Part 2: My Proposal for a Connecticut Skills & Workforce Trust
Last week, I looked at something I find fascinating: different places have found very different ways to create ongoing investment in workforce development.
The Dominican Republic has INFOTEP. Germany shares responsibility for apprenticeship training between employers and government. Singapore has a Skills Development Levy. France requires employer contributions connected to vocational training and apprenticeships. Massachusetts has a Workforce Training Fund Program, Rhode Island has its Job Development Assessment, and New Jersey has its Workforce Development Partnership Fund.
None of these systems is identical, and I would not suggest that Connecticut simply copy one of them. What I do think we should copy is the idea that workforce development is important enough to have a permanent source of investment behind it.
So, if we were starting from scratch, what could a Connecticut model actually look like?
The Connecticut Skills & Workforce Trust
I would create a permanent Connecticut Skills & Workforce Trust dedicated specifically to workforce training. Employers would contribute a very small amount—perhaps somewhere between 0.05% and 0.10% of covered payroll—with exemptions or reduced requirements for very small businesses.
At 0.10%, we are talking about $1 for every $1,000 of payroll. I would start small, measure the results, and prove that employers and workers are receiving a return before ever discussing whether the contribution should change.
I would also protect the money by law. It should not be collected as a workforce contribution and later moved into the General Fund because the state needs money somewhere else. If we collect it for workforce development, it should remain workforce-development money.
But creating a fund is the easy part. The much harder question is how we keep it from becoming another expensive system where too much money goes to administration, consultants, institutions, and inflated training contracts instead of workers.
That is where the guardrails become important.
Put a Limit on What We Spend Per Worker
I would establish a standard training cap of approximately $5,000 per participant. That number could be adjusted based on actual Connecticut training costs, but there should be a clear ceiling similar to the way other workforce programs limit individual training investments at the workforce boards.
There will obviously be programs that legitimately cost more. Some occupations require longer training, specialized instructors, licensing, or expensive certifications. Exceptions should therefore be possible when there is strong labor-market demand and a good wage attached to the occupation, but an exception should require justification rather than simply becoming the normal way of doing business.
This is important because workforce funding should stretch.
If we have $500,000 available, I would much rather train 100 people successfully for $5,000 each than train 50 because the system decided $10,000 per person was acceptable without asking why.
The question should always be: What are we buying with this investment?
The training cost should also be realistic about what a worker actually needs to complete the program. When possible, approved training costs should include required textbooks, materials, tools, testing fees, and industry certification costs. If a certification exam is not included in the training contract, the Workforce Board Program Manager should be able to pay that cost directly after the participant completes training and is ready to sit for the exam. Otherwise, we risk paying for the training but leaving the worker responsible for a final certification fee they may not be able to afford. In that situation, the person may complete the course but never earn the credential, and the public investment does not produce the outcome we were trying to buy.
Keep Equipment Out of It
I would not allow the Trust to become an equipment fund. Colleges need equipment. Employers need equipment. Training organizations sometimes need equipment. Those are legitimate needs, but they can consume workforce funding very quickly.
There are other grants and capital programs that can address those expenses. I would keep this fund focused on people and training.
Once institutions realize that a permanent workforce fund can purchase machinery, laboratories, renovations, computers, vehicles, and other capital items, the original purpose of the fund can disappear very quickly. A multimillion-dollar piece of equipment may be valuable, but it can also represent hundreds of people who could have received training.
The mission should remain very simple: develop Connecticut’s workers.
Please Don’t Build Another Bureaucracy
This is probably one of the areas where I would be most restrictive.
Connecticut already has five regional Workforce Development Boards. We do not need to create another statewide workforce agency to administer this. The infrastructure already exists.
I would provide each Workforce Development Board with funding for one dedicated Program Manager responsible for coordinating the Trust in the region. If participant volume justifies it, I would add one Case Manager responsible for eligibility, participant documentation, training progress, and follow-up.
That is where I would stop.
The Boards already have leadership, fiscal departments, business-services teams, career centers, and administrative infrastructure. The new fund should use that infrastructure rather than recreating it.
I would also put a statutory cap on total administrative expenses, probably somewhere between 5% and 8% of the fund. More importantly, I would define administration broadly. Salaries count, but so do consultants, indirect charges, marketing contracts, fiscal-management fees, administrative vendors, and similar expenses.
Otherwise we could proudly announce that we only hired two people while quietly spending a substantial portion of the fund somewhere else under “professional services.”
The money needs to reach training.
Customized Training Is Where We Need to Be Careful
I love customized training when it is done correctly. Employers tell us exactly what they need, we build training around that need, workers develop specific skills, and hopefully employment or advancement happens at the end.
However, customized training can also become very expensive very quickly, particularly when everyone knows that grant money is paying for it.
This is where I think we need to change the normal process.
Suppose a Connecticut manufacturer approaches its regional Workforce Development Board because it needs 25 CNC operators. The employer should absolutely help describe the competencies needed, the schedule, the number of workers, the expected starting wage, and any required credential.
One important caveat: the company should be part of the training process. Because the customized program is being designed around that employer’s needs, the employer should also have a role in selecting participants. That gives students a clearer connection to actual job opportunities and gives the employer greater confidence that the trainees are a good fit. If the company is training its own employees, then this requirement is already satisfied.
The Workforce Development Board can then turn that employer need into a training specification.
After that, however, I would require a competitive RFP, and the winning bid should be selected based on a fair, published rubric.
Community colleges, technical schools, adult education programs, nonprofit providers, unions, and qualified private training organizations should all have a fair opportunity to submit proposals.
No provider should automatically receive the contract simply because someone already has a relationship with them.
Cheapest Does Not Always Mean Best
I would not simply give the contract to the lowest bidder. We have all seen what can happen when price is the only consideration.
The goal should be to select the lowest-cost provider that can demonstrate the ability to deliver high-quality training and strong outcomes.
A sample scoring system might assign 30% to cost, 25% to demonstrated training capability, 20% to provider and instructor credentials, 15% to previous completion, and 10% to the provider’s ability to meet the specific employer need.
The percentages could change depending upon the industry or training, but the criteria should be published before proposals are submitted.
That keeps the process fair.
A community college should not automatically win because it is public. A private company should not automatically win because it already works with the employer. A nonprofit should not automatically win because it has a good mission.
If public workforce money is paying, everyone should compete on their ability to produce the result.
Show Me What You Normally Charge
I would add another requirement that I think could save this fund a lot of money.
Any provider submitting a customized-training proposal should disclose what it normally charges for the same or a substantially similar course.
If a training organization normally charges $3,000 per student but submits a Workforce Trust proposal for $6,000 per student, I want to know why.
There may be a legitimate reason. Perhaps the employer needs an evening schedule, the curriculum has to be substantially modified, specialized instructors are required, or there are additional industry credentials involved.
That is fine. Explain it.
What I do not want is for “customized training” to become another term for “the government is paying, so increase the price.”
Massachusetts’ current Workforce Training Fund guidelines already provide an interesting example of cost controls. Its General Program limits instructional rates and currently caps the average training cost in an application at $3,000 per participant while also requiring significant employer investment. We do not have to use the Massachusetts numbers, but the principle is absolutely worth borrowing.
Employers Need Skin in the Game
If an employer is receiving substantial customized-training assistance, I would also expect something from the employer.
That does not always need to mean writing a check. Employer contributions could include wages paid while employees attend training, paid training time, a portion of tuition, apprenticeship wages, guaranteed interviews, documented hiring commitments, providing part of the training, or another meaningful contribution.
Massachusetts already recognizes wages paid during training as part of its employer match for its General Program. I like that approach because it recognizes that an employer allowing workers to train during paid work time is making a real investment.
One of the lessons I take from both Germany and INFOTEP is that workforce development works best when everyone has something invested in the outcome.
Employers should not simply identify the need and send government the bill.
Workers Should Not Have to Become Unemployed First
I would also reserve a portion of the Trust for individual workers who want to move into higher-demand occupations or whose existing jobs are changing. I would not limit eligibility so tightly that workers are excluded simply because they earn too much to qualify for traditional assistance. For this portion of the Trust, I would set a higher income cap—perhaps around 400% of the federal poverty level, but no lower than 300%—so that more working people can access training before they are displaced.
This is going to become increasingly important because of artificial intelligence.
Imagine that someone has worked in an administrative occupation for 15 years and can already see that AI is eliminating parts of the job. That person may still be employed, but they know they need a new skill set.
Why should we tell them to come back after they become unemployed?
That makes absolutely no sense to me.
A strong workforce system should help people stay employable. If an approved $3,500 or $5,000 credential can help someone move into a better occupation before displacement occurs, that may ultimately cost the workforce system much less than waiting until that person is unemployed.
Use Other Funding First When It Makes Sense
The Workforce Trust should not replace WIOA, Workforce Pell, traditional Pell, SNAP Employment & Training, apprenticeship grants, Perkins, employer tuition benefits, or other workforce resources.
It should make those dollars work better together.
If another program can pay an eligible participant’s tuition, use it. If the Workforce Trust can cover a training cost that another program cannot, use the Trust there. If the employer can pay part of the cost, leverage that contribution.
We sometimes spend too much time asking which program owns a participant.
I would rather ask which combination of resources gives that person the best chance of completing training and entering a good job.
Measure the Outcome, Not the Activity
Finally, the Trust should have very clear performance expectations, and the Workforce Board Program Manager should be responsible for tracking them.
I do not want to know only how many people enrolled. Enrollment is an activity, not an outcome. The Program Manager should track how many participants completed training, how many earned the credential, how many obtained employment, what wage they earned, and whether they were still employed six months later. For incumbent workers, the Board should also track whether participants received raises, promotions, or moved into more secure positions. For customized training, it should track whether the employer filled the positions it originally said it needed and whether the employer would participate again.
I would also want the Program Manager to calculate the cost per successful outcome.
If Provider A trains 100 people for $400,000 and 80 obtain employment, while Provider B trains 100 people for the same amount and 25 obtain employment, those programs should not continue receiving funding as though their performance were equal.
Providers producing strong results should have an opportunity to expand. Providers repeatedly producing poor results should lose eligibility.
Permanent funding should never mean permanent entitlement.
Build Workforce Infrastructure, Not Another Workforce Program
What I like about this proposal is that we do not have to reinvent Connecticut’s entire workforce system.
The Workforce Development Boards already exist. Employers already work with them. Training providers already exist. Community colleges, technical high schools, adult education, unions, nonprofits, and private providers already know how to train people.
What we are missing is a sustainable funding mechanism that connects those pieces while keeping the focus on the worker.
So I would create the Connecticut Skills & Workforce Trust. Start with a very small employer contribution. Protect the fund. Cap the investment per worker. Keep equipment out. Keep administration lean. Require competitive bidding for customized training. Make providers disclose their regular prices. Require employers to invest something. Allow workers to access training before unemployment. Stack the funding we already have, and measure whether people actually get jobs.
Maybe the biggest lesson from INFOTEP, Germany, Singapore, France, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Jersey is not that one of them has discovered the perfect workforce model.
It is that they have recognized something we should probably recognize too: developing a workforce is an ongoing economic responsibility.
If we really believe that Connecticut’s people are one of our greatest economic assets, perhaps we should stop funding their development as a temporary project.
