Bill Overview
Title: TRAIN Act
Description: This bill provides statutory authority for the Department of Labor's Strengthening Community Colleges Training Grants program, which awards competitive grants for community colleges to provide education or career training for jobs in high-demand industries.
Sponsors: Rep. McBath, Lucy [D-GA-6]
Target Audience
Population: People seeking education or career training in high-demand industries through community colleges
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill focuses on community colleges, indicating that students and potential students of these institutions are affected.
- It provides for career training in high-demand industries, which implies an impact on individuals seeking jobs in sectors with a current or anticipated shortage of workers.
- The bill is enacted at a national level, suggesting it affects community colleges and their populations across the entire country.
- An increase in skilled labor as a result of the bill may impact employers by providing a more skilled workforce.
Reasoning
- The policy targets community college students in high-demand sectors across the US, aiming to affect approximately 3 million individuals.
- A range of simulated interviews considers diversity in age, background, location, and demographic factors influencing community college attendees.
- Budget constraints limit per capita investment, necessitating assumptions about differing levels of impact, with some individuals experiencing higher benefits than others.
- Due to the policy's target on high-demand industries, individuals currently seeking training in these areas, or intending to transition to these areas, are prioritized.
Simulated Interviews
Community College Student (Austin, Texas)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am excited about the potential this program has to expand opportunities in my field.
- Training grants could help reduce the financial burden of my education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Unemployed (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The program sounds promising, especially with high-demand jobs like tech.
- If it leads to real job opportunities, I'm interested.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Career Counselor (Miami, Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional resources would benefit the students I advise greatly.
- I hope to see more programs aligning education with job market needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Part-time Worker (Fargo, North Dakota)
Age: 19 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More training opportunities could allow me to focus on a sustainable career.
- I'm optimistic but cautious about how much it will actually help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Software Developer (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Grants for technical fields might shorten my journey into tech.
- It sounds like an opportunity to gain qualifications without the debt.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Community College Administrator (New York, New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There is potential, but efficient use of the budget will determine success.
- I've seen similar initiatives fall short of their goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Community College Graduate (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the program supports entrepreneurship, it could significantly help.
- I need practical skills to launch my start-up.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Single Parent (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lighten my load and speed up my path to a stable career.
- Training in high-demand jobs is critical for my family's future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Automotive Technician Student (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A focus on industry demand is a smart move for job security.
- I'm eager to see if this translates to real opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Community Organizer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the act includes provisions for those who might face access challenges.
- It has the potential to bridge gaps in education quality across states.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
Year 2: $358000000 (Low: $305000000, High: $410000000)
Year 3: $366000000 (Low: $310000000, High: $420000000)
Year 5: $383000000 (Low: $320000000, High: $440000000)
Year 10: $420000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $483000000)
Year 100: $650000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $800000000)
Key Considerations
- Administering competitive grants requires efficient management processes to ensure funds are effectively distributed and utilized.
- Outcomes depend significantly on alignment of the training programs with actual industry demands.