The California Employment Training Panel approved funding proposals across dozens of employers on Dec. 1, advancing roughly $24.2 million in training contracts intended to upskill about several thousand workers statewide.

Executive Director Jessica Grimes told the panel that, if all proposals were approved, 16 of them would come from high‑unemployment areas and the meeting could result in dozens of awards. She said the agenda combined two meetings into one and highlighted that the funding would support projects from high‑unemployment regions and a mix of single‑employer, multiple‑employer and apprenticeship initiatives.

Panel members voted to fund a wide range of projects, including first‑time and repeat contractors. Notable approvals included critical and large employer requests such as GKN Aerospace’s critical proposal to support an expansion in San Diego County, Anduril Industries’ critical training proposal and awards to manufacturers and service employers including Clorox, Pacific Gas & Electric and Relativity Space. Smaller and multiple‑employer contracts for community colleges, chambers of commerce and workforce providers were also approved.

Panel members questioned applicants on turnover rates, wage progression and administrative capacity during multiple presentations. In the case of an Associated Builders & Contractors‑Central California proposal, members pressed the applicant on post‑retention wages; the panel moved to approve the contract with a $20 per hour post‑retention wage requirement.

Staff and the panel also discussed non‑traditional apprenticeship pilots and a series of DAS‑approved apprenticeship requests for occupations such as opticians, baristas and marine technicians. Staff emphasized employer engagement and hands‑on training as key elements for program success.

In a separate procedural action, the panel considered a second‑level appeal from Vino Farms (a previously denied applicant). After hearing company comments and legal argument, the panel voted to delegate authority to a subcommittee of panel members to hold the hearing rather than to refuse the appeal or refer it to an administrative law judge.

The meeting concluded after dozens of motions and roll‑call votes; staff indicated the panel approved the remaining consent calendar items and a large set of pulled proposals. The panel adjourned and scheduled follow‑up where required for tabbed items that had been tabled for staff clarification.