THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE AS ENTREPRENEUR:DEVELOPING AND SUSTAINING EFFECTIVE

NONCREDIT WORKFORCE TRAINING PARTNERSHIPS

Kristine M. Condon, Doctoral CandidateCommunity College Leadership Program

National Louis University

How does your institution define “noncredit workforce training”?

Therein lies the problem.

Background and Context

How is a “training partnership” defined?Why so many monikers used to describe noncredit workforce training units?Do we brand ourselves as providers of noncredit workforce training?How are these partnerships developed and sustained?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to identify how and in what ways Illinois single-campus community

colleges develop and sustain effective noncredit workforce training partnerships.

Significance of the Study

Entrepreneurial partnerships are increasingly critical sources of community college revenuePartnership revenues can sustain budgets; support missions; underwrite otherwise unaffordable projectsPartnership revenues can creatively and flexibly fund auxiliary and remedial services

Significance of the Study

Accreditation: Increased focus on noncredit workforce training outcomes as part of CQICompletion: Build effective bridges to credit-bearing courseworkWorkforce Development: Better-positioned to serve industry training needsGap in Literature: Little exists on entrepreneurial orientation of community colleges and their business partners

Four Guiding Questions

1. How do noncredit workforce training units support the community college’s mission?

2. What characteristics define effective community college noncredit workforce training partnerships?

3. How does the community college initiate outreach to develop noncredit workforce training partnerships?

4. What characteristics or elements contribute to successfully maintaining noncredit workforce training partnerships?

Conceptual Framework

Lumpkin and Dess’s (1996) Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct

InnovativenessRisk TakingProactivenessCompetitive AggressivenessAutonomy

Conceptual Framework

Amey, Eddy, and Ozaki’s (2007) Partnership Development Model

Stage 1: Partnership Development

Antecedents, Motivation, Context, Partnership Itself

Stage 2: Partnership Sustainability/MaintenanceOverlying Themes

FeedbackChampion

Conceptual Framework

Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (1993) Four Levels of Training Evaluation

Level 1: Reaction to TrainingLevel 2: Learning Occurring Due to Training

Level 3: Behavioral Change Due to TrainingLevel 4: Results Occurring Due to Training

Methodology: Research Design

Qualitative ParadigmOntology (Knowledge is socially constructed)Focus (Study is inductive in nature)Observation (Participants are examined in natural settings)Collection/analysis (Common patterns/themes and multiple perspectives are sought)

Methodology: Case Study

Characteristic of Case Study Applicability to This Study

Seeks to understand human action (Stake, 1995)

Little is known about partnerships or contribution to community college context

Are empirical, particularistic, heuristic (Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009)

Relationships are a phenomenon to be investigated in-depth

Employ evidentiary sources/triangulation (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009)

Surveys, in-person interviews, document review, field notes were utilized

Utilize conceptual framework (Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009)

One construct and two models were employed to build framework

Bound the setting or context (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009)

Study was limited to Illinois single-campus community colleges

Yield descriptive findings (Merriam, 2009)

Study findings apply to other community colleges and their business partners

Data Collection Procedures

Sequential, multi-method approachCommunity collegesRelated business and industry training partners

Purposeful sampling with maximum variationLocation of noncredit unit within the hierarchyVariety of businesses and industries contracting with colleges for noncredit workforce training

Carnegie Size and Setting ClassificationsCarnegie Basic Classifications

Data Collection: Site Criteria

Phase 1: Survey DistributionEach Illinois single-campus community collegeIncluded request for names of two noncredit workforce training partners willing to participateIncluded request for an in-person interview

Phase 2: In-person InterviewFive community collegesFive noncredit workforce training partners

Data Collection: Site Criteria

Size and Setting Definition Number of IL Single-campus Community

CollegesSmall Two-Year 500-1,999 FTE 7

Medium Two-Year 2,000-4,999 FTE 16

Large or Very Large Two-Year

5,000 FTE or greater 14

Adapted from “Size and Setting Classifications,” by Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2012, http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/size_setting.php

Data Collection: Site Criteria

Basic Classification Number of IL Single-campus Community

CollegesAssociate’s: Public Rural-Serving Large 15

Associate’s: Public Rural-Serving Medium 6

Associate’s: Public Suburban-Serving Multicampus 14

Associate’s: Public Suburban-Serving Single Campus 12

Adapted from “Basic Classification Descriptions,” by Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2012, http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/basic.php

Data Collection: Site Criteria (of 36 single-campus community colleges invited to participate)

29 community colleges (80.5%) participated in web-based survey

21 of 29 community colleges (72.4%) disclosed college names

5 of 21 college administrators (23%) interviewed along with

one business and industry partner per college

Participating Community Colleges

Institution Carnegie Size and Setting

Carnegie Basic Setting

Geographic Region

Evergreen Community College

Medium Two-year Public Suburban-Serving Single Campus

Northern

Gerard Community College

Small Two-year Public Rural-Serving Medium Campus

Southern

Hamilton Community College

Very Large or Large Two-year

Public Suburban-Serving Single Campus

Northern

Pierce Community College

Medium Two-year Public Rural-Serving Large Campus

Central

Richard Community College

Medium Two-Year Public Rural-Serving Large Campus

Central

Participating Training Partners

Noncredit Workforce Training Partner Name

Nature of Business or Industry

Greening Partners Dislocated worker training in industrial, manufacturing, healthcare, and green careers

Kappa Construction Metal fabrication and distribution

Miller Manufacturing Transportation technologies

Otis Mechanical Industrial, maintenance, and warehouse logistics and technologies

Quickspeed Transportation Mass transit and transport services for the disabled

Data Collection: Participant Criteria

Community College PartnersNoncredit workforce training directors, deans, or vice presidents accountable for unit’s daily operationTwo years in the position

Business and Industry PartnersDirect working relationship with the community collegePlant managers, HR directors, or mid- to upper-level administrators

Data Collection Methods

Web-based surveyReceived ICCET/WeTRaIN assistance in distributionVetted community colleges using Carnegie criteriaConfirmed contact information for two noncredit workforce training partners provided by vetted colleges

In-person interviewsFive community collegesFive related noncredit workforce training partners

Data Collection Methods

Survey resultsGeneral demographic data collection Questions mapped to components of conceptual framework using Likert scale

InterviewsDocuments, web content, and related artifactsField notes

ObservationalReflective

Data Analysis Procedures

All interview transcripts, documents, and other information uploaded into NVivo10® databaseCreswell’s (2007) Data Analysis Spiral Used

Creswell’s Data Analysis Spiral (2007). Adapted from Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.), by J.W. Creswell. Copyright 2007 by Sage Publications.

Findings, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)

Innovativeness:Community frequently does not understand noncredit workforce training’s functionInnovative role of noncredit workforce training should be in mission statements, institutional identities, and strategic plansColleges believed ICCB guidelines hampered innovativeness

Participants did not fully understand ICCB rules that presumably hampered this innovativeness

Findings, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)

Innovativeness and EO demonstrated by:Community colleges’ public visibilityResponding rapidly and efficiently to training needsStaying current with business and industry trendsUsing grants to spur new training partnershipsInvolvement in local EDAs, chambers, WIBsArticulating noncredit to credit-bearing courseworkBringing noncredit training partners to campusFlexibility in training times, start/stop datesIntegrating training into clients’ strategic plans

Findings, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)

Risk taking is not presentFailure to take measures of calculated riskFailure to position the cc as a regional training providerRisk averseCompeting with external and internal training initiatives

Findings, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)

Proactiveness is complementary to innovativeness

Involvement with WIBs, EDAsAssessing training needs & researching industryKeeping communication lines open

Findings, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)

Competitive aggressiveness rarely, if ever, displayed

No willingness to be unconventionalNo “head to head” confrontationCited statutory and ICCB guidelines as rationale

Findings, Lumpkin and Dess (1996)

Autonomy frequently illustratedRole of the president in initiating connectionsRole of the noncredit workforce training unit in sustaining connections

Findings, Amey et al. (2007)

Antecedents often prompt a partnershipStrategic plans and resource sharingValidating training needsUnderstanding relationships and roles

Findings, Amey et al. (2007)

Motivation often prompts a partnershipPartnership fundingGrants often are the impetus for the training relationshipAs long as one partner does not disproportionately benefit, motivation usually pays offEmphasis on skill-buildingRole of the EDA, regional partner, or WIB

Findings, Amey et al. (2007)

Context for development and sustainabilityRationale for involvement in the partnershipCost-sharing opportunitiesCommunity needs

Findings, Amey et al. (2007)

Communication critical to sustainable partnershipsAcademic politics cited as internal impediments to sustainabilityLack of planning, business logistics, economic impacts, employee turnover, community college credibility cited as external impediments to sustainability

Findings, Amey et al. (2007)

Feedback requires regular meetings to get input and to inform future program designChampion must come from the community college and is usually the presidentRole of champion is often tied to visibility, not capital or ability to bring people to the tableOther community college staff who self-identified as champions are actually closers

Findings, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (1993)

Level 1 reaction:Used for marketing purposes, not for improving trainingNot used to close the loop on a training cycleNot used to plan for Level 2 learning evaluation

Level 2 learning:Pre- and post-testing conducted inconsistently, rendering findings less usefulUse of standardized tests (TABE) to measure Level 2 learning are not pre-tests

Findings, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (1993)

Level 3 behavior:Infrequently conducted because of difficulty in measurementLack of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for behavioral changeConcern about inapplicability to certain kinds of training

Level 4 results:No one could provide an exampleDoes not meet ROE (Kirkpatrick, 2009)

Emerging Themes

Unified definition of a community college champion

Champion must come from the collegeBoth sides must view this person as the champion

Significance of a closerSome self-identified champions are closersBrings partnership to fruition

Emerging Themes

Importance of databases to partnership development

CRM allows centralized recordkeepingUse of noncredit advisory committees

Not required by ICCB guidelinesConsider extending credit-level membership to noncredit councils

The Deliverable

Condon’s Noncredit Workforce Training Partnership ModelCombining best practices of

Entrepreneurial orientationPartnership development and sustenanceTraining evaluation tools

Condon’s Noncredit Workforce Training Partnership Model (2014)

College Mission Statement

College Strategic Plan

College EO and Context

Closer

SuccessInitiating Outreach

Maintaining Outreach

Training Design & Development Training

Delivery

Training Evaluation

Follow-up Evaluation

Strategic Plan for Training

COLLEGECHAMPION

Needs Assessment

Feedback Loop

Thank you!

Your support is greatly appreciated!

ReferencesAmey, M. J., Eddy, P. L., & Ozaki, C. C. (2007). Demands for partnership and collaboration in higher education: A model. New Directions for Community Colleges, 139, 5-14. doi: 10.1002/cc.288Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2012). Basic classification description. Retrieved from Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching website: http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/ descriptions/basic.phpCarnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2012). Size and setting classification description. Retrieved from Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching website: http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/size_setting.phpCreswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.