WorkSource Community Discussion Board

Update: Comments from Community Input Meeting added below

Share your ideas for making WorkSource even better!

The WDC welcomes your recommendations and new ideas for making the WorkSource Seattle-King County system work better to meet the needs of all jobseekers and employers, particularly in these challenging economic times.

The WDC will incorporate your ideas as we develop our Request for Proposals this spring, which will determine our providers of Workforce Investment Act services beginning in July 2012. This is a competitive process through which the WDC awards federal Workforce Investment Act funding.

Possible WDC RFP themes:

• Efficiency, lean system, serve many with highest quality
• Scale, but not at the expense of quality
• Business services & sector focus; job connection, business development
• Diverse populations; youth, vets, LEP individuals, homeless individuals, individuals with disabilities, mature workers, long-term unemployed

Please submit your input as a comment below. Important information:

• All comments will be reviewed by the WDC before being posted, so there will be a delay before you see your feedback on the discussion board.
• We will post feedback that is professional in tone, relevant to the topic, and appropriate for all audiences.
• You must enter your name and email address. However, we will remove this information before the comment is posted so you are assured of anonymity.
• If you would prefer not to have your input posted, just say so in your comment. All submissions will be read by the WDC, even if not posted publicly.

Thank you for participating—we look forward to hearing from you!

Helpful links:

WorkSource Seattle-King County website (WorkSourceSKC.org)
WorkSource System Org Chart and Map

9 Responses to “WorkSource Community Discussion Board”

1. From Community Input Meeting says:

   January 17, 2012 at 10:50 am

   Diverse Populations:
   –Think of leveraging resources
   –Avail services to the homeless throughout county, including where young people may migrate
   –Focus on lower level LEP individuals (below CASAS level 2: 225 and below); also consider basic skills as part of service delivery & design in the RFP
   – LEP individuals face challenges in keeping with CTC curriculum; provide funding to teach parents/family on school curriculum/system to reduce drop-out rates
   –Think of front door strategy to the system, including WIA staff core service time requirements; make the system more approachable for a broader range of customers
   –Balance the success of contracts/performance measures and serving diverse populations with specific needs

   Reply
2. From Community Input Meeting says:

   January 17, 2012 at 10:49 am

   Geography:

   –Focus on Greenbridge/White Center
   –South King County (White Center & south of) is underserved & has high needs
   – Focus on rural areas e.g. far East King County, Vashon, south of Auburn
   –Focus on south Sound: look at data of populations e.g. % of unemployed, education, job development and think through how to respond to all of their needs

   Reply
3. From Community Input Meeting says:

   January 17, 2012 at 10:48 am

   Partnerships:
   –Think of partnerships amongst CBOs & colleges and leverage resources as we think of efficiency; possibly weight this in RFP scoring, seek demonstrative work & cross-agency referrals in RFP applications
   –Be careful to not limit customer choices e.g. education pipelines
   –Partnerships can be a significant resource issue – consider who is managing the partnership; also consider time needed to organize partnerships when setting timelines for RFP bids/responses
   –Consider other ways to encourage collaboration rather than via an RFP; the WDC can act as convener and can see through a global lens: best practices, collaboration opportunities

   Reply
4. From Community Input Meeting says:

   January 17, 2012 at 10:47 am

   Technology:
   –There are pros & cons to technology/virtual access; consider how this allows flexibility in staffing; also consider that an on-line application may lead to needing vis-à-vis appointment with a career counselor
   –Remember that some customers have needs for basic computer skills
   –Consider tools such as video-conferencing, distance education & developmental skills; this can have a positive impact on a customer’s budget and reduce transportation and books/supplies costs

   Reply
5. From Community Input Meeting says:

   January 17, 2012 at 10:46 am

   Business Services:
   –Focus on business services; we are missing the employer connection after customers have completed training
   –We need better access to better employers via WS; be strategic
   –Integrate business services; it would help to know what other business services are being offered
   –Think of us WorkSource as an ecosystem and support the infrastructure of ecosystem throughout process, including employers/businesses; work with employers upfront as part of our system – at beginning of serving job seekers vs. at the end when the customer has completed training and is seeking employment
   –Bring employers in and maintain level of accountability of the employer

   Reply
6. From Community Input Meeting says:

   January 17, 2012 at 10:45 am

   Technology & Business services:

   –Consider tools, including effective resume screening system
   –Use LinkedIn (LI) as a recruiting tool (or other social media as young people may not use LI)
   –For young people consider context of which social media tool to use e.g. 4-year grad vs. a youth in need of GED will have different needs
   –In general – support use of social media in a way that fits the need of the populations we serve e.g. LEP individuals may have a different need; use of social media may also be a training opportunity e.g. supporting youth in creating a professional profile on LI
   –Create presence via social media; not doing so could impact not getting employed

   Reply
7. From Community Input Meeting says:

   January 17, 2012 at 10:44 am

   Navigators:
   –Can be helpful, but they have to understand system or else is a disservice to customer; in a partnership model, assure that the design is managed well and is systemic
   –Challenge with WIA-funded navigators is they only serve WIA. It takes multiple funding streams to make impact, especially if multiple sectors/cohorts are involved
   –Assure that targets/performance goals are achievable for case managers
   –Consider navigation of core services as a model
   –Consider higher level navigation e.g. of training resources for career counselor staff
   –Consider navigators for staff training to support understanding of KC system e.g. the Community/Technical College (CTC) system, made more difficult to navigate since they are divided into multiple districts in our area
   –Cohorts & navigators/navigation of system – from CTC perspective, the most successful ARRA cohorts were when working closely with CTCs through direct interaction/communication
   –Have a FTE WS navigator at each CTC/Connection site so that there is someone who has knowledge of both WS & the college
   –Provide CTCs with info from WS of where/how to expand e.g. the ARRA cohort model helped CTCs build momentum, showcase amongst/within their own college, breakdown walls within college, which ultimately lead to success for the customer

   Reply
8. From Community Input Meeting says:

   January 17, 2012 at 10:43 am

   In response to “cost per participant” consideration in RFP proposals:

   –The cost to WIA is different than the total cost of serving people; requesting the “cost per” is not useful
   –Maintain the focus on self-sufficiency; this may mean a different investment or cost per, depending on the customer’s needs/diverse populations
   –Complicated to come up with cost per in a proposal, especially with diverse populations one needs to provide context of depth/length of service, etc.
   –Cost per methodology is complicated to be comparative; specify what the WDC expects for outcomes for populations

   Reply
9. From Community Input Meeting says:

   January 17, 2012 at 10:42 am

   Other Topics:

   –Allow for ramp-up time in contracts e.g. 3 months, including 6 weeks to hire staff
   –Remove duplication/review the of questions we ask; allow more pages for bidders to respond

   Reply