Employment Training Panel hears stakeholder preferences on four apprenticeship funding models

The Employment Training Panel convened a public apprenticeship listening session to review survey results and solicit feedback on four proposed models for distributing supplemental ETP apprenticeship funds. Staff said they emailed 221 stakeholders and received 57 responses (35 with narrative), and presented four options ranging from proportional scaling to hybrid state‑and‑regional allocations.

Willie Atkinson, Assessment Programs division manager, summarized the survey and the four funding models, saying, "These models are, the first 1, symmetric scaling" and describing model 2 as "per apprentice base rate," model 3 as a hybrid split between historical performers and new programs, and model 4 as a hybrid tied to state and regional workforce demand. Atkinson told the panel the narratives emphasized several themes including flat rates per apprentice, incentives for priority populations, new sponsors and emerging occupations, and needs‑based or performance weighting.

Panel members asked clarifying questions about the mechanics and intent of the models. Panel member Gretchen Newsome sought a clearer explanation of symmetric scaling (model 1); Atkinson explained that model would apply a uniform proportional scaling factor across approved requests. The chair reiterated that this meeting was for listening and that no votes or decisions would be made today.

Public commenters were invited to speak in alternating in‑room and online turns. Representatives of electrical and joint apprenticeship programs advocated for model 2 (per‑apprentice base rate) or for preserving a substantial share of funding for established trade programs. Anthea DeMarcos of the Los Angeles County Electrical Educational & Training Trust Fund said, "We last year just brought in 650 plus apprentices," and urged that large, multi‑year apprenticeship trusts not be disadvantaged by a cap. Vladimir Bettah, representing joint apprenticeship training committees, argued that traditional JATCs deliver high‑paying jobs and benefits and recommended options 1 or 2 rather than model 3; he noted that a portion of ETP funds already goes to proven programs.

Other commenters favored approaches tied to regional labor market demand. Cheryl Santos of University Lab Partners (UC Irvine) supported model 4, saying it would "allow organizations like us... to build new workforce pathways" in fast‑growing sectors such as biotechnology and advanced manufacturing. Several workforce and community‑serving organizations — including Tom Black and Chris Jorgensen representing trade associations, Amber Shevin of the International Rescue Committee, and Dr. Yvonne Grant of the International Prediabetes Center — emphasized either model 3 or 4 as ways to support new and emerging programs, equity for nontraditional entrants, or regional health workforce needs. Anna Erlewine of Merge Opportunities urged model 4 with a "protected access pool for under‑resourced and first‑time apprentices" to improve pipeline access.

Commenters and panelists also raised eligibility and measurement questions. Michelle Rickner (Job Forward) asked whether completion or graduation rates are considered when distributing funds; Tom Black and others cautioned that "graduation" is measured differently across programs and that consistent metrics may require additional work. Barbara Garcia, who manages an early care and education apprenticeship program, asked whether organizations that do not pay the ETT tax (for example, some 501(c)(3)s) qualify; the chair advised she contact ETP staff for eligibility clarification, noting that eligibility specifics are complex and outside the scope of today's methodology discussion.

The session closed with the chair noting a second listening session in Sacramento (March 27, 02:30–04:30) and a March 26 deadline to submit written comments; she adjourned the meeting at 10:57 a.m. No formal actions or votes were taken at this listening session.