Yes, the starting wages need to be higher, and tying it to the living wage is ideal (though this may require some public subsidies for occupations providing a public good, such as early childhood educators and behavioral health counselors). There also still needs to be supportive services. The mix in Oregon now for financial supports (in 7 targeted trades related to highway and bridge construction) are about 75% for child care subsidies (to keep costs affordable, which is defined as no more than 7% of household income), 17% for hardship assistance, and small amounts for job readiness supplies. Non-financial supports include some social support (guidance, mentoring, navigation, etc.). Pre-apprenticeship programs should be able to demonstrate placement of at least 15% of graduates.
Requesting and receiving reciprocity is a broken process filled with red tape. I could write a newsletter series going state by state to illustrate the conditions and obstacles that states put up in order to force registration when reciprocity is the correct vehicle. Or worse, states that don’t want to grant reciprocity or registration in order to force in-state programs to be used.
As you said, incentives matter and there appears to be a missing incentive to grant reciprocity.
Not sure if this is a topic you’ll cover but it was missing from this article so I wanted to point it out.
Neither reciprocity nor apprenticeability fit neatly here. I’ll hit them down the line. Your point is well taken, though. It’s why I get concerned about the shift of RAPs to states as the Trump folks envision it. The infrastructure (and the law) aren’t there.
Yes, the starting wages need to be higher, and tying it to the living wage is ideal (though this may require some public subsidies for occupations providing a public good, such as early childhood educators and behavioral health counselors). There also still needs to be supportive services. The mix in Oregon now for financial supports (in 7 targeted trades related to highway and bridge construction) are about 75% for child care subsidies (to keep costs affordable, which is defined as no more than 7% of household income), 17% for hardship assistance, and small amounts for job readiness supplies. Non-financial supports include some social support (guidance, mentoring, navigation, etc.). Pre-apprenticeship programs should be able to demonstrate placement of at least 15% of graduates.
Requesting and receiving reciprocity is a broken process filled with red tape. I could write a newsletter series going state by state to illustrate the conditions and obstacles that states put up in order to force registration when reciprocity is the correct vehicle. Or worse, states that don’t want to grant reciprocity or registration in order to force in-state programs to be used.
As you said, incentives matter and there appears to be a missing incentive to grant reciprocity.
Not sure if this is a topic you’ll cover but it was missing from this article so I wanted to point it out.
Neither reciprocity nor apprenticeability fit neatly here. I’ll hit them down the line. Your point is well taken, though. It’s why I get concerned about the shift of RAPs to states as the Trump folks envision it. The infrastructure (and the law) aren’t there.