�鶹������ý

In June 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published a (NPRM) that set out a regulatory framework for a system of industry-recognized apprenticeship programs (IRAPs). The IRAP system is designed as an alternative to the existing system of Registered Apprenticeship, with a distinct set of regulatory requirements for the programs and a distinct process for securing government recognition. The proposed rule outlines the role of Standards Recognition Entities (SREs): third party entities that DOL will recognize and grant authority to approve and monitor programs in accordance with the proposed regulatory requirements.

For the last two years, the Trump administration has championed IRAPs as a means of rapidly expanding America’s apprenticeship system and extending it into new industry sectors. Growing apprenticeship is a worthy goal and one that we share. However, the proposed regulations raise many questions on the role of SREs and their capacity to ensure that programs meet the quality hallmarks of the proposed regulations.

This week, the Center on Education & Skills at �鶹������ý submitted comments to DOL highlighting several shortcomings with the IRAP system as described in the NPRM:

• The proposed system creates an arms-length relationship between DOL and the entities responsible for ensuring the quality of industry-recognized apprenticeship programs, with no clear mechanism for holding the entities accountable for the performance of the programs they recognize.
• The proposed rules do not require that SREs have any experience working with employers to develop, promote, and monitor apprenticeship programs.
• SREs would be subject only to minimal compliance requirements in the areas of equal employment opportunity, apprentice safety and wage protections, and conflict of interest.
• The large number of SREs, estimated by DOL to reach over 200 in the first program year alone, is liable to create fragmentation and confusion about industry standards.
• Public-facing information about IRAPs will not be centralized, making it impossible for employers, prospective apprentices, and other stakeholders to obtain information they need to evaluate apprenticeship programs.

Additionally, �鶹������ý, along with the National Skills Coalition, Advance CTE, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Jobs for the Future (JFF), the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, and the National Fund for Workforce Solutions submitted affirming the importance of federal policy that supports increasing the number of apprenticeship opportunities, particularly in nontraditional occupations and for underserved populations. Consistent with the Apprenticeship Forward Collaborative’s , our organizations offered several suggestions to guide investments, policy development, data collection, and evidence building for apprenticeship.