Internal GMAP Review

1
Internal GMAP Review WorkSource Operations
Division January 29, 2008 Tony Wright,
Assistant Commissioner, WSOD
2
WSOD
FOLLOW-UP ASSIGNMENTS
3
DASHBOARD
WSOD
Below 5 of Goal
Within 5 of Goal
Meeting Goal
4
WSOD
MAJOR PROJECTS
4
5
WSOD
MAJOR PROJECTS
5
6
WORKSOURCE OPERATIONS DIVISION GMAP Assignment
Status Report
7
WSOD
GMAP ASSIGNMENT STATUS REPORT
8
WSOD
GMAP ASSIGNMENT STATUS REPORT
9
WSOD
GMAP ASSIGNMENT STATUS REPORT
10
WSOD
GMAP ASSIGNMENT STATUS REPORT
11
NORTH CENTRAL WDA Ag Survey Results 2006 AND
2007
12
North Central WDA

• Problem Statement While the 2006 Ag Survey rated
  overall satisfaction as good, it rated our
  number and quality of referrals both as below
  adequate
• Action
• During 2007 we made additional efforts to screen
  for experience and to try to get more experienced
  workers registered into SKIES
• Better registrations/assessments/screening
• Tents
• Better job order information
• More outreach

13
North Central WDA
Made fewer referrals
Statewide, 2007 was down from 2006 in all
categories
But more Job Openings
Served more MSFWs
But had more Hires
Had less Job Orders
How did we do?
14
North Central WDA

• WHAT WE WANT
• We want to obtain annual feedback that informs us
  how we are doing
• WHY WE WANT IT
• We want to use this feedback to consider changes
  to our MSFW service delivery model for the next
  ag season
• HOW WE OBTAIN IT
• We ask the ag employers 3 questions and request
  they rate each on a scale of 1 (very poor) to 5
  (very good)
• Question 1 is for feedback on their overall
  satisfaction with WorkSource
• Question 2 is for feedback on the number of
  referrals sent to them
• Question 3 is for feedback on the quality of
  referrals sent to them
• We used the same questions and rating system for
  both 2006 and 2007

15
North Central WDA
From the 2006 population of 300 ag employers who
had job orders within our WDA we had survey
results from 60 We wanted a 95 Confidence Level
which resulted in a Confidence Interval of about
11.5
2006 Ag Survey Results Question 1 We are 95
sure the true percentage of the population who
would rate the overall satisfaction as
adequate or above was between 77 and
100 Question 2 We are 95 sure the true
percentage of the population who would rate the
number of referrals as adequate or above was
between 47 and 70 Question 3 We are 95 sure
the true percentage of the population who would
rate the quality of referrals as adequate or
above was between 37 and 60
16
North Central WDA
From the population of 252 ag employers who had
job orders within our WDA we had survey results
from 50 We wanted a 95 Confidence Level which
resulted in a Confidence Interval of about 12.5
2007 Ag Survey Results Question 1 We are 95
sure the true percentage of the population who
would rate the overall satisfaction as
adequate or above is between 72 and
97 Question 2 We are 95 sure the true
percentage of the population who would rate the
number of referrals as adequate or above is
between 42 and 67 Question 3 We are 95 sure
the true percentage of the population who would
rate the quality of referrals as adequate or
above is between 50 and 75
17
North Central WDA
Note Because the Confidence Intervals are
similar for both years and for ease in
comparison, the /- Confidence Intervals have
been omitted.
The comments are what help us the most to
determine possible changes to our MSFW service
delivery model
Review Comments
While we made strides in 2007 to increase the
satisfaction in the quality of referrals made on
ag job orders, we lost ground over 2006 with the
satisfaction in the number of referrals made on
ag job orders.
18
North Central WDA

• For 2006 the quality of referrals was the most
  frequently mentioned suggestion for improvement
• People were brought out that said they had
  picked apples before but it was very apparent
  they had not
• Untrained/unable to pick fruit. It took too
  long to pick one bin
• Not good workers
• To find out if someone has ever picked, I
  suggest having them put on a picking bag to prove
  it
• Quality of workers could improve
• Can you screen potential workers? The workers
  sent at thinning time did not want to work for a
  fair price
• Screen applicants for experience

19
North Central WDA

• For 2007 the quality of referrals goes up but
  quantity is now the most frequently mentioned
  suggestion for improvement
• Received no referrals
• There were not workers in the area. We did not
  have any referrals
• I did not get any referrals
• The office did a very good job trying to do what
  I needed but did not have any more workers to
  send out
• We got about 12 phone referrals but only 2
  actually showed up and worked
• The service was good but unfortunately there
  were no referrals

20
North Central WDA

• Some of the most frequently mentioned suggestions
  in a positive vein from the 2007 survey
• Good relationship, our needs are being met
• Your service is very valuable to orchardists
• Very proactive. Came out to my orchard and
  helped prepare for my picking needs
• Very appreciative that your rep brought workers
  to us and came back to check on needs
• I think you did what you could and staying in
  contact with the growers and their foremen are
  key to know what is going on. Thank you for all
  you do
• The staff at WorkSource worked hard. They even
  brought people to the job site. They couldnt do
  more

21
North Central WDA

• Some interesting suggestions
• Get involved in correcting the immigration
  issue! The politicians have their head in the
  sand concerning this issue
• It would help if WorkSource could confirm the
  legal status of the people sent out to the job
  site
• Refer only legal workers
• Work teams or work crews that could come to an
  orchard and do a thinning job or picking or
  pruning. Complete with bilingual foreman.
  WorkSource could rotate these crews from orchard
  to orchard

22
North Central WDA
Sample phone follow-up survey of those ag
employers with a 2006 job order but no 2007 job
order
23
North Central WDA
Adjust MSFW goals and service delivery model
Implement MSFW service delivery model and provide
services
Did we accomplish what we wanted?
Follow-up, feedback and survey from ag employers
24
Spokane Workforce Development Area Example of
Partnership Integration
25
INTEGRATION MODEL FOCUS CJST TO EMPLOYMENT
Spokane WDA
Works with CCS
Employer Needs
Develop OJT - WEX
CCS Customized Job Skills Training
WorkSource Business Solutions
Filling employer workforce needs
2-CJST Classes
WIA Co-Enrolled
5 TANF
WorkFirst Job Search
15 TANF began CJST
26
CJST TANF grads to demand occupations - Office
Admin Support
Spokane WDA
27
LEVERAGE RESOURCES TO INCREASE EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR TANF
Spokane WDA
Observation Sept - Dec 07 Two Customized Job
Skills Training Classes 15 enrolled - 14
customers graduated 14 enrolled were TANF - 13
WorkFirst graduated 5 entered Job Search 5 all
Identified as needing extra assistance to enter
occupation of training referred to WIA Client
Analysis Average reading level 9th Grade Average
math level 6th Grade Lack of work
experience Action Step Co-Enrollment of
WorkFirst customer in WIA Connect client with WS
Business Solutions Team Develop WIA WEX /or OJT
28
Spokane WDA
Leverage Resources for Partnership
Leverage of Resources
CE ES CCS
DSHS
CJST TRAINING CCS / IEL
WORKFIRST JS
Unsuccessful Job Search
WORKFIRST / WIA ENROLLMENT Collaboration WF JS
1 on 1 WIA 1 on 1 Business Solutions
Employer Connection
Customized Job Skills Training Front Office
Professional Insurance Service Representative
WF / WIA Support Services
WIA WEX
OJT
OJT
UNSUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT
29
CONCLUSION OF WSOD GMAP
30
NEXT GMAP
FEBRUARY GMAP IN BREMERTON
Whatcom
Pend Oreille
San Juan
Ferry
Okanogan
Skagit
Stevens
Island
Snohomish
Clallam
Chelan
Jefferson
Douglas
Kitsap
King
Kitsap
Lincoln
Spokane
Grays Harbor
Mason
Grant
Moses Lake
Kittitas
Pierce
Adams
Whitman
Thurston
Franklin
Lewis
Pacific
Garfield
Yakima
Walla Walla
Cowlitz
Benton
Skamania
Asotin
Wahkiakum
Klickitat
Columbia
Clark
30
31
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA