In this economy – in fact in any economy – training professionals can always use a little financial assistance. Even in boom times, learning as a function relies on new technologies, new ideas and new methods. All that “new” stuff doesn’t come cheaply.
But training does have an advantage here, an available helping hand that corporate learning leaders need to be reaching out for. If you’re not already getting connected to the state grants administered through your State Department of Labor’s Workforce Development department, you may be missing a potential source for financial assistance.
For example, let’s turn to Pearson, the New Jersey-based publishing giant. Since 2001, Pearson has been the recipient of $2,065,000 in learning grants from the state governments’ DOL, helping to train more than 11,000 people in three states with money coming in nearly every year of this young millennium. In some years, the grant money received was greater than the company’s routine training budget.
Krys Moskal is vice president of Pearson people development, based in the company’s headquarters in Upper Saddle River, NJ. Moskal started investigating grants after receiving a catalog from William Paterson University that noted their Department of Labor workforce development grants, and was naturally intrigued. She and Susan Bernardo, Pearson Vendor Manager, organized a meeting with WPU.
Pearson’s first grant request was in 2001, receiving $250,000 to train 2,200 people. The money was used largely on technical training cour
ses for Pearson employees in New Jersey.
Since then, additional grants have been received, up to the most current – and largest – grant to date for Pearson, $801,000 to support training for 2,200 Pearson employees who work or live in New Jersey residents. Overall, as the accompanying chart details, Pearson has received more than $2 million, training 11,400 employees in New Jersey, Massachusetts and Illinois.
Each state has different formats for their grants. One version is a grant that reimburses a company for delivering internal training, On-the-Job training. One grant received even saw Pearson reimbursed 25% of employee salaries for the hours the warehouse employees spent in forklift training by internal instructors. The facility was new, as were most of the workers.
“The incentive is that you get supplemental money that you don’t have in your budget to do a lot of training,” Moskal said. “We’ve been able to do a lot of technical training. We’ve had Survival Spanish for Supervisors and English as a Second Language classes as well. That’s play a big role in employee retention at that facility.”
There are few strings attached to the grant money, with the major ones being a time limit for spending it (all of it) and the fact the money must be used to train the company’s employees who live and/or work in the state.
“It’s a wonderful benefit. Could they improve their processes? Absolutely. It’s very arduous, very time-consuming,” Moskal said. “I have to tell you again and again, it’s a lot of work and people get dizzy. I don’t think somebody trying to do it lightly with great intentions should underestimate how much time it takes.”
Things can be especially challenging for employers working in multiple states, since each grant is delivered and used statewide. Moskal said working with a grant expert made the process smoother. Pearson is currently working with Traci Totino, CEO of TNT Educational Services, www.tntedu.com. Moskal said Totino knows the processes in each state, and, most importantly, she helps with the layout of the data in the format they require.
If you want to investigate grants in your state, start by contacting your state’s department of labor’s workforce development website. Other good sources of information would be local community colleges and universities, which may have grant-writing programs available, and independent experts like Totino.
In the end, the grant process is a win-win-win situation. The employees win, of course, by learning new and valuable skills. The state wins by using money to ensure higher skills, which can lead to lower unemployment. Also to the state’s benefit is training and investments in companies help to keep jobs in the states, ensuring tax revenues.
And the final win? The company, of course.
In Pearson’s case, Moskal is certain the grant provided opportunities that would have been unavailable otherwise.
“I think either the departments would have had to find money for the technical and non-technical training, or it would have put people behind schedule in learning all the tools they need,” she said.
There’s no zealot like a convert, and Moskal has definitely seen the light, and the potential, of grants. She’s also become something you don’t always see these days: Proud of her government’s investment in training and retooling workers.
“I think it’s very brave of them to have that kind of money and not even touch it in a down year, and in fact they supplement it,” Moskal said.
| States |
Years |
# Employees |
Grant Amount |
| NJ |
2009 |
2200 |
$801,000 |
| 2005-06 |
2200 |
$400,000 |
| 2001-03 |
2200 |
$250,000 |
| MA |
2007-09 |
1700 |
$295,000 |
| 2002 |
1700 |
$150,000 |
| IL |
2006-08 |
700 |
$109,000 |
| 2002 |
700 |
$60,000 |
| Total to date |
11,400 |
$2,065,000.00 |
