GWDC Executive Committee members present: Chair Roger Hale, Jennie Lightfoot, David MacKenzie, Dick McFarland, Ernest Owens (via phone)

GWDC members present: Commissioner Earl Wilson (MDES), Dan Smith (CFL)

MDES staff present: Associate Deputy Commissioner Mick Coleman, Assistant Commissioner Jim Korkki, Charlie Robinson, Larry Eisenstadt, Sandra Seemann

Others present: Barbara Yates (CFL), Mitch Rubenstein (MnSCU), Craig Schoenecker (MnSCU)

There was a brief discussion regarding the dramatic change in the total funding figures following the addition of the MnSCU funding figures, from $255 million to $887 million.

Jennie Lightfoot noted that we should try to anticipate what the response to the report will be and what will come out of it.

There was discussion of data privacy constraints. The Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was cited as a constraint to data sharing that MnSCU and MDES are working together to address. Committee and staff members suggested that while some of these constraints are federally imposed, some state legislative action may be required to overcome those state imposed barriers.

The question was raised regarding how much of the workforce development "picture" is missing from the inventory because it does not include non-state nor federally funded programs. Jennie Lightfoot cited the McKnight Foundation funding as an example of considerable funding and efforts that are not included in the report.

Ernest Owens noted that we do not have the information necessary to determine the total size of the population that needs to be served, thus we cannot determine if they are being well served or not.

Earl Wilson stated that the inventory shows that the government has targeted money to help targeted individuals, not to help the middle class individuals. He noted that it is government’s role to help those at the bottom of the ladder.

However, some programs, such as MnSCU educational programs and the Dislocated Worker Program, are available to assist those who may have higher incomes.

Barbara Yates noted that because we were asked to report by funding stream, the wealth of coordination that exists between programs and agencies has not been illuminated. She also explained that even if two programs in the inventory appear to be duplicative, they may indeed be working together to assist the population in need of service and the two programs may still not be able to fully meet the demand.

Dan Smith added that several programs were designed for reasons that are outside of those examined in the study.

Earl Wilson offered the state funded Supplemental JTPA Program as an example of a program that, at first glance, may seem to duplicate the federally funded JTPA Adult Program. However, the State JTPA program was started for a good reason, to address needs of the JTPA eligible Adult Program population that remained unmet due to limited federal program funding.

For another example, Wilson noted that there may appear to be a wealth of youth programs, yet even with so many programs there is not enough funding to serve all of the youth in need.

Jennie Lightfoot referred to the many strategic alliances that do exist that allow us to get the biggest "bang for our buck."

On another subject, Dan Smith pointed out that though programs were placed into the one category into which they best fit, many could fit into more than one category. Wording should be added to the report to explain the categorization.

David MacKenzie expressed his belief that the legislature cannot make decisions based on this inventory because of the limited questions that were asked. He recommended that further data should be collected.

Roger Hale wondered at what point the legislators would have enough information to make a decision. He suggested that they use this inventory as a starting point. He suggested that they should not draw conclusions from the inventory alone, but rather if they have questions about redundancy they should ask program staff to testify.

Dick McFarland agreed that this was just a starting point, that more information would be necessary to make decisions.

Earl Wilson referred to the inventory as "the first step in an iterative process," where the inventory "lays out the big picture and we go from here" to further examine the employment and training picture. Mick Coleman concurred, noting that one should not jump to conclusions, but look at programs in the proper context.

Finally, Roger Hale went over the listed of potential GWDC comments he had compiled from the discussion at the meeting. The comments would be added to the report under the heading "Governor’s Workforce Development Council Comments." Following are the comments that will be included in the report:

• As the first inventory of employment and training programs in Minnesota, this document is a useful first step in an iterative process to understand and improve the state’s workforce system.