Evaluation of 

The Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Vocational Education and 

Workforce Training Projects 

Study conducted by Westat 

for the Appalachian Regional Commission 

January 2002 
Evaluation of 

The Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Vocational Education and 

Workforce Training Projects 

Prepared by: 

Laurie Plishker 

Gary Silverstein 

Joy Frechtling 

Westat 

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20850 

Prepared for: 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20009-1068 

NOTE: The views, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors and 

do not necessarily represent the official views, opinions, or policy of the Appalachian Regional Commission. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... i 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iii 

Study Overview ............................................................................................................ iii 

Vocational Education and Workforce Training Background........................................ iv 

Project Context ............................................................................................................. v 

Project Activities........................................................................................................... v

Achievement of Objectives........................................................................................... vi 

Project Sustainability .................................................................................................... vi 

Project Objectives and Data Collection Activities........................................................ vii 

Recommendations......................................................................................................... vii 

Conclusions................................................................................................................... ix 

I Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 

Appalachia: A Region in Transition ............................................................................ 1 

The Appalachian Regional Commission....................................................................... 1 

Program Changes............................................................................................. 2 

Study Overview ............................................................................................................ 3 

Study Questions ............................................................................................... 3 

Issues Regarding Study Methodology ............................................................. 4 

Structure of the Report.................................................................................................. 5 

II The ARC Evaluation in the Context of the History and Status of Vocational 

 Education and Workforce Training.......................................................................... 7 

History and Background ............................................................................................... 7 

Early Developments......................................................................................... 7 

The New Vocationalism .................................................................................. 8 

Evaluation, Accountability, and Performance Indicators ................................ 8 

Overview of Data Collection Requirements for Federal Workforce and 

 Vocational Programs........................................................................................ 10 

ARC’s Fit into the Field................................................................................................ 12 

Framework for Understanding Vocational Education and Workforce 

Training Projects .............................................................................. 13 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

Chapter Page 

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 13 

References........................................................................................................ 15 

III Project Context ........................................................................................................... 17 

Community Context...................................................................................................... 17 

Geographic Distribution .................................................................................. 17 

Metropolitan Status.......................................................................................... 19 

Economic Status .............................................................................................. 20 

Community Groups Served ............................................................................. 21 

Communities’ Need for ARC Funding............................................................ 21 

Grants and Grant Recipients ......................................................................................... 23 

Grant Recipient Organizations......................................................................... 23 

Duration of Funding......................................................................................... 23 

Funding Source................................................................................................ 24 

Funding Amount and Total Project Cost ......................................................... 25 

Funding from Other Agencies ......................................................................... 25 

Project Beneficiaries ..................................................................................................... 26 

Age and Job Status of Beneficiaries ................................................................ 26 

Industries Served.............................................................................................. 27 

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 28 

IV Project Activities ......................................................................................................... 29 

Approaches and Activities Conducted by Cohort 1 Projects........................................ 29 

Equipment and Physical Plant Improvements ................................................. 29 

Training, Training Materials, and Project Staff Training ................................ 32 

Job Search Assistance and Career Counseling ................................................ 35 

Social Support Services ................................................................................... 37 

Community-Wide Activities............................................................................ 38 

Cohort 2 Projects .......................................................................................................... 39 

Impact of the ARC Grant.............................................................................................. 40 

Implementation Problems Encountered........................................................................ 41 

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 43 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

Chapter Page 

V Achievement of Objectives......................................................................................... 45 

Overall Achievements of Cohort 1 Projects ................................................................. 46 

Extent to Which Specific Objectives Were Achieved .................................................. 48 

Services Provided to Individuals ..................................................................... 50 

Services Provided to Communities.................................................................. 50 

Barrier Reduction............................................................................................. 50 

Skill Attainment............................................................................................... 50 

Degree Attainment........................................................................................... 50 

Employment Status.......................................................................................... 52 

Community Viability ....................................................................................... 53 

Qualitative Findings on Projects’ Objectives................................................................ 53 

Respondents’ Perceptions of Their Most Important Outcomes ....................... 53 

Site Visit Findings Regarding Project Accomplishments................................ 53 

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 57 

VI Project Sustainability and Expansion ....................................................................... 59 

Project Status ................................................................................................................ 59 

Types of Changes............................................................................................. 61 

Factors that Contributed to Changes................................................................ 61 

Status of ARC-Funded Activities and Equipment ........................................................ 61 

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 64 

VII Project Objectives and Data Collection Activities ................................................... 65 

Objectives That Projects Identified for Themselves ..................................................... 65 

Quality of Projects’ Objectives........................................................................ 66 

Types of Objectives Specified by Projects ...................................................... 67 

Projects’ Efforts to Collect Outcome Data ................................................................... 72 

Type of Outcome Data Projects Plan to Collect .............................................. 73 

Data Collection Methodologies ....................................................................... 73 

Collection of Followup Data............................................................................ 74 

Barriers to Collecting Outcome Data............................................................................ 76 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

Chapter Page 

Site Visit Findings Regarding Projects’ Data Collection Activities ............................. 76 

Manufacturing Assistance Center.................................................................... 78 

Winston County Technology Center ............................................................... 78 

Daniel Morgan Technology Center ................................................................. 79 

Ohio Fund for Appalachian Industrial Retraining ........................................... 80 

Chautauqua County Wood Skills Training Project.......................................... 81 

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 81 

VIII Summary and Recommendations.............................................................................. 83 

Project Characteristics and Innovative Activities ......................................................... 83 

Enhancing Project Objectives....................................................................................... 85 

Project Evaluation and Performance Reporting............................................................ 86 

Conclusions................................................................................................................... 89 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix Page 

A Additional Survey Data............................................................................................. A-1 

B Evidence in Support of Projects’ Outcomes.............................................................. B-1 

C Notes on the Technical Approach ............................................................................. C-1 

D Case Study Methodology and Reports ...................................................................... D-1 

E ARC Vocational Education and Workforce Training Project Descriptions.............. E-1 

F Cohort 1: Survey of ARC-Funded Vocational Education and Workforce 

Training Projects ....................................................................................................... F-1 

G Cohort 2: Survey of ARC-Funded Vocational Education and Workforce 

Training Projects ....................................................................................................... G-1 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

Chapter 3 

3-1 Percent of ARC projects that indicated they were designed to provide services, 

resources, or other assistance to the following groups, by cohort............................. 21 

3-2 Percent of ARC projects, by the type of organization of the grant recipient, by 

cohort......................................................................................................................... 23 

3-3 Percent of projects by source of ARC funding, by cohort ........................................ 24 

3-4 Percent of projects with various ARC grant sizes and total project costs, by 

cohort......................................................................................................................... 25 

3-5 Percent of projects, by age of intended beneficiaries of the project, by cohort......... 26 

3-6 Percent of projects, by job experience of intended beneficiaries of the project, 

by cohort.................................................................................................................... 27 

3-7 Percent of projects serving various industries, by cohort.......................................... 27 

Chapter 4 

4-1 Number and percent of activities conducted, by type ............................................... 30 

4-2 Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting purchasing, renting, or leasing various 

types of equipment with ARC funding (n=67).......................................................... 30 

4-3 Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting physical plant activities (n=67).................... 32 

4-4 Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting conducting various training activities 

(n=67)........................................................................................................................ 32 

4-5 Percent of training activities conducted with ARC funding...................................... 33 

4-6 Percent of training activities conducted in various locations .................................... 33 

4-7 Percent of training activities by duration .................................................................. 34 

4-8 Percent of training activities by frequency................................................................ 34 

4-9 Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting developing various types of training 

materials (n=67) ........................................................................................................ 34 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

LIST OF TABLES 

(continued) 

Table Page 

Chapter 4 

4-10 Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting training project staff in various areas 

(n=67)........................................................................................................................ 35 

4-11 Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting providing job search assistance and career 

counseling activities (n=67) ...................................................................................... 36 

4-12 Percent of job search assistance/career counseling activities provided with ARC 

funding ...................................................................................................................... 37 

4-13 Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting providing social support services (n=67)..... 37 

4-14 Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting conducting community-wide activities 

(n=67)........................................................................................................................ 38 

4-15 Percent of Cohort 2 projects reporting activities in various categories..................... 39 

Chapter 5 

5-1 Number of Cohort 1 projects reporting that they achieved their objectives.............. 46 

5-2 Number of individuals from Cohort 1 who benefited as a result of the ARC 

grant, by type of benefit ............................................................................................ 47 

5-3 Number and percent of objectives, by extent to which they were achieved ............. 48 

5-4 Forms of evidence that Cohort 1 projects provided to support their claims that 

they met their objectives, by type of objective.......................................................... 49 

Chapter 6 

6-1 Number and percent of Cohort 1 projects that reported various ways their 

projects have changed since the ARC grant (n=30) .................................................. 61 

6-2 Number and percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting that the following ARCfunded activities/equipment were still operational at the time of the mail survey .... 63 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

LIST OF TABLES 

(continued) 

Table Page 

Chapter 7 

7-1 Percent of objectives of various types and percent with numerical benchmarks, 

by cohort.................................................................................................................... 68 

7-2 Percent of Cohort 2 projects collecting outcome data about project participants 

and/or the overall community, by type of outcome data (n=25) ............................... 73 

7-3 Percent of Cohort 2 projects using various data collection and analysis methods.... 74 

7-4 Timeframe used by Cohort 2 projects to collect data on project objectives.............. 75 

7-5 Timeframe used by Cohort 2 projects to collect data on project objectives, by 

intermediate and long-term project goals.................................................................. 75 

7-6 Barriers that hindered the efforts of Cohort 2 projects to collect outcome data........ 76 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 

Chapter 3 

3-1 Geographic distribution of expected beneficiaries of ARC vocational education 

and workforce training projects................................................................................. 18 

3-2 Percent of projects by metropolitan status ................................................................ 19 

3-3 Percent of projects by economic status ..................................................................... 20 

3-4 Percent of projects that reported receiving ARC funding during the years 1990–

2000........................................................................................................................... 24 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

LIST OF FIGURES 

(continued) 

Figure Page 

Chapter 4 

4-1 Percent of projects reporting the most likely outcome if the project had not 

received ARC funding (n=67)................................................................................... 40 

4-2 Among Cohort 1 projects that would have been partially implemented without 

ARC funding (n=35), the percent reporting various effects...................................... 40 

4-3 Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting number of problems or barriers to 

implementing ARC-funded activities (n=67)............................................................ 41 

4-4 Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting implementation obstacles for ARC 

activities (n=67) ........................................................................................................ 42 

Chapter 6 

6-1 Current status of Cohort 1 projects (n=67)................................................................ 59 

6-2 Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting current operating status, by last year 

funded (n=67)............................................................................................................ 60 

6-3 Percent of ARC projects no longer in operation or in operation but changed 

(n=34) reporting factors contributing to reduced or expanded scope........................ 62 

Chapter 7 

7-1 Percent of projects delineating numeric objectives................................................... 67 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit Page 

Chapter 2 

2-1 Flow chart of an individual’s advancement through a model vocational 

education or workforce training program.................................................................. 14 

Chapter 3 

3-1 Examples of geographically isolated areas ............................................................... 19 

3-2 Example of an economically disadvantaged area...................................................... 20 

3-3 Example of disadvantaged group served by an ARC project.................................... 21 

3-4 Additional examples of communities’ need for funding........................................... 22 

3-5 Examples of grant recipient organizations ................................................................ 23 

3-6 Examples of projects serving primarily adults and primarily youth ......................... 26 

3-7 Example of projects serving unemployed adults....................................................... 27 

3-8 Example of a general workforce project ................................................................... 27 

Chapter 4 

4-1 Examples of equipment purchased............................................................................ 30 

4-2 Examples of physical plant improvements................................................................ 32 

4-3 Examples of training provided .................................................................................. 32 

4-4 Examples of training materials development ............................................................ 35 

4-5 Examples of project staff training ............................................................................. 36 

4-6 Examples of job search assistance and career counseling services........................... 36 

4-7 Example of social support services ........................................................................... 37 

4-8 Examples of community-wide activities ................................................................... 39 

4-9 Examples of implementation obstacles ..................................................................... 42 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

(continued) 

Exhibit Page 

Chapter 5 

5-1 Examples of reasons that respondents provided for why objectives pertaining to 

services provided to individuals were not achieved.................................................. 51 

5-2 Examples of reasons that respondents provided for why skill/degree attainment 

objectives were not achieved..................................................................................... 52 

5-3 Examples of respondents’ perceptions of the most important outcome to result 

from the ARC grant................................................................................................... 54 

Chapter 6 

6-1 Example of equipment sustainability ........................................................................ 63 

Chapter 7 

7-1 Examples of outputs anticipated by Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 projects ........................ 68 

7-2 Examples of skill attainment outcomes anticipated by Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

projects ...................................................................................................................... 70 

7-3 Examples of degree attainment outcomes anticipated by Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

projects ...................................................................................................................... 70 

7-4 Examples of employment outcomes anticipated by Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

projects ...................................................................................................................... 71 

7-5 Examples of community viability outcomes anticipated by Cohort 1 and Cohort 

2 projects ................................................................................................................... 72 

7-6 Examples of factors that prevented respondents from determining whether their 

ARC objectives had been achieved........................................................................... 77 

Chapter 8 

8-1 Framework for analysis of activities and objectives, by project type ....................... 87 
i 

Acknowledgments 

The evaluation of ARC’s vocational education and 

workforce development projects could not have 

taken place with our many colleagues who have 

labored tirelessly to help conduct this study. 

Nicole Bartfai and Janice Lee managed the mail 

survey effort, along with telephone interviewers 

Kathy Wickert and Paula Horowitz and field room 

director Roberta Pike; we attribute our high 

response rate to their efforts. Atsushi Miyaoka 

conducted the analyses of the study data, with 

assistance from Ethel Sanniez and Edward Mann 

in processing the data. Glenn Nyre conducted the 

literature review and wrote early drafts of Chapter 

2, and Carl Setzer provided additional help in 

writing the report. Our technical editor was Carol 

Litman, and our desktop publishing specialist was 

Sylvie Warren. We would also like to 

acknowledge our site visitors, Nicole Bartfai, 

Brian Kleiner, Glenn Nyre, Laurie Plishker, and 

Gary Silverstein. 

We must give enormous credit to the projects that 

hosted site visits, completed the mail surveys, and 

responded to numerous telephone queries. 

Without their willingness to take part in multiple 

data collection activities, we could not have 

completed our study. 

Finally, we wish to acknowledge the essential 

support and advice we have received from the 

Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC)—

particularly Greg Bischak, who served as the ARC 

study director for the evaluation effort. Judy Rae 

and Jeffery Schwartz also provided critical 

reviews of the work in progress. In addition to 

providing important insights and guidance 

regarding the conduct of the study, ARC staff 

went out of their way to facilitate every facet of 

the evaluation effort. 
iii 

Executive Summary

Within the context of large-scale policy changes in 

the goals, resources, and implementation of 

national vocational education and workforce 

training programs, the Appalachian Regional 

Commission (ARC) directs a relatively small 

grants program aimed at these same issues. As 

government performance reporting requirements 

for nationwide vocational education programs are 

increased, the Commission is focusing on 

evaluating the implementation and achievements 

of its projects, as well as the parallel performance 

reporting systems they employ, to improve the 

program overall and its individual projects. This 

report summarizes findings from an evaluation of 

vocational education and workforce training 

projects funded by ARC between 1995 and 2000. 

STUDY OVERVIEW

In the late 1990s, ARC began a systematic review 

of its portfolio of funded projects. This study of 

vocational education and workforce training 

projects—conducted by Westat, a Rockville, 

Maryland, research firm—follows a similar study 

conducted in 2000 of ARC’s educational projects; 

it builds upon the methodology and understanding 

of the ARC context from the previous study. ARC 

delineated four primary objectives for the 

evaluation: (1) assess the extent to which projects 

were able to accomplish their anticipated 

outcomes; (2) benchmark project activities and 

accomplishments against current national studies 

of workforce training and vocational education 

efforts; (3) assess the utility and validity of 

specific performance measurements that might 

enhance ARC’s ongoing capacity to monitor and 

evaluate its workforce training and vocational 

education projects; and (4) make other policy 

recommendations that can improve ARC’s efforts 

to monitor and assist its workforce training and 

vocational educational projects. In an effort to 

ensure that the evaluation addressed each of these 

objectives in a comprehensive manner, we 

identified seven primary, interrelated research 

questions that guided the study: 

• What are the characteristics of communities 

and individuals who benefited from the 

projects? 

• What problems were projects designed to 

address? 

• What approaches did projects use to 

ameliorate these problems? 

• What specific outcomes were projects 

designed to achieve? 

• To what extent have projects accomplished 

their objectives? 

• What factors influenced projects’ ability to 

implement their approaches and achieve their 

objectives? 

• What performance reporting systems are 

projects utilizing and how could these benefit 

the ARC? 

The evaluation employed both qualitative and 

quantitative techniques that addressed all of the 

study’s outcome and process questions in various 

depths and to different degrees. The approach 

included the following integrated activities. 

Qualitative techniques: 

• A review of the literature regarding workforce 

training and vocational education and data 

collection requirements for these types of 

projects. 

• An extensive review of project files to gain a 

better understanding of the purpose, scope, 

and goals/objectives of the 92 projects in the 

study sample. 
iv 

• Site visits to five projects to obtain detailed 

information about project-related implementation experiences, accomplishments, and 

impacts. 

Quantitative techniques: 

• A mail survey to collect broad-based data on 

the implementation and impact of the 67 

projects in the study sample that received 

ARC funding between 1995 and 1999 (called 

Cohort 1). 

• An abbreviated survey of 25 projects that 

received ARC funding in 2000 (called Cohort 

2). 

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND 

WORKFORCE TRAINING 

BACKGROUND

ARC’s portfolio of vocational education and 

workforce training projects follows decades of 

debate about the purposes and activities of these 

programs and, more recently, debate about 

accountability and performance reporting. While 

not all of the recent changes to performance 

reporting requirements necessarily directly impact 

ARC, they are changing the amount of money that 

some future ARC programs’ co-funders receive, 

how those funds can be used, and the extent to 

which training providers will need to institute 

required performance reporting and data collection 

efforts to determine outcomes and impacts. 

Furthermore, to the extent that ARC grantees are 

indirectly receiving federal funding, they are now 

required to collect and report performance data. 

This evaluation is timely as it provides an 

opportunity view ARC’s projects in light of these 

other requirements just as they are being 

implemented. Drawing on our reading of the 

literature and a review of ARC project documents, 

we have developed a conceptual framework that 

graphically illustrates how a trainee might advance 

through a vocational education or workforce 

training program. The framework provides a 

visual mechanism for understanding many of the 

dimensions we will use to describe the study 

sample: 

• The status of beneficiaries (i.e., age and job 

experience) maps roughly to the participant 

box. 

• Mediating factors, such as community context, 

grant recipient, funding, and industry, can be 

determinants of the types of services that are 

provided. 

• The various industries served can determine 

the training, career services, and specific skills 

and degrees or credentials obtained. 

• The project components in place and the 

different types of services map to the activities 

discussed. 

• The flow chart concludes with outputs and 

outcomes, including projects’ immediate 

skills-oriented goals, obtaining degrees or 

credentials, employment-oriented goals, and 

community impacts. 

The model also shows that the training process is 

an iterative one, where a participant may progress 

through multiple training programs over the life of 

his or her career. 
v 

PROJECT CONTEXT

Study findings suggest that projects are serving 

some of Appalachia’s most geographically 

isolated and disadvantage residents. One-third (33 

percent) of Cohort 1 projects were located in 

nonmetropolitan areas, compared with over half 

(56 percent) of Cohort 2 projects. In addition, 

about one-third of projects were serving at least 

one distressed county. Community groups that 

were targeted generally reflected ARC’s goal of 

serving those most in need. 

ARC awards are intended to be used in 

conjunction with funds from other sources, such as 

local or state agencies, businesses, or foundations; 

the required match is based upon the economic 

status of the community within which the project 

is located. ARC grants in the study sample ranged 

from lows of about $15,000 to highs of near 

$900,000. Projects also varied in terms of the total 

financial resources that they had at their 

disposal—from lows of about $27,000 to highs 

well over $1 million. 

About half (48 percent) of Cohort 1 projects were 

serving primarily adults, and another third (33 

percent) were serving primarily youth. In 

addition, Cohort 1 projects were primarily serving 

those without full-time job experience (60 percent) 

and a combination of individuals with and without 

full-time job experience (28 percent). 

PROJECT ACTIVITIES

With the possible exception of support services, all 

of the activities and project components in our 

conceptual framework for vocational and 

workforce projects were covered by the projects in 

the study sample. The vast majority of Cohort 1 

projects (87 percent) reported purchasing, renting, 

or leasing various types of equipment with ARC 

funding, and almost half (45 percent) conducted 

activities around the construction, expansion, or 

leasing of a physical plant. Almost all projects (99 

percent) conducted training activities, while 61 

percent developed training materials, and 75 

percent trained project staff. In addition, most 

projects provided job search assistance or career 

counseling (68 percent) and community-wide 

activities (64 percent), while only 31 percent 

provided support services. That ARC projects in 

both cohorts conducted training and acquired 

equipment in such vast numbers, and that the 

majority of projects were conducting other critical 

activities, suggest that ARC’s portfolio of 

vocational education and workforce training 

 Obtain Skills

 basic skills

 academic skills

 vocational/technical skills

 employability skills

 Support Services

 child care assistance

 transportation assistance

 financial assistance

 referrals

Gain/Retain Initial Full-Time 

Employment

Improved Employment Status

 maintain current employment

 increase responsibilities

 earn promotion

 increase wages

 obtain/retain new jobs

Community Impacts

 viability/stability/growth of businesses

 economic/social viability of communities

 Ameliorate Barriers

 increase access to transportation

 increase access to child care

 increase access to clothing/food/shelter

Job Search and Career 

Services

 career counseling

 job search assistance

 employability skills

Project Participants

 in school

 unemployed

 employed

 youth

 adults

Program Components in 

Place

 equipment

 physical plant

 project staff

 training materials

 community awareness

Other Mediating Factors

 community context

 grant recipient

 funding

 industry

 Classroom Training

 adult basic education

 academic

 vocational/technical

 employability

 Worksite Training

 on-the-job training

 apprenticeship Obtain Degree/Credential

 secondary degree or equivalent

 proficiency credential in conjunction

 with a secondary school diploma

 postsecondary degree/credential/

 certificate

Context Activities Outputs and Outcomes
vi 

projects provides adequate coverage of the 

activities represented in our conceptual 

framework. 

Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of projects reported 

that they had no implementation problems, while 

18 percent reported only one problem. The fact 

that so few projects indicated they face problems 

is indeed good news. It suggests that ARC grant 

reviewers are selecting appropriate projects to 

fund, and that the technical assistance by ARC 

staff is helpful. 

For all categories (except equipment, for which 

comparable data were not collected), ARC funding 

and the associated match supported a much 

smaller percentage of activities than did all 

sources of funding. This is an indication that the 

projects’ ARC funds are in fact doing—and 

leveraging—much more than may have been 

indicated in a grant application or final report. 

Thus, while ARC is funding what may be a small 

portion of a project, it should be recognized that, 

overall, projects seem to be providing the full 

range of services to their beneficiaries. This 

suggests that even when ARC is not directly 

supporting projects to provide a fuller range of 

services indicated in our conceptual framework, 

the projects are often providing those services with 

other sources of funding. This suggests that, in at 

least some cases, ARC provides some “last mile” 

funding for training and equipment, without which 

the projects might not exist. 

Almost all projects indicated that without ARC 

support, they would not have been implemented—

or would have had to scale back the scope of their 

efforts. Only two projects (3 percent) felt that they 

would have been fully implemented using 

alternative sources. Conversely, just under half 

(45 percent) believed that their projects would 

never have been implemented without their ARC 

award. 

ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES

Projects appeared to have achieved most of their 

ARC-related objectives. Specifically, all of the 

Cohort 1 projects reported that they achieved at 

least one of their objectives. In fact, the vast 

majority of the 67 Cohort 1 projects reported 

achieving all (45 percent), all but one (27 percent), 

or all but two (16 percent) of their objectives. 

Only six (9 percent) achieved fewer than half of 

their objectives. In addition, projects achieved 74 

percent of the 281 objectives that they identified in 

their ARC proposals. However, some of the 

evidence appeared to be anecdotal or based on less 

than rigorous data collection activities. 

Cohort 1 projects were asked to estimate the 

number of individuals who had benefited at each 

stage as a direct or indirect result of their ARC 

grant in order to quantify the impact of ARC 

support at the project level. The range in the 

number of beneficiaries varied considerably across 

the projects. Projects estimated that as a result of 

the ARC grant, a median of four project staff 

received training, a median of 195 individuals 

received academic or vocational training, a median 

of 51 individuals received career counseling or job 

search/placement assistance, a median of 50 

individuals obtained a degree or credential, and a 

median of 60 individuals obtained employment. 

These medians provide an approximation of the 

impact the projects are having, but because no 

examination of causality was conducted, we 

cannot suggest there is a correlation among the 

medians. 

PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY

Most projects have sustained themselves beyond 

the ARC grant. Nearly half (49 percent) of the 67 

Cohort 1 projects were operating at full capacity in 

the same way as during the ARC grant, and 30 

percent were operating with a scope that had 

expanded either in the services provided or the 

number of participants served. 

The four projects that were no longer in operation 

and the 30 that had changed in some way since 

their ARC grant indicated dichotomous factors 

that contributed to the changes (expanded or 

reduced) in their projects. While some of these 

projects cited a loss of funding for continuation, 

others indicated that additional funding was 

available for additional services or participants. 
vii 

Whereas nearly half indicated an increased need 

for their services in the community and 41 percent 

found additional areas of need since grant 

inception that led to expansion, smaller numbers 

reported factors related to buy-in and need that 

reduced projects’ scope. These figures suggest 

that ARC vocational education and workforce 

training projects face relatively few barriers to 

sustainability beyond securing continuing funding. 

And indeed, while funding can lead to expansion, 

the needs of the community are truly driving 

project expansion. 

PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DATA 

COLLECTION ACTIVITIES

In 1998, ARC implemented a new performance 

measurement system requiring projects to specify 

outputs and outcomes and encouraging them to 

discuss quantifiable results. Cohort 2 projects are 

relatively new; many are still open, and they were 

included in the sample to examine the changes in 

the quality of projects’ objectives. There has 

indeed been an improvement in the quality of 

outcomes identified by Cohort 2 projects over 

those of Cohort 1, which were identified before 

the changes in procedures. Specifically, a higher 

proportion of Cohort 2 projects contained a 

numeric outcome. In addition, a lower proportion 

of Cohort 2 proposals contained impractical 

goals—and Cohort 2 projects were more likely to 

describe a direct link between services and 

outcomes. This suggests that the steps ARC has 

taken to improve the quality of its applications 

have paid off. 

Many Cohort 2 projects are planning to collect at 

least some new data through a mail or telephone 

survey. However, few of the projects were 

planning to collect data 13 to 24 months after 

participants left the program—and none were 

planning to collect data more than 24 months after 

participants left the program. In addition, findings 

from the site visits suggest that some of these 

collections may be relying on imprecise methods. 

Only 22 percent of projects that were obtaining 

information on participants’ enhanced 

employment status (e.g., increased responsibilities, 

increased wages, or promotions) and 18 percent of 

projects obtaining information on participants’ 

new employment were collecting data more than 

12 months after participants left the project. This 

finding is significant, since it suggests that the 

majority of Cohort 2 projects that are promoting 

long-term employment achievements are not 

obtaining data that can be used to assess whether 

such gains have actually occurred. This is likely 

due to the fact that projects do not have the 

capacity and resources to collect longer term 

outcome data. 

Evaluation is not easy, nor can it be done without 

thorough planning. It is likely that these projects, 

while aware of the need to conduct evaluations, do 

not have the tools or knowledge to do them. And 

even when they are able to conduct effective shortterm evaluations, project staff may not have built 

the capacity to continue the evaluation effort 

beyond the grant period. Thus, training, materials, 

and technical assistance may be a first critical step 

in developing evaluation capacity and improving 

project evaluations across all of ARC’s vocational 

education and workforce training projects. 

Indeed, ARC is likely facing this challenge across 

many of its projects in all areas of investment. 

This report—and these findings regarding project 

evaluation—represent a first step in improving 

ARC’s and funded projects’ evaluation capacity. 

Recommendations included in the next section 

suggest next steps. Further discussion is needed 

around the pros and cons of comprehensive 

evaluation strategies if ARC is interested in 

pursuing this avenue. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

This report provides considerable evidence that the 

projects in the study sample succeeded in bringing 

about a series of educational and employment 

gains throughout Appalachia. What follows, 

therefore, is a series of recommendations designed 

to enhance ARC’s capability to promote the use of 

innovative practices in its projects, document 

successes, and provide technical assistance to its 

grant recipients. 

Realign the designations used to classify 

vocational education and workforce training 
viii 

projects. The ARC database includes multiple 

dimensions for categorizing vocational education 

and workforce training project types. However, 

survey findings suggest that these categories do 

not adequately reflect the range of activities that 

ARC is funding. Using the conceptual model 

described throughout this report, we have 

identified four alternative terms for categorizing 

ARC’s portfolio of vocational education and 

workforce training projects: 

• Career awareness—including general work 

and employability skills, generally for middle 

school youth. 

• Vocational education—typically run through 

high schools, including apprenticeship 

programs. 

• Job placement training—training for 

unemployed adults, displaced workers, career 

changes. 

• Workplace training—including retraining, 

skills upgrade for currently employed or 

underemployed adults. 

Encourage applicants to use the conceptual 

model in developing their projects. The flow 

chart presented throughout this report can be a 

useful tool for helping grantees understand their 

own projects in relation to a “model” project. 

Disseminate information about best practices to 

prospective grantees. ARC should reinforce its 

procedures for disseminating information about 

innovative and successful projects (however 

innovation and success are to be defined) with its 

pool of applicants. 

Reinforce ARC’s reporting structure by 

enhancing the quality of the final reports that 

projects submit to ARC. We recommend that 

ARC mandate that uniform guidelines be used by 

all of its projects—with customized examples of 

outputs and outcomes for each of the 

Commission’s five strategic goals. 

Encourage ARC staff to update the project 

database uniformly. Requiring applicants to 

define quantitative outputs and outcomes in their 

proposals (see below) might compel ARC staff to 

regularly update the database structure used to 

track projects’ objectives. This information could 

then be used to monitor individual projects and 

assess trends across similar types of projects. 

Require that all applicants quantify at least one 

output and at least one corresponding outcome. 

The finding that almost all Cohort 2 projects 

identified at least one numeric outcome suggests 

that it would be possible to impose this 

requirement on all future vocational education and 

workforce training projects. We believe that most 

of the vocational education and workforce training 

projects that ARC funds should be able to specify 

the number of individuals who will participate in a 

given activity and the number of individuals who 

will ultimately attain a specific outcome as a result 

of their participation in that activity. 

There is an inherent danger that by reducing 

projects’ expectations to a set of numbers, ARC 

will ultimately lose the broader statements of how 

the circumstances of Appalachian citizens will be 

improved. These statements provide projects an 

important opportunity to describe how their efforts 

might eventually impact both individuals and the 

community at large. We therefore suggest that 

ARC view this recommendation as an 

enhancement to—as opposed to a replacement 

of—the narratives that applicants are currently 

required to provide in their proposals. We must 

also caution against reducing all vocational 

education and workforce training projects to a 

uniform progression of outcomes that culminate 

with obtaining employment. Some types of 

vocational projects are not intended to have an 

immediate impact on employment status. 

Develop application materials for each project 

type. As we suggested in the education report, 

ARC should consider developing separate 

guidelines (or supplemental materials) that provide 

more specific examples of the types of outputs and 

outcomes that pertain to each of its strategic goals. 

Meet with other federal agencies to better 

understand their funding and reporting 

structures. A primary purpose of such 

interagency collaboration would be to determine 

whether there are ways that ARC could piggyback 
ix 

off of the data collection requirements of other 

agencies supporting vocational education and 

workforce training projects. 

Assess the extent to which the states share 

common reporting requirements for these 

projects. The primary purpose would be to 

ascertain whether there is a useful common core of 

vocational education and workforce training data 

that are being mandated by some or all of the 13 

states that compose Appalachia. A secondary 

purpose would be to identify useful data efforts 

underway in any of the 13 states that might be 

adapted by other states. 

Provide written materials on high-quality 

evaluation practices. ARC should provide 

applicants and grant recipients with written 

materials that describe suitable evaluation 

practices. Such materials can help guide projects 

through their own evaluations by highlighting data 

collection and analysis methodologies, identifying 

typical pitfalls in evaluation, and describing good 

reporting practices. 

Reinforce the importance of data collection 

methodologies by including evaluation as a 

project approval criterion. ARC could ask 

applicants to specify the data collection activities 

in their applications that will be conducted in 

support of each numeric output or outcome in a 

proposal. 

Provide additional evaluation training to 

project grantees. In addition to offering training 

to LDDs and state-level program managers, ARC 

could offer evaluation workshops to grant 

recipients. This would help to assure that 

methodologies are properly selected and applied, 

assuring that evaluations are conducted in a costeffective and reliable manner, displaying data in a 

meaningful and useful manner, interpreting and 

using data, and preparing effective evaluation 

reports. 

Provide additional evaluation training to staff.

It is likely that ARC staff would benefit from 

receiving training in this area since it would 

enhance their capacity to (1) assess whether an 

application adequately addresses how data will be 

collected and used, (2) provide technical 

assistance to projects that appear to be having 

difficulty obtaining credible and reliable data, and 

(3) use projects’ data to address Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) reporting 

requirements. 

Provide project grantees with technical 

assistance in data collection methodologies. 

Finally, ARC staff should take a more proactive 

approach in assuring that individual projects are 

positioning themselves to collect data about 

immediate and long-term outcomes. 

Encourage project grantees to hire external 

evaluators. This approach would maximize the 

likelihood that projects would have access to 

expertise and assistance in their evaluations. The 

Commission might consider offering financial 

incentives to those grant recipients that include in 

their proposals a plan for using external evaluators 

to collect long-term outcome data on their 

participants. 

CONCLUSIONS

Throughout this evaluation, the success of ARC’s 

vocational education and workforce training 

projects has been evident. The most critical 

finding that cuts across all of the projects is that 

projects understand the needs of and maintain 

close ties with local business and industry. Local 

communities provide the impetus for projects, the 

individuals who need and provide training, the 

jobs that trainees may obtain, and the energy that 

creates the local economic development to 

improve the regional economy. That most ARC 

projects originate with the needs of the local 

community and culminate with improvements in 

the community is the real strength of the program. 

ARC’s greatest challenge is to assist projects in 

targeting local and regional industry demands and 

to develop programs that adequately match the 

labor market needs with communities’ strengths. 

Together, these findings and recommendations can 

help enhance ARC’s functioning and the benefits 

it bestows on the Appalachian region. 

 
1 

 Introduction

Within the context of large-scale policy changes in 

the goals, resources, and implementation of 

national vocational education and workforce 

training programs, the Appalachian Regional 

Commission (ARC) directs a relatively small 

grants program aimed at these same issues. As 

government performance reporting requirements 

for nationwide vocational education programs are 

increased, the Commission is focusing on 

evaluating the implementation and achievements 

of its projects, as well as the parallel performance 

reporting systems they employ, to improve the 

program overall and its individual projects. This 

report summarizes findings from an evaluation of 

vocational education and workforce training 

projects funded by ARC between 1995 and 2000. 

APPALACHIA: 

A REGION IN TRANSITION

Appalachia is an area that is undergoing 

significant changes in its social and economic 

well-being, yet it continues to lag behind the rest 

of the nation in education and income. Decades 

ago its economy depended on industry, 

agriculture, and mining; today, human capital and 

the service sector are growing more critical to 

economic growth. And like the much of the 

nation, information technology is becoming 

increasingly important. Furthermore, while some 

areas within the region have made substantial 

strides, others have shown only limited progress. 

Measures such as the number of persons living in 

poverty, high school completion rates, 

employment rates, and job growth rates are but a 

few of the indicators that illustrate the gaps that 

exist between the citizens of Appalachia and the 

overall population of the United States. With 

poverty rates continuing to decrease and 

educational attainment and employment rates 

continuing to grow, the gap is narrowing. 

However, there remains much work to do. 

Going beyond these simple indicators, it is clear 

that if the region is going to become a vital player 

in the 21st century, its people must attain the new 

skills required to be successful in the changing 

world economy. Students must not only graduate 

high school, but they must be literate in 

mathematics, science, and technology. They must 

be able to go beyond the attainment of basic skills 

to solve challenging problems, to use new tools for 

solving these problems, and to work with others 

across the region, the nation, and the world. The 

region must rely upon human capital to adjust its 

labor markets and productivity, and human capital 

development is dependent upon the strength of its 

workforce training and vocational education 

programs. 

THE APPALACHIAN 

REGIONAL COMMISSION

ARC was created in 1965 to promote economic 

and social development in the region. It is a 

federal-state partnership designed to help the 

region help itself by creating self-sustaining 

economic development and improved quality of 

life. As such, the agency functions as a catalyst, 

drawing upon the resources of the federal 

government, the participating states, and local 

resources, be they individuals, public agencies, or 

private organizations. Although considerable 

progress has been made in its more than three 

decades, the ARC Strategic Plan: 1997-2002 

identifies five key areas of remaining need: 

• Developing a knowledgeable and skilled population; 

I. 
2 

• Supporting the region’s physical infrastructure; 

• Promoting community and civic leadership; 

• Creating a dynamic economic base; and 

• Fostering healthy people. 

The current evaluation addresses two of these 

areas: developing a knowledgeable and skilled 

population and creating a dynamic economic base. 

The stated objectives for the first goal in the 

strategic plan are (1) increasing the percentage of 

workers receiving basic education and skills 

training, skills upgrading, and customized training, 

which will lead to development of a workforce 

that is competitive in the 21st century world 

economy, and (2) increasing the percentage of 

students participating in school readiness, dropout 

prevention, school-to-work transition, and GED 

programs, thereby raising the college-going rate 

and preparing students for the world of work in the 

21st century. 

Moreover, with improved student achievement and 

workforce readiness comes productivity 

improvements in the workplace. These labor 

market outcomes, along with better business 

attraction and creation rates in targeted industries, 

work together to foster a dynamic and improved 

local economy. 

To accomplish these five strategic goals, ARC 

provides financial and technical support to local, 

regional, and multistate projects through its Area 

Development Programs. The process for awarding 

these grants reflects the underlying partnership 

between the Commission and participating states, 

as well as the need to give local communities a 

voice in determining how ARC funds are to be 

allocated. Within each state, local development 

districts (LDDs) provide for grassroots-level 

participation, so that ARC activities originate 

from—and ultimately benefit—the communities 

themselves. 

Each year, the 13 states of Appalachia prepare 

individual annual strategy statements and spending 

plans. These documents contain state-level goals 

(which are aligned with ARC’s five strategic 

goals) and corresponding proposals for each of the 

specific projects that are being recommended for 

funding. In some states, these initiatives are 

developed to reflect state priorities. In others, 

applicants submit proposals based on needs 

identified in their local communities. 

Once approved by the governor, a state’s 

recommendations for project funding are 

submitted to ARC. Each proposed project is then 

reviewed by ARC project coordinators and, in 

most cases, approved by the federal co-chair. A 

limited number of projects originate and are 

funded each year directly through the Commission 

and ARC set-asides. Project coordinators can 

negotiate changes to the proposed project with 

state program managers. Until recently, these 

adjustments primarily reflected changes to 

timetables and budgets. 

Program Changes 

Over the past several years, ARC has made some 

changes to its application, proposal review, and 

program monitoring processes. First, program staff 

developed a workbook for state program managers 

and applicants with the intent of collecting more 

complete application packages. By providing 

examples of outputs and outcomes, they hoped to 

encourage prospective projects to be mindful of 

these concepts when designing their implementation plans and to identify specific outputs and 

outcomes in their grant proposals. Indeed, 

applicants are now required to specify outputs and 

outcomes and the degree to which these extend 

beyond the life of the grant. Applicants are further 

encouraged to discuss quantifiable results of the 

proposed projects. 

Second, staff provided a Grant Administration 

Manual that describes what should be included in 

a project’s quarterly progress reports and final 

report. The manual includes sample formats and 

examples of how output and outcome measures 

can fit into the narratives. Program staff are also 

taking a greater role in negotiating with states and 

projects to improve the quality of the projects by 

improving the substance of outputs and requiring 

that outcomes be more specific. Most recently, 

ARC staff have begun making site visits to a 
3 

sample of projects 2 years after the end of their 

grant period. These validation visits are designed 

to assess whether projects actually achieve their 

longer term outcomes. 

The evaluation is intended to provide both a look 

at what has been accomplished to date and specific 

recommendations for addressing this key area in 

the future. It is an evaluation of the progress 

achieved through the supports provided by ARC 

over the last decade and of a work in progress. 

Because findings and recommendations drawn 

from this evaluation are reflective of a program 

that has changed, we do not attempt to generalize 

these findings to the current system. The next 

section discusses the purpose of this evaluation in 

greater detail. 

STUDY OVERVIEW

In the late 1990s, ARC began a systematic review 

of its portfolio of funded projects. This study of 

vocational education and workforce training 

projects—conducted by Westat, a Rockville, 

Maryland, research firm—follows a similar study 

conducted in 2000 of ARC’s educational projects; 

it builds upon the methodology and understanding 

of the ARC context from the previous study. The 

study sample comprises 92 projects funded by 

ARC during the latter half of the 1990s and 2000. 

In an effort to examine how recent program 

changes have affected projects’ objectives and 

data collection practices, the study was conducted 

with two cohorts of grant recipients. Cohort 1 is 

composed of 67 projects that were funded between 

1995 and 1999, before the change was made,

while the 25 Cohort 2 projects were funded in 

2000, after the change was made, and were still 

active at the time the study was being conducted. 

Study Questions 

ARC delineated four primary objectives for the 

evaluation: (1) assess the extent to which projects 

were able to accomplish their anticipated 

outcomes; (2) benchmark project activities and 

accomplishments against current national studies 

of workforce training and vocational education 

efforts; (3) assess the utility and validity of 

specific performance measurements that might 

enhance ARC’s ongoing capacity to monitor and 

evaluate its workforce training and vocational 

education projects; and (4) make other policy 

recommendations that can improve ARC’s efforts 

to monitor and assist its workforce training and 

vocational education projects. In an effort to 

ensure that the evaluation addressed each of these 

objectives in a comprehensive manner, we 

identified seven primary, interrelated research 

questions that guided the study: 

• What are the characteristics of communities 

and individuals who benefited from the 

projects? 

• What problems were projects designed to 

address? 

• What approaches did projects use to 

ameliorate these problems? 

• What specific outcomes were projects 

designed to achieve? 

• To what extent have projects accomplished 

their objectives? 

• What factors influenced projects’ ability to 

implement their approaches and achieve their 

objectives? 

• What performance reporting systems are 

projects utilizing and how could these benefit 

the ARC? 

The evaluation employed both qualitative and 

quantitative techniques that addressed all of the 

study’s outcome and process questions in various 

depths and to different degrees. The approach 

included the following integrated activities. 

Qualitative techniques: 

• A review of the literature regarding workforce 

training and vocational education and data 

collection requirements for these types of 

projects. Related to the literature review, we 

have talked informally with recipients and 
4 

evaluators of other federal vocational 

education funding. These conversations 

contributed to the development of the mail 

survey and site visits and informed our 

recommendations to the Commission. 

• An extensive review of project files to gain a 

better understanding of the purpose, scope, 

and goals/objectives of the 92 projects in the 

study sample. The document review was also 

used to guide the construction of the 

questionnaire and the design and site selection 

of the case studies. Finally, the document 

review was used to identify the specific 

objectives and outcomes that projects 

delineated in their original proposals to ARC. 

These outcomes were entered into a database 

developed to generate an addendum to the 

mail survey that respondents used to indicate 

whether they had met their own intended 

outcomes. 

• Site visits to five projects to obtain more 

detailed information about project-related 

implementation experiences, accomplishments, and impacts. The case studies allowed 

us to explore in greater detail the experiences 

of projects that have implemented potentially 

promising practices that warrant further study, 

to verify project outcomes, and to gain an 

understanding of best practices regarding data 

tracking and reporting. 

Quantitative techniques: 

• A mail survey to collect broad-based data on 

the implementation and impact of the 67 

projects in the study sample that received 

ARC funding between 1995 and 1999, before

changes in application requirements. The 

survey was designed to collect a common set 

of data regarding these Cohort 1 projects’ 

characteristics, implementation practices, 

outcomes, and data collection and reporting 

systems. It also obtained extensive narrative 

information on the extent to which projects’ 

original objectives were achieved. 

• An abbreviated survey of 25 projects that 

received ARC funding in 2000, after the 

changes in application requirements. The 

survey was designed to collect detailed 

information on these Cohort 2 projects’ data 

collection and performance reporting systems 

and to assess the impact of ARC’s revised 

application procedures.1

 

Appendix C provides a more detailed overview of 

these activities, as well as a discussion of the 

procedures used to select and refine the study 

sample. Appendix D provides information on the 

process used to select the five case study sites. 

Issues Regarding Study Methodology 

Several caveats regarding the study are worth 

noting. First, the sample is small because the 

program is relatively small, and the evaluation 

included only projects closed in the last 5 years. 

Second, the process used to select the study 

sample systematically excluded projects that 

lacked a complete project file at ARC 

headquarters (in some cases project files were in 

the closure process or undergoing internal review 

and were not available for the evaluation). Several 

projects were discarded because, due to staff 

turnover, projects lacked a knowledgeable 

individual who could respond to the mail survey. 

These exclusions, while necessary, increased the 

likelihood that we would primarily survey projects 

that successfully implemented their ARC grant—

and potentially limited our opportunity to examine 

factors that hampered the efforts of ineffectual 

projects. In addition, projects that received less 

than $10,000 from ARC were excluded from the 

sample. Findings regarding the success and 

sustainability of ARC-funded vocational education 

and workforce training projects are therefore 

limited to the 67 Cohort 1 projects that responded 

to the survey. 

 

1

 As discussed previously, ARC program staff have revamped their 

application procedures and technical assistance in order to gather 

data that better reflect the performance outcomes and measurements 

that are the focus of the Government Performance and Results Act. 

Because many of these projects were still in operation at the time of 

the survey, we were not able to administer the entire survey. 

Accordingly, Cohort 2 projects received an abbreviated survey and, 

therefore, are not included in many of the analyses conducted on 

Cohort 1 projects. 
5 

Third, and similarly, the site visit findings reflect a 

purposefully selected segment of the study sample. 

By conducting the mail survey prior to selecting 

case study sites, we were able to use preliminary 

survey findings to select potential case study sites. 

The pool of potential sites included those that had 

achieved some of their intended outcomes, 

appeared to have in place a well-planned, 

complete, or innovative data collection system, 

and had sustained themselves over time. As such, 

any conclusions drawn from the site visits may not 

pertain to the overall study sample. 

Fourth, we initially planned to disaggregate all 

survey findings by the project characteristics 

discussed in Chapter 3. However, after reviewing 

the data, we found that there were very few 

noteworthy findings uncovered by these analysis, 

due in large part to a small sample size, 

particularly when exacerbated by the small cell 

counts that occurred when survey responses were 

divided according to a variety of project 

characteristics. Typical statistical standards 

require a sample size of at least 100 and cell sizes 

of at least five, but preferably ten or more cases, to 

conduct the more powerful analyses. 

Additionally, many of the project characteristics 

were correlated or even overlapping (e.g., projects 

serving youth, projects serving adults, and projects 

serving both youths and adults), making the data 

not appropriate for high-level, complex regression 

analyses. In addition, there may simply be few 

differences in project implementation and 

outcomes based on these characteristics. 

Nonetheless, we do point out some noteworthy 

findings and refer the reader to the appropriate 

table in Appendix A. Given the small sample size, 

it should be noted that we are largely speculating 

on these findings and have not conducted tests of 

statistical significance. 

Finally, the RFP requested an analysis of the 

extent to which grantees were complying with 

other federal and state performance reporting 

systems. Survey data suggest that in most cases, if 

projects are participating in other systems, staff are 

not aware of it. Similarly, other federal programs 

are structured, funded, and managed very 

differently from ARC’s program, making 

comparisons of performance data inappropriate. 

In addition, a lack of comparable outcome data 

precludes such comparisons. 

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

The remainder of the report provides the 

substantive findings from the evaluation. These 

results are organized as follows: 

• Chapter 2—History and Background of 

Vocational Education and Workforce Training 

• Chapter 3—Projects’ Context 

• Chapter 4—Project Activities 

• Chapter 5—Achievement of Objectives 

• Chapter 6—Project Sustainability 

• Chapter 7—Project Objectives and 

Data Collection Activities 

• Chapter 8—Summary and Recommendations 

• Appendix A—Additional Survey Data 

• Appendix B—Evidence in Support of 

Projects’ Outcomes 

• Appendix C—Technical Approach 

• Appendix D—Case Study Methodology 

and Reports 

• Appendix E—Project Descriptions 

• Appendix F—Cohort 1 Mail Survey 

• Appendix G—Cohort 2 Mail Survey 
7 

The ARC Evaluation in the Context 

of theHistory and Status of Vocational 

Education and Workforce Training 

With increased policy activity in the fields of 

vocational education and workforce training over 

the past decade, as well as the introduction of new 

performance reporting requirements, ARC 

requested an evaluation that would place its 

projects within the context of other federal 

workforce development programs and benchmark 

data collection reporting systems against those for 

other federal agencies. In this chapter, we discuss 

the history and status of vocational education and 

workforce training across the country, particularly 

as they relate to issues of accountability and 

performance monitoring. We also provide a 

general discussion of where ARC fits in to this 

sector and a conceptual framework for considering 

these projects. 

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

With a new administration just beginning, it is 

possible to reflect on recent history but difficult to 

predict the future of the existing programs. 

Nonetheless, an understanding of vocational 

education’s origins is instructive. 

Early Developments 

Early vocational education grew out of economic 

viability concerns in the early part of the century. 

The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 provided federal 

support for vocational education aimed at 

preparation for specific jobs, with the intent of 

supporting the national economy. Despite John 

Dewey’s arguments that requiring such early 

vocational decisions limited students’ 

opportunities in the future, traditional vocational 

education made its way into classrooms and 

persisted for most of the century. 

Vocational education students and facilities were 

supported during World War II for their 

contribution to the national effort, and then 

weathered criticism during the 1950s and early 

1960s for less-than-convincing findings on its 

tendency to track children by race/ethnicity, class, 

or ability. Vocational education survived this 

period and, in fact, expanded with the advent of 

area vocational schools and training programs for 

displaced and unemployed persons. In 1963, the 

Vocational Education Act was signed into law, to 

be followed by successive versions, the Carl D. 

Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1984 and its 

two successors in 1990 and 1998. 

During the 1960s and through the 1970s, workforce development movements began. In an effort 

to combat poverty and unemployment, the 

Department of Labor mounted several manpower 

programs, including the Manpower Development 

Training Act (MDTA) of 1962, to provide short, 

job-specific training for those for whom formal 

schooling was not successful (Grubb, 1985; Grubb 

et al., 1999). Services were provided outside the 

formal education system, typically by communitybased organizations. These early programs were 

consolidated into the Comprehensive Employment 

and Training Act (CETA) of 1973 and then 

reorganized into the Job Training Partnership Act 

(JTPA) of 1981. At the same time, a parallel 

development of programs and services for welfare 

recipients was taking place. Beginning as the 

1962 Work Experience and Training Program and 

others related to the Social Security 

Administration in the late 1960s, this strategy 

provided transportation and child care services so 

that welfare recipients could find employment. 

Several early welfare-to-work programs and the 

Job Opportunities in the Business Sector (JOBS) 

program of the Family Support Act of 1988 

provided for job training, work experience, 

remedial education, and other support services. 

II. 
8 

The Personal Responsibility and Work 

Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996 under 

the Department of Health and Human Services 

imposed new requirements to move people off 

welfare, including limiting years of eligibility. 

During this period, several programs were also 

established by the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, the Employment Service, 

and Unemployment Insurance, in addition to a 

number of programs in each state, particularly 

those eligible for federal matching funds under 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) 

and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 

(TANF). 

The New Vocationalism 

Over the past couple of decades, change in the 

field of vocational education and workforce 

training—and the associated proliferation of 

programs—has been continual, but more 

incremental than at present. A Nation at Risk

(National Commission on Excellence in 

Education, 1983), a blue-ribbon panel report that 

captured the public’s attention unlike any previous 

publication in the field, contended that the country 

was at risk of being overtaken as an economic and 

political power because educational standards had 

been allowed to deteriorate. Reaction came 

quickly, as almost all states increased the number 

of credits in the core academic subjects required 

for high school graduation, and over half 

established mandatory testing programs. 

One effect of the move to higher academic 

standards was a decline in vocational program 

enrollments at the high school level (NAVE 

Independent Advisory Panel, 1994a, 1994b). To 

stem this decline, the vocational education 

community responded with a series of reports that 

sought to position vocational education as being 

capable of meeting the high standards demanded 

by school reformers. Among them were The 

Unfinished Agenda, a counterproposal to A Nation 

at Risk that was prepared by another blue-ribbon 

commission (National Commission on Secondary 

Vocational Education, 1984), and An Untold Story

(Copa et al., 1985). These publications were 

among those ushering in the age of “new 

vocationalism” in the United States, as the goals of 

vocational education were being expanded to 

resonate with the dominant academic ideology of 

schooling. 

Evaluation, Accountability, and 

Performance Indicators 

Never in history has the evaluation of educational 

programs received more attention than today, and 

it is anticipated that congressional concern over 

the operation and accountability of career and 

technical education programs will not abate any 

time soon. However, initiatives requiring states to 

conduct evaluations have been included in federal 

legislation regarding vocational education for the 

last four decades. One of the first examples was 

the 1963 Vocational Education Act (VEA), which 

mandated that vocational educators conduct 

followup studies of their graduates to determine 

the degree to which they found placement in jobs 

related to their training. 

The Vocational Education Amendments of 1968 

continued to emphasize state evaluation activities, 

as state advisory councils for vocational education, 

in addition to state education agencies, were given 

responsibility for evaluation. The Vocational 

Education Amendments of 1976 further expanded 

the states’ responsibility for evaluation, focusing 

on the responsiveness of vocational education to 

changing labor markets and requiring states to 

evaluate their programs every 5 years. These 

evaluations were designed to determine the extent 

to which (1) program completers and leavers 

found employment in occupations related to their 

training, and (2) their employers considered them 

to be well trained and prepared for employment. 

In the early 1980s, there was notable concern 

about how VEA funds should be distributed 

between the secondary and postsecondary sectors. 

Given the increasing emphasis on accountability, 

it became necessary to ensure that adequate 

funding was provided across training programs in 

proportion to the respective needs of the 

populations being served, the level and extent of 

the education and training being provided, and the 

goals and objectives each was trying to 
9 

accomplish (Hoachlander & Nyre, 1981; Nyre et 

al., 1982). 

The original Perkins Act (Carl D. Perkins 

Vocational Education Act of 1984) charged states 

with developing measures for determining the 

effectiveness of vocational training programs. 

These measures related to the labor market of the 

state, the level of skills to be achieved, and the 

basic employment competencies needed to meet 

the needs of employers. Nyre (1985, 1986) 

conducted a comparative analysis of several 

vocational education and training programs in 

California for this purpose and found that 

employers were more satisfied with new hires who 

had been in less formal and more focused 

programs.2

Perkins II, in 1990, required states to develop core 

standards and measures of performance for 

secondary and postsecondary vocational education 

programs.3

 These performance measures were to 

include measures of learning and competency 

gains, and had to contain one or more measures of 

competency attainment, job or work skill 

attainment, retention in or completion of school, 

and placement into additional training or 

education, military service, or employment. 

The intent of the School-to-Work Opportunities 

Act of 1994 was to build upon and advance a 

range of promising activities, such tech-prep 

education, career academies, school-toapprenticeship programs, cooperative education, 

youth apprenticeship, school-sponsored enterprises, and business-education compacts. It was 

designed to improve the knowledge and skills of 

youths by integrating academic and occupational 

instruction, integrating school-based and workbased learning, and forging effective partnerships 

between various levels of education and training 

and business and industry. 

 

2

 The Nyre study compared participant completion records and 

employer satisfaction with completers of programs offered by the 

California Community Colleges, the Comprehensive Employment 

Training Act, the Job Training Partnership Act, and the California 

Worksite Education and Training Act. 

3

 The Job Training Partnership Act, in 1982, was the first program in 

the employment and training arena to adopt a system of 

performance measures and standards. 

School-to-Work (STW) has been an important 

catalyst for accountability in vocational 

education—partly because it became a politically 

polarizing piece of legislation, and partly because 

its emphasis on the integration of vocational and 

academic instruction brought renewed scrutiny on 

vocational education from educators who had 

heretofore marginalized it. According to the Act, 

federal investment was to “jump-start” the 

process, and the states were to leverage other 

federal, state, and local resources to sustain it. The 

legislation is scheduled to sunset in 2001, and it is 

very unlikely that it will be renewed.4

 

Since 1993, performance measurement has been 

mandated for federal agencies. The Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1992 

holds federal agencies and, by extension, federally 

sponsored projects accountable for achieving 

program results and requires them to clarify their 

missions, set program goals, and measure 

performance toward achieving those goals. The 

process consists of five phases: developing 

strategic plans, creating indicators, developing a 

data measurement system, refining performance 

measures, and implementing management 

practices in support of the system (U.S. General 

Accounting Office, 1996). According to 

Hoachlander (1991), in order for performancebased operations to be effective, four constructs 

must be evident: (1) it must be possible to clearly 

define desired outcomes; (2) it must be possible to 

measure those outcomes accurately and 

efficiently; (3) measures of performance must 

affect levels of funding; and (4) useful information 

on outcomes must be made available. 

 

4

 While the STW legislation has now sunset, some states are still 

receiving funds, since STW grants are for 5 years and some did not 

get grants (or renewals) until 3 years ago. Some other states have 

“carry-over” funds for another year, and several are continuing their 

efforts with state funds. 
10 

OVERVIEW OF DATA COLLECTION 

REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE AND VOCATIONAL 

PROGRAMS

The interrelated Workforce Investment Act of 

1998 (WIA) and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational 

and Technical Education Act of 1998 (Perkins III) 

were signed into law on August 7 and October 31, 

1998, respectively. These two Acts, which took 

effect on July 1, 1999, are having a major impact 

on the shape and nature of the nation’s education 

and workforce investment systems. Their 

implementation requires collaboration at the 

federal, state, and local levels to create a more 

comprehensive, customer-focused workforce 

investment system. They both also call for greater 

state and local accountability and reporting 

requirements.5

Section 501 of the WIA enables states to submit to 

the U.S. Department of Labor unified plans in 

which as many as 16 separate federal vocational 

education and training programs may be linked to 

one another to maximize joint planning and 

coordination, and to create new, comprehensive 

workforce investment systems. The intent is to 

streamline services, empower individuals, 

integrate and coordinate services, provide 

flexibility, and encourage universal access through 

a variety of programs administered by the U.S. 

Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health 

and Human Services, Housing and Urban 

Development, and Labor. Perkins III and WIA 

together promote the development of a seamless 

education and workforce development system, 

with integrated, “one-stop” service delivery at the 

state and local levels. Early findings from 

Westat’s Study on the Funding and Accountability 

of Perkins III suggest that the accountability 

systems are not as integrated across federal 

agencies as intended (personal communication 

with study director). 

 

5

 Failure to meet state-level performance standards could eventually 

result in a state’s loss of Perkins III funds. At the same time, 

Section 503 of the WIA provides incentive grants to states that 

exceed performance levels under Perkins III.

Perkins III also calls for the establishment of state 

accountability systems that must contain, at a 

minimum, the following four core indicators of 

performance: 

• Student attainment of challenging stateestablished academic, vocational, and skill 

proficiencies; 

• Student attainment of a secondary school 

diploma or equivalent, a proficiency credential 

in conjunction with a secondary school 

diploma, or a postsecondary degree or 

credential; 

• Placement in, retention in, and completion of 

postsecondary education or advanced training, 

placement in military service, or placement or 

retention in employment; and 

• Student participation in and completion of 

vocational and technical education programs 

that lead to nontraditional training and 

employment. 

Several differences between Perkins II and Perkins 

III demonstrate the extent to which state and local 

agencies are being provided with more flexibility 

and control over funding allocations: 

• Previous set-asides for single parents, 

displaced homemakers, pregnant teenagers, 

and gender equity coordinators have been 

eliminated. These categories have now been 

added to the definition of “special 

populations.” 

• There is no longer a targeting requirement to a 

limited number of sites or to a limited number 

of program areas based on special population 

prioritization. 

• A new local secondary funding formula takes 

effect, with less emphasis on the proportion of 

students with disabilities than previously. 

• No funds may be used to provide vocational 

and technical education programs to students 

prior to the seventh grade. 
11 

• A state performance accountability system to 

assess the effectiveness of the state in 

achieving statewide progress in vocational and 

technical education must be established. 

• A portion of funds at the local level must be 

used to develop and implement evaluations of 

vocational and technical programs, including 

an assessment of how and the extent to which 

the needs of special populations are being met. 

While not all of these changes necessarily directly 

impact ARC, they are changing the amount of 

money that some future ARC programs’ cofunders receive, how those funds can be used, and 

the extent to which training providers will need to 

institute required performance reporting and data 

collection efforts to determine outcomes and 

impacts. Furthermore, to the extent that ARC 

grantees are indirectly receiving federal funding, 

they are now required to collect and report 

performance data. However, as is discussed later, 

findings from the study suggest that many grantees 

may not be aware that some of their data 

collection activities are federally mandated, or that 

their data collections are part of a larger entity. 

In addition, certain local coordinating bodies are in 

the process of changing their names and foci. For 

instance, in many areas Private Industry Councils 

(PICs) are being replaced by Workforce 

Investment Boards (WIBs) and will likely be 

composed and/or operate differently than their 

predecessors. Since the WIBs are intended to deal 

with a much broader employment and training 

agenda than most PICs did in the past, Youth 

Councils have been created as a part of the WIBs 

in order to ensure that the historic “youth focus” of 

the PICs is not lost in this transition. The extent to 

which ARC grantees and local development 

district personnel interact with and influence the 

deliberations and actions of these new entities will 

determine the nature, quality, and viability of 

future ARC and other training programs. 

The larger issues regarding funding and 

accountability that this evaluation addresses are 

fraught with sensitivities that both program 

providers and researchers must acknowledge. 

Many reasons exist for the performance 

accountability thrust of recent legislation, but two 

goals are crucial: (1) to determine the impact of 

federal funds and justify their continued 

appropriation, and (2) to provide benchmarks that 

can be used to negotiate future performance 

improvement targets with the states, which will, in 

turn, negotiate with local schools, vocational 

education centers, community and technical 

colleges, and other workforce training programs. 

Again, how these fare in the new administration 

remains to be seen. 

Thus, what emerges is an accountability system 

premised on indicator data collected in thousands 

of training programs across the country. Data are 

to be collected at the local level and then 

aggregated at larger system levels, which presents 

a challenge to ARC grantees and others. For 

example, differences between various levels of 

vocational training result in different data 

collection procedures in the systems. The use of 

unit record data systems is widespread among 

postsecondary institutions and state higher 

education agencies. This permits tracking of 

individual students, which facilitates an analysis of 

outcomes. Further, the federal government and 

higher education organizations such as the State 

Higher Education Executive Officers and the 

Association for Institutional Research have 

collaborated to move toward greater uniformity in 

the collection and reporting of data across 

institutions. Though still not a mature system, 

performance and accountability data for many 

community and technical colleges can be prepared 

with less difficulty than is the case in most K-12 

systems. At the K-12 level, many states do not 

maintain unit record data systems, and some that 

do focus their efforts on the distribution of state 

funds, their data are therefore not useful for 

analytic purposes. 

At the outset of the evaluation, we knew relatively 

little about the capacity of local vocational 

education and workforce training programs to 

collect requisite outcome data. We knew even less 

about successful uses of such data at the local 

level to improve programs. As is discussed later, a 

purpose of this evaluation was to gain a better 

understanding of these data (and their limitations) 
12 

so as to enhance ARC’s capacity to use indicator 

data to make important policy decisions.6

Important groundwork that could inform ARC’s 

future efforts was laid by a study of data quality 

and alignment conducted in 1997 and 1998 by 

MPR Associates and the Academy for Educational 

Development for the National School-to-Work 

Office (Medrich and White, 1999). That study 

examined state and local capacity to provide the 

kinds of data identified in the School-to-Work 

Opportunities Act. It also explored the dynamics 

and tensions that come into play when one unit of 

governance (e.g., a school, a specific training 

effort, or an overall program such as ARC) is 

asked to provide data to meet the needs of another 

(e.g., a federal agency’s response to congressional 

reporting mandates). Results of the MPR/AED 

study confirmed—and our evaluation supports—

the finding that federal, state, and local officials 

have different data needs, wants, and interests, 

based largely on the circumstances and contexts 

within which they operate. Field interviews 

revealed a particularly dramatic disparity between 

federal perceptions of the difficulty of gathering 

specific data and local experiences in trying to 

gather that data. 

ARC’S FIT INTO THE FIELD

With fiscal year 2001 federal outlays for 

vocational education and workforce training 

reaching $7 billion and states providing additional 

funding, ARC’s FY2001 contribution of $3.3 

million may seem small. However, this ARC 

funding, in addition to the funding leveraged by 

grantees, fills some critical needs in the field. 

Funding for vocational education and workforce 

training is directed primarily toward equipment 

purchases, with small amounts going to program 

improvements and staff development. This is 

because, for the most part, these funds are seen as 

temporary or as one-time infusions of money. 

Program managers are reluctant to establish a new 

 

6

 However, while we have learned much about states’ and localities’ 

ability to gather these data, we have learned little about the specific 

outcomes of these other programs. Because they are structured, 

funded, and managed very differently than ARC’s program, 

obtaining comparable outcome data is difficult. 

program and use these funds for ongoing 

operations when they might not be available in 

future years to sustain the program. 

Moreover, vocational programs start out at a 

financial disadvantage for two reasons. First, 

equipment for academic programs typically is 

supported by regular state or local funds 

distributed to schools. Second, industrial and 

technical equipment costs more than textbooks, 

leaving training programs with perpetually short 

budgets. And as technology advances, equipment 

is becoming more rapidly outdated, requiring more 

and more frequent infusions of funding to continue 

programs. (Issues of equipment obsolescence are 

addressed in Chapter 7.) 

Finally, Perkins III established a minimum 

allocation that individual institutions or consortia 

of institutions can receive ($15,000 for secondary 

institutions and $50,000 for postsecondary 

institutions); that is, institutions cannot receive 

funding in amounts smaller than these. Since 

funds are distributed within states by formula 

according to student enrollment, poverty status, 

and Pell grant eligibility, some institutions or 

consortia are too small to receive the minimum 

allocation and therefore receive nothing at all.7

 

While there are provisions for reserve funds to be 

distributed to small institutions, states have the 

discretion to use them or not. The result can be 

that small, rural areas no longer receive federal 

vocational education funding at all. This has left 

some areas with no new funds for equipment and 

other program enhancements. 

For these reasons, ARC has found a niche in 

vocational education and workforce training. 

ARC grants fill gaps left by local, state, and 

federal funding streams. Even as the new 

administration makes its mark on the field, this 

niche is certain to remain. 

 

7

 For example, if an institution has a very small enrollment, low 

numbers of high-poverty students, or too few Pell grant-eligible 

students, the formula may make it eligible for $30,000. But because 

this is well below the $50,000 minimum allocation, the institution 

would not receive anything. The legislation is intended to make 

grants that are sufficient in size to make a genuine impact. 

However, it is not clear that these amounts are the “right” minimum 

amounts. 
13 

Framework for Understanding Vocational 

Education and Workforce Training 

Projects 

Drawing on our reading of the literature and a 

review of ARC project documents, we have 

developed a conceptual framework that 

graphically illustrates how a trainee might advance 

through a vocational education or workforce 

training program. Exhibit 2-1 presents a 

trainee’s—and a vocational program’s—

progression from immediate to long-term goals 

and from skill-oriented goals to employmentoriented goals to community impacts. Regardless 

of whether trainees are in school, unemployed, or 

employed, they would begin with some type of 

training program with various components in 

place, such as equipment and a physical plant, 

project staff, training materials, and community 

awareness, and various other mediating factors, 

such as the community, grant recipient, funding, 

and industry, affecting the program. The trainee 

might also require various support services (e.g., 

arranging child care) and job search or career 

services. These combinations of services could 

lead to obtaining skills, obtaining a degree or 

credential, and/or gaining employment or 

improving employment status. At some point, the 

trainee might return to the beginning of the cycle 

for retraining. Ultimately, the community would 

benefit with more qualified employees and 

enhanced economic viability. 

This framework provides a visual mechanism for 

understanding the context, activities, and outputs 

and outcomes we will use to describe the different 

types of projects in Chapters 3, 4, and 5: 

• The status of beneficiaries (i.e., age and job 

experience) maps roughly to the participant 

box. 

• Mediating factors, such as community context, 

grant recipient, funding, and industry 

(discussed in Chapter 3), can be determinants 

of the types of services that are provided. 

• The various industries served can determine 

the training, career services, and specific skills 

and degrees or credentials obtained. 

• The project components in place and the 

different types of services map to the activities 

discussed in Chapter 4. 

• The flow chart concludes with the outputs and 

outcomes of Chapter 5, including projects’ 

immediate skills-oriented goals, obtaining 

degrees or credentials, employment-oriented 

goals, and community impacts. 

The model also shows that the training process is 

an iterative one, where a participant may progress 

through multiple training programs after the life of 

his or her career. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

ARC’s portfolio of vocational education and 

workforce training projects follows decades of 

debate about the purposes and activities of these 

programs, and, more recently, debate about 

accountability and performance reporting. This 

evaluation is timely as it provides an opportunity 

view ARC’s projects in light of these other 

requirements just as they are being implemented. 

One way to examine the gaps addressed by ARC 

projects is to compare them with a model 

vocational education and workforce training 

program, as shown in the flow chart. This 

conceptual framework for understanding these 

projects and their various dimensions will be used 

throughout this report. 

Moreover, a review of these other programs shows 

that ARC has found a niche in vocational 

education and workforce training. ARC grants 

often fill gaps left by local, state, and federal 

funding streams. Even as the new administration 

makes its mark on the field, this niche is likely to 

remain. 
14 Exhibit 2-1. Flow chart of an individual’s advancement through a model vocational education or workforce trainin

 Context Activities Outputs and Outcomes 

 Obtain Skills basic skills academic skills vocational/technical skills employability skills

 Support Services child care assistance transportation assistance financial assistance referrals

Gain/REmployImprov maint increa earn p increa obtain

Community  viability/sta economic/

 Ameliorate Barriers increase access to transportation increase access to child care increase access to clothing/food/shelter

Job Search and Career Services career counseling job search assistance employability skills

Project Participants in school unemployed employed youth adultsProgram Components in Place equipment physical plant project staff training materials community awarenessOther Mediating Factors community context grant recipient funding industry

 Classroom Training adult basic education academic vocational/technical employability Worksite Training on-the-job training apprenticeship Obtain Degree/Credential

 secondary degree or equivalent proficiency credential in conjunction with a secondary school diploma postsecondary degree/credential/ certificate
15 

References 

Association for Career and Technical Education. 

(1998). The Official Guide to the Perkins 

Act of 1998. Alexandria, VA: Association 

for Career and Technical Education. 

Copa, G.H., Plihal, J., Scholl, S., Ernst, L., Rehm, 

L., and Copa, P. (1985). An untold story: 

Purposes of vocational education in 

secondary schools. St. Paul: University of 

Minnesota, Minnesota Research and 

Development Center for Vocational 

Education. 

Grubb, W.N. (1995). Evaluating job training 

programs in the United States: Evidence 

and explanations. Berkeley, CA: National 

Center for Research in Vocational 

Education. 

Grubb, W.N., Badway, N., Bell, D., Chi, B., King, 

C., Herr, J., Prince, H., Kazis, R., Hicks, L., 

and Taylor, J.C. (1999). Toward order from 

chaos: State efforts to reform workforce 

development systems. Berkeley, CA: 

National Center for Research in Vocational 

Education. 

Hoachlander, E.G. (1991). Systems for 

performance standards and accountability 

for vocational education: Guidelines for 

development. Berkeley, CA: National 

Center for Research in Vocational 

Education. 

Hoachlander, E.G., and Nyre, G.F. (1981). 

Simulating alternative methods for dividing 

federal VEA funds between secondary and 

postsecondary levels. Presented at the 

Annual Meeting of the American 

Educational Research Association, New 

York, NY. 

Medrich, E., and White, R. (1999). The Data 

dilemma: Putting progress measures data to 

work for federal, state, and local decision 

makers. A report to the National School-toWork Office, Washington, DC. 

National Assessment of Vocational Education 

(NAVE) Independent Advisory Panel. 

(1994a). Interim report to Congress. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education. 

National Assessment of Vocational Education 

(NAVE) Independent Advisory Panel. 

(1994b). Final report to Congress. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education. 

National Commission on Excellence in Education. 

(1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for 

educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education. 

National Commission on Secondary Vocational 

Education. (1984). The unfinished agenda: 

The role of vocational education in the high 

school. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State 

University, National Center for Research in 

Vocational Education. 

Nyre, G.F. (1985). A comparative analysis of 

vocational training programs. Sacramento, 

CA: California Department of Industrial 

Relations. 

Nyre, G.F. (1986). Effective strategies for 

integrating classroom instruction and 

worksite training. (3 Vols.) Sacramento, 

CA: California Employment Development 

Department. 

Nyre, G.F., Hoachlander, E.G., and Rose, C. 

(1982). Case studies of federal VEA funds 

distribution systems in selected states. 

Presented at the Annual Meeting of the 

American Educational Research 

Association, Los Angeles, CA. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1996). 

Effectively Implementing the Government 

Performance and Results Act. Washington, 

DC: GAO/GGD-96-118. 
17 

Project Participants

 in school

 unemployed

 employed

 youth

 adults

Other Mediating Factors

 community context

 grant recipient

 funding

 industry

Program Components in 

Place

 equipment

 physical plant

 project staff

 training materials

 community awareness

 Obtain Skills

 basic skills

 academic skills

 vocational/technical skills

 employability skills

 Support Services

 child care assistance

 transportation assistance

 financial assistance

 referrals

Gain/Retain Initial Full-Time 

Employment

Improved Employment Status

 maintain current employment

 increase responsibilities

 earn promotion

 increase wages

 obtain/retain new jobs

Community Impacts

 viability/stability/growth of businesses

 economic/social viability of communities

 Ameliorate Barriers

 increase access to transportation

 increase access to child care

 increase access to clothing/food/shelter

Job Search and Career 

Services

 career counseling

 job search assistance

 employability skills

 Classroom Training

 adult basic education

 academic

 vocational/technical

 employability

 Worksite Training

 on-the-job training

 apprenticeship Obtain Degree/Credential

 secondary degree or equivalent

 proficiency credential in conjunction

 with a secondary school diploma

 postsecondary degree/credential/

 certificate

Context Activities Outputs and Outcomes Outputs and Outcomes

Project Context 

This chapter describes the context for the projects 

in the study sample, including project participants 

and other mediating factors that define a project, 

as shown in the unshaded area of the flow chart. It 

begins with the communities that received support 

through ARC, and then it provides an overview of 

the grants and the types of organizations that 

received them. It concludes with a description of 

projects’ beneficiaries. As described earlier, the 

sample includes two distinct cohorts: Cohort 1 

comprises 67 awards made between 1995 and 

1999 that were closed at the time the 

survey was 

administered, while 

Cohort 2 

comprises 25 

projects with 

awards made in 

2000. Data for 

each cohort are 

displayed 

together in this 

chapter.8

 However, since 

Cohort 1 represents the 

primary set of projects in 

the sample, and 

the descriptive 

characteristics did not 

differ dramatically between the cohorts, we focus 

on these projects and make only limited reference 

in the text to Cohort 2 projects. Where data are 

available, we also provide comparisons to the 

universe of all ARC vocational education and 

workforce training projects in the tables. 9

 

8

 Comparison of Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 data is not possible in 

subsequent chapters because Cohort 2 projects were not surveyed 

on all items. Comparisons are made in Chapter 7 to assess the 

quality of objectives specified before and after ARC’s changes to 

application requirements. 

9

 We are only able to make comparisons to the universe of vocational 

and workforce projects for characteristics derived from the ARC 

COMMUNITY CONTEXT

As described earlier, ARC, together with the 13 

states of Appalachia, works to fund projects that 

will increase the knowledge and skill levels of 

workers and students throughout the region. In 

this section, we describe the communities that 

received education and training services through 

an ARC vocational education or workforce 

training grant. 

Geographic Distribution 

The projects in the study sample were asked to 

describe the geographic distribution of the 

individuals who were expected to benefit from 

their ARC grant. Projects were designed to serve a 

relatively wide variety of areas. Forty percent 

were designed to serve two or more counties or 

school districts in a single state, while 25 percent 

were serving a single county (Figure 3-1). The 

remaining projects were spread among single 

cities or school districts and major metropolitan 

areas, and across multiple states. 

 

database. We are not able to make any comparisons for 

characteristics derived from the mail survey. In addition, because 

the study sample and full portfolio of education projects that 

received ARC funding were not independent of one another, we did 

not test whether similarities and differences between these two 

groups were statistically significant. 

III. 
18 

Figure 3-1 

Geographic distribution of expected beneficiaries of ARC vocational education and workforce 

training projects 

4%

24%

72%

1% 1%

4%

7%

10% 9%

25%

40%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tw o or m ore

counties or

school

districts in a

single state

Single 

county

Single school

district

M ajor 

m etropolitan 

area

Tw o or 

m ore states

A llcounties 

in a 

single state

Single city 

or tow n

O ther areas Tw o or m ore

counties or

school

districts in a

single state

Single city 

or tow n

M ajor 

m etropolitan 

area

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
19 

Metropolitan Status 

Geographically isolated, rural, and nonmetropolitan areas face a number of barriers to an 

educated workforce, full employment, and 

economic viability (see Exhibit 3-1). One-third 

(33 percent) of Cohort 1 projects were located in 

these nonmetropolitan areas, compared with over 

half (56 percent) of Cohort 2 projects and 38 

percent of all ARC vocational education and 

workforce training projects (Figure 3-2). A 

combination of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 

areas was served by 46 percent of Cohort 1 

projects. 

Figure 3-2 

Percent of projects by metropolitan status 

Cohort 1 (n=67)

33%

21%

46%

Nonmetropolitan

only

Metropolitan 

only

Both metro and

nonmetro

Cohort 2 (n=25) 

20%

24%

56%

All ARC vocational education and 

workforce training projects (n=173) 

43%

20%

38%

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: ARC database.

Exhibit 3-1. Examples of 

geographically isolated areas 

Itawamba Community College Workforce 

Development. Worker access to a college campus 

in the region has been limited. More than half of 

Mississippi’s 2.5 million people (52.7 percent) 

reside in rural areas. Less than 20 percent of the 

population live in one of the eight cities having 

25,000 or more residents. There is no public 

transportation provided to 90 percent of the 

population in the counties of northeast Mississippi. 

Although many county roads are chip and seal, 

secondary roads remain red clay, subject to 52 

inches of annual rainfall and often impassable 

conditions. There is a severe shortage of sufficiently 

educated workers. Only 14.7 percent receive a 

bachelor’s degree or higher. The state has the 

lowest per capita and median family incomes in the 

nation. More than 25 percent of the population fall 

below the federal poverty level. (Multi-county, 

Mississippi)

Clay County Work Based Learning. Clay 

County, which is served by the Clay County School 

District, is exclusively rural. The county’s 9,985 

residents are scattered over 367 square miles. Clay 

County has only one incorporated town—the town 

of Clay—which has a population of slightly less 

than 600 residents. According to the U.S. Census 

Bureau, the 1990 population included 3,028 youth 

under the age of 18. Census Bureau figures further 

indicate that 1,446 of Clay County youth under the 

age of 18 meet the federal poverty definition (48.4 

percent). Census Bureau data for 1990 indicate that 

the unemployment rate in Clay County is 19.9 

percent, that 49.4 percent of adults do not have a 

high school diploma, and that median household 

income is $12,855 compared to a state average of 

$20,795. According to the West Virginia Bureau of 

Employment Programs, 43.4 percent of employed 

Clay County residents work outside of the county 

boundaries. (Clay County, West Virginia)
20 

Economic Status 

ARC vocational education and workforce 

development projects serve some of the region’s 

most economically disadvantaged persons. About 

one-third of projects were serving at least one 

Figure 3-3 

Percent of projects by economic status 

Cohort 1 (n=67)

73%

27% At least one distressed

county

No distressed counties

Cohort 2 (n=25) 

68%

32%

All ARC vocational education and 

workforce training projects (n=173) 

71%

29%

SOURCE: ARC database.

distressed county (Figure 3-3).10 This proportion 

is similar to the proportion of all ARC counties 

that were designated as distressed for FY 2001 

(114 of 406 counties, or 28 percent). Poverty, like 

geographic isolation, brings with it a number of 

associated circumstances that impede further 

economic development (see Exhibit 3-2). 

 

10 Begun in 1983, the Distressed Counties Program was designed to 

provide a mechanism for setting aside funds for the region’s most 

impoverished communities. Every year, each of the 406 counties in 

the region is designated one of four economic categories based upon 

a number of available indicators. Distressed counties are eligible 

for additional funding and lower matching requirements: 20 percent 

of total project cost, compared to 50 percent for transitional 

counties and 80 percent for competitive counties. Attainment 

counties are not eligible to receive ARC funding. 

Exhibit 3-2. Example of an economically 

disadvantaged area 

Academic Career Training Program. 

Appalachian Ohio is an area defined, in part, by its 

geographical isolation and its economic transitions. 

The southeast Ohio region has been marked by 

high unemployment. Morgan and Perry Counties 

have ranked 1st and 7th highest in the state, 

respectively, followed by Hocking County (11th in 

the state) and Athens County (61st). In Athens 

County, much of the available employment is in 

typically low paying jobs, and 28.7 percent of the 

Athens County residents live below the poverty 

level. Per capita income for the four-county area is 

consistently below the average for the state. Athens 

County per capita income averaged just $12,285. 

At this level, Athens County residents were $6,755 

below the state per capita income level of $19,040 

(Ohio County Profile Data, 1995). Education 

attainment provides another indicator of need in the 

four Appalachian counties served by this project. 

While the high school dropout rate in Ohio 

averages 3.9 percent, the four counties average 4.4 

percent; Morgan County ranks the highest of the 

four at 6.6 percent. The percentage of high school 

graduates proceeding on to higher education is 

lower in Appalachia than in the rest of Ohio. 

Statewide averages in 1990–91 show that 59 

percent of high school students participate in higher 

education, while only 49.3 percent of Appalachian 

students continue with such training. In Morgan 

County, only 30.6 percent of students participate in 

higher education. (Morgan, Perry, Hocking, and 

Athens Counties, Ohio)
21 

Community Groups Served 

Geographic and economic analyses provide a good 

picture of which communities are being served by 

ARC projects, but not of the actual community 

members who compose the target population. To 

address this issue, the survey asked respondents in 

both cohorts to indicate the community groups for 

which their projects provided services, resources, 

or other assistance. Almost all projects indicated 

that they were designed to address at least one 

disadvantaged or underserved community group.11 

About half of the projects in Cohort 1 served 

unemployed and underemployed persons 

(54 percent) and those living in geographically 

isolated or rural areas (49 percent) (Table 3-1). 

Additional disadvantaged groups included 

medically underserved persons, incumbent 

employees who required retraining to maintain 

their jobs, and persons with low educational 

attainment (see Exhibit 3-3). 

Table 3-1 

Percent of ARC projects that indicated they 

were designed to provide services, resources, 

or other assistance to the following groups, 

by cohort 

Characteristic of group Cohort 1 

(n=67) 

Cohort 2 

(n=25) 

 

Unemployed/underemployed...................... 54 56 

Geographically isolated/rural...................... 49 60 

Public assistance recipients......................... 24 32 

Extreme poverty .......................................... 24 16 

Disabled....................................................... 18 24 

School dropouts........................................... 15 24 

Other groups................................................ 15 28 

Underrepresented minorities....................... 13 12 

Illiterate ....................................................... 6 16 

Limited English speaking............................ 1 4 

Migrant workers/migrant students .............. 0 4 

NOTE: Projects may be serving multiple groups. Groups may 

overlap. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

 

11 It should be noted that the members of these community groups 

overlap considerably. 

Communities’ Need for ARC Funding 

The document review and site visits provided rich 

information about the communities’ and projects’ 

need for funding. As described in Chapter 2, state 

and local funding often does not cover all of the 

expenses vocational programs have, and ARC 

funding is used to fill these gaps. Most often, 

training providers lack updated equipment 

currently used in the field and have no funding to 

replace outdated and obsolete equipment. For 

example, although the Winston County Technical 

Center (WCTC) is a part of the Winston County 

school district, at the time of the ARC grant the 

State of Alabama made no provisions for funding 

the improvement or updating of equipment. In 

addition, Winston County’s tax base did not 

provide for the funding of improvements to its six 

program components (automotive technology, 

electronics technology, carpentry, marketing 

education, business education, and cosmetology). 

As a result, WCTC had been operating with the 

original equipment in place when the school was 

built in 1972 and was sorely in need of up-to-date 

equipment for training its students. These 

deficiencies were particularly evident in the case 

Exhibit 3-3. Example of disadvantaged 

group served by an ARC project 

Pickens Technical Institute, Technology 

Learning Center. The Workforce Academy 

(WFA) was established in 1994 with funds from the 

Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). WFA’s goal 

is to prepare economically disadvantaged residents 

from Cherokee, Pickens, Gilmer, and Fannin 

counties in Georgia for entry-level manufacturing 

jobs. This is a continuation of a 1995 ARC grant 

that enabled the Workforce Academy to open its 

program to individuals from these counties who do 

not fit within the defined JTPA eligibility 

requirements. Grant funds were used to operate 

and expand the WFA, thereby providing industries 

locating or expanding in north Georgia with 

employees who are proficient in basic 

communication, math, and problem-solving skills. 

Additional computer hardware and software 

enhanced WFA’s local and distance learning 

training capabilities and provide economic 

development resources to business. (Cherokee, 

Pickens, Gilmer, and Fannin Counties, Georgia)
22 

of the automotive technology component, which 

needed to be completely overhauled given recent 

rapid and drastic changes in the field. It was 

anticipated that an upgrade of equipment in 

automotive technology, electronics technology, 

and carpentry would benefit students by providing 

the relevant and realistic training to prepare them 

for local employment on equipment actually used 

in the field. 

Other projects begin as a result of local demand, 

often based upon industry surveys and local needs 

assessments. For example, the horticulture 

program that was established at the Daniel Morgan 

Technology Center (DMTC) after a countywide 

needs assessment determined that local landscaping companies were anticipating job openings 

in the next 5 years. The school sent out a followup 

survey to local landscape companies and golf 

courses in the Greenville/Spartanburg area in order 

to gain a better understanding the types of skills 

these workers would need. The ARC grant was 

then used to purchase equipment that would 

facilitate the attainment of these skills. 

Similarly, the Manufacturing Assistance Center 

(MAC) in Hamarville, Pennsylvania, was 

established in response to several regional surveys 

and assessments identifying the critical needs for 

manufacturing training and equipment resources. 

After receiving a grant from the Economic 

Development Administration of the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, the MAC became fully 

operational in 1994. Area manufacturers and 

small-business owners were receptive to the 

concept of shared manufacturing, and the center 

was equipped with the same technologies, 

software, tools, and equipment area manufacturers 

were already using, but it had no users. 

Manufacturers were again surveyed informally, 

and MAC staff and consultants learned that the 

lack of training and the corresponding lack of 

workers trained to use the equipment prohibited 

them from making full use of the center. The 

MAC turned to ARC for funding to develop 

training materials and curricula. See Exhibit 3-4 

for examples of community needs addressed by 

other ARC projects in the study sample. 

Exhibit 3-4. Additional examples of 

communities’ need for funding 

Computer Lab Upgrade—Tri-County Technical 

College. A survey of a wide variety of area businesses 

and industries ranging in size from 3 to 4,000+ 

employees and employing a total of nearly 12,000 

individuals determined the need for the college to 

establish a computer lab. The survey findings indicated 

a continuing demand for qualified graduates of TriCounty’s Computer Technology and Office Systems 

Technology programs. These same companies 

disclosed a need for 650 current employees to receive 

additional training in the office skills/computer 

technology areas. (Anderson, Occonee, and Pickens 

Counties)

Northern Tier Industry Education Consortium. An 

abundance of high skill, high paying jobs existed in the 

region, but few local people were qualified to fill the 

positions. Local employers acknowledged that only 1 

in 10 applicants were passing their screening test for 

employment, the average age of new hires was 27–29 

years of age, and the companies were spending 

thousands of dollars to provide new hires with training 

that should have already occurred. This circumstance 

was exacerbated by a lack of clear direction on the part 

of the students as they drift through secondary and 

postsecondary school unaware of their own interests 

and abilities. By the time many students decide on a 

career choice, they learn that the courses they took 

inadequately prepared them for their chosen field. 

Accordingly, the program was designed to increase 

work-based learning opportunities for high school 

students. (Bradford, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Wyoming, 

and Lackawanna Counties, Pennsylvania) 

Equipment for Commercial/Graphics Art and 

Machine Technology/Computer Aided Manufacturing. The Southern Association of Colleges and 

Schools’ requirements were not being met in all 

program areas. Current commercial/graphics art and 

machine technology/computer aided manufacturing 

training labs were inadequate. Students were being 

taught on obsolete and out-of-date equipment and in 

substandard facilities. Many other colleges have fully 

developed facilities and instructional labs; however, 

Shelton State Community College had not been able to 

equip laboratories designed to meet the needs of its 

programs. The college and its services have grown at a 

rapid pace. The labs were old and no longer functional; 

they were also overcrowded and congested. With the 

assistance of ARC in equipping training laboratories, 

this critical need was alleviated. (Pickens, Tuscaloosa, 

and Bibb Counties, Alabama)
23 

GRANTS AND GRANT RECIPIENTS 

This section provides information about the 

organizations responsible for overseeing and 

implementing ARC grants, the duration of their 

grant funding, the amount and sources of ARC 

funding they received, and sources of additional 

funding. 

Grant Recipient Organizations 

Most of the projects in the sample originated from 

training institutions. In fact, 90 percent of Cohort 

1 and 64 percent of Cohort 2 projects were 

overseen by educational institutions (Table 3-2). 

Area vocational schools and technical colleges 

received the most grants. See Exhibit 3-5 for 

examples of grant recipient organizations. 

Table 3-2 

Percent of ARC projects, by the type of 

organization of the grant recipient, by cohort 

Organization type Cohort 1 

(n=67) 

Cohort 2 

(n=25)

 

Education organizations........................... 90 64

 Area vocational school/vocational high 

 school .................................................. 24 8 

 Technical college or institution ............... 21 20 

 Comprehensive community college 

 (degree-granting)................................. 16 20 

 Comprehensive middle or high school.... 12 0 

 Four-year postsecondary institution........ 7 8 

 Local school district/agency.................... 4 0 

 Other education entity ............................. 4 8 

 

Other organizations .................................. 6 32 

 Consortia of organizations....................... 3 8 

 Other community organization................ 3 12 

 Social service agency .............................. 0 8 

 Community development organization ... 0 4 

 

Government organizations....................... 4 4 

 State government agency......................... 3 4 

 County government agency..................... 1 0 

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Duration of Funding 

ARC typically awards grants for a 1-year period, 

but projects may apply for and receive 

continuations of funding in subsequent years. 

While most Cohort 1 projects (67 percent) 

Exhibit 3-5. Examples of grant recipient 

organizations 

Welding Laboratory/Classroom. Alfred State 

College is a residential College of Technology 

located in the rural community of Alfred, New 

York, and is part of the State University of New 

York system. Alfred State College has more than 

50 programs in agriculture, allied health, business, 

and engineering technologies plus liberal arts and 

sciences. Welding has been taught at the Vocational 

Technology Campus as a short module for many 

years. In 1992, it was proposed to create a separate 

dedicated program as originally planned in the 1966 

development of the Vocational Technology 

Campus, but there was not adequate equipment or 

facilities to support such a program. The idea has 

been taken more seriously after local industries had 

been constantly asking Alfred to start such a 

program. There were several other 2-year programs 

in New York, but none were in western New York. 

(Allegany County, New York) 

Chautauqua County Wood Skills Training 

Project. While not the direct grant recipient, the 

Woods Alliance Group in Jamestown, New York, 

represents an interesting partnership that helped 

shape the scope and implementation of the 

Chautauqua County Woods Skills Training Project. 

The alliance includes a wide range of companies—

including two of the nation’s largest furniture 

manufacturers and three businesses with fewer than 

25 employees. A noteworthy achievement of this 

3.5-year alliance has been the willingness of these 

nine companies—which would traditionally vie for 

the same workers—to pool their resources and 

promote a uniform pre-hire training program for all 

of the community’s furniture manufactures. In fact, 

alliance members eventually agreed to use a 

common job application form and offer similar 

starting wages to individuals who completed the 

PIC’s pre-hire training program. While the ARC 

grant was not responsible for the creation of this 

alliance, it did enable the nine companies to 

significantly expand upon their interest in working 

together to solve a common problem. (Chautauqua 

County, New York). 
24 

received 1 year of funding from ARC,12 15 

Cohort 1 projects received 2 years, and seven 

received 3 or more years of ARC funding. Half 

(49 percent) of Cohort 1 projects received funding 

in FY 1995, and 34 percent received funding in 

FY 1996 (Figure 3-4). Smaller percentages 

received funding in subsequent years. All but three 

Cohort 2 projects were first funded in FY 2000 

and therefore had received just 1 year of funding 

when this report was written. 

Funding Source 

The projects in the study sample received their 

funding in one of two ways—through their 

individual states or through the Commission. Most 

vocational education and workforce training 

projects received funding through their states, and 

several states have been more active than others in 

promoting these types of projects. South Carolina, 

Ohio, and Georgia accounted for most of the 

projects in the study sample (Table 3-3). None of 

the states were underrepresented or 

overrepresented in Cohorts 1 or 2 relative to the 

universe of the vocational education and 

workforce training projects funded by ARC 

between 1995 and 2000, indicating that the sample 

was fairly representative of the universe. 

However, the uneven distribution of projects 

across the states precludes analysis of other 

variables by state. 

 

12 As discussed previously, the Cohort 1 sample was selected from 

ARC projects that received funding from 1995 through 1999. 

However, this did not exclude projects that also received funding 

prior to 1995 or those that received funding in 2000. In fact, a 

handful of projects, which may include duplicates, received funding 

in 1991 (two projects), 1992 (two projects), 1993 (four projects), 

1994 (five projects), and 2000 (four projects). In addition, Cohort 2 

projects were drawn from those receiving funding in 2000, but 

some of these projects also received funding prior to 2000 (two in 

1998 and five in 1999). Finally, three projects indicated on the 

survey that they did not receive ARC funding in 2000 (all three 

received funding in 1999 and one also received funding prior to 

that), but the ARC database indicates that they did in fact receive 

funding in 2000. (We believe these projects may have considered 

their 2000 funding as a part of their previous grants as the funding 

was added to an existing contract for each project.) 

Figure 3-4 

Percent of projects that reported receiving 

ARC funding during the fiscal years 1990–2000 

8%

20%

88%

1%

1%

3%

3%

6%

7%

49%

34%

21%

15%

16%

6%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of projects

Cohort 1 (n=67)

Cohort 2 (n=25)

Prior to 1990

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.

Table 3-3 

Percent of projects by source of ARC funding, 

by cohort 

Source of funding Cohort 1 

(n = 67)

Cohort 2 

(n = 25)

Percent of 

all ARC 

vocational 

and 

workforce 

projects 

(n = 173)

 

Alabama................................ 6 0 6 

Georgia ................................. 9 0 5 

Kentucky............................... 1 12 6 

Maryland............................... 6 0 6 

Mississippi............................ 4 4 4 

North Carolina...................... 0 0 2 

New York ............................. 4 24 9 

Ohio ...................................... 18 8 12 

Pennsylvania......................... 6 8 5 

South Carolina...................... 34 28 31 

Tennessee.............................. 1 0 1 

Virginia................................. 6 4 5 

West Virginia........................ 3 0 4 

Commission.......................... 0 12 4 

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: ARC database. 
25 

Funding Amount and Total Project Cost 

ARC awards are intended to be used in 

conjunction with funds from other sources, such as 

local or state agencies, businesses, or foundations; 

the required match is based upon the economic 

status of the community within which the project 

is located. For example, projects located in 

distressed counties must provide a match of 20 

percent of the ARC grant amount, whereas 

projects located in competitive counties must 

provide an 80 percent match. In cases where a 

project serves several counties with different 

designations, ARC has developed formulas to 

determine the required amounts. 

ARC grants across the study sample ranged from a 

low of $13,49013 in Cohort 1 and $21,600 in 

Cohort 2 to a high of $890,000 in Cohort 1 and 

$300,333 in Cohort 2. The universe of all ARC 

vocational and workforce projects had the same 

range as Cohort 1 projects. Two-thirds (67 

percent) of Cohort 1 projects received $100,000 or 

less, with 24 percent receiving $50,000 or less 

(Table 3-4).14 

Projects also varied in terms of the total financial 

resources that they had at their disposal—from a 

low of $26,980 in Cohort 1, $63,400 in Cohort 2, 

and $15,914 in the universe of all projects to a 

high of $2,445,358 in Cohort 1 and the universe to 

$1,338,000 in Cohort 2. The distribution of total 

project costs was similar among the two cohorts 

and the universe. About two-thirds of Cohort 1 

(70 percent) and the universe of all ARC 

vocational and workforce projects (61 percent), 

and 52 percent of Cohort 2 projects had total 

project costs of $200,000 or less (Table 3-4). 

 

13 Projects receiving less that $10,000 were excluded from the study 

sample and the universe of all ARC vocational and workforce 

projects for comparison purposes. 

14 Funding amounts were combined in cases where projects received 

multiple years of financial support through ARC. 

Table 3-4 

Percent of projects with various ARC grant 

sizes and total project costs, by cohort 

Grant size/project cost Cohort 1 

(n = 67) 

Cohort 2 

(n = 25) 

All ARC 

vocational 

and 

workforce 

projects 

(n = 173) 

 

ARC grant size 

Less than $50,000 .............. 24 28 24 

$50,001-$100,000 .............. 43 28 36 

$100,001-$200,000 ............ 24 28 23 

More than $200,000........... 9 16 17 

 

Total project cost 

Less than $100,000 ............ 28 20 23 

$100,001-$200,000 ............ 42 32 38 

$200,001-$900,000 ............ 24 44 34 

More than $900,000........... 6 4 6 

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: ARC database. 

Funding from Other Agencies 

As required by ARC’s matching funds system, 

projects obtain funds from other agencies. In 

order to gain an understanding of the other 

agencies to which projects were required to report 

outcome data or some other type of performance 

reporting, the survey asked respondents to indicate 

which other federal agencies provided funding. 

Eleven Cohort 1 projects and three Cohort 2 

projects indicated they were receiving funding 

from other federal agencies: six from the 

Department of Education, three from the 

Department of Labor, three from the Department 

of Commerce, one from the Department of Health 

and Human Services, one from the Department of 

Agriculture, one from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, and one other 

unspecified department (not shown in tables).15 

 

15 Specific programs providing funding include School-to-Work, Carl 

Perkins Vocational Education program, Economic Development 

Administration, Bureau of Health Professions, and the Technology 

Reinvestment Program. Projects may have received funding from 

more than one additional agency. 
26 

It should be noted that the survey only asked 

respondents about sources of federal funds; it is 

likely, however, that many projects are also 

receiving state and local funds, as well as 

additional federal funds that are filtered through 

the state. Based on information gathered in case 

study sites, as well as our other work in 

evaluations of state and local uses of Perkins 

funding, we believe many ARC projects may not 

be aware of the original sources of their funding. 

For example, a vocational education center may be 

receiving Perkins funding, but because it comes 

through the state, staff may not realize that the 

source is actually a federal program. This issue 

will be revisited in Chapter 7, as project staff may 

also be unaware that some of their performance 

reporting requirements actually originate from a 

federal mandate. 

PROJECT BENEFICIARIES

This section provides information on beneficiaries 

projects were targeting. It discusses both 

individuals and industries targeted. 

Age and Job Status of Beneficiaries 

The survey asked respondents to indicate the age 

groups and job experience of those they were 

serving. About half (48 percent) of Cohort 1 

projects were serving primarily adults, and another 

third (33 percent) were serving primarily youth 

(Table 3-5). The remaining projects were serving 

a mix of both adults and youth (see Exhibit 3-6). 

Table 3-5 

Percent of projects, by age of intended 

beneficiaries of the project, by cohort 

Participant age Cohort 1 

(n=67)

Cohort 2 

(n=25)

 

Primarily youth............................................ 33 24 

Primarily adults ........................................... 48 64 

Both youth and adults ................................. 19 12 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Cohort 1 projects were primarily serving those 

without full-time job experience (60 percent) or a 

combination of individuals with and without fulltime job experience (28 percent) (Table 3-6). 

Thus, while projects were primarily targeting 

adults, these adults had little full-time job 

experience (see Exhibit 3-7). In fact, only seven 

projects serving primarily adults, and one serving 

both youth and adults, were targeting full-time 

employees. The data indicating that a large 

portion of projects served adults without full-time 

job experience confirm that unemployment and 

underemployment is indeed a problem in the 

region. 

Exhibit 3-6. Examples of projects serving 

primarily adults and primarily youth 

Appalachian By Design (ABD) Training and 

Development Assistance. Appalachian By Design 

(ABD) worked primarily with a network of 

handloom knitters and weavers. This group first 

came together in 1991 as eight women with 

handloom machines for whom ABD (then a project 

of the Center for Economic Options) found work. 

Since then, the network has grown considerably. 

Very few of the women had done production 

knitting, so that both initial training upon 

recruitment and on-the-job training were critical to 

the network’s growth. Training continues to be 

crucial, as ABD is essentially building a new 

industry of knitwear producers in rural Appalachia. 

(Multi-county, West Virginia) 

Youth Ventures. The Learning Web offers 

experiential education and career exploration 

opportunities to over 450 youth each year. 

Programs include volunteer and stipended 

apprenticeship programs, work-site tours, 

community service projects, a homeless youth 

outreach project, and a youth-run ice cream 

franchise. Experiential education, youth 

empowerment, apprenticeship placements dictated 

by youths’ interests, individually tailored learning 

contracts, and the one-to-one guidance of adult 

mentors are key aspects of all Web programs. 

(Tompkins County, New York) 
27 

Table 3-6 

Percent of projects, by job experience of 

intended beneficiaries of the project, by cohort 

Participant type Cohort 1 

(n=67)

Cohort 2 

(n=25)

 

No full-time job experience ........................ 60 48 

Full-time job experience ............................. 12 24 

Both experience levels ................................ 28 28 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Industries Served 

The industries that projects serve are also 

considered a beneficiary, since many projects were 

initiated to address a lack of qualified workers for 

a particular industry. Overall, the projects were 

focused on a single industry; only seven Cohort 1 

projects were serving more than one type of 

industry. Forty percent of Cohort 1 projects and 

12 percent of Cohort 2 projects focused on manufacturing industries (Table 3-7). It is possible that 

the drop in projects serving the construction 

industry and the concurrent rise in projects serving 

information technologies between the two cohorts 

illustrates the changing labor markets in the region 

between the period of the late 1990s to 2000.16 

 

16 The small sample size precludes us from making any conclusive 

statements regarding whether such a shift has occurred in the types 

of projects that ARC is funding. 

Table 3-7 

Percent of projects serving various industries, 

by cohort 

Industries served Cohort 1 

(n=67)

Cohort 2 

(n=25)

 

Manufacturing ............................................ 40 12 

General workforce...................................... 13 36 

Construction ............................................... 12 0 

Health.......................................................... 10 8 

Business...................................................... 9 0 

Arts and communication ............................ 9 12 

Transportation and automotive................... 6 0 

Agriculture and natural resources .............. 4 4 

Other ........................................................... 4 4 

Information technologies............................ 3 16 

Education and child care ............................ 1 0 

Hospitality and tourism .............................. 0 8 

Human services .......................................... 0 4 

NOTE: Projects may be serving multiple industries. 

SOURCE: Document review of ARC grantees. 

A number of projects were also serving general 

workforce functions (see Exhibit 3-8). These 

projects were preparing youth (all nine of the 

Cohort 1 projects targeting the general workforce 

Exhibit 3-7. Example of a project serving 

unemployed adults 

If I Had a Hammer—Housing Construction and 

Rehabilitation Training. The If I Had a Hammer 

– Housing Construction and Rehabilitation Training 

program provides training for employment in the 

construction field to persons currently receiving 

housing assistance through the Wise County 

Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Long-term 

county unemployment rates have vacillated between 

a 10-year low of 9.4 percent in 1989 to a 10-year 

high of 17.9 percent in 1996. Residents surveyed 

indicated that a major barrier to employment in the 

county is a lack of jobs and their lack of job skills. 

They also reported that they need help in preparing 

for the world of work. Participants receive job 

skills training in four areas of housing construction 

and rehabilitation. (Wise County, Virginia) 

Exhibit 3-8. Example of a general 

workforce project 

Business Skills Laboratories. The overall purpose 

of the Business Skills Laboratories project in 

Greenfield, Ohio, was to establish two computer 

laboratories in the Greenfield Exempted Village 

School District. Currently, each high school can 

offer only the traditional typing courses. No 

courses in word processing, database management, 

or spreadsheets, which are so commonly needed in 

most businesses today, are offered. Local 

businesses have expressed a need for additional 

computer skills in all of the local graduates who go 

directly into the job market. Additionally, those 

who do go on to college are behind their 

counterparts from more affluent districts that have 

been financially able to provide instruction on 

computers. By establishing a Business Skills Lab 

at each of the two high schools, students have 

access to the computer skills so necessary for 

success in either the immediate job market or in 

pursuing higher education. (Highland County, 

Ohio) 
28 

indicated they were serving primarily youth) for a 

wide range of careers or were simply providing 

workplace habits and skills that would be 

necessary in any career field, but did not target any 

particular industry. Career awareness projects 

were also considered to be general workforce 

projects. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter we described the communities in 

which projects were operating, the grant recipients 

and their funding sources, and the beneficiaries 

projects were targeting. Study findings suggest 

that projects are serving some of Appalachia’s 

most geographically isolated, rural, and 

disadvantaged populations. Community groups 

that were targeted generally reflected ARC’s goal 

of serving those most in need. 

Many communities turned to ARC for funding to 

replace outdated or obsolete equipment. Other 

projects were developed after local studies defined 

a need for new workers or better qualified 

workers. 

Most grants were awarded to educational 

institutions and were spread evenly across the 

range of amounts. Projects most frequently 

targeted adults and those without full-time job 

experience although youth and experienced 

workers were also served. Projects primarily 

addressed the manufacturing and construction 

industries and general workforce functions. 
29 

Obtain Skills

 basic skills

 academic skills

 vocational/technical aides

 employability skills

Gain/Retain Initial Full-Time

Employment

Improved Employment Status

 maintain current employment

 increase responsibilities

 earn promotion

 increase wages

 obtain/retain new jobs

Community Impacts

 viability/stability/growth of businesses

 economic/social viability of communities

 Ameliorate Barriers

 increase access to transportation

 increase access to child care

 increase access to clothing/food/shelter

Project Participants

 in school

 unemployed

 employed

 youth

 adults

Other Mediating Factors

 community context

 grant recipient

 funding

 industry

 Obtain Degree/Credential

 secondary degree or equivalent

 proficiency credential in conjunction

 with a secondary school diploma

 postsecondary degree/credential/

 Support Services certificate

 child care assistance

 transportation assistance

 financial assistance

 referrals

Job Search and Career

Services

 career counseling

 job search assistance

 employability skills

 Classroom Training

 adult basic education

 academic

 vocational/technical

 employability

 Worksite Training

 on-the-job training

 apprenticeship

Program Components in

Place

 equipment

 physical plant

 project staff

 training materials

 community awareness

Context Activities Outputs and Outcomes

Project Activities 

Residents of Appalachia commonly encounter a 

broad range of geographic, economic, and 

educational barriers. It is therefore not surprising 

that the projects in the study sample were 

primarily designed to address a prevalent 

condition (e.g., lack of qualified workers, obsolete 

equipment used for training, lack of appropriate 

work experiences for teens, outmigration due to 

lack of available jobs). This chapter discusses the 

range of approaches and strategies that projects 

used to overcome these circumstances and to 

establish or improve vocational education and 

workforce training 

systems. It also assesses 

the extent to which 

projects used at least 

some ARC funding 

to implement these 

activities. ARC 

funding (and the 

associated match17) 

is often one of 

many sources of 

funding a project 

receives, along 

with other local, 

state, and federal 

sources. In such 

cases, the projects’ implementation of activities 

relied on a combination of funding streams, with 

some activities funded solely by ARC, some 

funded solely by other sources, and some funded 

through a combination of sources. 

 

17 For the purposes of understanding what portion of a project’s 

activities were associated with ARC funding, we combined the 

ARC grant funds with the required match, under the assumption 

that the matching funds would not be available if not for the ARC 

grant. Thus, survey items and discussions in this report that refer to 

“ARC-funded” or “ARC funding” include activities, equipment, or 

objectives funded directly by the ARC grant and/or the associated 

match. 

To determine which approaches were used more 

frequently, the survey provided respondents with a 

list of 30 activities across eight categories. The 

activities from which respondents could choose 

are illustrated on the flow chart in the unshaded 

areas and include the components of a program 

that must frequently be in place before training can 

begin, including equipment, a physical plant, 

trained project staff, training materials, and 

community involvement or awareness of the 

program, and the components of services 

provided, including training activities, support 

services, and job search and career counseling 

assistance. 

The chapter does not discuss the extent of 

implementation of these activities because our 

previous study of ARC’s educational projects 

found that most activities were implemented as 

planned. We do, however, discuss implementation 

problems. 

APPROACHES AND ACTIVITIES 

CONDUCTED BY COHORT 1 PROJECTS

In this section, we examine all the activities 

conducted by the 67 projects in Cohort 1, which 

IV. 
30 

totaled 768 district activities.18 The activities were 

fairly well distributed among three major 

categories: equipment (18 percent of all activities 

conducted), job search assistance/career 

counseling (18 percent), and training (17 percent) 

(Table 4-1). Other approaches used less 

frequently were project staff training (14 percent), 

training materials development (12 percent), 

community-wide activities (10 percent), physical 

plant improvements (6 percent), and social support 

services (5 percent). While the distribution if 

activities by type is useful to describe the range of 

approaches projects are using, it cannot adequately 

portray the extent to which projects are using any 

particular approach. In the following sections, we 

discuss the proportions of projects using each type 

of approach. 

 

Table 4-1 

Number and percent of activities conducted, 

by type 

Type of activity 

Number of 

activities 

Percent of 

activities 

 

Equipment purchased, rented, or leased ........ 142 18 

Training activities .......................................... 134 17 

Job assistance and career counseling............. 138 18 

Support services ............................................. 37 5 

Physical plant ................................................. 45 6 

Project staff training....................................... 104 14 

Training materials development .................... 95 12 

Community-wide activities............................ 73 10 

NOTE: ARC-funded activities are those for which respondents 

reported ARC provided some funding. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Equipment and Physical Plant Improvements 

A project’s equipment and physical plant represent 

two components that must be in place prior to a 

project providing services. Without these, most 

projects could not exist. 

 

18 Options on the survey ranged from discretely defined tasks (e.g., 

develop instructor manuals) to broader, all-encompassing ventures 

(e.g., distribute mini-grants). The activities also varied with respect 

to how expensive, time-consuming, or difficult they were to 

implement. Thus, although the discussion throughout this chapter 

regards all undertakings as being equal, the implementation of each 

activity actually required a unique combination of skills, costs, 

staffing requirements, community partnerships, and levels of effort. 

Equipment acquired. Almost all projects 

(87 percent) reported purchasing, renting, or 

leasing various types of equipment with ARC 

funding.19 The most frequently acquired types of 

equipment reported by respondents were computer 

hardware (66 percent) and computer software 

(51 percent) (Table 4-2). In addition, 40 percent 

procured noncomputerized industrial equipment, 

and 34 percent procured computerized industrial 

equipment. Exhibit 4-1 provides examples of the 

equipment that was purchased with ARC support. 

Table 4-2 

Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting 

purchasing, renting, or leasing various types of 

equipment with ARC funding (n=67) 

Type of equipment Percent

 

Industrial equipment (noncomputerized)................ 40

Industrial equipment (computerized) ...................... 34

Computer hardware ................................................. 66

Computer software .................................................. 51

Medical equipment.................................................. 13

Other equipment...................................................... 7 

NOTE: ARC-funded activities are those for which respondents 

reported ARC provided some funding. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

 

19 All equipment reported on the survey was purchased, rented, or 

leased with at least some ARC funding (including the associated 

match). 

Exhibit 4-1. Examples of equipment 

purchased 

Elbert County Youth Apprenticeship. This 

project was designed to purchase and install 

equipment and supplies for a computer assisted 

design (CAD) laboratory and granite etching 

classes. The project would contract with the local 

granite industry to bring draftsmen into the high 

school as instructors, create 26 computer stations 

for training in CAD, create a granite etching class, 

and provide on-the-job training to prepare high 

school youth to enter the granite industry upon 

graduation. New computer software will be both 

granite specific and generic in nature in order to 

prepare students in other areas of computer-aided 

design for other businesses and industries. (Elbert 

County, Georgia) 
31 

Projects serving those without full-time job 

experience and both experience levels appeared 

more likely to purchase computer hardware and 

software than projects serving full-time workers 

(Table A4-2 in Appendix A). These projects also 

acquired more industrial equipment, computerized 

and noncomputerized, than did projects serving 

full- time workers. This may suggest that while 

projects serving primarily adults already had the 

requisite equipment, projects serving youth 

(especially those located in school vocational 

programs) had only outdated equipment and 

lacked school funding to replace it. In addition, 

projects located in a single town or county 

appeared more likely to purchase computer 

hardware than were projects located in multiple 

adjacent counties or nonadjacent counties. The 

same is true for computer software. All types of 

equipment appeared more likely to have been 

acquired by projects operating in no distressed 

counties than projects operating in at least one 

distressed county. 

Physical plant improvements. Almost half of the 

projects (45 percent) conducted activities around 

the construction, expansion, or leasing of a 

physical plant (Table 4-3). The most frequently 

reported physical plant activities were renovating 

existing structures (30 percent) and purchasing or 

installing office furniture (24 percent). See 

Exhibit 4-2 for examples of physical plant 

improvements. Only a few projects built new 

structures (7 percent) or leased property or space 

(6 percent). As might be expected, projects 

receiving the largest ARC grants, those of more 

than $200,000, appeared far more likely to 

renovate existing structures and purchase or install 

office furniture than were projects receiving 

smaller grants (Table A4-3). The same holds for 

total project cost and years of ARC funding. 

Projects with total costs of $200,001–$900,000 

and $900,000 or more and projects with 3 or more 

years of ARC funding appeared more likely to 

conduct all four types of physical plant activities 

than were less costly projects and projects with 

fewer years of ARC funding. 

Exhibit 4-1. Examples of equipment 

purchased (continued) 

Washington County Career Center Educational 

Engineering Equipment. This project was 

designed to purchase and install equipment 

necessary to expand the drafting, food service, 

business, auto collision, and forestry programs. 

The project would purchase 15 CAD systems for 

drafting, architecture, woods, metals, and 

manufacturing classes. Twenty computer 

workstations for business education, MIG Welders 

for the automotive collision program, and a 

wireless field phone for the forestry program would 

also be purchased. (Washington County, Ohio) 

Morgan Machine Trade Equipment 

Improvement. This project was designed to 

strengthen the school’s vocational program by 

improving equipment in precision machining and 

business technologies. A local manufacturing plant 

requested computer numerical control (CNC) 

machines to train instructors to operate them and 

train students to use them. The objective was to 

integrate the use of the CNC machine to control 

lathes and milling machines into the instruction. 

The project would also replace electric typewriters 

and Apple IIE computers with Compaq 486s and 

software and workstation furniture. (Morgan 

County, Ohio) 

Clermont College Workforce Development 

Facility. This grant was designed to purchase 

equipment for two computer labs and a learning 

center, providing computer access to 1,000 new 

students and area employees at the Clermont 

College campus. The labs were to improve jobtraining programs, offer remedial assistance, and 

support the engineering, biology, chemistry, and 

law enforcement curriculums. Sixty computer 

units were requested for the two labs and seven 

computer systems to equip the learning center. 

Brow and Clermont Counties, Ohio) 
32 

Exhibit 4-2. Examples of physical plant 

improvements 

Advanced Graphic Design Laboratory at 

Frostburg State University. The project would 

establish a graphic design laboratory for training 

students in the advertising, printing, and graphic 

design industry, as well as offering continuing 

education workshops for industry personnel. The 

grant would also purchase laboratory equipment, 

renovate classroom space, and revise the graphic 

design curriculum. (Allegany, Garrett, and 

Washington Counties, Maryland) 

Columbia/Adair County Training and 

Development Center. This project will construct a 

facility designed and equipped to meet training and 

re-training requirements of the local and regional 

workforce. The two-story facility will provide 

training rooms, a computer lab, a media room, and 

conference rooms. Training rooms will 

accommodate up to 60 people for general training 

and education classes, and the computer lab will 

contain 12 workstations. (Adair County, Kentucky) 

Partners in Progress Operations and Training 

Facility Project. This project includes the purchase 

and renovation of a 7,600 square foot building on 

approximately 2.5 acres to be used for light 

manufacturing and training of disabled individuals. 

The project also involved the construction of a 5,600 

square foot addition to house the administrative 

space, equipment testing rooms, locker and cafeteria 

facilities, and conference/training area. (Tioga 

County, Pennsylvania)

Exhibit 4-3. Examples of training provided 

Precision Manufacturing Institute Tool and 

Machine Training. The project purchased 

equipment required to expand tooling and 

machining training in three counties (Crawford, 

Erie, Warren) in northwest Pennsylvania. The 

program featured high-density training based on an 

accelerated curriculum designed to reduce entrylevel training time for the tooling and machining 

industry by at least 50 percent. (Crawford, Erie, 

and Warren Counties, Pennsylvania) 

Armstrong Industry Skills & Employability 

Partnership (InSTEP) Project. This project 

consisted of 120 hours of instruction in the areas of 

communications, computer literacy, math, safety 

and health, personal development, quality, 

teamwork, technology, and plant tours. Five to six 

cycles of instruction were to be completed. 

(Armstrong County, Pennsylvania) 

Table 4-3 

Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting physical 

plant activities (n=67) 

Physical plant activity Percent

 

Any physical plant activity ..................................... 45 

Build new structure ................................................. 7

Renovate existing structure..................................... 30

Purchase/install office furniture.............................. 24

Lease property or space .......................................... 6 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Among the physical plant activities conducted, 33 

percent were supported wholly or in part by ARC 

funding (including the associated match) (Table 

A4-4). 

Training, Training Materials, 

and Project Staff Training 

Training, along with the availability of appropriate 

training materials and a staff trained on project 

equipment, represents the substance of vocational 

education and workforce training projects. As the 

primary focus of most projects, training activities 

varied on a number of dimensions. 

Training activities conducted. Almost all 

(99 percent) of ARC’s vocational education and 

workforce training projects conducted training 

activities (Table 4-4). The most frequently 

conducted types of training were occupational or 

technical training (97 percent) and academic 

training or enhancement (72 percent) (see Exhibit 

4-3). Projects also provided business management 

training (21 percent) and adult basic education (7 

percent). 

Table 4-4 

Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting 

conducting various training activities (n=67) 

Training activity Percent

 

Any training activity................................................ 99 

Occupational/technical training .............................. 97

Academic training or enhancement......................... 72

Business management training................................ 21

Adult basic education.............................................. 7

Other ........................................................................ 3 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
33 

Exhibit 4-3. Examples of training provided 

(continued) 

SWVA E-Commerce/Economic Hope for an 

Underemployed Workforce. This project was 

established to develop an e-commerce video 

training project for the underemployed, individual 

entrepreneurs, and small business owners in the 

four-county region. The project was to include a 

training session and the production of a 10-session 

video course, which provided instruction to 

participants on developing a web site, online 

catalog of products and services, and an online 

purchasing system. (Buchanan, Dickenson, 

Russell, and Tazewell Counties, Virginia)

Projects that were serving those with full-time job 

experience appeared more likely to conduct 

business management training or adult basic 

education than projects serving those without fulltime job experience (Table A4-5). Also, projects 

serving primarily youth or primarily adults 

appeared more likely to provide academic training 

or enhancement than were projects serving both 

youth and adults, possibly because providing 

academic training to a mixed age group is more 

difficult. 

Across all 134 training activities that the projects 

reported conducting, 53 percent were funded 

wholly or in part by ARC (Table 4-5). Eighty 

percent of adult basic education, 64 percent of 

business management training, 55 percent of 

occupational/technical training, and 44 percent of 

academic training or enhancement were conducted 

with at least some ARC funding. 

Location of training. Training activities take 

place in a variety of settings. Those conducted in 

shops or labs and at worksites generally involved 

hands-on activities, whereas classroom activities 

are more likely textbook or lecture-based. Of 

course, both are critical to quality training. Most 

occupational/technical training was conducted at a 

school-based shop or lab (69 percent) or a schoolbased classroom (51 percent) (Table 4-6). 

Academic enhancement was also mostly 

conducted in school-based classrooms (63 percent) 

and school-based shops or labs (57 percent), as 

was business management training. Relatively 

fewer training activities were conducted on the job 

(19 percent) or in worksite classrooms (12 

percent). This suggests that ARC projects 

attended to multiple learning styles, with both 

hands-on and text- and lecture-based activities. 

Table 4-5 

Percent of training activities conducted with 

ARC funding 

Training activity 

Percent 

conducted with 

ARC funding 

All training activities (n=134).............................. 53 

Occupational/technical training (n=65)................ 55 

Academic training or enhancement (n=48).......... 44 

Business management training (n=14)................. 64 

Adult basic education (n=5)................................. 80 

Other training activity (n=2) ................................ 50 

NOTE: Percent estimates are based on the projects that indicated they 

conducted training activities. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Table 4-6. Percent of training activities conducted in various locations 

Location 

Training activity School-based 

classroom 

School-based 

shop or lab 

Worksite 

classroom 

Worksite 

(on the job) 

Home or other 

distance 

learning center 

 

All training activities (n=134).............. 54 58 12 19 1 

Occupational/technical training (n=65) 51 69 14 23 2 

Academic training or enhancement 

(n=48)............................................... 63 52 8 10 0 

Business management training (n=14). 57 43 14 21 0 

Adult basic education (n=5)................. 40 20 20 40 0 

Other training activity (n=2)................ 0 50 0 50 0 

NOTE: Percents do not sum to 100 because respondents could select more than one training location. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.
34 

That more training was conducted in schools, as 

opposed to worksites, likely reflected the fact that 

education organizations were most likely to 

receive ARC grants. (As reported in Chapter 3, 90 

percent of Cohort 1 grants were awarded to 

educational institutions.) 

Duration and frequency. Projects varied in both 

the duration and the frequency of the training that 

was provided to individual participants. Overall, 

training activities tended toward longer durations; 

31 percent lasted longer than 12 months, 

26 percent occurred over a 8- to 12-month period, 

and 19 percent occurred over a 4- to 7-month 

period (Table 4-7). Similarly, projects tended to 

conduct trainings frequently, with 75 percent of all 

training activities being conducted more than once 

a week (Table 4-8). This suggests that ARC 

projects were attending to general beliefs that 

ongoing and regular training were more productive 

than one-shot or sporadic training. 

Training materials developed. Many projects 

(61 percent) developed materials to use in the 

training activities they conducted (Table 4-9). 

About half developed or purchased instructor or 

teacher manuals and curricula (54 percent) or 

developed or purchased student manuals and 

materials (48 percent). Forty percent of the 

projects developed curriculum or performance 

standards or proficiencies, including those that 

align with industry skill standards. 

Table 4-9 

Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting 

developing various types of training materials 

(n=67) 

Training materials developed Percent

 

Any training materials............................................. 61 

Instructor/teacher manuals/curricula....................... 54

Student manuals/materials ...................................... 48

Standards/proficiencies aligned with industry........ 40 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Table 4-7 

Percent of training activities by duration 

Duration 

Training activity Less than 1 

month 

1-3 months 4-7 months 8-12 months Longer than 

12 months 

All training activities, total (n=130).................. 8 16 19 26 31 

Occupational/technical training (n=64) ............. 9 17 19 25 30 

Academic training or enhancement (n=47) ....... 6 11 21 28 34 

Business management training (n=13) .............. 8 15 23 23 31 

Adult basic education (e.g., literacy) (n=4)....... 0 50 0 50 0 

Other (n=2)......................................................... 0 50 0 0 50 

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Duration was not provided for four training activities. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Table 4-8 

Percent of training activities by frequency 

Frequency 

Training activity More than once 

a week Once a week 2 to 3 times per 

month Once a month Less than once 

a month 

All training activities, total (n=130)................... 75 9 2 5 8 

Occupational/technical training (n=64) ............. 78 6 3 3 9 

Academic training or enhancement (n=47)........ 79 11 2 4 4 

Business management training (n=13)............... 62 8 0 15 15 

Adult basic education (e.g., literacy) (n=4) ....... 50 25 0 25 0 

Other (n=2) ......................................................... 50 50 0 0 0 

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Frequency was not provided for four training activities. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
35 

The majority of these materials (57 percent) were 

developed wholly or in part with ARC funding 

(including the associated match) (Table A4-7). 

Specifically, 63 percent of student manuals and 

materials, 56 percent of instructor manuals and 

materials, and 52 percent of standards and 

proficiencies were at least partly funded by ARC. 

Exhibit 4-4 provides examples of the training 

materials developed with ARC support. 

Training of project staff. With the acquisition of 

new equipment and training materials and plans to 

conduct training activities, many projects 

(75 percent) delivered training to project staff 

(Table 4-10). Almost two-thirds (64 percent) 

provided training on project-purchased equipment, 

while 60 percent provided training on content in a 

specific skill or knowledge area. Fewer projects 

provided training on pedagogy or teaching skills to 

training staff. 

Table 4-10 

Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting training 

project staff in various areas (n=67) 

Project staff training area Percent

 

Any project staff training ........................................ 75 

Project-purchased equipment .................................. 64

Specific skill or content area ................................... 60

Pedagogy or teaching skills..................................... 31 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Project staff training activities were conducted 

with at least some ARC funding less often (36 

percent) than other training-related activities 

(Table A4-9). Forty percent used at least some 

ARC funding to train staff on project-purchased 

equipment, while 33 percent used ARC funding to 

train staff in specific skills or content areas and to 

provide staff training in pedagogy or teaching 

skills. Exhibit 4-5 provides examples of project 

staff training conducted with ARC support.20

Job Search Assistance and Career Counseling 

Most projects (68 percent), along with their 

equipment and training, provided participants with 

other essential assistance they might need to 

obtain or retain a job (Table 4-11). Two-thirds 

(66 percent) offered participants an opportunity to 

develop or refine their employability skills, such 

as positive work attitudes, dependability, 

punctuality, and good work habits. About half 

provided career counseling (57 percent) and job 

search and placement assistance (48 percent) to 

potential job seekers or students. One-third 

(36 percent) did not provide these services 

themselves, but made referrals to other agencies 

for participants to find job placement or 

counseling assistance. Exhibit 4-6 provides 

examples of ARC-supported job search assistance 

and career counseling services. 

 

20 We were not able to find specific references to project staff training 

in projects’ documentation, even for projects that indicated on the 

survey they conducted the training. Therefore, we believe that 

survey that respondents may have interpreted project staff training 

more broadly than intended, including instructors, faculty, and other 

trainers as project staff, and professional development and staff 

development activities as project staff training. 

Exhibit 4-4. Examples of training 

materials development 

Winston County Technical Center Vocational 

Curriculum. This project was designed to upgrade 

trade and industrial training programs in 

automotive mechanics, electronics, and the building 

trades. The grant would fund updating equipment 

and training aids, such as software, manuals, and 

classroom supplies. (Winston County, Alabama) 

Rust College Microsoft Certified Systems 

Engineering Program. The project would 

implement software engineering training programs 

for minority college students as a 1-year pilot 

program. The college would contract the 

instructional sessions and examination preparation 

with the New Horizon Learning Center. The 

program would also purchase required Microsoft 

course kits. (Marshall County, Mississippi) 

East Kentucky Workforce Planning and 

Development Program. This project was 

designed for the development of three new degree 

programs at Southeast Community College. The 

new educational programs in hospitality 

management, golf course management, and arts and 

crafts design are expected to support the region’s 

expanding cultural tourism industry. The Southeast 

Community College would use the funds to 

develop and field test classes, create internships and 

tech-prep programs, acquire materials, train 

instructors, purchase equipment, and market the 

programs. The programs are expected to graduate 

20 students per year within 2 years. (Multi-county, 

Kentucky)
36 

As might be expected, these services appeared to 

be provided more often by projects primarily 

serving youth and those without full-time job 

experience than by projects primarily serving 

adults and those with full-time job experience 

(Table A4-10). In fact, no projects serving those 

with full-time job experience provided job search 

assistance, as compared to almost two-thirds of 

projects serving those without full-time job 

experience and over one-third of projects serving 

those of both experience levels. 

Table 4-11 

Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting 

providing job search assistance and career 

counseling activities (n=67) 

Assistance/counseling activity Percent

 

Any job search assistance........................................ 68 

Career counseling.................................................... 57

Job search/placement assistance ............................. 48

Employability skills................................................. 66

Referrals to other agencies for assistance ............... 36 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Exhibit 4-5. Examples of 

project staff training 

Regional Technology Training Center. This 

project will initiate delivery of a four-part intensive 

learning program to over 50 out-of-school adults, 

65 high school students, and 6 vocational education 

instructors, providing instruction in the networking 

skills needed to compete in today’s technologically 

advanced labor markets. (Allegany, Cattargus, and 

Chautauqua Counties, New York) 

Pennsylvania Appalachian Workforce 

Development Program. This project was 

designed to support the continuation of a 

workforce development program to help employers 

in Appalachian Pennsylvania. The project was 

designed to help employers compete in the national 

and international marketplace by providing top 

quality training, including supervisory, technical, 

and team building training. Key work elements 

include workforce development training activities, 

one-on-one training (customized by company or 

sector), supplier training consortium activities, and 

mentor training programs. (Multi-county, 

Pennsylvania) 

Alfred State College Computer Technology 

Center. Alfred State College of Technology will 

develop and implement a Computer Technology 

Educational Center, including the purchase and 

installation of computer equipment and software, 

the development of curricula, and upgrading of 

current faculty skills. The grantee will also offer 

professional certification testing such as Web 

Design, A+, and Microsoft Certified Systems 

Engineer (MCSE), not otherwise available locally. 

The Computer Technology Educational Center will 

have the capacity to offer services to community 

members and area businesses as well as students, 

further benefiting local economic development. 

(Allegany County, New York)

Exhibit 4-6. Examples of job search 

assistance and career counseling services 

Cortland County Education and Business 

Alliance WorkKeys Project. This project was 

designed to ensure that all Cortland County youth 

have the basic workplace readiness skills that will 

enable them to compete in the world economy of 

the 21st century. At least 600 students will be 

assessed using the WorkKeys instrument from 

ACT, Inc., and 510 will either successfully enter the 

workforce or continue their education upon 

graduation from high school. (Cortland County, 

New York) 

Appalachian Center for Higher Education in 

Hale (ACHEH). The HERO center will utilize a 

strong team approach composed of community 

agencies, the local school district, and institutes of 

higher education. Mini-grants will be given to local 

high schools in order to help students plan, explore, 

and experience the various possibilities for selecting 

careers in order to promote the importance and 

opportunities of postsecondary education and 

increase the number of students participating in 

college. The ACHEH in Hale approach will be to 

encourage high school students to explore career 

and college options, to inform them about careers, 

colleges, and financial aid, and to engender 

confidence for success in college and life choices. 

(Hale County, Kentucky) 

Fresh Start Community Career Center. This 

project was designed for the expansion of a jobtraining program that will serve at least 60 people 

and place at least 15 of them in jobs. The Fresh 

Start Career Center will be located at Goodwill’s 

non-profit food processing plant in Wayne County. 

The agency conducts outreach services, skills 

assessment, and job training programs for citizens. 

Select clients already receive food service training 

at the plant, and are then placed in jobs at the plant 

or elsewhere in the community. The grant will 

provide funds for training staff, training supplies, 

and food processing equipment. (Pulaski and 

Wayne Counties, Kentucky) 
37 

Less than one-quarter (21 percent) of these 

activities were provided wholly or in part with 

ARC funding (Table 4-12). At least some ARC 

funding was used to provide 27 percent of the 

employability skills training, 19 percent of job 

search and placement assistance, 18 percent of 

career counseling, and 17 percent of referrals. 

Table 4-12 

Percent of job search assistance/career 

counseling activities provided with ARC 

funding 

Assistance/counseling activity Percent funded 

by ARC 

 

All job search assistance/career counseling 

activities (n=138)............................................ 21 

Career counseling (n=38).................................... 18 

Job search/placement assistance (n=32).............. 19 

Employability skills (n=44) ................................ 27 

Referrals to other agencies for job 

assistance/career counseling (n=24)................ 17 

NOTE: Percent estimates are based on the projects that conducted job 

search assistance/career counseling activities. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Social Support Services 

As discussed in Chapter 3, project participants and 

students often face a number of barriers to 

obtaining job training and employment. 

Accordingly, a small number of ARC vocational 

education and workforce training projects (31 

percent) provided social support services to 

participants to help them overcome these barriers 

(Table 4-13). One-quarter (24 percent) of the 

projects made referrals to other agencies for 

participants to access social services. Eighteen 

percent provided financial assistance, while 

assistance arranging transportation and assistance 

arranging child care were provided by 7 percent 

and 6 percent of projects, respectively. See 

Exhibit 4-7 for an example of social support 

services provided by an ARC-funded project. 

Table 4-13 

Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting 

providing social support services (n=67) 

Social support service Percent

 

Any support service................................................. 31 

Assistance arranging child care............................... 6

Assistance arranging transportation........................ 7

Financial assistance ................................................. 18

Referrals to other agencies for social support 

services................................................................ 24 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Financial assistance was provided by projects 

serving both full-time workers and those without 

full-time job experience, but assistance arranging 

child care and transportation was provided by 

projects serving those without full-time jobs but 

not by those serving full-time workers (Table A4-

11). While we might expect full-time workers to 

have more child care needs, we must assume that 

these needs had already been met. In contrast, 

child care appeared to be more often provided by 

projects serving primarily adults than by those 

Exhibit 4-7. Example of 

social support services 

Steuben ARC Expansion of Printing Training 

Program. This grant, awarded to the Steuben 

ARC, was designed to provide employment 

training. It is the intention of the project to enroll 

welfare-to-work participants for mentoring as they 

receive fundamental work training and more 

specialized skills training matched to their interests 

and find jobs in competitive employment. The 

project will also continue to provide training and 

work opportunities for trainees with ongoing 

mental health issues. Finally, the project will 

continue to provide the quality training and 

opportunities for people with developmental 

disabilities, helping them to reach their highest 

potential, whether that be in a competitive job of 

their own, in a supported, job, or earning at a 

greater rate in the employment training facility. 

Benefits are measured not only in terms of 

increased individual income and related profits for 

the state, but also in terms of reduced costs for 

support of the individual. Additional support is 

provided to participants for transportation to and 

from training activities. (Steuben County, New 

York)
38 

serving primarily youth. Financial assistance was 

also provided more often to adults than to youth. 

As with other extra services activities discussed 

above, ARC funding was infrequently used to 

cover the cost of providing social support services 

(16 percent) (Table A4-12). One-quarter 

(25 percent) of projects provided assistance 

arranging child care wholly or in part with ARC 

funding, while 20 percent provided assistance 

arranging transportation with ARC funding and 19 

percent provided referrals to other social services 

agencies with ARC funding. Only 8 percent 

provided financial assistance with at least some 

ARC funding. For example: 

In addition to providing job placement 

assistance, the outreach coordinator at the 

Manufacturing Assistance Center (MAC) 

assists students in finding services they 

will need to be successful on the job. She 

helps students obtain “welfare” bus 

passes, drivers permits and licenses, and 

resources to buy cars. She ensures that 

students on welfare access allowable 

clothing budgets to purchase clothing, 

such as steel-toed boots, required by some 

employers. While the MAC does not 

provide funding for transportation or 

clothing expenses, the outreach 

coordinator puts students in touch with 

social service organizations such as the St. 

Vincent de Paul Society and the Salvation 

Army that do. (Manufacturing Assistance 

Center) 

Community-Wide Activities 

Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of projects 

conducted community-wide activities (Table 4-

14). Like equipment and training materials for 

some projects, community involvement is critical 

in others. Sixty percent of projects established 

community or business partnerships, while 

39 percent provided community outreach activities 

and 10 percent distributed funds or mini-grants 

Exhibit 4-8 provides examples of the communitywide activities of ARC-funded projects. 

Community or business partnerships appeared to 

be established more often in nonmetropolitan 

counties or projects serving both metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan 

counties (Table A4-13). The same was true for 

community outreach activities. Community-wide 

activities appeared to be conducted more 

frequently by projects serving distressed counties 

than those serving no distressed counties. These 

findings suggest that nonmetropolitan and 

impoverished areas are in need of more assistance 

than other areas in bringing the community 

together to provide vocational education and 

workforce training. For example: 

The Ohio Fund for Appalachia Industrial 

Retraining (FAIR) project assists 

companies in the Appalachia region by 

providing funds to support the training of 

unemployed and underemployed 

individuals. FAIR receives a single grant 

from the ARC and then distributes 

individual subgrants to companies 

engaged in workforce training. The 

program operates under the Ohio 

Industrial Training Program (OITP), 

which provides funding to new and 

expanding businesses in Ohio. FAIR 

assists companies that are often not served 

by OITP because they are smaller and 

cannot garner as many resources as 

companies in cities and other areas of the 

state. (Ohio FAIR) 

Table 4-14 

Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting 

conducting community-wide activities (n=67) 

Community-wide activity Percent

 

Any community-wide activity................................. 64 

Establish community or business partnership......... 60

Distribute funds or mini-grants ............................... 10

Provide community outreach ................................. 39 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
39 

Almost all of the funds or mini-grants distributed 

by projects were supported by at least some ARC 

funding (86 percent) (Table A4-14). Far fewer of 

the community outreach activities conducted 

(31 percent) and community or business 

partnerships established (28 percent) were wholly 

or partly funded by ARC. 

COHORT 2 PROJECTS

Cohort 2 projects’ activities followed much the 

same pattern as those in Cohort 1. Among the 25 

projects, the vast majority developed training 

materials (88 percent) and conducted training 

(88 percent) (Table 4-15). The majority also 

purchased, rented, or leased equipment 

(72 percent) and provided community-wide 

activities (64 percent). Almost half provided job 

search assistance and career counseling 

(48 percent) and trained project staff (48 percent). 

As with Cohort 1, only a few augmented a 

physical plant (32 percent) and provided support 

services (16 percent). 

Table 4-15 

Percent of Cohort 2 projects reporting activities 

in various categories 

Type of activity Cohort 2 

(n=25) 

 

Equipment purchased, rented, or leased........................... 72 

Training activities............................................................. 88 

Job assistance and career counseling ............................... 48 

Support services ............................................................... 16 

Physical plant ................................................................... 32 

Project staff training......................................................... 48 

Training materials development....................................... 88 

Community-wide activities .............................................. 64 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Exhibit 4-8. Examples of 

community-wide activities 

Technology Connections for Educational 

Excellence: School and Business Partnerships. 

This project was designed to link high school 

computer labs and local businesses via telephone 

lines and modems. Funding would support the 

computer equipment and training for teachers and 

business personnel. Students would work on actual 

business projects under the direction of a teacher 

and coordinator. Workshops would provide handson practice using the system. (Chemung County, 

New York) 

SCT BOCES Mobile Technology Unit. This grant 

was designed to purchase and run a mobile 

“technology bus” serving the Southern Tier of New 

York State and northern Pennsylvania. The mobile 

technology bus, fully equipped with computers, 

will provide customized on-site training for local 

business and industry. The bus will also assist 

businesses in developing an e-commerce presence, 

provide access to technology at satellite GED 

course locations, bring computer technology to 

low-income housing projects, disabled persons, and 

senior citizens, provide career information to both 

adult and public school students, and assist in 

deploying emerging technology to school districts 

throughout the region. (Chemung, Schuyler, and 

Tioga Counties, New York; Bradford and Tioga 

Counties, Pennsylvania)

The Kentucky Appalachian Higher Education 

Network Center (KY AHED Center). The 

Morehead State University center will serve 38 

high schools in 23 counties in Appalachian 

Kentucky. The KY AHED Center will comprise 

regional partnerships of institutions of higher 

education, local education agencies, not-for-profit 

organizations, and assorted community-based 

organizations. Two types of grants will be 

awarded: challenge grants to local school districts 

and challenge grants to network institutions. The 

scope of work for these grants includes building 

self-confidence among students, assisting students 

and their parents with planning college and career 

choices, and demystifying the higher education 

experience. (Multi-county, Kentucky) 
40 

IMPACT OF THE ARC GRANT

Cohort 1 respondents were asked to hypothesize 

what would have happened if their project had not 

received federal funding through ARC. Only two 

projects (3 percent) felt that they would have been 

fully implemented using alternative sources 

(Figure 4-1). Conversely, just under half 

(45 percent) believed that their activities would 

never have been implemented without their ARC 

award. 

The remaining respondents indicated that without 

ARC support, their activities would have only 

been partially implemented (52 percent). As 

shown in Figure 4-2, most of these 35 projects 

would have provided significantly fewer services 

(91 percent) or reached significantly fewer people 

(77 percent). In addition, almost all (91 percent) 

would have been substantially delayed. 

That only two respondents indicated they would 

have been able to fully implement their projects 

without ARC support signifies the extreme 

importance the projects placed on their ARC 

funding. Even when ARC only supported a 

portion of a project’s overall approach, 

respondents believed that their entire effort would 

have been jeopardized if Commission funding had 

not been made available. 

Figure 4-1 

Percent of projects reporting the most likely 

outcome if the project had not received ARC 

funding (n=67) 





 



 



45% 52%

3%

The project would

have been partially

implemented 

The project would

never have been

implemented

The project would

have been fully

implemented

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.

Figure 4-2 

Among Cohort 1 projects that would have 

been partially implemented without ARC 

funding (n=35), the percent reporting various 

effects 

9%

91%

Project would still

offer full range of

services

Project would

provide slightly

fewer services

Project would

provide

significantly fewer

services

6%

17%

77%

Project would

have reached an

equivalent

number of people

Project would

have reached

slightly fewer

people

Project would

have reached

significantly

fewer people

9%

91%

Project would have

implemented on

the same schedule

Implementation

would have been

slightly delayed

Implemenation

would have been

substantially

delayed

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.
41 

IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS 

ENCOUNTERED

While project close-out documents and case study 

findings indicate that projects were generally able 

to implement their planned activities, findings 

from the mail survey suggest that a few projects 

did encounter some obstacles as they carried out 

their approach. For the most part, these obstacles 

appear to have merely hindered a project’s overall 

effectiveness or altered its implementation 

strategy, e.g., introducing time delays, limiting the 

range of services or potential beneficiaries. This 

section describes the few problems that hindered 

projects’ efforts to conduct the activities that were 

funded by ARC (including the associated match). 

Survey respondents were provided with a list of 

common implementation problems and asked to 

indicate which ones pertained to their project 

efforts. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of projects 

reported that they had no implementation 

problems, while 18 percent reported only one 

problem (Figure 4-3). Three projects each 

reported two problems, three problems, and four 

problems. 

Figure 4-3 

Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting 

number of problems to implementing 

ARC-funded activities (n=67) 

1

3

4

4

4

18

64

0 20 40 60 80 100

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Number of problems

Percent of projects

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.

As shown in Figure 4-4, no single obstacle was 

reported by more than 15 percent of projects, with 

the most frequently reported obstacle being 

participants not maximizing the use of project 

services (15 percent). In addition, seven projects 

(10 percent) indicated they encountered 

difficulties installing equipment, six projects (9 

percent) reported that they underestimated the time 

or effort needed, and six projects (9 percent) 

underestimated the resources needed to implement 

their approach. Four projects (6 percent) each 

cited local administrative delays and 

communication problems. The remaining 

problems were cited by only one or two projects. 

See Exhibit 4-9 for examples of obstacles projects 

faced. 

That there were few management problems 

reported suggests that projects felt they were doing 

an adequate job managing themselves. 

The site visits were intended to provide an 

opportunity to delve more deeply into the types of 

problems that projects encountered.21 However, 

we discovered very few implementation problems 

in the five sites. Moreover, the greatest problem 

encountered was one of the national economy, 

rather than of the ARC project itself. For 

example, a downturn in the national economy 

greatly diminished the need of one project to hire 

new workers. (This had been one of the project’s 

primary goals at the time the ARC grant was 

awarded.) 

Taken together, the findings from the survey and 

case studies suggest that projects were generally 

able to implement their approaches as planned. In 

addition, the absence of any grant-related 

obstacles, such as lack of access to technical 

assistance, suggests that respondents generally 

viewed the level of support provided by ARC staff 

as both timely and sufficient to meet their needs. 

 

21 As discussed in Appendix D, these five case study sites were not 

representative of the overall study sample. They were selected 

because they had implemented and sustained a unique approach that 

warranted further study. 
42 

Figure 4-4 

Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting implementation obstacles for ARC activities (n=67) 

3

1

1

3

3

15

1

3

3

10

1

1

6

1

3

6

4

9

9

0 10 20 30 40 50

Matching funds less than expected/needed

Project funds depleted before implementation

Community/families not supportive

Construction delays

Installing equipment

Excessive staff turnover

Communication problems

Lack of access to technical assistance

Local administrative delays

Underestimated the demand for services

Underestimated time/effort needed

Percent of projects

Underestimated the resources needed

Grant not awarded in timely manner

Inadequate or underqualified staff

Delays due to outside providers

Development of program materials

Participants not maximizing use of services

Matching funds never received

Planning

Administrative

Personnel

Implementation

Community

Cost

Other

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.

Exhibit 4-9. Examples of implementation obstacles 

Welfare Parent Empowerment Project. The biggest problem that was faced during the contract period was 

retaining trainees. The program attracted 21 participants, but only 8 remained to meet all the requirements of the 

program. This loss of trainees was brought about by a number of factors. Childcare is a very demanding 

profession. Some participants were not prepared to deal with the constant needs of young children. Also, some 

participants left to seek employment. Some participants did not have the necessary family support to continue. 

(Harlan County, Kentucky) 

Youth Apprenticeship Program. The main challenge that the coordinator faced was the difficulty that many of 

the students had in completing each mini-semester. Because many of the students worked full time, or had 

parenting obligations, it was very difficult for them to handle work and school. This was difficult on the 

coordinator due to the amount of time that was spent on each apprentice developing the work site and training 

plan. (Whitfield County, Georgia) 
43 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

With the possible exception of support services 

and barrier reduction, all of the activities and 

project components in our conceptual framework 

for vocational and workforce projects were 

covered by the projects in the study sample. That 

ARC projects in both cohorts conducted training 

and acquired equipment in such vast numbers, and 

that the majority of projects were conducting other 

critical activities, suggest that ARC’s portfolio of 

vocational education and workforce training 

projects provides adequate coverage of the 

activities represented in our conceptual 

framework. While barrier reduction and support 

services are conducted less frequently by ARC 

projects, they may be conducted as part of the 

larger agencies within which the ARC projects 

operate. ARC may want to investigate whether 

projects are in fact meeting these needs, and, if 

they are not, determine whether there is additional 

work that can be done to meet them. 

The fact that so few projects indicated they face 

implementation problems is indeed good news. It 

suggests that ARC grant reviewers are selecting 

appropriate projects to fund and that the technical 

assistance by ARC staff is helpful. 

For all categories (except equipment for which 

comparable data were not collected), ARC funding 

and the associated match supported a much 

smaller percentage of activities than did all 

sources of funding. This is an indication that the 

projects’ ARC funds are in fact supporting—and 

leveraging—much more than may have been 

indicated in a grant application or final report. 

Thus, while ARC is funding what may be a small 

portion of a project, it should be recognized that, 

overall, projects seem to be providing a full range 

of services to their beneficiaries. This suggests 

that even when ARC is not directly supporting 

projects to provide a fuller range of services 

indicated in our conceptual framework, the 

projects are often providing those services with 

other sources of funding. 

In addition, only two projects felt they would have 

been fully implemented in the absence of ARC 

funding, whereas 30 projects believed they would 

never have been implemented without ARC’s 

support. This suggests that, in at least some cases, 

ARC provides some “last mile” funding for 

training and equipment, without which the projects 

might not exist. That is, ARC is providing 

funding that projects would not get from any other 

source and that is critical to the initial launch and 

ongoing operation of the project. 
44 
45 

Achievement of Objectives 

The ultimate test of the merit of an ARC project is 

whether it eventually achieves its intended 

objectives and whether the various activities and 

program components do follow the flow chart and 

lead to projects’ objectives. As such, a major 

purpose of this evaluation was to “determine the 

extent to which these projects have achieved or 

contributed to the attainment of the projects’ 

objectives” (Request for Proposals by the 

Appalachian Regional Commission for a Program 

Evaluation of Workforce Training and Vocational 

Education Projects, July 15, 2000). This chapter 

assesses the degree to which Cohort 1 projects 

were able to achieve the outputs and outcomes that 

they delineated in their original requests for ARC 

support,22 and thus, the emphasis is on the 

 

22 Because many Cohort 2 projects were still receiving ARC funding 

at the time the survey was administered, the output/outcome 

addendum was excluded from the abbreviated survey for Cohort 2 

projects. Therefore, they are excluded from this discussion. 

outcomes that were directly associated with 

projects’ ARC grants.23 

In an effort to assess the extent to which grant 

recipients achieved the objectives they had set for 

themselves, we reviewed each project’s 

application materials to identify the objectives 

they originally specified. These objectives were 

entered into a database that was then used to 

generate an addendum to the mail survey. This 

addendum, customized for each project, provided 

respondents with an opportunity to (1) indicate 

whether or not they met each of their own 

objectives, (2) identify the types of data collection 

activities that were used to ascertain whether the 

objective was achieved, and (3) provide tangible 

evidence that a given objective was achieved or 

describe factors that hindered their ability to 

achieve a desired goal. 

 

23 As the objectives were taken from projects’ ARC applications, we 

assume they were intended to be attained, at least in part, through 

ARC funding. 

V. 

Support Services

 child care assistance

 transportation assistance

 financial assistance

 referrals

Job Search and Career

Services

 career counseling

 job search assistance

 employability skills

Project Participants

 in school

 unemployed

 employed

 youth

 adults

Program Components

Place

 equipment

 physical plant

 project staff

 training materials

 community awareness

Other Mediating

 community context

 grant recipient

 funding

 industry

 Classroom Training

 adult basic education

 academic

 vocational/technical

 employability

Worksite Training

 on-the-job training

 apprenticeship Obtain Skills

 basic skills

 academic skills

 vocational/technical skills

 employability skills

Gain/Retain Initial Full-Time

Employment

Improved Employment

 maintain current employment

 increase responsibilities

 earn promotion

 increase wages

 obtain/retain new jobs

Community Impacts

 viability/stability/growth of businesses

 economic/social viability of communities

 Ameliorate Barriers

 increase access to transportation

 increase access to child care

 increase access to clothing/food/shelter

 Obtain Degree/Credential

 secondary degree or equivalent

 proficiency credential in conjunction

 with a secondary school diploma

 postsecondary degree/credential/

 certificate

Context Activities Outputs and Outcomes
46 

To the extent possible, the phrasing for the 

objectives provided in the addendum was taken 

directly from projects’ original applications to 

ARC. In a limited number of cases, however, the 

objective either had to be inferred (e.g., from more 

general language in the proposal) or taken from 

other sources (e.g., the official contract between 

the ARC and the grant recipient, ARC press 

releases). While the specific objectives were 

drawn from project materials, they were 

categorized into seven groups—services provided 

to individuals, services provided communities, 

barrier reduction, skill attainment, degree 

attainment, employment status, and community 

viability—which map to the unshaded areas of the 

conceptual framework for an individual’s progress 

through a vocational education and workforce 

training project. 

Once they received the survey, respondents could 

contact Westat if they believed that the outputs 

and outcomes listed in the addendum were not 

representative of what their ARC project was 

designed to achieve. (None did so.) Respondents 

could also provide information about any 

additional ARC-related objectives that were not 

already listed in the addendum. (Seven projects 

described additional outcomes.) 

In reviewing these findings, it is important to note 

that we did not attempt to substantiate projects’ 

claims that they had achieved their ARCsupported objectives. The evaluation was not 

intended to be an audit of projects’ 

accomplishments. Rather, it was designed to 

identify the evidence projects used to corroborate 

their claims of success. Although we asked 

projects to provide written evidence that a given 

objective had been achieved, the evaluation did 

not assess whether these gains had, in fact, 

occurred. Nor did we ascertain whether the 

methodologies they used to document these gains 

were applied in a rigorous and appropriate 

manner.24 In addition, with many grant recipients 

receiving funding and support from multiple 

 

24 For example, in one case study site, we found that a telephone 

survey that was being used to assess participants’ post-intervention 

employment status was actually a series of informal conversations 

with several area businesses. While the information obtained 

through these conversations was accurate (and appropriate, given 

the scope of the project), the actual methodology did not approach 

the rigor that is generally associated with telephone surveys. 

sources, we were not able to determine the extent 

to which a project’s accomplishments were 

directly or indirectly attributable to the ARC grant. 

As such, our inclusion of a project’s evidence in 

this section should not be viewed as confirmation 

that the corresponding outcome was, in fact, 

achieved, or that the methodology was suitable 

and/or applied in an appropriate manner. 

OVERALL ACHIEVEMENTS OF 

COHORT 1 PROJECTS

Table 5-1 shows the number of objectives that 

projects proposed and the number of those 

objectives that were achieved. For example, 

among the 12 projects that stated three objectives 

in their proposals, one achieved one objective, five 

achieved two objectives, and six projects achieved 

all three stated objectives. 

Table 5-1 

Number of Cohort 1 projects reporting that 

they achieved their objectives 

Number of Number of objectives achieved 

objectives in 

ARC proposal 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Number of 

projects 

1 3 3 

2 3 8 11 

3 1 5 6 12 

4 2 5 5 4 16 

5 1 1 3 5 10 

6 2 1 2 0 5 

7 1 1 4 6 

8 1 1 2 

9 1 1 

10 0 

11 0 

12 1 1 

Number of 

projects 10 20 14 8 8 2 5 67 

NOTE: Shaded numbers indicate Cohort 1 projects that achieved all 

of their objectives. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

The table shows that all of the Cohort 1 projects 

reported that they achieved at least one of their 

objectives. In fact, the majority of the 67 projects 

reported achieving all (45 percent) or all but one 

(27 percent) of their objectives. In addition, 73 
47 

percent met at least three-quarters of their intended 

objectives. Only six (9 percent) achieved fewer 

than half of their objectives. 

To gain another perspective on the overall 

achievement of Cohort 1 projects and to quantify 

the impact of ARC support at the project level, the 

survey asked respondents to estimate the number 

of individuals who had benefited at each stage as a 

direct or indirect result of their ARC grant. For 

each type of beneficiary for which data might be 

provided, respondents were instructed to indicate 

(1) the number of individuals who benefited as a 

direct or indirect result of the ARC grant, (2) “not 

applicable” if an output or outcome was not an 

intended objective of their project,25 (3) “don’t 

know” if they were unable to provide a reasonable 

estimate for an objective that pertained to their 

project, or (4) “0” if ARC support did not directly 

or indirectly affect the number of persons who 

achieved an objective that pertained to their 

project. As such, there was considerable variation 

in the number of projects that provided 

information for each of the objectives on the 

survey. 

 

The range in the number of beneficiaries varied 

considerably across the Cohort 1 projects, as did 

the number of projects estimating the number of 

beneficiaries.26 As such, findings are provided as 

medians (as opposed to means) so that no single 

project has an inordinate impact on any given 

category. Using the conceptual framework, we 

were able to map out the progression of the 

number of participants who typically benefit from 

ARC vocational education and workforce training 

projects: 

• Projects reported that a median of four project 

staff received training as a result of the ARC 

grant (Table 5-2). As discussed in Chapter 4, 

such training is often necessary to lay the 

 

25Survey logic checks and telephone followup with all Cohort 1 

survey respondents ensured that only those projects that had 

conducted an activity—and therefore could expect to have 

beneficiaries—provided estimates for a particular category. 

26As indicated in the table, only projects that intended to provide a 

given benefit and that could provide a reasonable estimate were 

asked to provide a number. 

groundwork for subsequent work with project 

beneficiaries. 

• Projects reported providing academic or 

vocational training, the first step in our flow 

chart, to a median of 195 individuals. 

• Projects reported that a median of 51 

individuals received career counseling or job 

search/placement assistance as result of the 

ARC grant. 

• Projects reported that a median of 50 

individuals obtained a degree or credential as a 

result of the ARC grant. 

• Projects reported that a median of 60 

individuals obtained employment as a result of 

the ARC grant. 

Because no examination of causality was 

conducted, we cannot suggest there is a correlation 

between the medians. That is, we cannot infer that 

because individuals received job training, they 

went on to obtain jobs as a result. Nevertheless, 

the figures are a useful approximation of the 

number of people directly or indirectly affected by 

ARC. 

Table 5-2 

Number of individuals from Cohort 1 who 

benefited as a result of the ARC grant, 

by type of benefit 

Type of benefit Median Maximum 

 

Project staff who received training (n=51) 4 300 

Participants who received academic or 

vocational training (n=66) ..................... 195 8,534 

Participants who received career 

counseling or job search/placement 

assistance (n=36).................................... 51 7,000 

Participants who received support 

services (n=17)....................................... 0 996 

Participants who obtained a relevant 

degree or credential (n=48).................... 50 7,000 

Participants who were placed in jobs 

(n=47)..................................................... 60 5,000 

NOTE: N’s fluctuate because projects that did not have an item as an 

intended goal or could not provide a reasonable estimate were 

excluded. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
48 

EXTENT TO WHICH SPECIFIC 

OBJECTIVES WERE ACHIEVED

In addition to assessing whether Cohort 1 projects 

were able to achieve the sum of their anticipated 

objectives, we also examined the extent of 

achievement across the seven types of outputs and 

outcomes. A primary purpose was to determine 

which types of objectives were most likely to be 

achieved. A secondary purpose was to examine the 

range of evidence that projects compiled to assess 

their own level of achievement. 

Approximately three-quarters (74 percent) of the 

281 objectives (excluding the three “others”) that 

projects identified in their ARC proposals were 

achieved, while only 17 percent were not achieved 

(Table 5-3). Respondents indicated that they were 

not able to ascertain whether the remaining 9 

percent of objectives were met.27 The level of 

achievement was generally highest for 

employment objectives (86 percent) and lowest for 

degree attainment outcomes (57 percent). It is 

important to note that, overall, projects anticipated 

and achieved objectives across all areas of the 

conceptual framework. 

 

27 As discussed in Chapter 7, some projects lacked the resources or 

impetus to collect outcome data, others reported that not enough 

time had passed for projects to assess whether an outcome had been 

attained, and others felt that the objective was difficult or 

impossible to measure. 

Table 5-3 

Number and percent of objectives, by extent to which they were achieved 

Percent indicating extent of achievement 

Type of objective 

Number of 

anticipated 

objectives Achieved Not achieved 

Unable to 

ascertain 

 

Services provided to individuals................................... 75 65 31 4 

Services provided to communities................................ 12 83 17 0 

Barrier reduction ........................................................... 15 80 0 20 

Skill attainment ............................................................. 59 83 10 7 

Degree attainment ......................................................... 21 57 33 10 

Impact employment status............................................. 43 86 7 7 

Impact community viability .......................................... 56 70 11 20 

Total............................................................................... 281 74 17 9 

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
49 

It is possible that some longer term objectives 

were not achieved because some project 

components were not put in place. This suggests a 

potential use of the conceptual framework by 

projects themselves. By understanding how all of 

their objectives fit together and interact, they can 

better monitor their progress toward achieving 

objectives of each type. 

As would be expected, there was considerable 

variety in the quality of the documentation 

provided in support of these objectives. Overall, 

the evidence provided for 60 percent of the 208 

successfully achieved objectives reflected a 

specific data source—e.g., course completion data, 

employment figures, surveys of employers or 

former participants (Table 5-4). The evidence 

provided in support of the remaining successfully 

achieved outcomes (39 percent) was primarily 

anecdotal—e.g., based on informal discussions 

with employers or a small number of participants. 

Claims of success from a specific study or data 

source generally carry more weight than those 

based on anecdotes. For example, one project that 

anticipated enhancing students’ computer skills 

provided the following as evidence: Nine youth 

increased their computer skills. While it is 

possible that students’ computer skills were, in 

fact, enhanced, the evidence does not support this 

claim. A stronger form of evidence would have 

been a pre/posttest of students’ computer skills 

and frequency of use. 

Table 5-4 

Forms of evidence that Cohort 1 projects provided to support their claims that they met their 

objectives, by type of objective

Percent reporting type of evidence that objective was achieved 

Type of objective 

Review of 

existing data* 

Number 

completing 

course 

Number 

attaining 

degree or 

certificate 

Test of 

participants’ 

skills/ 

knowledge 

Survey Anecdote 

Services provided to individuals 

(n=49).......................................... 12 47 0 0 12 29 

Services provided to communities 

(n=10).......................................... 20 0 0 0 0 80 

Barrier reduction (n=12).................. 8 8 8 8 17 50 

Skill attainment (n=49).................... 18 15 8 10 18 31 

Degree attainment (n=12)................ 17 50 8 0 8 17 

Impact employment status (n=37)... 24 0 0 0 41 35 

Impact community viability 

(n=39).......................................... 10 3 3 0 23 62 

Total (n=208)................................... 16 18 3 3 20 39 

*Examples of existing data include course enrollment statistics and wage data. 

NOTE: Percents (of total) may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
50 

Services Provided to Individuals 

Approximately two-thirds (65 percent) of the 

objectives pertaining to services provided to 

individuals, the first objective area shown in the 

flow chart, were achieved (Table 5-3). The 

evidence provided for 47 percent of the objectives 

achieved in this category reflected the number of 

participants who enrolled in or completed a project 

component (Table 5-4). For example, one project 

with a goal that 30-40 students will enter the 

technical engineering program each year during 

the first two years reported that The fall 2000 

semester showed 60 freshmen engineering 

students enrolled. Exhibit B5-1 in Appendix B 

provides a sample of the narratives, both strong 

and weak, that projects provided in support of the 

objectives pertaining to services provided to 

individuals. 

Approximately one-third (31 percent) of the 

objectives pertaining to services provided to 

individuals were not achieved. As shown in 

Exhibit 5-1, projects generally reported that their 

failure to meet this goal reflected a variety of 

factors—e.g., setting participation goals that 

exceeded the project’s capacity, overestimating 

community interest in a type of training, 

encountering factors beyond the control of the 

project. These findings suggest areas of technical 

assistance that ARC might provide to applicants 

and new grantees. 

Services Provided to Communities 

Most (83 percent) of the 10 objectives pertaining 

to services provided to businesses/communities 

were achieved (Table 5-3). The evidence provided 

for 80 percent of the objectives achieved in this 

category reflected anecdotal evidence (Table 5-4). 

For example, one project that was designed to 

install and make operational a lumber drying kiln 

reported that The lumber drying kiln that was 

installed has provided small businesses an 

opportunity to dry lumber and add value to their 

products. Exhibit B5-1 provides a sample of the 

narratives that projects provided in support of the 

objectives pertaining to services provided to 

businesses and communities. 

Barrier Reduction 

Eighty percent of the 15 barrier reduction 

objectives were achieved (Table 5-3). The 

evidence provided for 50 percent of the objectives 

achieved in this category reflected anecdotal 

evidence (Table 5-4). For example, one project 

that was designed to reduce training costs [since 

students/workers will have gained training while 

being an apprentice] reported that [Company X] 

reports substantially reduced training costs as 

well as approximately 11 years being added to the 

work life of an employee. 

Skill Attainment 

Most (83 percent) of the skill attainment 

objectives were achieved (Table 5-3). The 

evidence provided for more than two-thirds of the 

objectives achieved in this category reflected a 

specific data source—most notably existing data 

(18 percent) or a survey conducted by the project 

(18 percent) (Table 5-4). For example, one project 

that was designed to upgrade the quality of new 

employees in the trade and industrial program

reported that A survey of program completers 

found that 60 percent were employed using the 

skills they had learned during the program. 

Exhibit B5-2 provides a sample of the narratives 

that projects provided in support of the skill 

attainment objectives. 

Degree Attainment 

More than half (57 percent) of the 21 degree 

attainment objectives were achieved (Table 5-3). 

The evidence provided for 50 percent of the 

objectives achieved in this category reflected the 

number of participants who enrolled in or 

completed a project component (Table 5-4). 
51 

Exhibit 5-1. Examples of reasons that respondents provided 

for why objectives pertaining to services provided to individuals were not achieved 

Anticipated objective Reason objective was not achieved 

15 nighttime students will be 

enrolled in the program from the 

adult evening school and 

alternative school. 

Lack of support from the intended administrative partner was a major obstacle in 

implementing this program into the evening school. When writing the grant, it 

seemed like a wonderful idea. But when it came time to implement the evening 

school, the administrative partner would never make a definitive arrangement 

with the technology instructor or another tech instructor. He was encouraged to 

comply, but it was disappointing for it not to come to fruition. 

26 students will receive 

instruction in the computer aided 

drafting lab. 

The CAD drafting course has been taught for three years. According to course 

requests and enrollment, the numbers of students taking the course each year has 

been 18, 28, and 15—an average of 20 students per year. 

In 1999, 12 welfare recipients 

will be trained to provide high 

quality child care in public day 

care facilities, preschool settings, 

or home-based day care 

facilities. 

We trained seven participants over the two years we were funded by ARC. In 

addition, we are currently training five participants who will graduate in the 

summer (22 women had begun the program). Our program is difficult and 

demanding, as is the job of a child care provider. Finding dedicated women to 

complete our 10-month program was a challenge, but we know that those who 

did graduate were well prepared. 

Over 320 participants will 

receive training per year. 

The original estimate of 320 was too high. Business and industry participants 

were lower than hoped for, and overall college and program enrollment 

decreased. 

150 students will be enrolled in a 

middle school summer 

residential institute during the 

first summer. 

Interest of local parents was overestimated when the proposal was written. In 

addition, transportation from home to campus was a barrier. 

Increase the number of 

participants in the machine tool 

program. 

Increased graduation requirements in the state and new accountability measures 

have increased the difficulty for many young people (K-12) to participate in this 

offering. Current study is being done to address methods to change this trend. 

Efforts are underway to change the curriculum so that students can add this 

program. However, it takes several years to achieve this. 

70 full- and part-time students 

will be served annually by the 

respiratory care laboratory 

equipment. 

Enrollments have not been at this level annually, so the actual number of 

participants impacted has been lower than projected. Also, 

accreditation/credentialing changes have eliminated program options that 

existed in 1995 when the grant was received. 

80 part-time students will be 

enrolled in this program in the 

fall of 1994. 

Most of our enrolled students are enrolled as full-time students. In our original 

goal, we hoped to have companies enroll on an informal or part-time basis to 

learn equipment. This did not happen often. The project is doing the job, but 

technology has changed—we probably need to apply for a grant to buy 

advanced equipment. 

30 employees will receive noncredit training using the new 

laboratory equipment. 

While some non-credit training occurred using lab equipment, most employers 

want credit classes for their employees. Since we can customize courses, we 

have been able to accommodate employers. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.
52 

One-third (33 percent) of the degree attainment 

objectives were not achieved. As shown in 

Exhibit 5-2, projects generally reported that their 

failure to meet this goal reflected problems 

recruiting staff or participants for a specific 

component or activity. Once again, these findings 

suggest areas that ARC staff might address during 

training sessions with applicants and new grantees. 

Employment Status 

Most (86 percent) of the employment status 

objectives were achieved (Table 5-3). The 

evidence provided for 41 percent of the objectives 

achieved in this category reflected a survey 

conducted by the project (Table 5-4).28 For 

example, one project designed to increase 

participants’ wages reported that A survey of 

former participants found average wages 

increased from $5.50 per hour to $7.50 per hour. 

However, vague or anecdotal evidence was 

provided for 35 percent of these objectives—e.g., 

We have found that the majority of students who 

graduated were employed full-time. Exhibit B5-3 

provides a sample of the narratives that projects 

provided in support of the employment objectives. 

 

28 As discussed in Chapter 7, case study findings suggest that at least 

some of these surveys failed to account for such problems as nonresponse. 

Exhibit 5-2. Examples of reasons that respondents 

provided for why skill/degree attainment objectives were not achieved 

Anticipated objective Reason objective was not achieved 

Increase the number of adults 

from the community who learn 

computer aided design. 

Inadequate or underqualified staff was the obstacle that prevented us from 

carrying out this objective. The staff member has just now received enough 

training that he feels comfortable teaching adults computer aided design. I 

hope this objective will be accomplished in the near future. 

The job skills and technical 

training of persons in 

Appalachian Virginia will be 

improved. 

The installation of the lumber drying kiln was a success in that it provided the 

equipment needed to conduct short sessions on lumber drying. The forest 

products curriculum, however, did not take off as anticipated. A well-qualified 

instructor was hired. However, we were unable to recruit high school students 

into the program. They were not convinced that the education and training 

would provide them with more or “better” opportunities than going straight to 

work. 

15 students will graduate from 

the hospitality management 

technology program. 

While this program was approved by the Board of Regents in 1996, no 

students registered. 

15-20 students will graduate 

from the occupational therapy 

technology program. 

The program never opened. Because salaries were too high in the field, an 

instructor could not be found. No one wanted to teach. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.
53 

Only a few (7 percent) of the employment 

objectives were not achieved. Projects generally 

reported that their failure to meet this goal 

reflected a lack of need among area employers for 

the skill in which participants received training. 

Community Viability 

More than two-thirds (70 percent) of the 

community viability objectives were achieved 

(Table 5-3). The evidence provided for 62 percent 

of the objectives achieved in this category 

reflected vague or anecdotal evidence (Table 5-4). 

For example, one project designed to meet the 

communication, mathematics, and scientific needs 

of local business and industry reported that 

Because of the ARC funded equipment, our 

schools were able to teach applied academic skills 

that meet employer needs—as indicated by almost 

0 unemployment in our area over the last 5-7 

years and the tremendous economic expansion in 

Spartanburg and Cherokee counties. In addition, 

survey data was provided for 23 percent of these 

objectives—e.g., A survey of the local businesses 

found increased sales and business. Exhibit B5-4 

provides a sample of the narratives that projects 

provided in support of the community viability 

objectives. 

Projects were unable to ascertain whether 20 

percent of their community viability objectives 

were ever achieved. In many cases, this reflected 

goals that were difficult or impractical to measure. 

QUALITATIVE FINDINGS ON 

PROJECTS’ OBJECTIVES

While the preceding analysis allows for an 

assessment of whether projects met their stated 

ARC-related objectives, it fails to convey the 

underlying value of the achievements associated 

with the Cohort 1 projects. This section provides 

two additional perspectives on the 

accomplishments of ARC vocational education 

and workforce training projects—respondents’ 

own perceptions of their most notable 

achievements (as provided on the mail survey) and 

a more indepth description of outcomes from three 

case study sites. 

Respondents’ Perceptions of 

Their Most Important Outcomes 

The survey provided Cohort 1 projects the 

opportunity to describe, in their own words, the 

single most important outcome that resulted from 

their ARC grant. As might be expected, projects 

varied in terms of the types of achievements they 

chose to emphasize. While some provided 

information about a community benefit that 

occurred as a result of their ARC grant, the 

majority focused on activities that were 

implemented or expanded.29 Specifically, threequarters (75 percent) of the projects illustrated 

how the ARC grant had enabled them to provide 

or expand a specific service or activity (not shown 

in tables). The remaining 25 percent described an 

outcome (e.g., enhanced skill levels, improved 

employment or educational status) that occurred as 

a result of their efforts. Exhibit 5-3 provides 

examples of the activities and outcomes that these 

67 projects identified as being their most 

important accomplishments. 

Site Visit Findings Regarding Project 

Accomplishments 

During the site visits, we had an opportunity to 

interview the staff responsible for administering 

and implementing these projects and, in some 

cases, the individuals who benefited (directly or 

indirectly) from the ARC grant. The process used 

to select the five case study sites precludes us from 

using site visit findings to make generalizations 

about the range of accomplishments across the 92 

projects in the study sample. We can, however, 

use information from the case studies to provide a 

more detailed description of the types of benefits 

that can be associated with successful ARC 

vocational education and workforce training 

grants. This section uses examples from the three 

of the five case studies to provide a richer 

portrayal of these project-related outcomes. 

 

29 While the implementation or expansion of an activity represents an 

important achievement, successful implementation is not the same 

as the attainment of an outcome. 
54 

Exhibit 5-3. Examples of respondents’ perceptions 

of the most important outcome to result from the ARC grant 

Enhanced Activities 

• Our students received vocational skill training on the very latest equipment. 

• The most important outcome to result from the ARC grant has been middle school students have received 

technical and academic training on more and varied technological training modules than they would have 

been exposed to without the ARC grant. 

• The ability to provide an industry-specific skill to students interested in becoming employed in the granite 

industry. Also, the ability to provide career guidance to the entire student body through the use of the 

Career Center. 

• This grant has enabled us to fully implement western Maryland’s only 4-year mechanical engineering 

program. 

• Major enhancement to the computer technology department at the college. 

• The college significantly upgraded its ability to serve students and, therefore, the community. 

• This particular grant enabled us to convert a typewriter lab to a computer lab in keeping abreast with 

technology in the workplace. 

• With the purchase of this equipment, we were able to make our training relevant to industry needs. Without 

ARC funding, we would have taken much longer to add less capabilities. 

• With this electronics lab added to our electricity program, we were able to provide a wider range of 

training and placement opportunities. We would not have been able to purchase any of the lab without ARC 

funds. 

• The grant provided an infrastructure of services to students that allow us to leverage other funding sources 

to expand school-to-work opportunities. 

• The mode of industry training was shifted more toward the use of technology. This led to more training 

actually being received by those needing it. 

• It was able to put our program on the map. Our equipment was very old and worn out.

• The most important outcome is the ability to offer more students access to that type of equipment. Other 

important outcomes included the more flexible scheduling of training, more in-depth training, and being 

able to offer more options to the students.

• Student participants now have expanded access to similar services across the state by means of this distance 

learning activity. 

• Built a training resource that was previously unavailable to local companies. This program has facilitated 

local economic development as we have provided training for most of the local companies. 

Enhanced Skill 

• Development of self-esteem and confidence of project participants. 

• For those who have come off welfare, the economic benefits have (of course) been important. For all those 

who enrolled in our program, there seemed to be an enhanced sense of self-worth and belief in themselves. 

This outcome may be the most important of all. 
55 

Manufacturing Assistance Center. The 

Manufacturing Assistance Center (MAC) of the 

University of Pittsburgh was established in 1993 

to address four core competencies: shared 

manufacturing, training, technical assistance, and 

research and education. The trainees include 

displaced workers, unemployed workers, 

underemployed individuals, and current 

employees looking to upgrade or acquire precision 

machining skills. In addition to trainees, the MAC 

serves—and incubates—small and medium-size 

businesses in the nine counties in southwestern 

Pennsylvania. ARC funding contributed to the 

development of training materials and curricula by 

supporting MAC staff salaries. 

In its first 5 years of operation, the MAC 

completed over 550 technical assistance and 

shared manufacturing projects and 4,500 persondays of training. During this period, they billed 

Exhibit 5-3. Examples of respondents’ perceptions 

of the most important outcome to result from the ARC grant (continued) 

Enhanced Skill (continued) 

• All participants in the program became employable. 

• The installation of a 4,000 boardfoot lumber drying kiln has enabled very small businesses to bring lumber 

to be dried at no cost to their own company. Many of these small operators have been trained to use the 

kiln and regularly bring small amounts of wood to be dried. 

• Developed the capacity of ABD staff and home-based knitters to use technology to improve production, 

communications, and training for a regional network.

Enhanced Educational Status 

• The program has been accepted and supported very well by local industries and the two technical colleges 

in the area. The majority of our students are attending technical colleges within one year of graduation. 

• More than 80 percent of all participants had not considered post-secondary education until attending our 

program. 

Enhanced Employment Status 

• The major outcome for the ARC grant for the dental hygiene and biomedical program was the fact that 245 

students graduated from these programs and 219 (89 percent) of those graduates are employed in these 

fields. The resulting community and personal benefits are tremendous. 

• The most important outcome resulting from the ARC grant to the Occupational Therapy Assistance 

Program is the fact that from 1995-1999, 178 students graduated from the program—and of those, 150 (84 

percent) are working in this field. 

• The students and staff improved their technology skills through the use of the materials paid for by this 

grant. Note: approximately 40-50 students each year were employed due to skills obtained through the 

program. 

• Students were able to leave the program and go directly into the workforce as highly skilled employees. 

• Incumbent workers were trained to get higher paying jobs (within the same company) allowing the company 

to hire unskilled individuals who were easier to recruit. 

NOTE: This exhibit provides examples of the activities and outputs that projects provided in their response to survey item 10: What was the 

major or most important outcome (anticipated or not) to result from the ARC grant? 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
56 

over $1.5 million for facility services. Overall, the 

MAC has been very successful with its trainees. 

Receiving training through the MAC carries some 

weight in the community; over the years 

employers have seen that MAC students do well 

on their tests and perform well on the job. The 10-

week program has had three dropouts in 3 years 

and a near 100 percent placement rate. The 

computer numerical controlled machining program 

does not track dropouts because there are none, 

and it has a 100 percent placement rate. The 

precision grinding program has a slightly lower 

placement rate. According to the staff, the few 

students who have not obtained employment were 

less motivated than most and did not seem to want 

to work. Most students are hired for entry-level 

jobs at fairly low pay rates ($8 to $10/hour), but 

they can make rapid increases to $40,000 per year 

and then can become journeymen earning $50,000 

to $60,000 per year. 

The MAC has incubated six businesses, five of 

which are currently co-located within the MAC. 

Each began at the MAC when an individual had an 

idea, but not enough startup funds to purchase 

necessary equipment. One company recently 

moved out of the MAC after outgrowing its 

allotted space. The founders went on to buy their 

own building and acquire the necessary 

equipment. Another company, Universal 

Technologies, began over 4 years ago with four 

employees bringing in $700,000 per year 

developing rotary freezer drawer units and robots 

that maintain test tubes in the drawers for 

pharmaceutical companies; now they have 30 

employees and bring in $8 to $10 million per year. 

C&C Tooling is a full-service tool and die shop 

that rebuilds and resells surface grinders; it began 

4 years ago with two employees and now has 12 

and employs all technologies including EDM. 

They have recently spent $700,000 on equipment 

and may soon be moving to their own location. 

Industrial Laser Systems, a two-person company 

that was onsite for a year, develops custom laser 

applications. A robotics company developed a 

robot used in shipbuilding that crawls up the hull 

of a ship welding as it goes. The company 

recently sold its first prototype. In addition to 

incubating businesses, the MAC has allowed other 

companies in the area that have used MAC 

equipment and technical assistance resources to 

expand. Through retraining and business 

expansion, the co-director believes the MAC has 

led to the creation of over 200 jobs in the region. 

Winston County Technical Center. The Winston 

County Technology Center (WCTC) in Double 

Springs, Alabama, used ARC funds to purchase 

the latest equipment in automotive technology, 

electronics technology, and carpentry that allows 

for the proper training of students for employment 

in technical fields. The data collected by WCTC 

for its own purposes and for those of the state 

provide a variety of indicators upon which to 

evaluate individual student progress and 

achievement. Some of the data indirectly point to 

a relationship between the equipment purchased 

with ARC funds and student outcomes. For 

example, results of the placement and followup 

survey indicate that since the ARC grant in 1996, 

63 percent of automotive technology completers 

and 64 percent of carpentry completers have found 

employment in-field or in a related field within the 

first year of graduating from WCTC. In addition, 

some of the remaining completers have gone on to 

postsecondary education in technical institutions. 

While only 20 percent of electronics technology 

completers have found employment in-field or in a 

related field after graduation, 34 percent have gone 

on to 2- or 4-year colleges or technical institutions. 

Although no baseline data are available for the 

years before the 1996 ARC grant for comparison, 

project staff feel recent placement results indicate 

that student completers fared far better finding 

employment in-field or a related field after 1996 

than before that time. For instance, the automotive 

technology instructor stated that before 1996 and 

the purchase of new equipment with ARC funds, 

none of his student completers found employment 

in-field or in related fields. He attributes the 

dramatic reversal in placement success to the fact 

that his students attained book knowledge in his 

courses before 1996, but simply were not given 

adequate hands-on training with equipment used in 

the field. After 1996, local shops, dealerships, and 

industry began calling and making visits in search 

of potential employees that would require little 

training. The automotive technology instructor 

noted proudly, “My students can walk in anywhere 

and get a job.” 
57 

The same was the case for electronics technology 

completers, according to the instructor for this 

component. He noted that students with hands-on 

training on up-to-date equipment are highly sought 

by local industry: “They’ll hire every kid I have,” 

and “Every plant around here has our kids in it.” 

Instructors also asserted that many students not 

only find employment, but also are able to attend 

colleges or technical institutions because of the 

equipment purchased with ARC funds. Several of 

WCTC’s automotive technology and electronics 

technology students in recent years have received 

college scholarships as a result of outstanding 

performance in state competitions. Instructors 

noted that success in such competitions would 

have been impossible were it not for the hands-on 

training and practice with equipment made 

available by the ARC grant. In addition, 

participation in competitions, according to 

instructors, helps to make students aware that they 

are just as capable as students from more 

prestigious schools to perform well using the most 

sophisticated equipment available. That provides 

students with the added confidence needed to 

pursue some form of postsecondary education. 

Other anecdotal evidence supports the link 

between ARC-funded equipment and student 

success. The automotive technology instructor 

commented that students who begin attending his 

courses at WCTC are very impressed by the 

shop’s equipment. The value that they attribute to 

this equipment may play a role in student 

retention, which the instructor noted is far higher 

than during the years prior to the ARC grant (the 

graduation rate for automotive technology 

completers ranged from 91 percent in 1996–97 to 

100 percent in 1999–2000). 

Ohio FAIR. The Ohio Fund for Appalachia 

Industrial Retraining (FAIR) project assists 

companies in the Appalachian region by providing 

funds to support the training of underemployed 

and unemployed individuals. Unique among the 

ARC projects, FAIR receives a single grant from 

ARC and then distributes individual subgrants to 

companies engaged in workforce training. FAIR 

operates under the Ohio Investment in Training 

Program (OITP), which provides funding to new 

and expanding businesses in Ohio. FAIR assists 

companies in Appalachia that are often not served 

by OITP because they cannot garner as many 

resources as larger companies in other areas of 

Ohio. For each training project funded, FAIR 

contributes 25 percent, OITP contributes another 

25 percent, and the company matches those funds 

by providing the remaining 50 percent of the cost. 

The 16 companies that received 1999–2000 

subgrants from FAIR exceeded their combined 

training goals by 28 percent, their retraining goals 

by 3 percent, and their new job creation goals by 

17 percent. All but four (75 percent) met or 

exceeded their individual subgrant training goals; 

all four companies that had a retraining component 

met or exceeded their goals; and six of the nine 

companies that had the creation of new jobs 

among their goals met or exceeded them. Overall, 

FAIR funding from the 1999–2000 grant was used 

to train 1,255 individuals, retrain 402 employees, 

and help 265 individuals obtain new jobs. While 

FAIR data collection focuses on the number of 

individuals trained and retrained and the number 

of new jobs created, one of the regional directors 

commented that companies also reported 

reductions of down time, increased production, 

and improved product quality as additional 

outcomes. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Projects appeared to have achieved most of their 

objectives. Specifically, all of the Cohort 1 

projects reported that they achieved at least one of 

their objectives. In fact, the majority of Cohort 1 

projects reported achieving all or all but one of 

their objectives. Only six achieved fewer than half 

of their objectives. In addition, projects achieved 

three-quarters of the 281 objectives that they 

identified in their ARC proposals. 

However, some of the evidence appeared to be 

anecdotal or based on less than rigorous data 

collection activities. As would be expected, there 

was considerable variety in the quality of the 

documentation provided in support of these 

objectives. Overall, the evidence provided for 60 

percent of the 208 successfully achieved 

objectives reflected a specific data source—e.g., 

course completion data, employment figures, 
58 

surveys of employers or former participants. The 

evidence provided in support of the remaining 

successfully achieved outcomes was primarily 

anecdotal—e.g., based on informal discussions 

with employers or a small number of participants. 

Cohort 1 projects were asked to estimate the 

number of individuals who had benefited at each 

stage as a direct or indirect result of their ARC 

grant in order to quantify the impact of ARC 

support at the project level. The range in the 

number of beneficiaries varied considerably across 

the projects. Projects estimated that as a result of 

the ARC grant, a median of four project staff 

received training, a median of 195 individuals 

received academic or vocational training, a median 

of 51 individuals received career counseling or job 

search/placement assistance, a median of 50 

individuals obtained a degree or credential, and a 

median of 60 individuals obtained employment. 

Cohort 1 projects described, in their own words, 

the single most important outcome that resulted 

from their ARC grant. As might be expected, 

projects varied in terms of the types of 

achievements they chose to emphasize. While 

some provided information about a community 

benefit that occurred as a result of their ARC 

grant, the majority focused on activities that were 

implemented or expanded.30 Specifically, threequarters of the projects illustrated how the ARC 

grant had enabled them to provide or expand a 

specific service or activity. The remaining 

projects described an outcome (e.g., enhanced skill 

levels, improved employment or educational 

status) that occurred as a result of their efforts. 

 

30 While the implementation or expansion of an activity represents an 

important achievement, successful implementation is not the same 

as the attainment of an outcome. 
59 

Project Sustainability and Expansion 

A final measure of the success of an ARC project 

is its sustainability. In recent years, federal 

agencies have placed a premium on grant 

recipients’ abilities to maintain projects after the 

initial period of grant funding. Funding agencies 

are especially anxious to support projects that will 

remain operational over time and leverage seed 

money to develop and expand self-sufficient 

programs. 

This chapter examines the operating status of 

Cohort 1 projects at the time of the mail survey, as 

well as the status of projects’ various activities and 

equipment. It also describes factors that 

influenced whether projects were able to sustain 

themselves beyond their ARC grants. 

PROJECT STATUS 

To determine the longevity of ARC projects, 

respondents were asked to indicate their operating 

status at the time of the mail survey. Nearly half 

(33 projects or 49 percent) of the 67 Cohort 1 

projects were operating at full capacity in the same 

way as during the ARC grant, and 30 percent (20 

projects) were operating with a scope that had 

expanded either in the services provided or the 

number of participants served31 (Figure 6-1). 

Fifteen percent (10 projects) were operating at a 

reduced scope, either providing fewer services or 

serving fewer participants. One of these projects 

indicated that it was serving more individuals and 

additional groups of people, but providing fewer 

services for its participants. Only four projects 

were no longer in operation. 

 

31 As noted in Chapter 1, projects lacking appropriate documentation 

and/or a knowledgeable survey respondent were excluded from the 

survey sample. It is therefore possible that the sampling method 

resulted in undercounting the projects that were no longer in 

operation at the time of the mail survey. 

Figure 6-1 

Current status of Cohort 1 projects (n=67) 



 



 49%

30%

15%

6%

In full operation in the

same way as during the

ARC grant period

In operation at an

expanded in scope

In operation at a reduced

scope



No longer in operation

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.

Some interesting trends emerged from this 

analysis.32 First, Cohort 1 projects that served 

participants with full-time job experience appeared 

to be less likely to be in full operation than 

projects serving those without full-time job 

experience or serving both experience levels 

(Table A6-1). Paradoxically, projects serving 

those with full-time job experience also appeared 

to be the most likely to be operating at an 

expanded scope. 

 

32 It is important to note that we are unable to use these findings to 

draw definitive conclusions or recommend the types of projects that 

ARC should support. However, these findings do suggest some 

informal steps that ARC staff might take when working with 

projects with large grants, as well as with projects that served adults 

and full-time employees. For example, in reviewing proposals, 

project coordinators might focus on whether applicants describe 

how specific activities will be sustained beyond the ARC grant 

period. In cases where this is not adequately addressed, the 

applicant might then be required to amend the proposal. Once 

funding has been approved, project coordinators might target these 

projects for site visits or more intensive technical assistance. While 

ARC staff might routinely perform these procedures for all of their 

projects, these findings suggest criteria that might be used to 

identify initiatives that could ultimately benefit the most from a site 

visit or other form of technical support. 

VI. 
60 

Projects that received the smallest ARC grants and 

that had the smallest total project costs appeared 

more likely to be in full operation than were 

projects that had more funds. This suggests that 

projects that were either less ambitious (and 

therefore able to operate with a smaller total 

project cost) or were able to leverage additional 

start-up funds (and therefore able to operate with a 

smaller ARC grant) were the most likely to obtain 

the financial support to remain operational beyond 

the ARC grant period. On the other hand, projects 

with the smallest ARC grant also appeared the 

least likely to be operating at an expanded scope. 

Contrary to what might be expected, Cohort 1 

projects that received ARC grants more recently—

those most recently funded in 1998 through 

2000—appeared to be less likely to be in full 

operation than those funded in the early 1990s or 

1996 and 1997 (Figure 6-2). However, the 

remaining 65 percent of recent projects were in 

operation or had changed, indicating that they may 

have expanded beyond their initial full operation. 

Curiously, projects last funded in 1996 or 1997 

appeared more likely to be no longer in operation 

than those funded prior to that time. 

Figure 6-2 

Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting current operating status, by last year funded (n=67) 

35

42

65

65

46

31

13

4

Percent of projects

In full operation in the same way as during the ARC grant period

In operation but changed

No longer in operation

Last funded 1990

through 1995 (n=26)

Last funded 1996

through 1997 (n=24)

Last funded 1998

through 2000 (n=17)

0 20 40 60 80 100

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.
61 

Types of Changes 

Among the projects that reported changing, 20 

(30 percent of all 67 projects) indicated they were 

serving more individuals (Table 6-1), 11 

(16 percent of all projects) indicated they were 

providing additional types of services, 9 

(13 percent of all projects) were serving additional 

groups of people, and 8 (12 percent of all projects) 

were providing services in more sites than they 

originally had been. Nine projects (13 percent of 

all projects) indicated they were serving fewer 

individuals, and 4 (6 percent of all projects) were 

providing fewer services. Other changes in 

operation included moving to a different building, 

adding a CAD/CAM system, and completing 

startup training before moving on to additional 

expansion projects. 

Table 6-1 

Number and percent of Cohort 1 projects that 

reported various ways their projects have 

changed since the ARC grant (n=30) 

Changes in projects Number Percent of 

all projects 

 

Expansions in scope 

The project serves more individuals...... 20 30 

The project provides additional types 

of services/training............................ 11 16 

The project serves additional groups of

people ................................................ 9 13 

The project provides services in more 

sites.................................................... 8 12 

Reductions in scope 

The project serves fewer individuals..... 9 13 

The project provides fewer services...... 4 6 

Other ...................................................... 4 6 

NOTE: Percentage estimates are based on the projects that indicated 

their project had changed since the end of the ARC grant. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Factors that Contributed to Changes 

The four projects that were no longer in operation 

and the 30 that had changed in some way since 

their ARC grant were asked to indicate factors that 

contributed to the changes (expanded or reduced) 

in their projects. Responses represent 

dichotomous views. While 21 percent of these 

projects cited a loss of funding as the reason why 

the project could not continue operations, another 

21 percent indicated that additional funding was 

available for additional services or participants 

(Figure 6-3). Whereas 47 percent indicated an 

increased need for their services in the community 

and 41 percent found additional areas of need 

since grant inception that led to expansion, smaller 

percentages reported factors related to buy-in and 

need that reduced projects’ scope. Specifically, 15 

percent cited a lack of interest among participants, 

12 percent indicated they met an established need 

and services were no longer necessary, and 9 

percent faced a lack of support from project 

partners. These figures are relatively small and 

suggest that ARC vocational education and 

workforce training projects face relatively few 

barriers to sustainability beyond securing 

continuing funding. In fact, among the four 

projects no longer in operation, three had 

discontinued operations because they had met the 

need they targeted and the project had run its 

course, while only one project discontinued as a 

result of lack of funds. And indeed, while funding 

can lead to expansion, the needs of the community 

are truly driving project expansion. 

STATUS OF ARC-FUNDED 

ACTIVITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

In addition to assessing overall project 

sustainability, we also examined the extent to 

which individual activities within projects were 

still operational at the time of the mail survey.33 

Overall, 94 percent of Cohort 1 projects indicated 

that at least some of their activities and equipment 

funded by ARC (including the associated match) 

were still operational (not shown in tables). None 

of the projects reported that all of their activities 

and equipment were still operational, and only 6 

percent indicated that none of their activities and 

 

33 For each activity they conducted, respondents indicated on the mail 

survey whether it was still operational or not. Activities for each 

project were combined to determine whether all, none, or some 

were still operational. This analysis creates uneven categories in 

that the “some” category is much broader than either of the other 

two. For example, some could mean 1 of a project’s 10 activities 

were operational, or it could mean 9 of the 10 activities were 

operational. Accordingly, these figures are only a rough 

approximation of the extent to which projects’ activities are still 

operational. 
62 

Figure 6-3 

Percent of ARC projects no longer in operation or in operation but changed (n=34) reporting 

factors contributing to reduced or expanded scope

3

3

6

9

15

21

3

21

41

47

12

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent of projects

Loss of funding for continuation

Lack of interest from participants

Met need, no longer necessary

Lack of support from project partners

Other

Approach no longer appropriate to problem

Loss of key staff

Delays in implementing approach

Expanded scope

Reduced scope

Increased need for services in the community

Additional areas of need since grant inception

Additional funding available for

additional participants and/or services

Loss of other services in the 

community-wide project to take on additional roles

0

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.

equipment were operational. While the portion of 

projects reporting that some of their activities and 

equipment were operational was high across the 

board, there were some differences across project 

characteristics (Table A6-2). The most striking 

trend confirms a project-level operating status 

finding: projects receiving the largest ARC grants 

and with the largest total project cost were 

considerably less likely to have some of their 

ARC-funded activities and equipment still 

operational, whereas for each of the other 

categories of grant amount and total project cost, 

all projects reported at least some of their activities 

and equipment were operational. 

In addition, projects that were serving individuals 

with full-time job experience appeared less likely 

to report that some of their activities and 

equipment were still operational than were 

projects serving those no full-time job experience 

or those serving individuals with both experience 

levels. Similarly, projects serving adults appeared 

less likely to report that their activities and 

equipment were operational than were projects 

serving youth or both youth and adults. 

We also examined which types of activities were 

still operational at the time of the mail survey. All 

of the projects that acquired computerized 

industrial equipment, noncomputerized industrial 

equipment, medical equipment, and other 

equipment supported with ARC funding reported 

that the equipment was still operational (Table 6-

2). Computer equipment, which tends to become 
63 

obsolete more rapidly than other equipment, was 

also mostly still operational; 86 percent of projects 

acquiring hardware and 82 percent of projects 

acquiring software reported the items were still in 

use. For those no longer in operation, the average 

years of operation for both types of computer 

equipment was reported to be 4 years, with 

obsolescence being the primary reason for items 

no longer being in use (not shown in tables). 

Mechanical failure of computer hardware was 

cited by only one project. See Exhibit 6-1 for an 

example of sustainability in an equipment-focused 

project. 

Table 6-2 

Number and percent of Cohort 1 projects 

reporting that the following ARC-funded 

activities/equipment were still operational at 

the time of the mail survey 

Type of activity Number of 

projects 

Percent of 

projects 

 

Equipment purchased, rented, 

or leased 

 Industrial equipment 

 (noncomputerized) (n=27)................ 27 100 

 Industrial equipment (computerized) 

 (n=23)................................................ 23 100 

 Computer hardware (n=44) ................... 38 86 

 Computer software (n=34) .................... 28 82 

 Medical equipment (n=9) ...................... 9 100 

 Other equipment (n=5).......................... 5 100 

Training activities 

 Occupational/technical training (n=65). 54 83 

 Academic training or enhancement 

 (n=48)................................................ 43 90 

 Business management training (n=14).. 10 71 

 Adult basic education (n=5) .................. 3 60 

 Other education (n=2) ........................... 2 100 

Job search assistance and career 

counseling 

 Career counseling (n=38) ...................... 34 89 

 Job search/placement assistance (n=32) 30 94 

 Employability skills (n=44)................... 38 86 

 Referrals to other agencies for job 

 assistance/career counseling (n=24) . 22 92 

Support services 

 Assistance arranging child care (n=4)... 4 100 

 Assistance arranging transportation 

 (n=5).................................................. 4 80 

 Financial assistance (n=12) ................... 11 92 

 Referrals to other agencies for social 

 support services (n=16)..................... 15 94 

Physical plant 

 Build new structure (n=5)...................... 3 60 

 Make addition or renovation to 

 existing ............................................. 8 40 

 Purchase/install office furniture (n=16) 5 31 

 Lease property or space (n=4)............... 2 50 

Project staff training 

 Project-purchased equipment (n=43) ..... 29 67 

 Special skill or knowledge area (n=40).. 32 80 

 Pedagogy or training skills (n=21)......... 19 90 

Training materials development 

 Instructor/teacher manuals/curricula 

 (n=36)................................................. 26 72 

 Student manuals/materials (n=32).......... 25 78 

 Standards/proficiencies aligned with 

 industry (n=27)................................... 21 78 

Community-wide activities 

 Establish community or business 

 partnerships (n=40) ............................ 34 85 

 Distribute funds or mini-grants (n=7) .... 5 71 

 Provide community outreach (n=26) ..... 23 88 

NOTE: ARC-funded activities are those for which respondents 

reported ARC provided some funding. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Exhibit 6-1. Example of 

equipment sustainability 

Manufacturing Assistance Center. The Manufacturing Assistance Center (MAC) is currently 

operating at full capacity. It became selfsupporting—mostly through training fees and 

partly through equipment rental—about a year ago. 

A consultant recently completed writing what he 

termed “a very conservative business plan” so that 

the MAC can weather economic upturns (creating 

little demand for retraining) and downturns 

(creating little demand for equipment usage). The 

MAC has worked a deal with AGIE, the 

manufacturer of the electronic discharge machine 

(EDM) equipment, to place their equipment at the 

MAC, either on consignment or straight donation, 

at no charge other than upkeep and maintenance. 

AGIE benefits by showcasing their products and 

creating a demand for their equipment among 

manufacturers who have used it at the MAC. 

The plant manager at the MAC noted that while 

industrial equipment using state-of-the-art 

computer technology will eventually become 

outdated, the manual industrial equipment can be 

rebuilt over and over indefinitely, as has been done 

with the MAC’s 50-year-old equipment. Moreover, 

the manual equipment is closer to the “state of the 

industry,” that is, the devices that most trainees will 

eventually use. Indeed, it has much more utility for 

some tasks, such as when creating only one item, 

once accounting for the time to program the higher 

technology equipment. For this reason, he asserts, 

the manual equipment will never become outdated 

in favor of the EDM and CNC equipment. Thus, 

even equipment that is technologically and 

chronologically outdated can still be relevant. 

(Multi-county, Pennsylvania)
64 

Most training activities supported by ARC were 

still being conducted as well. In fact, 90 percent 

of projects providing academic enhancement, 

83 percent of projects providing occupational/ 

technical training, 71 percent of projects providing 

business management training, and 60 percent of 

projects providing adult basic education reported 

they were still providing the training activities. 

About three-quarters of projects that developed 

various training materials reported that these 

materials were still in use. In addition, 80 percent 

of projects conducted staff training on skills or 

knowledge, and 90 percent of projects conducting 

staff training in pedagogy were still providing the 

training. 

Among projects providing job search assistance 

and career counseling services, over 85 percent 

were still providing each of the four types of 

activities. Social support services and communitywide activities were also still being conducted at 

high rates, with 80 percent or more projects 

continuing to provide support services and 70 

percent or more continuing to conduct communitywide activities. 

The lowest sustainability rates were found among 

projects conducting physical plant activities. 

However, it is possible that survey respondents 

interpreted this item differently for physical plant 

activities. For example, while one respondent may 

have indicated that an office furniture “activity” 

was currently ongoing because the furniture is still 

in use, another respondent may have answered that 

the office furniture “activity” was not currently 

going on because the project is not still purchasing 

new furniture. Accordingly, we cannot rely too 

heavily on findings regarding the sustainability of 

physical plant activities. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Most projects have sustained themselves beyond 

the ARC grant. Nearly half of the 67 Cohort 1 

projects were operating at full capacity in the same 

way as during the ARC grant, and 30 percent were 

operating with a scope that had expanded either in 

the services provided or the number of participants 

served. Fifteen percent were operating at a 

reduced scope, either providing fewer services or 

serving fewer participants. One of these projects 

indicated that it was serving more individuals and 

additional groups of people, but providing fewer 

services for its participants. Only 6 percent were 

no longer in operation. 

The four projects that were no longer in operation 

and the 30 that had changed in some way since 

their ARC grant indicated dichotomous factors 

that contributed to the changes (expanded or 

reduced) in their projects. While some cited a loss 

of funding for continuation, others indicated that 

additional funding was available for additional 

services or participants. Whereas some indicated 

an increased need for their services in the 

community or found additional areas of need since 

grant inception that led to expansion, still others 

reported factors related to buy-in and need that 

reduced projects’ scope. That these figures are 

relatively small suggests that ARC vocational 

education and workforce training projects face 

relatively few barriers to sustainability beyond 

securing continuing funding. And indeed, while 

funding can lead to expansion, the needs of the 

community are truly driving project expansion. 
65 

Project Objectives and 

Data Collection Activities 

Under the Government Performance and Results 

Act (GPRA), even a fully implemented project 

cannot be considered successful until it provides 

tangible evidence that it benefited the individuals 

or communities it served. The conceptual 

framework of how an individual might progress 

through a vocational education and workforce 

training program shows that after completing 

training or receiving various services by a project, 

an individual might obtain skills or have barriers 

ameliorated, or may obtain the skills only after the 

barriers are addressed. These may lead to 

obtaining a degree or credential and then 

improving employment status by gaining or 

retaining employment. Ultimately, an individual’s 

participation in vocational education or workforce 

training might result in improvements in the 

community’s viability. But none of these 

movements in and of themselves point to the 

achievement of an objective. Moving from an 

individual’s progress through a program to 

gathering specific and tangible evidence of 

achievements is neither simple nor without 

multiple steps. 

Tangible evidence might include the number of 

participants who complete a skills training 

program, attain a technical or vocational 

degree/credential/certificate, demonstrate an 

increase in their knowledge or skills, become 

employed, are promoted or receive increased 

wages, or leave public assistance (e.g., as a result 

of increased earnings). Evidence might also 

include the number of businesses that report hiring 

project participants or otherwise expanding as a 

result of ARC-supported activities. In order to 

provide valid evidence, projects must first clearly 

specify measurable and attainable objectives that 

relate to each aspect of a program, such as the 

components on the flow chart. These objectives 

must be bolstered with data items that support the 

objectives and with rigorous data collection 

methods that obtain valid and reliable data. In 

addition, since many objectives, particularly those 

on the righthand side of the flow chart, may only 

occur well after the grant period, projects must 

develop systems for collecting followup data on 

participants. 

This chapter provides information on the types of 

objectives that vocational education and workforce 

training projects identified for themselves and 

their participants in their ARC proposals. It also 

describes the range of data collection activities 

that projects are using to determine whether their 

objectives have been achieved. 

OBJECTIVES THAT PROJECTS 

IDENTIFIED FOR THEMSELVES

There are two broad types of data that vocational 

education and workforce training programs can 

collect and disseminate. Output data provide 

information on the type and level of services 

rendered to project participants—e.g., the number 

of individuals participating in a training program. 

These are represented in the training, support 

services, and job search and career services areas 

of the flow chart. Outcome data document the 

condition or circumstances of program participants 

after a service has been provided—e.g., the 

number of project participants who attain 

employment or enhance their earnings. These are 

represented on the righthand half of the flow chart. 

Prior to 1993, many federal agencies primarily 

relied on output data to quantify the type of 

services they were providing. However, under 

GPRA, federal programs must now also use 

outcome data to demonstrate improvements that 

have occurred as a result of their services. 

VII. 
66 

Throughout much of the 1990s, there were few 

ARC guidelines in place promoting the inclusion 

of outcomes in applications and final reports. As a 

result, projects funded during this period were not 

required to quantify how project participants 

would benefit from their proposed activities. In 

1998, this situation changed when the Commission 

developed application guidelines designed to 

improve the quality and consistency of the 

proposals submitted to ARC. Under these 

guidelines, applicants are required to describe the 

objectives of their proposed project, provide an 

explanation of how the effort pertains to one or 

more of the Commission’s five strategic goals, and 

offer a rationale for their proposed approach. 

They must also describe the “output and outcome 

benefits to be derived from the project—with 

particular emphasis on the extent to which the 

benefits to the area being served by the project 

will be realized on a continuing rather than a 

temporary basis.”34 

Applicants are also encouraged to provide numeric 

benchmarks that specify the number of individuals 

who will receive services and benefit from the 

ARC-funded activities. Vocational education and 

workforce training applicants that fail to provide a 

numeric benchmark may be asked to submit 

additional information regarding anticipated 

outputs (e.g., 100 people will receive training), 

intermediate outcomes (e.g., 75 trainees will 

obtain a certificate), and long-term outcomes (e.g., 

50 trainees will obtain and retain full-time 

employment). The use of these numerical 

benchmarks provides the Commission and its 

projects with specific targets against which 

immediate and long-term progress can be 

measured. As such, the delineation of these 

benchmarks represents a critical cornerstone of 

ARC’s evolving performance monitoring strategy. 

In an effort to systematically assess whether 

changes to the Commission’s application process 

had their intended effect, we identified the 

qualitative and quantitative objectives35 that 

Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 projects delineated in their 

original proposals to the ARC. By analyzing 

 

34 ARC Project Application Workbook. 

35 We use the term objective to include both outputs and outcomes. 

objectives for projects funded before (Cohort 1) 

and after (Cohort 2) the Commission enhanced its 

application procedures, we were able to examine 

whether there had been an improvement over time 

in the quality of outputs and outcomes that 

projects anticipated for themselves. 

Quality of Projects’ Objectives 

Almost all Cohort 1 (97 percent) and Cohort 2 (92 

percent) projects described at least one anticipated 

outcome or community benefit in their proposal to 

ARC (not shown in tables). The remaining 

projects only identified outputs or services that 

would be provided as a result of ARC funding. 

There were, however, several noteworthy 

distinctions in the quality of the outputs and 

outcomes anticipated by Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 

projects. Specifically: 

• A higher proportion of Cohort 2 proposals 

described an anticipated outcome 

pertaining to barrier reduction, degree 

attainment, and employment status. While a 

higher proportion of Cohort 1 projects 

described an outcome pertaining to 

community viability, many of these statements 

were not defined in measurable terms. 

• A higher proportion of Cohort 2 proposals 

contained numeric outcomes. Numeric 

outcomes enable ARC to more precisely 

assess whether projects have met their goals. 

Most (84 percent) Cohort 2 projects described 

at least one numeric outcome in their proposal 

or program announcement (Figure 7-1). 

Conversely, just 28 percent of Cohort 1 

projects specified a numeric outcome. The 

remaining Cohort 1 projects specified only 

numeric outputs (48 percent) or failed to 

specify any numeric benchmarks (24 percent). 

This increase in the proportion of projects 

describing numeric benchmarks appears to be 

a direct result of ARC’s new application 

guidelines and the efforts of ARC project 
67 

coordinators to negotiate such targets when 

none are specified in the initial proposal.36 

Figure 7-1. 

Percent of projects delineating numeric 

objectives 

Cohort 1 

48%

28%

24%

Projects with only

numeric outputs

Projects with at least

one numeric outcome

Projects with no

numeric benchmarks

Cohort 2 

8%

84%

8%

SOURCE: Document review of ARC education projects.

• A lower proportion of Cohort 2 proposals 

contained vague and impractical goals. Our 

document review found that Cohort 2 projects 

were less likely than their predecessors to 

 

36 Specifically, all but two Cohort 2 proposals contained at least one 

benchmark, suggesting that the new guidelines contributed to a 

widespread recognition among successful applicants that they 

needed to specify numeric benchmarks in their proposals. In 

addition, a review of program announcements and press releases 

found that 8 of the 10 Cohort 2 projects that failed to specify 

benchmarks in their initial proposal ultimately had stated 

benchmarks in the program announcement or press release—

suggesting that ARC project staff were successful in requiring that 

applicants develop numeric targets as a condition of receiving ARC 

funding. 

describe lofty goals that were beyond the 

possibility of a single project to achieve (e.g., 

the project will improve the quality of life for 

people in the region, enhance economic 

development in north Alabama). Once again, 

this finding suggests that ARC’s revised 

guidelines helped applicants avoid describing 

infeasible goals in favor of more precise 

statements of what would occur if their 

interventions were successful. 

• Cohort 2 projects were more likely to 

describe a direct link between services and 

outcomes. Cohort 2 projects were more likely 

than their predecessors to specify both the 

number of participants who would receive 

services and the proportion of those 

participants who would subsequently realize 

an intended benefit (e.g., obtain employment, 

enhance their earnings). 

Types of Objectives Specified by Projects 

Overall, projects delineated objectives on both the 

output and outcome areas of the flow chart. Of the 

284 Cohort 1 objectives identified through the 

document review, 30 percent represented an 

anticipated service to individuals or communities, 

or output, that would be provided, and the 

remaining 70 percent represented a benefit, or 

outcome, that would occur as a result of ARC 

funding (Table 7-1). These include reduced 

barriers, skill attainment, degree attainment, 

improved employment status, and improved 

community viability. The distribution of outputs 

and outcomes was similar for the 86 objectives 

contained in the Cohort 2 application materials—

36 percent and 64 percent, respectively. 

Services provided to individuals. Approximately 

one-fourth of the Cohort 1 (26 percent) and Cohort 

2 (29 percent) objectives specified that residents 

would participate in or complete a project-related 

activity (Table 7-1). In fact, almost all Cohort 1 

and Cohort 2 objectives pertaining to services 

provided to individuals contained a numeric 

benchmark—91 percent and 96 percent, 

respectively. As shown in Exhibit 7-1, there were 

no discernable differences in the quality of the 

statements that were made regarding the services 
68 

that would be provided to individuals as a result of 

ARC funding. 

Services provided to the community. Only a 

few of the Cohort 1 (4 percent) and Cohort 2 

(7 percent) objectives represented a service to the 

community (Table 7-1). These objectives 

generally indicated the number of businesses that 

would receive services, the type of services they 

would receive, or the benefits that businesses 

would receive as a result of their participation in 

the project (Exhibit 7-1). Most of the Cohort 1 

(75 percent) and Cohort 2 (83 percent) objectives 

pertaining to services provided to the community 

contained a numeric benchmark (Table 7-1). 

Table 7-1 

Percent of objectives of various types and percent with numerical benchmarks, by cohort 

Percent of objectives by type Percent of objectives with 

numerical benchmark 

Type of objective Cohort 1 

(n=284) 

Cohort 2 

(n=86) 

Cohort 1 Cohort 2 

 

Services provided to individuals .................................... 26 29 91 96 

Services provided to community.................................... 4 7 75 83 

Barrier reduction............................................................. 5 9 20 63 

Skill attainment............................................................... 21 17 14 73 

Degree attainment........................................................... 7 10 67 89 

Impact employment status.............................................. 15 21 23 100 

Impact community viability ........................................... 20 6 5 20 

Other ............................................................................... 1 0 0 – 

NOTE: Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

Exhibit 7-1. Examples of outputs anticipated by Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 projects 

Services Provided to Individuals 

Cohort 1 

• In 1995-96, 60 students will be trained in machine technology/computer aided manufacturing. 

• Twenty students will participate in the Whitfield County Apprenticeship Program. 

• The Manufacturing Assistance Center will broaden its user base. 

• In 1999, 12 welfare recipients will be trained to provide high quality child care in public day care facilities, 

preschool settings, or home-based day care facilities. 

• Over 170 participants will be retrained to retain employment. 

Cohort 2 

• The new facility is expected to serve nearly 1,000 people in its first year of operation. 

• Three new degree programs will be established. 

• During the program year, a total of 147 persons will participate in the program—75 in the pre-hire wood 

skills training and 72 in skills upgrade training. 
69 

Barrier reduction. Only a few of the Cohort 1 

(5 percent) and Cohort 2 (9 percent) objectives 

addressed barriers that would be ameliorated as a 

result of ARC funding (Table 7-1). These 

objectives typically identified an economic 

condition that would be ameliorated (e.g., reduce 

participants’ dependence on welfare, housing 

assistance, and all other forms of public 

assistance), a specific obstacle that was preventing 

participants from achieving a greater goal (e.g., 

less than 5 percent of participants will drop out 

after the first week of class), or a benefit that 

would occur after participants had overcome a 

barrier (e.g., increase the number of students 

attending college after high school in distressed 

areas of Kentucky). Data suggest that a higher 

proportion of Cohort 2 barrier reduction objectives 

contained a numeric benchmark—63 percent, 

compared to 20 percent for Cohort 1 projects. 

Skill attainment. A similar proportion of Cohort 

1 (21 percent) and Cohort 2 (17 percent) 

objectives represented a skill that participants 

would acquire as a result of ARC funding (Table 

7-1). However, there was a notable difference in 

the specificity of skill attainment objectives 

delineated by the two cohorts. As shown in 

Exhibit 7-2, Cohort 1 applicants generally 

described the type of skills that participants would 

acquire (e.g., students will be more safety 

conscious as entry-level employees), while Cohort 

2 applicants also indicated the number of 

participants who would acquire new skills (e.g., 43 

adults will have completed the first half of their 

Cisco certification training). In fact, data indicate 

that a much higher proportion of Cohort 2 skill 

attainment objectives (73 percent) contained a 

numeric benchmark than did those of Cohort 1 (14 

percent). 

Exhibit 7-1. Examples of outputs anticipated by Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 projects (continued) 

Services Provided to the Community 

Cohort 1 

• In FY 1997, 30 businesses will be served. 

• By the end of the 3rd year, 20 firms will be enlisted to participate in the program. 

• Thirty-five manufacturers will be assisted by the SPIRC by providing educational training to become more 

productive. 

• Make GPS technology available for community projects. 

• Five hundred educators and business personnel will participate in structured school-to-work staff 

development activities. 

• Decrease in loss-time accidents resulting from training on specialized equipment. 

Cohort 2 

• Assist 10 or more businesses to meet training needs by enrolling 150 employees in customized training. 

• Work with 5 local businesses to conduct job profiles. 

• Increase the retention of workers for member companies. 

• The workforce training needs of 500 employers will be served each year. 

• Increase the productivity and competitiveness for a network of home-based, handloom knitting businesses in 

rural Appalachia. 

• Reduce the recruiting and hiring costs for businesses. 

SOURCE: Document review of ARC grantees. 
70 

Degree attainment. Only a few Cohort 1 

(7 percent) and Cohort 2 (10 percent) objectives 

represented a degree or credential that participants 

would earn as a result of ARC funding (Table 7-

1). A higher proportion of Cohort 2 degree 

attainment objectives contained a numeric 

benchmark (89 percent compared to 67 percent for 

Cohort 1 projects). Exhibit 7-3 provides examples 

of projects’ anticipated degree attainment 

outcomes. 

Impact employment status. A similar proportion 

of Cohort 1 (15 percent) and Cohort 2 (21 percent) 

objectives described how participants’ employment status would improve as a result of ARC 

Exhibit 7-2. Examples of skill attainment 

outcomes anticipated 

by Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 projects 

Cohort 1 

• New worker behaviors and skills will be 

transferred to the workplace. 

• Western Maryland students who wish to remain 

in the region will possess the technical skills 

that enable them to find employment in the 

region’s printing, publishing, and design 

industry. 

• Increase the small business leadership skills of 

at least 25 to 30 youth annually. 

• Increase the number of adults from the 

community who learn computer aid design. 

• Secondary and adult students who participate 

in these courses will be better prepared for the 

workforce. 

• Increase the knowledge base and computer 

skills of Meigs High School graduates. 

• Graduates will be prepared to operate CNC 

machines on the job. 

• Forty students will learn both the theory and 

application aspects of horticulture. 

• Students will be more safety conscious as entrylevel employees. 

• The new hires (graduates with at least one year 

of training on the new equipment) will have 

better entry-level skills than previous graduates 

hired as determined by the employers. 

Cohort 2 

• Participants will have skills that could be 

transferred to other industries/labor markets. 

• At least 100 employees will complete a training 

course that had been requested by their 

employers. 

• Forty-three adults will have completed the first 

half of their Cisco certification training. 

• Nineteen individuals with developmental 

disabilities and mental health issues will 

complete the training. 

• Thirteen welfare-to-work recipients will 

complete the training.

SOURCE: Document review of ARC grantees. 

Exhibit 7-3. Examples of degree attainment 

outcomes anticipated 

by Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 projects 

Cohort 1 

• Fourteen students will pass all required 

courses and examinations during the 12-month 

period. 

• Fifteen to twenty students will graduate from 

the physical therapy technology program. 

• Starting in 1996, 40 students per year will 

complete their degrees. 

• Increase the number of evening school students 

who attain their vocational diploma through 

their participation in and completion of 

technology courses. 

• In 1999, 6 welfare parents will complete 

graduation. 

Cohort 2 

• Twelve students will pass the licensure test. 

• Thirty-three students will complete degree 

requirements. 

• Twelve to fifteen students will graduate in July 

2001 from the Surgical Technology Program. 

• Twenty students will graduate from the 

Associate Degree program in Machine Tool 

technology. 

• Six vocational education teachers will become 

fully certified Cisco trainers during the project 

year.

SOURCE: Document review of ARC grantees. 
71 

funding (Table 7-1). However, there was a 

notable difference in the specificity of 

employment objectives delineated by the two 

cohorts, with Cohort 2 projects more frequently 

providing specific, measurable outcomes. As 

shown in Exhibit 7-4, Cohort 1 applicants tended 

to list a general employment goal that lacked a 

benchmark (e.g., graduates will earn higher wages 

(since their productivity will increase), jobs of 

local surveyors will be preserved). In fact, only 

23 percent of Cohort 1 employment objectives 

contained a numeric benchmark. Conversely, all 

of the Cohort 2 employment objectives specified 

the number of participants who would have 

enhanced job status. 

Impact community viability. A higher 

proportion of Cohort 1 objectives described how 

their community would benefit as a result of ARC 

funding—20 percent, compared to 6 percent for 

Cohort 2 projects (Table 7-1). As shown in 

Exhibit 7-5, applicants from both cohorts tended to 

describe how their projects would assist local 

businesses (e.g., in FY 1999, business partners in 

the Apprenticeship Program will expand to at 

least one more untapped occupational sector) or 

improve the local economy (e.g., increase the 

number of start-up businesses, new jobs will be 

created). A higher proportion of Cohort 2 

community viability objectives contained a 

numeric benchmark—20 percent, compared to 5 

percent for Cohort 1 projects—even though these 

objectives had fewer numeric benchmarks than did 

other types of objectives. We suspect that even 

Cohort 2 projects may have found community 

viability objectives more difficult to quantify than 

other types of objectives represented on the flow 

chart. 

Exhibit 7-4. Examples of employment 

outcomes anticipated 

by Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 projects 

Cohort 1 

• Increase the number of qualified dental 

hygienists entering the job market in the 

Appalachian counties in north Alabama. 

• Increase the number of job placements in north 

Alabama. 

• Graduates will earn high wages (since their 

productivity will increase). 

• Increase the number of students placed in skill 

development positions. 

• Increase the percentage of graduates that were 

placed in jobs. 

• Adams County students will have greater 

access to job opportunities. 

• Improve job prospects for young people in the 

northeastern region of Pennsylvania. 

• Students will be more employable because they 

will be multi-skilled in the industrial 

maintenance mechanics field. 

• Successful completers of the apprenticeship 

program will gain employment into full-time 

employment. 

• Workers will have advanced skills required to 

retain their employment. 

• Three students per year will be placed in jobs 

related to granite etching. 

• For 1999, 6 welfare parents will be placed in 

full-time child care jobs. 

• Jobs of local surveyors will be preserved. 

• More African Americans will enter the 

workforce in computer system engineering. 

Cohort 2 

• Participants will increase their family income 

after being employed. 

• The 1,700 to 2,000 individuals trained through 

this program will be employed as production 

associates in the BMW plant in Spartanburg, 

South Carolina. 
72 

PROJECTS’ EFFORTS TO 

COLLECT OUTCOME DATA 

The Commission’s focus on measuring results 

requires that its vocational education and 

workforce training projects compile reliable 

statistics on outcomes, such as gains in skill 

attainment, job placement and retention, 

employment status, and earnings. At the national 

level, these findings can then be used to assess 

whether ARC is achieving its strategic goals. At 

the local level, such data can be used to assess 

whether a project has attained its overall goals, to 

identify successful activities that should be 

sustained, to identify unsuccessful practices that 

should be modified or discontinued, and to attract 

financial support from other funding sources. 

Furthermore, data can be used in concert with the 

conceptual framework to determine where an 

anticipated process might break down. Where a 

final outcome was not met, were intermediary 

outcomes that were to lead to the final outcome 

also not met? For example, if participants did not 

earn expected promotions, it may have been 

because they also did not earn the required degree 

to be eligible for the promotion. 

This section assesses how the 25 vocational 

education and workforce training projects that 

Exhibit 7-4. Examples of employment 

outcomes anticipated 

by Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 projects 

(continued) 

Cohort 2 

• Thirty-two students will begin an online 

business in the first year. 

• Sixty-six participants will receive an increase 

in wages due to upgrade training. 

• Nine welfare-to-work recipients will be placed 

in jobs in the community. 

• Half of the trainees (500) in the first year will 

obtain or retain employment as a result of 

training received at the facility. 

• Sixteen graduates will be employed in the field 

at the end of the first year. 

• Six individuals with developmental disabilities 

and mental health issues will achieve a more 

integrated or competitive job placement. 

• Upon graduation from high school, 510 

students (85 percent) will either successfully 

enter the workforce or continue their 

education.

SOURCE: Document review of ARC grantees. 

Exhibit 7-5. Examples of community 

viability outcomes anticipated 

by Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 projects 

Cohort 1 

• Enhance economic development in north 

Alabama. 

• The local economy will benefit from the 

increased wages earned by a more productive 

workforce. 

• In FY 1999, business partners in the 

Apprenticeship Program will expand to at 

least one more untapped occupational sector. 

• Increase the number of start-up businesses. 

• The printing and publishing industry in 

western Maryland and surrounding counties 

will continue to grow. 

• New jobs will be created. 

• Increase the capacity of Appalachian 

companies to effectively compete in the global 

marketplace. 

• Attract more businesses to a depressed area 

with better skilled graduates. 

Cohort 2 

• The area’s tourism infrastructure will grow 

and expand. 

• Increase industrial development because of 

improved environment. 

• The wood products industry will benefit by 

having an accessible pool of potential 

employees with skills and competencies 

required by the industry. 

• Fifty new jobs will be created in the region as 

a result of increased sales and new businesses 

created through e-commerce.

SOURCE: Document review of ARC grantees. 
73 

received funding in 2000 are positioning 

themselves to provide the Commission with 

detailed information supporting their objectives in 

all areas of the flow chart. It also explores the 

range of promising practices that projects are 

employing—and the range of barriers that these 

projects are experiencing—as they document how 

their efforts have benefited individuals and the 

community at large. The primary purpose is to 

provide the Commission with timely feedback on 

whether its most recently funded projects are 

taking the necessary steps to collect and use 

outcome data. 

It should be noted that at the time the survey was 

administered (February 2001), only four Cohort 2 

projects had begun collecting outcome data. All 

but one of the remaining projects were planning to 

initiate their collection efforts at some point in the 

future. The remaining project indicated that it was 

not planning to collect any outcome data. 

Type of Outcome Data Projects Plan to Collect 

Cohort 2 projects collected data for both the 

education- and employment-related areas of the 

conceptual framework, but concentrated on the 

earlier stages of an individual’s progress in both. 

Most Cohort 2 projects indicated that they were 

planning to collect education-related data on the 

number of project participants who increased their 

knowledge or skills (60 percent), and nearly half 

(44 percent) collected data on the number of 

participants who completed a skills training 

program (Table 7-2). But fewer projects planned 

to collect data on attainment of high school 

diplomas (24 percent), technical certificates 

(32 percent), or associate’s or bachelor’s degrees 

(24 percent). 

In addition, more than two-thirds (68 percent) 

collected employment-related outcome data on 

those who had found employment, and 

approximately half were planning to count the 

number of businesses hiring project participants 

(48 percent). However, fewer than one-third were 

planning to collect data on job retention (32 

percent), increased wages/earnings (24 percent), 

job promotions (12 percent), increased employerTable 7-2 

Percent of Cohort 2 projects collecting outcome 

data about project participants and/or the 

overall community, by type of outcome data 

(n=25) 

Type of outcome data Percent 

Educational Status of Participants 

Increase knowledge or skills........................................ 60 

Completion of a secondary or postsecondary skills 

training program...................................................... 44 

Attainment of a high school diploma or GED............. 24 

Attainment of a technical or vocational 

degree/credential/certificate .................................... 32 

Entrance into a postsecondary 2-year or 4-year 

college or university................................................ 24 

Attainment of an associate’s, bachelor’s, or higher 

degree ...................................................................... 24 

Other ............................................................................ 8 

Employment Status of Participants 

Job placements............................................................. 68 

Job retention................................................................. 32 

Job promotions............................................................. 12 

Wages/earnings............................................................ 24 

Employer-provided health benefits ............................. 8 

Public assistance case closures or grant reductions 

due to increased earnings ........................................ 4 

Other ............................................................................ 4 

Community Impacts 

Number of businesses served by the project ............... 56 

Number of businesses hiring project participants ....... 48 

Other ............................................................................ 0 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

provided health benefits (8 percent), or reduced 

reliance on public assistance (4 percent). It is not 

clear whether this finding reflects the difficulty of 

obtaining these data or the fact that fewer 

respondents considered these employment 

indicators to be immediate or long-term goals of 

their projects. 

Data Collection Methodologies 

Cohort 2 projects used a range of data collection 

methods to obtain information supporting their 

objectives. Most (80 percent) of the projects were 

planning to employ two or more nonanecdotal 

collection/analysis methods to assess how their 

efforts had affected participants or the overall 
74 

community (not shown in tables).37 Two-thirds of 

the projects were planning to use at least one type 

of survey to collect supplementary data. Projects 

designed mail surveys of participants or former 

participants (44 percent), telephone surveys of 

participants or former participants (36 percent), or 

mail or telephone surveys of local employers (36 

percent) (Table 7-3). 

Table 7-3 

Percent of Cohort 2 projects using various data 

collection and analysis methods 

Type of data collection or analysis method Percent 

using 

 

Informal (anecdotal) conversations (e.g., participants, 

employers) ................................................................... 60 

Analysis of project administrative records ...................... 52 

Analysis of education data............................................... 48 

Pre/post assessment of participants’ knowledge or skills 44 

Mail surveys of participants/former participants............. 44 

Number of persons who became certified or passed a 

test................................................................................ 40 

Telephone surveys of participants/former participants ... 36 

Mail/telephone surveys of local employers ..................... 36 

Analysis of employment and wage data .......................... 20 

Analysis of community economic data............................ 12 

Analysis of public assistance data ................................... 4 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.

In addition, approximately one-fifth of the Cohort 

2 projects were conducting pre/post assessments of 

participants’ knowledge or skills (44 percent) or 

documenting the number of participants who 

became certified or passed a test (40 percent). 

Most were planning to analyze some form of 

existing data, including project-related 

administrative records (52 percent), education data 

(48 percent), employment and wage data 

 

37 As discussed in Chapter 5, anecdotal data generally carry less 

weight than those derived from a specific study or data source. 

Thus, we are focusing on the stronger data collection methods that 

do not employ what may be unsubstantiated claims. Nonanecdotal 

outcome methods include analysis of project administrative records, 

analysis of employment and wage data, analysis of education data, 

analysis of community economic data, analysis of public assistance 

data, number of persons who became certified or passed a test, 

pre/post assessment of participants’ knowledge or skills, mail 

surveys of participants/former participants, telephone surveys of 

participants/former participants, and mail/telephone surveys of local 

employers. 

(20 percent), community economic data 

(12 percent), or public assistance data (4 percent). 

Finally, while 60 percent were planning to rely on 

anecdotal data (e.g., informal conversations with 

participants or employers), none were planning to 

use such informal methods as their only source of 

information about project-related outcomes. 

While we obtained information on the types of 

methodologies that projects were using (or 

planning to use), we were not in a position to 

assess whether these projects were taking steps to 

assure nonbiased sampling and adequate response 

rates. However, based on findings from the two 

Cohort 2 site visits (discussed later in this section), 

it appears that some projects experienced difficulty 

designing and implementing rigorous and reliable 

data collection procedures. 

Collection of Followup Data 

The full range of benefits associated with an ARC 

vocational education or workforce training 

intervention may not occur until well after a 

participant has left the project. For example, 

workers who receive training in a specific skill 

may not attain a promotion or higher wages for 6 

to 12 months. If the project only collects outcome 

data on participants at the time they complete 

training (e.g., completion of a skills program, an 

increase in knowledge), it may fail to document 

longer term outcomes that result from their 

participation in a training component. 

To assess whether projects were obtaining 

information on the longer term benefits associated 

with their efforts, Cohort 2 respondents were 

asked when they planned to obtain outcome data 

on the status of their participants. Only one-fifth 

(20 percent) were planning to collect outcome data 

13 to 24 months after participants left the program 

(Table 7-4). In addition, 20 percent were only

planning to collect outcome data at the time 

participants left the project, 12 percent were only

planning to collect outcome data 1 to 6 months 

after participants left the project, and none of the 

projects were planning to collect outcome data 

more than 24 months after participants left the 
75 

project (not shown in tables), suggesting that many 

projects were not focusing on the long term. 

Table 7-4 

Timeframe used by Cohort 2 projects to collect 

data on project objectives 

Timeframe Percent

 

At the time participants leave the project ............... 44 

1-6 months after participants leave the project....... 48 

7-12 months after participants leave the project..... 32 

13-24 months after participants leave the project .. 20 

More than 24 months after participants leave the 

project ................................................................. 0 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

In addition, only 5 of the 16 projects that were 

administering surveys were planning to collect 

outcome data more than a year after participants 

left the project (not shown in tables). Only 22 

percent of projects that were obtaining information 

on participants’ enhanced employment status (e.g., 

increased responsibilities, increased wages, or 

promotions), and 18 percent of projects obtaining 

information on participants’ new employment 

were collecting data more than 12 months after 

participants left the project (Table 7-5). This 

finding is significant, since it suggests that the 

majority of Cohort 2 projects that are promoting 

long-term employment achievements are not 

obtaining data that can be used to assess whether 

such gains have actually occurred. It also suggests 

that Cohort 2 projects are not collecting outcome 

data that can be reported as part of the 

Commission’s validation visits.38 This is likely 

due to the fact that projects have neither the 

capacity, nor the resources to collect longer term 

outcome data. 

Finally, the survey did not uncover any evidence 

that ARC projects receiving larger grants conduct 

more thorough or rigorous evaluations. This is not 

to suggest that more funding would not be helpful. 

However, unless funds are earmarked for 

evaluation—and projects understand how to 

conduct and use evaluations—project staff may 

simply not be motivated to conduct thorough 

evaluations. 

 

38As part if its effort to obtain GPRA data, the Commission has 

recently begun conducting validation visits to projects that are no 

longer receiving ARC support. The purpose of these visits is to 

assess whether projects ultimately attained their longer term 

outcomes. 

Table 7-5 

Timeframe used by Cohort 2 projects to collect data on project objectives, by intermediate and longterm project goals

Cohort 2 project goals 

Timeframe Obtain 

GED 

(n=10) 

Obtain a 

degree

(n=16) 

Gain fulltime 

employment 

(n=19) 

Maintain 

current 

employment 

(n=14) 

Increase job 

responsibilities or 

wages 

(n=18) 

Obtain new 

employment 

(n=17) 

Retrain 

workers 

(n=14) 

 

At the end of the project................ 50 44 42 36 39 41 36 

1-6 months after participants 

leave the project........................ 40 44 42 50 56 59 57 

7-12 months after participants 

leave the project........................ 60 44 32 21 28 29 29 

13-24 months after participants 

leave the project........................ 10 6 21 21 22 18 21 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
76 

Typical followup patterns for other career and 

technical training programs suggest that ARC 

projects should be doing more. U.S. Department 

of Education vocational education (Perkins III) 

grantees typically monitor high school graduates at 

6, 12, and 24 months and community college 

graduates at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Job Training 

Partnership Act grantees typically conduct 

followup at 6, 18, and 30 months, while Welfareto-Work and JobStart projects may extend 

followup out to 5 years. However, it should be 

noted that Perkins III grantees, those with the least 

followup, typically do not have the funds to do 

what they are asked. Five percent of local district 

and postsecondary institution grants is earmarked 

for administration. Grantees typically use all of 

these funds, as well as part of the 5 percent setaside for leadership activities, for evaluation. 

BARRIERS TO COLLECTING 

OUTCOME DATA

This section provides an additional perspective on 

the data collection activities undertaken by 

vocational education and workforce training 

projects: respondents’ descriptions of the barriers 

they had encountered (or expected to encounter) in 

collecting outcome data. Over half (58 percent) of 

Cohort 2 projects had not encountered any data 

collection barriers, while 26 percent were 

experiencing problems associated with a lack of 

funding or staff (Table 7-6). A smaller proportion 

reported lacking the time (18 percent) or expertise 

(5 percent) to collect outcome data. Only 16 

percent anticipated having difficulty tracking 

participants after they had left the project. 

However, as stated above, few projects were 

attempting to track participants long after their 

participation. 

Although corresponding data were not collected 

for Cohort 1 projects, the survey addendum did 

uncover some interesting trends. Specifically, 16 

of the 67 Cohort 1 projects indicated that they 

were unable to ascertain whether at least one of 

their ARC-related objectives was achieved. Eight 

of these projects indicated that they lacked the 

resources or impetus to collect outcome data, 

while four reported that not enough time had 

passed for projects to assess whether an outcome 

had been attained (not shown in tables). For the 

remaining projects, it appeared that the objective 

was difficult or impossible to measure. Exhibit 7-

6 provides examples of the factors that prevented 

projects from determining whether a given 

outcome was attained. 

Table 7-6 

Barriers that hindered the efforts of Cohort 2 

projects to collect outcome data 

Barrier Percent

 

Did not encounter any obstacles ............................. 58 

Lack of funding or staff........................................... 26 

Lack of time............................................................. 18 

Difficulty of tracking participants after they have 

left the project ..................................................... 16 

Lack of access to expertise in data collection and 

analysis................................................................ 5 

Other ........................................................................ 5 

NOTE: Six projects, which did not provide any information about the 

barriers that hindered the ability to collect outcome data, were 

excluded from calculation. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 

SITE VISIT FINDINGS REGARDING 

PROJECTS’ DATA COLLECTION 

ACTIVITIES

This section provides a more indepth description 

of the data collection experiences in the five case 

study sites. During the site visits, we had an 

opportunity to interview the staff responsible for 

collecting data on project participants. As 

discussed in Chapter 1, case study findings are not 

representative of the study sample and cannot be 

used to make generalizations about the data 

collection experiences of ARC’s vocational 

education and workforce training projects. We 

can, however, use information from the case 

studies to provide a more detailed description of 

the types of collection methodologies that projects 

are employing—and the barriers they are 

encountering as they compile outcome data on 

project participants. 

Overall, we found that sites were making at least 

some effort to obtain information about benefits 
77 

that participants attained as a result of their 

participation in an ARC-funded activity. 

However, in some cases, projects were only able 

to collect these data because of the relatively small 

number of participants who needed to be tracked. 

In other cases, projects were primarily collecting 

data on the number of persons who received 

services—with only a limited amount of 

information being collected about what happened 

to participants after they completed a project 

component. 

In addition, the two school-based projects were 

collecting data required by the districts or states. 

In another site, one of the funders required 

additional data to be collected. For these three 

sites, the motivation to collect followup data was 

external. However, it is unclear whether these 

Exhibit 7-6. Examples of factors that prevented respondents 

from determining whether their ARC objectives had been achieved 

Anticipated ARC objective Factors preventing assessment of 

whether objective was achieved 

Jobs of local surveyors will be preserved. No follow-up surveys were administered to project 

participants. 

Increase the skills and competencies of 

graduates. 

The use of the equipment does contribute to increased skills 

and competencies—but in a very small way. We have very 

little ability to ascertain to what extent this “little stepping 

stone” added to the skills of the graduates. It is like 8 hours 

of time out of an 80 credit program. 

Students will be better able to compete for jobs 

in the tri-county area because they will have 

graduated with a broad-based academic and 

technical base. 

This equipment deals with a skill in a portion of the overall 

technical skill that employees are serving on. Therefore, it 

is hard to measure the exact impact. 

Twenty students will be enrolled in the second 

semester computer publishing course. 

Enrollment numbers for specific courses are not 

maintained. Total enrollment for five years (1996-1997 

through 2000-2001) is 147 students. 

Number of employers will increase as surveyor 

firms become able to effectively compete for 

contracts with out-of-region forms. 

No mechanism was established for determining this 

outcome. 

Attract more business to a depressed area with 

better skilled graduates. 

This is such a long-range goal that we are unable to collect 

data on it. 

Decrease in loss-time accidents resulting from 

training on specialized equipment. 

No tools available to compare previous data (loss-time 

accidents) and draw a direct correlation. 

College-bound graduates who participate in 

these courses will have a better chance of 

success in college. 

We did not develop a measure to analyze the success of this 

goal. 

Expansion in job proficiency [will lead] to an 

increase in job production 

This measure is difficult to address other than just an 

informal response from employers. 

Of the 150 participants, at least 41 percent will 

enroll in a postsecondary course of study. 

There has not been a sufficient number of years to for the 

participants to have completed a secondary degree yet. 

The new hires (graduates with at least one year 

of training on the new equipment) will have 

better entry-level skills than previous graduates. 

Students who have used this equipment and have graduated 

have not yet been surveyed. 

SOURCE: Document review and 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.
78 

sites were receiving funding specially earmarked 

for evaluation and tracking participants. 

Manufacturing Assistance Center 

The Manufacturing Assistance Center (MAC), 

described in Chapter 5, has a variety of reporting 

requirements for the agencies it works with, 

including attendance reports, monthly evaluation 

forms completed by instructors, and start and 

termination date verification forms. To meet each 

of these demands, the MAC maintains a database 

on each student that contains the following 

information: 

• Social Security number, if available, 

• Name, 

• Current telephone and address, 

• Email address, if available, 

• Program attended/attending, 

• Dates of enrollment, 

• Funding agency and name of sponsor at 

agency, 

• Pretest score, 

• Post-test score, 

• Overall course grade, 

• Placement (whether hired in 6 months), 

• First company name and address, 

• Date of hire, 

• Benefits (wages, retirement/pension, 3-, 6-, 

and 12-month wage increases), and 

• Second company and same associated data. 

The database is updated 1 year after program 

completion, as required by YouthWorks (a federal 

Workforce Investment Act program jointly run by 

the city of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County). In 

addition, although CareerLink (the state’s online 

employment services system) also requires the 

collection of some followup data, the MAC 

collects more extensive data.39 Project staff 

attribute their ability to collect such detailed data 

to the small number of students they work with 

(approximately four students at any given time). 

Followup is primarily conducted by telephone 

contact with former students and their 

employers—and it is considerably more difficult 

to obtain data once a participant has been away 

from the program for over a year (unless students 

contact the MAC seeking placement assistance for 

a new job). 

The plant manager and co-director view the 

equipment and training as leading to significant 

benefits (e.g., improved job prospects, business 

development, economic vitality). Nonetheless, the 

co-director believes the measurement of long-term 

outcomes is best done through qualitative rather 

than quantitative methods. He indicated that the 

creation of several new businesses does not 

adequately describe MAC’s impact in the region. 

Nor does he believe that quantitative methods can 

portray the multiple industry-university collaborations that have occurred to promote manufacturing 

and economic development in the region. To this 

end, the MAC is creating a portfolio of case 

studies of success stories that can better describe 

the impact of the center. 

Winston County Technology Center 

Although the Winston County Technology Center 

(WCTC), described in Chapter 5, collects data that 

are required by state- and district-level entities, the 

primary impetus is the internal interest of WCTC 

administrators and staff members. Altogether, the 

data collected by WCTC provide a great deal of 

information regarding student progress and 

achievement. These data, described below, are 

used by WCTC to shed light on the school’s 

strengths and weaknesses and to craft informed 

short- and long-term goals. 

 

39Only students who are funded by outside agencies are tracked; 

students in the apprenticeship program and custom training students 

are not tracked. MAC staff attempted to track all students but found 

that it did not make sense to expend the effort when no one was 

asking for the data. 
79 

Student performance data. Student performance 

and achievement are reflected in state measures, 

including results of the Alabama High School 

Graduation Exam, taken each year by all juniors 

and seniors. In addition, the state of Alabama 

requires that its secondary schools conduct annual 

placement and followup surveys of all graduated 

students. Students are contacted (by mail) roughly 

6 months after graduation and asked about their 

current employment/educational status. In 

addition, WCTC must provide the state (and the 

U.S. Department of Education’s Office of 

Vocational and Adult Education) with data on 

student exam results, graduation and retention 

rates, postgraduation placement, and program 

completion rates. 

In addition to state-mandated student assessment 

within courses, the performance and achievement 

of students are documented by a variety of 

measures at the local level at WCTC. For 

example, the placement and followup surveys are 

augmented by each WCTC training component to 

determine whether graduates are employed in a 

field that is related to the training they received. 

Graduates are also asked to note the kinds of 

equipment they use in their current job (if 

employed), as well as their opinions, in retrospect, 

of the strengths and weakness of their education at 

WCTC. Students who do not complete planned 

sequences of courses are surveyed each year to 

determine whether they withdrew from their 

component program because of transfer to another 

school or employment in a related or unrelated 

field. 

Other performance data. In 1997, WCTC 

administered an opinion survey, designed by the 

marketing education department, of students, 

parents, faculty, and the business community. The 

survey obtained respondents’ views on the 

strengths and weaknesses of the school, with 

special emphasis on the learning environment, 

quality of education, and the needs of the 

community. WCTC’s principal noted that the 

school hopes to conduct this survey once every 5 

years. In 1998, local businesses and industries 

completed an employer needs assessment, which 

addressed the perceived importance of a wide 

variety of entry-level employee characteristics and 

skills. Finally, at the end of each semester, 

students are asked to submit a written evaluation 

of their courses and instructors. 

Daniel Morgan Technology Center 

The Daniel Morgan Technology Center (DMTC), 

a technical and vocational center for two school 

districts in Spartanburg, South Carolina, 

established a horticulture program to meet the 

growing needs of the landscape industry in the 

greater Greenville/Spartanburg area. The primary 

goal of the program was to increase students’ 

knowledge and overall familiarity with 

horticulture/agriculture. The ARC grant was used 

to purchase state-of-the-art equipment to enhance 

the program, and the new equipment added 

versatility to the types of projects conducted by the 

class. 

In general, the performance data collected on the 

horticulture program are part of the school’s 

overall evaluation. These data include enrollment, 

completion rates for students, and placement rates. 

Some of these data are collected in order to adhere 

to federal and state reporting requirements, while 

others represent district-level indicators. 

As part of the 1998 Perkins Act, South Carolina 

established performance indicators. These 

indicators allow individual schools to demonstrate 

that its students are (or are not) reaching 

acceptable levels of performance. The public high 

schools are also held accountable to Perkins for 

the first four of the six standards. These standards 

pass directly to the vocational/technology schools 

to monitor and track. The following are the 1999-

2000 school year standards, along with the new 

2001 and 2002 standards:40

• Standard 1: Vocational and Technical Skill 

Proficiencies. Fifty percent of Career and 

Technology students will achieve a final grade 

of at least 2.0 for all Career and Technology 

Courses taken during the current year. The 

2001 standard is 74 percent; for 2002, it is 

74.5 percent of students. 

 

40The four standards that were set for achievement at the school level 

are provided here. Standards 5 and 6, which deal with gender 

underrepresentation, are set to be achieved at the state level. 
80 

• Standard 2: Academic Achievement. Fifty 

percent of Career and Technology students 

will achieve a final grade of at least 2.0 for all 

mathematics, science, and English/language 

arts courses taken during the current year. The 

2001 standard is 61 percent; for the 2002 

school year, it is 61.5 percent. 

• Standard 3: Graduation. Seventy-five 

percent of 12th grade Career and Technology 

completers will receive a South Carolina high 

school diploma. The 2002 standard is 

73.6 percent.41

• Standard 4: Placement. Fifty percent of 

South Carolina’s Career and Technology 

completers who are available for placement 

will be placed in postsecondary instruction, 

military service, or employment utilizing the 

Career and Technology competencies attained. 

For the 2001 and the 2002 school year, the 

standard will be 93.5 percent, which will be 

calculated using a 3-year average. It is 

important to note that employment will be 

counted whether the student is employed in a 

related or an unrelated field. 

In order to track achievement of these standards, 

the state’s vocational/technology schools track 

“completers.” A completer is defined as a student 

who is expected to complete four courses in one 

program. Once students enter their second year, 

they are assigned a code and—for tracking 

purposes—are considered to be completers. Once 

the code is assigned, student are tracked by 

DMTC, regardless of whether they remain 

enrolled in the school. According to project staff, 

one problem with this system is that many students 

who have taken fewer than four courses in one 

program at Daniel Morgan are not counted toward 

the school’s achievement of Perkins standards. 

Although Daniel Morgan no longer receives 

Perkins money, staff continue to adhere to the 

Perkins guidelines. The director and assistant 

director indicated that it was important to collect 

these data because they can be used to benchmark 

their school’s progress. 

 

41 There was no standard for the 2001 school year. 

In addition to collecting state-mandated 

performance data, DMTC collects a considerable 

amount of information regarding students’ 

attitudes and performance. For example, the 

guidance counselor at Daniel Morgan recently 

conducted a student attitude survey at the end of 

the fall semester and was planning to conduct 

another one at the end of the spring semester. This 

survey obtained (1) basic demographic information (e.g., grade level, home school), (2) students’ 

plans after high school, (3) students’ rating of the 

value of their training at DMTC, (4) whether or 

not students plan to return to DMTC, (5) factors 

that influenced students’ selection of classes at 

Daniel Morgan, (6) what students liked best and 

least about Daniel Morgan, (7) whether or not 

students would recommend Daniel Morgan to their 

friends, and (8) suggestions for future courses. 

Ohio Fund for 

Appalachian Industrial Retraining 

When examining the evaluation and outcomes of 

the Ohio FAIR program (described in Chapter 5), 

it is important to note there are two beneficiaries: 

the companies and the employees. Companies 

benefit when current and new employees learn 

skills that can improve production, and employees 

benefit through job creation, job retention, and/or 

wage increases. As such, FAIR collects three 

types of data for each project that receives 

funding: number of individuals trained, number of 

individuals retrained, and number of new jobs 

created. Each company specifies its goals for 

these categories as part of the application process. 

Other information obtained as part of the grant 

application process includes (1) name and type of 

training activity, (2) training provider, (3) travel 

and other related expenses, (4) materials provided, 

(5) number of classes or training sessions, (6) 

hours per class/session, and (7) instructor cost per 

hour. This information is categorized for the 

various types of training typically supported by the 

Ohio Investment in Training Program (OITP), 

which provides funding to new and expanding 

businesses in Ohio, and FAIR, including basic 

skills, quality training, communication skills, 

customer service, employee orientation, product 

knowledge, maintenance/trades, managerial/ 
81 

supervisory skills, information technology, and 

technical processes. 

Chautauqua County 

Wood Skills Training Project 

The Chautauqua County Wood Skills Training 

Project is designed to develop a series of classes 

for upgrading the skills of local workers who seek 

employment in the local wood products industry. 

The purpose is to develop two training 

components—i.e., a pre-hire program that would 

result in the creation of at least 50 new jobs in the 

local wood products industry, and a skills upgrade 

program that would enhance the technical 

proficiency of at least 66 currently employed 

workers (many of whom had been recently hired 

through temporary placement agencies). ARC 

funding has been used to help Woods Alliance 

members determine their collective training needs, 

develop training materials, identify prospective 

new hires, and conduct training. 

At the time of the site visit, the project had been 

operational for only 10 months. As a result, 

project staff were still in the process of 

documenting the implementation and impact of 

their ARC grant. Separate strategies were being 

used to identify outcomes associated with the prehire and incumbent classes 

Pre-hire component. Private Industry Council 

(PIC) staff conducted a telephone survey of the 17 

individuals who completed the pre-hire class. The 

purpose of this survey, administered 2 months 

after the class had ended, was to document 

participants’ employment status. 

Incumbent training component. The limited 

universe within which the project is operating, i.e., 

the nine companies that compose the Woods 

Alliance Group, had greatly facilitated the PIC’s 

ability to keep close tabs on the number of 

employees who have participated in ARCsupported training activities. This had been 

accomplished primarily through periodic 

telephone contacts with alliance members and a 

review of end-of-class evaluations. Employers 

had also been tracking the progress of workers 

who completed an incumbent training course. For 

example, one company had used a daily 

performance log to collect pre- and post-training 

data on (1) the average number of minutes 

required for workers to set up a machine, (2) the 

number of quality adjusts performed per setup, and 

(3) machine efficiency. Plant managers were 

planning to use these data to demonstrate the value 

of employee training to company executives. 

PIC staff indicated that they would have benefited 

from having more guidance from ARC as to the 

type of outcome data that could be used to 

document success of their project. In the absence 

of any such guidance, the PIC was primarily 

documenting the number of individuals who had 

participated in the pre-hire and incumbent training 

components. While staff contacted most of the 17 

graduates of the pre-hire training program to 

ascertain their immediate employment status, there 

were no plans to obtain longer term data to assess 

whether graduates had received promotions or 

salary increases. (The question of whether any 

follow-up tracking was planned for the pre-hire 

and incumbent training components did prompt 

PIC staff to consider steps that might be taken to 

begin obtaining such information from alliance 

members.) 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Most Cohort 2 projects described at least one 

numeric outcome in their proposal or program 

announcement. In addition, compared with Cohort 

1 proposals, a lower proportion of Cohort 2 

proposals contained impractical goals, and Cohort 

2 projects were more likely to describe a direct 

link between services and outcomes. Taken 

together, these findings provide encouraging 

evidence that ARC’s recent efforts to reinforce its 

application process have been successful. 

Many Cohort 2 projects are planning to collect at 

least some new data through a mail or telephone 

survey. However, few of the projects were 

planning to collect data 13-24 months after 

participants left the program—and none were 

planning to collect data more than 24 months after 

participants left the program. In addition, findings 
82 

from the site visits suggest that some of these 

collections may be relying on imprecise methods. 

(The Cohort 2 survey did not obtain information 

on whether Cohort 2 projects were taking 

measures to assure an adequate response rate and 

an unbiased survey sample.) 

While it is impossible to make any sweeping 

generalizations from a small number of case 

studies, these findings do suggest that ARC’s 

vocational education and workforce training 

projects are not positioning themselves to obtain 

the data needed to assess the long-term impact of 

their efforts. In the next chapter, we address steps 

that the Commission can take to address this issue. 

Evaluation is not easy, nor can it be done without 

thorough planning. It is likely that these projects, 

while aware of the need to conduct evaluations, do 

not have the tools or knowledge to do them. And 

even when they are able to conduct effective shortterm evaluations, project staff may not have built 

the capacity to continue the evaluation effort 

beyond the grant period. Thus, training, materials, 

and technical assistance may be a first critical step 

in developing evaluation capacity and improving 

project evaluations across all of ARC’s vocational 

education and workforce training projects. 

Indeed, ARC is likely facing this challenge across 

many of its projects in all areas of investment. 

This report—and these findings regarding project 

evaluation—represent a first step in improving 

ARC’s and funded projects’ evaluation capacity. 

Recommendations included in Chapter 8 suggest 

next steps. Further discussion is needed around the 

pros and cons of comprehensive evaluation 

strategies if ARC is interested in pursuing this 

avenue. 
83 

Summary and 

Recommendations 

This report has provided considerable evidence 

that the projects in the study sample succeeded in 

bringing about a series of educational and 

employment gains throughout Appalachia.42 

Survey findings indicate that the 67 Cohort 1 

projects used a variety of basic and innovative 

strategies to enhance the vocational skills of 

community residents—including direct training, 

job search assistance and career counseling, and 

making critical equipment available to 

communities and individuals. Most of these 

projects provided anecdotal and quantitative 

confirmation that individuals went on to improve 

their aptitudes and advance their employment 

status. As such, these projects clearly contributed 

to the Commission’s goal of reaching those 

segments of Appalachia that are most in need, 

including persons who are geographically isolated 

and disadvantaged. The finding that almost all 

Cohort 1 respondents reported that without ARC 

support, they would have been limited in scope (or 

not implemented at all) further suggests that ARC 

funding enabled these communities to address 

educational, economic, and social needs that might 

have otherwise gone unmet. 

What follows is a series of recommendations 

designed to enhance ARC’s capacity to promote 

the use of innovative practices among its projects, 

document successes, and provide technical 

assistance to its grant recipients. 

 

42 Because of the nonrandom process by which study sites were 

selected, these findings only reflect the contributions of the 67 

Cohort 1 projects in the study sample. We did not attempt to 

extrapolate these findings to the entire portfolio of ARC vocational 

education and workforce training initiatives. 

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS AND 

INNOVATIVE ACTIVITIES

The wide range of activities uncovered through 

this study makes it difficult to describe a “typical” 

ARC vocational education and workforce training 

project. As in Westat’s study of ARC’s education 

projects, this lack of a “one size fits all” model 

was viewed by many case study participants as an 

important feature of ARC’s approach to selecting 

and funding projects. It clearly reflects the 

Commission’s emphasis on using its grant making 

process to support the localized needs and 

capacities of individual communities. Through this 

process, ARC continues to provide organizations 

the opportunity to address local disparities and 

take advantage of regional resources. 

Further, the lack of any prominent implementation 

barriers suggests that grant recipients were 

generally satisfied with the level of the financial 

and technical support they received from ARC. 

Similarly, case study participants praised the role 

that ARC played in making their projects possible. 

The absence of criticism among these key 

stakeholders represents an important and 

encouraging study finding. 

The following recommendations address steps that 

ARC can take to enhance its capacity to share 

information about potentially promising practices 

with its projects and other stakeholders. 

Realign the designations used to classify 

vocational education and workforce training 

projects. The ARC database includes multiple 

dimensions for categorizing vocational education 

and workforce training project types. However, 

survey findings suggest that these categories do 

not adequately reflect the range of activities that 

ARC is funding. Using the conceptual model 

VIII. 
84 

described throughout this report, we have 

identified four alternative terms for categorizing 

ARC’s portfolio of vocational education and 

workforce training projects: 

• Career awareness—including general work 

and employability skills, generally for middle 

school youth. 

• Vocational education—typically run through 

high schools, including apprenticeship 

programs. 

• Job placement training—training for 

unemployed adults, displaced workers, career 

changes. 

• Workplace training—including retraining, 

skills upgrade for currently employed or 

underemployed adults. 

The use of these designations would enable ARC 

to more accurately designate and analyze the 

goals, methods, and outcomes associated with its 

vocational education and workforce training 

projects. It would also facilitate ARC’s efforts to 

link projects that share common goals and 

activities. 

Encourage applicants to use the conceptual 

model in developing their projects. The flow 

chart presented throughout this report can be a 

useful tool for helping grantees understand their 

own projects in relation to a “model” project. 

While it is unlikely that any project would actually 

fit the model precisely, ARC should encourage 

applicants to use this model to see if their 

proposed efforts are designed to address barriers 

that might interfere with participants’ efforts to 

enhance their economic status. For example, 

projects might use the model to assess whether 

they have adequately addressed the range of 

barriers commonly associated with low-income 

workers—e.g., lack of access to child care and 

transportation. They might also use the model to 

identify the range of outputs and outcomes 

associated with their workforce training and 

vocational education initiative. 

Disseminate information about best practices to 

prospective grantees. As discussed in the 

education report, ARC should reinforce its 

procedures for disseminating information about 

innovative and successful projects (however 

innovation and success are to be defined) with its 

pool of applicants. For example, ARC could share 

findings from studies conducted by Westat and 

other external evaluators on its website. It could 

also post results from the validation visits that 

ARC conducts with a sample of its projects. While 

written reports cannot, by themselves, provide 

sufficient information for prospective grantees, 

they can point applicants in the right direction and 

lead them to useful sources of information 

(including staff at model projects). 

Reinforce ARC’s reporting structure. If ARC is 

to be in a position to identify innovative and 

successful practices, its staff will need to be able 

to access more detailed information about the 

implementation and impact of its projects. One 

method would be to enhance the quality of the 

final reports that projects submit to ARC. ARC 

grant recipients are currently required to submit a 

final narrative and financial report when they 

complete their project. The ARC Grant 

Administration Manual contains general 

guidelines and an example of topics that projects 

might address in their final report.43 However, our 

experience with other programs suggests that the 

lack of uniform reporting requirements frequently 

results in an uneven quality to closeout reports. 

We therefore recommend that ARC mandate these 

uniform guidelines be used by all of its projects—

with customized examples of outputs and 

outcomes for each of the Commission’s five 

strategic goals.44 

The use of a more formalized reporting structure 

would ultimately enhance project coordinators’ 

ability to obtain consistent data that can be used to 

assess project—and program—success. In 

 

43 The instructions that accompany these guidelines state, “You may 

find the attached outline useful in compiling your report, though 

you have flexibility in how to best present information for your 

project.” 

44 Refer to our study of ARC’s education projects (Evaluation of The 

Appalachian Regional Commission’s Educational Projects: Final 

Report, Westat, 2001) for a more detailed example of how the 

submission guidelines for Goal 1 might be enhanced. 
85 

addition, while some grant recipients might 

continue to rely primarily on anecdotal 

information, the use of standard reporting 

guidelines could compel projects to rely on more 

sophisticated and robust data collection and 

analysis techniques. 

One option would be to use a modified or 

streamlined version of the survey we used for this 

report (see Appendix F) to collect standardized 

close-out data from each project. These data could 

supplement or replace existing narrative text in the 

final report format. Data could be entered into a 

database that would provide ARC staff a 

consistent format to monitor project 

implementation and accomplishments over time. 

Additionally, if a customized form similar to Part 

2 of this survey were used, projects would know 

ahead of time that they are to respond to the 

specific outputs and outcomes cited in their project 

applications. 

Encourage ARC staff to update the project 

database uniformly. As was the case with 

ARC’s education projects, we found that ARC 

staff applied varying standards for entering project 

information—including anticipated outputs and 

outcomes—into the monitoring database for 

workforce training and vocational education 

projects. Requiring applicants to define numeric 

outputs and outcomes in their proposals (see 

below) might compel ARC staff to regularly and 

uniformly update the database structure used to 

track projects’ objectives. This information could 

then be used to monitor individual projects and 

assess trends across similar types of projects. 

An alternative would be to make projects 

responsible for entering data into the ARC 

database. This approach, already used by a 

number of federal programs, would require that 

projects use diskettes or a web-based system to 

submit their applications, annual reports, and/or 

closeout data. The electronic submission of 

project information would facilitate the 

Commission’s efforts to develop a more 

comprehensive, flexible, robust, and functional 

database. However, the development and 

maintenance of such a system would require a 

substantial investment of ARC staff and resources. 

It might also require that projects have access to 

computers and Internet connections, which could 

deter some projects from applying for ARC 

funding. Nonetheless, ARC might want to 

consider options by which projects can 

electronically submit their applications and annual 

reports. 

ENHANCING PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Most of the projects that received ARC funding in 

2000 identified realistic, attainable, and 

measurable outputs and outcomes in their 

application materials. In addition, a comparison of 

Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 applications found that the 

most recently funded projects were less likely to 

contain impractical goals and more likely to 

describe a direct link between their services and 

outcomes. These findings suggest that the steps 

ARC has taken to help projects delineate realistic 

and measurable outputs and outcomes have paid 

off. As such, the following recommendations 

address additional steps that ARC can take to 

further reinforce its application procedures. 

Require that all applicants quantify at least one 

output and at least one corresponding outcome. 

The finding that almost all Cohort 2 projects 

identified at least one numeric outcome suggests 

that it would be possible to impose this 

requirement on all future vocational education and 

workforce training projects. Unlike other ARC 

project types (where it might be difficult to 

identify a quantifiable outcome), vocational 

education and workforce training efforts tend to be 

focused on a finite set of clearly defined 

outcomes—e.g., obtaining a skill, obtaining a 

degree or certificate, obtaining a job, enhancing an 

individual’s employment status. We therefore 

believe that most of the vocational education and 

workforce training projects that ARC funds should 

be able to specify the number of individuals who 

will participate in a given activity and the number 

of individuals who will ultimately attain a specific 

outcome as a result of their participation in that 

activity. 

We must caution against reducing all vocational 

education and workforce training projects to a 

uniform progression of outcomes that culminate 
86 

with obtaining employment. A danger of the flow 

chart discussed in Chapter 2 and referred to in 

Chapters 3, 4, and 5 is that it culminates with 

employment gains. As shown in Exhibit 8-1, a 

companion piece to the flow chart, some types of 

vocational projects are not intended to have an 

immediate impact on employment status. As this 

framework suggests, ARC staff will need to 

calibrate their expectations such that career 

awareness projects are not held accountable for 

increasing the number of job placements. 

Conversely, they will need to assure that 

workplace training projects specify the number of 

persons receiving services, as well as the number 

of participants who retain their jobs, receive 

promotions, or receive increased wages as a result 

of their participation in the ARC project. 

In addition, there is an inherent danger that by 

reducing projects’ expectations to a set of 

numbers, ARC will ultimately lose the broader 

statements of how the circumstances of 

Appalachian citizens will be improved. These 

statements provide projects an important 

opportunity to describe how their efforts might 

eventually impact both individuals and the 

community at large. We therefore suggest that 

ARC view this recommendation as an 

enhancement to—as opposed to a replacement 

of—the narratives that applicants are currently 

required to provide in their proposals. 

Develop application materials for each project 

type. As we suggested in the education report, 

ARC should consider developing separate 

guidelines (or supplemental materials) that provide 

more specific examples of the types of outputs and 

outcomes that pertain to each of its strategic goals. 

This would enable staff to provide applicants with 

precise instructions and customized examples that 

pertain to a particular issue area.45 In addition, 

workforce training and vocational education 

applicants might be provided copies of the 

framework in Exhibit 8-1 as a tool to help them 

delineate outputs and outcomes relevant to their 

project type. 

 

45 Refer to our study of ARC’s education projects (Westat, 2000) for a 

more detailed example of how the existing generic application 

guidelines might be expanded and adapted for a Goal 1 application 

workbook (or as a supplement to existing materials). 

Meet with other federal agencies to better 

understand their funding and reporting 

structures. A primary purpose of such 

interagency collaboration would be to determine 

whether there are ways that ARC could piggyback 

off of the data collection requirements of other 

agencies supporting vocational education and 

workforce training projects. In considering this 

recommendation, ARC should recognize that its 

projects can be very different from those 

supported by other agencies. For example, the 

feasibility of coordinating data collection activities 

is dramatically reduced for some of ARC’s very 

small grants. In addition, while we know that 

other federal agencies have some very welldefined and explicit data collection requirements, 

it is unclear at this time whether the systems are 

working as envisioned. Not enough time has 

elapsed to determine the impacts, let alone 

feasibility, of changes in accountability 

requirements placed by Perkins III and other 

legislation. 

Assess the extent to which the states share 

common reporting requirements for these 

projects. The primary purpose would be to 

ascertain whether there is a useful common core of 

vocational education and workforce training data 

that are being mandated by some or all of the 13 

states that compose Appalachia. A secondary 

purpose would be to identify useful data efforts 

underway in any of the 13 states that might be 

adapted by other states. 

PROJECT EVALUATION AND 

PERFORMANCE REPORTING

Even projects with realistic and measurable 

objectives appeared to be having difficulty 

designing reliable methods that could be used to 

assess whether their outcomes have been achieved. 

Findings from the site visits suggest that at least 

some projects are relying on imprecise data 

collection methods, using anecdotal evidence, or 

implementing surveys that fail to take into account 

biases introduced through low response rates. In 

addition, findings from the survey indicate that 

only a few Cohort 2 projects are planning to 

collect data 13-24 months after participants left the 
87 

Exhibit 8-1. Framework for analysis of activities and objectives, by project type 

Type of Project Type 

Activity or 

Objective Career awareness Vocational education Job placement 

training Workplace training 

Equipment 

acquisition 

Type and amount of 

equipment acquired 

Type and amount of 

equipment acquired 

Type and amount of 

equipment acquired 

Type and amount of 

equipment acquired 

Physical plant Type of improvements 

made 

Type of improvements 

made 

Type of improvements 

made 

Type of improvements 

made 

Training N/A Type of training provided Type of training provided Type of training provided 

Project staff 

training Type of training provided Type of training provided Type of training provided Type of training provided 

Training 

materials 

Number and type of 

materials developed 

Number and type of 

materials developed 

Number and type of 

materials developed 

Number and type of 

materials developed 

Placement or 

counseling 

Type of counseling 

provided 

Type of counseling 

provided 

Type of counseling 

provided 

Type of counseling 

provided 

Support 

services 

Type of supports provided Type of supports provided Type of supports provided Type of supports provided 

Activities 

Community 

activities 

Type of community 

activities provided 

Type of community 

activities provided 

Type of community 

activities provided 

Type of community 

activities provided 

Services 

provided to 

individuals 

Number of individuals 

receiving various services 

Number of individuals 

receiving various services 

Number of individuals 

receiving various services 

Number of individuals 

receiving various services 

Outputs Services 

provided to 

communities 

Number of businesses or 

organizations receiving 

services 

Number of businesses or 

organizations receiving 

services 

Number of businesses or 

organizations receiving 

services 

Number of businesses or 

organizations receiving 

services 

Barrier 

reduction 

Number of individuals 

able to participate in 

continuing education due 

to receipt of support 

services 

Number of individuals 

able to (1) participate in 

continuing education, or 

(2) obtain a job due to 

receipt of support services 

Number of individuals 

able to (1) participate in 

continuing education, or 

(2) obtain a job due to 

receipt of support services 

Number of individuals 

able to obtain or retain a 

job due to receipt of 

support services 

Skill 

attainment 

Number of individuals 

with increased skills 

Number of individuals 

with increased skills 

Number of individuals 

with increased skills 

Number of individuals 

with increased skills 

Degree 

attainment 

Number of individuals 

attending or planning to 

attend a postsecondary 

institution 

Number of individuals 

earning a degree or 

certificate 

Number of individuals 

earning degree or 

certificate 

Number of individuals 

earning degree or 

certificate 

Impact 

employment 

status 

Number of individuals 

who (1) report gaining 

relevant knowledge about 

career options or (2) seek 

more training 

Number of individuals 

who (1) obtain a job or (2) 

seek more training 

Number of individuals 

who (1) obtain a job or (2) 

seek more training 

Number of individuals 

who (1) retain a job, (2) 

receive a promotion, (3) 

receive increased wages, 

or (4) seek more training 

Number of businesses 

served 

Number of businesses 

served 

Number of businesses 

served 

Outcomes 

Impact 

community 

viability 

N/A 

Number of jobs created Number of jobs created Number of jobs created 
88 

program—and none are planning to collect data 

for more than 24 months. Even projects that are 

anticipating long-term employment outcomes are 

failing to obtain data that can be used to assess 

whether such gains actually occur. 

It appears that several factors are contributing to 

projects’ failure to implement robust collection 

methods—including a lack of financial resources, 

a lack of expertise regarding evaluation 

techniques, and a lack of understanding about how 

locally collected data could be used to document 

success and improve future activities. As such, the 

following recommendations address additional 

steps that ARC can take to enhance the data 

collection and evaluation practices of its 

vocational education and workforce training 

projects. 

Provide written materials on high-quality 

evaluation practices. ARC should provide 

applicants and grant recipients with written 

materials that describe suitable evaluation 

practices. Such materials can help guide projects 

through their own evaluations by highlighting data 

collection and analysis methodologies, identifying 

typical pitfalls in evaluation, and describing good 

reporting practices. Simply assuring grantees that 

they are taking appropriate steps is also likely to 

be helpful. Westat has developed many such 

materials, and others are readily available. These 

could be adapted for use by ARC education, 

vocational education, and workforce training 

projects. 

Reinforce the importance of data collection 

methodologies by including evaluation as a 

project approval criterion. ARC could ask 

applicants to specify the data collection activities 

in their applications that will be conducted in 

support of each numeric output or outcome in a 

proposal. This discussion should also specify how 

projects plan to address such issues as avoiding 

biases associated with nonresponse. If none are 

present, project coordinators might require that 

applicants specify the data they will use to address 

their objectives and the procedures they will use to 

assure that these data are collected in a rigorous 

manner as a condition of receiving ARC funding. 

In addition, ARC could have someone on staff 

who is trained to review each successful proposal 

(prior to approval) to assure that adequate 

attention is being paid to evaluation 

methodologies. 

Provide additional evaluation training to 

project grantees. In addition to offering training 

to LDDs and state-level program managers, ARC 

could offer evaluation workshops to grant 

recipients. These workshops might cover such 

topics as selecting evaluators, budgeting for 

project evaluations, devising meaningful study 

questions, determining appropriate methodologies 

for assessing whether a particular objective has 

been achieved, and working with external 

evaluators. This would help to assure that 

methodologies are properly selected and applied, 

evaluations are conducted in a cost-effective and 

reliable manner, data are used, interpreted, and 

displayed in a meaningful and useful manner, and 

evaluation reports are effective. 

Provide additional evaluation training to staff. 

ARC might also offer training to staff in the 

selection and use of evaluation methodologies. It 

is likely that ARC staff would benefit from 

receiving training in this area since it would 

enhance their capacity to (1) assess whether an 

application adequately addresses how data will be 

collected and used, (2) provide technical 

assistance to projects that appear to be having 

difficulty obtaining credible and reliable data, and 

(3) use projects’ data to address GPRA reporting 

requirements. 

Provide project grantees with technical 

assistance in data collection methodologies.

ARC staff should take a more proactive approach 

in assuring that individual projects are positioning 

themselves to collect data about immediate and 

long-term outcomes. In addition to the other 

recommendations described in this section, ARC 

should encourage projects to ask questions and 

request technical assistance regarding their data 

collection and evaluation efforts. By taking such a 

hands-on approach, ARC staff will communicate 

that they are expecting valid and reliable outcome 

data and are available to provide assistance in the 

collection and dissemination of information 

regarding project-related benefits. 
89 

Encourage project grantees to hire external 

evaluators. A number of federal programs require 

that their grant recipients use external evaluators 

to assess project success. This approach can 

maximize the likelihood that projects will have 

access to expertise and assistance in such areas as 

selecting appropriate evaluation methodologies, 

collecting valid outcome data, and analyzing 

statistics in a meaningful manner. The use of 

external evaluators can also provide projects with 

timely and constructive feedback on how their 

services might be improved. Given the size of 

ARC’s vocational education and workforce 

training grants, we are not recommending that 

ARC mandate the use of such external evaluators 

for all of its projects. However, the Commission 

might consider offering financial incentives to 

those grant recipients that include in their 

proposals a plan for using external evaluators to 

collect long-term outcome data on their 

participants. 

CONCLUSIONS

Throughout this report, the success of ARC’s 

vocational education and workforce training 

projects has been evident. This chapter has 

presented a collection of lessons that may be 

learned from their successes that ARC can use to 

ensure its continued success. While we have 

focused on recommendations related to objectives, 

data collection, and performance reporting, 

implementation lessons cannot be ignored. Many 

of the lessons are specific to a project type or 

situation and can be found in the case study 

reports in Appendix D. Beyond these lessons, the 

most critical finding that cuts across all of the 

projects is that projects understand the needs of 

and maintain close ties with local business and 

industry. Local communities provide the impetus 

for projects, the individuals who need and provide 

training, the jobs that trainees may obtain, and the 

energy that creates the local economic development to improve the regional economy. That most 

ARC projects originate with the needs of the local 

community and culminate with improvements in 

the community is the real strength of the program. 

Together, these findings and recommendations can 

help enhance ARC’s functioning and the benefits 

it bestows on the Appalachian region. 
90 
A-1 

Appendix A 

Additional Survey Data 
A-2 
A-3 

Table A4-1. Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting at least one ARC-funded activity in a given 

category, by project characteristics 

Category of activity 

Project characteristic Equipment Training Job 

assistance 

Support 

services 

Physical 

plant 

Project 

staff 

training 

Training 

materials 

Community –

wide 

activities 

 

All projects (n=67) 85 58 18 6 18 27 36 22 

Participant type 

No full-time job experience 

(n=40) ............................... 88 58 28 8 20 30 38 23 

Full-time job experience 

(n=8).................................. 50 75 0 0 13 13 50 38 

Both experience levels 

(n=19) ............................... 95 53 5 42 16 26 26 16 

Participant age 

Primarily youth (n=22).......... 91 82 45 5 23 41 55 32 

Primarily adult (n=32)........... 81 50 6 9 19 16 31 22 

Both youth and adult 

(n=13) ............................... 85 38 0 0 8 31 15 8 

Geographic distribution 

Single town or county 

(n=25) ............................... 88 68 44 8 20 40 52 32 

Adjacent counties (n=6)........ 83 50 0 0 0 17 17 17 

Nonadjacent counties 

(n=36) ............................... 83 53 3 6 19 19 28 17 

Economic status 

At least one distressed 

county (n=18) ................... 61 78 22 17 28 33 50 33 

No distressed counties 

(n=49) ............................... 94 51 16 2 14 24 31 18 

Metropolitan status 

Metropolitan only (n=14)...... 93 57 7 0 21 14 36 7 

Nonmetropolitan only 

(n=22) ............................... 91 68 41 9 23 45 50 32 

Both metro and nonmetro 

(n=31) ............................... 77 52 6 6 13 19 26 23 

ARC grant size 

Less than $50,000 (n=16)...... 94 56 6 0 6 25 25 13 

$50,001 – $100,000 (n=29)... 90 48 24 7 17 28 31 24 

$100,001 – $200,000 

(n=16) ............................... 88 75 19 6 25 31 44 25 

More than $200,000 (n=6) .... 33 67 17 17 33 17 67 33 

 

Total project cost 

Less than $100,000 (n=19) ... 89 63 21 0 11 37 37 16 

$100,001 – $200,000 

(n=28) ............................... 93 54 14 4 4 25 25 21 

$200,001 – $900,000 

(n=16) ............................... 88 56 25 19 50 25 44 31 

More than $900,000 (n=4) .... 0 75 0 0 25 0 75 25 

 

Years of ARC funding 

1 year (n=45) ......................... 93 44 11 2 13 20 22 16 

2 years (n=15) ....................... 67 93 27 7 7 33 53 20 

3 or more years (n=7)............ 71 71 43 29 71 57 86 71 

NOTE: ARC-funded activities are those for which respondents reported ARC provided some funding. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
A-4 

Table A4-2. Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting purchasing, renting, or leasing various types of 

equipment with ARC funding, by project characteristics 

Project characteristic 

Industrial 

equipment 

(noncomputerized) 

Industrial 

equipment 

(computerized) 

Computer 

hardware 

Computer 

software 

Medical 

equipment 

Other 

equipment 

 

All projects (n=67) ................................... 40 34 66 51 13 7 

 

Participant type 

No full-time job experience (n=40) ..... 45 40 73 53 13 8 

Full-time job experience (n=8) ............ 25 13 25 25 13 0 

Both experience levels (n=19) ............. 37 32 68 58 16 11 

 

Participant age 

Primarily youth (n=22) ........................ 45 36 86 68 14 9 

Primarily adult (n=32) ......................... 38 28 50 41 19 6 

Both youth and adult (n=13)................ 38 46 69 46 0 8 

 

Geographic distribution 

Single town or county (n=25) ............. 44 40 80 60 12 8 

Adjacent counties (n=6)...................... 50 67 50 50 33 0 

Nonadjacent counties (n=36) .............. 36 25 58 44 11 8 

 

Economic status 

At least one distressed county (n=18). 33 28 44 28 6 0 

No distressed counties (n=49)............. 43 37 73 59 16 10 

 

Metropolitan status 

Metropolitan only (n=14).................... 50 50 79 50 14 0 

Nonmetropolitan only (n=22) ............. 50 36 64 50 18 5 

Both metro and nonmetro (n=31) ....... 29 26 61 52 10 13 

 

ARC grant size 

Less than $50,000 (n=16) ................... 38 31 75 50 6 6 

$50,001 – $100,000 (n=29)................. 48 41 62 52 14 7 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=16)............... 38 31 75 56 19 6 

More than $200,000 (n=6) .................. 17 17 33 33 17 17 

 

Total project cost 

Less than $100,000 (n=19) ................. 37 26 74 53 11 5 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=28)............... 50 50 68 57 14 4 

$200,001 – $900,000 (n=16)............... 38 25 69 50 19 19 

More than $900,000 (n=4) .................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 

Years of ARC funding 

1 year (n=45)....................................... 42 47 67 51 16 7 

2 years (n=15) ..................................... 40 13 60 40 7 0 

3 or more years (n=7).......................... 29 0 71 71 14 29 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
A-5 

Table A4-3. Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting physical plant activities, by project 

characteristics 

Project characteristic Build new structure Renovate existing 

structure 

Purchase/install 

office furniture 

Lease property or 

space 

 

All projects (n=67) ................................... 7 30 24 6 

Participant type 

No full-time job experience (n=40) ..... 3 30 23 0 

Full-time job experience (n=8) ............ 13 25 38 38 

Both experience levels (n=19) ............. 16 32 21 5 

 

Participant age 

Primarily youth (n=22) ........................ 0 14 23 0 

Primarily adult (n=32) ......................... 6 41 28 13 

Both youth and adult (n=13)................ 23 31 15 0 

 

Geographic distribution 

Single town or county (n=25) ............. 4 16 20 0 

Adjacent counties (n=6)...................... 17 50 33 0 

Nonadjacent counties (n=36) .............. 8 36 25 11 

 

Economic status 

At least one distressed county (n=18). 17 28 17 11 

No distressed counties (n=49)............. 4 31 27 4 

Metropolitan status 

Metropolitan only (n=14).................... 0 36 43 7 

Nonmetropolitan only (n=22) ............. 9 18 18 5 

Both metro and nonmetro (n=31) ....... 10 35 19 6 

 

ARC grant size 

Less than $50,000 (n=16) ................... 6 19 0 0 

$50,001 – $100,000 (n=29)................. 7 31 31 3 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=16)............... 6 25 25 6 

More than $200,000 (n=6) .................. 17 67 50 33 

 

Total project cost 

Less than $100,000 (n=19) ................. 5 16 5 0 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=28)............... 4 29 25 4 

$200,001 – $900,000 (n=16)............... 13 44 44 6 

More than $900,000 (n=4) .................. 25 50 25 50 

 

Years of ARC funding 

1 year (n=45)....................................... 7 33 20 0 

2 years (n=15) ..................................... 7 7 13 7 

3 or more years (n=7).......................... 14 57 71 43 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
A-6 

Table A4-4. Percent of physical plant activities funded by ARC 

Physical plant activity Percent funded by 

ARC 

All physical plant activities (n=45) ............................................................................................................................... 33 

Build new structure (n=5) ............................................................................................................................................. 40 

Renovate existing structure (n=20) ............................................................................................................................... 25 

Purchase install office furniture (n=16)......................................................................................................................... 38 

Lease property or space (n=4)....................................................................................................................................... 50 

NOTE: Percent estimates are based on the projects that indicated they have conducted physical plant activities as part of their projects. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
A-7 

Table A4-5. Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting conducting various training activities, by 

project characteristics 

Project characteristic 

Occupational/ 

technical 

training 

Academic 

training or 

enhancement 

Business 

management 

training 

Adult basic 

education Other 

 

All projects (n=67) ................................... 97 72 21 7 3 

Participant type 

No full-time job experience (n=40) ..... 98 83 25 5 5 

Full-time job experience (n=8) ............ 100 75 38 38 0 

Both experience levels (n=19) ............. 95 47 5 0 0 

 

Participant age 

Primarily youth (n=22) ........................ 95 82 27 0 9 

Primarily adult (n=32) ......................... 100 75 16 16 0 

Both youth and adult (n=13)................ 92 46 23 0 0 

 

Geographic distribution 

Single town or county (n=25) ............. 100 80 32 4 4 

Adjacent counties (n=6)...................... 100 83 0 0 0 

Nonadjacent counties (n=36) .............. 94 64 17 11 3 

 

Economic status 

At least one distressed county (n=18). 94 72 39 17 6 

No distressed counties (n=49)............. 98 71 14 4 2 

Metropolitan status 

Metropolitan only (n=14).................... 100 71 0 7 0 

Nonmetropolitan only (n=22) ............. 100 77 32 5 5 

Both metro and nonmetro (n=31) ....... 94 68 23 19 3 

 

ARC grant size 

Less than $50,000 (n=16) ................... 100 50 6 0 0 

$50,001 – $100,000 (n=29)................. 93 76 17 7 3 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=16)............... 100 88 38 6 0 

More than $200,000 (n=6) .................. 100 67 33 33 17 

 

Total project cost 

Less than $100,000 (n=19) ................. 100 58 5 0 0 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=28)............... 93 71 21 4 4 

$200,001 – $900,000 (n=16)............... 100 94 31 13 6 

More than $900,000 (n=4) .................. 100 50 50 50 0 

 

Years of ARC funding 

1 year (n=45)....................................... 98 76 9 9 0 

2 years (n=15) ..................................... 93 67 40 0 7 

3 or more years (n=7).......................... 100 57 57 14 14 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
A-8 

Table A4-6. Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting developing various types of training materials, 

by project characteristics 

Project characteristic Instructor/teacher 

manuals/curricula 

Student manuals/ 

materials 

Standards/ proficiencies 

aligned with industry 

 

All projects (n=67) ................................................... 54 48 40 

Participant type 

No full-time job experience (n=40) ..................... 52 45 38 

Full-time job experience (n=8) ............................ 63 75 63 

Both experience levels (n=19) ............................. 53 42 37 

 

Participant age 

Primarily youth (n=22) ........................................ 59 63 45 

Primarily adult (n=32) ......................................... 44 41 34 

Both youth and adult (n=13)................................ 69 38 46 

 

Geographic distribution 

Single town or county (n=25) ............................. 64 60 48 

Adjacent counties (n=6)...................................... 67 50 67 

Nonadjacent counties (n=36).............................. 44 39 31 

 

Economic status 

At least one distressed county (n=18)................. 72 61 44 

No distressed counties (n=49)............................. 47 43 39 

 

Metropolitan status 

Metropolitan only (n=14).................................... 36 43 36 

Nonmetropolitan only (n=22)............................. 59 50 36 

Both metro and nonmetro (n=31) ....................... 58 48 45 

 

ARC grant size 

Less than $50,000 (n=16) ................................... 50 38 44 

$50,001 – $100,000 (n=29)................................. 45 41 34 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=16)............................... 75 63 56 

More than $200,000 (n=6) .................................. 50 67 17 

 

Total project cost 

Less than $100,000 (n=19) ................................. 53 42 42 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=28)............................... 46 43 36 

$200,001 – $900,000 (n=16)............................... 69 56 50 

More than $900,000 (n=4) .................................. 50 75 25 

 

Years of ARC funding 

1 year (n=45)....................................................... 42 27 24 

2 years (n=15) ..................................................... 87 93 80 

3 or more years (n=7).......................................... 57 86 57 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
A-9 

Table A4-7. Percent of training materials developed with ARC funding 

Training materials developed Percent funded 

by ARC 

All training materials development activities (n=95) .................................................................................................... 57 

Instructor/teacher manuals/curricula (n=36) ................................................................................................................. 56 

Student manuals/materials (n=32)................................................................................................................................. 63 

Standards/proficiencies aligned with industry (n=27)................................................................................................... 52 

NOTE: Percent estimates are based on the projects that indicated they developed training materials. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
A-10 

Table A4-8. Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting training project staff in various areas, by 

project characteristics 

Project characteristic Project-purchased 

equipment 

Specific skill or content 

area 

Pedagogy or teaching 

skills 

 

All projects (n=67) ...................................................... 64 60 31 

Participant type 

No full-time job experience (n=40) ........................ 65 58 28 

Full-time job experience (n=8) ............................... 63 75 50 

Both experience levels (n=19) ................................ 63 58 32 

 

Participant age 

Primarily youth (n=22) ........................................... 68 50 36 

Primarily adult (n=32) ............................................ 50 56 25 

Both youth and adult (n=13)................................... 92 85 38 

 

Geographic distribution 

Single town or county (n=25)................................ 68 60 32 

Adjacent counties (n=6)......................................... 67 67 50 

Nonadjacent counties (n=36)................................. 61 58 28 

 

Economic status 

At least one distressed county (n=18).................... 72 72 33 

No distressed counties (n=49)................................ 61 55 31 

 

Metropolitan status 

Metropolitan only (n=14)....................................... 36 36 0 

Nonmetropolitan only (n=22)................................ 73 59 36 

Both metro and nonmetro (n=31) .......................... 71 71 42 

 

ARC grant size 

Less than $50,000 (n=16) ...................................... 56 38 13 

$50,001 – $100,000 (n=29).................................... 69 79 41 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=16).................................. 75 56 44 

More than $200,000 (n=6)..................................... 33 33 0 

 

Total project cost 

Less than $100,000 (n=19) .................................... 58 42 21 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=28).................................. 75 82 42 

$200,001 – $900,000 (n=16).................................. 63 50 31 

More than $900,000 (n=4)..................................... 25 25 0 

 

Years of ARC funding 

1 year (n=45).......................................................... 60 53 22 

2 years (n=15) ........................................................ 73 73 47 

3 or more years (n=7)............................................. 71 71 57 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
A-11 

Table A4-9. Percent of project staff training conducted with ARC funding 

Project staff training area Percent funded 

by ARC 

All project staff training activities (n=104)........................................................................................................................ 36 

Project-purchased equipment (n=43) ................................................................................................................................. 40 

Specific skill or content area (n=40) .................................................................................................................................. 33 

Pedagogy or teaching skills (n=21).................................................................................................................................... 33 

NOTE: Percent estimates are based on the projects that indicated they trained project staff. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.
A-12 

Table A4-10. Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting providing job search assistance and career 

counseling activities, by project characteristics 

Project characteristic Career counseling Job search/ 

placement activities Employability skills 

Referrals to other 

agencies for 

assistance 

 

All projects (n=67) ................................... 57 48 66 36 

Participant type 

No full-time job experience (n=40) ..... 65 63 75 40 

Full-time job experience (n=8) ............ 38 0 50 38 

Both experience levels (n=19) ............. 47 37 53 26 

 

Participant age 

Primarily youth (n=22) ........................ 77 68 82 50 

Primarily adult (n=32) ......................... 47 34 53 38 

Both youth and adult (n=13)................ 46 46 69 8 

 

Geographic distribution 

Single town or county (n=25) ............. 72 68 88 44 

Adjacent counties (n=6)...................... 67 67 67 33 

Nonadjacent counties (n=36) .............. 44 31 50 31 

 

Economic status 

At least one distressed county (n=18). 50 33 50 28 

No distressed counties (n=49)............. 59 53 71 39 

Metropolitan status 

Metropolitan only (n=14).................... 64 57 79 43 

Nonmetropolitan only (n=22) ............. 55 45 73 41 

Both metro and nonmetro (n=31) ....... 53 45 55 29 

 

ARC grant size 

Less than $50,000 (n=16) ................... 63 56 69 38 

$50,001 – $100,000 (n=29)................. 52 45 66 31 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=16)............... 63 50 69 44 

More than $200,000 (n=6) .................. 50 33 50 33 

 

Total project cost 

Less than $100,000 (n=19) ................. 63 58 74 42 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=28)............... 46 36 54 25 

$200,001 – $900,000 (n=16)............... 75 69 88 56 

More than $900,000 (n=4) .................. 25 0 25 0 

 

Years of ARC funding 

1 year (n=45)....................................... 49 49 67 31 

2 years (n=15) ..................................... 73 47 67 53 

3 or more years (n=7).......................... 71 43 57 29 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
A-13 

Table A4-11. Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting providing social support services, by project 

characteristics 

Project characteristic Assistance arranging 

child care 

Assistance arranging 

transportation Financial assistance 

Referrals to other 

agencies for social 

support services 

 

All projects (n=67) ................................... 6 7 18 24 

Participant type 

No full-time job experience (n=40) ..... 10 10 13 28 

Full-time job experience (n=8) ............ 0 0 13 25 

Both experience levels (n=19) ............. 0 5 32 15 

 

Participant age 

Primarily youth (n=22) ........................ 0 9 5 27 

Primarily adult (n=32) ......................... 13 9 28 28 

Both youth and adult (n=13)................ 0 0 15 8 

 

Geographic distribution 

Single town or county (n=25) ............. 8 16 8 28 

Adjacent counties (n=6)...................... 0 17 50 33 

Nonadjacent counties (n=36) .............. 6 0 19 19 

 

Economic status 

At least one distressed county (n=18). 11 17 11 17 

No distressed counties (n=49)............. 4 4 20 27 

Metropolitan status 

Metropolitan only (n=14).................... 7 0 14 14 

Nonmetropolitan only (n=22) ............. 9 18 14 36 

Both metro and nonmetro (n=31) ....... 3 3 23 19 

 

ARC grant size 

Less than $50,000 (n=16) ................... 0 0 13 19 

$50,001 – $100,000 (n=29)................. 10 14 24 24 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=16)............... 6 6 13 25 

More than $200,000 (n=6) .................. 0 0 17 33 

 

Total project cost 

Less than $100,000 (n=19) ................. 0 11 16 26 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=28)............... 4 4 18 14 

$200,001 – $900,000 (n=16)............... 18 13 25 44 

More than $900,000 (n=4) .................. 0 0 0 0 

 

Years of ARC funding 

1 year (n=45)....................................... 7 7 18 20 

2 years (n=15) ..................................... 7 7 13 33 

3 or more years (n=7).......................... 0 14 29 29 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
A-14 

Table A4-12.Percent of social support services provided with ARC funding 

Social support service Percent funded 

by ARC 

All social support services activities (n=37) ...................................................................................................................... 16 

Assistance arranging child care (n=4)................................................................................................................................ 25 

Assistance arranging transportation (n=5).......................................................................................................................... 20 

Financial assistance (n=12)................................................................................................................................................ 8 

Referrals to other agencies for social support services (n=16) ................................................................... 19 

NOTE: Percent estimates are based on the projects that provided support services. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees.
A-15 

Table A4-13. Percent of Cohort 1 projects reporting conducting community-wide activities, by 

project characteristics 

Project characteristic Establish community or 

business partnerships 

Distribute funds or minigrants Provide community 

outreach 

 

All projects (n=67) ................................... 60 10 39 

Participant type 

No full-time job experience (n=40) ..... 60 10 38 

Full-time job experience (n=8) ............ 63 25 25 

Both experience levels (n=19) ............. 58 5 47 

 

Participant age 

Primarily youth (n=22) ........................ 64 14 36 

Primarily adult (n=32) ......................... 53 13 38 

Both youth and adult (n=13)................ 69 0 46 

 

Geographic distribution 

Single town or county (n=25) ............. 68 8 36 

Adjacent counties (n=6)...................... 50 17 33 

Nonadjacent counties (n=36) .............. 56 11 42 

 

Economic status 

At least one distressed county (n=18). 67 22 56 

No distressed counties (n=49)............. 57 6 33 

Metropolitan status 

Metropolitan only (n=14).................... 43 0 7 

Nonmetropolitan only (n=22) ............. 68 9 59 

Both metro and nonmetro (n=31) ....... 61 16 39 

 

ARC grant size 

Less than $50,000 (n=16) ................... 44 0 19 

$50,001 – $100,000 (n=29)................. 69 14 52 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=16)............... 69 6 38 

More than $200,000 (n=6) .................. 33 33 33 

 

Total project cost 

Less than $100,000 (n=19) ................. 47 5 26 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=29)............... 61 11 43 

$200,001 – $900,000 (n=16)............... 81 13 50 

More than $900,000 (n=6) .................. 25 25 25 

 

Years of ARC funding 

1 year (n=45)....................................... 53 11 42 

2 years (n=15) ..................................... 73 0 27 

3 or more years (n=7).......................... 71 29 43 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
A-16 

Table A4-14. Percent of community-wide activities conducted with ARC funding 

Community-wide activity Percent funded 

by ARC 

All community-wide activities (n=73) ............................................................................................................................... 34 

Establish community or business partnerships (n=40) ....................................................................................................... 28 

Distribute funds or mini-grants (n=7) ................................................................................................................................ 86 

Provide community outreach (n=26).................................................................................................................................. 31 

NOTE: Percent estimates are based on the projects that conducted community-wide activities. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
A-17 

Table A6-1. Percent of projects reporting current operating status, by project characteristics 

Project characteristic In full operation Expanded scope Reduced scope No longer in 

operation 

 

All projects (n=67)......................................................... 49 30 15 6 

 

Participant type 

No full-time job experience (n=40)........................... 53 28 18 3 

Full-time job experience (n=8).................................. 13 38 25 25 

Both experience levels (n=19)................................... 58 32 5 5 

 

Participant age 

Primarily youth (n=22).............................................. 55 23 23 0 

Primarily adult (n=32) ............................................... 44 34 13 13 

Both youth and adult (n=13) ..................................... 54 31 8 0 

 

Geographic distribution 

Single town or county (n=25)................................... 56 20 24 0 

Adjacent counties (n=6) ........................................... 17 83 0 0 

Nonadjacent counties (n=36).................................... 50 28 11 11 

 

Economic status 

At least one distressed county (n=18) ...................... 39 28 17 11 

No distressed counties (n=49) .................................. 53 31 14 4 

 

Metropolitan status 

Metropolitan only (n=14) ......................................... 50 29 7 14 

Nonmetropolitan only (n=22)................................... 45 27 23 0 

Both metro and nonmetro (n=31)............................. 52 32 13 6 

 

ARC grant size 

Less than $50,000 (n=16)......................................... 75 13 6 0 

$50,001 – $100,000 (n=29)...................................... 48 38 17 0 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=16).................................... 44 31 19 6 

More than $200,000 (n=6)........................................ 0 33 17 50 

 

Total project cost 

Less than $100,000 (n=19)....................................... 63 11 11 0 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=28).................................... 50 32 21 0 

$200,001 – $900,000 (n=16).................................... 44 44 6 6 

More than $900,000 (n=4)........................................ 0 0 25 75 

 

Years of ARC funding 

1 year (n=45) ............................................................ 56 27 13 4 

2 years (n=15)........................................................... 40 40 13 7 

3 or more years (n=67) ............................................. 29 29 29 14 

NOTE: One project reported it had expanded to include more participants but was providing reduced services and is therefore included in both 

columns. Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
A-18 

Table A6-2. Percent of Cohort 1 projects that reported that their ARC-funded activities/equipment 

were still operational to various extents at the time of the mail survey, by project 

characteristics 

Portion of activities/equipment still operational Project characteristic None Some All 

 

All projects (n=67) .......................................................................................... 6 94 0 

 

Participant type 

No full-time job experience (n=40)............................................................ 0 100 0 

Full-time job experience (n=8) ................................................................... 38 63 0 

Both experience levels (n=19) .................................................................... 5 95 0 

 

Participant age 

Primarily youth (n=22) ............................................................................... 0 100 0 

Primarily adult (n=32) ................................................................................ 13 88 0 

Both youth and adult (n=13)....................................................................... 0 100 0 

 

Geographic distribution 

Single town or county (n=25) .................................................................... 0 100 0 

Adjacent counties (n=6)............................................................................. 0 100 0 

Nonadjacent counties (n=36)..................................................................... 11 88 0 

 

Economic status 

At least one distressed county (n=18)........................................................ 17 83 0 

No distressed counties (n=49).................................................................... 2 98 0 

 

Metropolitan status 

Metropolitan only (n=14)........................................................................... 7 93 0 

Nonmetropolitan only (n=22).................................................................... 0 100 0 

Both metro and nonmetro (n=31) .............................................................. 10 90 0 

 

ARC grant size 

Less than $50,000 (n=16) .......................................................................... 0 100 0 

$50,001 – $100,000 (n=29)........................................................................ 0 100 0 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=16)...................................................................... 0 100 0 

More than $200,000 (n=6) ......................................................................... 67 33 0 

 

Total project cost 

Less than $100,000 (n=19) ........................................................................ 0 100 0 

$100,001 – $200,000 (n=28)...................................................................... 0 100 0 

$200,001 – $900,000 (n=16)...................................................................... 0 100 0 

More than $900,000 (n=4) ......................................................................... 100 0 0 

 

Years of ARC funding 

1 year (n=45).............................................................................................. 2 98 0 

2 years (n=15) ............................................................................................ 7 93 0 

3 or more years (n=67)............................................................................... 29 71 0 

NOTE: ARC-funded activities are those for which respondents reported ARC provided some funding. Percents may not sum to 100 due to 

rounding. 

SOURCE: 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
B-1 

Appendix B 

Evidence in Support of Projects’ Outcomes 
B-2 
B-3 

Exhibit B5-1. Examples of evidence that respondents provided to demonstrate that they achieved 

their objectives pertaining to services provided to individuals and communities 

Anticipated objective Evidence that objective was achieved 

In 1996-97, 75 students will be 

trained in machine technology and 

computer-aided manufacturing. 

Based on data collected and surveys of former students, participants were 

employed in their field at a rate of 90 percent within six months or before. 

24 apprentices will participate in 

the Murray County Board of 

Education. 

A survey was done with former employers, students, and with the local 

college and vocational technical schools to find out our results. Since the 

program started up, over 80 people have participated in the program. 

110 daytime students per semester 

will be enrolled in the program. 

We were able to offer technology education to more middle school students 

than we had previously planned. Therefore, more than 110 per semester were 

able to successfully complete several technology modules. 

30-40 students will enter the 

technical engineering program 

each year during the first two 

years. 

The fall 2000 semester showed 60 freshmen engineering students enrolled. 

50 students will be trained per year 

in diesel technology. 

Although enrollment growth in the diesel technology program in 1995-1997 

did not reach the anticipated outcome goal, enrollment for the past 3 years has 

continued to increase. Initiation of an adult diesel technology education 

program did not begin until 1999-2000. Enrollment in the high school and 

adult education diesel technology program now exceeds 50 per year. 

700 students are to be served by 

these new facilities that will 

support baccalaureate transfer and 

technical education programs. 

Annual enrollment figures for the college indicate that over 1,800 students 

have been enrolled. Since 90 percent of them would have used the equipment 

purchased through the grant, this outcome was achieved. 

15 special education students will 

be served through the program 

annually. 

Based on education data, enrollment of special needs students, we know we 

served 15 students annually. 

The program will be considered 

successful if the enrollment of 

associate degree seeking students 

is 75 per year. 

Since the beginning of the project, this equipment and software has been used 

by approximately 450 students—86 have used it during the 2000-2001 school 

year. 

16-20 residents will receive job 

skills training, pre-employment 

skills training, and the needed 

support services. 

A review of program records found that 16 participants received adequate job 

skills training at the building sites, pre-employment skills training on the job 

and in the classroom. Support services including transportation and child 

care were not a significant problem but were arranged for as needed. 

175 students per year will 

participate in appropriate 

workplace computer simulations. 

Enrollment data from classes in which simulations form an important part of 

the curriculum. Estimated that 225 participated. 

In FY 1996, 20 business will be 

served. 

Used training records as training was conducted. Documented which 

companies received assistance. 

Install and make operational a 

lumber drying kiln. 

The lumber drying kiln that was installed has provided small businesses an 

opportunity to dry lumber and add value to their products. 

At least 18 new businesses will be 

served per year. 

Our local GPS vendor has supplied a list of 27 businesses or agencies that are 

using our base station data and/or have purchased GPS equipment because of 

the project. 

NOTE: Evidence cited is not intended to represent best practice, but rather is illustrative of the range of evidence projects reported in support of 

their objective. 

SOURCE: Document review and 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
B-4 

Exhibit B5-2. Examples of evidence that respondents provided to demonstrate that they achieved 

their objectives pertaining to skill attainment 

Anticipated objective Evidence that objective was achieved 

Upgrade the quality of new 

employees in the trade and 

industrial program. 

A survey of program completers found that 60 percent were employed using 

the skills they had learned during the program. 

New worker behaviors and skills 

will be transferred to the 

workplace. 

Post-training discussions were conducted with company officials to determine 

if changes were apparent. Company officials stated that employees were 

more aware of hazards. Also, skills training helped employees do new things. 

Participating students will develop 

a broad base of skills in the use of 

technological tools and systems 

(i.e., problem-solving skills). 

After giving students a pre-test to discover how little knowledge they had of a 

particular technology then to discover the skills learned by giving a post-test. 

Results were very promising. 

Increase the small business 

leadership skills of at least 25-30 

youth annually. 

29 youth participated in the management training portion of the project. Staff 

reports and anecdotal evidence suggested that most youth did increase their 

skills. 

Increase the number of youth that 

learn and practice computer skills. 9 youth increased their computer skills. 

Increase the number of technically 

educated persons entering the local 

workforce. 

Annual surveys report placement of over 90 percent of graduates in the 

technical field for which they trained. 

Secondary and adult students who 

participate in these courses will be 

better prepared for the workforce. 

Based on the enrollment in the program and the pre-post tests assessments, 

we were able to conclude that participants are better prepared for the 

workforce. 

Graduates will be prepared to 

operate CNC machines on the job. 

Information obtained from the VE-23’s indicated that 50 percent of 

completers were employed in precision machining. Through informal 

conversations with past completers, 75 percent of the completers have been 

employed in the precision machining area. 

Students who participate in the 

middle school residential institute 

will improve their self-esteem and 

develop positive self-images. 

All participants indicated on post-program surveys that they now saw 

themselves as capable to attend and complete a post-secondary course of 

study. 

Participants’ employability skills 

will be improved. 

Survey results have been taken once over the last five years. Those results 

indicate that 85 percent of graduates were placed in jobs or continued into 

post-secondary education. 

Students will gain the technical 

skills and knowledge required to 

become licensed hygienists and 

certified assistants. 

An overview of both state and national exam results revealed that 85 percent 

of the students sitting for the examinations passed (first try). Increased to 97 

percent after the second attempt. 

Increase the efficiency and skill 

levels of existing network 

members. 

Four knitters received training in apparel design and applied their new skills 

in design projects. This is a career path that provides better wages for higher 

skills. Twenty-three knitters participated in quality control, measurements, 

and pattern reading workshops. The number of second repairs and returns 

went down significantly. Six knitters became trainers through ABD’s 

training course. Trainers earn a higher wage and have opportunities for 

ongoing professional development in the training field. 

NOTE: Evidence cited is not intended to represent best practice, but rather is illustrative of the range of evidence projects reported in support of 

their objective. 

SOURCE: Document review and 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
B-5 

Exhibit B5-3. Examples of evidence that respondents provided to demonstrate that they achieved 

their objectives pertaining to employment status 

Anticipated objective Evidence that objective was achieved 

Increase the number of qualified 

dental hygienists entering the job 

market in the Appalachian counties 

in north Alabama. 

From 1995-2000, 78 students graduated from the dental hygiene program. A 

survey of graduates indicated that 74 of the 78 are employed in the field for a 

95 percent rate of working in the field. 

Graduates will earn higher wages 

(since their productivity will 

increase). 

A survey of former participants found average wages increased from $5.50 

per hour to $7.50 per hour. 

Increase the number of students 

placed in skill development 

positions. 

An informal survey was done to verify the results of the outcome. I recall 

that about 60 students had been placed in skill development positions. 

For 1999, six welfare parents will 

be placed in full-time child care 

jobs. 

Over the two years we were funded by ARC, four of our graduates became 

employed full-time in child care jobs at Sunshine School. Another graduate, 

who moved from our area, worked full-time as the director of a home-based 

day care center. Another participant in our program worked full-time at 

Sunshine Day Care before obtaining a full-time position at Harlan Elementary 

School. 

Ninety percent of the individuals 

completing the Certificate program 

will be employed in positions 

directly related to the training they 

received. 

Survey of graduates noted that in 1998—12 graduates, 9 replied, 100 percent 

employed. 1999—17 graduates, 16 replied, 100 percent (31 percent 

employed, 69 percent transferring). 

Increase the percentage of 

graduates that were placed in jobs. 

Post-program completion surveys conducted each year have shown that from 

1995 to the 1999-2000 school year, job placement of completers has 

increased by more than 60 percent. This number is supported by records 

maintained by administrative staff and placement data provided by 

employment services. 

The 15 special education students 

will graduate to job placement 

within the community. 

Our follow-up career education placement data indicate that 15 special needs 

students graduated to job placement. 

Through teaching students the 

latest technical information, 

students (pre-employment and 

currently employed) will have the 

ability to obtain higher paying 

jobs. 

Since this project started, the students have consistently gotten higher paying 

jobs. For example, students who are trained on a CNC machine can get a 

higher paying job (even though it is minimal training). It is true that most 

kids who graduate from this program earn from $1.50 to $2.00 more than 

other programs. When our first group graduated, they could earn about $8.00 

per hour. Then it went up to $9.75 to $10.00—and now our graduates earn 

$10.50. The kids are so proud they often bring in their paychecks to show us. 

We know what the program can do. We maintain contact with employers and 

keep up with our students. 

Of the graduates, 80 percent will 

be directly placed in jobs. 

Participant and employer data surveys. Over 85 percent of the graduates from 

the programs using this equipment were placed in directly or closely related 

positions. 

As a result of the services 

provided, participants will become 

gainfully employed. 

A survey of former participants helped us determine that 14 participants have 

been gainfully employed. The employers include construction contractors, the 

local school system (job care providers), the housing authority (maintenance), 

health care providers, a furniture manufacturing company, and job corps. 

NOTE: Evidence cited is not intended to represent best practice, but rather is illustrative of the range of evidence projects reported in support of 

their objective. 

SOURCE: Document review and 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
B-6 

Exhibit B5-4. Examples of evidence that respondents provided to demonstrate that they achieved 

their objectives pertaining to community viability 

Anticipated objective Evidence that objective was achieved 

Participating businesses in worksite partnerships with the school 

districts will report significant 

benefits from student placements. 

Survey of participating businesses shows that all employers report positive 

experiences with students placed at their businesses. 

Enhance economic development in 

north Alabama. 

We believe that this program funded by the ARC has made a considerable 

improvement to the economic development of this area. The fact that 150 or 

more graduates have obtained good paying jobs, that this allows for more 

spending, and lowers unemployment. This program was the first 2-year OTA 

program in Alabama—there is only one other 2-year program (in Mobile). 

The private sector will benefit 

from the availability of local 

workers with up-to-date training. 

A survey of employers found that they benefited from the skilled workers. 

The local economy will benefit 

from the increased wages earned 

by a more productive workforce. 

A survey of the local businesses found increased sales and business. 

Increase the capacity of 

Appalachian companies to 

effectively compete in the global 

marketplace. 

Because of ISO 9000 requirements, as well as other global quality standards, 

many of our businesses engage in this type of training in order to satisfy these 

standards (which, in turn, enhances their ability to retain or enhance their 

market share). Purchases of new machinery and equipment may also require 

employee training and the FAIR program has contributed to these types of 

projects as well. Machinery and equipment extends beyond new industrial 

machinery to include computer and computer systems—all of which may 

require employee training. 

Meet the educational needs of local 

industry once the new facility is 

fully operational. 

Over 140 different businesses, industries, and agencies use the facilities 

annually. The number of employees trained has increased from 855 in FY 

1993 to 2,204 in FY 2000. 

Meet the communication, 

mathematics, and scientific needs 

of local business and industry. 

Because of the ARC-funded equipment, our schools were able to teach 

applied academic skills that meet employer needs—as indicated by almost 0 

unemployment in our area over the last 5-7 years and the tremendous 

economic expansion in Spartanburg and Cherokee counties. 

Meet the present and future needs 

of local employers. 

Participant and employer survey. Survey results showed over 95 percent met 

or exceeded present requirements. Over 75 percent felt training would serve 

their needs for the next five years. 

Meet the special job training needs 

of Appalachian Pennsylvania. 

We have found that Appalachian Pennsylvania communities and 

manufacturers have training needs which are not being met because of 

geographic and availability considerations. This program brought effective 

training to the northeast Pennsylvania region. 

NOTE: Evidence cited is not intended to represent best practice, but rather is illustrative of the range of evidence projects reported in support of 

their objective. 

SOURCE: Document review and 2001 mail survey of ARC grantees. 
C-1 

Appendix C 

Notes on the Technical Approach 
C-2 
C-3 

Appendix C 

Notes on the Technical Approach 

This appendix provides an overview of the data 

collection and sampling procedures that were used 

to conduct the study. Specifically, information is 

provided on the methodologies used to (1) select 

the study sample, (2) conduct the document 

review, (3) access information from ARC 

databases, and (4) conduct the mail survey. The 

case study methodology is discussed in Appendix 

D. 

Process Used to Select the Study Sample 

The evaluation was designed to focus on a selected 

sample of ARC’s vocational education and 

workforce training projects that received funding 

in the 1990s and 2000. The ARC database 

contained information about 173 projects that were 

awarded grants between 1990 and 2000,1

 and ARC 

staff pulled project files for over 100 of them. 

Every effort was made to achieve a balance of 

project type (using ARC designations that 

combine population served and type of service 

provided) and the states that make up Appalachia, 

to the extent possible given that some states 

conducted far more vocational projects than 

others. Projects were considered for inclusion in 

the study sample only if there was sufficient 

information in the file for the document review 

(e.g., an application and monthly/end of project 

reports). Ultimately, a sample of 67 Cohort 1 

projects and 25 Cohort 2 projects was drawn. 

The information we extracted from the 

documentation enabled us to establish a point of 

contact with each project and to determine 

 

1

 These 173 projects represent an unduplicated count. ARC’s 

database typically has a separate entry for each year of ARC 

funding a project receives. The database used to select projects and 

conduct additional analyses to understand the representativeness of 

the sample had already been modified so that a project that received 

ARC funding in multiple years would have only one entry. An 

exception was made for one grantee that had a similar project in 

each cohort. 

whether someone with knowledge of the ARC 

grant was still available to reply to the mail 

survey. We were able to identify a knowledgeable 

contact in all projects in the sample. 

Document Review 

ARC provided Westat with copies of available 

documentation for the 92 projects in the two 

cohorts. The most widely available form of 

documentation was the initial proposal to ARC 

(89 percent of projects), followed by final or 

close-out reports (63 percent of projects) and 

progress reports (50 percent of projects). Ten 

percent of the projects had separate and detailed 

evaluation reports.2

 The following information 

was entered into an Access database: 

• Project description; 

• Problems projects were designed to address; 

• Population segments served; 

• Activities conducted as part of the ARC grant; 

• Obstacles/barriers to implementation; and 

• Intended outputs and outcomes. 

We made considerable use of the information 

obtained through the document review. First, these 

data were used to provide the study team with 

background information about the types of 

activities and outcomes that were supported by 

ARC during the 1990s. Second, the document 

review database was used to develop some of the 

 

2

 The documents that we reviewed reflected what was in the project 

files at the time of the study. It is possible that some of the materials 

that individual projects submitted were not in their files at the time 

the review was conducted. 
C-4 

close-ended options for the mail survey. Third, we 

used projects’ original language regarding 

anticipated outcomes to develop an addendum to 

the mail survey for Cohort 1 projects. This 

addendum, customized for each project, provided 

respondents with an opportunity to more precisely 

benchmark their levels of achievement against the 

performance standards set forth in their proposals 

to ARC. Fourth, we used the materials in a subset 

of project files to inform the selection of the case 

study sites. Finally, examples from the document 

review were used to illustrate findings in the final 

report. 

ARC Database 

Additional descriptive data regarding grant 

amounts, total project costs, and metropolitan and 

economic status of counties were obtained from 

the ARC database. Several issues regarding this 

task are worth noting. First, with assistance from 

ARC staff, we obtained a database that had 

collapsed grant amounts and total project costs for 

initiatives that spanned 2 or more years. Second, 

the database contained codes for the economic and 

metropolitan status of projects and the counties in 

which they operated. In cases where projects 

operated in multiple counties, ARC staff assisted 

us by recoding these fields. We considered the 

project to be serving a distressed county if at least 

one of the counties listed in its original application 

was designated as being distressed at the time the 

ARC grant was first awarded. Finally, we did not 

attempt to classify the economic or metropolitan 

status of projects serving all ARC counties in a 

state (or serving communities in two or more 

states). Rather, multicounty, statewide, multistate 

projects were treated as projects serving both 

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties. 

Mail Survey 

The mail survey was the primary data collection 

activity. The Cohort 1 survey was designed to 

obtain a common set of data concerning project 

implementation and accomplishments, as well as 

information about the extent to which projects 

achieved the outcomes they had anticipated for 

themselves. Specifically, Part 1 of the survey 

contained close-ended items relevant to all ARC 

projects. Part 2 focused on the specific outcomes 

that projects had described in their applications to 

ARC. Thus, while Part 1 asked about generic 

project goals (e.g., provide employability skills, 

retrain workers for new employment), Part 2 asked 

about specific outcome goals (e.g., decrease 

unemployment by 10 percent over 3 years). 

Appendix F provides copies of Parts 1 and 2 of the 

Cohort 1 mail survey. 

Cohort 2 projects received an abbreviated survey 

without a Part 2. Projects were asked all of the 

same descriptive characteristic questions as Cohort 

1, but were asked only generally about their 

activities. Additional items on data collection 

methodologies were included on Cohort 2 survey, 

but not the Cohort 1 survey. Because most Cohort 

2 projects were still active at the time of the 

survey, items related to outputs and outcomes 

were not included. Appendix G provides the 

Cohort 2 mail survey. 

The survey was pretested with five projects in the 

survey sample and subsequently revised and 

mailed to the projects early February 2001. 

Respondents were asked to return completed 

surveys to Westat by February 22, 2001. 

Telephone followup for survey nonresponse began 

in late February 2001—and telephone followup for 

item nonresponse was conducted throughout 

March and April 2001. The final survey sample 

consisted of 67 Cohort 1 projects and 25 Cohort 2 

projects, for a 100 percent response rate. The 

nonresponse rate for individual items (i.e., the 

respondent either refused to answer the question or 

indicated “don’t know,” or the response could not 

otherwise be ascertained) ranged from 0 percent to 

3 percent for Cohort 1 and 0 percent to 24 percent3

for Cohort 2. 

 

3

 Six respondents did not answer the item on barriers to collecting 

followup data on participants. 
D-1 

Appendix D 

Case Study Methodology and Reports 
D-2 
D-3 

Appendix D 

Case Study Methodology and Findings 

This appendix provides case study methodology 

and the five case study reports. 

CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY

The site visits were designed to allow for a more 

detailed examination of successful ARC-funded 

vocational education and workforce training 

projects, with an emphasis on the lessons learned 

by these projects and their efforts at sustainability. 

Five projects (three from Cohort 1 and two from 

Cohort 2) were selected for intensive visits, and 

information gained through these site visits was 

summarized in a series of case studies. In addition, 

specific findings were used throughout the final 

report to illustrate key survey findings. 

The following criteria were used to narrow the 

pool of projects considered for site visits: 

• Projects had to still be in operation (full, 

partial, or changed). This was ascertained 

through telephone contacts conducted by 

Westat in November 2000. 

• Projects had to have achieved at least some of 

their stated goals. This was ascertained 

through a review of project documentation and 

survey responses. 

• Projects had to have focused on providing 

services in addition to equipment. This was 

ascertained through a review of survey 

responses. 

• Projects had to be conducting some type of 

participant followup data collection that 

extended beyond informal conversation or 

anecdotes. This was ascertained through a 

review of survey responses. 

• Projects were then selected to represent a 

range of the following: 

− Population served—i.e., youth or 

adults—as determined by survey 

responses and ARC’s database 

indications of vocational education or 

workforce training. 

− States, with Commission projects 

representing the states in which they are 

located. 

− Project scope and size, measured by 

grant amount and number of counties or 

breadth of the region served. 

− Grantee organization types—i.e., 

schools or districts, state government, 

economic or community development 

organizations, postsecondary institutions. 

Following a brief telephone call to ensure that 

projects were willing to host a site visit and that 

ARC-funded activities were still in operation, the 

original five primary sites were selected as the 

final case study sample (Exhibit D-1). 

Site visitors spent 11⁄2 to 2 days at each of the five 

sites. While onsite, the evaluators met with project 

directors and other key staff, interviewed or 

conducted informal focus groups with project 

beneficiaries, including instructors, students, 

families, and adult learners, and visited facilities 

supported through the grants. The resulting case 

studies were reviewed for accuracy by each 

project’s primary respondent. 
D-4 

Exhibit D-1 

Case Study Projects 

Cohort 1: 

Daniel Morgan Vocational Center 

Horticulture Program

Daniel Morgan Technology Center, 

Spartanburg, South Carolina 

Manufacturing Assistance Center

University of Pittsburgh, 

Harmarville, Pennsylvania 

Winston County Technology Center 

Vocational Curriculum

Winston County Board of Education, 

Winston County, Alabama 

Cohort 2: 

Chautauqua County Wood Skills Training

Private Industry Council of Chautauqua, Inc., 

Jamestown, New York 

Fund for Appalachian Industrial ReTraining (FAIR)

State of Ohio, Department of Development, 

Office of Industrial Training, 

Appalachian Ohio 

CASE STUDY REPORTS

The five case study reports are provided in the 

following pages. 
D-5 

Daniel Morgan Technology Center Horticulture Program 

Project Location Spartanburg, South Carolina 

Grant Recipient Daniel Morgan Technology Center (DMTC) 

ARC Number SC 12090 

Project Type Vocational Education 

Grant Amount $13,490 

Matching Funding $13,490 

Dates of Site Visit April 23-24, 2001 

Site Visitor Nicole Bartfai 

Project Abstract 

Daniel Morgan Technology Center (DMTC), a technical and vocational center for two school 

districts in Spartanburg, South Carolina, established a horticulture program to meet the growing 

needs of the landscape industry in the greater Greenville/Spartanburg area. The primary goal of 

the program was to increase students’ knowledge and overall familiarity with 

horticulture/agriculture. The ARC grant was used to purchase state-of-the-art equipment to 

enhance the program, including a Bobcat 753 skid loader with auger, pallet, and tiller kits, a 486 

computer, horticulture software, sprayer, hedge trimmers, a weed eater, and a blower. The new 

equipment added versatility to the types of projects conducted by the class. 

The horticulture program is one of many offered at Daniel Morgan. Data collected on the 

horticulture program are part of the overall school evaluation; they include enrollment numbers, 

completion rates for students, and placement rates. In addition, in-class assessments directly 

measure a student’s performance in all horticulture course. 

The most notable accomplishment of the horticulture program at DMTC is that many students 

were exposed to various aspects of horticulture and agriculture. Another indication of the 

school’s success is the increase in the number of students accepted in the National Vocational 

Honors Society. 
D-6 

Daniel Morgan Technology Center 

Equipment Purchase for the Horticulture Program 

A. Background and Context 

 Objectives/Problems Addressed 

The horticulture program that was established at the Daniel Morgan Technology Center 

(DMTC) was designed to increase students’ knowledge and familiarity with that field of work. It was 

determined through a countywide needs assessments that local landscaping companies were anticipating 

job openings in the next 5 years. The school sent out a follow-up survey to local landscape companies 

and golf courses in the Greenville/Spartanburg area in order to better understand the types of skills these 

workers would need. The ARC grant was then used to purchase equipment to facilitate students’ 

attainment of these skills. 

 Community and Beneficiaries 

Daniel Morgan Technology Center serves students in grades 10 through 12 from two local 

high schools—Spartanburg and Broome. As noted by several school officials, the population at Daniel 

Morgan is extremely diverse due to the differing characteristics of the feeder schools. Spartanburg High 

School serves a predominantly urban population with a high percentage of minority students, whereas 

Broome High School serves a predominantly rural population of primarily white students. Despite the 

extreme diversity, the students work well together and the school has experienced relatively few problems 

with students. Broome High School has an overall student population of 800 students in grades 9 through 

12; approximately 645 students are in grades 10 through 12. Spartanburg High School serves an average 

enrollment of 1,500 students in grades 10 through 12. 

 Grant Recipient 

Daniel Morgan Technology Center, once called the Daniel Morgan Vocational Center, 

provides technical and vocational education courses for students from two of the seven local high schools. 

The Center offers the traditional vocational courses (i.e., auto mechanics, cosmetology) as well as new 

courses such as computer programming and culinary arts. A board of directors, composed of three board 
D-7 

members from each school district, governs the Center, and each district provides funding to DMTC. 

Daniel Morgan operates under the Office of Career and Technology Education at the South Carolina 

Department of Education. 

Daniel Morgan has an enrollment that ranges from 500 to 600 students each semester. This 

high level of enrollment, compared to other vocational schools in the area, can be attributed to several 

changes the school has made over the past 5 years. For example, at one time, Daniel Morgan only served 

11th and 12th grade students, but now it serves 10th grade students as well. More importantly, Daniel 

Morgan changed from the traditional two sessions to three 90-minute block sessions daily. This change 

enabled the students to take one course at Daniel Morgan and continue with their academic classes at their 

local high schools. With the increased flexibility, more students can take semester-long courses at Daniel 

Morgan without altering their academic schedules. Daniel Morgan also decided to offer semester-long 

courses instead of the traditional 2-year vocational tracks. This change opened more variety in course 

offerings, which attracted more nontraditional vocational education students. A greater variety of courses 

allows students to get more exposure to possible career options. 

 Current Status 

The horticulture program, supported and funded entirely by Broome and Spartanburg High 

Schools, was in full operation at the time of the site visit. Courses in horticulture were offered at DMTC 

from 1996 through 1999 and now again in 2001. The horticulture program was not offered during the 

1999-2000 school year because the school was unable to find a qualified instructor (the original instructor 

left his teaching position at the school in order to accept an administrative position with another school 

district). Since then, the program has hired a new instructor, a recent college graduate, enabling the school 

to start offering horticulture course again this year. The newly hired instructor demonstrated considerable 

enthusiasm for and commitment to the horticulture program and its purpose. Though his style of 

instruction is different from the original instructor, the courses offered have remained consistent. The 

Director at Daniel Morgan anticipates continuing to offer horticulture/agriculture courses as long as 

enrollment is adequate and the budget allows for it. 

B. Approach 

The horticulture program was initiated in 1995 to address the growing need of area 

businesses in the areas of landscaping. The primary aim was to expose students to the horticulture 

industry and increase their overall knowledge of horticulture/agriculture. Students interested in 

horticulture could enter the workforce directly from high school or go to Spartanburg Technical School 
D-8 

and enter the 2-year program in horticulture. The ARC grant was used to purchase state-of-the-art 

equipment, i.e., a Bobcat and several attachments, one computer, horticulture software, sprayer, hedge 

trimmers, a weed eater, and a blower. A school-level survey, conducted to assess the initial level of 

interest in the horticulture program, asked students general questions regarding the types of horticulture 

courses they would be most interested in taking. Once the design of the program was finalized, students 

were actively recruited during English classes. 1

 Training/Curriculum 

The courses offered include introduction to horticulture, residential landscaping, commercial 

landscaping, and horticulture business. In order to provide a more interesting selection of courses for the 

students next year, residential and commercial landscaping are being combined, and a course in wildlife 

and forestry management was added. Each course meets for 90 minutes every day, Monday through 

Friday, for an entire semester. 

The curriculum for each of the courses is adapted from Clemson University Agriculture 

curriculum guidelines. The program is part of the FFA (previously Future Farmers of America) umbrella 

at Clemson University. Therefore, the data collected on students in the horticulture program are reported 

to the FFA for their monitoring purposes. Although the base curriculum guidelines are used in the 

horticulture courses at Daniel Morgan, the instructor is responsible for adapting them to fit the needs of 

the students. 

Integration of horticulture into the regular academic curriculum. One of the strengths 

of the previous instructor was his emphasis on bringing horticulture into the regular academic curriculum. 

He worked with the teachers at Daniel Morgan and with several of the regular high school teachers to 

integrate horticulture into their subject areas. A plant sale, conducted by this instructor, encouraged 

classes in other subject areas to talk and learn about horticulture. For example, the algebra classes 

graphed the results outcomes of the plant sale, the business technology classes tracked financial growth, 

the marketing classes marketed the product, the science classes discussed the growing cycle, and even the 

history classes learned about how horticulture affected rural cultures, how different species of plants 

spread due to migration, and how horticulture has affected medicine. 

 

1

 Faculty from DMTC traditionally speak during English class in order to inform students, all of whom must take English, about the opportunities 

available at the school. 
D-9 

 Equipment 

As mentioned earlier, the most significant part of the equipment purchase was a Bobcat 753 

skid loader with auger, pallet, and tiller kits. Additional equipment purchased with the grant money 

included a trimmer, blower, hedge trimmer, tine tiller, sprayer, and the 486 computer with horticulture 

software. An advisory committee established to solicit input from business and school stakeholders to 

enhance the horticulture program originally recommended that a large part of the grant money was to be 

used for construction of a greenhouse and the purchase of a lawn tractor. After the grant was submitted 

with these recommendations, the instructor and the current assistant director determined that the Bobcat 

rather than the lawn tractor would better serve the needs of the school and the program because of its 

versatility. Ultimately, the two greenhouses were constructed with funding from the regular school 

budget. 

Bobcat 753 skid loader with auger, pallet, and tiller kits. Overall, the Bobcat accounted 

for well over half of the grant. In general, all individuals who were interviewed during the site visit 

indicated that the purchase of the Bobcat was a great investment. At the time of the site visit, the Bobcat 

was being serviced because of problems with the hydraulics system, but the instructor indicated these 

problems have not limited the use of the equipment. There are no plans to upgrade this piece of 

equipment, and staff indicated it would last another 20 years or more.

Computer hardware/software. The 486 computer is still in the classroom, but is rarely 

used because it is so much slower than other computers in the class that were more recently purchased. 

Although the software is outdated, it is still used in the agriculture business course since no other software 

has been purchased. The instructor indicated they hope to purchase more up-to-date software, but 

currently there are no plans to do so. 

Other landscaping equipment. The other landscaping equipment purchased through the 

ARC grant has required general maintenance, but has not experienced any real problems. Given the 

limited use of some of the equipment (i.e., sprayer), staff anticipated most of it will last for several more 

years. Therefore, there are no definite plans to upgrade this equipment, but there was some mention of a 

need to purchase new trimmers in the next couple of years. This expense would be covered in the regular 

budget.

Integration of the equipment into the horticulture curriculum. Students are required to 

learn how to operate the equipment in two of the four horticulture courses, and the other two courses 

cannot be taken until one of the introductory courses has been completed. One way the instructor ensures 

that students learn about the equipment is by requiring them to pass both written and hands-on safety 

tests. They must achieve 100 percent on both tests. Students use the equipment on a regular basis, as they 
D-10 

are responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the courtyard and greenhouse areas. In previous years, 

students also worked in the community on various landscaping projects (e.g., landscaping the front of the 

county offices of education). In general, students learn how to operate the equipment, which prepares 

them to enter the workforce or a technical school program. 

 Other Services 

Most support services are offered to students at their home school. However, Daniel 

Morgan has two onsite guidance counselors who assist students with job placement, postsecondary 

education, and other career-related activities. 

C. Evaluation and Outcomes 

In general, the data collected on the horticulture program are part of the overall school 

evaluation, and include enrollment numbers, completion rates for students, and placement rates. Some of 

these data are collected in order to adhere to state reporting requirements, while others are district-level 

indicators. Most importantly, the evaluation tools serve to convince stakeholders that Daniel Morgan 

Technology Center is meeting its goals and providing a necessary service to the students. In addition to 

these data, in-class assessments directly measure a student’s performance in all horticulture courses. 

 Enrollment Data 

Total school enrollment averages around 500 students during any given semester, which is 

about 28 percent of the students from both Broome and Spartanburg High. During the fall 2000 semester, 

over 600 students attended classes at Daniel Morgan. During Spring 2001, 489 students are enrolled. 

Only 40 to 50 students per year are considered full-time technology/vocational students, that is, students 

who are enrolled in a particular track (i.e., cosmetology) and expected to be at Daniel Morgan for half of 

their school day. Nonetheless, approximately 75 percent of the students return for a second course at 

Daniel Morgan. Many of the students enroll in one, two, or three courses but do not attend Daniel 

Morgan for more than one course per semester due to scheduling difficulties. 

The director and assistant director both indicated the horticulture program is struggling to 

regain its initial enrollment since returning to the course offerings DMTC this past year. During the first 

semester, 23 students were enrolled in all three courses; currently, only 12 students are enrolled in two 

courses. These numbers are expected to increase for next year as the enrollment for the fall 2001 
D-11 

semester is already at 39 students in three classes. As long as enrollment remain high, and the budget 

allows, horticulture will continue to be offered at Daniel Morgan. 

 Perkins Career and Technology Education Standards 

As part of the 1998 Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technical Education Act, South 

Carolina established performance indicators. These indicators allow schools to demonstrate that students 

in vocational and applied technical programs are (or are not) reaching acceptable levels of performance. 

The public high schools are held directly accountable to Perkins for the first four of the six standards. 

These standards pass directly to the vocational/technology schools to monitor and track. The following 

are the 1999-2000 school year standards, along with the new 2001 and 2002 standards:2

 Standard 1: Vocational and Technical Skill Proficiencies. Fifty percent of Career 

and Technology students will achieve a final grade of at least 2.0 for all Career and 

Technology Courses taken during the current year. The 2001 standard is 74 percent; for 

2002, it is 74.5 percent. 

 Standard 2: Academic Achievement. Fifty percent of Career and Technology students 

will achieve a final grade of at least 2.0 for all mathematics, science, and 

English/language arts courses taken during the current year. The 2001 standard is 61 

percent; for the 2002 school year, it is 61.5 percent. 

 Standard 3: Graduation. Seventy-five percent of 12th grade Career and Technology 

completers will receive a South Carolina high school diploma. The 2002 standard is 

73.6 percent.3

 Standard 4: Placement. Fifty percent of South Carolina’s Career and Technology 

completers who are available for placement will be placed in postsecondary instruction, 

military service, or employment utilizing the Career and Technology competencies 

attained. For the 2001 and the 2002 school year, the standard will be 93.5 percent, 

which will be calculated using a 3-year average. It is important to note that employment 

will be counted whether the student is employed in a related or an unrelated field. 

In order to track achievement of these standards, the vocational/technology schools track 

“completers.” A completer is defined as a student who is expected to complete four courses in one 

program. Once a student enters his/her second year, he/she is assigned a code and for tracking purposes is 

considered a completer. Once the code is assigned, the student is tracked by DMTC, regardless of 

whether the student remains enrolled there. One problem with this system is that many students who have 

taken fewer than four courses in one program at Daniel Morgan are not counted toward the school’s 

achievement of Perkins standards. 

 

2

 The four standards that were set for achievement at the school level are provided here. Standards 5 and 6, which deal with gender 

underrepresentation, are set to be achieved at the state level. 

3

 There was no standard for the 2001 school year. Documentation was provided during the site visit. 
D-12 

Although Daniel Morgan no longer receives Perkins money, the staff intend to continue to 

adhere to the Perkins guidelines. The director and assistant director feel that it is important to collect 

these data because they are a good way to benchmark the school’s progress. In prior years, Daniel 

Morgan has well exceeded the standards. At the time of the site visit, performance measures were 

available from one of the schools served by Daniel Morgan.4

 The district’s academic performance 

standard (Standard 2) was 54.84 percent compared to the 50 percent the required achievement rate. The 

district’s graduation rate (Standard 3) was 94.59 percent compared to the 75 percent required graduation 

rate, and the district had a 100 percent placement rate (Standard 4) as compared to the 50 percent 

placement rate required. 

The placement rates (Standard 4) are the sole responsibility of the staff at Daniel Morgan, 

and per state requirements these data are collected 1 year after graduation. Placements rate for the 1999-

2000 school year for Daniel Morgan completers were: 

Placement Number of students (44) Percentage of students 

Postsecondary education.................................. 22 50 

Military ............................................................ 4 9 

Employed ......................................................... 16 36 

Not engaged in work or school ........................ 2 5 

Total number of positive placements............... 42 95 

There were no completers in the horticulture program for the 1999-2000 school year. However, for 1997-

1998, two students were considered completers; one was still in high school and the other student was 

enrolled in a technical school in a related program. The one student completer for the 1998-99 school 

year could not be reached to determine placement. 

 Student Attitude Survey 

The guidance counselor at Daniel Morgan conducted a student attitude survey at the end of 

the fall semester and was planning to conduct another one at the end of the spring semester. This survey 

measured the students’ attitudes and feelings about Daniel Morgan. The survey asks: 

 Basic demographic information (i.e., grade level, home school) 

 What are your plans after high school? 

 How would you rate the value of your training at DMTC? 

 

4

 Although most of the information was available, the performance measure for Standard 1 was not provided. 
D-13 

 Will you be returning? 

 What influenced you to take a class at Daniel Morgan? 

 What do you like best and least about Daniel Morgan? 

 Would you recommend Daniel Morgan to your friends? 

 List any courses you would like offered. 

Although, there was no official report of the findings from the survey, the guidance counselor compiled 

the information for internal use. 

 Student Assessment 

The current instructor of the horticulture program was utilizing many techniques learned 

while at Clemson and during his student teaching. Students are assessed in each course slightly 

differently, but for the most part, the same assessment tools are used. Students are expected to pass safety 

tests on four pieces of equipment—the Bobcat, lawn mower, weed eater, and hedger. Each student is 

graded on five areas critical to the use of that particular equipment: for example, for the Bobcat, the 

student is assessed a score of starting, entering and exiting, bucket and arms, belt and bar, and 

maneuvering. In addition, students must pass a written examination prior to using the equipment. An 

example of the questions asked is “Once sitting on the Bobcat, the first thing you should do is...?” 

Students will not be able to operate the equipment unless they receive a 100 percent score on both the 

written and application tests. Once students pass the test, they are given a Bobcat certification, indicating 

that they participated in the “Operator Training Course for the Bobcat Skid Steer Loader.” Most students 

eventually achieve their certification. 

Other assessment tools used in the courses include regular tests and a daily grade. The daily 

grade is 127 points toward each student’s semester grade and includes student preparedness each day, 

student initiative, cleaning up, and doing the jobs assigned. Another form of assessment used in the 

business horticulture class is the completion of a Site Analysis/Design a Landscape project. Students 

draw the landscape of their current house and then redesign that landscape with certain criteria. The 

students are graded on the elements of design, lines, key, number of plants, and details. This project 

represents 100 points toward their overall grade. 
D-14 

 Other Outcomes 

The most notable accomplishment of the horticulture program at DMTC is that many 

students were exposed to various aspects of horticulture and agriculture and the career opportunities 

available to them in these fields. These students also have a better understanding of the landscaping 

industry, and through their hands-on experience have an opportunity to acquire new technical skills that 

may help prepare them for the workforce or postsecondary education. Since the inception of the program, 

roughly 104 students have taken one of the four horticulture courses. In addition, course enrollment 

figures for this next year are much higher than last year. Staff at Daniel Morgan attribute this to the fact 

that horticulture was just being re-offered during the 2000-2001 school year, and that the course in 

wildlife and forestry management that will be offered next year is attracting students. Either way, if 

students continue to sign up for these courses, Daniel Morgan will continue to offer them. 

Another indication of the school’s success is the increase in the number of students accepted 

in the National Vocational Honors Society (NVHS). In order to be accepted as a member of the NVHS, a 

student must have a 3.0 overall GPA, take at least one course in Vocational/Technical education, and 

have a teacher’s recommendation. 

Several years ago, only a few DMTC students were accepted into the National 

Vocational/Technical Honor Society. That number rose to 60 last year, and for the 2000-2001 school 

year, 140 students from Daniel Morgan Technology Center have been accepted in the NVHS. The 

director and other Daniel Morgan staff attribute this increase to good recruiting, and the fact that more 

desirable courses (i.e., Cisco, A+ Certification, and culinary arts) are being offered at Daniel Morgan. An 

additional reason mentioned by school staff is that a new state exit exam is affecting the type of students 

attending the vocational schools.5

 If students do not pass the pre-exit exam, they have to use one of their 

electives to take a test preparation course. Consequently, the more academically prepared students have 

more opportunities to attend courses at Daniel Morgan than students who cannot pass the pre-exit 

examination. Conversely, the students who are experiencing a more difficult time with the traditional 

school subjects, which mirror the exit examination, are being forced to stay at the regular high school to 

prepare for the exit exam, rather than taking vocational courses. As a result, DMTC attracts more 

students with higher GPAs. 

 

5

 All students in South Carolina are expected to pass an exit exam prior to graduating from high school. Students begin practice testing in the 10th

grade and work toward attainment of a satisfactory grade up until the 12th grade. 
D-15 

 Relationship of Activities to Outcomes 

Although the Daniel Morgan Technology Center collected various forms of data, it was 

difficult to relate the purchase of equipment directly to outcome data (i.e., placement rates), as indicated 

by the assistant director. He felt there needed to be a more tangible approach to measuring outcomes 

because “there is not a linear relationship” between the equipment/activities and the outcomes. Some of 

his suggestions as to more appropriate measures concerned: 

 How many students use the equipment; 

 What students are learning about the equipment/what types of things are being taught; 

 How the school is utilizing the equipment within the school and in the community (i.e., 

Arbor day activities); and 

 Indirect benefit of saving district money (i.e., district landscaping project). 

Although Daniel Morgan considers these measures when evaluating the impact of a program/project, they 

are not the measures that are reported to funding agencies and state government. 

D. Lessons Learned by the Project and Recommendations for Other Communities 

Understand the needs of business and the overall community. At the inception of the 

program, a great deal of time was taken to get the opinions of other school personnel, the business 

community, and other important stakeholders. The director and assistant director at Daniel Morgan 

commented that input is critical to improving the creation and implementation of a new program. 

Therefore, before submitting the grant, Daniel Morgan made sure to gather input from various 

stakeholders. 

Thorough planning and design are critical. The success of the horticulture program and 

equipment purchase was due in large part to the level of planning and design that occurred before 

implementation. The previous instructor and current assistant director conducted research on current 

needs, and consequently were able to make informed decisions about the types of equipment that would 

best serve the school and overall community. In addition, planning and design were highly collaborative, 

inclusive not only of school faculty and administrators, but also of local businesses and community 

members. The committee, which met regularly during the formative phase of the project, made decisions 

on project design and recommendations on the type of equipment to purchase. 
D-16 

Research the equipment purchases and have a willingness to make adjustments. 

Initially, Daniel Morgan submitted the grant for the purchase of greenhouse material and a lawn mower. 

After researching various types of landscape-oriented equipment, they altered their request and asked that 

a majority of the money be used to purchase a Bobcat. The upfront research they put into determining the 

type of equipment has ultimately benefited the program, the students, and the overall community. 

Select an instructor with the right qualifications. Finally, the success of a new program 

depends upon having a good teacher. This person should have the requisite knowledge and skill level, as 

well as a good rapport with students and the community. In addition, the instructor needs to provide 

relevant and interesting courses for the students. 

E. Summary and Conclusions 

The horticulture program at the Daniel Morgan Technology Center has proven to be a 

valuable educational venture not only for the students, but also for the community. Most significantly, 

the new horticulture program exposed students to an array of horticulture/agriculture-related career fields 

and provided them will some basic knowledge about horticulture. The horticulture program will still be 

offered next year, but there will be different courses. For example, a new course in wildlife and forestry 

management is planned, and it will include developing an animal plot in order to bring more wildlife into 

the area surrounding the school. The Bobcat will be used to dig up the area so that students can introduce 

plants (i.e., cloves) that attract deer and other native wildlife. Although it is the instructor’s first year at 

the school, he mentioned long-term plans for the program. He believes it is important to turn the program 

from a strictly horticulture program to an agriculture program. It is his desire to “increase the student’s 

interest in program” and “have the students take pride in being a part of the horticulture/agriculture 

program.” 
D-17 

Manufacturing Assistance Center 

 

Project Location Hamarville, PA 

Grant Recipient University of Pittsburgh 

ARC Number PA 12060 

Project Type Workforce Training 

Grant Amount $139,426 

Matching Funding $34,404 

Dates of Site Visit June 5-6, 2001 

Site Visitor Laurie Plishker 

Project Abstract 

The Manufacturing Assistance Center (MAC) of the University of Pittsburgh was established in 

1993 in response to several regional surveys and needs assessments identifying the critical needs 

for manufacturing training and equipment resources. It is directed toward four core 

competencies: shared manufacturing, training, technical assistance, and research and education. 

The primary group of trainees are displaced workers and unemployed or underemployed 

individuals looking to upgrade or acquire precision machining skills. Other trainees are current 

employees whose employers have sent them to acquire training on a specific piece of equipment. 

In addition to trainees, the MAC serves—and incubates—small and medium-size businesses in 

the nine counties in southwestern Pennsylvania. ARC funding contributed to the development of 

training materials and curricula by supporting MAC staff salaries. 

The MAC is providing a vital service to a community heavily tied to manufacturing and 

dependent on a quality labor force. The training provided at the center is critical to the success 

of both employees and employers. Additionally, the equipment provided for the use of local 

businesses virtually built several companies and has become a necessity to others. The center has 

in place a data collection system that tracks students’ outcomes and enough other information to 

meet the varying needs of the reporting requirements of agencies funding students’ training. 

The future for the MAC looks bright. They are currently developing curricula for a welding 

training course, since they already have the equipment, space, and an instructor. Also, the codirector would like to expand the research component, perhaps developing new technologies. It 

seems that only issues of funding and time are holding the MAC back from further expansion in 

course offerings and equipment. 
D-18 

Manufacturing Assistance Center 

A. Background and Context 

 Objectives and Problems Addressed 

The Manufacturing Assistance Center (MAC) of the University of Pittsburgh was 

established in 1993 in response to several regional surveys and needs assessments identifying the critical 

needs for manufacturing training and equipment resources. After receiving a grant from the Economic 

Development Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the MAC became fully operational in 

1994. Area manufacturers and small-business owners were receptive to the concept of shared 

manufacturing, and the center was equipped with the same technologies, software, tools, and equipment 

area manufacturers were already using; yet, it had no users. Manufacturers were again surveyed 

informally and MAC staff and consultants learned that the lack of training and the corresponding lack of 

workers trained to use the equipment prohibited them from making full use of the center. The MAC 

turned to ARC for funding to develop training materials and curricula. Overall, the MAC is directed 

toward four core competencies: shared manufacturing, training, technical assistance, and research and 

education. 

 Community and Beneficiaries 

Pittsburgh sits in the center of the region known as “Carbide Valley,” home to over 700 

machine shops. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s and through half of the 1990s, the region saw a slump in 

manufacturing, draining the local economy of workers and income. But as the technology grew in the 

late 1990s and the demand for computers and electronics increased, the demand for precision machinists 

and tool and die makers surged. Many computer components and other electronic products are generated 

from dies, and as manufacturers adopt higher technology to meet precision demands, they have become 

increasingly concerned that workers’ training keep pace. 

The center serves several different audiences. The primary group of trainees are displaced 

workers and unemployed or underemployed individuals looking to upgrade or acquire precision 

machining skills. Other trainees are current employees whose employers have sent them to acquire 

training on a specific piece of equipment. In addition to trainees, the MAC serves—and incubates—small 

and medium-size businesses in the nine counties in southwestern Pennsylvania. Many small or start-up 

manufacturers cannot afford the high-end, expensive equipment used for precision machining, 

particularly when they may not use it often, so they come to the MAC to “rent” time on the machines. 
D-19 

Other companies have virtually grown at the MAC. Individuals who have an idea for a product, sketches, 

or small prototypes have come to the center to use equipment and seek advice of experts. 

 Grant Recipient 

The MAC is considered a lab of the University of Pittsburgh’s Department of Industrial 

Engineering (IE). The university provides fiscal oversight, use of the facility (a former Gulf Oil research 

facility), utilities, and other inkind services, such as purchasing, legal representation, etc. The codirectors of the MAC are IE professors, but overall integration of the MAC as a university facility is 

limited. IE students spend limited time at the center each year, largely to gain an understanding of the 

manufacturing industry. 

 Current Status 

The MAC is currently operating at capacity. It became self-supporting—mostly through 

training fees and partly through equipment rental—about a year ago. A consultant recently completed 

writing what he termed “a very conservative business plan” so that the MAC can weather economic 

upturns (creating little demand for retraining) and downturns (creating little demand for equipment 

usage). The center generally does not advertise its training, equipment, or co-location opportunities 

because they are busy enough and do not have additional space to rent. 

B. Approach 

 Equipment 

The MAC was started under the concept of “shared manufacturing,” which enables users 

from local businesses to rent time on equipment they could not otherwise afford. Qualified users can 

develop new products, develop production systems, and conduct limited production runs. Shared 

manufacturing lowers the overall implementation costs of the equipment while increasing its productive 

use. It allows companies to test equipment before purchasing their own, and more importantly, it allows 

them to grow their businesses so that they can purchase their own. Twelve companies are actively using 

MAC equipment, with an additional five companies located at the MAC. Some companies use the 

equipment as often as daily, while others use it only monthly. Any manufacturer can schedule time on 

equipment on a first-come/first-served basis whenever equipment is not in use for training courses. The 
D-20 

co-located companies are charged a machine access fee and guarantee a certain level of rentals that 

increases gradually until it is more cost-effective for them to purchase their own equipment. They can 

stay at the MAC indefinitely but generally recognize when they outgrow the space and ought to move on. 

The MAC owns outright, or on consignment in some cases, a wide range of technologies, 

including: 

 Wire electric discharge machine (EDM), costing approximately $300,000; 

 EDM drill “hole popper,” costing approximately $80,000, on consignment from the 

manufacturer; 

 EDM die sink, on consignment; 

 Wire EDM, donated by the manufacturer at a value of $505,000 (considered the most 

precise available in the world, only 14 were built); 

 A computer lab with all major computer-aided drafting (CAD) and computer-aided 

manufacturing (CAM) software packages, networked to the university and the computer 

numerical controlled machines; 

 Precision measuring device, donated at a value of $15,000; 

 Computer numerical controlled (CNC) turning center (lathe), $100,000; 

 CNC mill, $100,000; 

 Manual mills; 

 Manual lathes; 

 Precision surface grinders; 

 Drill presses; 

 Band saws 

 Welding equipment and booths; 

 Assorted cutting tools, vices, tool storage; 

 A painting room; and 

 One-ton overhead crane. 

The MAC has worked a deal with AGIE, the manufacturer of the EDM equipment, to place 

their equipment at the MAC, either on consignment or straight donation, at no charge other than upkeep 

and maintenance. AGIE benefits by showcasing their products and creating a demand for their equipment 

among manufacturers who have used it at the MAC. The plant manager expects that this relationship will 

continue and hopes to develop similar agreements with other manufacturers. 

The equipment is of varying age, and most items have at least 5 more years left in them. 

Some of the manual equipment was built in the 1950s, but these pieces can be rebuilt over and over 

indefinitely. While the EDM and CNC equipment represent the state of the art technology, the plant 
D-21 

manager points out that the manual equipment is closer to the “state of the industry.” That is, these 

devices are what most trainees will eventually use. And, in fact, he notes, the manual equipment has 

much more utility when creating only one item, once accounting for the time to program the higher 

technology equipment. For this reason, he asserts, the manual equipment will never become outdated in 

favor of the EDM and CNC equipment. 

 Training and Technical Assistance 

While the MAC started as an equipment provider, most of the time, effort and income result 

from the training component. They offer a number of courses and structures: 

 A 10-week entry level machining course using manual and CNC equipment for 

dislocated workers offered in four sessions per year. 

 A 12-week precision grinding for dislocated workers—there is a big demand for this in 

the region. 

 A 8-week CNC machining course under the Manufacturing 2000, a regional initiative 

run by Duquesne University and Steel Center VoTech and funded by the state, Heinz, 

and a consortia of hiring companies. This course targets underemployed twentysomethings who have some college experience and who manufacturers hope can run 

higher technology equipment. They have found that many of the traditional “vo-tech” 

students in the area do not have the background to understand or cannot complete the 

training to run these high tech machines. 

 A 4-year evening apprenticeship program requiring 8,000 hours per year—2,000 per 

year on the job and 144 per year in the MAC “classrooms.” 

 Short course (4-5 days) customized training on CNC, EDM, and CAD and CAM 

software. Companies send employees for extra training and skills upgrade. These are 

not offered regularly, but rather on demand once there are enough participants to make it 

cost-effective to offer. 

 Project-specific training is offered to users (renters) of equipment as needed by MAC 

staff and instructors. 

Courses typically enroll 7 to 10 students at a time. The 10-week course costs $6,000, the 12-

week course $6,700, and the CNC course $7,500. These fees, considered competitive, are paid by 

employers, regional initiatives such as Manufacturing 2000, and YouthWorks, a Federal Workforce 

Investment Act program jointly run by the city of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. Very few students 

pay their own tuition. Instructors are journeymen or experienced machinists. 

The MAC is currently working on developing a joint program with the New Kensington 

campus of Penn State University to deliver training services through a WedNet grant that provides $450 

per employee per year to provide training for non-information systems jobs. The partnership is trying to 
D-22 

develop a Machining Technology Associates degree where Penn State would provide the software, 

computer, and sales training, and the MAC would be the lab. 

MAC technicians have provided technical assistance to entrepreneurs and small companies. 

Technicians are available to visit manufacturers and provide them with engineering advice, prototype 

development, and production system design. Technicians and University of Pittsburgh faculty and 

graduate student engineers have also conducted various research projects with local manufacturers, 

including factory operations, new product development, tungsten carbide machining processes, material 

testing, tooling tests for lathes and mills, and workforce testing and evaluation. 

 Other Services 

The MAC’s outreach coordinator responsible for recruitment, admissions, and enrollment 

provides any services and assistance locating resources that students need to be successful. She is 

available to all students, although some have greater barriers to employment so she works more with 

them. 

Literacy and Basic Skills. All students take placement tests prior to enrollment. The Test 

of Adult Basic Education, required for YouthWorks-funded students, is used more as a diagnostic tool 

than for screening (although they have learned that those with lower scores typically underperform in 

classes and on the job). The outreach coordinator is working with the local literacy council and 

CareerLink, the state’s online employment services system, to help students get up to grade level. In most 

cases, underperforming students are not turned away from MAC courses, but rather are given assistance 

to raise their scores. 

Transportation and Clothing. The outreach coordinator also assists students in finding 

services they will need to be successful on the job. She helps students obtain “welfare” bus passes, 

drivers permits and licenses, and resources to buy cars. She ensures that students on welfare access 

allowable clothing budgets to purchase clothing, such as steel-toed boots, required by some employers. 

While the MAC does not fund any of these items, the outreach coordinator puts students in touch with 

organizations such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society and the Salvation Army that do. 

Career Awareness. As part of MAC courses, students are exposed to the manufacturing 

industry through plant tours, guest speakers, and National Tooling and Machine Association (NTMA) 

materials that discuss new NTMA skill standards development, overall industry developments, and 

benefits offered. The MAC has a library with industry periodicals and videotapes students can check out. 
D-23 

Students are also provided opportunities to develop good work habits, such as signing in each day, 

maintaining cleanliness and hygiene, following hair length and clothing requirements, and developing 

good communication skills. Students are expected to show up every day and stay all day. If they have to 

miss a day, they must call the front desk. The students generally encourage each other to pay attention to 

these items and also provide emotional support to each other as they develop these habits. 

Placement Services. MAC staff help students refine their resumes and maintain an email 

list of employers that have asked for resumes in the past. Students can use the Harris, the state directory 

of manufacturers organized geographically by county, town, and section of town, to target businesses 

most convenient to them. The outreach coordinator also places students’ resumes on CareerLink, that 

state’s online jobs database, and monitors their CareerLink files for them, since most do not have 

computers at home, nor do they have time to be constantly on the job search. 

The MAC maintains close contact with area employers and invites them to contact the MAC 

with job offerings. (Many do not list on CareerLink because they get too many underqualified workers.) 

The NTMA accepts resumes, which it distributes to local member companies. MAC staff spend 

considerable amounts of time on the phone with employers both to see how the MAC can better meet 

their needs and to find placements for students. Staff members agree that they have excellent rapport with 

almost all companies in the area since they provide highly qualified workers. They estimate that by hiring 

a MAC graduate, the company can save from $5,000 to $10,000 in advertising, recruiting, interviewing, 

testing, and training. 

C. Evaluation and Outcomes 

In its first 5 years of operation, the MAC completed over 550 technical assistance and shared 

manufacturing projects and 4,500 person-days of training. During this period they billed over $1.5 

million for facility services. 

 Student Outcomes Database 

Each of the funding agencies has different reporting requirements, such as attendance 

reports, monthly evaluation forms completed by instructors, and start and termination (due to completion, 

drop out, or employment) date verification forms, that are burdensome to track. To meet each of these 

demands, the MAC maintains a database with details on each student. It includes: 
D-24 

 Social Security number, if available, 

 Name, 

 Current telephone and address, 

 Email address, if available, 

 Program attended/attending, 

 Dates of enrollment, 

 Funding agency and name of sponsor at agency, 

 Pretest score, 

 Posttest score, 

 Overall course grade, 

 Placement (whether hired in 6 months), 

 First company name and address, 

 Date of hire, 

 Benefits (wages, retirement/pension, 3-, 6-, and 12-month wage increases), and 

 Second company and same associated data. 

The database is updated 1 year after program completion, as required by YouthWorks. 

Required CareerLink reporting will also force them to collect some followup data, but the MAC already 

collects more extensive data.1

 They attribute their ability to collect such detailed data to the small number 

of students they work with; they estimate they are actively tracking approximately four students at any 

given time. This is mostly done by telephone contact with former students and their employers. Followup data are difficult to collect, but staff are persistent. However, it becomes considerably more difficult 

after 1 year, unless students contact the MAC seeking placement assistance for a new job. 

Overall, the MAC has been very successful with these students. Receiving training through 

the MAC carries with it some weight in the community; over the years employers have seen that MAC 

students do well on their tests and perform well on the job. The 10-week program has had three dropouts 

in 3 years and has a near 100 percent placement rate. The CNC program does not track dropouts because 

there are none, and it has a 100 percent placement rate. The precision grinding program has a slightly 

lower placement rate. According to the staff, the few students that have not obtained employment were 

less motivated than most and did not seem to want to work. Most students are hired for entry-level jobs at 

fairly low pay rates ($8 to $10/hour), but can make rapid increases to $40,000 per year and then can 

become journeymen earning $50,000 to $60,000 per year. 

 Business Development and Job Creation 

The MAC has incubated six businesses, five of which are currently co-located within the 

MAC. Each began at the MAC when an individual had an idea, but little startup funds to purchase 

 

1 Only students who are funded by outside agencies are tracked; students in the apprenticeship program and custom training students are not 

tracked. MAC staff attempted to track all students but found that it did not make sense to expend the effort when no one was asking for the data.
D-25 

necessary equipment. One company recently moved out of the MAC after outgrowing its allotted space. 

The founders went on to buy their own building and acquire the necessary equipment. Another company, 

Universal Technologies began over 4 years ago with four employees bringing in $700,000 per year 

developing rotary freezer drawer units and robots that maintain test tubes in the drawers for 

pharmaceutical companies; now they have 30 employees and bring in $8 to $10 million per year. C&C 

Tooling is a full service tool and die shop that rebuilds and resells surface grinders; it began 4 years ago 

with two employees and now has 12 and employs all technologies including EDM. They have recently 

spent $700,000 on equipment and may soon be moving to their own location. Industrial Laser Systems, a 

two-person company onsite for a year, develops custom laser applications. A robotics company 

developed a robot used in shipbuilding that crawls up the hull of a ship welding as it goes. The company 

recently sold its first prototype. 

In addition to incubating businesses, the MAC has allowed other companies in the area that 

have used MAC equipment and technical assistance resources to expand. Through retraining and 

business expansion, the co-director believes the MAC has led to the creation of over 200 jobs in the 

region. 

 Relationship of Activities to Outcomes 

The plant manager and co-director clearly see the equipment and training leading to 

improved job prospects or status, business development, and economic vitality. However, the co-director 

believes the measurement of long-term outcomes is best done through qualitative methods, rather than 

quantitative methods. The spawning of several businesses and their resulting financial information, he 

says, cannot adequately describe the impact of the MAC. Nor can quantitative methods portray the 

multiple industry-university collaboration that has occurred to promote manufacturing and economic 

development in the region. To this end, the MAC is creating a portfolio of case studies of success stories 

that can better describe the impact of the center. 

D. Lessons Learned 

MAC staff believe a similar center could be a critical member of any regional manufacturing 

community. This section provides lessons learned and recommendations for other communities 

considering establishing a similar center. 
D-26 

View and market the center as a regional asset. The MAC’s plant manager regrets that 

they have not been able to market the center better. He recognizes that the center could provide services 

to hundreds of businesses not currently being served. More users would draw in more income and, 

consequently, more updated equipment, with the goal of improving the local economy. The center could 

be making a bigger impact in the community if it was seen as a regional asset, rather than just a university 

“lab.” 

Maintain close ties to area industry. Local businesses provide both jobs for trainees and 

users of the equipment and are critical to the MAC’s success. After a time of less-close ties to industry, 

several companies came to resent the MAC and the access it provides to CNC machines for small 

business, citing unfair advantages for companies that do not have to buy their own equipment. In fact, the 

MAC has a noncompete policy in that it does not allow businesses using the equipment to do regular 

production runs. The MAC is not a manufacturer and does not want to be. This is a critical policy for the 

MAC to maintain in order to retain and develop good relationships with area manufacturers. 

Personnel are key. The technical engineers employed by the center to provide training to 

equipment users and to assist in product designs are recognized experts in EDM and CNC. Companies 

have called to request additional technical assistance onsite. Such experts help maintain the MAC’s 

reputation in the region. 

Maintaining close ties to the university can be tricky. The MAC is both too far removed 

from the university and too closely tied. The center is treated as a lab of the IE department but is run as a 

business. The plant manager noted that he does not get enough financial information from the universitybased accountants and would prefer to have an accountant onsite. However, the university and MAC are 

too closely tied when competing for funding; the university always gets priority with funders, at times to 

the detriment of the MAC. The plant manager believes that the relationship actually hinders the MAC 

from getting state funding. He notes that the university should be more interested in helping the MAC 

obtain funding because the MAC provides good community relations for the university. 

Lessening fragmentation among agencies supporting trainees would be helpful. The 

plant manager noted that there is little focus among the regional initiatives working with workforce 

development and job training. The vocational schools, trade schools, and community colleges have no 

cohesive plan for the region’s workforce. Also, there is no regional leadership among industry partners. 

With these pieces in place, the plant manager believes, the center could contribute even more to the local 

economy. 
D-27 

E. Summary and Conclusions 

The MAC is providing a vital service to a community heavily tied to manufacturing and 

dependent on a quality labor force. The training provided at the center is critical to the success of both 

employees and employers. Additionally, the equipment provided for the use of local businesses virtually 

built several companies and has become a necessity to others. The center has in place a data collection 

system that tracks students’ outcomes and enough other information to meet the varying needs of the 

reporting requirements of agencies funding students’ training. 

The future for the MAC looks bright. They are currently developing curricula for a welding 

training course, since they already have the equipment, space, and an instructor. Also, the co-director 

would like to expand the research component, such as developing new technologies. It seems the only 

thing holding the MAC back from further expansion in course offerings and equipment is funding and 

time. The MAC has seen tremendous growth in the last 3 years. But with one-third of its funding coming 

from the state, foundations, or donations, and the rest of its funding tied to the economy (positively for the 

equipment and negatively for training), the plant manager and co-directors must still work hard spending 

time and money to acquire additional funding. 
D-28 
D-29 

Winston County Technical Center 

 

Project Location Double Springs, Alabama 

Grant Recipient Winston County Technical Center 

ARC Number AL 12269 

Project Type Vocational Education 

Grant Amount $160,000 

Matching Funding $40,000 

Dates of Site Visit May 2-3, 2001 

Site Visitor Brian Kleiner 

Project Abstract 

In 1995, due to lack of funds, the Winston County Technical Center (WCTC) in Double Springs, 

Alabama, found itself unable to keep pace with changes in technology and equipment, and as a 

result, students were not being adequately prepared for employment in technical fields. Soon 

thereafter, a grant from the Appalachian Regional Commission provided the funding that, in the 

words of the school’s principal, “revolutionized the program.” ARC funds were used to 

purchase the latest equipment in automotive technology, electronics technology, and carpentry 

that allows for the proper training of students to more adequately prepare them for employment 

in technical fields. The ARC grant made possible the training and employment of many young 

people in fields tailored to the needs of Winston County’s local businesses and industries. In 

addition, the success of many of its students, as a result of the ARC grant, has been and 

continues to be documented, albeit indirectly, by a careful system of data collection. Students at 

WCTC are completing their programs and finding employment in-field or in related fields at 

higher rates than they had prior to the program-supported training, while many are continuing 

their education at colleges or technical institutions. 
D-30 

Winston County Technical Center 

A. Background and Context 

 Objectives and Problems Addressed 

Although the Winston County Technical Center (WCTC) is a part of the Winston County 

school district, at the time of the ARC grant the State of Alabama made no provisions for funding the 

improvement or updating of equipment. In addition, Winston County’s tax base did not provide for the 

funding of improvements to its six components (automotive technology, electronics technology, 

carpentry, marketing education, business education, and cosmetology). As a result, WCTC had been 

operating with original equipment in place when the school was built in 1972 and was sorely in need of 

up-to-date equipment for training its students. These deficiencies were particularly evident in the case of 

the automotive technology component, which needed to be “completely overhauled” given recent rapid 

and drastic changes in the field. It was anticipated that an upgrade of equipment in automotive 

technology, electronics technology, and carpentry would benefit students by providing them with the 

relevant and realistic training to prepare them for local employment on equipment actually used in the 

field. 

 Community and Beneficiaries 

Winston County is set on the southernmost ridge of Appalachia in northwest Alabama and 

shares many of the characteristics of other Appalachian communities, such as geographical isolation and a 

people staunchly loyal to the land in which they were raised. Like other Appalachian communities, 

Winston County also suffers from high unemployment, which at the time of the site visit stood at near 15 

percent (about 10 percent above the national average). Thus, while much of its population may be traced 

back to the families that settled here generations ago, each new generation must face the practical 

question of how to remain despite a shortage of opportunities for employment. 

Of those young people who opt not to attend some form of postsecondary education after 

high school (about 75 percent), some are forced to leave Winston County in search of work. Some leave 

for neighboring counties, and others leave Alabama altogether. The majority of those who remain must 

compete for relatively few positions within the few industries that are located here. While small numbers 

of young people find work in retail, forestry, poultry, or dairy occupations, the main source of 

employment in the county has for many years been the manufactured housing/mobile home industry. 
D-31 

Moreover, the county’s industries have had to keep up with changes in technology. In order 

to stay competitive, many of Winston County’s industries have had to modernize and upgrade their 

equipment, technology, and modes of operation. This has required an existing labor force that is 

retrained, as well as an incoming highly skilled labor force that requires a minimum of training. It is for 

this reason that the county’s industries have looked toward local high schools as valuable labor pools, and 

have been quick to emphasize the importance of technical and vocational training. 

 Grant Recipient 

A significant source of new labor for local industries and businesses in Winston County is 

the Winston County Technical Center, located in Double Springs, Alabama, the county seat. The WCTC 

was opened in 1973 and currently serves about a third of the county’s 10th through 12th graders each year. 

It also prepares many students for jobs within local industries and businesses. In order for WCTC to 

continue to produce workers prepared for technologically advanced fields within local industries, it needs 

to continually upgrade the equipment on which its students are trained. 

In 1995, due to lack of funds, WCTC found itself unable to keep pace with changes in 

technology and equipment, and as a result students were not being adequately prepared for employment in 

technical fields. Soon thereafter, a grant from the Appalachian Regional Commission provided the 

funding that, in the words of the school’s principal, “revolutionized the program.” ARC funds were used 

to purchase the latest equipment in automotive technology, electronics/electricity, and carpentry that 

allows for the proper training of students to more adequately prepare them for employment in technical 

fields. 

For the reasons mentioned above, WCTC plays a critical role in the life of Winston County. 

Of the roughly 1,100 high school students in the four high schools comprising the Winston County school 

district, about 350 10th through 12th graders attend WCTC for 2 hours each day. All WCTC students, 

except those from adjacent Winston County High School, commute from their respective high schools for 

up to 40 minutes per day. The student population in Winston County is nearly 100 percent white. 

While enrollment at WCTC dropped in the mid-1990s (perhaps, in part, as a result of 

increases in the number of required core course credits), it has increased recently due to its allowing 

students from the three off-campus high schools to attend required standard and job skills math courses at 

WCTC (although some student continue to take these courses at their home campuses). In addition, 

students may earn “embedded credits” in math and science for their participation in elective automotive 

technology, electronics technology, and carpentry courses at WCTC. Embedded credits help students 
D-32 

fulfill core math and science credit requirements by participation in vocational courses with substantial 

math and/or science components. 

WCTC maintains important ties with local business and industry in several ways. First, 

representatives of local businesses and industries participate in technical committees that inform the 

school about their employment needs on a regular basis. The school also has a general advisory 

committee composed of one representative from each of the program technical committees. Second, in 

1998, local businesses and industries were given a needs assessment survey to determine what sorts of 

qualities and skills they are looking for in their new employees. The information provided through these 

channels has helped WCTC to tailor its curriculum to the needs of local business and industry. 

 Current Status 

WCTC currently offers courses within six components: automotive technology, electronics 

technology, carpentry, marketing education, business education, and cosmetology. In 2001-2002, the 

carpentry component will be dissolved and replaced with an information technology component 

(carpentry will be taught at the four regular high schools within their agriculture departments). Courses 

are designed to be two-period sessions, but those students who also take math at WCTC may attend 

technical courses for an hour each day. Students participate in sequences of courses within components, 

and those who finish such sequences are called “completers.” 

B. Approach 

 Equipment 

ARC funds were used to purchase and upgrade equipment for the automotive technology, 

electronics technology, and carpentry components. For these components, hands-on training on 

equipment is an integral part of course curricula. 

Automotive technology. The largest portion of the ARC grant went toward the purchase of 

equipment for automotive technology, the component most in need of an equipment upgrade at the time. 

New equipment for this component included: 

 alignment system (complete with lift), 

 brake lathe system and brake washer, 

 tire balancer system, 

 tire changer system, 
D-33 

 air conditioning recycling center, 

 hand tools and diagnostic equipment, 

 Mitchell-on-Demand (software), 

 five computers/printers/desks, 

 classroom supplies/books/software, 

 four gas analyzers, 

 shop press, 

 engine stands, 

 transmission jacks, 

 engine hoist, 

 anti-freeze recycler, 

 two post lifts, and 

 valve guide equipment. 

The automotive technology instructor, who was responsible for selecting the new equipment 

in 1995, noted that his selection was almost entirely dictated by NATEF (National Automotive 

Technician Education Foundation) requirements. At the time of the ARC grant, NATEF certification was 

not required for vocational schools offering automotive technology in Alabama. However, realizing the 

benefits that would accrue to WCTC (such as free donated cars from Chrysler Corporation), the instructor 

decided to pursue NATEF certification. Among the conditions for NATEF certification is the possession 

of many of the items listed above; therefore, the instructor reported, ARC funding made possible this 

certification. Since that time, NATEF certification has become required for all schools in Alabama that 

offer automotive technology. The automotive technology component received the 1999 award for 

excellence in secondary vocational automotive education, presented by the Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers, the Association for Career and Technical Education, and the National Institute for 

Automotive Service Excellence Industry Planning Council, an honor that would not have been possible 

had it not been for the ARC-funded equipment. 

The automotive technology instructor also noted that the equipment purchased was 

appropriate for the component’s curriculum. Since 1995, students have been trained on equipment 

actually used in the field, although the instructor mentioned that many local auto shops are not as well 

endowed as WCTC’s! In fact, many community members bring their cars to WCTC’s shop for repair 

work or service that cannot be done elsewhere in Double Springs (such as a front-end alignment). 

Further, obsolescence of equipment has not been a problem—the only changes necessary since 1995 have 

been upgrades of computer software. However, the instructor did note that the automotive industry has 

in recent years been moving towards an emphasis on electronics, a move which will in time require new 

upgrades of shop equipment. It was not clear to the instructor how or whether new equipment could be 

purchased. 

Electronics technology. Equipment purchased with ARC funds for the electronics 

technology component at WCTC included technical training aids (such as oscilloscopes, and related 
D-34 

software), hand tools, computers, and electronic work stations. The electronics instructor reported that 

before 1995, his students would graduate without being adequately prepared for employment in local 

plants, because at the time there were only two oscilloscopes available to up to 25 students in each course 

for training. This meant that students lacked hands-on experience in the use of fundamental equipment in 

the field. ARC funds allowed for the purchase of 25 oscilloscopes so that each student could have that 

experience. 

The electronics instructor said that much of the equipment purchased with ARC funds will 

not become obsolete for many years, because it is so fundamental to basic training in the field. However, 

some oscilloscopes were updated 2 years ago (with state funds) so that the electronics component could 

become business/industry certified. In addition, some equipment, such as tools, will need to be replaced 

because of ordinary wear and tear. The instructor expressed concern that new funds would not be 

available for future equipment upgrades. 

Carpentry. Equipment purchased with ARC funds for the carpentry component1

 included: 

 10” table saw, 

 radial arm saw, 

 18” planer/knife grinding kit/extra knives, 

 6” jointer, 

 14” band saw, 

 scroll saw, 

 two-station work benches/vices, 

 air compressor and installation, 

 dust collection system and installation, and 

 three microcomputers with multimedia kit 

C. Evaluation and Outcomes 

The WCTC’s system of data collection is driven by a combination of state- and district-level 

reporting requirements, as well as by the internal interest of WCTC administrators and staff members. 

Altogether, the data collected by WCTC provide a great deal of information regarding, among other 

things, student progress and achievement. These data are used by WCTC to shed light on the school’s 

strengths and weaknesses and to craft informed short- and long-term goals. Moreover, the main purpose 

of the data collection has never been to measure the effects of the ARC grant, and ARC negotiations 

played little if any role determining what data would be collected by WCTC. However, some of the data 

do provide indirect evidence for the continuing influence of the original infusion of ARC funds. 

 

1

 At the time of the site visit, the carpentry instructor was not on campus and so no interview was conducted. 
D-35 

 Student Performance Data 

State measures and Perkins standards. Student performance and achievement are 

reflected in state measures, including results of the Alabama High School Graduation Exam, taken each 

year by all juniors and seniors. In addition, the state of Alabama requires that its secondary schools 

conduct annual placement and followup surveys of all graduated students. Students are contacted (by 

mail) roughly 6 months after graduation and are asked about their current employment/educational status. 

The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technical Education Act of 1998 (Perkins III) 

requires that vocational schools provide data on various indicators of student performance. Perkins III 

calls for data on the following four core indicators: 

 Student attainment of challenging state-established academic, vocational, and skill 

proficiencies; 

 Student attainment of a secondary school diploma or equivalent, a proficiency credential 

in conjunction with a secondary school diploma, or a postsecondary degree or credential; 

 Placement in, retention in, and completion of postsecondary education or advanced 

training, placement in military service, or placement or retention in employment; and 

 Student participation in and completion of vocational and technical education programs 

that lead to nontraditional training and employment. 

Thus, WCTC must provide the state of Alabama (and the U.S. Department of Education’s 

Office of Vocational and Adult Education) with data on student exam results, graduation and retention 

rates, postgraduation placement, and program completion rates. 

Local measures. In addition to student assessment within courses, the performance and 

achievement of students is documented by a variety of measures at the local level at WCTC. First, the 

placement and followup survey is augmented by each WCTC component so that it includes information 

that goes beyond state requirements, such as the determination of whether graduated completers’ current 

employment is in-field, in a related field, in an unrelated field, or in the military. Graduated students are 

also asked to note the kinds of equipment they use in their current job (if employed) as well as their 

opinions, in retrospect, of the strengths and weakness of their education at WCTC. 

Other local measures (used for internal purposes) include the graduation rate, as well as the 

completion rate (defined as the completion of a minimum of three or more credits in a planned sequence 

of courses). In terms of analysis, data on graduation and completion rates may be broken down by 

component and/or viewed over time, and may be compared to state standards. Students who do not 
D-36 

complete planned sequences of courses are surveyed each year to determine whether they withdrew from 

their component program because of transfer to another school or employment in a related or unrelated 

field. Records are also kept on annual enrollment in the six components, as well as on competitors in 

state events and membership in vocational student organizations. 

Other measures. In 1997, WCTC administered an opinion survey, designed by the 

marketing education department, of students, parents, faculty, and the business community. The survey 

addressed views on the strengths and weaknesses of the school, with emphasis on the learning 

environment, quality of education, and the needs of the community. WCTC’s principal noted that the 

school hopes to conduct this survey once every 5 years. In 1998, local businesses and industries 

completed an employer needs assessment, which addressed the perceived importance of a wide variety of 

entry-level employee characteristics and skills. Finally, at the end of each semester, students are asked to 

submit a written evaluation of their courses and instructors. 

Problems with data collection/evaluation. WCTC’s principal noted that the state of 

Alabama’s department of education provides for a relatively efficient and organized system of data 

collection with respect to state collection requirements. One obstacle mentioned was the difficulty 

providing student data to the state before rather tight fall deadlines. She hopes that in the future, software 

packages will be developed that will make this process even more efficient so that deadlines can be met 

with less difficulty. As for problems with data collection, none were noted with respect to reliability. 

However, the principal (and one instructor) did state that the placement and followup survey does not 

always reach graduated students and many that do receive the survey do not respond, although efforts are 

made to contact graduates by telephone calls to their parents’ homes (response rates are not available). 

 Relationship of Activities to Outcomes 

The data collected by WCTC for its own purposes and for those of the state provide a variety 

of indicators upon which to evaluate individual student progress and achievement. Some of the data do 

indirectly point to a relationship between the equipment purchased with ARC funds and student 

outcomes. For example, results of the placement and followup survey indicate that since 1996, 63 percent 

of automotive technology completers and 64 percent of carpentry completers have found employment infield or in a related field within the first year of graduating from WCTC. In addition, some of the 

remaining completers have gone on to postsecondary education in technical institutions. Since 1996, only 

20 percent of electronics technology completers have found employment in-field or in a related field after 

graduation. However, many have gone on to 4- or 2-year colleges or technical institutions (34 percent). 
D-37 

Although no baseline data are available for the years before the 1996 ARC grant for 

comparison, these placement results do indicate, in comparison to reports by instructors interviewed 

during the site visit, that student completers fared far better finding employment in-field or a related field 

after 1996 compared to before that time. For instance, the automotive technology instructor stated that 

before 1996 and the purchase of new equipment with ARC funds, none of his student completers found 

employment in-field or in related fields. He attributes this dramatic reversal to the fact that his students 

attained book knowledge in his courses before 1996, but simply were not given adequate hands-on 

training on equipment used in the field. After 1996, local shops, dealerships, and industry began calling 

and making visits in search of potential employees that would require little training. The automotive 

technology instructor noted proudly: “My students can walk in anywhere and get a job.” 

The same was the case for electronics technology completers, according to the instructor for 

this component, who noted that students with hands-on training on up-to-date equipment are highly 

sought after by local industry: “They’ll hire every kid I have,” and “Every plant around here has our kids 

in it.” 

Instructors also asserted that many students not only find employment, but also are able to 

attend colleges or technical institutions because of the equipment purchased with ARC funds. Several of 

WCTC’s automotive technology and electronics technology students in recent years have received college 

scholarships as a result of outstanding performance in state competitions. Instructors noted that success in 

such competitions would have been impossible were it not for the hands-on training and practice with 

equipment made available by the ARC grant. In addition, participation in competitions, according to 

instructors, helps to make students aware that they are just as capable as students from more prestigious 

schools to perform well using the most sophisticated equipment available. That provides students with 

the added confidence needed to pursue some form of postsecondary education. 

Other anecdotal evidence supports the link between ARC-funded equipment and student 

success. The automotive technology instructor commented that students who begin attending his courses 

at WCTC are very impressed by the shop’s equipment. The value that they attribute to this equipment 

may play a role in student retention, which the instructor noted is far higher than during the years prior to 

the ARC grant (the graduation rate for automotive technology completers ranged from 91 percent in 

1996-97 to 100 percent in 1999-2000). 

D. Lessons Learned by the Project and Recommendations for Other Communities 

Maintain close ties to area business and industry. Part of WCTC’s success is due to 

maintaining ties with local business and industry. By inviting the views of these prospective employers 
D-38 

with its advisory committees and employer needs assessments, WCTC is able to tailor its components to 

the needs of the business community and better prepare students for employment in the local workforce. 

Up-to-date equipment is vital. The symbiotic relationship between vocational technical 

schools and local business and industry thrives on the use of up-to-date equipment for training students. 

This allows students to graduate in fields for which they will require less additional training when they 

become employed. 

Select equipment for realistic and relevant training. The selection of equipment should 

be driven by the sorts of equipment that are actually used in the field by prospective employers. Realistic 

and relevant preparation for the workforce enhances the students’ chances of being hired. It also attracts 

employers who then view technical programs as valuable labor pools. In the case of WCTC’s automotive 

technology component, the selection of equipment was largely dictated by industry certification standards 

and requirements. However, such standards and requirements are geared toward preparing students for 

the workforce with realistic and relevant training. 

Maintain pre- and post-funding data. In order to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of 

similar projects, data should be collected and maintained before and after funding and should include key 

indicators of student progress and achievement, such as retention and graduation rates, post-graduation 

placement, as well as indicators of student, staff, and community opinions about program features. 

E. Summary and Conclusions 

It is evident that ARC funding had, in the words of WCTC’s principal, “far-reaching effects” 

on the school, its students, staff, and the community of Winston County. It is hard to overestimate the 

importance of up-to-date equipment at vocational schools, since hands-on training on equipment used in 

the field makes students more employable and more highly sought after by business and industry. The 

infusion of new equipment at WCTC purchased with ARC funds has led since 1996 to greater retention, 

higher rates of in-field or related field employment after graduation, and higher attendance rates for 

graduated students at postsecondary institutions. The equipment made possible the achievement of the 

project’s goals, since WCTC is now producing students capable of finding local employment for which 

they are well prepared, and others are continuing their education in related fields at colleges and technical 

institutions. 
D-39 

Chautauqua County Wood Skills Training Project 

Project Location Jamestown, New York 

Grant Recipient Private Industry Council of Chautauqua, Inc. 

ARC Number NY 13738 

Project Type Workforce Training 

Grant Amount $94,860 

Matching Funding $100,741 

Dates of Site Visit May 23-24, 2001 

Site Visitor Gary Silverstein 

Project Abstract 

The Private Industry Council (PIC) of Chautauqua, Inc. is working with the Woods Alliance Group to 

develop a series of classes for upgrading the skills of local workers who seek employment in the wood 

products industry. The original purpose of the program was to develop two training components—a 

pre-hire program that would result in the creation of at least 50 new jobs in the local wood products 

industry, and a skills upgrade program that would enhance the technical proficiency of at least 66 

currently employed workers (many of whom had been recently hired through temporary placement 

agencies). ARC funding has been used to help Woods Alliance members determine their collective 

training needs, develop training materials, identify prospective new hires, and conduct training. 

A primary purpose of the project was to attract additional workers to the wood products industry. (At 

the time the application was submitted to ARC, several furniture manufacturers were experiencing labor 

shortages, and at least one employer had been forced to turn away business because of a lack of 

available workers.) However, soon after the PIC received the ARC grant, a downturn in the national 

economy greatly diminished employers’ need to hire new workers. In fact, when the pre-hire training 

session was conducted (in October 2000), several alliance members were in the process of reducing 

their workforce. By May 2001, none of the region’s furniture manufacturers were looking to expand 

their workforce—and many of their recent hires who required remedial training in basic and technical 

skills had been laid off. As such, the direction of the project had been modified to reflect the changing 

needs of alliance members. At the time of the site visit, the pre-hire component had been temporarily 

discontinued, and the PIC was primarily working with two companies that were interested in furthering 

the expertise of their long-term workforce. Although the other seven furniture manufacturers continued 

to express their support for the alliance, they were no longer in a position to take advantage of the 

training that was being offered through the ARC grant. 

Nonetheless, the impact of the ARC grant on alliance members was clearly evident throughout the site 

visit. Without the project, the participating companies would not have been in a position to offer prehire or incumbent training. While the downturn in the national economy prevented the alliance from 

taking full advantage of the pre-hire component, the necessary materials are now in place to offer this 

training again when the region’s furniture manufacturers find themselves in need of new labor. In 

addition, while only two companies have been able to take advantage of the incumbent training, it is 

anticipated that the development of the Manufacturing Technology Center will eventually enable other 

local furniture manufacturers to offer similar opportunities to their employees. 
D-40 

Chautauqua County Wood Skills Training Project 

A. Background and Context 

 Objectives and Problems Addressed 

In May 2000, the Private Industry Council (PIC) of Chautauqua, Inc.—in conjunction with 

the Woods Alliance Group (a consortium of nine furniture companies in Jamestown, New York)—

requested $94,860 in funding from the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) to support the 

development of a woods skills training program.1

 At the time the application was submitted, the robust 

national economy was contributing to an increased demand for new furniture. Additionally, the region’s 

low unemployment rate was making it increasingly difficult for local employers to locate and hire skilled 

workers. As a result, some companies were forced to rely on unskilled laborers obtained through 

temporary placement agencies, and at least one consortium member was forced to turn away business due 

to a lack of workers. 

The original purpose of the program was to develop two training components—a pre-hire 

program that would result in the creation of at least 50 new jobs in the local wood products industry, and 

a skills upgrade program that would enhance the technical proficiency of at least 66 currently employed 

workers (many of whom had been recently hired through temporary placement agencies). ARC funding 

was used to help Woods Alliance members determine their collective training needs, develop training 

materials, identify prospective new hires, and conduct training.

 Community and Beneficiaries 

The local community. Jamestown (population 35,000) is located on the southern tip of 

Chautauqua Lake. Between 1990 and 2000, the population of Chautauqua County declined by 1.5 

percent (from 141,895 to 139,750). Once the nation’s second largest furniture manufacturing area, the 

region now supports only nine firms that specialize in wood products.2

 This decline in the wood products 

industry mirrors the county’s overall loss of manufacturing businesses over the past decade. In addition, 

many of the region’s recent high school graduates, especially those with technology skills, have sought 

 

1

 Local contributions, including $70,741 from the PIC and $30,000 from other sources, brought the total cost of the project to $195,601. 

2

 Jamestown is also home to several other industries, including Cummings Engine Company and Serta Mattresses. 
D-41 

employment elsewhere. This, in turn, has made it increasingly difficult for local employers to fill 

openings at their businesses. (When the proposal was submitted to ARC, the region’s unemployment rate 

(4.7 percent) was slightly below the state average of 5.0 percent.) According to the PIC: 

Chautauqua County and the region are experiencing a significant deficiency in skilled labor. 

While there are still a number of unemployed or underemployed workers individuals in the 

area, they do not possess the skills required to perform the jobs that are available and that 

pay a living wage. As a result, businesses have unfilled positions within their companies 

negatively impacting production and their ability to compete in global markets. In addition, 

there are numerous unemployed individuals and underemployed workers who, but for their 

skill deficiencies, could perform within and fill currently unfilled positions. The region is at 

a point where further growth will depend on our ability to provide a trained workforce not 

only for our existing companies but also for new businesses that we seek to recruit. 

The Woods Alliance Group. The immediate beneficiaries of the project are the nine 

companies that compose the Woods Alliance (as opposed to the pre-hires and employees who actually 

received training). While the trainees are clearly expected to benefit from the project (e.g., through 

increased skills and wages), the primary purpose of the ARC grant is to help alliance members obtain and 

retain qualified workers. This, in turn, will improve their economic viability through increased 

productivity and enhanced capacity to remain competitive in today’s technology-oriented economy. 

The alliance includes a wide range of companies—including two of the nation’s largest 

furniture manufacturers (Bush Industries and Ethan Allen), the region’s second largest employer (Bush 

Industries), and three businesses with fewer than 25 employees (see Table 1). While they typically serve 

different clients, alliance members frequently compete for a share of the region’s shrinking workforce. 

Representatives from eight Jamestown furniture companies first approached the PIC in 1997 

to discuss a program that would prepare area residents for a career in the wood products industry. The 

underlying objective was to increase the pool of skilled workers and minimize the need for local furniture 

manufacturers to steal employees from their competitors. During this initial meeting, employers 

identified several factors that had contributed to their collective need for enhanced training—e.g., lack of 

a strong work ethic among new hires, the increased skills required to operate computerized machine tools, 

the inability of new employees to think beyond their entry level duties or take advantage of available 

“career ladders,” a pervasive lack of basic skills, a lack of proper concern for safety precautions, and a 

general impression among the region’s workforce that there are no opportunities for advancement in the 

region’s wood products industry. 
D-42 

Table 1: Members of the Woods Alliance Group 

Company Product Number employed at the time 

of the ARC proposal 

Artone Manufacturing Commercial furniture 59 

Bush Industries Particle board RTA casual and office furniture 1,400 

Crawford Furniture Solid wood furniture 260 

Ethan Allen Solid wood furniture 302 

Falcon Chair and Table Wooden chairs and tables 24 

Fancher Chair Company Wooden chairs 124 

Jamestown Laminating Laminated wood components 20 

Master Carvers Wood carvings 120 

VanStee Corporation Solid wood bedroom furniture 25 

Following their initial meeting with the PIC, the community’s furniture manufacturers 

formed a workgroup that continued to meet on a periodic basis. The intention was to promote the wood 

products industry and recruit potential trainees for a series of pre-hire instructional sessions. These 

graduates would then be hired by one of the firms in the Woods Alliance. A secondary purpose was to 

provide training to recent hires who lacked the basic or technical skills required to operate the industry’s 

more sophisticated equipment. 

 Grant Recipient 

As described in the proposal to ARC, the PIC’s mission is to “ensure a well-trained and 

competitive workforce, and to enhance the economic environment in Chautauqua County.” The PIC has 

traditionally served individuals who are eligible for government assistance, as well as dislocated workers 

and youth. Any local resident is able to use the PIC’s two training facilities (in Jamestown and nearby 

Dunkirk) for job research and skills development. The Wood Skills Training Project was a logical 

extension of the existing assistance that the PIC was providing to the region’s employers. Other training 

activities offered by the PIC include: 

 Human resource services designed to help businesses recruit and screen prospective 

employees. 
D-43 

 Work Keys, a system created by American College Testing (ACT) to help businesses (1) 

identify the skills their employees need to successfully complete their jobs, (2) identify 

individuals who possess those skills, and (3) develop customized training programs. 

 A teaching factory that uses state-of-the-art equipment to provide entry-level and handson training to residents and industries in three New York and seven Pennsylvania 

counties. 

 An employee-training program designed to enhance workers’ skills in a variety of 

areas—e.g., time management, team building, human relations and communications, 

math for the marketplace, quality technology, and basic keyboarding. 

 A program to help employers develop procedures and training programs for quality 

control systems and other standards requirements. 

At the time of the site visit, the PIC was developing a Manufacturing Technology Institute 

that will enhance its capacity to provide hands-on training and technical assistance. Like the PIC’s 

existing teaching factory, the center will provide basic and hands-on machine operation skills to pre-hires 

(to meet the anticipated needs of the local employer base), new hires, current employees, high school 

students (to gain experience in machine operations and learn about related careers), and college students. 

To assure that center does not become obsolete, most of the equipment will be leased or borrowed—that 

is, machines will be moved in and out of the facility on an as-needed basis to accommodate the needs of 

specific businesses. In addition to serving as training facility, local manufacturers will be able to use the 

center to test new procedures or troubleshoot existing practices. Vendors will also be able to bring in 

equipment for demonstration and training purposes. 

 Current Status 

As discussed previously, a primary purpose of the project was to attract additional workers 

to the wood products industry. However, soon after the PIC received the ARC grant, a downturn in the 

national economy greatly diminished employers’ need to hire new workers. In fact, when the pre-hire 

training session was conducted (in October 2000), several alliance members were in the process of 

reducing their workforce.3

 By May 2001, none of the region’s furniture manufacturers were looking to 

expand their workforce, and many of their recent hires that required remedial training in basic and 

technical skills had been laid off. As such, the direction of the project had been modified to reflect the 

 

3

 Several respondents expressed their surprise at the suddenness of the decline in their business. One alliance member indicated that rising energy 

costs (e.g., to keep factories heated in the winter, to transport products to customers) had further hindered his company’s ability to endure a 

cutback in production. His company had been particularly hard hit by the downturn in the national economy. In April 2000, his firm had 41 

employees working 52.5 hours per week and was seeking to add 10 additional workers. By May 2001, the company was down to 19 employees 

working 3 days per week, and there was a possibility that additional layoffs would be occurring in the near future. 
D-44 

changing needs of alliance members. At the time of the site visit, both the pre-hire and recent hire 

components had been temporarily discontinued, and the PIC was primarily working with two companies 

that were interested in furthering the expertise of their long-term workforce. Although the other seven 

furniture manufacturers continued to express their support for the alliance, they were no longer in a 

position to take advantage of the training that was being offered through the ARC grant. 

Although the Woods Alliance Group had stopped meeting on a regular basis, some members 

continue to express an interest in making the alliance a separate nonprofit entity with a full-time director. 

In addition, PIC staff and several alliance members anticipate that the group will eventually reconvene to 

discuss how a section of the new Manufacturing Technology Institute might be used to train workers from 

the wood products industry. 

B. Approach 

The Wood Skills Training Project was designed to provide different types of training to prehires, recent hires, and incumbents (i.e., long-term employees). This section summarizes the types of 

assistance that were provided to the pre-hires and incumbents. 

 Training for Pre-hires 

In preparation for the pre-hire training, the PIC conducted a needs assessment of the nine 

alliance members to obtain estimates of their long-term labor needs. As shown in Attachment 1, the PIC 

also requested information on companies’ requirements for entry-level positions and starting salaries. 

The objective was to establish some minimum hiring standards that would be consistent across the 

region’s wood products industry. Over several meetings, alliance members developed a standardized 

application form to assure that all nine employers would receive the same level of information about 

individuals who had been screened by the PIC. In addition, the group agreed that they would only accept 

entry-level applications from individuals who had completed the pre-hire training course. Alliance 

members also reached an understanding that the hourly entry-level wage for graduates would be $7.00 (it 

took the group several meetings to agree on a common entry-level wage). 

In October 2000, the PIC sponsored two job fairs (in Jamestown and Dunkirk) to identify 

potential candidates for the initial pre-hire training session. Company representatives interviewed the 47 

persons who attended these two events. The PIC also placed an advertisement in a local newspaper and 
D-45 

requested referrals from both the Department of Social Services and the Department of Labor. The 

objective was to identify unemployed or underemployed workers who would be interested in entering the 

wood products industry.4

 In the end, however, several of the people who attended the job fairs—and who 

ultimately participated in the pre-hire training—were already employed by one of the region’s furniture 

manufacturers. 

Two weeks after the job fairs, the first pre-hire training session was conducted with 25 

participants (out of 32 individuals who had enrolled in the class).5

 Most participants were in their 30s and 

40s, and just over half were male. The majority were between jobs or felt they needed to advance their 

careers. Interviews with alliance members revealed differing opinions as to the qualifications of the prehires. A representative from one firm indicated that most trainees appeared overqualified for entry-level 

work, while an official from another company suggested that he would not have hired any of the people 

he interviewed at the job fair. 

Members of the alliance specified the range of topics that would need to be covered, while 

PIC curriculum specialists developed the actual outline and course materials. The class, conducted by 

PIC staff, was offered in the evenings (between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.) over a 2-week period. As 

shown in Attachment 2, the training focused on three primary topics—basic and technical skills required 

for the wood products industry (e.g., measurement, shop math, blueprint reading, dimensioning and 

tolerancing), attitudes for success, and employees’ safety. 

Just over two-thirds (17) of the 25 participants completed the class.6

 Alliance members were 

provided graduates’ scores on math and reading exams, as well as a written assessment of each student’s 

job readiness and ability to perform basic manufacturing tasks (see Attachment 3). A review of these 

assessments suggests that most participants were ready for employment in the wood products industry. 

However, by the time the training was completed (October 19, 2000), a slowdown in the national 

economy had caused the region’s furniture manufacturers to cut back their operations. By the end of the 

year, none of the companies had a need for the new labor they had predicted on the August needs 

assessment. In fact, around the time of the pre-hire training, Bush Industries eliminated its third shift, 

thereby reducing its Jamestown workforce from 1,500 to 1,000. 

 

4

 PIC staff pointed out that, given the strong local economy, many of the individuals who were unemployed or underemployed were likely to have 

barriers that were preventing them from obtaining full-time employment (e.g., lack of child care, insufficient skills, lack of reliable 

transportation). 

5

 The PIC did not conduct any follow-up with the seven enrollees who failed to attend the pre-hire class. However, staff indicated that it was 

likely that these individuals were already employed and did not feel they would benefit from the training sessions. 

6

 PIC staff indicated that the eight individuals who did not complete the course were not fully committed to the goals of the course, or had a 

variety of barriers that they were unable to overcome—e.g., lack of access to child care or transportation. 
D-46 

As a result, none of the companies that sponsored and helped finance the training were in a 

position to hire any of the graduates of the pre-hire program. A December 2000 telephone follow-up 

survey by the PIC found that some participants had gained new employment or improved their 

employment status within the same company. PIC staff indicated that several graduates were 

disappointed they had not been able to obtain employment in the wood products industry, and alliance 

members were apologetic that they had not been able to fulfill their promise of finding jobs for anyone 

who successfully mastered the training requirements. 

 Training for Incumbents 

Although project staff originally intended to conduct several pre-hire training sessions, the 

downturn in furniture orders caused alliance members to shift their focus from finding new labor to 

making their existing workforce more productive. In January 2001, the PIC conducted a train-the-trainer 

class for 18 supervisors from five wood products companies. Unlike the pre-hire training (in which 

inexperienced workers were taught specific technical skills), the purpose of the incumbent training was to 

provide experienced workers with techniques for helping their colleagues master a specific technical skill. 

The one-time 3-hour session focused on effective teaching methods, including: 

 How to plan lessons and prepare supporting materials/handouts. 

 The psychology of instruction—e.g., how to impart important knowledge to participants, 

when to ask questions of trainees. 

 Ways to incorporate real-life applications into the instructional environment. 

 How to deal with nervous participants who had previous trouble in school. 

 How to use exercises to reinforce topics. 

 How to help to individual students—especially those who might not otherwise ask for 

help. 

 How to develop quizzes that accurately assess trainees’ understanding of specific topics. 

Following the train-the-trainer class, the PIC began working with individual alliance 

members to develop customized training modules that met a specific need. At the time of the site visit, 

only two companies—Bush Industries and Artone Manufacturing—had taken advantage of the 

individualized assistance. In both cases, PIC staff worked with company representatives to determine the 

most critical training needs of incumbent workers, prepare curriculum materials and manuals, and train 
D-47 

the supervisors who would be providing instruction to their colleagues. For example, at Artone 

Manufacturing, supervisors worked with PIC staff to develop an assembly outline that covered how to 

operate a variety of wood products tools (e.g., doweling machine, case clamp, drawer box clamp, hinge 

boring machine) and conduct a variety of tasks (e.g., sanding, prepping products, using power tools, using 

hand tools, final inspection and packaging of company products, handling of company products, touch-up 

methods). In addition to providing instruction in these topics, training was provided to the newest 

employees who needed instruction in basic skills. Graduates received a $100 bonus for completing the 

course. 

C. Evaluation and Outcomes 

 Data Collection Activities 

At the time of the site visit, the project had been operational for only 10 months. As a result, 

project staff were still in the process of documenting the implementation and impact of their ARC grant. 

Separate strategies were being used to identify outcomes associated with the pre-hire and incumbent 

classes. Specifically: 

 Pre-hire component. PIC staff conducted a telephone survey of the 17 individuals who 

completed the pre-hire class. The purpose of this survey, administered 2 months after 

the class had ended, was to document participants’ employment status. 

 Incumbent training component. The limited universe within which the project is 

operating—i.e., the nine companies that compose the Woods Alliance Group—has 

greatly facilitated the PIC’s ability to keep close tabs on the number of employees who 

have participated in ARC-supported training activities. This has been accomplished 

primarily through periodic telephone contacts with alliance members and a review of 

end-of-class evaluations. Employers have also been tracking the progress of workers 

who complete an incumbent training course. For example, Bush Industries has used a 

daily performance log to collect pre- and post-training data on (1) the average number of 

minutes required for workers to set up a machine, (2) the number of quality adjusts 

performed per setup, and (3) machine efficiency. Plant managers will eventually use 

these data to demonstrate the value of employee training to company executives. 

PIC staff indicated that they would have benefited from having more guidance from ARC as 

to the type of outcome data that could be used to document success of their project. In the absence of any 

such guidance, the PIC was primarily documenting the number of individuals who had participated in the 

pre-hire and incumbent training components. While staff had attempted to contact the 17 graduates of the 
D-48 

pre-hire training program to ascertain their employment status, there were no plans to assess whether 

graduates of the incumbent training program had received promotions or salary increases. (The question 

of whether any followup tracking was planned for the incumbent training component did prompt PIC staff 

to consider steps that might be taken to begin obtaining such information from alliance members.) 

 Outcomes Associated with the ARC Grant 

PIC staff were confident that they would surpass one of the quantitative objectives 

delineated in their ARC proposal—i.e., 147 persons (75 pre-hires and 72 incumbents) will participate in 

the training program. However, they indicated that the downturn in the national economy has 

necessitated a shift in focus from the pre-hire to the incumbent component. (ARC has approved this shift 

in the project’s quantitative outcomes.) 

Pre-hire component. At the time of the site visit, 17 individuals had completed a pre-hire 

class. Of these 17 graduates, 9 were employed full time, 2 were still self-employed, 1 was employed on a 

part-time basis, and 3 were not employed. (The remaining 2 graduates did not respond to the telephone 

survey.) As discussed previously, none of the graduates found new employment in the wood products 

industry. In addition, many of the graduates appeared to still be employed in the same position that they 

had held prior to the class. PIC staff doubted that they would conduct additional followup with these 

individuals, since they were employed outside of the wood products industry and would therefore be 

difficult to track. 

Incumbent component. At the time of the site visit, 81 workers at two companies had 

successfully completed an incumbent training course. Representatives from both Artone Manufacturing 

and Bush Industries indicated that the training has resulted in a more efficient and productive workforce. 

Over time, company officials plan to demonstrate the impact of training on participants’ efficiency, 

productivity, promotions, and salary increases. 

At both Artone Manufacturing and Bush Industries, an important byproduct of the 

incumbent training has been the development of course outlines that will eventually form the basis for a 

set of standard operating procedures for individual machines. Prior to the ARC grant, supervisors in these 

two companies lacked any experience in developing outlines and manuals that could be passed on to 

workers. The design of these standard operating procedures will enhance their capacity to enable more of 

their workers to become proficient in the use of sophisticated machinery. It will also provide workers 

with a common and reliable reference when they have questions about how to operate a particular tool. 
D-49 

Other outcomes. A noteworthy achievement of this 3.5-year alliance has been the 

willingness of these nine companies—which would traditionally vie for the same workers—to pool their 

resources and promote a uniform pre-hire training program for all of the community’s furniture 

manufacturers. In fact, alliance members eventually agreed to use a common job application form and 

offer similar starting wages to individuals who completed the PIC’s pre-hire training program. While the 

ARC grant was not responsible for the creation of this alliance, it did enable the nine companies to 

significantly expand upon their interest in working together to solve a common problem.

D. Lessons Learned 

Alliance members generally believed that the process they used to address the labor shortage 

and training needs of the region’s wood products industry could be adapted in other communities. 

Respondents’ recommendations for other communities attempting a similar approach with a coalition of 

industry representatives are summarized below. 

Timing is critical when implementing a pre-hire training program. Alliance members 

indicated that they would have realized enormous benefits if the pre-hire training component had been in 

place at the peak of their labor shortage. They suggested that companies plan ahead so that they can 

initiate pre-hire training as soon as they realize a need to expand their workforce (e.g., following the win 

of a major contract). In addition, the turnaround time required to identify and train pre-hires needs to be 

fast enough so that companies come to rely on program graduates (as opposed to untrained labor that can 

be obtained quickly through temporary agencies) to fill their immediate hiring needs. Finally, the 

program needs to recognize that it may be more difficult to recruit pre-hires during the winter (when snow 

and ice can prevent trainees from attending class) and summer (when there is a greater number of 

construction jobs). 

Do not use company representatives to prescreen prospective pre-hires. Six months 

after the pre-hire class, one of the alliance members chose to expand its workforce. Although it had 

participated in the pre-hire training session—and had been provided with documentation on the technical 

aptitude of each graduate—the company used a temporary agency to obtain untrained labor. A 

representative from the company cited two reasons why none of the pre-hires were interviewed for the 

positions: (1) the need to bring in new workers as quickly as possible, and (2) a general impression that 
D-50 

the individuals who participated in the pre-hire training lacked basic work skills.7

 The respondent 

acknowledged that his impression of the pre-hires was formed prior to the training session (i.e., during his 

screening interviews at the job fair) and that he had never reviewed the written assessment of students’ 

job readiness. In hindsight, PIC staff indicated that they should have taken full responsibility for 

screening candidates for the pre-hire training class. In so doing, they believe that employers’ impressions 

of the pre-hires would have been based solely on the written assessment of each student’s ability to 

perform basic manufacturing tasks—and not on their pre-training deficiencies. 

Provide incentives for employee training. A primary purpose of the project was to 

enhance workers’ skills, employability, and wages. Nonetheless, companies found that employees 

expected to be reimbursed for their participation in incumbent training (on the assumption that any 

increase in their productivity would ultimately boost corporate profits and earning). Several alliance 

members recommended that similar projects provide stipends or other incentives to workers who 

complete a class.8

Allocate sufficient time for developing course materials. Alliance members severely 

underestimated the amount of time that would be required to develop the outlines and manuals for the 

incumbent training. Several factors hindered employers’ efforts to develop course materials—e.g., 

company supervisors had to prepare training materials on their own time, and the PIC had to play a 

greater role than originally anticipated helping to revise the course outlines. Therefore, respondents 

recommended that similar projects anticipate the need to allow at least 2-3 months for the development of 

such course materials. 

Make training equipment available at a neutral site. The alliance members who took 

advantage of the incumbent training indicated that their companies would not have been in a position to 

upgrade the skills of their workers during a period of economic growth, since all available machinery 

would have been in use throughout the course of the workday. PIC staff indicated that the development 

of the Manufacturing Technology Institute will eventually enhance their capacity to provide such handson training at a neutral site. This, in turn, will facilitate employers’ efforts to provide such hands-on 

training during periods that all factory equipment is constantly in use. 

 

7

 The respondent referred several of the candidates that he interviewed at the October 2000 job fair for the pre-hire class. Although he indicated 

that he had no intention of offering a job to any of these individuals (because they appeared to lack basic work skills), he felt they would 

eventually be able to apply the knowledge gained through the pre-hire class with other employers in the manufacturing sector. 

8

 While project funds were used to compensate the company supervisors who developed course materials and conducted the training, the decision 

of whether to reimburse workers for time spent in training sessions was ultimately left to each company. 
D-51 

Have someone not affiliated with the industry coordinate the effort. One alliance 

member indicated that the nine companies benefited from the presence of a neutral third party (the PIC) to 

coordinate their common training needs. They suggested that other industries would need to rely on a 

impartial intermediary to organize the effort, conduct the training, and balance the interests of all 

participating companies. 

E. Summary and Conclusions 

The impact of the ARC grant on alliance members was clearly evident throughout the site 

visit. Without the project, the participating companies would not have been in a position to offer pre-hire 

or incumbent training. While the downturn in the national economy prevented the alliance from taking 

full advantage of the pre-hire component, the necessary materials are now in place to offer this training 

again when the region’s furniture manufacturers find themselves in need of new labor. In addition, while 

only two companies have been able to take advantage of the incumbent training, it is anticipated that the 

development of the Manufacturing Technology Institute will eventually enable other local furniture 

manufacturers to offer similar opportunities to their employees. 

Unfortunately, many of the innovations and outcomes that alliance members envisioned at 

the outset of the ARC grant have yet to be realized. While the PIC successfully conducted a pre-hire 

training class, the participating companies were never in a position to assess whether graduates had 

attained the necessary skills for employment in the manufacturing sector. Nor did the alliance have the 

opportunity to try out its procedures for apportioning prospective employees across the nine companies. 

As a result, there is no way of knowing whether some of the project’s distinctive features—common 

application forms, sharing information about the aptitude of all program graduates—would have worked 

as planned. For example, would competition for a small number of qualified pre-hires have eventually 

resulted in competition and friction among alliance members? 

In spite of these obstacles, the project is to be commended for recognizing the need to 

realign its activities to meet the changing needs of the regional economy. Alliance members hope to 

continue using their workgroup to address common training needs. It will, therefore, be interesting to 

continue monitoring the project to determine whether the alliance is able to fully implement its approach 

for attracting new labor to the wood products industry. 
D-52 

Attachment 1: Woods Alliance Group Company Survey 

1. What are the minimum requirements for entry-level positions within your company? 

High School Diploma/GED required ___________________________________________________ 

Felony Convictions allowable? ________________________________________________________ 

Available to work all shifts? (If applicable) ______________________________________________ 

Able to lift 20 pounds? ______________________________________________________________ 

Able to learn blueprint reading? _______________________________________________________ 

Any additional requirements? _________________________________________________________ 

2. What would be a starting salary range for your company for persons that complete training and are 

hired? $6.00 to $8.00 has been proposed as most likely to be inclusive of all companies. If this is not 

appropriate for your company, what would be your company range? 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

3. What are the specific job types that you are currently looking to fill on a continuous basis? E.g., 

Sprayer, Sander, etc. ________________________________________________________________ 

4. What are your projected hiring needs for late October through December of 2000? _______________ 

5. What are your needs for upgrade training for your current employees? E.g., Sprayers, Ripsaw 

Operators, CNC, etc., as well as anticipated numbers. Please be specific. 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

PLEASE RETURN NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 1, 2000 

IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE. THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT!! 
D-53 

Attachment 2: Wood Skills Pre-hire Outline (32 hours) 

A. Measurement/Math/Blueprint Class 

1. Measurement 

 Care and handling of tools 

 Steel rule (English/Metric) 

 Vernier/dial calipers (English/Metric) 

 Coordinate measuring systems (x, y, and z axes) 

2. Shop Math Review 

 Fractional numbers and operations 

 Decimal numbers and operations 

3. Blueprint Reading 

 Alphabet of lines 

 Symbols 

 Orthographic projections 

 Industrial drawing features 

4. Dimensioning and Tolerancing 

 Unilateral/bilateral tolerancing 

 Block tolerancing 

 Baseline versus cumulative dimensioning 

 English/metric systems 

B. Attitude for Success 

1. Positive approach 

2. 7 steps to self-esteem 

3. Goal setting 

4. Coping with stress 

5. Examining your attitude 

6. Time management 

7. Communication 

C. Safety—Right to Know 

1. Lock out—Tag out 

2. Evacuation plans 

3. Escape routes 

4. Hazardous communications—MSDS 

5. Lifting 

6. Material Handling 

7. General safety around machinery
D-54 

Attachment 3: Examples of Student Evaluations 

From the October 2000 Pre-hire Course 

John Doe—He was always prompt, pleasant, and willing to do what was expected. I believe he is 

capable of handling tasks that require advanced skills. Math=100% Print Reading=100% 

John Doe—He missed two nights because of his responsibilities in the National Guard and his math and 

print reading scores reflect his absences. Math=46% Print Reading=80% 

John Doe—He did well in both print reading and math. He was prompt, capable, and seemed to be a 

desirable candidate. Math=88% Print Reading=80%

Jane Doe—She did quite well in both the math and print reading exercises and tests. She was a quick 

learner and helpful to fellow students which overshadowed her youth and inexperience. Math=85% 

Print Reading=95% 

John Doe—John struggled with both basic math and print reading. Although he was very prompt and 

likable, and eager to find employment, I believe he would need additional help. Math=0% Print 

Reading=45% 

John Doe—John was pleasant and friendly, but had considerable trouble in both math and print reading. 

I don’t think he has the skills required to do machine set up or operations, although he might do well in 

some support functions. Math=42% Print Reading=60% 

John Doe—John was one of the top students in the class. He has been self-employed which tells me he 

has the discipline necessary to perform job tasks, but he is looking for more security. I believe he would 

be an asset to any company and has the skills to perform machine set ups and operations. Math=96% 

Print Reading=100% 

John Doe—He enrolled late and missed the first class. He left early one night and missed the last night 

and his print reading exam. Math=46% Print Reading=0% 

John Doe—John struggled in math and print reading. He could benefit from additional training. He tried 

very hard, but I believe the class was too fast paced for him. Math=12% Print Reading=65% 

Jane Doe—Jane did a great job. She is a very reserved individual but is very motivated. She walked 

every day from Falconer (one of the region’s furniture manufacturers) to attend class and was the first to 

arrive. I believe she is an ideal candidate for any job requiring advanced skills. I even discussed her 

future in CNC programming and machine operation. Math=96% Print Reading=85% 

John Doe—He was a good student with an affinity for working with numbers. I think he would do better 

in a job requiring more mental skills than physical. Math=92% Print Reading=80% 

John Doe—John did well in both classes even though his background is in nursing. He seemed 

disillusioned with the profession and is looking for something else. If he possesses mechanical ability 

along with his intelligence, I believe he would be a good set up/operator. His questions revealed someone 

with good problem-solving skills. Math=88% Print Reading=100%
D-55 

Ohio Fund for Appalachia Industrial Retraining 

 

Project Location Appalachian Ohio 

Grant Recipient Ohio Department of Industrial Training 

ARC Number OH 10533 

Project Type Workforce Training 

Grant Amount $250,000 

Matching Funding $250,000 

Dates of Site Visit May 8-10, 2001 

Site Visitors Nicole Bartfai, Glenn Nyre 

Project Abstract 

The Ohio Fund for Appalachia Industrial Retraining (FAIR) project assists companies in the 

Appalachian region by providing funds to support the training of underemployed and 

unemployed individuals. Unique among the ARC projects, FAIR receives a single grant from 

ARC and then distributes individual subgrants to companies engaged in workforce training. 

FAIR operates under the Ohio Investment in Training Program (OITP), which provides funding 

to new and expanding businesses in Ohio. FAIR assists companies in Appalachia that are often 

not served by OITP because they cannot garner as many resources as larger companies in other 

areas of Ohio. For each training project funded, FAIR contributes 25 percent, OITP contributes 

another 25 percent, and the company matches those funds by providing the remaining 50 percent 

of the cost. 

FAIR collects outcome data from each company that receives a subgrant, including the number 

of individuals trained, the number of individuals retrained, and the number of new jobs created. 

Under the 1999-2000 grant, FAIR funding trained 1,255 individuals, retrained 402 employees, 

and helped 265 individuals obtain new jobs, exceeding its combined project goals in these 

categories by 28 percent, 3 percent, and 17 percent, respectively. 

FAIR has received support from ARC since 1990. Currently, 10 projects have obligated money 

to begin training activities. These companies include various manufacturing companies, a 

visiting nurses association, and a local community college. 
D-56 

Ohio Fund for Appalachia Industrial Retraining 

A. Background and Context 

Objectives and Problems Addressed 

The Appalachian region of Ohio comprises three of the state’s 12 economic development 

regions and consists of 29 counties, 9 of which are classified as distressed by the Appalachian Regional 

Commission. For 1998, the per capita income in all counties ranged from less than $18,000 to between 

$22,000 and $26,073. Of the 14 counties in the state that have a per capita income of less than $18,000, 

13 are in the Appalachian region.1

 Similarly, the three counties with the highest unemployment rates (10 

percent or higher) are located in the region. 2

 

For the past 21 years, the Ohio Investment in Training Program (OITP) has provided 

financial assistance and technical resources for customized training of employees of new and expanding 

Ohio businesses. The Fund for Appalachia Industrial Retraining (FAIR) project was initiated by OITP in 

1990 because many companies in the Appalachian region could not compete for OITP funds with the 

larger companies in the cities of Ohio. Also, the OITP rating system favors new companies that are 

expanding, and as a result, many established companies in the Appalachian region were unable to obtain 

funding. With the creation of FAIR, smaller companies had their own pool of funding for similar training 

activities. 

 Community and Beneficiaries 

The direct beneficiaries of the program are the companies that receive FAIR funding to train 

new and current employees. In the past, most companies have been in manufacturing or other productproducing industries. These companies ranged in size from 50 to 500 employees. Although 

manufacturing has been the primary industry of focus, the FAIR director recognized the need to assist 

other industries as well. Consequently, funding has been provided to health care companies and to 

consortium-based training projects. Neither OITP nor FAIR fund projects in fields that tend to have low 

entry-level wages and high turnover rates, such as printing, retail, fast food, and hospitality, unless a 

company can demonstrate that it has an established career path for entry-level employees. 

 

1 Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

2

 Source: Civilian Labor Force Estimates, March 2001. 
D-57 

Many companies that receive FAIR funding are located in rural areas in which traditional 

jobs no longer exist. Still, according to FAIR and OITP staff, residents do not want to leave communities 

where their families have lived for generations and are willing to commute long distances to work. In 

fact, the average round trip commute in Appalachian Ohio is 100 miles, which presents unique challenges 

and opportunities for the companies that remain in this region. 

Individuals receiving training are either currently employed and need additional training to 

retain their jobs or upgrade to other jobs, or they are unemployed and need to acquire both basic and jobspecific skills in order to obtain employment. The type of beneficiary depends primarily on the type of 

company/consortium that is providing the training. 

 Grant Recipient 

The Ohio Investment in Training Program, housed within Ohio’s Department of 

Development, provides financial assistance and technical resources for customized training for employees 

of new and expanding businesses. The office works directly with companies to create or retain jobs, 

increase productivity, improve labor/management relations, and increase the skill level of the labor pool.3

 

Most OITP funding is targeted for manufacturing industries. 

 Current Status 

The Ohio FAIR project is flourishing, with 16 projects funded during 1999-2000 and 10 subgrants currently obligated. Discussions with other employers to develop new training programs are also 

in progress. As evidence of the state’s commitment to FAIR’s goals, the state’s contribution will remain 

the same, even though state support to OITP is to be reduced next year,. 

 

3

 Source: http://www.resourceohio.com/work1.html. 
D-58 

B. Approach 

The Ohio FAIR project was designed to help companies in the Appalachian region provide 

training to underemployed and unemployed individuals. The FAIR program receives a grant from the 

ARC and then distributes those funds in the form of subgrants to assist companies in providing training. 

FAIR support is limited to companies with no more than 500 employees worldwide. The FAIR 

coordinator indicated that she would like to have this restriction changed to “500 employees in one 

location,” since that would increase the number of companies eligible for grant money. According to her, 

some small, struggling plants and subsidiaries in the area could be revitalized and provide continued and 

even expanded employment opportunities within the area if FAIR were able to assist them. 

FAIR’s workforce development efforts are very important to the economic development of 

the region. In order for a company to obtain FAIR funds, it must first work with the regional coordinator 

to determine the appropriate amount of funding. Part of the job of the regional coordinator is to visit area 

companies on a regular basis in order to identify those anticipating a need to train new and current 

employees, often due to the acquisition of new equipment or a construction/expansion project. Once a 

need is established, the coordinator then determines whether the company is eligible for FAIR funding or 

regular OITP funding. FAIR funds can be used only for direct costs associated with training (materials 

and instructors), not for overhead costs or equipment. The type of training provided is either determined 

by the company or companies involved or developed with the assistance of the regional coordinator. 

Funding amounts are determined through a series of formulas that are regulated by OITP. 

Overall, FAIR contributes 25 percent, OITP contributes 25 percent, and the company must supply the 

remaining 50 percent of the total cost. The grants are limited to $30,000 for companies and $50,000 for 

consortia. Although FAIR and OITP funding can only be used for training costs, company matching 

funds can go for related costs, such as the salaries of the employees while they are being trained, and 

equipment.

 Training 

The site visit included visits to two of FAIR’s recent grantee training projects. 

Buckeye Career Center. Buckeye Career Center is a regional vocational school that serves 

three counties in the Appalachian region. The human resource developer at the school initiated this 

project in order to assist local manufacturing companies in providing pre-employment training. He 
D-59 

assembled a consortium of manufacturing industries interested in improving the basic skills of potential 

or current employees, known as the East-Central Ohio Manufacturing Consortium. 

A Chamber of Commerce study and supplemental interviews conducted with 32 employers 

by center staff determined that the greatest need in the area was to provide potential employees with basic 

skills that could be applied to a variety of situations. The consortium’s members reviewed other preemployment training curricula, but felt that they were not geared toward their specific needs. The 

consortium therefore created its own curriculum, with each member company contributing expertise to 

the development of one or more of the training modules. The Buckeye Career Center facilitates the PreEmployment Training (PET) course, but most of those providing the training are from the consortium 

companies. The PET curriculum includes 96 hours of training in 10 components, as follows: 

Component Hours 

Communications 10 

Quality Awareness 6 

Safety 12 

Basic Mathematics Skills 12 

Teamwork 16 

Basic Computer Skills 8 

Personal Development 10 

Wellness 6 

Plant Tours 12 

Graduation/Interviews 4 

Initially, member companies paid $750 to join the consortium, but this fee has been 

increased to $1,250. In addition, there is a $300 fee paid by the hiring company for each trainee hired. 

The current member fee includes a $600 credit for companies that they can use toward the cost of hiring 

two new employees. The cost to trainees is $125 for tuition, $35 for a drug screening test, and $25 for a 

WorkKeys assessment. The only “admissions” criteria is WorkKeys proficiency at a level of “4” in both 

“Applied Mathematics,” which measures a person’s skill in using mathematical reasoning to solve workrelated problems, and “Reading for Information,” which measures a person’s skill in reading and using 

work-related information including instructions, policies, memos, bulletins, notices, letters, manuals, and 

governmental regulations.4

 Participants who cannot afford the course are eligible for financial assistance 

from various sources, including religious institutions, a local center for abused women, and the local 

welfare office. Although member companies cannot officially enroll current employees in the full course, 

they can “drop in” employees for some of the modules at no cost. 

 

4

 WorkKeys testing levels for these two areas range from a low of 3 to a high of 7. 
D-60 

There is no guarantee that those taking the course will be hired, nor is there any obligation 

on their part to accept a job if offered. Yet, overall hiring rates have been quite good, with nearly twothirds of the participants being subsequently employed by either consortium members or other companies, 

at hourly wages ranging from $7.50 to $15. Those who are not immediately hired are placed in a training 

pool to which employers can turn when they have employment needs. Employment status followups are 

conducted at 3, 6, and 12 months after completion of the training, and virtually all those who were hired 

have been retained, including those who were eventually hired from the training pool. 

Some completers were not hired because they failed company background checks. As a 

result, the screening process for entry into the course now includes a background check, provided at no 

charge by local law enforcement. Others had poor interview skills, though interviews are part of the 

regular curriculum, and staff from consortium members’ human resources departments provide mock 

interviews during the last class session. Particular training periods can end at what one of the employers 

interviewed termed “a bad time in the industry,” during which there are simply no employment 

opportunities. 

Six PET courses have been offered through the Buckeye Career Center thus far, with classes 

originally being held for 5 weeks on Monday through Friday from 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. However, the 

program now lasts for 6 weeks, with no Friday night classes. Attendance at all class sessions is required. 

The project had projected training 60 individuals, but ended up training 67. The course is not currently 

being offered because the manufacturing industry in the area is experiencing a downturn, and those 

businesses are not hiring. However, the name of the consortium has been changed to the East-Central 

Ohio Business Consortium to reflect the fact that it will now welcome the participation of industries other 

than those engaged in manufacturing. Given this broadening of industry focus, staff at both FAIR and the 

career center anticipate that the course will soon be offered again. 

Mattingly Foods, Inc. Mattingly Foods is a family-owned food distribution warehouse that 

has been in business in a small town in Appalachian Ohio for 55 years. It services various restaurants in 

20 states, including 460 Bob Evans, 60 Wendy’s and several Reno’s Steakhouses. They distribute food 

and all other items used at the restaurants, with the exception of chemicals and paper. Mattingly has 

expanded significantly over the past 5 years, and currently has 210 employees. They have experienced no 

lay-offs and have an annual staff turnover rate of less than 2 percent, mostly due to retirements. The 

company is classified as a Minority/Woman Owned Business Enterprise (women control more than 50 

percent of the stock), and has recently become an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) company. 

The Mattingly motto “Turn & Earn” refers to the fact they turn over inventory every 11 days, 

substantially less than the industry average of 20 days. Two vice presidents interviewed stressed that 
D-61 

OITP and FAIR have provided important support over the past few years that has enabled the company to 

stay in that location and continue to contribute to the area’s economy. 

Mattingly recently completed a significant expansion of its warehouse, including the 

introduction of a new computer system that impacted every aspect of the operation. As a result, everyone 

at the company—from the “pickers” (forklift operators who move the merchandise) to the truck drivers 

and all office staff—needed to learn at least some aspect of the system in order to retain their jobs. For 

example, inventory was put on a new bar-coding system that can identify where every piece of 

merchandise is at any given time, as well as support a “just in time” inventory system. Warehouse 

personnel must not only be able to respond to computer-generated restaurant orders, but they need scan 

everything they take off the floor and then enter that information into a computer when they load it on a 

truck. Pickers are paid on an incentive system, which is based upon the number of items they move 

within the facility and on and off trucks. Because their errors can hamper inventory delivery and control, 

their wages are tied to their performance. 

In addition, the truck drivers needed to operate computers that not only provide updated data 

as the trucks are unloaded at the restaurants, but also keep track of miles traveled, gasoline usage, and the 

number of hours the drivers have been driving so they do not exceed a certain number of hours during a 

day or week. Mattingly’s expansion also included the implementation of a new, computerized cooling 

system for the warehouse, which contains many perishables, and certain employees on each of the two 

shifts needed to learn that system. 

Training took place at local hotels, with onsite followup training taking place at Mattingly’s 

own facility. The training approach used is known as “train the trainers,” with FAIR funds used to 

provide initial instruction by computer experts to key staff and supervisors. They, in turn, trained 

additional employees. Because of this approach, many more people were trained than the initial group 

supported by FAIR, and that training continued after the completion of the grant period. Mattingly had 

intended to use FAIR funds to train 35 employees, but only 17 were trained with those monies. However, 

the approach used allowed the company to leverage the FAIR funds and train more than 50 additional 

employees using its own personnel as trainers. In addition, Mattingly more than doubled its projected 

number of new jobs created, ending up with 17 rather than the 8 anticipated. 
D-62 

C. Evaluation and Outcomes 

When examining the evaluation and outcomes of the FAIR program, it is important to note 

there are two beneficiaries: the companies and the employees. The companies benefit when current and 

potential new employees learn skills that can improve production, and the employees benefit through job 

creation, job retention, and/or wage increases. 

 Overall FAIR data collection 

The FAIR program collects three types of data for each project funded: number of 

individuals trained, number of individuals retrained, and the number of new jobs created. Each company 

predetermines its specific goals for these categories as part of the application process, since, as the FAIR 

director emphasized, “they have the knowledge of the industry and understand the inner workings of their 

particular companies.” 

Other required grant application information includes the following: 

 Name and type of training activity, 

 Training provider, 

 Travel and other related expenses, 

 Materials provided, 

 Number of classes or training sessions, 

 Hours per class/session, and 

 Instructor cost per hour. 

This information is categorized for the various types of training typically supported by OITP 

and FAIR (e.g., basic skills, quality training, communication skills, customer service, employee 

orientation, product knowledge, maintenance/trades, managerial/supervisory skills, information 

technology, and technical processes). The regional OITP training coordinator who works closely with the 

FAIR projects uses an Excel Company Workbook to facilitate the grant application process for 

companies. A separate template for each of the training areas listed above is contained in the workbook. 

Exhibit 1 displays the template for support of a Basic Skills project. 

The workbook also contains the following Excel template forms: Request for OITP/FAIR 

Assistance, Project Budget, Tax Status Disclosure, EPA Compliance, and Request for Payment. These 

forms facilitate the application process for the employers and the monitoring process for the agency. 

Once the forms are completed, the company is asked to describe how the grant will assist the company 
D-63 

and how the training program will be evaluated. Companies are also requested to provide a description of 

the products and services produced at their facilities, and a description and cost estimates of recent or 

planned capital investments in building improvements and equipment. 

As shown in Table 1, the 16 companies that received 1999-2000 subgrants exceeded their 

combined training goals by 28 percent, their retraining goals by 3 percent, and their new job creation 

goals by 17 percent. All but four (75 percent) met or exceeded their individual subgrant training goals; all 

four companies that had a retraining component met or exceeded their goals; and six of the nine 

companies that had the creation of new jobs among their goals met or exceeded them. 

 Relationship of Activities to Outcomes 

Company training activities are tied directly to the data collected for the FAIR program. 

While FAIR data collection focuses on the number of individuals trained and retrained and the number of 

new jobs created, one of the regional directors commented that companies also reported reductions of 

down time, increased production and improved product quality as additional outcomes. 

C. Lessons Learned 

Allow a flexible training schedule. The goal of the FAIR project is to provide funding to 

companies so they can train current and/or potential employees. However, companies have a competing 

interest; they need to produce a product. With this in mind, FAIR allows companies to be flexible in 

designing their training delivery approaches so that training courses/sessions do not interfere with 

companies’ production schedules. It is also important to realize that companies may not be able to adhere 

to set timelines. This type of understanding and flexibility only enhances the success of the project. For 

example, if a company has three shifts, training needs to take place within each of them in order to serve 

all employees. Traditional training models are not always able to accommodate such schedules. 
D-64 

Exhibit 1. Sample of an Excel Template Used to Apply for Funding 

Basic Skills 

Provide a description of your training activities. For each category provide the following:

1. Name of the training activity 2. Training Provider (In-house, Private Vendor, Public Institution) 3. Travel or other related expenses 4. Materials required (provide quantity and cost per item and Instructor materials) 

 Today’s Date: ___________________________________________  Company: ___________________________________________  Address: ___________________________________________  P.O. Box: ___________________________________________  City: ___________________________________________  State: ___________________________________________  Zip: ___________________________________________ 

ITEM # 

PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION 

BASED ON ITEMS 1-5 ABOVE 

# TRAINED # OF 

CLASSES 

HOURS\ 

PER 

CLASS 

TOTAL 

INSTRUCTOR 

HOURS 

INSTRUCTOR 

COST PER HOUR 

TUITION 

TRAVEL 

MATERIALS 

RELATED EXPENSES 

Totals>>>> 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
D-65 

Table 1. 2000 Final Close-out Report of the Ohio FAIR Project 

PROJECT COUNTY

PROJECTED 

TRAINED 

ACTUAL 

TRAINED 

PROJECTED 

RETRAINED 

ACTUAL 

RETRAINED 

P

1 MACA PLASTICS Adams* 161 342 0 0 2 Grafco Hardwood Floors Scioto* 12 15 40 51 3 A.R.M. (U.S.) Inc. Jefferson 17 17 0 0 4 S & N Pallets Tuscarawas 33 50 0 0 5 ZIDE Sport Shop of Ohio, Inc. Washington 14 19 0 0 6 Hall China Company Columbiana 53 53 0 0 7 Valley Forge/Colfor Columbiana 219 239 219 219 8 Buckeye Career Center Consortium Multi 60 67 0 0 9 Kent State Salem Campus Columbiana 60 109 0 0 

10 Flex Mag Industries Washington 90 104 98 98 11 Sunpower Athens* 59 23 0 0 12 Mattingly Foods Muskingum 35 17 0 0 13 Kopp Clay Company Carroll 40 38 0 0 14 Alliance Data Systems Washington 50 90 0 0 15 Marietta College Consortium Washington 45 35 0 0 16 Refco Jackson* 34 37 34 34 

 TOTAL 982 1,255 391 402 

BALANCES 128% 103% 

* Distressed County
D-66 

Another relationship that has contributed to the success of this project is the one that exists 

between the personnel in the state agency that provides some of the funding for the FAIR projects and the 

FAIR coordinator and the OITP regional coordinators. Finally, the Governor and state legislature have 

been very supportive of efforts to help Appalachian Ohio. As mentioned previously, the state’s match for 

the FAIR program was retained at the same level in the latest budget, even though OITP is facing a 

reduction in overall funding.

Closely monitor grant expenditures during the contract period. Many companies 

receiving FAIR subgrants still have funds remaining after training activities have been concluded, 

resulting in having to return state monies because they were not used. Because funds are obligated at the 

beginning of a project, those funds are not available to support other projects during the year. Therefore, 

it is important to actively monitor the progress of companies to make sure they either use all of the funds, 

or enter into a contract modification that releases funds they do not anticipate using. Of the 16 companies 

funded in 1999-2000, all but six had money remaining at the end of their projects. Of the remainder, only 

three did not meet their projected number of individuals trained or retrained. 

E. Summary and Conclusions 

The Ohio FAIR project has been under the OITP umbrella since its inception. According to 

the FAIR coordinator, the OITP framework and its administrators have contributed significantly to the 

success of the FAIR project. Although many of the companies in the Appalachian region would not have 

access to regular OITP training funds, OITP provides a highly viable structure within which the program 

operates—one that has proven to be effective for many companies throughout the state of Ohio. 

The FAIR project is an example of an approach that is, first and foremost, oriented to 

meeting the needs of the clients it serves. It also brings a high level of flexibility in meeting those needs 

on behalf of both the companies and trainees. It is a business-driven model that provides, though its 

coordinator and the OITP regional coordinators, advice, experience, programmatic guidelines, and 

resources that are contributing much-needed support to this unique region of Ohio. The diversity of 

employers that are being served and the range of training approaches being utilized can serve as a model 

for other potential ARC grantees that may wish to utilize the “subgrant approach” for providing multiarea, multi-site training programs. 
E-1 

Appendix E 

ARC Vocational Education and Workforce Training 

Project Descriptions 
E-2 
E-3 

Appendix E 

ARC Vocational Education and Workforce Training 

Project Descriptions 

COHORT 1

Academic Career Training Program. The 

program was designed to provide three 6-day 

summer residential institutes on local college 

campuses for eighth grade students who are least 

likely to seek or obtain a post-secondary 

education. The program was to provide a 

concentrated, hands-on exploration of the 

academic and vocational careers that are 

available with a post-secondary education. (OH12744) 

Advanced Graphic Design Laboratory at 

Frostburg State University. The project would 

establish a graphic design laboratory for training 

students in the advertising, printing, and graphic 

design industries, as well as offering continuing 

education workshops for industry personnel. 

The grant would also purchase laboratory 

equipment, renovate classroom space, and revise 

the graphic design curriculum. (MD-12453) 

Advanced Technology Training for Dental 

Hygienist and Biomedical Electronics. This 

project was designed to upgrade equipment in 

the Dental Hygiene and Biomedical Electronics 

Technology programs and develop and revise 

curricula for these programs. (AL-11505) 

Allied Health Technologies Instrumentation 

Proposal. The purpose of this project was to 

help equip health labs for a new Allied Health 

Wing, including physical therapy, occupational 

therapy, and anatomy and physiology labs, for 

use by 300-400 students per quarter. (OH12125) 

Applied Academic Equipment Project. This 

project was designed to provide schools in the 

Spartanburg and Cherokee counties with 

equipment that would enable them to expand 

courses being offered in applied academic subjects. 

The program integrates structured, rigorous 

academic and technical instruction for students who 

are unlikely to pursue a baccalaureate degree. (SC12088) 

BMW Corporation Worker Recruiting, 

Screening, and Assessment Center. The project 

was designed to recruit, screen, assess, and train 

employees for the BMW automotive assembly plant 

that was under construction in Spartanburg, South 

Carolina. As part of the project, (1) 40,000 

applicants were to be screened and tested on the 

General Aptitude Test Battery, (2) 20,000 applicants 

were to be tested on their pre-disposition to work in 

a team and on their technical skills, and (3) 2,000 

applicants were to be selected for customized preemployment training. Successful candidates were to 

be interviewed by BMW and offered employment. 

The Special Schools were then committed to 

providing 400 hours of on-the-job-training for each 

employee. The ARC grant was used to underwrite 

the lease expenses for the temporary assessment 

facility. (SC-11467) 

Building Economic Competitiveness through 

Workforce Development in Manufacturing 

Technology. This grant was designed to purchase 

and install equipment need to develop four new 

manufacturing courses. (VA-12064) 

Business Skills Laboratories. The project was 

designed to establish business skills laboratories in 

Greenfield Exempted Village School District high 

schools and offer courses in word processing, 

database management, and electronic spreadsheets. 

(OH-12126) 

Civil Engineering Technology. These funds will 

be used to purchase Civil Engineering Technology 

equipment for the Industrial and Engineering 

Technologies Division of Spartanburg Technical 

College. (SC-12811) 
E-4 

Clinical Lab for Respiratory Care. This 

project was designed to upgrade the instructional 

equipment for the Respiratory Care Program, 

allowing students to train on the updated 

equipment they will use on the job. An 

accelerated program provided skills upgrading 

for personnel already employed in the field. 

(SC-12093) 

Clinical Laboratory for Dental Auxiliary 

Programs - Instructional Equipment. This 

project was designed to purchase instructional 

equipment for the Dental Hygiene and Dental 

Assisting programs, including 21 self-contained 

dental operatory units. (SC-12094) 

Commercial Graphics Technology Program. 

This grant was used to purchase Commercial 

Graphics Technology Equipment for the 

Industrial and Engineering Technologies 

Division of Spartanburg Technical College. 

This would provide students an opportunity for 

advanced training in commercial graphics. (SC12814) 

Computer Aided Design. This grant was used 

to purchase equipment to update and expand the 

computer aided design program at the Hamilton 

Career Center. (SC-12103) 

Computer Lab Upgrade, Tri-County 

Technical College. The project was used to 

upgrade lab facilities for the Office Systems 

Technology (OST) and Computer Technology 

(CPT) departments. ARC funds were used to 

convert an outdated typewriter lab to a computer 

lab. (SC-12089) 

Computer Technology Equipment. This grant 

was designed to upgrade and expand the 

computer technology equipment for the Business 

Technology Division at Spartanburg Technical 

College. This allowed for the revision of course 

content and the improvement of laboratory 

instruction. (SC-12102) 

Customized Industrial Training Program. 

This project was designed to expand the 

availability of targeted training programs to 

prospective and current employees of 

manufacturing firms operating in Tennessee 

presently, and to firms which have chosen Tennessee 

as the location for a new operation but where the 

existing workforce lacks the technical abilities to 

perform the tasks necessary to compete for the jobs 

of the future. (TN-12486) 

Daniel Morgan Vocational Center Horticulture 

Program. The project was designed to purchase 

equipment necessary to initiate a horticulture 

program at Daniel Morgan Vocational Technical 

School. Students were to be trained for employment 

directly from high school or could attend 

Spartanburg Technical College for additional 

training. The program equipment was also to be 

used for hands-on experiments by biology students 

from Spartanburg and Broome High Schools. (SC12090) 

Drafting/Pre-Engineering Equipment. This grant 

was used to expand the Computer Aided Drafting 

(CAD) capabilities of the current drafting program 

from 12 to 18 workstations. This expansion allowed 

the Career and Technology Center to use AutoCAD 

software. (SC-12099) 

Elbert County Youth Apprenticeship. This 

project was designed to purchase and install 

equipment and supplies for a Computer Assisted 

Design (CAD) laboratory and granite etching 

classes. The project would contract with the local 

granite industry to bring draftsmen into the high 

school as instructors, create 26 computer stations for 

training in CAD, create a granite etching class, and 

provide on-the-job training to prepare high school 

youth to enter the granite industry upon graduation. 

(GA-13178) 

Electricity and Electronics Equipment. This grant 

was designed to update the electronics class in order 

to meet current industry standards. Upgrading the 

equipment would provide students and graduates an 

easier and faster orientation into the workplace. (SC12812) 

Engineering Graphics and Machine Tool 

Technologies Equipment. This grant was designed 

to assist with the purchase of Engineering 

Graphics/Machine Tool Technologies equipment for 

the Industrial and Engineering Technologies 

Division of Spartanburg Technical College. (SC12525) 
E-5 

Environmental Control Equipment. This 

grant assisted in purchasing equipment to be 

utilized by high school and adult education 

students in the Environmental Control Program. 

(SC-12104) 

Equipment for Occupational Therapy 

Assistance Program. This purpose of this 

project was to provide funds for state of the art 

laboratory equipment for the Occupational 

Therapist Assistant program so that trainees can 

train on equipment comparable to that used in 

the field. (AL-11849) 

Forest: SAVER. Southwest and Appalachian 

Virginia’s Economic Resource. This grant was 

designed to assist in the development and 

implementation of a program of students leading 

to a 2-year degree in Forest Products 

Technology. The program is to be broad in 

scope and geared toward producing an entrylevel employee who is familiar with the 

spectrum of forest products operations. (VA12066) 

Frostburg State Mechanical Engineering 

Lab. The purpose of this project was to equip a 

mechanical engineering laboratory at Frostburg 

State University. This project is one component 

of a larger plan to establish mechanical and 

electrical engineering programs through a 

cooperative venture with the University of 

Maryland, Baltimore County and the University 

of Maryland, College Park. (MD-12454) 

Frostburg State Mechanical Engineering 

Materials Science Lab. The purpose of this 

project is to equip the mechanical engineering 

materials science laboratory to be built at 

Frostburg State University. This laboratory will 

serve students enrolled in the engineering 

programs. (MD-13101) 

Fund for Appalachian Industrial Re-training 

(FAIR). The FAIR program is designed to 

provide an equitable source of financing for 

worker re-training in Ohio’s 29-county 

Appalachian region through a competitive grants 

program. Because job creation is a major rating 

criteria under the Ohio Industrial Training 

Program, Appalachian companies with 

significant need were often left underserved until the 

creation of the FAIR program. (OH-10533) 

Graphics, Printing and Design. This project was 

designed to purchase printing presses, computers, 

and layout table to teach entry-level employment 

skills demanded by the local industry. (SC-12095) 

Hamilton Career Center Graphics Communications Equipment. This grant was designed to 

purchase equipment to meet the growing technology 

demands of the Graphics Communication industry. 

As a result of the additional equipment, expanded 

the course offerings would also be possible in the 

Graphics Communications discipline. (SC-12810) 

If I had a Hammer - Housing Construction and 

Rehabilitation Training. This program involves 

training persons currently receiving housing 

assistance through the Wise County Redevelopment 

and Housing Authority for employment in the 

construction field. Participants will receive job 

skills training in four areas of housing construction 

and rehabilitation. Approximately 16 to 20 residents 

will be recruited to participate in the program’s first 

year. (VA-12664) 

Industrial Electricity Course. This project was 

designed to update equipment in the Industrial 

Electricity Course. This equipment will allow the 

center to meet current industry standards by revising 

its curriculum, as well as training its students in 

logic and problem solving, troubleshooting, 

electronics, pneumatics, and automation. (SC12098) 

Industrial Electronics, Automated Manufacturing, Electronics Engineering Technologies. 

This project was designed to upgrade equipment for 

the Industrial and Engineering Technologies 

Division of Spartanburg Technical College, which 

serves approximately 180 students annually. The 

new equipment, which includes the programmable 

logic controller, digital, and DC and AC equipment 

labs, will enable the college to update its curriculum 

and provide its students with both training and 

instruction consistent with industry standards. (SC12096) 

Industrial Maintenance Mechanics Program. 

This grant was used to upgrade the equipment used 
E-6 

by the Industrial Maintenance Mechanics 

Program. (SC-12100) 

Itawamba Community College Workforce 

Development. This grant was designed to 

install an audio-visual instructional network 

through which academic programs would be 

offered to workers in local industry. These 

courses would be taught upon demand and 

would be offered on schedules that allowed 

employees to gain advanced skills and credit 

toward a two-year associate’s degree in 

Industrial Training Technology, designed for 

mid-level managers. (MS-12478) 

Jackson County Youth Apprenticeship. This 

program was designed to fund the Youth 

Apprenticeship program through the Jackson 

County Comprehensive High School and the 

Regional Evening School. This program 

consisted of student recruitment and placement 

in local businesses, business recruitment and 

mentor training, staff development, student 

evaluation, and pre-apprenticeship activities. 

(GA-12725) 

Jefferson County Joint Vocational School 

Computer Aided Drafting in the Workplace. 

This project was designed to provide computer 

equipment and software to replace antiquated 

equipment. Twenty-five computers will provide 

AutoCAD drafting training for entry level work 

for students and to upgrade skills of current 

workers. (OH-12255) 

Lawrence County Vocational School AJE 

Diesel Technology. This project was designed 

to upgrade the diesel technology program with 

current equipment to meet industry needs and 

certify the program to meet state requirements 

for ASE certification. (OH-12122) 

Machine Technology Equipment Project. 

This project was designed to obtain a vertical 

Computer Numerical Control (CNC) Machining 

Center for the machining program. Students as 

well as current workers would be able to obtain 

training on the newly acquired computerized 

machining equipment. (VA-13464) 

Machine Tool Operation. This project was 

designed to purchase equipment to update and 

expand the machine tool operation program at the 

Fred Hamilton Career Center. The program 

provides skilled training for 9-12th graders in 

Oconee County on a variety of metal shaping 

equipment, with an emphasis on transition to 

employment or post-secondary education. (SC12091) 

Manufacturing Assistance Center. This project 

was designed to assist with the operation of the 

Manufacturing Assistance Center (MAC). The 

thrust of this project was to assist small to midsize 

businesses and industries and to strengthen 

partnerships with local businesses and vendors by 

providing shared access to industrial equipment. 

ARC funds were to be used to support technical 

resources and training costs. (PA-12060) 

Meigs Computer Instructional Equipment. This 

project was designed to provide new computers and 

networking hardware in all vocational and TechPrep areas, including two business-office labs, a 

math and science classroom, a Tech-Prep lab, and 

several vocational classrooms. (OH-12442) 

Morgan Machine Trade Equipment 

Improvement. This project was designed to 

strengthen the school’s vocational program by 

improving equipment in precision machining and 

business technologies. A local manufacturing plant 

requested computer numerical control machines and 

will train instructors to operate them and train 

students to use them. The project would also replace 

electric typewriters and Apple IIE computers with 

Compaq 486s and software and workstation 

furniture. The computer lab would also be used by 

community college students in the evenings. (OH12443) 

Murray County Board of Education 

Apprenticeship Training. This project established 

an apprenticeship program to provide 24 high school 

students with an apprenticeship opportunity in one 

of four areas: health occupations, business 

leadership, child development, or technical skills. 

The grant would fund a vocational counselor who 

will supervise the program and operation of a career 

vocational guidance center for all students. (GA11516) 
E-7 

Northeast Mississippi Community College 

Systems Upgrade for Employment 

Development. This project was designed to 

upgrade the metal cutting wire Electronic 

Discharge Machine system. This would allow 

the college to provide state-of-the-art equipment 

compatible with the skills needed by students to 

be employed in local and regional industries. 

(MS-12044) 

Northern Tier Industry and Education 

Consortium Workforce Development. The 

Northern Tier Industry and Education 

Consortium (NTIEC) is a partnership of 30 

agencies (representing business, secondary 

education, postsecondary education, and 

economic development groups) committed to 

building a highly skilled workforce in 

Northeastern Pennsylvania. The purpose of this 

project was to increase the number of workbased learning opportunities for high school 

students and to expand the post-secondary 

involvement in the NTIEC’s workforce training 

initiative. (PA-12048) 

Ohio Valley Vocational School Machine Tool 

Technology Equipment. This project was 

designed to replace machine tools equipment 

with new, updated equipment. The project will 

teach machine students during the day and offer 

adult and retraining classes in the evening. (OH12494) 

Paramedic Certified Skill Training. This 

project was designed to purchase equipment for 

a new paramedic skill training program for 

current emergency medical technicians. (OH11743) 

Pennsylvania Appalachian Workforce 

Development Program. This project was 

designed to support the continuation of a 

workforce development program to help 

employers in Appalachian Pennsylvania. Key 

work elements include workforce development 

training activities, one-on-one training 

(customized by company or sector), supplier 

training consortium activities, and mentor 

training programs. (PA-11334) 

Pickens Technical Institute - Technology 

Learning Center - Phase 2. This project was the 

continuation and expansion of the Work Force 

Academy’s Technology Learning Center, which 

prepares disadvantaged residents from four counties 

for entry level manufacturing jobs. Additional 

computer hardware and software will be purchased 

to enhance local and distance learning training 

capabilities and provide economic development 

resources to businesses. (GA-11830) 

Plastics Technology Lab. This project was 

designed to establish a Plastics Technology Lab 

within the Industrial and Engineering Technology 

Division of Spartanburg Technical College. The 

project will permit the Engineering Graphics 

Technology and Machine Tool Technology 

Departments to teach the theory and provide handson experience in the production of plastic parts and 

support instruction in the development of the molds, 

dies, and fixtures necessary for the production of 

non-metallic products. (SC-12092) 

Precision Manufacturing Institute Tool and 

Machine Training. The project was used to 

purchase equipment required to expand tooling and 

machining training in three counties (Crawford, Erie, 

Warren) in Northwest Pennsylvania. The program 

featured high density training based on an 

accelerated curriculum designed to reduce entrylevel training time for the tooling and machining 

industry by at least 50 percent. ARC funding was 

used to purchase equipment required to expand the 

tooling and machining training, particularly to 

support additional entry-level training. (PA-13150) 

Rust College Microsoft Certified Systems 

Engineering Program. The project would 

implement software engineering training programs 

for minority college students as a one-year pilot 

program. The college would contract the 

instructional sessions and examination preparation 

with the New Horizon Learning Center. The 

program would also purchase required Microsoft 

course kits. (MS-13474) 

Shelton State Community College Commercial 

Graphic Arts. This project was designed to 

purchase laboratory equipment and furnishings for 

the Commercial/Graphic Arts and Machine 

Technology/Computer Aided Manufacturing 
E-8 

programs. The equipment will provide the 

necessary workstations for students who are 

unable to begin training in these programs 

because of the limited number of workstations. 

(AL-11867) 

Sunshine School - Welfare Parent 

Empowerment Program. This project was 

designed to continue a demonstration program 

training welfare recipient parents to become 

employable child care workers in public day 

care facilities, preschool settings, or home-based 

day care facilities. Participants receive 

classroom instruction and onsite observation 

opportunities. (KY-12872) 

Technology Connections for Educational 

Excellence: School and Business 

Partnerships. The project was designed to link 

high school computer labs and local businesses 

via telephone lines and modems. Funding 

would support the computer equipment and 

training for teachers and business personnel. 

Students would work on actual business projects 

under the direction of a teacher and coordinator. 

Workshops would provide hands-on practice 

using the system. (NY-12022) 

Technology Core Laboratory. This grant was 

designed to assist in the establishment of a 

Technology Core Laboratory within the 

Industrial Engineering Technology Division of 

Spartanburg Technical College. The goal was to 

increase the skills and competencies of 

graduates to better meet the need within the 

manufacturing sector for multi-skilled 

technicians. (SC-12523) 

Training and Development Program for 

Handloom Industry. This project was 

designed to assist Appalachian By Design, a 

nonprofit organization, support the Training and 

Development Program, which is aimed at 

increasing the productivity, proficiency, and 

skill levels of local artisans. (WV-12071) 

Union County Technology. This project 

established a dropout prevention program 

emphasizing workplace skills development 

through technology training for middle school 

students and adults. ARC funds purchased 

computers and software used to offer training 

modules in health care management, computer aided 

publishing, computer aided design, and electronics 

and aerodynamics programs. (GA-12724) 

Washington County Career Center Educational 

Engineering Equipment. This project was 

designed to purchase and install equipment 

necessary to expand the drafting, food service, 

business, auto collision, and forestry programs. The 

project would purchase 15 computer aided drafting 

systems for drafting, architecture, woods, metals, 

and manufacturing classes. Twenty computer 

workstations for business education, MIG welders 

for the automotive collision program, and a wireless 

field phone for the forestry program would also be 

purchased. (OH-12441) 

Washington State Community College 

Instructional Equipment/Furnishings for 

Arts/Science Center. This project was designed to 

purchase and install instructional equipment for new 

technical programs and the Learning Assistance 

Center housed in a new Arts and Sciences Center. 

Programs supported include hospitality 

management, criminal justice/corrections 

technology, physical therapy, occupational therapy, 

respiratory therapy, and basic skills programs. (OH12124) 

Welding Equipment. This grant assisted with the 

purchase of welding equipment for the Industrial and 

Engineering Technologies Division of Spartanburg 

Technical College. The equipment will serve 

approximately 60 credit students annually. (SC12101) 

Welding Laboratory/Classroom. The project was 

designed to create a training program, renovate an 

existing welding instruction facility and certificate 

program, purchase equipment, pay a faculty 

position, and develop public relations materials to 

publicize the new certificate program. Each year the 

program would train 45 students as certified welders 

consistent with national skill standards. (NY-12709) 

Western Maryland Community College GPS 

Utility Program. This project was designed to 

install publicly available Global Positioning System 

(GPS) base stations, provide equipment for 

classroom training, and train students and 
E-9 

community residents in the use of GPS 

equipment at four local colleges. (MD-13115) 

Whitfield County (Phoenix High School) 

Apprenticeship Program. This project was 

designed to provide apprenticeship services for 

15-20 high school students at Phoenix High 

School, a mostly evening program for 

nontraditional and dropout students. The project 

was also designed to fund a stipend for teachers 

to rewrite parts of the core curriculum into 

applied courses that utilize job-skill modules; 

these units would also be field tested and revised 

based on industry and apprentice input. (AL11487) 

Winston County Technology Center 

Vocational Curriculum. This project was 

designed to upgrade trade and industrial training 

programs in automotive mechanics, electronics, 

and the building trades. The grant would fund 

update equipment and training aids, such as 

software, manuals, and classroom supplies. 

(AL-12269) 

Work-Based Learning. This project was 

designed to provide support to school districts 

for placement of high school students in 

appropriate work site experiences. Students will 

be able to participate in computer simulated 

work site experiences as well as being placed in 

actual workplace settings. (WV-12955) 

Youth Ventures. Youth Ventures is a microenterprise and leadership training project to 

provide at-risk, minority, and non-college bound 

youth with meaningful leadership roles within 

an actual business. The project was designed to 

expand the program. Workers receive training 

in small business management and participate in 

personnel, financial, facilities management, 

advertising, and community relations decisionmaking, in addition to assisting with payroll, 

marketing, scheduling, inventory, and 

bookkeeping. (NY-12077) 

COHORT 2

Alfred State College Computer Technology 

Center. This grant was to develop and implement a 

Computer Technology Education Center. (NY13662) 

Appalachian Center for Higher Education in 

Hale (ACHEH). The HERO Family Resource 

Center will serve a single county in Hale, Alabama. 

The HERO center will utilize a strong team 

approach utilizing community agencies, the local 

school district, and institutes of higher education. 

Mini-grants will be given to local high schools in 

order to help students plan, explore and experience 

the various possibilities for selecting careers in order 

to promote the importance and opportunities of postsecondary education and increase the number of 

students attending college. (CO-13764A) 

Armstrong Industry Skills & Employability 

Partnership (InSTEP) Project. This project 

consisted of 120 hours of instruction in the areas of 

communications, computer literacy, math, safety and 

health, personal development, quality, teamwork, 

technology, and plant tours. Classes were to be held 

for 4 hours each night, 5 days a week for 6 weeks. 

Five to six cycles for 120 hours of instruction were 

to be completed. (PA-13677) 

Chautauqua County Wood Skills Training. This 

grant, awarded to the Private Industry Council of 

Chautauqua, Inc., was designed to implement a 

wood skills training program. This would create 50 

jobs in the wood products industry and upgrade the 

skills of at least 66 currently employed workers. 

(NY-13738) 

Clermont College Workforce Development 

Facility. This grant was designed to purchase 

equipment for two computer labs and a learning 

center, providing computer access for 1,000 new 

students and area employees at the Clermont College 

campus. The labs were to improve job-training 

programs, offer remedial assistance, and support the 

engineering, biology, chemistry and law 

enforcement curricula. (OH-13340) 

Columbia/Adair County Training and 

Development Center. This project will construct a 
E-10 

facility designed and equipped to meet training 

and re-training requirements of the local and 

regional workforce. The two-story facility will 

provide training rooms, a computer lab, a media 

room, and conference rooms. (KY-13357) 

Computerized Video Production. This 

project was designed to upgrade the equipment 

in the Career and Technology Center of 

Anderson School Districts 1 and 2. With the 

new equipment, 20 students during the first year 

and up to 40 students each year after will be 

trained and will graduate in the areas of 

computer technology and computerized video 

production. (SC-13648) 

Cortland County Education and Business 

Alliance WorkKeys Project. This project was 

designed to ensure that all Cortland County 

youth have the basic workplace readiness skills 

that will enable them to compete in the world 

economy of the 21st century. At least 600 

students will be assessed using the WorkKeys 

instrument from ACT, Inc., and 510 will either 

successfully enter the workforce or continue 

their education upon graduation from high 

school. (NY-13753) 

East Kentucky Workforce Planning and 

Development Program. This project was 

designed for the development of three new 

degree programs at Southeast Community 

College. The new educational programs in 

hospitality management, golf course 

management, and arts and crafts design are 

expected to support the region’s expanding 

cultural tourism industry. The programs are 

expected to graduate 20 students per year within 

two years. (KY-13807) 

Fred P. Hamilton Career Center Automated 

Manufacturing Program. This grant, awarded 

to the Fred P. Hamilton Career Center, was for 

equipment to begin an automated manufacturing 

training program that will provide training to 16 

students its first year and at least 45 students per 

year thereafter. This program will develop 

students’ skills to the high performance levels 

needed in today’s competitive global 

manufacturing. (SC-13646) 

Fresh Start Community Career Center. This 

project was designed for the expansion of a job 

training program that will serve at least 60 people 

and place at least 15 of them in jobs. The Fresh 

Start Career Center will be located at Goodwill’s 

non-profit food processing plant in Wayne County. 

(KY-13173) 

Fund for Appalachian Industrial Re-Training 

(FAIR). This project was designed to assist small to 

medium-size companies that lack the resources to 

offer retraining for their employees. FAIR is 

targeted to defray some of the cost of training 

employees who are either entering the workforce or 

who require incumbent worker training. (OH10533) 

Itawamba Community College Advanced 

Education Center Equipment. This grant, 

awarded to the Itawamba Community College, was 

designed to provide workforce skill training for 

more than 500 employers and 500 employees in 

northeastern Mississippi. (MS-13475) 

The Kentucky Appalachian Higher Education 

Network Center (KY AHED). The Morehead 

State University center will serve 38 high schools in 

23 counties in Appalachian Kentucky. The KY 

AHED Center will comprise regional partnerships of 

institutions of higher education, local education 

agencies, not-for-profit organizations, and assorted 

community-based organizations. Two types of 

grants will be awarded: challenge grants to local 

school districts and challenge grants to network 

institutions. The scope of work for these grants 

includes building self-confidence among students, 

assisting students and their parents with planning 

college and career choices, and demystifying the 

higher education experience. (CO-13764B) 

Mold Design Laboratory, Phase II. This project 

was designed to provide equipment for the 

implementation of the second phase of the school’s 

Mold Design Laboratory. Students in the Machine 

Tool and Engineering Graphics Technology 

programs were to receive training in current industry 

standard designing and tooling processes and related 

skills. (SC-13652) 
E-11 

North Central Appalachian Center for 

Higher Education. This project, which began in 

1998, was designed to encourage students to 

explore their career interests, inform them about 

college and financial aid options, and build selfconfidence in their ability to succeed in higher 

education. (CO-13218) 

Partners in Progress Operations and 

Training Facility Project. This project 

includes the purchase and renovation of a 7,600 

square foot building on approximately 2.5 acres 

to be used for light manufacturing and training 

of disabled individuals. The project also 

involved the construction of a 5,600 square foot 

addition to house administrative space, 

equipment testing rooms, locker and cafeteria 

facilities, and conference/training area. (PA13612) 

Regional Technology Training Center. This 

project will initiate delivery of a four-part 

intensive learning program to over 50 out-ofschool adults, 65 high school students, and 6 

vocational education instructors, providing 

instruction in the networking skills needed to 

compete in today’s technologically advanced 

labor markets. (NY-13727) 

SCT BOCES Mobile Technology Unit. This 

grant was designed to purchase and run a mobile 

“technology bus” serving the Southern Tier of 

New York State and northern Pennsylvania. At 

least 100 employees will complete a training 

course that had been requested by their 

employers within the first year of its operation, 

resulting in lower costs for employers and higher 

levels of competitiveness in the global 

marketplace. (NY-13716) 

Spartanburg Technical College Machine Tool 

Technology Program. This project was 

designed to provide equipment for the Machine 

Tool Technology Training Program. With the 

upgrade equipment, 20 students per year will be 

trained and will graduate from the program with 

industry-standard skill levels. (SC-13649) 

Spartanburg Technical College Surgical 

Technology Program. This project was 

designed to provide equipment for the Surgical 

Technology Training Program. The program trains 

and graduates 15 students per year with industrystandard skill levels and provide specialized training 

for area employers. (SC-13647) 

Steuben ARC Expansion of Printing Training 

Program. This grant, awarded to the Steuben ARC, 

was designed to provide employment training. At 

least 15 adults on the welfare rolls and/or with 

developmental disabilities or mental health issues in 

Steuben County, NY, will achieve long lasting 

employment as a result of training provided by 

Steuben ARC over the next year. (NY-13617) 

SWVA E-Commerce/E-conomic Hope for an 

Underemployed Workforce. This project 

developed an e-commerce video training project for 

the underemployed, individual entrepreneurs, and 

small business owners in the four-county region. 

The project was to include a training session and the 

production of a 10-session video course, which 

provided instruction to participants on developing a 

web site, online catalog of products and services, 

and an online purchasing system. (VA-13734) 

Tri-County Technical College Equipment for 

Computer Technology Laboratory Business and 

Human Services Division. This grant was designed 

to upgrade the Business and Human Services 

Division computer laboratory, which serves over 

250 local students a year. As a result of the upgrade, 

students were to receive training in Internet 

applications, Web design, and multimedia 

applications. (SC-13651) 

Tri-County Technical College Respiratory Care 

Lab Equipment for Health Education Division. 

This grant was designed to train 20 local students to 

become Respiratory Care Therapists. The new 

equipment in the Respiratory Care Technology 

Laboratory was to support the Respiratory Care 

Therapy training program, a new two-year degree 

program in the Health Education Division. (SC13650) 

F-1 

Appendix F 

Cohort 1 

Survey of ARC-Funded Vocational Education 

and Workforce Training Projects 

Part 1: ARC Grants and Projects 

Part 2: ARC-Related Outcomes 
F-2 
F-3 

D-3 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

Survey of ARC-Funded Vocational Education and Workforce Training Projects 

Part 1: ARC Grants and Projects 

This survey has been authorized by the Appalachian Regional Commission. While you are not 

required to respond, your cooperation is needed to make the results of this survey comprehensive, 

accurate, and timely. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE SURVEY 

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is conducting a survey of its vocational education and 

workforce training projects funded since 1990. The purpose is to evaluate the impact of its grants and to 

identify ways in which the program might be improved. Part 1 of the survey asks general information 

about your ARC grant and your overall project, while Part 2 asks specific information about the outcomes 

that you identified in your original proposal to the ARC. Your responses to these items will be used to 

assess the extent that ARC-funded projects in the study sample were able to achieve their proposed 

outcomes. 

Please complete both Part 1 and Part 2 of this survey. 

We ask that the requested information be provided by the person who is most knowledgeable about the 

history and current status of the project. The name, contact information, and other descriptive 

information about the project appear below. 

AFFIX LABEL HERE 

If any of the above information is incorrect, please update directly on the label. 

RETURN COMPLETED FORM BY FEBRUARY 22, 2001 TO: 

ARC Evaluation 

Westat 

TB 150F 

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20850 

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, 

CALL: 

Nicole Bartfai 

1-800-937-8281, ext. 3865 
F-4 

DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS SURVEY 

The study sample for the Evaluation of ARC’s Vocational Education and Workforce Training Projects 

consists of grants awarded by the Appalachian Regional Commission during the 1990s. 

On some occasions, these grants (and their matches) provided complete funding for a project and all 

related activities. In other cases, the ARC grant was awarded as part of a larger project. In such cases, 

ARC funding (and any related matches) supported only a portion of the goals, objectives, and/or activities 

that a project was designed to achieve. In completing Parts 1 and 2 of this survey, we are therefore asking 

you to distinguish between the first two terms that follow. 

Project refers to all of a project’s goals, objectives, and activities, including those that were not directly 

or indirectly supported by ARC funding. 

ARC-funded activity refers to any goal, objective, or activity that was at least partially funded by your 

ARC grant or the associated matching funds. 

Participants refers to the individuals who received services through the project/activities (e.g., students, 

trainees, workers). 

Employability skills are skills that individuals acquire that are not job specific. These include a positive 

attitude, dependability, and good work habits. 
F-5 

SECTION 1: ABOUT THE ARC GRANT 

1. From the list below, please indicate the category that BEST describes the grant recipient organization. (Circle 

only one.) 

Educational Organizations 

 Comprehensive middle or high school .................................................................... 01 

 Area vocational school/vocational high school ....................................................... 02 

 Technical college or institution................................................................................ 03 

 Comprehensive community college (degree-granting)............................................ 04 

 Four-year postsecondary institution......................................................................... 05 

 State education agency ............................................................................................ 06 

 Local school district/agency .................................................................................... 07 

 Other education entity (specify) _______________________________________ 08 

Government Organizations 

 State government agency......................................................................................... 09 

 County government agency ..................................................................................... 10 

 City or municipal government agency..................................................................... 11 

 Other government entity (specify) _____________________________________ 12 

Other Organizations 

 Social service agency............................................................................................... 13 

 Community development organization.................................................................... 14 

 Health care organization .......................................................................................... 15 

 Consortia of organizations....................................................................................... 16 

 Other community entity (specify) ______________________________________ 17 

2. During what year(s) did you receive ARC funds for this project? (Circle all that apply.)

 

a. Prior to 1990............................................... 01 

b. 1990............................................................ 02 

c. 1991............................................................ 03 

d. 1992............................................................ 04 

e. 1993............................................................ 05 

f. 1994............................................................ 06 

g. 1995............................................................ 07 

h. 1996............................................................ 08 

i. 1997............................................................ 09 

j. 1998............................................................ 10 

k. 1999............................................................ 11 

l. 2000............................................................ 12 
F-6 

SECTION 2: ABOUT THE OVERALL PROJECT 

3. Which of the following statements BEST applies to the participants (e.g., students/trainees/workers) in your 

project? (Circle only one.)

 The majority of participants had never held a full-time job (e.g., students, displaced homemakers) . 1 

 The majority of participants were full-time employees or had previously been employed full time.. 2 

 Combination of the first two............................................................................................................... 3 

4. Which of the following BEST describes the age range of participants in this project? (Circle only one.)

 Primarily youth (18 or younger) ........................................................................................ 1 

 Primarily adults.................................................................................................................. 2 

 Both youth and adults ........................................................................................................ 3 

5. Which one of the following BEST describes the geographic distribution of the individuals expected to benefit

from this project? (Circle only one.)

 In a single city or town ....................................................................................... 01 

 In a single county................................................................................................ 02 

 In a single school district .................................................................................... 03 

 In a major metropolitan area (i.e., a central city and its adjacent counties) ........ 04 

 In 2 or more counties or school districts within a single state (not associated 

 with a common metropolitan area) ..................................................................... 05 

 In all counties within a single state..................................................................... 06 

 In 2 or more states............................................................................................... 07 

 Other area definition not listed above (specify) ________________________ 08 

6. Indicate whether your project was designed to provide services, resources, or other assistance to any of the 

following groups. (Circle all that apply.)

a. Extreme poverty .................................................................................................. 01 

b. Illiterate................................................................................................................ 02 

c. Limited English speaking .................................................................................... 03 

d. Disabled............................................................................................................... 04 

e. Geographically isolated/rural............................................................................... 05 

f. Unemployed/underemployed............................................................................... 06 

g. Underrepresented minorities................................................................................ 07 

h. Migrant workers/migrant students....................................................................... 08 

i. Public assistance recipients.................................................................................. 09 

j. School dropouts ................................................................................................... 10 

k. Other group not listed (specify) _____________________________________ 11 
F-7 

7. Listed below are immediate and long-term goals commonly anticipated by vocational education and workforce 

training projects. Please indicate whether each of the following was viewed as 

 an immediate goal that project participants would be expected to achieve at the time they complete 

your project,

 a long-term goal that project participants would ultimately (i.e., after 1-3 years) be expected to 

achieve as a result of their participation in your project, or 

 not a goal of your project. 

Circle one response for each line. 

Goal Immediate goal Long-term goal Not a project 

goal 

Obtain skills 

a. Provide individuals with basic skills (e.g., 

literacy)............................................................. 1 2 3 

b. Provide individuals with academic skills.......... 1 2 3 

c. Provide individuals with vocational and 

technical skills .................................................. 1 2 3 

d. Provide individuals with employability skills 

(e.g., work attitudes/habits) .............................. 1 2 3 

e. Help individuals obtain a high school diploma, 

GED, or equivalent........................................... 1 2 3 

f. Help individuals obtain a degree/credential...... 1 2 3 

Individual employment gains 

g. Help individuals who have never held fulltime employment gain initial full-time 

employment ...................................................... 1 2 3 

h. Help employed individuals maintain current 

employment ...................................................... 1 2 3 

i. Help employed individuals increase jobrelated responsibilities, gain promotion, and/or 

earn increased wages ........................................ 1 2 3 

j. Help underemployed or dislocated workers 

obtain new employment.................................... 1 2 3 

k. Retrain workers in another field/help 

employed individuals obtain new 

employment ...................................................... 

1 2 3 

Community impacts 

l. Help local businesses........................................ 1 2 3 

m. Increase the economic viability of the 

community........................................................ 1 2 3 
F-8 

SECTION 3: PROJECT ACTIVITIES 

8. Did your project purchase, rent, or lease any equipment—e.g., computerized or non-computerized industrial equipment, compu

medical equipment? (For the purposes of this item, equipment includes computers and software—regardless of cost.) (Circle one

Yes.................. 1 (Continue with Q9) No..................... 2 (Skip to Q10)

9. Below is a grid that asks you to provide information about equipment that is commonly used by vocational education and workf

each type of equipment listed (a through f), please answer the following questions. 

Column A – Did you use ARC funding to purchase this type of equipment? Circle 1 for “Yes” and 2 for “No.” If you answ

Column B. If you answered “No,” skip Columns B through D. Repeat for each type of equipment. 

Column B – Is most of this equipment currently still in use? Circle 1 for “Yes” if the majority of the equipment is still in us

majority of the equipment is not still in use. If you answered “Yes,” skip Columns C and D. If you answered “No,” a

Column C – How many years was the equipment in use? Write in the number of years this type of equipment was in u

purchased but never used, write “0.” 

Column D – Why is the equipment no longer in use? Circle the number for each reason that applies. 

(A) (B) (C) 

Type of Equipment Yes No Yes No Number of years Equipment became 

obsolete 

Mechanic

failure 

a. Industrial equipment (non-computerized)..... 1 2 1 2 ____________ 1 2 b. Industrial equipment (computerized)............ 1 2 1 2 ____________ 1 2 c. Computer hardware ...................................... 1 2 1 2 ____________ 1 2 d. Computer software ....................................... 1 2 1 2 ____________ 1 2 e. Medical equipment ....................................... 1 2 1 2 ____________ 1 2 f. Other (specify) _______________________  ____________________________________ 1 2 1 2 ____________ 1 2 
F-9 

10. Did your project conduct any training activities for project participants (e.g., occupational/technical training, academic trainin

question only refers to actual training received by participants (e.g., students/trainees/workers). Question 13 focuses on trainin

as well as the development of training materials. (Circle one.)

Yes.................. 1 (Continue with Q11) No..................... 2 (Skip to Q12)

11. Below is a list of training activities that are commonly conducted by vocational education and workforce training projects. For eac

through e), please answer the following questions. Column A – Has this training activity been conducted by your project? Circle 1 for “Yes” and 2 for “No.” If you answ

Columns B through F. If you answered “No,” skip Columns B through F. Repeat for each activity. 

Column B – Did ARC contribute any funding for this training activity? Circle 1 for “Yes” and 2 for “No.” Column C – Is this training activity currently (still) being conducted? Circle 1 for “Yes” and 2 for “No.” 

Column D – Where does/did the training activity take place? Circle the number for each location that applies. 

Column E – How often does/did this training activity occur?

Please use the code provided. (1) More than once a week (2) Once a week (3) 2 to 3 times per month (4) Once a month (5) Less than once a month 

Column F – How long does/did this training 

the code provided. (1) Less than 1 month (2) 1-3 months (3) 4-7 months (4) 8-12 months (5) Longer than 12 months 

(A) (B) (C) (D) 

Training Activities Yes No Yes No Yes No School- based 

classroom 

Schoolbased shop 

or lab 

Work site 

classroom 

Work site 

(on the 

job) 

Hom

oth

dista

learn

cen

a. Occupational/technical training .... 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 b. Academic training or 

enhancement ................................. 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 

c. Business management training...... 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 d. Adult basic education (e.g., 

literacy)......................................... 

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 

e. Other (specify)_______________ 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 
F-10 

12. Below is a list of job search assistance and social support services that are commonly provided by vocational education and workfor

type of assistance/support listed (a through j), please answer the following questions. Column A – Has this type of assistance/support been provided as part of your project? Circle 1 for “Yes” and 2 for “No.” If 

with Column B. If you answered “No,” skip Columns B and C. Repeat for each type of assistance/support. 

Column B – Did ARC contribute any funding for this type of assistance/support? Circle 1 for “Yes” and 2 for “No.”

Column C – Is this assistance/support currently (still) being provided? Circle 1 for “Yes” and 2 for “No.” 

(A) (B) 

Assistance and Support Yes No Yes No Yes 

Job assistance and career counseling a. Career counseling (e.g., 

discussions, diagnostic or aptitude testing)........................... 1 2 1 2 1 

b. Job search/placement assistance 

(e.g., job bank, employer outreach) ..................................... 1 2 1 2 1 

c. Employability skills (e.g., work 

attitudes/habits) ........................... 1 2 1 2 1 

d. Referrals to other agencies 

for job assistance/career counseling ................................... 1 2 1 2 1 

e. Other (specify)______________ 1 2 1 2 1 Social support services f. Assistance arranging child care... 1 2 1 2 1 g. Assistance arranging 

transportation .............................. 1 2 1 2 1 

h. Financial assistance..................... 1 2 1 2 1 i. Referrals to other agencies for 

social support services ................ 1 2 1 2 1 

j. Other (specify)______________ 1 2 1 2 1 
F-11 

13. Below is a list of other activities that are commonly conducted by vocational education and workforce training projects. For each 

please answer the following questions. Please note that training for project participants is the focus of Q11.Column A – Has this type of activity been conducted as part of your project? Circle 1 for “Yes” and 2 for “No.” If you a

Column B. If you answered “No,” skip Columns B and C. Repeat for each activity. 

Column B – Did ARC contribute any funding for this specific activity? Circle 1 for “Yes” and 2 for “No.” Column C – Is this activity currently (still) ongoing? Circle 1 for “Yes” and 2 for “No.” 

(A) (B) 

Other Activities 

Yes No Yes No 

Construction/expansion/leasing of a physical plant a. Build a new structure ................................................................ 1 2 1 2 b. Make an addition or renovation to an existing structure ........... 1 2 1 2 c. Purchase/install office furniture ................................................ 1 2 1 2 d. Lease property or space............................................................. 1 2 1 2 e. Other (specify)_____________________________________ 1 2 1 2 Training of project staff f. Provide training on project-purchased equipment..................... 1 2 1 2 g. Provide training on content in a specific skill or knowledge 

area............................................................................................ 

1 2 1 2 

h. Provide training on pedagogy or teaching skills ....................... 1 2 1 2 i. Other (specify)_____________________________________ 1 2 1 2 Training materials j. Develop/purchase instructor or teacher manuals/curriculum .... 1 2 1 2 k. Develop/purchase student manuals/materials ........................... 1 2 1 2 l. Develop/purchase standards/proficiencies (e.g., align with 

industry standards) .................................................................... 

1 2 1 2 

m. Other (specify)_____________________________________ 1 2 1 2 Community outreach n. Establish community or business partnerships.......................... 1 2 1 2 o. Distribute funds/mini-grants ..................................................... 1 2 1 2 p. Provide community outreach activities..................................... 1 2 1 2 q. Other (specify)_____________________________________ 1 2 1 2 
F-12 

D-12 

14. Please indicate whether each of the following obstacles or impediments prevented you from carrying out the 

ARC-funded activities. (Circle all that apply.)

Planning 

a. Underestimated the resources needed............................................................. 01 

b. Underestimated time/effort needed ................................................................ 02 

c. Underestimated the demand for services or magnitude of the problem ......... 03 

Administrative 

d. Local administrative delays............................................................................ 04 

e. Grant not awarded in timely manner .............................................................. 05 

f. Lack of access to timely or helpful technical assistance ................................ 06 

Personnel 

g. Inadequate or underqualified staff.................................................................. 07 

h. Excessive staff turnover ................................................................................. 08 

i. Communication problems/misunderstanding of roles .................................... 09 

Implementation 

j. Construction delays ........................................................................................ 10 

k. Contracting outside provider delays............................................................... 11 

l. Installing equipment....................................................................................... 12 

m.........................................................................................................................D

evelopment of program materials................................................................ 

13 

Community 

n. Community/families not supportive ............................................................... 14 

o. Participants not maximizing use of services................................................... 15 

Cost 

p. Project funds were depleted before implementation....................................... 16 

q. Matching funds never received ...................................................................... 17 

r. Matching funds were less than expected/needed............................................ 18 

Other 

s. Specify: _____________________________________________________ 19 
F-13 

SECTION 4: IMPACT OF THE ARC GRANT AND CURRENT STATUS 

15. What is the current status of this project? (Circle only one.)

In full operation in the same way as during the ARC grant period .......... 1 (Skip to Q18) 

In operation but changed.......................................................................... 2 (Continue with Q16) 

No longer in operation............................................................................... 3 (Skip to Q17) 

16. Which of the following statements describe the way(s) your project has changed since the ARC grant? (Circle 

all that apply.)

a. The project serves more individuals......................................................................................... 01 

b. The project provides services in more sites.............................................................................. 02

c. The project serves additional groups of people ........................................................................ 03 

d. The project provides additional types of services/training ....................................................... 04 

e. The project serves fewer individuals........................................................................................ 05 

f. The project provides fewer services ......................................................................................... 06 

g. Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________ 07 

17. Which of the following factors have contributed to the change in your project? (Circle all that apply.)

Factors that led to reduced or terminated project 

a. Met need, no longer necessary ................................................................................................ 01 

b. Loss of funding for continuation ............................................................................................. 02 

c. Lack of support from project partners ..................................................................................... 03 

d. Lack of interest from participants............................................................................................ 04 

e. Delays in implementing approach ........................................................................................... 05 

f. Approach no longer appropriate to problem............................................................................ 06 

g. Loss of key staff ...................................................................................................................... 07 

h. Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________ 08 

Factors that facilitated growth/expansion of project 

i. Increased need for services in the community......................................................................... 09 

j. Additional funding available for additional participants and/or services ................................ 10 

k. Loss of other services in the community led project to take on additional roles..................... 11 

l. Additional areas of needs recognized since grant inception.................................................... 12 

m. Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________ 13 
F-14 

D-14 

18. What do you believe would have been the most likely outcome of your project if you had not received funds 

through the Appalachian Regional Commission? (Circle only one.)

The project would never have been implemented ................. 1 (Skip to Q22) 

The project would have been fully implemented................... 2 (Skip to Q22) 

The project would have been partially implemented............. 3 (Continue with Q19) 

19. How do you believe the absence of ARC funding would have affected the range of services offered by your 

project? (Circle only one.)

The project would still be able to offer the full range of services .................................................. 1 

The project would have provided slightly fewer services............................................................... 2 

The project would have provided significantly fewer services....................................................... 3 

20. How do you believe the absence of ARC funding would have affected the number of people reached? (Circle 

only one.)

The project would have reached an equivalent number of people.................................................. 1 

The project would have reached slightly fewer people ................................................................. 2 

The project would have reached significantly fewer people........................................................... 3 

21. How do you believe the absence of ARC funding would have affected the implementation schedule of your 

project? (Circle only one.)

The project would have been implemented on the same schedule ................................................. 1 

Project implementation would have been delayed slightly............................................................. 2 

Project implementation would have been substantially delayed .................................................... 3 
F-15 

22. Please indicate (or estimate) the number of individuals who have ever benefited as a result of the ARC grant.

 Indicate N/A (Not Applicable) if the output or outcome was not an intended output or outcome for 

your project. 

 Indicate DK (Don’t Know) if you cannot provide a reasonable estimate for an output or outcome that 

pertains to your project. 

 Provide a response for each line. 

Outputs and outcomes 

Number of individuals who have 

directly or indirectly benefited as a 

result of the ARC grant 

a. Number of project staff who received training (e.g., in equipment or 

content/training skills) as a result of the ARC grant............................ 

b. Number of participants (e.g., students/trainees/workers) who 

received academic or vocational training as a result of the ARC grant 

c. Number of participants who obtained a relevant degree or credential 

as a result of the ARC grant ................................................................ 

d. Number of participants who received career counseling or job 

search/placement assistance as a result of the ARC grant................... 

e. Number of participants who received support services (e.g., child 

care or transportation assistance) as a result of the ARC grant ........... 

f. Total number of actual job placements that resulted from the 

ARC grant ........................................................................................... 

23. What was the major or most important outcome (anticipated or not) to result from the ARC grant? 
F-16 

SECTION 5: PROJECT DATA COLLECTION STRATEGIES 

24. Has this project received funding or support from any other federal agencies? Please include federal 

grants/administrative monies channeled through the state. (Circle only one.)

Yes................................................................... 1 (Continue with Q25) 

No.................................................................... 2 (Skip to Q26) 

25. Below is a list of federal agencies that commonly provide funding and support to vocational education and 

workforce training projects. For each federal agency listed (a through h), please answer the following 

questions. 

Column A – Did this federal agency ever provide funding or support to your project? Circle 1 for 

“Yes” and 2 for “No.” If you answered “Yes,” continue with Columns B and C. If you 

answered “No,” skip Columns B and C. Repeat for each agency. 

Column B – Write in the name of the office or program that provided funding or support for your 

project. 

Column C – Were you required to report any outcome data about participants? Circle 1 for “Yes” and 

2 for “No.” 

(A) (B) (C) 

Federal Agency 

Yes No Name of office or program Yes No 

a. Department of Education......... 1 2 1 2 

b. Department of Labor ............... 1 2 1 2 

c. Department of Health and 

Human Services....................... 1 2 1 2 

d. Department of Commerce ....... 1 2 1 2 

e. Department of Agriculture....... 1 2 1 2 

f. Department of Justice .............. 1 2 1 2 

g. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development................. 1 2 1 2 

h. Other (specify) ____________ 1 2 1 2 
F-17 

26. Did your project collect any outcome data on project participants and or the overall community? (Circle only 

one.)

Yes...................................................... 1 

No....................................................... 2 

27. Have any of the following factors hindered your ability to collect outcome data on the status of project 

participants? (Circle all that apply.)

a. Did not encounter any obstacles.............................................................................................. 01 

b. Lack of funding or staff........................................................................................................... 02 

c. Lack of time ............................................................................................................................ 03 

d. Lack of access to expertise in data collection and analysis ..................................................... 04 

e. Difficulty of tracking participants after they have left the project........................................... 05 

f. Other (specify) ____________________________________________________________ 06 

CONTINUE WITH Q28 ON REVERSE SIDE 
F-18 

SECTION 6: CONTACT INFORMATION 

28. Please provide the name, telephone number, e-mail address, and the most convenient days/times to reach the 

primary respondent for this survey. The information will be used only if it is necessary to clarify any of your 

responses. Please keep a copy of the completed questionnaire for your records. 

Name Convenient days/times to reach you, 

if necessary 

Title 

Day Time 

Telephone (with area code) a.m. 

 p.m. 

E-mail address a.m. 

 p.m. 

 a.m. 

 p.m. 

THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING US IN THIS SURVEY. 

YOUR TIME AND EFFORT ARE APPRECIATED. 

Please return this questionnaire in the enclosed envelope or send to: 

Westat 

TB 150F-ARC (742404) 

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850 

If you have any questions, please call Nicole Bartfai at 

1-800-937-8281, ext. 3865 
 F-19 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

Survey of ARC-Funded Vocational Education and Workforce Training Projects 

Part 2: ARC-Related Outcomes 

This survey has been authorized by the Appalachian Regional Commission. While you are not 

required to respond, your cooperation is needed to make the results of this survey comprehensive, 

accurate, and timely. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE SURVEY 

The items contained in Part 2 are designed to obtain information about the extent to which your project 

was able to achieve the outcomes that you identified in your original proposal to the Appalachian 

Regional Commission during the 1990s. Please rely only on existing data to answer these questions. The 

same questions will be repeated for each of the objectives that you identified in your ARC proposal. In 

constructing these objectives, we relied upon documents (e.g., applications to ARC, project 

announcements) that were made available for this evaluation project. You will also be provided an 

opportunity to identify any other ARC-related outcomes that are not already listed in Part 2 of the survey. 

Please contact Nicole Bartfai (1-800-937-8281, ext. 3865) if you believe that any of these outcomes are 

not representative of what your ARC project was designed to achieve.

We ask that the requested information be provided by the person who is most knowledgeable about the 

history and current status of the project. The name, contact information, and other descriptive 

information about the project appear below. 

AFFIX LABEL HERE 

If any of the above information is incorrect, please update directly on the label. 

RETURN COMPLETED FORM BY FEBRUARY 22, 2001 TO: 

ARC Evaluation 

Westat 

TB 150F 

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20850 

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, 

CALL: 

Nicole Bartfai 

1-800-937-8281, ext. 3865 
F-20 

1a. Were you able to achieve the following outcome that you identified in your original proposal to ARC? 

(Circle one.)

Outcome Yes No Unable to ascertain 

The new equipment will serve 180 students annually. 

1 2 3 

1b. Which of the following data collection and analysis methods were used to assess whether this outcome had 

been achieved? (Circle all that apply.)

a. Project administrative records (e.g., number of project completers)............................................................... 01 

b. Employment and wage data (e.g., Unemployment Insurance Wage Record System) .................................... 02 

c. Education data (e.g., secondary school graduation and dropout rates) ........................................................... 03 

d. Community economic data (e.g., local unemployment rates)......................................................................... 04 

e. Public assistance (e.g., AFDC, TANF) caseload and benefit data .................................................................. 05 

f. Number of persons who became certified or passed a test.............................................................................. 06 

g. Pre/post test of participants’ skills/knowledge................................................................................................ 07 

h. Conduct survey (e.g., of participants, former participants, employers) .......................................................... 08 

i. Informal (anecdotal) conversations with participants/former participants/employers .................................... 09 

j. Other (specify) ________________________________________________________________________ 10 

1c. If you indicated “Yes” to Q1a, use the space below to describe any findings or results that illustrate your 

project’s achievement of this outcome (e.g., “A survey of former participants found that 80 percent were 

employed within 6 months of the training sessions”).

 If you indicated “No” to Q1a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your project’s 

 ability to achieve the desired outcomes. 

If you indicated “Unable to ascertain” to Q1a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your 

ability to determine whether the outcome was achieved (e.g., “A low response rate on a follow-up survey of 

former participants”). 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 
«Westat_ID» F-21 

2a. Were you able to achieve the following outcome that you identified in your original proposal to ARC? 

(Circle one.)

Outcome Yes No Unable to ascertain 

Economic development will be promoted in the Spartanburg, Cherokee, 

and Union Counties by providing training in skills most in demand by 

area business and industry. 

1 2 3 

2b. Which of the following data collection and analysis methods were used to assess whether this outcome had 

been achieved? (Circle all that apply.)

a. Project administrative records (e.g., number of project completers)............................................................... 01 

b. Employment and wage data (e.g., Unemployment Insurance Wage Record System) .................................... 02 

c. Education data (e.g., secondary school graduation and dropout rates) ........................................................... 03 

d. Community economic data (e.g., local unemployment rates)......................................................................... 04 

e. Public assistance (e.g., AFDC, TANF) caseload and benefit data .................................................................. 05 

f. Number of persons who became certified or passed a test.............................................................................. 06 

g. Pre/post test of participants’ skills/knowledge................................................................................................ 07 

h. Conduct survey (e.g., of participants, former participants, employers) .......................................................... 08 

i. Informal (anecdotal) conversations with participants/former participants/employers .................................... 09 

j. Other (specify) ________________________________________________________________________ 10 

2c. If you indicated “Yes” to Q2a, use the space below to describe any findings or results that illustrate your 

project’s achievement of this outcome (e.g., “A survey of former participants found that 80 percent were 

employed within 6 months of the training sessions”).

If you indicated “No” to Q2a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your project’s 

ability to achieve the desired outcomes. 

If you indicated “Unable to ascertain” to Q2a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your 

ability to determine whether the outcome was achieved (e.g., “A low response rate on a follow-up survey of 

former participants”).

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 
F-22 

3a. Were you able to achieve the following outcome that you identified in your original proposal to ARC? 

(Circle one.)

Outcome Yes No Unable to ascertain 

1 2 3 

3b. Which of the following data collection and analysis methods were used to assess whether this outcome had 

been achieved? (Circle all that apply.)

a. Project administrative records (e.g., number of project completers)............................................................... 01 

b. Employment and wage data (e.g., Unemployment Insurance Wage Record System) .................................... 02 

c. Education data (e.g., secondary school graduation and dropout rates) ........................................................... 03 

d. Community economic data (e.g., local unemployment rates)......................................................................... 04 

e. Public assistance (e.g., AFDC, TANF) caseload and benefit data .................................................................. 05 

f. Number of persons who became certified or passed a test.............................................................................. 06 

g. Pre/post test of participants’ skills/knowledge................................................................................................ 07 

h. Conduct survey (e.g., of participants, former participants, employers) .......................................................... 08 

i. Informal (anecdotal) conversations with participants/former participants/employers .................................... 09 

j. Other (specify) ________________________________________________________________________ 10 

3c. If you indicated “Yes” to Q3a, use the space below to describe any findings or results that illustrate your project’s 

achievement of this outcome (e.g., “A survey of former participants found that 80 percent were employed within 6 months 

of the training sessions”).

 If you indicated “No” to Q3a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your project’s 

 ability to achieve the desired outcomes. 

 If you indicated “Unable to ascertain” to Q3a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your 

ability to determine whether the outcome was achieved (e.g., “A low response rate on a follow-up survey of 

former participants”).

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
«Westat_ID» F-23 

4a. Were you able to achieve the following outcome that you identified in your original proposal to ARC? 

(Circle one.)

Outcome Yes No Unable to ascertain 

1 2 3 

4b. Which of the following data collection and analysis methods were used to assess whether this outcome had 

been achieved? (Circle all that apply.)

a. Project administrative records (e.g., number of project completers)............................................................... 01 

b. Employment and wage data (e.g., Unemployment Insurance Wage Record System) .................................... 02 

c. Education data (e.g., secondary school graduation and dropout rates) ........................................................... 03 

d. Community economic data (e.g., local unemployment rates)......................................................................... 04 

e. Public assistance (e.g., AFDC, TANF) caseload and benefit data .................................................................. 05 

f. Number of persons who became certified or passed a test.............................................................................. 06 

g. Pre/post test of participants’ skills/knowledge................................................................................................ 07 

h. Conduct survey (e.g., of participants, former participants, employers) .......................................................... 08 

i. Informal (anecdotal) conversations with participants/former participants/employers .................................... 09 

j. Other (specify) ________________________________________________________________________ 10 

4c. If you indicated “Yes” to Q4a, use the space below to describe any findings or results that illustrate your project’s 

achievement of this outcome (e.g., “A survey of former participants found that 80 percent were employed within 6 months 

of the training sessions”).

 If you indicated “No” to Q4a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your project’s 

 ability to achieve the desired outcomes. 

 If you indicated “Unable to ascertain” to Q4a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your 

ability to determine whether the outcome was achieved (e.g., “A low response rate on a follow-up survey of 

former participants”).

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
F-24 

5a. Were you able to achieve the following outcome that you identified in your original proposal to ARC? 

(Circle one.)

Outcome Yes No Unable to ascertain 

1 2 3 

5b. Which of the following data collection and analysis methods were used to assess whether this outcome had 

been achieved? (Circle all that apply): 

a. Project administrative records (e.g., number of project completers)............................................................... 01 

b. Employment and wage data (e.g., Unemployment Insurance Wage Record System) .................................... 02 

c. Education data (e.g., secondary school graduation and dropout rates) ........................................................... 03 

d. Community economic data (e.g., local unemployment rates)......................................................................... 04 

e. Public assistance (e.g., AFDC, TANF) caseload and benefit data .................................................................. 05 

f. Number of persons who became certified or passed a test.............................................................................. 06 

g. Pre/post test of participants’ skills/knowledge................................................................................................ 07 

h. Conduct survey (e.g., of participants, former participants, employers) .......................................................... 08 

i. Informal (anecdotal) conversations with participants/former participants/employers .................................... 09 

j. Other (specify) ________________________________________________________________________ 10 

5c. If you indicated “Yes” to Q5a, use the space below to describe any findings or results that illustrate your project’s 

achievement of this outcome (e.g., “A survey of former participants found that 80 percent were employed within 6 months 

of the training sessions”).

 If you indicated “No” to Q5a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your project’s 

 ability to achieve the desired outcomes. 

 If you indicated “Unable to ascertain” to Q5a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your 

ability to determine whether the outcome was achieved (e.g., “A low response rate on a follow-up survey of 

former participants”).

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 
«Westat_ID» F-25 

6a. Were you able to achieve the following outcome that you identified in your original proposal to ARC? 

(Circle one.)

Outcome Yes No Unable to ascertain 

1 2 3 

6b. Which of the following data collection and analysis methods were used to assess whether this outcome had 

been achieved? (Circle all that apply.)

a. Project administrative records (e.g., number of project completers)............................................................... 01 

b. Employment and wage data (e.g., Unemployment Insurance Wage Record System) .................................... 02 

c. Education data (e.g., secondary school graduation and dropout rates) ........................................................... 03 

d. Community economic data (e.g., local unemployment rates)......................................................................... 04 

e. Public assistance (e.g., AFDC, TANF) caseload and benefit data .................................................................. 05 

f. Number of persons who became certified or passed a test.............................................................................. 06 

g. Pre/post test of participants’ skills/knowledge................................................................................................ 07 

h. Conduct survey (e.g., of participants, former participants, employers) .......................................................... 08 

i. Informal (anecdotal) conversations with participants/former participants/employers .................................... 09 

j. Other (specify) ________________________________________________________________________ 10 

6c. If you indicated “Yes” to Q6a, use the space below to describe any findings or results that illustrate your project’s 

achievement of this outcome (e.g., “A survey of former participants found that 80 percent were employed within 6 months 

of the training sessions”).

If you indicated “No” to Q6a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your project’s 

ability to achieve the desired outcomes. 

If you indicated “Unable to ascertain” to Q6a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your 

ability to determine whether the outcome was achieved (e.g., “A low response rate on a follow-up survey of 

former participants”).

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 
F-26 

7a. Were you able to achieve the following outcome that you identified in your original proposal to ARC? 

(Circle one.)

Outcome Yes No Unable to ascertain 

1 2 3 

7b. Which of the following data collection and analysis methods were used to assess whether this outcome had 

been achieved? (Circle all that apply.)

a. Project administrative records (e.g., number of project completers)............................................................... 01 

b. Employment and wage data (e.g., Unemployment Insurance Wage Record System) .................................... 02 

c. Education data (e.g., secondary school graduation and dropout rates) ........................................................... 03 

d. Community economic data (e.g., local unemployment rates)......................................................................... 04 

e. Public assistance (e.g., AFDC, TANF) caseload and benefit data .................................................................. 05 

f. Number of persons who became certified or passed a test.............................................................................. 06 

g. Pre/post test of participants’ skills/knowledge................................................................................................ 07 

h. Conduct survey (e.g., of participants, former participants, employers) .......................................................... 08 

i. Informal (anecdotal) conversations with participants/former participants/employers .................................... 09 

j. Other (specify) ________________________________________________________________________ 10 

7c. If you indicated “Yes” to Q7a, use the space below to describe any findings or results that illustrate your project’s 

achievement of this outcome (e.g., “A survey of former participants found that 80 percent were employed within 6 months 

of the training sessions”).

 If you indicated “No” to Q7a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your project’s 

 ability to achieve the desired outcomes. 

 If you indicated “Unable to ascertain” to Q7a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your 

ability to determine whether the outcome was achieved (e.g., “A low response rate on a follow-up survey of 

former participants”).

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
«Westat_ID» F-27 

8a. Were you able to achieve the following outcome that you identified in your original proposal to ARC? 

(Circle one.)

Outcome Yes No Unable to ascertain 

1 2 3 

8b. Which of the following data collection and analysis methods were used to assess whether this outcome had 

been achieved? (Check all that apply.)

a. Project administrative records (e.g., number of project completers)............................................................... 01 

b. Employment and wage data (e.g., Unemployment Insurance Wage Record System) .................................... 02 

c. Education data (e.g., secondary school graduation and dropout rates) ........................................................... 03 

d. Community economic data (e.g., local unemployment rates)......................................................................... 04 

e. Public assistance (e.g., AFDC, TANF) caseload and benefit data .................................................................. 05 

f. Number of persons who became certified or passed a test.............................................................................. 06 

g. Pre/post test of participants’ skills/knowledge................................................................................................ 07 

h. Conduct survey (e.g., of participants, former participants, employers) .......................................................... 08 

i. Informal (anecdotal) conversations with participants/former participants/employers .................................... 09 

j. Other (specify) ________________________________________________________________________ 10 

8c. If you indicated “Yes” to Q8a, use the space below to describe any findings or results that illustrate your project’s 

achievement of this outcome (e.g., “A survey of former participants found that 80 percent were employed within 6 months 

of the training sessions”).

If you indicated “No” to Q8a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your project’s 

ability to achieve the desired outcomes. 

If you indicated “Unable to ascertain” to Q8a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your 

ability to determine whether the outcome was achieved (e.g., “A low response rate on a follow-up survey of 

former participants”).

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 
F-28 

9a. Were you able to achieve the following outcome that you identified in your original proposal to ARC? 

(Circle one.)

Outcome Yes No Unable to ascertain 

1 2 3 

9b. Which of the following data collection and analysis methods were used to assess whether this outcome had 

been achieved? (Check all that apply.)

a. Project administrative records (e.g., number of project completers)............................................................... 01 

b. Employment and wage data (e.g., Unemployment Insurance Wage Record System) .................................... 02 

c. Education data (e.g., secondary school graduation and dropout rates) ........................................................... 03 

d. Community economic data (e.g., local unemployment rates)......................................................................... 04 

e. Public assistance (e.g., AFDC, TANF) caseload and benefit data .................................................................. 05 

f. Number of persons who became certified or passed a test.............................................................................. 06 

g. Pre/post test of participants’ skills/knowledge................................................................................................ 07 

h. Conduct survey (e.g., of participants, former participants, employers) .......................................................... 08 

i. Informal (anecdotal) conversations with participants/former participants/employers .................................... 09 

j. Other (specify) ________________________________________________________________________ 10 

9c. If you indicated “Yes” to Q9a, use the space below to describe any findings or results that illustrate your project’s 

achievement of this outcome (e.g., “A survey of former participants found that 80 percent were employed within 6 months 

of the training sessions”).

If you indicated “No” to Q9a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your project’s 

ability to achieve the desired outcomes. 

If you indicated “Unable to ascertain” to Q9a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your 

ability to determine whether the outcome was achieved (e.g., “A low response rate on a follow-up survey of 

former participants”).

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 
«Westat_ID» F-29 

10a. Were you able to achieve the following outcome that you identified in your original proposal to ARC? 

(Circle one.)

Outcome Yes No Unable to ascertain 

1 2 3 

10b. Which of the following data collection and analysis methods were used to assess whether this outcome had 

been achieved? (Circle all that apply.)

a. Project administrative records (e.g., number of project completers)............................................................... 01 

b. Employment and wage data (e.g., Unemployment Insurance Wage Record System) .................................... 02 

c. Education data (e.g., secondary school graduation and dropout rates) ........................................................... 03 

d. Community economic data (e.g., local unemployment rates)......................................................................... 04 

e. Public assistance (e.g., AFDC, TANF) caseload and benefit data .................................................................. 05 

f. Number of persons who became certified or passed a test.............................................................................. 06 

g. Pre/post test of participants’ skills/knowledge................................................................................................ 07 

h. Conduct survey (e.g., of participants, former participants, employers) .......................................................... 08 

i. Informal (anecdotal) conversations with participants/former participants/employers .................................... 09 

j. Other (specify) ________________________________________________________________________ 10 

10c. If you indicated “Yes” to Q10a, use the space below to describe any findings or results that illustrate your project’s 

achievement of this outcome (e.g., “A survey of former participants found that 80 percent were employed within 6 months 

of the training sessions”).

 If you indicated “No” to Q10a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your project’s 

 ability to achieve the desired outcomes. 

If you indicated “Unable to ascertain” to Q10a, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered 

your ability to determine whether the outcome was achieved (e.g., “A low response rate on a follow-up 

survey of former participant”).

 _______________________________________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________________________________ 

 _______________________________________________________________________________________ 
F-30 

A. Please use the space below to identify any additional outcomes that the ARC-funded portion of your 

project was designed to achieve. (You should copy this page if you need to provide information about two 

or more additional ARC-funded outcomes.)

Provide the following information about whether you were able to achieve this additional outcome. 

Additional Outcome Yes No Unable to ascertain 

1 2 3 

B. Which of the following data collection and analysis methods were used to assess whether this outcome had 

been achieved? (Circle all that apply.)

a. Project administrative records (e.g., number of project completers)............................................................... 01 

b. Employment and wage data (e.g., Unemployment Insurance Wage Record System) .................................... 02 

c. Education data (e.g., secondary school graduation and dropout rates) ........................................................... 03 

d. Community economic data (e.g., local unemployment rates)......................................................................... 04 

e. Public assistance (e.g., AFDC, TANF) caseload and benefit data .................................................................. 05 

f. Number of persons who became certified or passed a test.............................................................................. 06 

g. Pre/post test of participants’ skills/knowledge................................................................................................ 07 

h. Conduct survey (e.g., of participants, former participants, employers) .......................................................... 08 

i. Informal (anecdotal) conversations with participants/former participants/employers .................................... 09 

j. Other (specify) ________________________________________________________________________ 10 

C. If you indicated “Yes” to QA, use the space below to describe any findings or results that illustrate your project’s 

achievement of this outcome (e.g., “A survey of former participants found that 80 percent were employed within 6 months 

of the training sessions”).

 If you indicated “No” to QA, use the space below to describe any factors that hindered your project’s 

 ability to achieve the desired outcomes. 

 If you indicated “Unable to ascertain” to QA, use the space below to describe any factors that 

hindered your ability to determine whether the outcome was achieved (e.g., “A low response rate on a follow-up 

survey of former participants”).

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
 G-1 

Appendix G 

Cohort 2 

Survey of ARC-Funded Vocational Education 

and Workforce Training Projects 
G-2 
 G-3 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

Survey of ARC-Funded Vocational Education and Workforce Training Projects 

This survey has been authorized by the Appalachian Regional Commission. While you are not required 

to respond, your cooperation is needed to make the results of this survey comprehensive, accurate, and 

timely. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE SURVEY 

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is conducting a survey of its vocational education and 

workforce training projects funded since 1990. The purpose is to evaluate the impact of its grants and to 

identify ways in which the program might be improved. Your responses to these items will be used to 

assess the extent to which the ARC-funded projects in the study sample were able to achieve their 

proposed outcomes. 

We ask that the requested information be provided by the person who is most knowledgeable about the 

history and current status of the project. The name, contact information, and other descriptive information 

about the project appear below. 

AFFIX LABEL HERE 

If any of the above information is incorrect, please update directly on the label. 

RETURN COMPLETED FORM BY FEBRUARY 22, 2001 TO: 

ARC Evaluation 

Westat 

TB 150F 

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20850 

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, 

CALL: 

Nicole Bartfai 

1-800-937-8281, ext. 3865 
G-4 

SECTION 1: ABOUT THE ARC GRANT 

1. From the list below, please indicate the category that BEST describes the grant recipient organization. (Circle 

only one.) 

Educational Organizations 

 Comprehensive middle or high school................................................................................... 01 

 Area vocational school/vocational high school...................................................................... 02 

 Technical college or institution.............................................................................................. 03 

 Comprehensive community college (degree-granting) .......................................................... 04 

 Four-year postsecondary institution ....................................................................................... 05 

 State education agency........................................................................................................... 06 

 Local school district/agency................................................................................................... 07 

 Other education entity (specify) ______________________________________________ 08 

Government Organizations 

 State government agency ....................................................................................................... 09 

 County government agency.................................................................................................... 10 

 City or municipal government agency ................................................................................... 11 

 Other government entity (specify) ____________________________________________ 12 

Other Organizations 

 Social service agency ............................................................................................................. 13 

 Community development organization .................................................................................. 14 

 Health care organization ........................................................................................................ 15 

 Consortia of organizations ..................................................................................................... 16 

 Other community entity (specify) _____________________________________________ 17 

2. During what year(s) did you receive ARC funds for this project? (Circle all that apply.)

 

a. Prior to 1990............................................... 01 

b. 1990............................................................ 02 

c. 1991............................................................ 03 

d. 1992............................................................ 04 

e. 1993............................................................ 05 

f. 1994............................................................ 06 

g. 1995............................................................ 07 

h. 1996............................................................ 08 

i. 1997............................................................ 09 

j. 1998............................................................ 10 

k. 1999............................................................ 11 

l. 2000............................................................ 12 
G-5 

SECTION 2: ABOUT THE OVERALL PROJECT 

3. Which of the following statements BEST applies to the participants (e.g., students/trainees/workers) in your 

project? (Circle only one.)

 The majority of participants had never held a full-time job (e.g., students, displaced homemakers) . 1 

 The majority of participants were full-time employees or had previously been employed full time.. 2 

 Combination of the first two............................................................................................................... 3 

4. Which of the following BEST describes the age range of participants in this project? (Circle only one.)

 Primarily youth (18 or younger) ........................................................................................ 1 

 Primarily adults.................................................................................................................. 2 

 Both youth and adults ........................................................................................................ 3 

5. Which one of the following BEST describes the geographic distribution of the individuals expected to benefit

from this project? (Circle only one.)

 In a single city or town ....................................................................................... 01 

 In a single county................................................................................................ 02 

 In a single school district .................................................................................... 03 

 In a major metropolitan area (i.e., a central city and its adjacent counties) ........ 04 

 In 2 or more counties or school districts within a single state (not associated 

 with a common metropolitan area) ..................................................................... 05 

 In all counties within a single state..................................................................... 06 

 In 2 or more states............................................................................................... 07 

 Other area definition not listed above (specify) ________________________ 08 

6. Indicate whether your project was designed to provide services, resources, or other assistance to any 

of the following groups. (Circle all that apply.)

a. Extreme poverty .................................................................................................. 01 

b. Illiterate................................................................................................................ 02 

c. Limited English speaking .................................................................................... 03 

d. Disabled............................................................................................................... 04 

e. Geographically isolated/rural............................................................................... 05 

f. Unemployed/underemployed............................................................................... 06 

g. Underrepresented minorities................................................................................ 07 

h. Migrant workers/migrant students....................................................................... 08 

i. Public assistance recipients.................................................................................. 09 

j. School dropouts ................................................................................................... 10 

k. Other group not listed (specify) _______________________________ 11 
G-6 

7. Listed below are immediate and long-term goals commonly anticipated by vocational education and 

workforce training projects. Please indicate whether each of the following was viewed as 

 an immediate goal that project participants would be expected to achieve at the time they complete 

your project,

 a long-term goal that project participants would ultimately (i.e., after 1-3 years) be expected to 

achieve as a result of their participation in your project, or 

 not a goal of your project. 

Circle one response for each line. 

Goal Immediate goal Long-term goal Not a project 

goal 

Obtain skills 

a. Provide individuals with basic skills (e.g., 

literacy)............................................................. 1 2 3 

b. Provide individuals with academic skills.......... 1 2 3 

c. Provide individuals with vocational and 

technical skills .................................................. 1 2 3 

d. Provide individuals with employability skills 

(e.g., resume writing)........................................ 1 2 3 

e. Help individuals obtain a high school diploma, 

GED, or equivalent........................................... 1 2 3 

f. Help individuals obtain a degree/credential...... 1 2 3 

Individual employment gains 

g. Help individuals who have never held fulltime employment gain initial full-time 

employment ...................................................... 1 2 3 

h. Help employed individuals maintain current 

employment ...................................................... 1 2 3 

i. Help employed individuals increase jobrelated responsibilities, gain promotion, and/or 

earn increased wages ........................................ 1 2 3 

j. Help underemployed or dislocated workers 

obtain new employment.................................... 1 2 3 

k. Retrain workers in another field/help 

employed individuals obtain new 

employment ...................................................... 1 2 3 

Community impacts 

l. Help local businesses........................................ 1 2 3 

m. Increase the economic viability of the 

community........................................................ 1 2 3 
G-7 

8. Below is a list of activities that are commonly conducted by vocational education and workforce training 

projects. For each type of activity listed (a through i), please answer the following questions. 

Column A – Was this activity conducted as part of your project? Circle 1 for “Yes” and 2 for “No.” If you 

answered “Yes,” continue with Column B. If you answered “No,” skip Column B. Repeat this 

for each activity. 

Column B – Did ARC contribute funding for this activity? Circle 1 for “Yes” and 2 for “No.” 

(A) (B) Activity Yes No Yes No 

a. Purchase, rent, or lease any equipment (e.g., 

industrial equipment, computer hardware or 

software, medical equipment) .............................. 1 2 1 2 

b. Support the development, construction, 

expansion, or leasing of a physical plant.............. 1 2 1 2 

c. Conduct training activities (e.g., adult basic 

education, academic training, 

vocational/technical training, on-the-job 

training, apprenticeships) ..................................... 1 2 1 2 

d. Provide training to project staff............................ 1 2 1 2 

e. Develop/purchase training materials .................... 1 2 1 2 

f. Perform community outreach (e.g., community 

partnerships)......................................................... 1 2 1 2 

g. Provide job assistance and career counseling....... 1 2 1 2 

h. Provide social support services (e.g., 

emotional/psychological counseling) ................... 1 2 1 2 

i. Other (specify)___________________________ 1 2 1 2 
G-8 

SECTION 3: PROJECT DATA COLLECTION STRATEGIES 

9. Has this project received funding or support from any other federal agencies since receiving the ARC grant? 

Please include federal grants/administrative monies channeled through the state. (Circle only one.) 

Yes................................................................... 1 (Continue with Q10) 

No.................................................................... 2 (Skip to Q11) 

10. Below is a list of federal agencies that commonly administer or provide funding and support to vocational 

education and workforce training projects. For each federal agency listed (a through h), please answer the 

following questions. 

Column A – Did this federal agency ever provide funding or support to your project? Circle 1 for 

“Yes” and 2 for “No.” If you answered “Yes,” continue with Columns B and C. If you 

answered “No,” skip Columns B and C. Repeat for each agency. 

Column B – Write in the name of the office or program that provided funding or support for your project. 

Column C – Were you required to report any outcome data about participants? Circle 1 for “Yes” and 2 for “No.” 

(A) (B) (C) 

Federal Agency 

Yes No Name of office or program Yes No 

i. Department of Education......... 1 2 1 2 

j. Department of Labor ............... 1 2 1 2 

k. Department of Health and 

Human Services....................... 1 2 1 2 

l. Department of Commerce ....... 1 2 1 2 

m. Department of Agriculture....... 1 2 1 2 

n. Department of Justice .............. 1 2 1 2 

o. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development................. 1 2 1 2 

p. Other (specify) ____________ 1 2 1 2 
G-9 

11. Did (or will) your project collect any outcome data on project participants and/or the overall community? 

(Circle only one.)

Yes, we have already begun collecting outcome data............. 1 (Continue with Q12) 

Yes, we will eventually be collecting outcome data...... 2 (Continue with Q12) 

No................................................................................... 3 (Skip to Q16) 

12. What outcome data did (or will) your project collect about project participants and/or the overall community? 

(Circle all that apply.)

Educational Status of Participants 

a. Increase in knowledge or skills ..................................................................................................... 01 

b. Completion of a secondary or postsecondary skills training program........................................... 02 

c. Attainment of high school diploma or a GED............................................................................... 03

d. Attainment of a technical or vocational degree/credential/certificate ........................................... 04 

e. Entrance into a postsecondary 2-year or 4-year college or university........................................... 05 

f. Attainment of an associate’s, bachelor’s, or higher degree ........................................................... 06 

g. Other (specify) _______________________________________________________________ 07 

Employment Status of Participants 

h. Job placements .............................................................................................................................. 08 

i. Job retention .................................................................................................................................. 09 

j. Job promotions .............................................................................................................................. 10 

k. Wages/earnings ............................................................................................................................. 11 

l. Employer-provided health care benefits........................................................................................ 12 

m. Public assistance (e.g., AFDC, TANF) case closures or grant reductions due to increased 

earnings ......................................................................................................................................... 13 

n. Other (specify) _______________________________________________________________ 14 

Community Impacts 

o. Number of businesses served by the project.................................................................................. 15 

p. Number of businesses hiring project participants.......................................................................... 16 

q. Other (specify) _______________________________________________________________ 17 
G-10 

13. Which of the following data collection and analysis methods were (or will be) used to collect outcome data on 

project participants and/or the overall community? (Circle all that apply.)

a. Analysis of project administrative records .................................................................................... 01 

b. Analysis of employment and wage data (e.g., Unemployment Insurance Wage Record 

System).......................................................................................................................................... 02 

c. Analysis of education data (e.g., graduation and dropout rates).................................................... 03 

d. Analysis of community economic data (e.g., local unemployment rates) ..................................... 04 

e. Analysis of public assistance (e.g., AFDC, TANF) caseload and benefit data.............................. 05 

f. Analysis of participants’ certification or test records .................................................................... 06 

g. Pre/post tests of participants’ aptitudes/knowledge/skills ............................................................. 07 

h. Mail survey of participants/former participants ............................................................................ 08 

i. Telephone survey of participants/former participants ................................................................... 09 

j. Informal conversations with participants/former participants ....................................................... 10 

k. Mail/telephone survey of local employers..................................................................................... 11 

l. Other (specify) _______________________________________________________________ 12 

14. When did (or will) you collect outcome data on the status of project participants and/or the overall 

community? (Check all that apply.)

a. At the end of their participation in the project............................................................................... 1 

b. 1-6 months after they left (or leave) the project ............................................................................ 2 

c. 7-12 months after they left (or leave) the project ............................................................................................................................................. 3 

d. 13-24 months after they left (or leave) the project ........................................................................ 4 

e. More than 24 months after they left (or leave) the project ............................................................ 5 

15. If you have already collected outcome data (circled “1” in Q11), please use the space below to briefly 

describe some of the findings that have emerged. 
G-11 

16. Have any of the following factors hindered your ability to collect outcome data on the status of project 

participants and/or the overall community? (Circle all that apply.)

g. Did not encounter any obstacles..................................................................... 1 (Skip to Q18) 

h. Lack of funding or staff.................................................................................. 2 

i. Lack of time ................................................................................................... 3 

j. Lack of access to expertise in data collection and analysis ............................ 4 

k. Difficulty of tracking participants after they have left the project.................. 5 

l. Other (specify) _______________________________________________ 6 

17. If you have encountered obstacles that have hindered data collection (answered any options b through f in 

Q16), please use the space below to discuss how you have or plan to overcome these obstacles. 
G-12 

SECTION 4: CONTACT INFORMATION 

18. Please provide the name, telephone number, e-mail address, and the most convenient days/times to reach the 

primary respondent for this survey. The information will be used only if it is necessary to clarify any of your 

responses. Please keep a copy of the completed questionnaire for your records. 

Name Convenient days/times to reach you, 

if necessary 

Title 

Day Time 

Telephone (with area code) a.m. 

 p.m. 

E-mail address a.m. 

 p.m. 

 a.m. 

 p.m. 

THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING US IN THIS SURVEY. 

YOUR TIME AND EFFORT ARE APPRECIATED. 

Please return this questionnaire in the enclosed envelope or send to: 

Westat

TB 150F-ARC (742404)

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850 

If you have any questions, please call Nicole Bartfai at 

1-800-937-8281, ext. 3865