Multi-State Advanced Manufacturing Consortium (M-SAMC) TAACCCT Round II Grant Final Evaluation…
Author(s): Individual author not identified
Organizational Author(s): Corporation for a Skilled Workforce and the New Growth Group
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration
Resource Availability: Publicly available
Examines a competency-based model to enhance partner capacity building, curriculum design, and delivery as part of an implementation and impact evaluation of a multistate, multicollege manufacturing-focused Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training grant.
The Multi-State Advanced Manufacturing Consortium [M-SAMC] consists of 13 colleges in 10 states and “aims to use a competency-based model to develop new and modified industry-driven manufacturing curricula and credentials, transform instructional design and delivery systems to accelerate and contextualize learning; redesign student support, success and placement strategies to increase credential attainment; and develop administrative structures to support instructional design” (p.15).
“The original population to be served…was [Trade Adjustment Assistance]-like individuals (older, less skilled adult learners)” and “a limited number of such individuals were served” (p.4). The demand for “high entry level skills in order to complete the courses of study for this field” necessitated a pool of students “with high aptitudes and solid academic backgrounds. That is the typical profile of M-SAMC consortium participants” (p.4).
Four questions drove the implementation evaluation: “1) How was the particular curriculum selected; 2) How were programs and program design improved or expanded using grant funds; 3) Did the grantee conduct in-depth assessment to select participants; and 4) What contributions did each of the partners make in terms of curriculum development, recruitment, training, placement, program management, leveraging resources, and commitment to program sustainability?” (p.6).
Implementation sources included:
- “[P]hone interviews with all of the participating colleges, to assess how they were progressing …and recommendations the colleges had for going forward” (p.7).
- “[P]hone interviews and limited surveys of faculty, employers, and students” (p.7).
- “[O]n-site case studies of four participating colleges to gather information about their progress on local implementation of…grant deliverables” (p.7).
The study employed a quasi-experimental design in which each program was compared with “at least one comparison group” (p.9). “The impact research questions are based on the [U.S. Department of Labor] reporting requirements for the annual performance report” (p.8). Data sources included:
- Student demographic and baseline data
- College submitted data, including completion information
- State quarterly earnings records
- Participant surveys to obtain employment and earnings data (p.9).
(Abstractor: Author and Website Staff)Full publication title: Multi-State Advanced Manufacturing Consortium (M-SAMC) TAACCCT Round II Grant Final Evaluation Report
Major Findings & Recommendations
The implementation evaluation found “a wide range of [capacity building] activities [were] engaged in by the colleges from seminars to on-line learning, to focused industry developed training for their equipment” (p.10). “There was also a much more open-ended opportunity for capacity building within each participating college that could be used for any form of development, aimed at any staff through whose development the grant implementation might be enhanced” (p.9).
“Most important for M-SAMC partner colleges were the employer partnerships either developed or strengthened by participation in the consortium. Particularly where there were large employers…there were opportunities realized to bring those employers’ needs to the table and to work with them to structure delivery that met their needs” (p.11).
“Overall, many colleges were able to accomplish gains in enrollment numbers over the course of the grant period. Several colleges accomplished increases in diversity in terms of gender, race, incumbent workers, or Pell-eligible students. Generally, completion rates were similar or out-performed comparison group completion rates. Employment outcomes were not subject to comparison analyses due to availability of employment data for comparison group members” (p. 35). “Of note, due to gaps in data, especially employment data, many of the outcome numbers are lower than might be expected. Indeed, with complete data, it is expected that many of these counts would be higher” (p.35)
“Over the course of the grant, 1635 participants completed a grant-affected program of study (629 of whom were incumbent workers). The completion rate for participants was generally similar to, or greater than, the completion rate for comparison individuals on a program-by-program basis” (p.35).
“Participants earned 2,524 certificates or degrees over the course of the grant. 1,357 students earned short-term certificates, 222 earned long-term certificates, and 352 earned degrees” (p.36).
“Of those who were non-incumbent workers at the time of entering, 311 participants who completed a grant-affected program gained employment in the semester after completion” (p.36).
(Abstractor: Author and Website Staff)