Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the implementation of the United Services Military Apprenticeship Program (USMAP) which offers registered apprenticeship opportunities to enlisted members of the U.S. Marine Corps, Navy, and Coast Guard.
- The study authors conducted an implementation evaluation using interviews with program administrators and focus groups with USMAP participants and supervisors.
- The study found that USMAP rarely introduced new skills to service members or offered benefits to them during their time in the military. The study also found that USMAP participants and supervisors had a limited understanding of the program and struggled to convey their skills to employers after leaving the military.
- The authors provide limited information about their data collection and analysis methods aside from the number and location of interviews and focus groups. These focus groups represent a small subset of USMAP participants.
- There was no companion impact study.
Intervention Examined
United Services Military Apprenticeship Program (USMAP)
Features of the Intervention
- Type of organization: Military
- Location/setting: Multi-site
- Population served and scale: Veterans and active-duty service men and women; about 47,000 participants
- Industry focused: Not included
- Intervention activity: Classroom instruction; On-the-job training
- Organizational Partnerships: Veteran-serving organizations
- Cost: Not included
- Fidelity: Not included
The U.S. Navy started its apprenticeship program in 1975. In the early 2000s, the program grew and changed to become the United Services Military Apprenticeship Program (USMAP). USMAP was funded by the Navy, with support from the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Office of Apprenticeship. The program’s objective was to better translate military skills to the civilian workforce. It operated like other Registered Apprenticeships, following a work process schedule approved by the DOL. Apprentices received classroom instruction and on-the-job training after completing basic training and being assigned to their military occupation. They logged hours spent on specific skills to document their progress. A supervisor verified these hours, and a central USMAP office in Florida recorded progress and issued certificates of completion as appropriate.
The program was designed for active-duty service men and women who are working in military occupations that match with USMAP. For instance, infantry personnel were not eligible for apprenticeships. In 2014, USMAP had about 47,000 participants across Marine Corps, Navy, and Coast Guard installations. USMAP had minimal collaboration with external employers, veteran serving organizations, and state apprenticeship offices, except in Virginia and North Carolina where USMAP completers received a state apprenticeship certificate.
Features of the Study
The research team conducted interviews with USMAP administrators, a scholar from the U.S. Navy War College, and representatives from two veteran-serving organizations. Additionally, they conducted focus groups with USMAP participants, completers, and supervisors at four bases. The focus groups were conducted at Navy bases in Norfolk and San Diego, and Marine Corps camps in North Carolina and California. The sites were selected to represent both U.S. coasts and because they had the highest number of USMAP participants. The Coast Guard was not included as it accounts for less than 2% of USMAP enrollees. In total, they conducted 11 focus groups with 76 participants, which included 26 apprentice supervisors, 22 apprenticeship completers, and 28 current apprentices. The focus groups covered over 30 occupations. The authors provided limited details on analysis. In reporting data from interviews and focus groups, authors say 'most' to indicate more than 2/3 of people, 'many' for more than 1/2 of people, 'some' for more than 1/3 of people, and 'few' for less than 1/3 of people.
Findings
Intervention Activities/Service
- The study found that USMAP did not provide service members with new skills or work experiences, nor did it offer any benefits to participants during their time in the military.
- Participants and supervisors did not fully understand the program and its goals because of limited resources. This also made it difficult for participants to explain the advantages of hiring USMAP completers to private employers.
- Additionally, completion rates were low for USMAP participants.
- However, the authors concluded that the program could effectively support transitioning service members, provided it received sufficient resources.
Implementation Challenges and Solutions
- The study found that the USMAP central office did not do much to promote the program in the military. Most participants learned about it through word of mouth, resulting in varying levels of awareness and understanding of USMAP among service members.
- Participants faced challenges in recording and verifying their work hours, particularly when their tasks were different from their usual duties, when their supervisor was not monitoring their work directly, or when they received a deployment or reassignment order.
- Due to lack of understanding, USMAP completers struggled to communicate their experience to civilian employers which was compounded by central office’s failure to conduct outreach to employers due to lack of staff capacity.
- The study did not find direct solutions to these problems. However, the authors noted that increasing resource allocations to the central office so they can conduct additional outreach and marketing of the program to service members would improve program effectiveness.
- The authors concluded that the program should increase engagement with employers and take a more active role in supporting apprentices during their transition to civilian life.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The authors provide limited information on their data collection and analysis methods aside from the number and location of groups. The number and location of groups is also small relative to the overall scale of the intervention.