Why colleges and non-profits struggle to engage employers

As the new Workforce Pell Grant Program becomes available to students in the United States, the race is on for education and non-profit leaders to close the communication gap that has persisted between themselves and local employers, preventing the sort of high-quality workforce training that is so desperately needed.

For more than a decade, I have heard the same frustrations from educators year after year: they cannot get employers to engage as they try to create a workforce-ready curriculum. Companies miss meetings or disappear after expressing interest, leading providers to increase their outreach, as foundations finance yet another partnership strategy, only to hear the same complaint over again.

But what may seem like a participation problem may actually be a misdiagnosis; employers aren’t participating because they’re bad partners but because the partnerships themselves are unequal. Too often, by the time employers are invited into discussions, a college has already built its certificate programme, or a non-profit has already committed to its training model.

Employers become disengaged because they’re asked to support somebody else’s answer before everyone has agreed on the question, turning the potential for true partnership into an exercise of checking boxes.

Now, with the Workforce Pell Grant Program offering qualified short-term programmes money for training students for the high-skill, high-wage and in-demand work employers need, ensuring that that partnership is successful is all the more important.

Across the federal US government, there are more than US$250 billion in funds available. But in order to receive that funding, colleges and non-profits need to do what many will readily admit is difficult: learn what employers actually need. Workforce Pell can reward the colleges and non-profits that get employer alignment right, but it cannot, on its own, teach them how to engage employers.

Miscommunication problems

The problem often begins with alignment on simple nomenclature and vocabulary. To an educator, a ‘pathway’ may be a sequence of courses; to an employer, it’s a dependable source of hires. A college may see a credential as evidence of learning, while a hiring manager asks whether it predicts performance. In meetings, people nod along because the language sounds familiar, only to discover later that they agreed to different things.

Their timelines and scorecards create another divide. Schools approve programmes months or years ahead, while a business may revise its hiring plan in weeks. Educators count enrolment and completion; employers track vacancies, retention, cost per hire and speed to productivity. Unless those differences are discussed, both sides can leave believing they agreed and spend months pursuing outcomes the other did not expect.

The need for an independent intermediary

Part of the problem is that employers are not always ready with a clear answer. Job titles vary, requirements conflict and a labour shortage may turn out to be a problem with wages or the company’s screening practices, creating a moving target for educators.

It’s why, as businesses and education leaders come together, they may need an intermediary who helps translate. Before providers propose solutions, a business-led intermediary can protect the conversation by pressing for specificity and keeping students’ interests in view. Without them, these conversations start to seem like sales pitches, as every college, district and non-profit in the room tries to promote its programme.

The intermediary must also be independent: an organisation running a training programme has seats to fill, and having a neutral facilitator prevents conflict of interest.

Independence allows the intermediary to challenge both sides. It can question an unnecessary degree requirement, assess whether the jobs offer wages and advancement worth pursuing, or tell a provider that a valued programme no longer matches the market. With a business background, they can also push employers to name specific occupations they’re hiring for, rather than just a general shortage.

The intermediary also reduces exposure for businesses, who are wary of the time and potential legal concerns that can arise from agreeing to anything too ambitious. Especially for small businesses, which employ nearly half the private-sector workforce, the return on participation can be uncertain. An intermediary can ease those concerns by clarifying responsibilities and testing an idea before asking everyone to commit.

Listening to demand

The reality is that the harder training providers push a predetermined programme, the less inclined employers are to invest. And there is real money in motion. BlackRock’s recently announced Future Builders initiative alone commits US$100 million in philanthropic capital to reach 50,000 skilled trades workers over five years.

Money tends to follow those who listen to the demand and adjust what they offer, whether that means changing a schedule, recognising a different credential or rebuilding the curriculum.

For their part, employers also have an obligation to uphold: If a company said a specific credential matters, its recruiting system should recognise it. While completing a programme may not entitle anyone to a job, it should earn candidates a serious look from the employers that helped create it.

With more money on the line, it’s more vital than ever that educators work these problems out with employers. Inviting them to endorse a finished product will push them away, but giving them an honest problem to solve, with no predetermined answer waiting, can create a partnership and a workforce that’s willing to stay.

Scott Laband is the president and CEO of Colorado Succeeds, a non-profit, non-partisan coalition of business leaders committed to improving the state’s education and workforce system.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.