|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GWDC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 390 N. Robert Street, Saint
Paul Members Present: Don Gerdesmeier, Roger Hale, Matt
Kramer, James McCormick, John Molinaro, Sandra Peterson, Dan Smith for
Commissioner Cheri Pearson Yecke Staff and Guests Present: Viola Curtis, Luke Weisberg, Dennis
Yecke, Koryn Zewers
1.
Follow-up on incumbent worker/skill training focus Roger welcomed everyone.
He reminded the committee that we have been working from our “revised”
framework (formerly Preeminence Minnesota) since June 2003.
(printed on back of agenda) Roger
noted that during our last few Executive Committee meetings, we have talked
about further focusing on incumbent worker training as a specific issue
that the Pawlenty Administration could be pursuing.
At our December meeting, we preliminarily discussed Minnesota’s
eligibility for a WIA incentive grant award and agreed that in pursuing
that award, we would pursue a strategic focus on skill training.
We want to follow-up on that discussion.
The WIA incentive grant and our work with McKnight Foundation (Families
Forward) can both have a direct impact on our incumbent worker training
focus. Further, Roger noted that we have a few opportunities
in the next several months to get our message and ideas out. He asked Luke to elaborate on our Families Forward
work and its connection to a skill training focus. Luke
reminded members that we have had a partnership with McKnight Foundation
for two years working as an intermediary among eighteen grantees, collectively
known as Families Forward. The
common focus of these partnerships is skill development for low income
incumbent workers. We gathered
all of the partners this past October.
The Wilder Research Center, completing the program-specific evaluations
of these efforts, preliminarily identified what we had learned to date
from this work. In February, Jodi Sandfort, our program officer
at McKnight, convened a group of stakeholders from Families Forward, and
others from the workforce arena, to talk about what Wilder and the GWDC
have identified as key learnings thus far from this work. Through the GWDC’s work with Families Forward,
we are defining the key programmatic and policy elements that need to
be in place to support low-income incumbent workers to gain new skills
and advance in their careers. We
think there are some unique things about these Families Forward partnerships
and, with Jodi Sandfort, are asking how we translate what we’ve learned
in Families Forward into more systemic change.
Luke suggested that this would be our task going forward through
the balance of the McKnight-funded work. He
said that this should be background for members as we move forward in
pursuit of Preeminence Minnesota framework; and, that perhaps individual
agencies and MN State Colleges and Universities can help “connect the
dots” between Families Forward work and efforts going on in each of their
own agencies. Roger
asked if Families Forward is connected to the discussion in Minneapolis
about a demonstration with the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation
(MDRC)? Luke responded that the proposal from MDRC has
a similar aim to Families Forward – to provide supports to low-income
job seekers and incumbent workers seeking to advance in their careers. Luke gave a brief background on MDRC – a national
program evaluation and technical assistance organization begun in the
mid-1970s by several federal agencies and the Ford Foundation. Their speciality is completing random-assignment
program research and evaluation. They have previously worked in Minnesota on
other national demonstrations. This
proposal is to test whether additional supports that are already available
to low-income workers can be coordinated through the workforce system
and result in better outcomes for those workers and lower turnover costs
for businesses where they work. Luke
explained that members of the Minneapolis and Hennepin-Scott-Carver Local
Workforce Councils and other stakeholders have been exploring this for
several months now. If Minneapolis participated in the national
demonstration, MDRC would bring national research money with it; and,
a financial commitment would need to be made by the state and local units
as well. Members expressed interest
and some reservation about the project. Chancellor
McCormick asked if a Minnesota firm could have gotten the contract to
do this work. Luke explained that MDRC (with support from
federal agencies) actually initiates studies like this. So, they are bringing it to Minnesota rather
than Minnesota seeking assistance from them.
Roger underscored that this is strictly informational at this point
and that, at a later stage, the GWDC may want to get involved more formally. Luke
noted that this does connect to the incumbent worker training discussion,
however, and so it may be relevant at a later point.
John added that he was at the February McKnight meeting and looks
forward to seeing how this shapes up in the next several months. Roger summed up the Families Forward segment
noting that we have McKnight funds at least through the end of this year
and may be able to continue our work into early 2005 as we will likely
have some carryover funds.
2.
Next opportunities to pursue GWDC framework Matt
suggested that the next items on the agenda may indeed be worth pursuing. He cautioned, however, that the GWDC has put
some great initiatives on the table and that we should not leave our previous
work as unfinished business and dilute our message. Referring specifically to the “Gunther Inventory”
fold-out and related work, Matt suggested that we keep using those as
key building blocks for systemic change.
Roger agreed and noted that the items in the next part of the agenda
could fit nicely with Matt’s point. Roger
said there are at least a few upcoming opportunities to pursue a “skills
training” agenda led by the GWDC.
¨
As noted earlier, we
have discussed the WIA Incentive Grant process. Luke said that with help from Mary Ellen Novotny
and her unit, staff put together a three-page document outlining the opportunity
and offering some strategic priorities that have been identified by the
GWDC and the Governor thus far. In
that document, we asked stakeholders to give us ideas for how DEED, MnSCU
and the Department of Education can jointly use an incentive grant award
to advance those strategic priorities.
Clearly, this is a direct opportunity for the GWDC to make decisions
about that incentive grant award funding.
Luke said the final proposal will be due in May and we will be
notified in June if we’ve been successful.
¨
The Governor will be
preparing a budget for the 2005-2007 biennium. Roger asked how we best
use that opportunity to promote a “skills development” message – a report?
Briefing for the Governor?
¨
We are on the cusp of
developing a five-year plan for Minnesota as to how we will spend federal
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) money. That is another opportunity to shape programmatic
priorities and, if appropriate, service delivery structure issues as well.
¨
Finally, the National
Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) and the National Association
of Workforce Boards (NAWB) have put out a “request for qualifications”
asking states and local councils to identify “high growth job training
initiatives”. There is clearly
a national movement toward thinking about skills-based career advancement
and we have Local Workforce Councils who will respond to this effort. There
was extensive discussion about how best to shape recommendations for the
Governor aimed at influencing the 2005-07 budget process. Luke suggested that, as a start, each of the
GWDC committees are already working toward specific program / policy recommendations
in their areas that could have budget implications. The Executive Committee could certainly ask
each committee to come up with 1 or 2 items that can be put into the context
of overall state budget recommendations. Practically, the role of the GWDC would be to
set a statewide strategic priority, work with individual agencies as they
develop their budgets, and then aggregate individual agency budget requests
as part of a skills development / workforce focus across agencies. Chancellor
McCormick questioned if new resources would really be available to address
this as an issue given the economic climate.
Matt Kramer suggested that we could use the “Gunther Inventory”
to identify resources that could be re-allocated; and, noted that he has
been challenged by the Governor to think creatively about new approaches
to workforce and economic development – and wouldn’t rule out new resources
being available. Roger
said that the GWDC is in an excellent position to promote skill training
and upgrading as the single most important thing we can do within this
state to address our long-term economic strength.
He noted that there are always ways to use existing funding better
and, we can make a case that new investments will yield significant economic
returns in the future. Matt agreed
that there is an appetite for new thinking and ideas from the Governor
and that the GWDC should use the Gunther chart to articulate a training
and skill development agenda for incumbent and future workers.
Others affirmed that pulling together a common theme, bringing
several stakeholders together, and making a case to the Governor is a
perfect role for the GWDC. Roger
and Sandra then added that perhaps the focus should be on skill training
– not solely for incumbent workers – but for future (emerging) workers
as well. Roger noted the importance of serving dislocated
workers, students, and others. Sandra
noted that there is a continual recognition that high school students
are ill-prepared to make job and career choices. We need to help students make informed individual
choices – helping them find their pathway (perhaps through skill training). Chancellor McCormick referenced the P-16 group
he is working with (through the support of the Gates Foundation) which
now concentrating on articulating that pathway for high school students. He further suggested that we think creatively
and boldly to really make a difference in figuring out what each of our
several agencies can do that would contribute to a broad statewide impact. [He and Sandra Peterson suggested a presentation
on this topic at a future full Council meeting.] There
as additional interest in exploring career information, education or other
tools to help Minnesotans really think through their work/career paths
– recognizing that skill development will likely be a key part of that. Chancellor McCormick and Sandra Peterson both
underscored that until people can see their career path, they cannot take
advantage of real skill-building opportunities.
Matt Kramer added that, as an example, what if we took a small
percentage of several programs’ funding to support reaching out to students
and teachers to promote workforce education and training? Matt and Roger both said that we should make
the “chart come alive” and bring good ideas to the Governor. Don
asked about the long-term outlook for employment in Minnesota – what do
we know about the impact from outsourcing, etc.?
Matt said that our long-term labor market projections account for
those impacts – to the greatest degree possible – and that many of our
basic challenges that we’ve seen in the past few years are likely to remain
with us in the coming years. Roger
asked about pulling all this together and the timing of getting something
completed. There was additional
discussion about the schedule of upcoming meetings and workload. Luke proposed that staff frame this effort and
put a timeline on it aimed at getting recommendations completed in June
or early July. He suggested that
each of the committees would contribute issues and recommendations and
that staff would weave this together with the Families Forward work underway. It was suggested that the Executive Committee
could review a plan at its scheduled April 1, 2004 meeting with discussion
by the full Council at the scheduled April 16 meeting. Luke
added that the WIA planning process presents an opportunity as well to
pursue any structural shifts we think valuable in how workforce services
are delivered. He noted that we
have a reconstituted ad hoc committee working on recommendations regarding
the Workforce Service Area boundaries that will be folded into these gubernatorial
recommendations. Dennis Yecke also
added that the “Gang of 24” (a combination of state and local staff) will
have some recommendations and direction for the WorkForce Center system
that can be folded into these discussions. Finally, Luke noted that the GWDC
has a statutory obligation to deliver another WorkForce Center Strategic
Plan in January 2005. It was suggested
by DEED legislative staff that, after the legislative session, we go to
the Legislative committee chairs and suggest that with the WIA five year
plan, we would not produce a separate set of recommendations in a state
strategic plan.
3.
Preview 3-17-04 full Council meeting Roger highlighted the upcoming
3/17/04 meeting, noting that it will be an opportunity to discuss the
dislocated worker bill that is moving through the Legislature and any
other legislation that may be of interest to the Council. GWDC staff asked members to let them know by
Monday if there are specific legislative issues from their agencies that
the full Council should review and discuss.
4.
Other business Luke
noted that a draft budget update has been prepared and distributed. In addition to providing the committee with
a general update, staff have had several requests for financial assistance
from local areas. In the context
of a budget update, staff wanted to bring those to the Executive Committee
for guidance. Luke highlighted
three specific requests.
¨
Ramsey LWC is beginning a Health Care
sector business services pilot with support from DEED. The pilot is focused on supporting staff at
Ramsey WorkForce Centers to do business needs assessments, provide services,
and deliver the “honest broker” function to businesses. We don’t have a specific dollar amount requested
yet, but it is likely between $30,000 and $70,000. Luke noted that, practically, we probably wouldn’t
have sufficient funding to contribute that would make a dent in their
need; and, that as it supports a staff function, it feels qualitatively
different from other kinds of support the GWDC has provided in the past
to Local Councils.
¨
Duluth LWC is developing the “Northland
Works” community awareness initiative aimed at getting emerging and incumbent
workers focused on career opportunities in Duluth area (expanding to Northeast
and Rural MN CEP areas as appropriate. The Council has requested $15,000 in support
of this.
¨
Stearns-Benton LWC is hosting a regional
summit for workforce and economic development in November 2004. They have requested up to $5000 in sponsorship
of this event. Luke also noted that we have no specific request, but
general desire for support from the City of Minneapolis for its “closing
the gap” initiative and, perhaps, for the MDRC demonstration discussed
briefly earlier. In reviewing the budget, Luke also noted that we would
likely shift some of our federal “technical assistance” funds between
projects. The total for these funds
is less than $10,000 and doesn’t really need extensive discussion from
the Executive Committee. Members
agreed that staff should shift those funds as appropriate, in consultation
with DEED staff. Further, members
suggested that the Duluth project look to Wisconsin for some joint financial
support as well as Minnesota support.
There was tentative agreement that, with additional Wisconsin commitment,
we could support the Duluth initiative and could likely sponsor the regional
Stearns-Benton gathering. Members
asked staff to gather more information, if appropriate, about the Ramsey
County effort. 2004-05 GWDC Workplan and Budget Members
discussed the timing of completing a workplan, given the pending leadership
change in the GWDC. After some discussion, it was agreed that staff should
begin drafting a workplan based on the discussions to date. The Executive Committee could meet in April
or May to review a draft. If appropriate,
we could schedule a special GWDC meeting in May or June to approve a workplan
and budget. Generally, though it
was agreed that the Executive Committee would take ownership for the workplan
development and then work with the incoming Chair to modify it, if needed,
based on his or her vision after a few months on the job. The
meeting was adjourned.
|
 |