations. Educational institutions, including local school 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 16
districts, four-year colleges and universities and the grantees themselves, plan to provide 

leveraged resources to 48 percent of grantees. Foundations, state and local governments, and 

community and nonprofit organizations are the least prevalent sources of planned leveraged 

resources, with these institutions offering to provide resources of 12 percent or less. 

Table 3.6 shows the source of planned leveraged resources for grantees in each industry. 

While 75 percent of all grantees have plans for WIBs to provide leveraged resources, over 80 

percent of grantees in the automotive, biotechnology, hospitality, information technology, and 

transportation industries report that they plan to leverage WIB resources. Grantees in the 

aerospace, construction, health care, hospitality, information technology, and transportation 

industries are more likely on average to plan for employers to provide leveraged resources. 

Grantees in round 3 show a greater-than-average proportion of each type of organization 

planning to contribute leveraged resources (except community/nonprofit organizations) than 

grantees in earlier rounds (see tables B.11.a and B.11.b in appendix B). 

TABLE 3.6: PERCENT OF GRANTEES WITH EACH TYPE OF ORGANIZATION CONTRIBUTING 

LEVERAGED RESOURCES, BY INDUSTRY 

Industry 

WIB 

Foundation 

State or local 

government 

Employer 

Industry association 

Educational 

institution 

Community/nonprofit 

organization 

Advanced manufacturing* 75.7 5.4 10.8 56.7 18.9 51.4 13.5 

Aerospace 60.0 0.0 20.0 100.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 

Automotive 80.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 

Biotechnology 87.5 0.0 0.0 50.0 12.5 62.5 12.5 

Construction* 73.7 0.0 36.8 68.4 26.3 63.2 10.5 

Energy* 78.9 0.0 5.3 52.6 5.3 26.3 0.0 

Forestry 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Health care* 71.1 13.3 10.0 72.2 5.6 48.9 11.1 

Hospitality 100.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 

Information technology 100.0 25.0 0.0 75.0 50.0 100.0 25.0 

Transportation* 90.9 0.0 18.2 72.7 0.0 27.3 0.0 

Other 85.7 0.0 28.6 57.1 28.6 57.1 14.3 

Total percent of all grantees 75.4 7.1 12.3 65.9 11.4 47.9 10.0 

Total number of grantees 159 15 26 139 24 101 21 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N= 211. * DENOTES INDUSTRIES WITH MORE THAN 10 GRANTEES. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 17
IV. Training and Capacity-Building Goals 

This section provides an overview of the grantees’ training and capacity-building goals for their 

CBJTGs. This information is drawn from the grantees’ statements of work incorporated from 

their grant applications.10

Training Goals 

The training-related goals of programs funded through the CBJTG program are similar to other 

training efforts (such as Workforce Investment Act–funded training) and include goals for 

enrollment levels, graduation and program completion, and employment and earnings for 

graduates and completers. Most grantees state that their goal is to increase these key trainingrelated activity levels and participant outcomes (table 4.1). Over 80 percent of grantees report 

that they aim to increase participant enrollment into their programs and increase the graduation 

and completion levels from their programs. A comparable proportion of grantees (79 percent) 

plans to increase the employment levels for graduates and completers of their programs. Fewer 

grantees (62 percent) have a goal for increasing earnings. A small percentage of grantees (13 

percent) also plans to increase participant satisfaction with its programs.11 

TABLE 4.1: GRANTEE TRAINING GOALS 

Planned training goal Number of grantees Percent of grantees 

Increase participant enrollment 183 86.7 

Increase graduation/program completion 174 82.5 

Increase employment for graduates/completers 167 79.2 

Increase earnings for graduates/completers 130 61.6 

Increase participant satisfaction 28 13.3 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N=211. 

Few differences exist in the training goals of grantees by industry (see tables B.18.a and 

B.18.b in appendix B). However, training goals do differ among grantees by round of 

competition and type of organization (see tables B.19.a, B.19.b, B.20.a, and B.20.b in appendix 

B). The percentage of grantees stating goals of increasing enrollment and program completion 

levels is somewhat lower in rounds 2 and 3, although the reason for this difference is unclear. 

Round 1 grantees have enrollment and completion goals at rates of 93 and 89 percent, 

respectively. In contrast, 83 and 81 percent of round 2 grantees have enrollment and completion 

goals, along with 84 and 77 percent of round 3 grantees. In addition, technical colleges are more 

likely than average to have completion, employment, and earnings goals for their planned 

 

10 Detailed comparisons between grantees are limited because the grantees do not consistently define or specify their 

goals in their statements of work. For example, some grantees provide a percentage by which they intend to increase 

their enrollment as a goal, while others provide a number of participants they plan to enroll. Thus, we are only able 

to report grantees’ stated goals. It is also important to keep in mind that a grantee had to state the specific goal in its 

statement of work for it to be reported in the tables below. Grantees may have a specific goal, but if it is not clearly 

expressed in their initial statement of work, it is not reflected in this report. 

11 Participant satisfaction is not one of the required ETA quarterly reporting measures, unlike the other four goals, 

but some grantees state it as a goal in their applications. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 18
activities, while other types of organizations are more likely than average to have completion and 

employment goals but less likely than average to have earnings goals for planned activities. 

Grantees in all regions report having all the training goals, except increasing participant 

satisfaction, for the majority of their grants. Grantees in the mid-Atlantic consistently report 

having all of training-related goals for their programs (see tables B.21.a and B.21.b in appendix 

B). Northeastern grantees also are more likely than average to include the goals of increased 

enrollment and increased earnings. 

Capacity-Building Goals 

The grantees have various capacity-building goals they plan to pursue during their grant period. 

These goals include hiring or funding additional faculty; hiring or funding additional program 

staff; developing new or expanding current financial aid, scholarship, or tuition assistance 

programs; expanding the number of training program slots; guiding staff on how to provide 

training (“train the trainer”); designing or using new instructional techniques or technology; 

creating or increasing the pipeline of workers from kindergarten through 12th grade; and 

improving access for underserved or disadvantaged populations. 

As shown in table 4.2, most grantees have capacity-building goals that include hiring or 

funding new faculty and program staff (62 and 59 percent, respectively), training trainers (59 

percent), and creating or increasing the pipeline of trained workers from K–12 education (79 

percent). Fewer grantees have stated goals of expanding the number of training slots (45 

percent), designing and using new instructional techniques and technologies (44 percent), and 

improving access for underserved or disadvantaged populations (35 percent). The least common 

capacity-building goals reported by grantees are developing and expanding financial aid 

opportunities (21 and 26 percent, respectively). 

TABLE 4.2: PLANNED CAPACITY-BUILDING GOALS 

Planned capacity-building goal Number of grantees Percent of grantees 

Hire/fund additional faculty 130 61.6 

Hire/fund additional program staff/personnel 125 59.2 

Develop new financial aid/scholarship/tuition assistance program 44 20.9 

Expand existing financial aid/scholarship/tuition assistance program 55 26.1 

Expand number of training program slots 94 45.0 

Design/use new instructional techniques/technology 92 43.6 

Train the trainer 124 58.9 

Create or increase pipeline of workers from K–12 167 79.2 

Improve access to underserved/disadvantaged populations 74 35.1 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N=211. 

Among industries with relatively large numbers of grants (defined here as 10 or more), the 

kinds of capacity-building goals differ slightly (see table B.26.b in appendix B). In the health 

care industry, grantees are more likely than average to have goals of increasing the number of 

training slots and using new instructional techniques and technologies. Advanced manufacturing 

grantees are less likely than average to have goals of adding new faculty or program staff, 

increasing the number of training slots, and improving access for disadvantaged populations, but 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 19
a higher-than-average share of advanced manufacturing grantees reports goals of increasing the 

pipeline of workers from K–12. Fewer energy grantees, compared with all other grantees, have 

goals of increasing the number of training slots or using new instructional techniques or 

technologies. 

There are a few variations in grantees’ capacity-building goals among the different rounds of 

competition: hiring additional program staff, expanding financial aid opportunities, training the 

trainer, and increasing the K–12 pipeline are more common in round 3 than average (see tables 

B.27.a and B.27.b in appendix B). Community college grantees are somewhat more likely than 

average to set goals for creating new financial aid opportunities, developing new teaching 

techniques, and creating a pipeline of new workers. Grantees that are not community colleges or 

technical colleges are more likely to have goals that pertain to expanding financial aid and 

increasing the number of training slots. Technical college grantees report higher-than-average 

plans to develop train-the-trainer efforts and improve access to disadvantaged populations (see 

table B.28.b in appendix B). 

Grantees’ capacity-building goals also vary by region (see tables B.29.a and B.29.b in 

appendix B). Grantees in the southwest are less likely than average to have a goal of hiring new 

faculty (48 percent compared with 62 percent of all grantees). Northeastern grantees tend to have 

a goal of adding new program staff more often than grantees in other regions. Southeastern 

grantees are more likely than the average grantee to have a goal for new financial aid 

opportunities for participants. Grantees in the west are more likely than average to have a goal of 

improving access for disadvantaged populations to their programs, while mid-Atlantic grantees 

are less likely to have such a goal than other grantees. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 20
V. Planned Grantee Activities 

Grantees can use funds from the CBJTG program for a range of activities designed to build the 

capacity of community colleges and other training institutions to provide training and help 

workers succeed in high-growth industries. According to the ETA guidelines, these activities can 

include both training activities and capacity-building. Grantees are also required to provide ETA 

with “products” (i.e., grant-funded deliverables) that result from these activities. These include 

curricula for the training programs, web sites, career ladders, distance learning programs, basic 

skills training curricula, and outreach and recruitment materials. Many of the completed products 

are already posted on the ETA-sponsored web site, Workforce3One.org, for use by other 

organizations, agencies, and workforce development professionals. 

Each statement of work describes how the grantee plans to use the funds. This section 

provides a general overview of planned CBJT grantee activities based on a review of these 

documents. 

Training Activities 

In their statements of work to ETA, all grantees report planning to use their grant funds to 

provide some form of job training, most commonly classroom instruction and internships. As 

shown in table 5.1, 87 percent of all grantees report that they plan to offer classroom instruction, 

and 32 percent plan to offer internships. 

TABLE 5.1: PLANNED TYPES OF TRAINING 

Planned training type Number of grantees Percent of grantees 

Classroom instruction 184 87.2 

On-the-job training 23 10.9 

Internships/externships 68 32.2 

Job shadowing 24 11.4 

Mentorships 32 15.2 

Apprenticeships 33 15.6 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N=211. 

Across industries, classroom training was by far the most commonly planned training type. 

The type of training varies by industry focus (see tables B.22.a and B.22.b in appendix B). For 

health care–focused grants, grantees are more likely than average to plan on classroom 

instruction and mentorships as a part of the training program and less likely than average to use 

on-the-job training, internships, and apprenticeships. This most likely reflects that certification 

for many health care occupations requires a credential that usually results from formal education 

or coursework. A higher percentage of energy grantees (53 percent) reports plans for internships 

than grantee average (32 percent). Grantees in advanced manufacturing more often than average 

plan to use apprenticeships and internships in their training activities. 

The focus on classroom training and internships is consistent across the three rounds of 

grants as well as across the different geographic regions of the country (see tables B.23.a, B.23b, 

B.25.a, and B.25.b in appendix B). In terms of regional variations, the northeastern and midCharacteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 21
Atlantic grantees have no planned job-shadowing activities but 42 percent of southeastern 

grantees have planned job-shadowing activities. 

Table 5.2 shows the differences in planned use of training activities between community 

colleges and other types of grantee organizations. While about the same proportion of 

community colleges and other types of organizations plan to use classroom instruction in their 

training programs, community colleges are more likely to use on-the-job training. However, 

grantees other than community colleges and technical colleges, such as four-year colleges and 

public workforce investment system organizations, are more likely to plan to use job shadowing. 

TABLE 5.2: PLANNED TYPES OF TRAINING, BY TYPE OF GRANTEE 

Classroom 

instruction 

On-thejob 

training 

Internships/ 

externships 

Job 

shadowing 

Mentorships Apprenticeships 

Community college 88.4 13.0 34.9 9.6 15.8 15.8 

Technical college 83.3 0.0 38.9 0.0 22.2 33.3 

Other 85.1 8.5 21.3 21.3 10.6 8.5 

Percent of all grantees 87.2 10.9 32.2 11.4 15.2 15.6 

Total number of grantees 184 23 68 24 32 33 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N=211. 

Capacity-Building Activities 

In addition to providing details on their planned training activities, grantees summarize the 

capacity-building activities they are planning to implement, as shown in table 5.3. Most grantees 

(88 percent) are planning to use the grant to develop recruitment efforts. Eighty-three percent of 

grantees are planning to develop new curricula, 62 percent are planning to revise or expand 

existing training programs, and 54 percent are planning to develop new training programs. Less 

than half the grantees are planning to use the funds for collaborating with partners or developing 

certifications. 

TABLE 5.3: PLANNED CAPACITY-BUILDING ACTIVITIES 

Planned activity Number of grantees Percent of grantees 

Collaboration with partners 102 48.3 

New training program development 114 54.0 

Improvement/expansion of existing training program 131 62.1 

Certification development 95 45.0 

Curriculum development 176 83.4 

Recruitment 186 88.2 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N=211. 

Of the industries with more than 10 grants, automotive and construction are the most likely to 

include partner collaborations or activities as a component of their capacity-building efforts, as 

shown in table 5.4. Health care grantees are more likely than average to plan to expand their 

current training programs, while construction and transportation are more likely than average to 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 22
develop new ones. Grantees in the advanced manufacturing, construction, and transportation 

industries plan to develop new certifications more often than grantees in other industries. Health 

care grantees are less likely than average to develop certifications. There are few industry 

differences in curriculum development and recruitment efforts. 

TABLE 5.4: PLANNED CAPACITY-BUILDING ACTIVITIES AMONG CBJT GRANTEES, BY INDUSTRY 

Percent of Grantees 

Industry 

Partnerships 

New 

training 

program 

Expansion 

of existing 

training 

program 

Certifications 

Curriculum 

development Recruitment 

Advanced manufacturing* 46.0 67.6 59.5 59.5 89.2 89.2 

Aerospace 20.0 40.0 60.0 20.0 100.0 80.0 

Automotive 60.0 60.0 40.0 60.0 60.0 80.0 

Biotechnology 25.0 87.5 37.5 37.5 100.0 87.5 

Construction* 52.6 73.7 57.9 63.2 94.7 100.0 

Energy* 47.4 42.1 52.6 42.1 89.5 89.5 

Forestry 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Health care* 46.7 37.8 68.9 32.2 72.2 85.6 

Hospitality 75.0 75.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 75.0 

Information technology 75.0 100.0 75.0 75.0 100.0 100.0 

Transportation* 45.5 72.7 63.6 63.7 90.9 81.8 

Other 71.4 57.1 57.1 42.9 100.0 100.0 

Percent of all grantees 48.3 54.0 62.1 45.0 83.4 88.2 

Total number of grantees 102 114 131 95 176 186 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N=211. * DENOTES INDUSTRIES WITH MORE THAN 10 GRANTEES. 

A few differences in planned capacity-building exist across rounds. Grantees in round 1 are 

more likely than average to report planned partner collaborations or activities, expansion of 

training programs, and development of certifications. Grantees in round 3 are more likely than 

grantees in the first two rounds to report planning to develop new training programs and 

curricula (see tables B.31.a and B.31.b in appendix B). 

In designing their capacity-building activities, technical colleges differ from other types of 

grantees (see tables B.32.a and B.32.b in appendix B). Technical colleges are more likely than 

the average grantee to develop a new training program or expand an existing one and create 

certifications but are less likely to engage in partnerships and develop a new curriculum. Other 

types of grantees, including four-year educational institutions and public workforce investment 

system organizations, are more likely than average to collaborate with partners but are less likely 

to develop a new training program, certifications, or curriculum. 

The plans for capacity-building activities are fairly similar across the different geographic 

regions of the country but a some slight geographic differences exist (see tables B.33.a and 

B.33.b in appendix B). Grantees in the midwest and west are more likely than average to report 

plans to increase partner collaboration. Grantees in the northeast are more likely to report plans 

to create new training programs, while grantees in the mid-Atlantic are more likely than average 

to report plans to develop certification programs. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 23
Proposed Products 

In their statements of work, grantees also summarize the products they are planning to develop 

with the funds, as shown in table 5.5. These products are an output of the grant activities that can 

be used by other organizations and agencies developing industry-specific training and capacitybuilding efforts. Most grantees (87 percent) are planning to use the grant to develop or revise a 

course or curriculum. Seventy-nine percent of grantees are planning to use the grant for new or 

improved facilities or equipment.12 Seventy percent are planning to use the grant to develop new 

or improved outreach materials, and 63 percent are planning to develop a career ladder program. 

TABLE 5.5: TYPE OF PRODUCTS PROPOSED BY GRANTEES 

Product 

Number of 

grantees 

Percent of 

grantees 

New/revised curriculum 183 86.7 

New/improved web site 47 22.3 

New/improved facilities or equipment 167 79.1 

Career ladder 132 62.6 

Distance learning 103 48.8 

Curriculum integrated with basic skills and job training 67 31.8 

Outreach/recruitment materials 147 69.7 

SOURCE: GRANTEE STATEMENTS OF WORK. 

NOTE: N=211. 

There are some differences by industry focus in the types of products planned by grantees 

(see tables B.34.a and B.34.b in appendix B). Among industries with 10 or more grantees, health 

care grantees are less likely than grantees in other industries to have curriculum and outreach and 

recruitment materials as products but are more likely to create distance learning products. On the 

other hand, grantees in the advanced manufacturing, construction, and energy industries are more 

likely to plan curriculum and outreach and recruitment products but less likely to develop 

distance learning products. The advanced manufacturing industry grants are also more likely to 

plan on developing a curriculum that blends basic skills with job training, and energy-focused 

grants are more likely to plan on new or improved facilities and equipment as an output of their 

grant activities. These differences appear to reflect the nature of the training required for jobs in 

the specific industries. There is little variation in the types of products grantees plan to develop 

by organization type except technical colleges, which have a higher-than-average percentage of 

grantees that plan to use distance learning and blended curriculum (see tables B.36.a and B.36.b 

in appendix B). 

The types of proposed products differ slightly among the rounds of grant awards and across 

the regions (see tables B.35.a, B.35.b, B.37.a, and B.37.b in appendix B). Grantees in Round 3 

are more likely than average to plan on developing curricula, web sites, career ladders, and 

outreach products but are less likely than average to develop curriculum that integrates basic 

 

12 Although facilities and equipment are not largely transferrable or replicable among training organizations, and are 

therefore not considered a grantee “product” as is posted on workforce3one.org, we report grantee plans for new or 

improved facilities and equipment in this section because such a large percentage of grantees (79 percent) reports 

these plans as a proposed product or output of grant activities. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 24
skills instruction with training. While plans for curriculum products, facilities and equipment, 

career ladders, and outreach materials are evident in grantees generally, there are some regional 

differences in web sites, distance learning, and blended curriculum products. For example, 

grantees in the southeast plan to develop web sites more often, while grantees in the west plan it 

less often than grantees in other regions. However, grantees in the west plan to use distance 

learning at a greater rate than grantees in other regions. Northeastern grantees plan to develop 

curriculum products that blend basic skills training more often than grantees in other regions. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 25
VI. Preliminary Grant Outcomes 

This section reports on a range of outcomes reported by grantees as of June 2008, including 

whether the grant is still operational, the number of individuals enrolled in and completing 

training, the number of trainees that find employment, the characteristics of participants served, 

and the use of leveraged resources. 

The information in this section relies on data reported by grantees in all three rounds and 

maintained in ETA’s online grantee quarterly reporting system. The quarter ending June 2008 is 

the first quarter grantees provided data using this system. Grantees had previously submitted 

quarterly reports to ETA, but an Office of Management and Budget-approved quarterly reporting 

system was implemented only recently. The new system is intended to provide more consistent 

reporting of grantee progress, activities, and outcomes. In addition to other information, grantees 

are required to report quarterly data on participation in training activities including program 

enrollment and completion, receipt of a degree or certificate, entered employment (overall and 

by industry of interest), demographics of trainees, capacity-building activities, and leveraged 

resources. The information from the June 2008 quarterly reports provided by 201 of the 211 

grantees is summarized in this section.13 Results from these data should be considered 

preliminary as they reflect an early period of operations for many grantees. The data may be 

subsequently updated as part of ETA’s ongoing data quality assurance efforts. 

Completion of Grant Activities 

Table 6.1 shows the number and percentage of grantees by operational status as of December 1, 

2008, according to internal ETA reports on grantees’ status. The original end date of October 31, 

2008, for all the 70 Round 1 grantees has passed, but 69 percent of Round 1 grantees requested 

and received no-cost extensions that generally allow them to continue to use grant funds into late 

2009. Thus, as of December 2008, 90 percent, or 189 grantees, are still operational. 

TABLE 6.1: GRANTEE STATUS AS OF DECEMBER 2008 

Grant status Number of grantees Percent of grantees 

In original grant period 141 66.8 

Ended 22 10.4 

Extended 48 22.8 

Total 211 100.0 

SOURCE: ETA REPORT ON GRANTEE STATUS. 

Early Training Outcomes 

Based on June 2008 data from the quarterly reporting system, the CBJT grantees reported that 

52,147 individuals had started a training program and slightly over half of those individuals 

completed training. Of those that completed training, over three-quarters received a degree or 

certificate. 

 

13 Grantees are also required to provide quarterly financial and narrative reports to ETA. However, because a new 

reporting system was implemented, the data from those sources were not available for use in this report. Future 

analysis of the CBJTG program will incorporate these data. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 26
Table 6.2 summarizes these activities and outcomes, as reported through the grantee 

quarterly reporting system. For each item, the calculations in this table are presented for all 

grantees (row 1) and for just those grantees that reported some data on the item in their quarterly 

report (row 2). (Because some grantees do not report data for every item, the second row in each 

category excludes the grantees that reported zero participants.) As shown, for the quarter ending 

June 30, 2008, 145 grantees report serving participants, and of these grantees, the average 

number of participants served per grantee is 424, with a range from 1 to 5,889 participants.14

One hundred thirty-seven grantees reported they served participants who began an education or 

job training activity. Of these grantees, an average of 381 participants began education or 

training. 

s have completed education or job 

training activities or have received a degree or certificate.15 

 ACTIVITY LEVELS AND E TRAI TCOMES AS O

Reflecting that most of the grants are still active or are in their early stages of 

implementation, grantees report that relatively few participant

TABLE 6.2: GRANTEE ARLY NING OU F JUNE 2008 

Training activity or outcome Mean Median Range Number of grantees 

N

424 189 1–5,889 145 

umber of participants served/enrolled 

For all grantees 

For grantees reporting this outcome 

306 86 0–5,889 201 

Number beginning education/job s 

381 176 1–5,889 137 

 training activitie

For all grantees 

For grantees reporting this outcome

260 63 0–5,889 201 

Number completing education/jo

257 105 1–5,313 107 

b training activities 

For all grantees 

For grantees reporting this outcome 

137 10 0–5,313 201 

N

71 

umber receiving a degree or certificate 

For all grantees 

For grantees reporting this outcome 

107 

206 

5 0–5,159 

2–5,159 

201 

104 

Number exiting program fo

122 111 1–3,216 102 

r any reason 

For all grantees 240 2 0–3,216 201 

For grantees reporting this outcome 

SOURCE: GRANTEE QUARTERLY REPORTS. 

NOTE: N=201. 

Early Capacity-Building Outcomes 

erage of 

20 new instructors using grant funds, with eight grantees hiring over 100 instructors. 

antees 

 

The grantee quarterly reporting system also provides some information on capacity-building 

outcomes to date (see table C.3 in appendix C). As of June 2008, grantees added an av

The leveraged resources that grantees report collecting are summarized in table 6.3. Gr

have leveraged an average of around $115,000 in federal resources, and over $500,000 in

14 Round 3 grants were awarded in April 2008, so many of these grantees were not yet serving participants in June 

2008. 

15 The reliability of the employment data is unclear at this point. Thus, the final report will provide data on 

employment outcomes once the data can be validated. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 27
nonfedera

non million) than for federal sources ($0–$5 millio

LE 6.3: LEVERAGED RE C B S OF JUNE 8 

l resources as of June 30, 2008. The range of leveraged resources is larger for 

federal sources ($0–$10 n). 

TAB SOURCES OLLECTED Y GRANTEES A 200

Type of leveraged resource Mean Median Range Number of grantees 

Federal $115,302 $0 $0–$5,044,707 201 

Nonfederal $573,402 $129,503 $0-$10,000,000 201 

SOURCE: GRANTEE QUARTERLY REPORTS. 

NOTE: N=201. 

These reported leveraged amounts can be compared with the grantees’ planned amounts as 

summarized earlier. This comparison suggests that the round 1 and 2 grantees are making 

progress in this regard. Round 1 grantees, on average, planned to leverage $1.9 million. As of 

June 2008, they have accessed approximately $1.1 million in federal and nonfederal leveraged 

resources since their projects started in November 2005. Round 2 grantees have made some 

progress as well. On average, round 2 grantees planned for nearly $2.4 million and have accessed 

an average of over $850,000 since their January 2007 start date. Round 3 grantees leveraged an 

ree months since their April 

2008 start date. 

ther they served any individuals in that group. The 

second row excludes grantees that have not served participants in a given category. Therefore, 

the 

re 

4 grantees) have Hispanic and African 

American (122 grantees) enrollees. Over half of grantees with trainees are also serving Asians 

(87

. Nearly 70 percent of grantees with trainees are serving 

veterans (101 grantees), and over 46 percent of grantees with trainees are serving people with 

disabilities (68 grantees). However, the average number of participants served in these groups is 

again low (21 and 9, respectively). 

 

average of almost $100,000 of their expected $2.7 million in the th

Characteristics of Those Served by the CBJTG Program 

Table 6.4 provides data on the characteristics of trainees enrolled into grant funded programs as

of June 2008. For each characteristic, there are two rows of numbers. Like the table above, the 

first includes all grantees regardless of whe

second row gives a better sense of the grantees that serve a particular population group and 

how many participants have been served. 

Of the 145 grantees that report serving participants (see table 6.2), table 6.4 shows that all a

serving men and almost all are serving women.16 Most grantees serving participants have white 

enrollees (142 grantees), and about 85 percent (12

 grantees). As shown in table 6.4, on average, grantees have enrolled 276 white participants, 

73 black participants, and 14 Asian participants. 

Some grantees are also serving other groups, although their participation levels are generally

low (see table 6.4). The populations served by the fewest number of grantees are native 

Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, served by 40 grantees, and Hispanics/Latinos of more than 

one race, served by 16 grantees. In addition, the average number of participants served in these 

groups is low (7 and 6, respectively)

16 A data error exists as the number serving men in table 6.4 (148) is inconsistent with the data in table 6.2 that 

shows 145 grantees have served participants. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 28
TABLE 6.4: TRAINEES ENROLLED IN GRANT FUNDED PROGRAMS, BY SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC 

CHARACTERISTICS AS OF JUNE 2008 

Demographic characteristic Mean Median Range 

Number 

of 

grantees 

Number of males 

For all grantees 

For grantees serving this group 

142 

193 

26 

58 

0–5,664 

1–5,664 

201 

148 

Number of females 

For all grantees 

For grantees serving this group 

146 

205 

17 

59 

0–2,405 

1–2,405 

201 

143 

Number of Hispanics/Latinos 

For all grantees 

For grantees serving this group 

29 

47 

2 

12 

0–844 

1–844 

201 

124 

Number of American Indians or Alaska 

Natives 

For all grantees 

For grantees serving this group 

5 

12 

0 

3 

0–298 

1–298 

201 

82 

Number of Asians 

For all grantees 

For grantees serving this group 

6 

14 

0 

7 

0–131 

1–131 

201 

87 

Number of blacks or African Americans 

Forall grantees 

For grantees serving this group 

44 

73 

3 

21 

0–1,338 

1–1,338 

201 

122 

Number of Native Hawaiians or other Pacific 

Islanders 

For all grantees 

For grantees serving this group 

1 

7 

0 

1.5 

0–88 

1–88 

201 

40 

Number of whites 

For all grantees 

For grantees serving this group 

195 

276 

39 

90 

0–4,258 

1–4,258 

201 

142 

Number of persons of more than one race 

For all grantees 

For grantees serving this group 

3 

11 

0 

2 

0–174 

1–174 

201 

53 

Number of Hispanics/Latinos of more than 

one race 

For all grantees 

For grantees serving this group 

1 

6 

0 

2 

0–36 

1–36 

201 

16 

Number of veterans 

For all grantees 

For grantees serving this group 

11 

21 

1 

7 

0–455 

1–455 

201 

101 

Number of persons with a disability 

For all grantees 

For grantees serving this group 

3 

9 

0 

3 

0–95 

1–95 

201 

68 

SOURCE: GRANTEE QUARTERLY REPORTS. 

NOTE: N=201. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 29
VII. Conclusions 

Few major conclusions can be drawn from the CBJTG program at this point since many grantees 

are still in their early operational phases. In addition, the data available for this report are 

somewhat limited, culled primarily from grantee statements of work, which describe the grantee 

plans rather than actual operations. Data are presented from the first quarterly reports submitted 

under a new reporting system; ETA is working with grantees to ensure they are accurately 

reporting on all outcome categories, so these data may be updated. 

Nonetheless, some early observations about the characteristics of the CBJTG program as a 

whole are evident. First, more so than any other industry, grants focused on the health care 

industry are the most prevalent, especially in the first round of the grant competition where they 

make up over a half of the grants awarded. This likely reflects the nationwide growth in the 

health care industry and in the need for nurses and other health care workers in many regions of 

the country. 

Second, the characteristics of the grants in the first round of the grants are somewhat 

different than grants in the second and third rounds. The grant guidelines for the first round of 

funding only permitted community colleges or other educational institutions as grantees, but the 

second and third rounds were opened also to public workforce investment system organizations 

such as WIBs, One-Stop Career Centers, and workforce agencies. In round 1, grantees were 

more likely to partner with One-Stop Career Centers, but round 3 grantees were more likely to 

bring in more postsecondary education partners. Rounds 2 and 3 also saw an increase in the 

number of grantees that focused their grant program plans on serving entry-level and incumbent 

workers. Finally, grant awards and planned leveraged resources increased in later rounds. 

Third, some elements in the design of the training programs reflect the skill-building 

strategies used in different industries. For example, grantees in health care are likely to use 

classroom training and mentorships, where grantees in advanced manufacturing are more likely 

to use an apprenticeship design for their training. Health care grantees are also more likely than 

others to use new instructional techniques and technologies. 

Finally, the grantees have also made progress accessing planned leveraged resources. Round 

1 grantees (in operation for 31 months in June 2008) have collected an average of $1.1 million in 

federal and nonfederal resources, which approaches their average goal of about $1.9 million. 

Even though grantees in rounds 2 and 3 have not been in operation as long as the round 1 

grantees, they are also making progress in reaching their leveraged resource goals. Future data 

collection will examine the experiences of grantees in acquiring leveraged funds and in-kind 

resources to understand what types of resources were provided and how grantees were able to 

encourage partners to contribute to their CBJTG projects. 

Overall, grantees have made progress in getting their training programs up and running by 

the end of June 2008. About two-thirds of the grantees had at least one participant begin 

education or job training activities, with most serving more than one. In addition, over half the 

grantees reported that at least some participants had completed the training activities. Finally, 

only 10 percent of grantees have completed activities funded through the CBJTG program, 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 30
reflecting the early operational period covered by this report. Many questions about the CBJTG 

program remain, including these: 

• What are the specific training and capacity-building goals of the grantees? Did these 

goals change over the grant period? 

• Were the grantees able to meet their program goals? Which grantees were most 

successful? 

• How were the needs of employers and industry met? Were the grantees able to build new 

or expand current training capacity to meet regional workforce needs? 

• How successful did the grantees maintain and sustain partnerships? What did the CBJTG 

project gain from these partners’ involvement? What challenges did grantees encounter in 

doing so? 

• What aspects of the grant programs are amenable to replication? What more innovative 

aspects of the grant programs would be difficult to replicate? 

• Have grant deliverables been disseminated? 

• How will the grant activities be sustained after the grant period ends? 

Evaluation activities in 2009 will involve examining the characteristics of grant-funded programs 

and a range of implementation issues and outcomes in more detail. 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 31
REPORT APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Descriptive Tables of Grant Characteristics and 

Planned Grant Activities 

APPENDIX B: Two-Way Contingency Tables of Grant Characteristics 

and Planned Activities 

APPENDIX C: Descriptive Tables of CBJTG Outcomes as of June 2008 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program 
APPENDIX A: Descriptive Tables of Grant Characteristics and Planned Grant 

Activities 

(Source: Grantee Statements of Work) 

Table A.1 – Means, Medians and Ranges for Continuous Variables 

Variables Mean Median Range N 

Length of grant (in days) 1,085.6 1,095 729–1,096 211 

Grant award $1,776,921 $1,921,841 $500,000–$3,600,768 211 

Number of states in which grantee has a 

presence 

1.199 1 1–6 211 

Leveraged resources $2,328,999 $1,447,056 $0–$19,489,770 211 

Number of partners 17.57 14 3–126 211 

Table A.2 – Industry of Focus 

Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Advanced manufacturing 37 17.5 17.5 

Aerospace/aviation 5 2.3 19.9 

Automotive 5 2.3 22.2 

Biotechnology 8 3.8 26.1 

Construction 19 9 35.1 

Energy 19 9 44.1 

Forestry 2 1 45 

Health care 90 42.7 87.7 

Hospitality 4 1.9 89.6 

Information technology 4 1.9 91.5 

Transportation 11 5.2 100.0 

Other (education, engineering and process 

technology, financial services, geospatial, movie/TV 

production, nanotechnology, non-sector specific) 7 3.3 94.8 

Total 211 100.0 

Table A.3 – Year Grants Were Awarded 

Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

2005 70 33.2 33.2 

2007 72 34.1 67.3 

2008 69 32.7 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Table A.4 – Grants by Round of Competition 

Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

First round (PY2005) 70 33.2 33.2 

Second round (PY2006) 72 34.1 67.3 

Third round (PY2007) 69 32.7 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program A-1
Table A.5 – Grantee Organization Type 

Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Community college 146 69.2 69.2 

Educational institution 37 17.5 86.7 

Public workforce investment system organization 10 4.7 91.5 

Technical college 18 8.5 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Tables A.6 – Types of Partners Planning to Participate in Overall Grant Activities 

Workforce Investment Board Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 185 87.7 87.7 

No 26 12.3 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

One-stop career center Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 99 46.9 46.9 

No 112 53.1 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Four-year college Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 110 52.1 52.1 

No 101 47.9 100 

Total 211 100.0 

Two-year college Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 72 34.1 34.1 

No 139 65.9 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Industry association Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 128 60.7 60.67 

No 83 39.3 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Employer Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 196 92.9 92.9 

No 15 7.1 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Community/nonprofit organization Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 109 51.7 51.67 

No 102 48.3 100.0 

Total 211 100 

Union Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 11 5.2 5.2 

No 200 94.8 100.0 

Total 211 100 

 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program A-2
School district Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 147 69.7 69.7 

No 64 30.3 100.0 

Total 211 100 

Government Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 103 48.8 48.8 

No 108 51.2 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Other Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 95 45.0 45.0 

No 116 55.0 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Table A.7 – Grantee’s Operational Status 

Status Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Operational–in original grant period 141 66.8 66.8 

Ended 22 10.4 77.2 

Operational–extended grant period 48 22.8 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Table A.8 – Region Grantee Is Located 

Region Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Region 1 20 9.5 9.5 

Region 2 20 9.5 19.0 

Region 3 50 23.7 42.7 

Region 4 46 21.8 64.5 

Region 5 47 22.3 86.7 

Region 6 28 13.3 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Table A.9 – State Grantee Is Located 

State Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Alabama 11 5.2 5.2 

Alaska 2 1.0 6.2 

Arizona 4 1.9 8.1 

Arkansas 8 3.8 11.9 

California 10 4.7 16.7 

Colorado 5 2.4 19.0 

Connecticut 3 1.4 20.4 

Delaware 1 0.5 20.9 

District of Columbia 0 0.0 20.9 

Florida 14 6.6 27.5 

Georgia 5 2.4 29.9 

Hawaii 0 0.0 29.9 

Idaho 2 1.0 30.8 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program A-3
State Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Illinois 6 2.8 33.7 

Indiana 1 0.5 34.1 

Iowa 4 1.9 36.0 

Kansas 4 1.9 37.9 

Kentucky 6 2.8 40.7 

Louisiana 2 1.0 41.7 

Maine 3 1.4 43.1 

Maryland 6 2.8 46.0 

Massachusetts 3 1.4 47.4 

Michigan 7 3.3 50.7 

Minnesota 4 1.9 52.6 

Mississippi 3 1.4 54.0 

Missouri 3 1.4 55.5 

Montana 2 1.0 56.4 

Nebraska 4 1.9 58.3 

Nevada 1 0.5 58.8 

New Hampshire 1 0.5 59.2 

New Jersey 5 2.4 61.6 

New Mexico 4 1.9 63.5 

New York 4 1.9 65.4 

North Carolina 3 1.4 66.8 

North Dakota 2 1.0 67.8 

Ohio 7 3.3 71.1 

Oklahoma 3 1.4 72.5 

Oregon 6 2.8 75.4 

Pennsylvania 5 2.4 77.7 

Rhode Island 1 0.5 78.2 

South Carolina 1 0.5 78.7 

South Dakota 0 0.0 78.7 

Tennessee 6 2.8 81.5 

Texas 14 6.6 88.2 

Utah 4 1.9 90.1 

Vermont 0 0 90.1 

Virginia 7 3.3 93.4 

Washington 6 2.8 96.2 

West Virginia 1 0.5 96.7 

Wisconsin 5 2.4 99.1 

Wyoming 2 1.0 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program A-4
Table A.10 – Number of States Where Grantees Have a Presence 

Number of states Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

1 192 91.0 91.0 

2 7 3.3 94.3 

3 7 3.3 97.6 

4 1 0.5 98.1 

5 2 0.9 99.0 

6 2 1.0 100.0 

Total 211 100.00 

Table A.11 – Grants with a Presence in Each State 

State Frequency Percent 

Alabama 12 5.7 

Alaska 2 1.0 

Arizona 4 1.9 

Arkansas 9 4.3 

California 11 5.2 

Colorado 6 2.8 

Connecticut 3 1.4 

Delaware 1 0.5 

District of Columbia 2 1.0 

Florida 15 7.1 

Georgia 6 2.8 

Hawaii 0 0.0 

Idaho 5 2.4 

Illinois 6 2.8 

Indiana 2 1.0 

Iowa 4 1.9 

Kansas 6 2.8 

Kentucky 6 2.8 

Louisiana 2 1.0 

Maine 3 1.4 

Maryland 7 3.3 

Massachusetts 3 1.4 

Michigan 7 3.3 

Minnesota 4 1.9 

Mississippi 5 2.4 

Missouri 5 2.4 

Montana 3 1.4 

Nebraska 5 2.4 

Nevada 2 1.0 

New Hampshire 1 0.5 

New Jersey 5 2.4 

New Mexico 4 1.9 

New York 5 2.4 

North Carolina 3 1.4 

North Dakota 2 1.0 

Ohio 7 3.3 

Oklahoma 4 1.9 

Oregon 9 4.3 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program A-5
State Frequency Percent 

Pennsylvania 6 2.8 

Rhode Island 1 0.5 

South Carolina 1 0.5 

South Dakota 1 0.5 

Tennessee 9 4.3 

Texas 16 7.6 

Utah 7 3.3 

Vermont 0 0.0 

Virginia 8 3.8 

Washington 8 3.8 

West Virginia 2 1.0 

Wisconsin 5 2.4 

Wyoming 3 1.4 

Tables A.12 – Planned Target Populations 

Dislocated workers Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 63 29.9 29.9 

No 148 70.1 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Entry-level workers Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 61 28.9 28.9 

No 150 71.1 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Incumbent workers Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 138 65.4 65.4 

No 73 34.6 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Youth before high school Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 56 26.5 26.5 

No 155 73.5 100.00 

Total 211 100.0 

Youth in high school Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 164 77.7 77.7 

No 47 22.3 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Hispanics Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 29 13.7 13.7 

No 182 86.3 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program A-6
African Americans Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 8 3.8 3.8 

No 203 96.2 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

American Indians and Native Americans Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 7 3.3 3.3 

No 204 96.7 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Low-income individuals Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 118 55.9 55.9 

No 93 44.1 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Other Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 106 50.2 50.2 

No 105 49.8 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Tables A.13 – Types of Organizations Planning on Providing Leveraged Resources 

Workforce Investment Board/one-stop career 

center Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 159 75.4 75.4 

No 52 24.6 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Foundation Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 15 7.1 7.1 

No 196 92.9 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

State or local government Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 26 12.3 12.3 

No 185 87.7 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Employer Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 139 65.9 65.9 

No 72 34.1 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Industry association Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 24 11.4 11.4 

No 187 88.6 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program A-7
Educational institution/training provider Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 101 47.9 47.9 

No 110 52.1 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Community/nonprofit organization Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 21 10.0 10.0 

No 190 90.0 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Other Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 23 10.9 10.9 

No 188 89.1 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Tables A.14 – Planned Training Goals 

Increase participant enrollment Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 183 86.7 86.7 

No 28 13.3 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Increase graduation/program completion Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 174 82.5 82.5 

No 37 17.5 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Increase employment for graduates/completers Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 167 79.1 79.1 

No 44 20.9 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Increase earnings for graduates/completers Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 130 61.6 61.6 

No 81 38.4 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Increase participant satisfaction Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 28 13.3 13.3 

No 183 86.7 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program A-8
Tables A.15 – Planned Training Outcomes 

Degree (associate’s or bachelor’s degrees) Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 165 78.2 78.2 

No 46 21.8 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Credential or license Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 51 24.2 24.2 

No 160 75.8 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Certificate Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 160 75.8 75.8 

No 51 24.2 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Other Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 3 1.4 1.4 

No 208 98.6 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Tables A.16 – Capacity-Building Goals 

Hire/fund additional faculty Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 130 61.6 61.6 

No 81 38.4 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Hire/fund additional personnel Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 125 59.2 59.2 

No 86 40.8 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Develop new financial aid/scholarship/ tuition 

assistance program Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 44 20.9 20.9 

No 167 79.1 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Expand financial aid/scholarship/ tuition 

assistance program Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 55 26.1 26.1 

No 156 73.9 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Expand number of training program slots Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 94 44.5 44.5 

No 117 55.5 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program A-9
Design/use new instructional techniques/ 

technologies Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 92 43.6 43.6 

No 119 56.4 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

 

Train the trainer Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 124 58.8 58.8 

No 87 41.2 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Create or increase pipeline of workers from K–12 Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 167 79.1 79.1 

No 44 20.9 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Improve access to underserved/ disadvantaged 

populations Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 74 35.1 35.1 

No 137 64.9 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Other Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 47 22.3 22.3 

o 164 77.7 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Tables A.17 – Planned Training Types 

Classroom instruction Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 184 87.2 87.2 

No 27 12.8 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

On-the-job training Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 23 10.9 10.9 

No 188 89.1 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Internships/externships Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 68 32.2 32.2 

No 143 67.8 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Job shadowing Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 24 11.4 11.4 

No 187 88.6 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program A-10
Mentorships Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 32 15.2 15.2 

No 179 84.8 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Apprenticeships Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 33 15.6 15.6 

No 178 84.4 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Other Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 62 29.4 29.4 

No 149 70.6 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Tables A.18 – Planned Capacity-Building Activities 

Partner collaborations Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 102 48.3 48.3 

No 109 51.7 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

New training program development Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 114 54.0 54.0 

No 97 46.0 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Improvement/expansion of existing training 

program Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 131 62.1 62.1 

No 80 37.9 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Certification development Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 95 45.0 45.0 

No 116 55.0 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Curriculum development Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 176 83.4 83.4 

No 35 16.6 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Recruitment Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 186 88.2 88.2 

No 25 11.8 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program A-11
Tables A.19 – Proposed Products from Grant Activities 

New/revised courses/curriculum Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 183 86.7 86.7 

No 28 13.3 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

New/improved web site Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 47 22.3 22.3 

No 164 77.7 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

New/improved facilities or equipment Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 167 79.1 79.1 

No 44 20.9 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Career ladder/lattice Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 132 62.6 62.6 

No 79 37.4 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Distance learning Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 103 48.8 48.8 

No 108 51.2 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Blended curriculum/adult basic skills Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 67 31.8 31.8 

No 144 68.2 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Outreach/recruitment materials Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 147 69.7 69.7 

No 64 30.3 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Other Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Yes 124 58.8 58.8 

No 87 41.2 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Table A.20 – Number and Percentage of Grants by Grant Amount Awarded 

Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

$500,000–999,999 17 8.1 8.1 

$1,000,000–1,999,999 149 70.6 78.7 

$2,000,000–4,000,000 45 21.3 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program A-12
Table A.21 – Number and Percentage of Grants by Amount of Planned Leveraged Resources 

Frequency Percent Cumulative percent 

Less than $500,000 29 13.7 13.7 

$500,000–999,999 50 23.7 37.4 

$1,000,000–1,999,999 58 27.5 64.9 

$2,000,000–4,999,999 53 25.1 90.1 

$5,000,000 or more 21 10.0 100.0 

Total 211 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program A-13
APPENDIX B: Two-Way Contingency Tables of Grant Characteristics and Planned 

Activities 

(Source: Grantee Statements of Work) 

Table B.1.a – Percent of Grantees by Round of Grant Awards, by Industry 

Industry Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 

Advanced manufacturing 15.7 16.7 20.3 

Aerospace 1.4 1.4 4.4 

Automotive 4.3 2.8 0 

Biotechnology 4.3 5.6 1.5 

Construction 7.1 8.3 11.6 

Energy 2.9 13.9 10.1 

Forestry 2 0.0 0.0 

Health care 54.3 38.9 34.8 

Hospitality 0.0 1.4 4.4 

Information technology 0.0 1.4 4.4 

Transportation 4.3 7 4.4 

Other 2.9 2.8 4.4 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Table B.1.b. – Percent of Grantees by Industry, by Round of Grant Awards 

Industry Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Total 

Advanced manufacturing 29.7 32.4 37.8 100.0 

Aerospace 20 20 60 100.0 

Automotive 60 40 0 100.0 

Biotechnology 37.5 50.0 12.5 100.0 

Construction 26.3 31.6 42.1 100.0 

Energy 10.5 52.6 36.8 100.0 

Forestry 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

Health care 42.2 31.1 26.7 100.0 

Hospitality 0.0 25.0 75.0 100.0 

Information technology 0.0 25.0 75.0 100.0 

Transportation 27.3 45.5 27.3 100.0 

Other 28.6 28.6 42.9 100.0 

Total 33.2 34.1 33.7 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-1
Table B.2.a – Percent of Grantee Industry, by Award Amount 

Industry $500,000–999,999 $1,000,000–1,999,999 $2,000,000–4,000,000 

Advanced manufacturing 11.8 14.8 28.9 

Aerospace 5.9 2.7 0.0 

Automotive 5.9 2.7 0.0 

Biotechnology 11.8 4.0 0.0 

Construction 11.8 10.7 2.2 

Energy 11.8 8.7 8.9 

Forestry 0.0 1.3 0.0 

Health care 35.3 43 44.4 

Homeland security/safety 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Hospitality 0.0 1.3 4.4 

Information technology 0.0 2.7 0.0 

Transportation 5.9 4.0 8.9 

Other 0.0 4.0 2.2 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Table B.2.b – Percent of Grantees Award Amount, by Industry 

Industry 

$500,000– 

999,999 

$1,000,000– 

1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

4,000,000 Total 

Advanced manufacturing 5.4 59.5 35.1 100.0 

Aerospace 20.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 

Automotive 20.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 

Biotechnology 25.0 75.0 0.0 100.0 

Construction 10.5 84.2 5.3 100.0 

Energy 10.5 68.4 21.1 100.0 

Forestry 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 

Health care 6.7 71.1 22.2 100.0 

Hospitality 0.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 

Information technology 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 

Transportation 9.1 54.6 36.4 100.0 

Other 0.0 85.7 14.3 100.0 

Total 8.1 70.6 21.3 100.0 

Table B.3.a – Percent of Grantees by Round of Awards, by Award Amount 

Round of award $500,000–999,999 $1,000,000–1,999,999 $2,000,000–4,000,000 

Round 1 41.2 33.6 28.9 

Round 2 29.4 34.2 35.6 

Round 3 29.4 32.2 35.6 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Table B.3.b – Percent of Grantees by Award Amount, by Round of Award 

Round of award 

$500,000– 

999,999 

$1,000,000– 

1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

4,000,000 Total 

Round 1 10.0 71.4 18.6 100.0 

Round 2 6.9 70.8 22.2 100.0 

Round 3 7.3 69.6 21.2 100.0 

Total 8.1 70.6 21.3 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-2
Table B.4.a – Percent of Grantees by Type of Grantee Organization, by Award Amount 

Grantee organization type $500,000–999,999 $1,000,000–1,999,999 $2,000,000–4,000,000 

Community college 82.4 69.1 64.4 

Educational institution 17.6 20.8 6.7 

Public workforce investment 

organization 0.0 2.7 13.3 

Technical college 0.0 7.4 15.6 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Table B.4.b – Percent of Grantees by Award Amount, by Type of Grantee Organization 

Grantee organization type 

$500,000– 

999,999 

$1,000,000– 

1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

4,000,000 Total 

Community college 9.6 70.5 19.9 100.0 

Educational institution 8.6 83.8 8.6 100.0 

Public workforce investment 

organization 0.0 40.0 60.0 100.0 

Technical college 0.0 61.1 39.0 100.0 

Total 8.1 70.6 21.3 100.0 

Table B.5.a – Percent of Grantees by Region, by Award Amount 

Region $500,000–999,999 $1,000,000–1,999,999 $2,000,000–4,000,000 

Northeastern (Region I) 11.8 8.1 13.3 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 11.8 9.4 8.9 

Southeastern (Region III) 29.4 24.8 17.8 

Southwestern (Region IV) 23.5 23.5 15.6 

Midwestern (Region V) 17.7 20.1 31.1 

Western (Region VI) 5.9 14.1 13.3 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Table B.5.b – Percent of Grantees by Award Amount, by Region 

Region 

$500,000– 

999,999 

$1,000,000– 

1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

4,000,000 Total 

Northeastern (Region I) 10.0 60.0 30.0 100.0 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 10.0 70.0 20.0 100.0 

Southeastern (Region III) 10.0 74.0 16.0 100.0 

Southwestern (Region IV) 8.7 76.1 15.2 100.0 

Midwestern (Region V) 6.4 63.8 29.8 100.0 

Western (Region VI) 3.6 75.0 21.4 100.0 

Total 8.1 70.6 21.3 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-3
Table B.6.a – Percent of Grantees by Industry, by Amount of Planned Leveraged Resources 

Industry 

Less than 

$500,000 

$500,000– 

999,999 

$1,000,000– 

1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

4,999,999 

$5,000,000 

or more 

Advanced manufacturing 17.2 14.0 17.2 18.9 23.8 

Aerospace 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.9 9.5 

Automotive 0.0 4.0 1.7 3.8 0.0 

Biotechnology 0.0 10 3.5 1.9 0.0 

Construction 27.6 8.0 6.9 5.7 0.0 

Energy 6.9 8.0 15.5 1.9 14.3 

Forestry 3.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 

Health care 34.5 40.0 44.8 47.2 42.9 

Hospitality 3.5 2.0 0.0 1.9 4.8 

Information technology 0.0 4.0 1.7 1.9 0.0 

Transportation 0.0 8.0 0.0 11.3 4.8 

Other 6.9 2.0 3.5 3.8 4.8 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Table B.6.b – Percent of Grantees by Amount of Planned Leveraged Resources, by Industry 

Industry 

Less than 

$500,000 

$500,000– 

999,999 

$1,000,000– 

1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

4,999,999 

$5,000,000 

or more Total 

Advanced manufacturing 13.5 18.9 27.0 27.0 13.5 100.0 

Aerospace 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 100.0 

Automotive 0.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 0.0 100.0 

Biotechnology 0.0 62.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 100.0 

Construction 42.1 21.1 21.1 15.8 0.0 100.0 

Energy 10.5 21.1 47.4 5.3 15.8 100.0 

Forestry 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

Health care 11.1 22.2 28.9 27.8 10.0 100.0 

Hospitality 25.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 

Information technology 0.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 100.0 

Transportation 0.0 36.4 0.0 54.6 9.1 100.0 

Other 28.6 14.3 28.6 28.6 0.0 100.0 

Total 13.7 23.7 27.5 25.1 10.0 100.0 

Table B.7.a – Percent of Grantees by Round, by Amount of Planned Leveraged Resources 

Round 

Less than 

$500,000 

$500,000– 

999,999 

$1,000,000– 

1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

4,999,999 

$5,000,000 

or more 

Round 1 55.2 32.0 31.0 26.4 28.6 

Round 2 20.7 46.0 38.0 24.5 38.1 

Round 3 24.1 22.0 31.0 49.1 33.3 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Table B.7.b – Percent of Grantees by Amount of Planned Leveraged Resources, by Round 

Round 

Less than 

$500,000 

$500,000– 

999,999 

$1,000,000– 

1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

4,999,999 

$5,000,000 

or more Total 

Round 1 22.9 22.9 25.7 20.0 8.6 100.0 

Round 2 8.3 31.9 30.6 18.1 11.1 100.0 

Round 3 10.1 15.9 26.1 37.7 10.1 100.0 

Total 13.7 23.7 27.5 25.1 10.0 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-4
Table B.8.a – Percent of Grantees by Type of Grantee Organization, by Amount of Planned Leveraged 

Resources 

Grantee organization 

type 

Less than 

$500,000 

$500,000– 

999,999 

$1,000,000– 

1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

4,999,999 

$5,000,000 

or more 

Community college 51.7 70 72.4 66.0 90.5 

Educational institution 34.5 22 17.2 9.4 4.8 

Public workforce 

investment organization 6.9 0.0 3.4 9.4 4.8 

Technical college 6.9 8.0 6.9 15.1 0.0 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Table B.8.b – Percent of Grantees by Amount of Planned Leveraged Resources, by Type of Grantee 

Organization 

Grantee organization 

type 

Less than 

$500,000 

$500,000– 

999,999 

$1,000,000– 

1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

4,999,999 

$5,000,000 

or more Total 

Community college 10.3 24.0 28.8 24.0 13.0 100.0 

Educational institution 27.0 29.7 27.0 13.5 2.7 100.0 

Public workforce 

investment organization 20.0 0.0 20.0 50.0 10.0 100.0 

Technical college 11.1 22.2 22.2 44.4 0.0 100.0 

Total 13.7 23.7 27.5 25.1 10.0 100.0 

Table B.9.a – Percent of Grantees by Region, by Amount of Planned Leveraged Resources 

Region 

Less than 

$500,000 

$500,000– 

999,999 

$1,000,000– 

1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

4,999,999 

$5,000,000 

or more Total 

Northeastern (Region I) 6.9 14.0 6.9 7.6 14.3 9.5 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 6.9 12.0 10.3 5.7 14.3 9.5 

Southeastern (Region III) 24.1 16.0 25.9 24.5 33.3 23.7 

Southwestern (Region IV) 34.5 28.0 17.2 18.9 9.5 21.8 

Midwestern (Region V) 13.8 18.0 22.4 32.1 19.1 22.3 

Western (Region VI) 13.8 12.0 17.2 11.3 9.5 13.3 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 

Table B.9.b – Percent of Grantees by Amount of Planned Leveraged Resources, by Region 

Region 

Less than 

$500,000 

$500,000– 

999,999 

$1,000,000– 

1,999,999 

$2,000,000– 

4,999,999 

$5,000,000 

or more Total 

Northeastern (Region I) 10.0 35.0 20.0 20.0 15.0 100.0 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 10.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 15.0 100.0 

Southeastern (Region III) 14.0 16.0 30.0 26.0 14.0 100.0 

Southwestern (Region IV) 21.7 30.4 21.7 21.7 4.4 100.0 

Midwestern (Region V) 8.5 19.2 27.7 36.2 8.5 100.0 

Western (Region VI) 14.3 21.4 35.7 21.4 7.1 100.0 

Total 13.7 23.7 27.5 25.1 10.0 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-5
Table B.10.a – Percent of Grantees by Industry, by Organization Providing Leveraged Resources 

Industry 

WIB 

Foundation 

State or local 

government 

Employer 

Industry association 

Educational institution 

Community/ nonprofit 

organization 

Advanced manufacturing 17.6 13.3 15.4 15.1 29.1 18.9 23.8 

Aerospace 1.9 0.0 3.9 3.6 4.2 2.0 4.8 

Automotive 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.0 0.0 

Biotechnology 4.4 0.0 0.0 2.9 4.2 5.0 4.8 

Construction 8.8 0.0 26.9 9.4 20.8 11.9 9.5 

Energy 9.4 0.0 3.9 7.2 4.2 5.0 0.0 

Forestry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Health care 40.3 80.0 34.6 46.8 20.8 43.6 47.6 

Hospitality 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 

Information technology 2.5 6.7 0.0 2.2 8.3 4.0 4.8 

Transportation 6.3 0.0 7.7 5.8 0.0 3.0 0.0 

Other 3.7 0.0 7.7 2.9 8.3 4.0 4.8 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 159 15 26 139 24 101 21 

Table B.10.b – Percent of Grantees by Organization Providing Leveraged Resources, by Industry 

Industry 

WIB 

Foundation 

State or local 

government 

Employer 

Industry association 

Educational 

institution 

Community/nonprofit 

organization 

Advanced manufacturing 75.7 5.4 10.8 56.7 18.9 51.4 13.5 

Aerospace 60.0 0.0 20.0 100.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 

Automotive 80.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 

Biotechnology 87.5 0.0 0.0 50.0 12.5 62.5 12.5 

Construction 73.7 0.0 36.8 68.4 26.3 63.2 10.5 

Energy 78.9 0.0 5.3 52.6 5.3 26.3 0.0 

Forestry 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Health care 71.1 13.3 10.0 72.2 5.6 48.9 11.1 

Hospitality 100.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 

Information technology 100.0 25.0 0.0 75.0 50.0 100.0 25.0 

Transportation 90.9 0.0 18.18 72.7 0.0 27.3 0.0 

Other 85.7 0.0 28.57 57.1 28.6 57.1 14.3 

Total 75.4 7.1 12.3 65.9 11.4 47.9 10.0 

Number of grantees 159 15 26 139 24 101 21 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-6
Table B.11.a – Percent of Grantees by Round, by Organization Providing Leveraged Resources 

Round 

WIB 

Foundation 

State or local 

government 

Employer 

Industry association 

Educational institution 

Community/nonprofit 

organization 

Round 1 21.4 40.0 30.8 34.5 37.5 29.7 23.8 

Round 2 39.0 20.0 34.6 31.7 25.0 27.7 42.9 

Round 3 39.6 40.0 34.6 33.8 37.5 42.6 33.3 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 159 15 26 139 24 101 21 

Table B.11.b – Percent of Grantees by Organization Providing Leveraged Resources, by Round 

Round 

WIB 

Foundation 

State or local 

government 

Employer 

Industry association 

Educational institution 

Community/nonprofit 

organization 

Round 1 48.6 8.6 11.4 68.6 12.9 42.9 7.1 

Round 2 86.1 4.2 12.5 61.1 8.3 38.9 12.5 

Round 3 91.3 8.7 13 68.1 13.0 62.3 10.1 

Total 75.4 7.1 12.3 65.9 11.4 47.9 10.0 

Number of grantees 159 15 26 139 24 101 21 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-7
Table B.12.a – Percent of Grantees by Community College and Technical College as Grantee Organization, 

by Organization Providing Leveraged Resources 

Organization type 

WIB 

Foundation 

State or local 

government 

Employer 

Industry association 

Educational institution 

Community/nonprofit 

organization 

Community college 71.1 46.7 65.4 71.2 66.7 75.2 57.1 

Technical college 9.4 13.3 7.7 7.2 12.5 7.9 14.3 

Other 19.5 40.0 26.9 21.6 20.8 16.8 28.6 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 159 15 26 139 24 101 21 

Table B.12.b – Percent of Grantees as Community Colleges and Technical Colleges, by Organization 

Providing Leveraged Resources Community College as Grantee 

Organization type 

WIB 

Foundation 

State or local 

government 

Employer 

Industry association 

Educational institution 

Community/nonprofit 

organization 

Community college 77.4 4.8 11.6 67.8 11.0 52.1 8.2 

Technical college 83.3 11.1 11.1 55.6 16.7 44.4 16.7 

Other 66.0 12.8 14.9 63.8 10.6 36.2 12.8 

Total 75.4 7.1 12.3 65.9 11.4 47.9 10.0 

Number of grantees 159 15 26 139 24 101 21 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-8
Table B.13.a – Percent of Grantees by Region, by Organization Providing Leveraged Resources 

Region 

WIB 

Foundation 

State or local 

government 

Employer 

Industry association 

Educational institution 

Community/nonprofit 

organization 

Northeastern (Region I) 8.8 0.0 11.5 7.2 12.5 4.0 4.8 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 9.4 0.0 3.8 10.1 4.2 8.9 0.0 

Southeastern (Region III) 22.6 33.3 11.5 25.9 20.8 29.7 42.9 

Southwestern (Region IV) 21.4 13.3 23.1 20.9 25.0 17.8 28.6 

Midwestern (Region V) 25.2 20.0 34.6 23 33.3 26.7 14.3 

Western (Region VI) 12.6 33.3 15.4 12.9 4.2 12.9 9.5 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 159 15 26 139 24 101 21 

Table B.13.b – Percent of Grantees by Organization Providing Leveraged Resources, by Region 

Region 

WIB 

Foundation 

State or local 

government 

Employer 

Industry association 

Educational institution 

Community/nonprofit 

organization 

Northeastern (Region I) 70.0 0.0 15.0 50.0 15.0 20.0 5.0 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 75.0 0.0 5.0 70.0 5.0 45.0 0.0 

Southeastern (Region III) 72.0 10.0 6.0 72.0 10.0 60.0 18.0 

Southwestern (Region IV) 73.9 4.3 13.0 63.0 13.0 39.1 13.0 

Midwestern (Region V) 85.1 6.4 19.1 68.1 17.0 57.4 6.4 

Western (Region VI) 71.4 17.9 14.3 64.3 3.6 46.4 7.1 

Total 75.4 7.1 12.3 65.9 11.4 47.9 10.0 

Number of grantees 159 15 26 139 24 101 21 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-9
Table B.14.a – Percent Grantees by Industry, by Types of Partners 

Industry 

WIB 

One-stop career centers 

Two-year college 

Four-year college 

Industry association 

Employer 

Union 

School districts 

Government 

Community/nonprofit 

organization 

Advanced manufacturing 17.8 18.2 27.8 20.9 21.8 17.9 27.3 20.4 16.5 21.1 

Aerospace 2.7 3.0 1.4 1.8 3.1 2.6 0.0 2.7 2.9 0.9 

Automotive 2.7 3.0 2.8 1.8 2.3 2.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.9 

Biotechnology 4.3 3.0 2.8 2.7 3.9 3.1 0.0 2.7 2.9 2.8 

Construction 8.1 9.1 1.4 7.3 14.1 8.7 18.2 8.8 14.6 10.1 

Energy 9.7 6.1 9.7 8.2 8.6 9.7 27.3 6.8 11.7 11.9 

Forestry 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.9 1.6 1.0 0.0 1.4 1.9 1.8 

Health care 42.2 44.4 36.1 42.7 32.0 44.4 18.2 41.5 35.9 33.9 

Hospitality 1.1 4.0 2.8 1.8 2.3 1.0 0.0 1.4 1.0 1.8 

Information technology 1.6 1.0 0.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 0.0 2.7 1.9 3.7 

Transportation 6.0 4.0 11.1 4.5 4.7 5.1 0.0 6.8 6.8 5.5 

Other 2.7 3.0 4.2 5.5 3.9 3.1 9.1 1.4 3.9 5.5 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 185 99 72 110 128 196 11 147 103 109 

Table B.14.b – Percent of Grantees by Types of Partners, by Industry 

Industry 

WIB 

One-stop career 

centers 

Two-year college 

Four-year college 

Industry association 

Employer 

Union 

School districts 

Government 

Community/nonprofit 

organization 

Advanced manufacturing 89.1 48.7 54.0 62.2 75.7 94.6 8.1 81.1 46.0 62.2 

Aerospace 100.0 60.0 20.0 40.0 80.0 100.0 0.0 80.0 60.0 20.0 

Automotive 100.0 60.0 40.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 20.0 

Biotechnology 100.0 37.5 25.0 37.5 62.5 75.0 0.0 50.0 37.5 37.5 

Construction 78.9 47.4 5.3 42.1 94.7 89.5 10.5 68.4 79.0 57.9 

Energy 94.7 31.6 36.8 47.4 57.9 100.0 15.8 52.6 63.2 68.4 

Forestry 100.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Health care 86.7 48.9 28.9 52.2 45.6 96.7 2.2 67.8 41.1 41.1 

Hospitality 50.0 100.0 50.0 50.0 75.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 50.0 

Information technology 75.0 25.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 75.0 0.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 

Transportation 100.0 36.4 72.7 45.5 54.6 90.9 0.0 90.9 63.6 54.6 

Other 71.4 42.9 42.9 85.7 71.43 85.7 14.3 28.6 57.1 85.7 

Total 87.7 46.9 34.1 52.1 60.7 92.9 5.2 69.7 48.8 51.7 

Number of grantees 185 99 72 110 128 196 11 147 103 109 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-10
Table B.15.a – Percent of Grantees by Round, by Types of Partners 

Round 

WIB 

One-stop career centers 

Two-year college 

Four-year college 

Industry association 

Employer 

Union 

School districts 

Government 

Community/ nonprofit 

organization 

Round 1 33.0 50.5 27.8 27.3 31.3 34.7 36.4 34.0 31.1 29.4 

Round 2 36.8 17.2 34.7 32.7 35.2 31.1 27.3 34.0 37.9 32.1 

Round 3 30.3 32.3 37.5 40.0 33.6 34.2 36.4 32.0 31.1 38.5 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 185 99 72 110 128 196 11 147 103 109 

Table B.15.b – Percent of Grantees by Types of Partners, by Round 

Round 

WIB 

One-stop career centers 

Two-year college 

Four-year college 

Industry association 

Employer 

Union 

School districts 

Government 

Community/nonprofit 

organization 

Round 1 87.1 71.4 28.6 42.9 57.1 97.1 5.7 71.4 45.7 45.7 

Round 2 94.4 23.6 34.7 50 62.5 84.7 4.2 69.4 54.2 48.6 

Round 3 81.2 46.4 39.1 63.8 62.3 97.1 5.8 68.1 46.4 60.9 

Total 87.7 46.9 34.1 52.1 60.7 92.9 5.2 69.7 48.8 51.7 

Number of grantees 185 99 72 110 128 196 11 147 103 109 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-11
Table B.16.a – Percent of Community College and Technical College as Grantee Organization by Types of 

Partners 

Organization type 

WIB 

One-stop career 

centers 

Two-year college 

Four-year college 

Industry association 

Employer 

Union 

School districts 

Government 

Community/nonprofit 

organization 

Community college 70.3 68.7 68.1 71.8 70.3 69.4 72.7 63.3 68.0 67.9 

Technical college 9.2 6.1 11.1 10.0 9.4 9.2 9.1 11.6 8.7 6.4 

Other 20.5 25.3 20.8 18.2 20.3 21.4 18.2 25.2 23.3 25.7 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 185 99 72 110 128 196 11 147 103 109 

Table B.16.b – Percent of Grantees by Types of Partners, by Community College and Technical College as 

Grantee Organization 

Organization type 

WIB 

One-stop career 

centers 

Two-year college 

Four-year college 

Industry association 

Employer 

Union 

School districts 

Government 

Community/ nonprofit 

organization 

Community college 89.0 46.6 33.6 54.1 61.6 93.2 5.5 63.7 47.9 50.7 

Technical college 94.4 33.3 44.4 61.1 66.7 100.0 5.6 94.4 50.0 38.9 

Other 80.9 53.2 31.9 42.6 55.3 89.4 4.3 78.7 51.1 59.6 

Total 87.7 46.9 34.1 52.1 60.7 92.9 5.2 69.7 48.8 51.7 

Number of grantees 185 99 72 110 128 196 11 147 103 109 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-12
Table B.17.a – Percent of Grantees by Region, by Types of Partners 

Region 

WIB 

One-stop career 

centers 

Two-year college 

Four-year college 

Industry association 

Employer 

Union 

School districts 

Government 

Community/nonprofit 

organization 

Northeastern (Region I) 10.3 14.1 8.3 8.2 10.2 9.7 9.1 6.8 10.7 9.2 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 10.8 6.1 9.7 9.1 9.4 9.2 9.1 9.5 8.7 10.1 

Southeastern (Region III) 23.2 24.2 22.2 22.7 25.0 24.0 0.0 25.2 21.4 22v 

Southwestern (Region IV) 22.7 23.2 13.9 25.5 16.4 23.0 18.2 25.9 26.2 23.9 

Midwestern (Region V) 20.0 20.2 26.4 22.7 24.2 23.5 36.4 21.1 20.4 17.4 

Western (Region VI) 13.0 12.1 19.4 11.8 14.8 10.7 27.3 11.6 12.6 17.4 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 185 99 72 110 128 196 11 147 103 109 

Table B.17.b – Percent of Grantees by Types of Partners, by Region 

Region 

WIB 

One-stop career 

centers 

Two-year college 

Four-year college 

Industry association 

Employer 

Union 

School districts 

Government 

Community/nonprofit 

organization 

Northeastern (Region I) 95.0 70.0 30.0 45.0 65.0 95.0 5.0 50.0 55.0 50.0 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 100.0 30.0 35.0 50.0 60.0 90.0 5.0 70.0 45.0 55.0 

Southeastern (Region III) 86.0 48.0 32.0 50.0 64.0 94.0 0.0 74.0 44.0 48.0 

Southwestern (Region IV) 91.3 50.0 21.7 60.9 45.7 97.8 4.3 82.6 58.7 56.5 

Midwestern (Region V) 78.7 42.6 40.4 53.2 66 97.9 8.5 66.0 44.7 40.4 

Western (Region VI) 85.7 42.9 50.0 46.4 67.9 75.0 10.7 60.7 46.4 67.9 

Total 87.7 46.9 34.1 52.1 60.7 92.9 5.2 69.7 48.8 51.7 

Number of grantees 185 99 72 110 128 196 11 147 103 109 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-13
Table B.18.a – Percent of Grantees by Industry, by Planned Training Goal 

Industry 

Increase 

participant 

enrollment 

Increase 

graduation/ 

program 

completion 

Increase 

employment 

for graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

earnings for 

graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

participant 

satisfaction 

Advanced manufacturing 18.0 16.2 17.4 18.8 14.3 

Aerospace 2.7 2.3 2.4 3.9 0.0 

Automotive 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 7.1 

Biotechnology 3.8 4.6 4.2 4.7 0.0 

Construction 7.7 7.5 9.0 6.3 17.9 

Energy 8.7 9.3 9.6 8.6 10.7 

Forestry 1.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 

Health care 44.3 46.8 43.1 41.4 32.1 

Hospitality 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 3.6 

Information technology 1.6 1.2 1.8 0.8 3.6 

Transportation 5.5 6.4 6.0 7.0 7.1 

Other 2.7 1.7 1.8 3.9 3.6 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 183 173 167 128 28 

Table B.18.b –- Percent of Grantees by Planned Training Goal, by Industry 

Industry 

Increase 

participant 

enrollment 

Increase 

graduation/ 

program 

completion 

Increase 

employment 

for graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

earnings for 

graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

participant 

satisfaction 

Advanced manufacturing 89.1 75.7 78.4 64.9 10.8 

Aerospace 100.0 80.0 80.0 100.0 0.0 

Automotive 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 40.0 

Biotechnology 87.5 100.0 87.5 75.0 0.0 

Construction 73.7 68.4 79.0 42.1 26.3 

Energy 84.2 84.2 84.2 57.9 15.8 

Forestry 100.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 

Health care 90.0 90.0 80.0 58.9 10.0 

Hospitality 75.0 75.0 75.0 50.0 25.0 

Information technology 75.0 50.0 75.0 25.0 25.0 

Transportation 90.9 100.0 90.9 81.8 18.2 

Other 71.43 42.9 42.9 71.4 14.3 

Total 86.7 82 79.1 60.7 13.3 

Number of grantees 183 173 167 128 28 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-14
Table B.19.a - Percent of Grantees by Round, by Planned Training Goal 

Round 

Increase 

participant 

enrollment 

Increase 

graduation/ 

program 

completion 

Increase 

employment 

for graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

earnings for 

graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

participant 

satisfaction 

Round 1 35.5 35.8 32.9 34.4 28.6 

Round 2 32.8 33.5 33.5 31.3 42.9 

Round 3 31.7 30.6 33.5 34.4 28.6 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 183 173 167 128 28 

Table B.19.b – Percent of Grantees by Planned Training Goals, by Round 

Round 

Increase 

participant 

enrollment 

Increase 

graduation/ 

program 

completion 

Increase 

employment 

for graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

earnings for 

graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

participant 

satisfaction 

Round 1 92.9 88.6 78.6 62.9 11.4 

Round 2 83.3 80.6 77.8 55.6 16.7 

Round 3 84.1 76.8 81.2 63.8 11.6 

Total 86.7 82.0 79.1 60.7 13.3 

Number of grantees 183 173 167 128 28 

Table B.20.a – Percent of Grantees with Community College and Technical College as Grantee Organization, 

by Planned Training Goal 

Organization type 

Increase 

participant 

enrollment 

Increase 

graduation/ 

program 

completion 

Increase 

employment 

for graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

earnings for 

graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

participant 

satisfaction 

Community college 68.3 67.1 66.5 70.3 71.4 

Technical college 8.7 9.2 10.2 10.9 7.1 

Other 23.0 23.7 23.4 18.8 21.4 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 183 173 167 128 28 

Table B.20.b – Percent of Grantees by Planned Training Goal, by Community College and Technical College 

as Grantee Organization 

Organization type 

Increase 

participant 

enrollment 

Increase 

graduation/ 

program 

completion 

Increase 

employment for 

graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

earnings for 

graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

participant 

satisfaction 

Community college 85.6 79.5 76.0 61.6 13.7 

Technical college 88.9 88.9 94.4 77.8 11.1 

Other 89.4 87.2 83.0 51.1 12.8 

Total 86.7 82.0 79.1 60.7 13.3

Number of grantees 183 173 167 128 28 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-15
Table B.21.a – Percent of Grantees by Region, by Planned Training Goal 

Region 

Increase 

participant 

enrollment 

Increase 

graduation/ 

program 

completion 

Increase 

employment 

for graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

earnings for 

graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

participant 

satisfaction 

Northeastern (Region I) 10.4 9.2 9.0 11.7 3.6 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 10.9 10.4 11.4 11.7 10.7 

Southeastern (Region III) 23.5 24.3 22.2 27.3 32.1 

Southwestern (Region IV) 21.9 23.1 22.2 18.8 21.4 

Midwestern (Region V) 19.7 19.1 21.0 19.5 21.4 

Western (Region VI) 13.7 13.9 14.4 10.9 10.7 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 183 173 167 128 28 

Table B.21.b – Percent of Grantees by Planned Training Goal, by Region 

Region 

Increase 

participant 

enrollment 

Increase 

graduation/ 

program 

completion 

Increase 

employment 

for graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

earnings for 

graduates/ 

completers 

Increase 

participant 

satisfaction 

Northeastern (Region I) 95.0 80.0 75.0 75.0 5.0 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 100.0 90.0 95.0 75.0 15.0 

Southeastern (Region III) 86.0 84.0 74.0 70.0 18.0 

Southwestern (Region IV) 87.0 87.0 80.4 52.2 13.0 

Midwestern (Region V) 76.6 70.2 74.5 53.2 12.8 

Western (Region VI) 89.3 85.7 85.7 50.0 10.7 

Total 86.7 82.0 79.1 60.7 13.3 

Number of grantees 183 173 167 128 28 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-16
Table B.22.a – Percent of Grantees by Industry, by Planned Training Types 

Industry 

Classroom instruction 

On-the-job 

training 

Internships/ 

externships 

Job shadowing 

Mentorships 

Apprenticeships 

Advanced manufacturing 16.3 13.0 23.5 20.8 12.5 36.4 

Aerospace 2.2 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Automotive 2.2 8.7 2.9 0.0 3.1 0.0 

Biotechnology 4.4 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 3.0 

Construction 8.7 26.1 10.3 4.2 6.3 30.3 

Energy 7.6 4.4 14.7 12.5 6.3 9.1 

Forestry 1.1 0.0 0.0 4.2 3.1 0.0 

Health care 44.6 26.1 22.1 50.0 59.4 9.1 

Hospitality 2.2 4.4 5.9 4.2 0.0 3.0 

Information technology 2.2 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 

Transportation 4.9 8.7 5.9 4.2 6.3 0.0 

Other 3.8 8.7 2.9 0.0 3.1 6.1 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 184 23 68 24 32 33 

Table B.22.b – Percent of Grantees by Planned Training Types, by Industry 

Industry 

Classroom instruction 

On-the-job 

training 

Internships/ 

externships 

Job shadowing 

Mentorships 

Apprenticeships 

Advanced manufacturing 81.1 8.1 43.2 13.5 10.8 32.4 

Aerospace 80.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Automotive 80.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 

Biotechnology 100.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 

Construction 84.2 31.6 36.8 5.3 10.5 52.6 

Energy 73.7 5.3 52.6 15.8 10.5 15.8 

Forestry 100.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 

Health care 91.1 6.7 16.7 13.3 21.1 3.3 

Hospitality 100.0 25.0 100.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 

Information technology 100.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 

Transportation 81.8 18.2 36.4 9.1 18.2 0.0 

Other 100.0 28.6 28.6 0.0 14.3 28.6 

Total 87.2 10.9 32.2 11.4 15.2 15.6 

Number of grantees 184 23 68 24 32 33 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-17
Table B.23.a – Percent of Grantees by Round, by Planned Training Types 

Round 

Classroom instruction 

On-the-job training 

Internships/ 

externships 

Job shadowing 

Mentorships 

Apprenticeships 

Round 1 35.9 47.8 32.4 45.8 28.1 30.3 

Round 2 31.0 26.1 44.1 33.3 40.6 33.3 

Round 3 33.2 26.1 23.5 20.8 31.3 36.4 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 184 23 68 24 32 33 

Table B.23.b – Percent of Grantees by Planned Training Types, by Round 

Round 

Classroom instruction 

On-the-job training 

Internships/ 

externships 

Job shadowing 

Mentorships 

Apprenticeships 

Round 1 94.3 15.7 31.4 15.7 12.9 14.3 

Round 2 79.2 8.3 41.7 11.1 18.1 15.3 

Round 3 88.4 8.7 23.2 7.2 14.5 17.4 

Total 87.2 10.9 32.2 11.4 15.2 15.6 

Number of grantees 184 23 68 24 32 33 

Table B.24.a – Percent of Grantees as Community College and Technical College, by Planned Training Types 

Organization type 

Classroom instruction 

On-the-job training 

Internships/ 

externships 

Job shadowing 

Mentorships 

Apprenticeships 

Community college 70.1 82.6 75.0 58.3 71.9 69.7 

Technical college 8.2 0.0 10.3 0.0 12.5 18.2 

Other 21.7 17.4 14.7 41.7 15.6 12.1 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 184 23 68 24 32 33 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-18
Table B.24.b – Percent of Grantees by Planned Training Types, by Community College and Technical College 

as Grantee Organization 

Organization type 

Classroom instruction 

On-the-job training 

Internships/ 

externships 

Job shadowing 

Mentorships 

Apprenticeships 

Community college 88.4 13.0 34.9 9.6 15.8 15.8 

Technical college 83.3 0.0 38.9 0.0 22.2 33.3 

Other 85.1 8.5 21.3 21.3 10.6 8.5 

Total % 87.2 10.9 32.2 11.4 15.2 15.6 

Number of grantees 184 23 68 24 32 33 

Table B.25.a – Percent of Grantees by Region, by Planned Training Types 

Region 

Classroom instruction 

On-the-job training 

Internships/ 

externships 

Job shadowing 

Mentorships 

Apprenticeships 

Northeastern (Region I) 9.8 8.7 13.2 0.0 15.6 12.1 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 8.2 8.7 13.2 0.0 0.0 24.2 

Southeastern (Region III) 26.1 30.4 19.1 41.7 31.3 18.2 

Southwestern (Region IV) 21.2 21.7 22.1 20.8 25.0 12.1 

Midwestern (Region V) 21.7 17.4 11.8 20.8 18.8 24.2 

Western (Region VI) 13.0 13.0 20.6 16.7 9.4 9.1 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 184 23 68 24 32 33 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-19
Table B.25.b – Percent of Grantees by Planned Training Types, by Region 

Region 

Classroom instruction 

On-the-job 

training 

Internships/ 

externships 

Job shadowing 

Mentorships 

Apprenticeships 

Northeastern (Region I) 90.0 10.0 45.0 0.0 25.0 20.0 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 75.0 10.0 45.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 

Southeastern (Region III) 96.0 14.0 26.0 20.0 20.0 12.0 

Southwestern (Region IV) 84.8 10.9 32.6 10.9 17.4 8.7 

Midwestern (Region V) 85.1 8.5 17.0 10.6 12.8 17.0 

Western (Region VI) 85.7 10.7 50.0 14.3 10.7 10.7 

Total 87.2 10.9 32.2 11.4 15.2 15.6 

Number of grantees 184 23 68 24 32 33 

Table B.26.a – Percent of Grantees by Industry, by Capacity-Building Goals 

Industry 

Additional faculty 

Additional personnel 

New financial aid/ 

scholarship/ tuition 

assistance 

Expand financial aid/ 

scholarship/ tuition 

assistance 

Number of training slots 

New teaching techniques/ 

technologies 

Train-the-trainer 

Pipeline of workers from 

K–12 

Access for disadvantaged 

populations 

Advanced manufacturing 13.9 14.4 18.2 14.6 9.6 17.4 18.5 19.8 14.9 

Aerospace 1.5 2.4 2.3 3.6 2.1 4.4 2.4 2.4 1.4 

Automotive 3.1 2.4 2.3 5.5 3.2 3.3 1.6 2.4 2.7 

Biotechnology 3.1 4.8 2.3 1.8 1.1 2.2 4.8 4.2 4.1 

Construction 8.5 11.2 11.4 9.1 9.6 4.4 8.1 9.6 8.1 

Energy 11.5 9.6 11.4 3.6 3.2 3.3 9.7 9 5.4 

Forestry 1.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 

Health care 46.2 43.2 43.2 47.3 62.8 53.3 40.3 38.3 52.7 

Hospitality 0.8 2.4 0.0 3.6 1.1 2.2 2.4 1.8 1.4 

Information technology 0.8 3.2 2.3 5.5 2.1 2.2 3.2 1.8 2.7 

Transportation 5.4 3.2 4.6 3.6 5.3 3.3 4.8 6.6 2.7 

Other 3.9 1.6 2.3 1.8 0.0 3.3 4.0 3.0 4.1 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 130 125 44 55 94 92 124 167 74 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-20
Table B.26.b – Percent of Grantees by Capacity-Building Goals, by Industry 

Industry 

Additional faculty 

Additional personnel 

New financial aid/ 

scholarship/ tuition 

assistance 

Expand financial aid/ 

scholarship/ tuition 

assistance 

Number of training slots 

New teaching techniques/ 

technologies 

Train-the-trainer 

Pipeline of workers from 

K–12 

Access for disadvantaged 

populations 

Advanced manufacturing 48.7 48.7 21.6 21.6 24.3 43.2 62.2 89.2 29.7 

Aerospace 40.0 60.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 80.0 60.0 80.0 20.0 

Automotive 80.0 60.0 20.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 40.0 80.0 40.0 

Biotechnology 50.0 75.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 25.0 75.0 87.5 37.5 

Construction 57.9 73.7 26.3 26.3 47.4 21.1 52.6 84.2 31.6 

Energy 79.0 63.2 26.3 10.5 15.8 15.8 63.2 79.0 21.1 

Forestry 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 

Health care 66.7 60.0 21.1 28.9 65.6 54.4 55.6 71.1 43.3 

Hospitality 25.0 75.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 75.0 25.0 

Information technology 25.0 100.0 25.0 75.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 75.0 50.0 

Transportation 63.6 36.4 18.2 18.2 45.5 27.3 54.6 100.0 18.2 

Other 71.4 28.6 14.3 14.3 0.0 42.9 71.4 71.4 42.9 

Total 61.6 59.2 20.9 26.1 44.5 43.6 58.8 79.1 35.1 

Number of grantees 130 125 44 55 94 92 124 167 74 

Table B.27.a – Percent of Grantees by Round, by Capacity-Building Goals 

Round 

Additional faculty 

Additional personnel 

New financial aid/ 

scholarship/ tuition 

assistance 

Expand financial aid/ 

scholarship/ tuition 

assistance 

Number of training 

slots 

New teaching 

techniques/ 

technologies 

Train-the-trainer 

Pipeline of workers 

from K–12 

Access for 

disadvantaged 

populations 

Round 1 34.6 32.0 34.1 25.5 38.3 35.9 26.6 34.1 33.8 

Round 2 31.5 27.2 29.5 34.5 28.7 25.0 37.1 28.1 37.8 

Round 3 33.8 40.8 36.4 40.0 33.0 39.1 36.3 37.7 28.4 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 130 125 44 55 94 92 124 167 74 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-21
Table B.27.b – Percent of Grantees by Capacity-Building Goals, by Round 

Round 

Additional faculty 

Additional personnel 

New financial aid/ 

scholarship/ tuition 

assistance 

Expand financial aid/ 

scholarship/ tuition 

assistance 

Number of training 

slots 

New teaching 

techniques/ 

technologies 

Train-the-trainer 

Pipeline of workers 

from K–12 

Access for 

disadvantaged 

populations 

Round 1 64.3 57.1 21.4 20.0 51.4 47.1 47.1 81.4 35.7 

Round 2 56.9 47.2 18.1 26.4 37.5 31.9 63.9 65.3 38.9 

Round 3 63.8 73.9 23.2 31.9 44.9 52.2 65.2 91.3 30.4 

Total 61.6 59.2 20.9 26.1 44.5 43.6 58.8 79.1 35.1 

Number of grantees 130 125 44 55 94 92 124 167 74 

Table B.28.a – Percent of Grantees as Community College and Technical College, by Capacity-Building 

Goals 

Organization type 

Additional faculty 

Additional 

personnel 

New financial aid/ 

scholarship/ tuition 

assistance 

Expand financial 

aid/ scholarship/ 

tuition assistance 

Number of training 

slots 

New teaching 

techniques/ 

technologies 

Train-the-trainer 

Pipeline of workers 

from K–12 

Access for 

disadvantaged 

populations 

Community college 68.5 71.2 79.5 65.5 67.0 71.7 65.3 71.9 62.2 

Technical college 8.5 5.6 2.3 7.3 6.4 8.7 10.5 8.4 10.8 

Other 23.1 23.2 18.2 27.3 26.6 19.6 24.2 19.8 27.0 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 130 125 44 55 94 92 124 167 74 

Table B.28.b – Percent of Capacity-Building Goals by Community College and Technical College as Grantee 

Organization 

Organization type 

Additional faculty 

Additional 

personnel 

New financial aid/ 

scholarship/ tuition 

assistance 

Expand financial 

aid/scholarship/ 

tuition assistance 

Number of training 

slots 

New teaching 

techniques/ 

technologies 

Train-the-trainer 

Pipeline of workers 

from K–12 

Access for 

disadvantaged 

populations 

Community college 61.0 61.0 24.0 24.7 43.2 45.2 55.5 82.2 31.5 

Technical college 61.1 38.9 5.6 22.2 33.3 44.4 72.2 77.8 44.4 

Other 63.8 61.7 17.0 31.9 53.2 38.3 63.8 70.2 42.6 

Total 61.6 59.2 20.9 26.1 44.5 43.6 58.8 79.1 35.1 

Number of grantees 130 125 44 55 94 92 124 167 74 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-22
Table B.29.a – Percent by Grantees by Region, by Capacity-Building Goals 

Region 

Additional faculty 

Additional 

personnel 

New financial aid/ 

scholarship/ tuition 

assistance 

Expand financial 

aid/ scholarship/ 

tuition assistance 

Number of training 

slots 

New teaching 

techniques/ 

technologies 

Train-the-trainer 

Pipeline of workers 

from K–12 

Access for 

disadvantaged 

populations 

Northeastern (Region I) 8.5 13.6 9.1 5.5 7.4 9.8 8.1 9.0 9.5 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 10.8 8.0 11.4 10.9 6.4 3.3 11.3 10.2 2.7 

Southeastern (Region III) 26.2 23.2 38.6 30.9 26.6 27.2 24.2 25.1 24.3 

Southwestern (Region IV) 16.9 17.6 18.2 23.6 20.2 20.7 17.7 20.4 20.3 

Midwestern (Region V) 24.6 22.4 15.9 18.2 24.5 27.2 27.4 21.6 20.3 

Western (Region VI) 13.1 15.2 6.8 10.9 14.9 12.0 11.3 13.8 23.0 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 130 125 44 55 94 92 124 167 74 

Table B.29.b – Percent of Grantees by Capacity-Building Goals, by Region 

Region 

Additional faculty 

Additional personnel 

New financial aid/ 

scholarship/ tuition 

assistance 

Expand financial 

aid/scholarship/ tuition 

assistance 

Number of training 

slots 

New teaching 

techniques/ 

technologies 

Train-the-trainer 

Pipeline of workers 

from K–12 

Access for 

disadvantaged 

populations 

Northeastern (Region I) 55.0 85.0 20.0 15.0 35.0 45.0 50.0 75.0 35.0 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 70.0 50.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 70.0 85.0 10.0 

Southeastern (Region III) 68.0 58.0 34.0 34.0 50.0 50.0 60.0 84.0 36.0 

Southwestern (Region IV) 47.8 47.8 17.4 28.3 41.3 41.3 47.8 73.9 32.6 

Midwestern (Region V) 68.1 59.6 14.9 21.3 48.9 53.2 72.3 76.6 31.9 

Western (Region VI) 60.7 67.9 10.7 21.4 50.0 39.3 50.0 82.1 60.7 

Total 61.6 59.2 20.9 26.1 44.5 43.6 58.8 79.1 35.1 

Number of grantees 130 125 44 55 94 92 124 167 74 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-23
Table B.30.a – Percent of Grantees by Industry, by Planned Capacity-Building Activities 

Industry 

Partner 

collaborations 

New 

training 

program 

Expansion 

of existing 

training 

program Certifications 

Curriculum 

development Recruitment 

Advanced 

manufacturing 16.7 21.9 16.8 23.2 18.8 17.8 

Aerospace 1.0 1.8 2.3 1.1 2.8 2.2 

Automotive 2.9 2.6 1.5 3.2 1.7 2.2 

Biotechnology 2.0 6.1 2.3 3.2 4.6 3.8 

Construction 9.8 12.3 8.4 12.6 10.2 10.2 

Energy 8.8 7.0 7.6 8.4 9.7 9.1 

Forestry 2.0 1.8 1.5 2.1 1.1 1.1 

Health care 41.2 29.8 47.3 30.5 36.9 41.4 

Hospitality 2.9 2.6 1.5 2.1 2.3 1.6 

Information technology 2.9 3.5 2.3 3.2 2.3 2.2 

Transportation 4.9 7.0 3.1 3.2 4.0 3.8 

Other 4.9 3.5 5.3 7.4 5.7 4.9 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 102 114 131 95 176 186 

Table B.30.b – Percent of Grantees by Planned Capacity-Building Activities, by Industry 

Industry 

Partner 

collaborations 

New 

training 

program 

Expansion 

of existing 

training 

program Certifications 

Curriculum 

development Recruitment 

Advanced 

manufacturing 46.0 67.6 59.5 59.5 89.2 89.2 

Aerospace 20.0 40.0 60.0 20.0 100.0 80.0 

Automotive 60.0 60.0 40.0 60.0 60.0 80.0 

Biotechnology 25.0 87.5 37.5 37.5 100.0 87.5 

Construction 52.6 73.7 57.9 63.2 94.7 100.0 

Energy 47.4 42.1 52.6 42.1 89.5 89.5 

Forestry 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Health care 46.7 37.8 68.9 32.2 72.2 85.6 

Hospitality 75.0 75.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 75.0 

Information technology 75.0 100.0 75.0 75.0 100.0 100.0 

Transportation 45.5 72.7 63.6 63.7 90.9 81.8 

Other 71.4 57.1 57.1 42.9 100.0 100.0 

Total 48.3 54.0 62.1 45.0 83.4 88.2 

Number of grantees 102 114 131 95 176 186 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-24
Table B.31.a – Percent of Grantees by Round, by Capacity-Building Activities 

Round 

Partner 

collaborations 

New 

training 

program 

Expansion of 

existing training 

program Certifications 

Curriculum 

development Recruitment 

Round 1 38.2 31.6 37.4 38.9 29.5 32.3 

Round 2 32.4 34.2 31.3 29.5 33.5 34.9 

Round 3 29.4 34.2 31.3 31.6 36.9 32.8 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 102 114 131 95 176 186 

Table B.31.b – Percent of Grantees by Capacity-Building Activities, by Round 

Round 

Partner 

collaborations 

New 

training 

program 

Expansion of 

existing training 

program Certifications 

Curriculum 

development Recruitment 

Round 1 55.7 51.4 70.0 52.9 74.3 85.7 

Round 2 45.8 54.2 56.9 38.9 81.9 90.3 

Round 3 43.5 56.5 59.4 43.5 94.2 88.4 

Total 48.3 54.0 62.1 45.0 83.4 88.2 

Number of grantees 102 114 131 95 176 186 

Table B.32.a – Percent of Grantees as Community College and Technical College, by Capacity-Building 

Activities 

Organization type 

Partner 

collaborations 

New 

training 

program 

Expansion of 

existing training 

program Certifications 

Curriculum 

development Recruitment 

Community college 68.6 71.1 66.4 70.5 71.0 69.9 

Technical college 6.9 9.6 11.5 10.5 8.0 8.6 

Other 24.5 19.3 22.1 18.9 21.0 21.5 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 102 114 131 95 176 186 

Table B.32.b – Percent of Grantees by Capacity-Building Activities, by Community College and Technical 

College as Grantee Organization 

Organization type 

Partner 

collaborations 

New 

training 

program 

Expansion of 

existing training 

program Certifications 

Curriculum 

development Recruitment 

Community college 47.9 55.5 59.6 45.9 85.6 89 

Technical college 38.9 61.1 83.3 55.6 77.8 88.9 

Other 53.2 46.8 61.7 38.3 78.7 85.1 

Total 48.3 54.0 62.1 45.0 83.4 88.2 

Number of grantees 102 114 131 95 176 186 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-25
Table B.33.a – Percent of Grantees by Region, by Capacity-Building Activities 

Region 

Partner 

collaborations 

New 

training 

program 

Expansion of 

existing 

training 

program Certifications 

Curriculum 

development Recruitment 

Northeastern (Region I) 8.8 13.2 9.2 9.5 10.8 8.6 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 6.9 11.4 9.2 15.8 10.2 9.1 

Southeastern (Region III) 21.6 20.2 28.2 20.0 23.9 24.2 

Southwestern (Region IV) 18.6 23.7 19.8 20.0 19.9 21.0 

Midwestern (Region V) 26.5 21.9 22.9 21.1 22.7 22.6 

Western (Region VI) 17.6 9.6 10.7 13.7 12.5 14.5 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 102 114 131 95 176 186 

Table B.33.b – Percent of Grantees by Capacity-Building Activities, by Region 

Region 

Partner 

collaborations 

New 

training 

program 

Expansion of 

existing 

training 

program Certifications 

Curriculum 

development Recruitment 

Northeastern (Region I) 45.0 75.0 60.0 45.0 95.0 80.0 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 35.0 65.0 60.0 75.0 90.0 85.0 

Southeastern (Region III) 44.0 46.0 74.0 38.0 84.0 90.0 

Southwestern (Region IV) 41.3 58.7 56.5 41.3 76.1 84.8 

Midwestern (Region V) 57.4 53.2 63.8 42.6 85.1 89.4 

Western (Region VI) 64.3 39.3 50 46.4 78.6 96.4 

Total 48.3 54.0 62.1 45.0 83.4 88.2 

Number of grantees 102 114 131 95 176 186 

Table B.34.a – Percent of Grantees by Industry, by Proposed Products 

Industry Curriculum Web site 

Facilities/ 

equipment 

Career 

ladder/ 

lattice 

Distance 

learning 

Blended 

curriculum 

Outreach/ 

recruitment 

materials 

Advanced 

manufacturing 18.6 21.3 18.0 15.9 10.7 25.4 20.4 

Aerospace 2.7 6.4 3.0 1.5 1.9 0.0 2.7 

Automotive 2.2 0.0 3.0 1.5 2.9 1.5 2.7 

Biotechnology 4.4 2.1 4.2 4.6 2.9 3.0 4.1 

Construction 10.4 8.5 9.0 9.9 5.8 9.0 10.9 

Energy 9.8 8.5 10.2 8.3 7.8 9.0 10.9 

Forestry 1.1 0.0 1.2 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.4 

Health care 37.2 38.3 41.9 40.2 57.3 41.8 33.3 

Hospitality 2.2 0.0 1.2 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 

Information technology 2.2 2.1 1.8 2.3 1.0 1.5 2.7 

Transportation 5.5 6.4 3.0 6.1 2.9 1.5 6.1 

Other 3.8 6.4 3.6 5.3 4.9 4.5 2.7 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 183 47 167 132 103 67 147 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-26
Table B.34.b – Percent of Grantees by Proposed Products, by Industry 

Industry Curriculum Web site 

Facilities/ 

equipment 

Career 

ladder/ 

lattice 

Distance 

learning 

Blended 

curriculum 

Outreach/ 

recruitment 

materials 

Advanced 

manufacturing 91.9 27.0 81.1 56.8 29.7 46.0 81.1 

Aerospace 100.0 60.0 100.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 80.0 

Automotive 80.0 0.0 100.0 40.0 60.0 20.0 80.0 

Biotechnology 100.0 12.5 87.5 75.0 37.5 25.0 75.0 

Construction 100.0 21.1 79.0 68.4 31.6 31.6 84.2 

Energy 94.7 21.1 89.5 57.9 42.1 31.6 84.2 

Forestry 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 100.0 

Health care 75.6 20.0 77.8 58.9 65.6 31.1 54.4 

Hospitality 100.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 

Information 

technology 100.0 25.0 75.0 75.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 

Transportation 90.9 27.3 45.5 72.7 33.3 9.1 81.8 

Other 100.0 42.9 85.7 100.0 71.4 42.9 57.1 

Total 86.7 22.3 79.1 62.6 48.8 31.8 69.7 

Number of grantees 183 47 167 132 103 67 147 

Table B.35.a – Percent of Grantees by Round, by Proposed Products 

Round Curriculum Web site 

Facilities/ 

equipment 

Career 

ladder/ 

lattice 

Distance 

learning 

Blended 

curriculum 

Outreach/ 

recruitment 

materials 

Round 1 31.1 31.9 34.7 28 30.1 40.3 27.9 

Round 2 32.8 23.4 31.7 33.3 35.9 34.3 32.7 

Round 3 36.1 44.7 33.5 38.6 34 25.4 39.5 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 183 47 167 132 103 67 147 

Table B.35.b – Percent by Grantees by Proposed Products, by Round 

Round Curriculum Web site 

Facilities/ 

equipment 

Career 

ladder/ 

lattice 

Distance 

learning 

Blended 

curriculum 

Outreach/ 

recruitment 

materials 

Round 1 81.4 21.4 82.9 52.9 44.3 38.6 58.6 

Round 2 83.3 15.3 73.6 61.1 51.4 31.9 66.7 

Round 3 95.7 30.4 81.2 73.9 50.7 24.6 84.1 

Total 86.7 22.3 79.1 62.6 48.8 31.8 69.7 

Number of grantees 183 47 167 132 103 67 147 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-27
Table B.36.a – Percent of Grantees as Community College and Technical College, by Proposed Products 

Organization type Curriculum Web site 

Facilities/ 

equipment 

Career 

ladder/ 

lattice 

Distance 

learning 

Blended 

curriculum 

Outreach/ 

recruitment 

materials 

Community college 70.5 78.7 70.1 71.2 68.0 70.1 70.1 

Technical college 7.7 4.3 7.8 8.3 10.7 11.9 6.8 

Other 21.9 17.0 22.2 20.5 21.4 17.9 23.1 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 183 47 167 132 103 67 147 

Table B.36.b – Percent of Grantees as Proposed Products, by Community College and Technical College as 

Grantee Organization 

Organization type Curriculum Web site 

Facilities/ 

equipment 

Career 

ladder/ 

lattice 

Distance 

learning 

Blended 

curriculum 

Outreach/ 

recruitment 

materials 

Community college 88.4 25.3 80.1 64.4 47.9 32.2 70.5 

Technical college 77.8 11.1 72.2 61.1 61.1 44.4 55.6 

Other 85.1 17.0 78.7 57.4 46.8 25.5 72.3 

Total 86.7 22.3 79.1 62.6 48.8 31.8 69.7 

Number of grantees 183 47 167 132 103 67 147 

Table B.37.a – Percent of Grantees by Region, by Proposed Products 

Region Curriculum Web site 

Facilities/ 

equipment 

Career 

ladder/ 

lattice 

Distance 

learning 

Blended 

curriculum 

Outreach/ 

recruitment 

materials 

Northeastern (Region I) 9.8 10.6 8.4 10.6 8.7 13.4 10.2 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 9.8 6.4 9.6 9.1 4.9 4.5 10.2 

Southeastern (Region III) 24.6 38.3 24.6 23.5 27.2 20.9 24.5 

Southwestern (Region IV) 20.8 19.1 23.4 21.2 18.4 22.4 19.7 

Midwestern (Region V) 21.9 21.3 20.4 22.7 23.3 22.4 22.4 

Western (Region VI) 13.1 4.3 13.8 12.9 17.5 16.4 12.9 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 183 47 167 132 103 67 147 

Table B.37.b – Percent of Grantees by Proposed Products, by Region 

Region Curriculum Web site 

Facilities/ 

equipment 

Career 

ladder/ 

lattice 

Distance 

learning 

Blended 

curriculum 

Outreach/ 

recruitment 

materials 

Northeastern (Region I) 90.0 25.0 70.0 70.0 45.0 45.0 75.0 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 90.0 15.0 80.0 60.0 25.0 15.0 75.0 

Southeastern (Region III) 90.0 36.0 82.0 62.0 56.0 28.0 72.0 

Southwestern (Region IV) 82.6 19.6 84.8 60.9 41.3 32.6 63.0 

Midwestern (Region V) 85.1 21.3 72.3 63.8 51.1 31.9 70.2 

Western (Region VI) 85.7 7.1 82.1 60.7 64.3 39.3 67.9 

Total 86.7 22.3 79.1 62.6 48.8 31.8 69.7 

Number of grantees 183 47 167 132 103 67 147 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-28
Table B.38.a – Percent of Grantees by Industry, by Target Population 

Industry 

Dislocated workers 

Entry-level workers 

Incumbent workers 

Youth before high 

school 

Youth in high school 

Hispanics 

African Americans 

American Indians 

Low-income and 

disadvantaged 

Advanced manufacturing 23.8 18.0 23.2 19.6 18.9 13.8 37.5 14.3 17.8 

Aerospace 0.0 3.3 2.2 7.4 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 

Automotive 4.8 0.0 2.9 1.8 3.1 0.0 12.5 0.0 2.6 

Biotechnology 7.9 0.0 3.6 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 

Construction 6.4 11.5 7.3 7.1 8.5 24.1 12.5 14.3 6.8 

Energy 11.1 8.2 8.7 5.4 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 

Forestry 0.0 3.3 1.5 1.8 1.2 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 

Health care 33.3 31.2 37.0 41.1 41.5 48.3 37.5 71.4 44.1 

Hospitality 1.6 4.9 1.5 1.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 

Information technology 3.2 3.3 2.2 5.4 1.8 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.4 

Transportation 4.8 8.2 6.5 7.1 5.5 6.9 0.0 0.0 3.4 

Other 3.2 8.2 0.7 1.8 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 63 61 138 56 164 29 8 7 118 

Table B.38.b – Percent of Grantees by Target Population, by Industry 

Industry 

Dislocated workers 

Entry-level workers 

Incumbent workers 

Youth before high 

school 

Youth in high school 

Hispanics 

African Americans 

American Indians 

Low-income and 

disadvantaged 

Advanced manufacturing 40.5 29.7 86.3 29.7 81.1 10.8 8.1 2.7 56.8 

Aerospace 0.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 

Automotive 60.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 60.0 

Biotechnology 62.5 0.0 62.5 0.0 87.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.5 

Construction 21.1 36.8 52.6 21.1 73.7 36.8 5.3 5.3 42.1 

Energy 36.8 26.3 63.2 15.8 79.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.8 

Forestry 0.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 

Health care 23.3 21.1 56.7 25.6 75.6 15.6 3.3 5.6 57.8 

Hospitality 25.0 75.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

Information technology 50.0 50.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

Transportation 27.3 71.4 81.8 36.4 81.8 18.2 0.0 0.0 36.4 

Other 28.6 45.5 71.4 14.3 71.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.4 

Total 29.9 28.9 65.4 26.5 77.7 13.7 3.8 3.3 55.9 

Number of grantees 63 61 138 56 164 29 8 7 118 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-29
Table B.39.a – Percent of Grantees by Round, by Target Population 

Round 

Dislocated workers 

Entry-level workers 

Incumbent workers 

Youth before high 

school 

Youth in high school 

Hispanics 

African Americans 

American Indians 

Low-income and 

disadvantaged 

Round 1 34.9 18.0 29.7 21.4 34.8 37.9 25.0 14.3 37.3 

Round 2 22.2 26.2 32.6 33.9 32.3 31.0 25.0 28.6 31.4 

Round 3 42.9 55.7 37.7 44.6 32.9 31.0 50.0 57.1 31.4 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1000 

Number of grantees 63 61 138 56 164 29 8 7 118 

Table B.39.b – Percent of Grantees by Target Population, by Round 

Round 

Dislocated workers 

Entry-level workers 

Incumbent workers 

Youth before high 

school 

Youth in high school 

Hispanics 

African Americans 

American Indians 

Low-income and 

disadvantaged 

Round 1 31.4 15.7 58.6 17.1 81.4 15.7 2.9 1.43 62.9 

Round 2 19.4 22.2 62.5 26.4 73.6 12.5 2.8 2.78 51.4 

Round 3 39.1 49.3 75.4 36.2 78.3 13 5.8 5.80 53.6 

Total 29.9 28.9 65.4 26.5 77.7 13.7 3.8 3.3 55.9 

Number of grantees 63 61 138 56 164 29 8 7 118 

Table B.40.a – Percent of Grantees as Community College and Technical College, by Target Population 

Organization type 

Dislocated 

workers 

Entry-level 

workers 

Incumbent 

workers 

Youth before 

high school 

Youth in high 

school 

Hispanics 

African 

Americans 

American 

Indians 

Low-income and 

disadvantaged 

Community college 76.2 67.2 71.7 62.5 68.9 65.5 87.5 42.9 70.3 

Technical college 12.7 11.5 8.0 7.1 9.8 0.0 12.5 28.6 8.5 

Other 11.1 21.3 20.3 30.4 21.3 34.5 0.0 28.6 21.2 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 63 61 138 56 164 29 8 7 118 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-30
Table B.40.b – Percent of Grantees by Target Population, by Community College and Technical College as 

Grantee Organization 

Organization type 

Dislocated 

workers 

Entry-level 

workers 

Incumbent 

workers 

Youth before 

high school 

Youth in high 

school 

Hispanics 

African 

Americans 

American 

Indians 

Low-income and 

disadvantaged 

Community college 32.9 28.1 67.8 24.0 77.4 13.0 4.8 2.1 56.8 

Technical college 44.4 38.9 61.1 22.2 88.9 0.0 5.6 11.1 55.6 

Other 14.9 27.7 59.6 36.2 74.5 21.3 0.0 4.3 53.2 

Total 29.9 28.9 65.4 26.5 77.7 13.7 3.8 3.3 55.9 

Number of grantees 63 61 138 56 164 29 8 7 118 

Table B.41.a – Percent of Grantees by Region, by Target Population 

Region 

Dislocated 

workers 

Entry-level 

workers 

Incumbent 

workers 

Youth before high 

school 

Youth in high 

school 

Hispanics 

African Americans 

American Indians 

Low-income and 

disadvantaged 

Northeastern (Region I) 12.7 6.6 10.1 7.1 8.5 13.8 25.0 0.0 9.3 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 11.1 9.8 11.6 8.9 9.2 10.3 0.0 0.0 8.5 

Southeastern (Region III) 28.6 26.2 21.7 25.0 25.0 6.9 0.0 14.3 23.7 

Southwestern (Region IV) 17.5 21.3 21.7 23.2 21.0 31.0 50.0 42.9 21.0 

Midwestern (Region V) 20.6 24.6 21.0 25.0 20.7 20.7 25.0 14.3 22.0 

Western (Region VI) 9.5 11.5 13.8 10.7 15.2 17.2 0.0 28.6 15.0 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 63 61 138 56 164 29 8 7 118 

Table B.41.b – Percent of Grantees by Target Population, by Region 

Region 

Dislocated 

workers 

Entry-level 

workers 

Incumbent 

workers 

Youth before high 

school 

Youth in high 

school 

Hispanics 

African Americans 

American Indians 

Low-income and 

disadvantaged 

Northeastern (Region I) 45.0 20.0 70.0 20.0 70.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 55.0 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 35.0 30.0 80.0 25.0 75.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 

Southeastern (Region III) 36.0 32.0 60.0 28.0 82.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 56.0 

Southwestern (Region IV) 23.9 28.3 65.2 28.3 76.1 19.6 8.7 6.5 54.4 

Midwestern (Region V) 27.7 31.9 61.7 29.8 72.3 12.8 4.3 0.47 55.3 

Western (Region VI) 21.4 25.0 67.9 21.4 89.3 17.9 0.0 0.0 64.3 

Total 29.9 28.9 65.4 26.4 77.7 13.7 3.8 3.8 55.9 

Number of grantees 63 61 13.8 56 164 29 8 8 118 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-31
Table B.42.a – Percent of Grantees in Each Region by Industry 

Industry 

Northeastern 

(Region I ) 

Mid-Atlantic 

(Region II ) 

Southeastern 

(Region III ) 

Southwestern 

(Region IV ) 

Midwestern 

(Region V ) 

Western 

(Region VI) 

Total 

Advanced manufacturing 30.0 20.0 16.0 17.4 17.0 10.7 17.5 

Aerospace 0.0 5.0 4.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 

Automotive 0.0 5.0 2.0 4.4 0.0 3.6 2.4 

Biotechnology 10.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 3.8 

Construction 0.0 20.0 8.0 8.7 8.5 10.7 9.0 

Energy 10.0 5.0 4.0 15.2 10.6 7.2 9.0 

Forestry 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 

Health care 45.0 20.0 50.0 37.0 46.8 46.4 42.7 

Hospitality 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 3.6 1.9 

Information technology 0.0 0.0 2.0 4.4 2.1 0.0 1.9 

Transportation 0.0 15.0 2.0 4.4 6.4 7.1 5.2 

Other 0.0 0.0 4.0 2.2 2.1 10.7 3.3 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Table B.42.b. – Percent of Grantees in Each Industry, by Region 

Industry 

Northeastern 

(Region I ) 

Mid-Atlantic 

(Region II ) 

Southeastern 

(Region III ) 

Southwestern 

(Region IV ) 

Midwestern 

(Region V ) 

Western 

(Region VI) 

Total 

Advanced manufacturing 16.2 10.8 21.6 21.6 21.6 8.1 100.0 

Aerospace 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

Automotive 0.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 100.0 

Biotechnology 25.0 12.5 37.5 0.0 25.0 0.0 100.0 

Construction 0.0 21.1 21.1 21.1 21.1 15.8 100.0 

Energy 10.5 5.3 10.5 36.8 26.3 10.5 100.0 

Forestry 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

Health care 10.0 4.4 27.8 18.9 24.4 14.4 100.0 

Hospitality 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 

Information technology 0.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 100.0 

Transportation 0.0 27.3 9.1 18.2 27.3 18.2 100.0 

Other 0.0 0.0 28.6 14.3 14.3 42.9 100.0 

Total 9.5 9.5 23.7 21.8 22.3 13.3 100.0 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-32
Table B.43.a – Type of Grantee Organization, by Industry 

Industry 

Community 

college 

Educational 

organization 

Public workforce 

investment 

system 

Technical 

college Total 

Advanced manufacturing 17.8 10.8 10 33.3 17.5 

Aerospace 2.1 2.7 0.0 5.6 2.4 

Automotive 2.7 0.0 0.0 5.6 2.4 

Biotechnology 4.1 0.0 0.0 11.1 3.8 

Construction 9.6 10.8 0.0 5.6 9.0 

Energy 8.9 13.5 10.0 0.0 9.0 

Forestry 0.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 

Health care 39.0 56.8 50 38.9 42.7 

Hospitality 1.4 0.0 20 0.0 1.9 

Information technology 2.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.9 

Transportation 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 

Other 6.8 0.0 10.0 0.0 5.2 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 146 37 10 18 211 

Table B.43.b – Industry, by Type of Grantee Organization 

Industry 

Community 

college 

Educational 

organization 

Public workforce 

investment 

system 

Technical 

college Total 

Advanced manufacturing 70.3 10.8 2.7 16.2 100.0 

Aerospace 60.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 100.0 

Automotive 80.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 100.0 

Biotechnology 75.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 100.0 

Construction 73.7 21.1 0.0 5.3 100.0 

Energy 68.4 26.3 5.3 0.0 100.0 

Forestry 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

Health care 63.3 23.3 5.6 7.8 100.0 

Hospitality 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 100.0 

Information technology 75.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

Transportation 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

Other 90.9 0.0 9.1 0.0 100.0 

Total 69.2 17.5 4.7 8.5 100.0 

Number of grantees 146 37 10 18 211 

Table B.44.a – Percent Round, by Type of Grantee Organization 

Round 

Community 

college 

Educational 

organization 

Public workforce 

investment 

system 

Technical 

college Total 

Round 1 31.5 51.4 0.0 27.8 33.2 

Round 2 30.8 43.2 30.0 44.4 34.1 

Round 3 37.7 5.4 70.0 27.8 32.7 

Total 100.0 100.0 1000 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 146 37 10 18 211 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-33
 

Table B.44.b – Percent Type of Grantee Organization, by Round 

Round 

Community 

college 

Educational 

organization 

Public workforce 

investment 

system 

Technical 

college Total 

Round 1 65.7 27.1 0.0 7.1 100.0 

Round 2 62.5 22.2 4.2 11.1 100.0 

Round 3 79.7 2.9 10.1 7.2 100.0 

Total 69.2 17.5 4.7 8.5 100.0 

Number of grantees 146 37 10 18 211 

 

Table B.45.a – Percent Region, by Type of Grantee Organization 

Region 

Community 

college 

Educational 

organization 

Public workforce 

investment system 

Technical 

college Total 

Northeastern (Region I) 11.0 8.1 10.0 0.0 9.5 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 

Southeastern (Region III) 26.7 16.2 0.0 27.8 23.7 

Southwestern (Region IV) 16.4 40.5 20.0 27.8 21.8 

Midwestern (Region V) 20.5 13.5 50.0 38.9 22.3 

Western (Region VI) 11.6 21.6 20.0 5.6 13.3 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Number of grantees 146 37 10 18 211 

Table B.45.b – Percent Type of Grantee Organization, by Region 

Region 

Community 

college 

Educational 

organization 

Public workforce 

investment system 

Technical 

college Total 

Northeastern (Region I) 80.0 15.0 5.0 0.0 100.0 

Mid-Atlantic (Region II) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

Southeastern (Region III) 78.0 12.0 0.0 10.0 100.0 

Southwestern (Region IV) 52.2 32.6 4.3 10.9 100.0 

Midwestern (Region V) 63.8 10.6 10.6 14.9 100.0 

Western (Region VI) 60.7 28.6 7.1 3.6 100.0 

Total 69.2 17.5 4.7 8.5 100.0 

Number of grantees 146 37 10 18 211 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program B-34
APPENDIX C: Descriptive Tables of CBJTG Outcomes as of June 2008 

(Source: Grantee Quarterly Reporting System) 

Table C.1 – Descriptive Statistics for Trainee Outcomes 

Trainee outcome Mean Median Range N 

Exiters 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

121.6 

239.6 

2 

110.5 

0–3,216 

1–3,216 

201 

102 

Participants served 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

306.1 

424.3 

86 

189 

0–5,889 

1–5,889 

201 

145 

Number beginning education/job training activities 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

259.4 

380.6 

63 

176 

0–5,889 

1–5,889 

201 

137 

Number completing education/job training activities 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

137.0 

257.3 

10 

105 

0–5,313 

1–5,313 

201 

107 

Number receiving a degree or certificate 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

106.6 

206.1 

5 

70.5 

0–5,159 

2–5,159 

201 

104 

Table C.2 – Descriptive Statistics for Trainee Characteristics 

Demographic variable Mean Median Range N 

Male 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

142.1 

193.1 

26 

58 

0– 5,664 

1– 5,664 

201 

148 

Female 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

145.9 

205.1 

17 

59 

0– 2,405 

1– 2,405 

201 

143 

Hispanic/Latino 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

29.0 

47.0 

2 

12 

0– 844 

1– 844 

201 

124 

American Indian or Alaska Native 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

5.0 

11.5 

0 

3 

0– 298 

1– 298 

201 

82 

Asian 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

5.8 

13.5 

0 

7 

0– 131 

1– 131 

201 

87 

Black or African American 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

44.2 

72.8 

3 

20.5 

0– 1,338 

1– 1,338 

201 

122 

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

1.4 

7.2 

0 

1.5 

0– 88 

1– 88 

201 

40 

White 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

195.2 

276.3 

39 

89.5 

0– 4,258 

1– 4,258 

201 

142 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program C-1
Demographic variable Mean Median Range N 

More than one race 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

3.0 

10.5 

0 

2 

0– 174 

1– 174 

201 

53 

Hispanic/Latino more than one race 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

.5 

5.7 

0 

2 

0– 36 

1– 36 

201 

16 

Eligible veterans 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

10.7 

21.3 

1 

7 

0– 455 

1– 455 

201 

101 

Persons with a disability 

Includes zero 

Excludes zero 

3.1 

9.1 

0 

3 

0– 95 

1– 95 

201 

68 

Table C.3– Descriptive Statistics for Capacity-Building Outcomes

Capacity-building outcome Mean Median Range N 

Federal leveraged resources received $115,302 $0 $0– $5,044,707 201 

Nonfederal leveraged resources received $573,402 $129,503 $0–$10,000,000 201 

Instructors hired 20 7 0–262 201 

Students enrolled 404 78 0–5,889 201 

Characteristics of the Community-Based Job Training Grant (CBJTG) Program C-2