Regional Training Opportunity Model v1.0
A public-data framework for deciding where a region should scale training, align what already exists, extend access, use apprenticeship or employer-led training, test feasibility, or deliberately choose not to build something new.
v1.1 is now the current workstream-selection standard.
v1.0 remains the structural market screen and the historical method used for Batches 1 and 2. v1.1 adds Forward Signals, Regional Actionability, urgency, cluster-level workstreams, and an Emerging Override without changing the v1.0 Market Opportunity formula.
Start with the market. Decide with the system.
The model separates two questions that are often mixed together: Is an occupation attractive enough to investigate? And if it is, what should the region actually do?
Market opportunity
Screen the complete detailed-occupation universe using wages, openings, and outlook. Training supply does not change this score.
Training-system evidence
Map programs, apprenticeships, capacity, access, employer systems, and regional/shared training around the strongest signals.
Regional response
Choose the response that fits the evidence, record confidence, name the question that could change the decision, and identify the next evidence step.
The weights are policy choices for screening and comparison. They are not causal estimates and do not, by themselves, justify a new program.
The v1.0 controls
| Control | v1.0 rule | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Wage floor | $25/hour minimum investigation gate. | Preserves a job-quality floor across markets. |
| Full-credit wage anchor | Higher of $25/hour or the local single-adult living wage. | El Centro showed that a local living wage can fall below the policy floor. The model does not weaken the floor in lower-cost markets. |
| Demand | 10-year total openings divided by 10; 250 annual openings receives full demand credit on the log scale. | Keeps very large occupations from overwhelming the rest of the screen. |
| Outlook | Annual CAGR scaled from -2% to +2%. | Rewards direction without letting growth dominate openings and job quality. |
| Investigation gate | Wage floor + at least 10 annualized openings + sub-bachelor entry pathway + no prior experience, with a documented RN exception. | Focuses the queue on occupations where workforce or college action is more plausible. |
| Training geography | Regional/shared training may count when it reasonably serves the market, but the geography must be disclosed. | Smaller markets often depend on apprenticeship or training systems outside the MSA boundary. |
| Employer-system segmentation | Split the decision analysis when one SOC spans materially different hiring or training systems. | For example, local corrections and state-prison employment can share a SOC but require different training routes. |
| Unknown evidence | Unknown is not zero. | Missing seats, completions, waitlists, employer demand, or capacity lower confidence and become explicit research questions. |
Response families
Scale existing
Use when demand is strong and a credible platform exists, but verified capacity may be too small.
Align existing
Use when the likely issue is specialty mix, curriculum, employer connection, work-based learning, or scheduling rather than program absence.
Extend access / shared capacity
Use when training exists but geography, schedules, clinical access, certification steps, or shared regional capacity limit participation.
Apprenticeship / employer-led
Use when the occupation is best learned through paid work, sponsor-based training, or employer-specific skills.
Feasibility
Use when the market signal is strong but the region still needs evidence on minimum viable cohort size, faculty, equipment, clinical placements, or sustainable demand.
Monitor / no new program
Use when existing supply appears adequate, the occupation is too small for additional capacity, or the evidence does not support building something new.
Confidence is part of the decision
| Grade | Meaning | Publication use |
|---|---|---|
| A | Strong direct public evidence supports the response. | Can be featured with normal local validation before action. |
| B | Good evidence supports the direction, with one material question still open. | Can be featured if the open question is stated clearly. |
| C | Provisional. Important evidence still depends on local validation. | Can be discussed, but the limitation must be prominent. |
| D / U | Insufficient or unknown evidence. | Do not present as a recommended regional response. |
Publication gate
A market does not receive a public Regional Training Opportunity Brief just because the spreadsheet runs.
Why v1.0 is frozen now
The framework was tested in two deliberately different markets. Sacramento tested a large, program-rich metro. El Centro tested a smaller market that relies more heavily on shared and regional training capacity.
563 occupations screened
153 reached the investigation pool. The decision layer produced scale, align, apprenticeship, access, selective expansion, and no-new-program responses.
250 occupations screened
24 reached the investigation pool. The stress test surfaced the low-cost wage rule, regional training geography, and employer-system segmentation.
One workflow, different answers
Public market screen → investigation gate → training supply → decision rule → targeted validation → Regional Training Opportunity Brief.
Eight production markets have passed source, editorial, registry, and live-integration QA. Batch 2 also validated the semi-automated workflow across markets ranging from Redding to San Diego.