Presentation for CHAMP Leadership meeting on Dec. 4, 2014 by Heather McKay, Director of Rutgers University EERC - CHAMP Grant 3rd-party evaluator.

1. CHAMP EVALUATION
Year One Report
Heather McKay
Director
Education and Employment Research Center
School of Management and Labor Relations

2. Who is EERC?
Education and Employment Research Center
School of Management and Labor Relations Rutgers
We conduct research and evaluation on workforce development
and education issues.
Related Projects:
• COETC Evaluation
• CHEO Evaluation
• Colorado Sectors Project Evaluation
• Lumina Foundation project on linking Higher Education and
the Workforce System

3. CHAMP
The Colorado Helps Advanced Manufacturing Program (CHAMP)
was created to increase the number of manufacturing degrees and
certificates that align with the industry’s competencies and skills
and to establish a pipeline of highly qualified advanced
manufacturing workers. CHAMP goals are:
• Build off Colorado’s existing and emerging manufacturing sector
partnerships and career pathway work to develop employer driven
curriculum
• Use technology to accelerate training and reach a broad audience
• Redesign the current Colorado Community College System model for credit
for prior learning to accelerate certification
• Develop stackable and latticed certificate with agreements between
participating community colleges and Metropolitan State University of
Denver

4. Evaluation
• Third Party Evaluation is required by the USDOL
• Involves:
- Outcomes evaluation
- Quasi-experimental design
- Comparison Cohort
- Outcomes reporting for schools and consortium
- Scorecard
- Process evaluation
- Focused look a various grant topics
- Examination of the project implementation
-Sustainability

5. Year One Report
• Focuses on four major grant goals
• Summarizes progress made to date on those goes in the
consortium and across the nine colleges.
• Uses qualitative data collected in year one
• Focus is primarily in process – development and
implementation of the grant.

6. Methods
• Five principle sources of information
1. Quarterly Reports
2. Project Lead Surveys
3. Navigator Monthly Survey
4. Basecamp
5. Project Lead Interviews
• This information was coded using a the qualitative data
software Nvivo
• Evaluation is grounded and informed primarily by the
developmental evaluation literature

7. Outline
Structured in terms of four primary grant goals
1. College and industry partnerships
2. Technologically advanced education
3. Credit for prior learning redesign
4. Stackable/Latticed certificates and articulation
The report also briefly looks at the following grant activities:
the navigator role, student recruitment and enrollment, and
evaluation next steps.

8. Goal 1: College and Industry Partnerships
• Achieving this goal means close collaboration between
colleges and industry
• Consortium colleges have relationship with 30 plus industry
partners
• Schools are engaging partners differently

9. Goal 1: What has been done?
• PPCC and RRCC have both had equipment donated from
industry partners
• FRCC involved industry in the hiring of their Employer
Outreach Coordinator.
- increased industry buy-in
- fostered active engagement with that coordinator and
the navigator
• FRCC also enlisted the help of industry to layout their new
Advanced Technology Center

10. Goal 1: What else?
• PCC developed a strong relationship with the local workforce
center – this led to ties with industry ie. visits to employers
• PCC reports that this has led to a better understanding of
hiring requirements and skills needed on the shop floor.
• MSU has also visited business sites and included industry
partners in advisory meetings
• There are varying results across the consortium in terms of
curriculum review and advising.

11. Goal 1: How do they work together?
• FRCC has quarterly meetings with partners
• LCC has industry representatives on the faculty
• RRCC uses their advisory committee
• Results from these collaborations include the incorporation of
soft skills materials in most curricula. EGTC and PCC have
paid particular attention to this.

12. Goal 1: Challenges to Date
• Some have struggled to identify industry partners
• Aims wants to build representation from different types of
employers in the field.
• Advisory committee meetings are not always well attended –
for variety of reasons – time, company size etc.
• Engagement is better when employers see a benefit
• New equipment has helped some colleges to get better
engagement

13. Goal 2: Technologically Advanced Education
• Advanced manufacturing relies on technology
• Colleges planned on renovations and technology purchases
• But…this planning takes time and not all the colleges were
able to do all this quickly.
- RRCC facility renovation and equipment purchases
full installation March 2015
- CCD started on old equipment – will transfer to the new
in January 2015

14. Goal 2: Course Redesign
• Reviews in year one of curricula yielded:
- 267 courses needed to be redesigned or created
• Process set-up for redesign and timelines
• Some curricula is done
• Some curricula is still in process
• Delays include equipment, renovation, integrating industry
standards
• As of June 2014, 125 courses were left to be redesigned

15. Goal 2: Other Topics
• Open Educational Resources
• Online and hybrid coursework
• MOOCs

16. Goal 3: Credit for Prior Learning Redesign
• Goal is to review and review credit for prior learning policy in
CO.
• Revisions are to be in line with the Students’ Bill of Rights
• CPL Subcommittee composed college reps, CAEL, and
industry reps.
• First meeting February 2014 – active since then.
• Work guided by a mission statement
• To date they have recommended several changes to CO
policies which will be presented for review in December or
2015.

17. Goal 4: Stackable/Latticed Certificates and
Articulation
• Wide- range of latticing opportunities and stackable
credentials being developed in CHAMP
• Aims has 4 levels of certification within the industrial AAS
degree. There are also latticing opportunities with 4 consortia
colleges.
• Many colleges have already developed CHAMP-specific
articulation with the four year partner – MSU
• Other articulation agreements are also being worked on PCC
and CSU Pueblo, CCD and Regis etc.

18. Navigator
• By summer 2014 all schools except EGTC had hired a
navigator
• Navigator roles vary
- PCC and CCD – advising resource
- LCC – MOOC development and workforce center
collaboration
- MSU – marketing CHAMP programs
- Aims – 50/50 business relationships and mentoring
students

19. Student Recruitment and Enrollment
• While many programs don’t start until Spring 2015 marketing
has begun
• PPCC – student involvement fair and participated in
manufacturing week in Colorado Springs
• LCC – sponsored a career expo focused on their welding
programs
• FRCC – working on recruiting incumbent workers by visiting
companies
• CCD – planning to work with Goodwill Industries and CO
economic development

20. Evaluation Next Steps
• Completed Navigator interviews this week
• Focus group with Career Map team today
• Interviewing committees next – CPL
• Starting in Spring – collect program data
• Site Visits – Fall 2015
• Case studies and topic briefs will come in year 2

21. Website and Contact Information
You can find – contact information, staff information, and reports
from past projects and the Year 1 Report at:
http://smlr.rutgers.edu/eerc
My Contact Information:
Heather A. McKay
hmckay@work.Rutgers.edu
848-445-4735
THANK YOU!

22. CC BY License and Attribution
This Workforce Solution CHAMP MOOC Development by Heather A.
McKay is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available
at www.cccs.edu.
This workforce product was funded by a grant awarded by the U.S. Department of
Labor’s Employment and Training Administration. The product was created by the
grantee and does not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of
Labor. The U.S. Department of Labor makes no guarantees, warranties, or assurances
of any kind, express or implied, with respect to such information, including any
information on linked sites and including, but not limited to, accuracy of the information
or its completeness, timeliness, usefulness, adequacy, continued availability, or
ownership.