oakland workforce investment board meeting€¦ · the presentation also addressed san...
TRANSCRIPT
OAKLAND WORKFORCE
INVESTMENT BOARD
MEETING
Hearing Room 4
Oakland City Hall
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
8:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
1
OAKLAND WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD
MEETING AGENDA
Hearing Room 4
City Hall, 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
8:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
1. Chair Welcome and Remarks Informational
2. Adoption of the Agenda Action
3. Approval of Minutes Action
4. FY 2015-2016 WIB Budget Action
a. Approval of FY 15-16 Youth Service Provider Allocations
b. Approval of FY 15-16 Adult/Dislocated Worker Allocations
c. Approval of FY 15-16 Overall Budget
5. Summer Program Funding Allocations Action
6. WIB Activities Tracking Status Report Informational
7. Board Member Announcements Informational
8. Open Forum Informational
9. Adjourn Action
2
OAKLAND WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
Hearing Room 4
City Hall, 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Present: Elena Anaya, Sara Bedford, Benjamin Bowser, Kathleen Burris, Linda Carlton, Gay
Plair Cobb, Sally Gallegos, Dollie Hamilton, Angela Jenkins, Eric Johnson, Barry Luboviski,
Galen Maness, Bernard McCune, Doreen Moreno, William Patterson, Brian Salem, Agnes
Ubalde (17—Quorum)
Excused: John Casas, Lori Cox, Mark Everton, Dale McGillivray, Fred McKay, George
McDaniel, Obray Van Buren
Absent: Vickie Carson, Shari Godinez, Ken Maxey, Jose Ortiz, Olis Simmons
10. Call to Order (8:45 a.m.) Quorum Established
11. Adoption of the Agenda
Chair Agnes Ubalde asked that item 5 on the agenda be moved up before item 4.
Moved by: Elena Anaya
Seconded by: Sara Bedford
Approved by consensus
12. Opening Remarks
Chair Agnes Ubalde announced that Wells Fargo is presently recruiting for a
variety of staff positions.
John Bailey welcomed new WIB members Kathleen Burris, Bernard McCune,
and Doreen Moreno. He also introduced Oakland’s interim EDD Regional
Advisor, Gabriel Garcia.
Al Auletta introduced Linda Knox from the Department of Industrial Relations,
Division of Apprenticeship Standards.
3
John Bailey reminded the Board that Pat Kernighan is no longer on the City
Council and that the process for replacing her on the WIB is still underway. He
also introduced Linda Carlton as the co-chair of the Employer Strategies
Committee.
13. Approval of Minutes of September 25, 2014 meeting
Correction to the Minutes of September 25, 2014: Angela Jenkins was present.
Moved by: Brian Salem
Seconded by: Elena Anaya
Approved by consensus
14. 2016 Request for Proposals (RFP)
a. Policy Principles
Elinor Buchen provided an overview of the Policy Principles that were in the
meeting packet and approved by the Executive Committee on March 4, 2015.
Eric Johnson noted that the following Principles presented in staff’s memorandum
were linked:
Item 2—Strong Strategic Partnerships and leveraging of Funding
Item 3—Increased and Improved Employer Engagement
Item 5—Increased Opportunities for Employer-Driven Training
Mr. Johnson also said that the WIB must have authentic relationships with the
Oakland Unified School District and the Peralta Community College District.
Gay Plair Cobb asked how we fashion our work to tie in with the greater issues of
Race and Equity.
Bernard McCune emphasized the need to increase employer engagement to
provide work-based learning opportunities for students and young job seekers.
Linda Carlton recommended that Item 4—Services and Performance Metrics
Tailored to Meet the Needs of Oakland’s Population—be moved up to Item 2.
Doreen Moreno commented that we should also focus and strengthening
partnerships with the institutes of higher education in our area, including UC
Berkeley, Cal State East Bay, Mills College and St. Mary’s.
Bill Paterson stressed support for Linked Learning and the need for basic job
preparation, including literacy and interpersonal skills development.
4
Angela Jenkins stated that the WIB must establish evaluation criteria for the
Principles.
Public speaker Richard de Jauregui pointed out that what is missing is references
to who we serve and how we serve them, as well as how services are costed out
and the disconnect between service levels and funding.
Deputy City Attorney Dan Rossi initially advised members that if they intend to
submit a proposal in response to the RFP process then they should recuse
themselves from this item. Upon further thought, he stated that if one is
representing a particular sector and there is no direct economic interest gained by
passing the item, then recusal is not necessary.
Motion to adopt the Principles with the modification of moving Item 4 up to 2:
Moved by Eric Johnson
Seconded by Brian Salem
Approved by consensus
b. Stakeholder Engagement Plan
WIB Executive Director John Bailey stated that he is “championing” the
stakeholder engagement process. There are several approaches planned for
gathering stakeholder input for the RFP process, including an on-line survey, a
speakers bureau, employer interviews, and targeted surveys for job seekers and
workers.
Galen Maness suggested using social media, particularly for gathering
information from prospective young job seekers and millennials.
A question was raised regarding the status of the draft WIOA guidelines. State
EDD Regional Advisor Gabriel Garcia responded that DOL is scheduled to
release the draft guidelines around the week of February 13th
. The public will
have 60 days to comment on the draft.
Public speaker Carroll Fife with Oakland Works recommended that the WIB
connect with some of the organizations that she is affiliated with.
15. Sector Strategy Presentation (Insight Center)
Jim Torrens with the Insight Center for Community Economic Development
presented a PowerPoint presentation featuring successful industry sector strategies
in construction, hospitality, information technology and health care.
The presentation highlighted a sector initiative study conducted by Public/Private
ventures on initiatives in New York and Wisconsin. Participants in these sector
5
initiatives earned up to $4,500 more during the study period than control group
members.
He cited another study conducted by the Center for Economic Opportunities using
a matched paired analysis methodology including participants in sector strategy
centers and control group members with similar characteristics. Program
participants had significantly higher employment and earnings rates than control
group members, regardless of characteristics.
Agnes Ubalde asked what period of time were the studies conducted. Jim Torrens
answered around 2010, during the recession recovery period. Ms. Ubalde noted
that the time period matters.
Linda Carlton commented that there could be other factors differentiating the
participants and control group members.
The presentation also addressed San Francisco’s sector-focused career academies
in health care, construction, information technology and hospitality. In response
to a question from a WIB member, Torrens noted that these programs are funded
by WIA and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars, well as
discretionary competitive grants.
Agnes Ubalde noted that San Francisco has a strong local hiring requirement that
has a positive impact on hiring results.
Jim Torrens noted that sector strategies are imbedded in the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunities Act.
Agnes Ubalde asked how San Francisco (SF) identified its targeted sectors and
how they developed their service delivery structures.
Jim Torrens responded that SF’s approach was based on the CityBuild model
(construction). Health care was selected because of its growth potential.
Information Technology (IT) was selected because of SF’s growing attraction of
IT companies. Torrens wasn’t sure how hospitality was selected.
Professor Ben Bowser asked about the experimental conditions of the participants
and control groups.
Jim Torrens responded that the programs were very comprehensive and had the
capacity to adapt to the needs of the targeted industries and participants.
Meeting extended 15 minutes.
6
Gay Plair Cobb asked if there were any unintended consequences regarding
sector-focused career centers, such as accessibility. She also commented on the
feasibility of funding a program in Oakland as funded in SF.
Bill Patterson gave a historical perspective on initiatives in the East Bay and
specifically the Port of Oakland. He noted the SF has placed its resources outside
of its WIB.
John Bailey noted that the report will be going back through the Employer
Strategies Committee.
16. Executive Director Report
a. OWIB Retreat Review
John Bailey noted that minutes from the WIB retreat were in packet.
b. FY 15-16 Budget Update
Al Auletta spoke on the City Council staff report in the WIB packet that went to
the CED Committee February 28, 2015.
John Bailey added that there have been requests for the City to contribute funding
to the Workforce Development system. He mentioned the funding request from
City Council members to assist the Oakland Private Industry Council. This item
is being considered by the City Administrator.
c. Youth Summer Employment
This item is linked to the City’s relationship with the Oakland Unified School
District and the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. John Bailey
announced the Classroom2Careers April 10th
kick-off breakfast, and his meeting
with Mayor Schaaf regarding her new direction for summer and year-round youth
programs.
d. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Implementation
Al Auletta briefed the Board on the status of Oakland’s system’s readiness for the
implementation of WIOA.
Richard de Jauregui commented on the budget for FY 15-16 and the serious
impact that budget cuts are going to have on service providers. He referenced the
analysis in the staff report regarding revenue and carry-forward. He questioned
why there needs to be a cut if State funding is flat. He suggested that perhaps the
City doesn’t have its fiscal house in order.
17. Committee Summaries Informational
No report.
7
18. Open Forum Informational
No speakers.
Vice Chair Elena Anaya thanked everyone at the meeting for their participation
and rich discussion.
John Bailey informed the members that the interpretation that the ad hoc
committee appointed to the West Oakland Working Group was incorrect and that
the composition of the group requires that its meetings must be noticed and open
to the public.
Bill Patterson informed the members that the NAACP submitted a letter to the
City Council regarding the WIB budget item.
Gay Plair Cobb asked about the disconnect between the City’s Oracle and the
State’s JTA system with regard to carry-forward funds.
John Bailey said that the item will be addressed at the Executive Committee
meeting.
19. Adjourn Action
Meeting adjourned at 10:45am.
8
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
To: Oakland WIB
From: John R. Bailey, Executive Director
Date: May 27, 2015
Re: PROPOSED FY 2015-2016 WIB Budget
I. BUDGET SUMMARY
Last year, the WIB approved an “all-in” budget that included all projected unobligated carry-
forward funds that totaled $1,065,000, and a one-time Additional Assistance grant from the
Employment Development Department of $988,217. There are no unobligated carry-forward
assumptions in the FY 2015-2016 WIB budget, and no new grant funds. Our revenue assumption
includes only Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Formula funds at $4,567,1881. This is a
reduction of $2,094,367 in overall funding from FY 2014-2015. This represents a 31% decrease
in funds.
The Mayor’s proposed budget does not include General Purpose Funds to support our federally
funded Workforce Investment System, despite staff’s efforts for more direct support.
The City reduced its share of WIA funds by 29% from FY 2014-2015 to help off-set the
reduction in revenue for FY 2015-2016, which includes roughly $120,000 in indirect general
fund support. All other direct program, training and support services allocations are proposed to
be reduced from 20% to 24%, with the exception of the Summer Youth Program, which has been
reduced from $200,000 to $117,945 (59%).2
These large decreases in funding come at a time when Workforce Investment Areas are expected
to transition to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act (WIOA), which places added
service delivery, program performance, and administrative demands on service providers and the
City as System Administrator.
The following tables and narrative show the proposed FY 2015-2016 WIB budget, proposed
service provider funding and service levels, which are negotiable, and address the challenging
1 Actual Formula allocations from the State were announced May 13, 2015, with the exception of Rapid Response
funds. Oakland sustained a 1.3% Formula fund allocation reduction from FY 2014-2015 to FY 2015-2016. 2 The rationale for the recommended reduction for the summer youth program is to minimize reductions in year-
round youth services and the anticipation of robust fund development by the Mayor.
9
policy options facing the Board. Please refer to Attachment A for the proposed FY 2015-2016
Oakland WIB budget. Table 1 illustrates the decline in WIA revenue over the past three years.
TABLE 1
II. YOUTH
The overall decline in budgeted funding for youth in FY 2015-2016 compared to FY 2014-2015
is $416,415. The only funds for Youth in FY 2015-2016 are Formula funds at $1,567,314, which
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
FY 2012-2013 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016
$5,974,088 $6,347,418 $6,681,555 $4,567,188
$5,258,398 $4,854,996
$4,628,338 $4,567,188
$715,690 $1,492,422
$1,065,000
$988,217
Comparative Total Revenue
Additional Assistance Grant--Obligated
Carry Forward
Allocation
10
is the actual allocation we received from the State on May 13, 2015. Oakland’s Youth Formula
allocation was reduced by $36,415. Table 2 shows the decline in Youth funding.
TABLE 2
Youth Service Provider Performance
In a performance report released by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in the fall of 2014,
Oakland failed all three youth performance measures that covered the period of participants
exiting the program in FY 2012-2013. With support from DOL and the State Employment
Development Department (EDD), WIB staff convened an all-day training on youth performance
measures and CalJOBS—the State’s mandated performance tracking system. Staff also provided
numerous one-on-one training and technical assistance sessions with service providers at their
sites and by phone.
More service provider support is needed to ensure our System’s performance improves,
including consideration to allocate some youth funding for technical assistance for all providers
that are struggling to meet and exceed performance benchmarks. See Attachment B for detailed
Youth Service Provider performance tables.
FY 2015-2016 Funding and Service Level Options
The Youth Council’s primary duties include recommending eligible providers of youth services
to be awarded grants and contracts and conducting oversight with respect to eligible providers
and youth activities. Staff recommended that the Youth Council’s actions regarding FY 2015-
2016 WIA budget allocations be based on performance considerations.
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16
$1,785,300 $1,643,262 $1,603,729 $1,567,314
$400,000 $380,000
Youth Funding Level Comparisons
Carry-forward
Formula
11
Table 3 illustrates FY 2014-2015 Youth Service Provider funding levels compared to levels
proposed for FY 2015-2016, which represents a 15% reduction.
TABLE 3
Youth Council Recommendation At the May 13, 2015 Youth Council meeting and the May 20, 2015 Executive Committee
meeting, staff presented two options for consideration regarding Youth Service Provider funding
for FY 2015-2016, which are described below. Staff recommended Option 2, which was to
defer funding Youth Radio and Youth UpRising for three months pending the outcome of their
respective Corrective Action Plans.
OPTION 1
Table 4 represents a proposed prorated reduction of 15% as compared to FY 2014-2015 funding
levels for FY 2015-2016 based upon the reduction of $416,415 in available revenue this coming
year. Proposed service level reductions are 20%, based on the increased emphasis in serving
out-of-school youth under WIOA.
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
Civicorps Lao Family YEP Youth Radio Youth UpRising
$225,000
$250,000
$300,000
$208,980
$250,000
$191,250 $212,500
$255,000
$177,633
$212,500
FY 14-15 and FY 15-16 Funding Levels
FY 2014-2015 FY 2015-2016
12
TABLE 4
Please note that service levels are negotiable and that the figures presented in this table are a
proposed starting point for discussion.
The Youth Council voted to approve the proposed funding levels presented in Table 4.
OPTION 2 As illustrated in Tables 2 – 5 in Attachment B, two of our service providers are performing
below the 50% performance benchmark threshold. Following is language in City Council
Resolution No. 85114 C.M.S. for the adoption of the WIB’s FY 2014-2015 budget:
FURTHER RESOLVED: That each contract for workforce development activities funded with
WIA Title I funds shall have specific performance benchmarks consistent with WIA regulations,
and that the City shall terminate the contract of a service provider that materially fails to meet
50-75% of contract performance benchmarks and reallocate funds to other providers that meet
their benchmarks.
Staff is working with Youth Radio and Youth UpRising on the development of detailed
Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) intended to improve performance in all areas. The CAP
timeframe is May 15, 2015 – August 15, 2015.
An option for the WIB’s consideration is to defer making FY 2015-2016 funding decisions for
these two agencies pending the outcome of their respective corrective actions. Staff can bring
the outcome data and progress report forward to the Youth Council at a special meeting in late
FY 15-16 Youth Service Provider Contract Allocations
Proposed Service Level
Goals
Service Provider Total
Award ISY OSY Total
Civicorps $191,250 32 32
Lao Family Community Development
$212,500 20 20 40
Youth Employment Partnership
$255,000 12 36 48
Youth Radio $177,633 32 32
Youth UpRising $212,500 14 14 28
TOTALS: $1,048,883 46 134 180
13
August and to the Executive Committee during its September 2, 2015 meeting for review and
consideration of FY 2015-2016 funding.
The Youth Council voted down Option 2 in favor of Option 1.
The Executive Committee voted unanimously in favor of Option 2.
Staff remains committed to recommending Option 2 to the full WIB.
III. ADULT, DISLOCATED WORKER, RAPID RESPONSE
Revenue and Allocations
The overall decline in revenue for these three Formula funds is $561,235 without factoring in the
$988,271 OJT grant, which is obligated among four Adult service providers. Adult and
Dislocated Worker Formula fund figures are actuals from State as of May 13, 2015. The Rapid
Response revenue figure is a projection based on the 1.5% reduction Oakland received for FY
2015-2016 for Youth, Adult and Dislocated Worker allocations. Table 5 illustrates Formula and
carry-forward funding levels for Adults services in FY 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.
TABLE 5
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
Adult 14-15
Adult 15-16
DW 14-15 DW 15-16 RR 14-15 RR 15-16
$1,579,174 $1,542,588
$1,195,435 $1,211,036
$250,000 246,250
$430,000
$150,000
$105,000
Comparative Revenue Figures
Carry-Forward
Allocation
14
Table 6 illustrates Fiscal Year 2013-2014 to FY 2015-2016 funding levels for Oakland’s adult
service providers:
TABLE 6
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$1
45
,00
0
$1
,94
5,0
00
$3
35
,00
0
$2
15
,00
0
$3
35
,00
0
$1
45
,00
0
$2
,01
3,0
00
$1
25
,00
0
$1
00
,00
0 $3
40
,00
0
$1
11
,00
0
$1
,50
5,9
73
$2
61
,08
0
$1
66
,04
0
$2
60
,58
0
Three Year Funding Comparison
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
FY 15-16
15
Table 7 presents proposed funding and service levels for Adult, Dislocated Worker and Rapid
Response funding for service providers and EastBay Works:
TABLE 7
Proposed FY 2015-2016 Allocations: Adult, Dislocated Workers and Rapid Response
Proposed Service Level
Goals
AGENCY Formula Program
Formula Adult
Training
Formula Dislocated
Worker Training
Formula Adult
Support Services
Formula Dislocated
Worker Support Services
Total Award
A DW T
Dept. of Human Services: ASSETS
$100,000 $8,000 $3,000 $111,000 26 n/a 26
OPIC: Comprehensive Career Center
$1,150,673 $180,000 $135,000 $22,550 $17,750 $1,505,973 284 346 630
OPIC: Career Center West
$210,000 $26,000 $10,000 $10,080 $5,000 $261,080 38 17 55
OPIC: Career Center East
$139,000 $15,000 $5,000 $5,040 $2,000 $166,040 28 12 40
OPIC: EastBay WORKS
$60,000 $60,000 n/a n/a n/a
Unity Council $210,000 $26,000 $10,000 $10,080 $4,500 $260,580 38 17 55
TOTALS: $1,869,673 $255,000 $160,000 $50,750 $29,250 $2,364,673 414 392 806
Service Levels
As with the Youth Service Providers, staff is proposing a 20% reduction over FY 2014-2015 in
enrollment levels, which are negotiable.
IV. CITY PROPOSED WIA ALLOCATION
The City’s baseline budget for WIA Formula funding is being reduced from $1,488,728 in FY
2014-2015 to $1,056,940 in FY 2015-2016. This represents a reduction of $431,788, or 29%.
The City’s proposed allocation also represents 22.8% of the WIA Formula funding allocation.
These cuts are coming in the form of reduced administrative and Internal Services charges to the
WIA grant, which total approximately $120,000 in General Purpose fund support, as well as the
reduction or down-grading of two staff positions.
16
V. WIB POLICY OPTIONS AND CHALLENGES
Service Providers
Staff has presented reduced funding levels in almost every budget line item for the Board’s
consideration. Some agencies may determine that the reductions in WIA/WIOA funds render
their programs unviable. Proposed funding levels are subject to Board consideration as well as
service levels, which should also be based on negotiations with service providers.
Comprehensive Career Center Viability One of our biggest concerns as of the writing of this budget narrative is the financial and
operational viability of the Comprehensive One Stop Career Center. For the end of FY 2014-
2015, the Oakland PIC is seeking a City General Purpose Fund contribution of $250,000. The
agency claims that it has depleted its reserves and that its staff has experienced a collective loss
in wages over the past several years.
City staff has requested that the PIC prepare a sustainability plan for FY 2015-2016 in light of a
19% reduction in funding for the Comprehensive Career Center. Even if the City assists the PIC
through this fiscal year, it is not clear to staff if that one-time grant will help the agency through
next year at the proposed funding level. It is understood that there must be no disruption in
services to the more than 1,300 clients the PIC currently has on its caseload.
While a Comprehensive Career Center is required under the current Workforce Investment Act,
there are multiple models for how to structure a comprehensive one-stop. Oakland’s
Comprehensive One Stop Career Center as currently structured may not be sustainable.
City Viability
WIA/WIOA is administratively burdensome and complex, regardless of funding levels. The
City’s capacity to give service providers the quality and quantity of program and administrative
support they need and deserve requires staff’s best efforts. This is particularly true going into
FY 2015-2016 as the City must convert completely to WIOA, develop and participate in regional
program initiatives, support the expanded use of employer-based training options such as
incumbent worker training, on-the-job training and apprenticeships, help youth service providers
improve performance, and create and manage a year-round youth internship and summer
employment program in partnership with OUSD and the Peralta Community College District.
These and other Board priorities and goals, as well as activities and compliance concerns as
required under WIA and WIOA, should be taken into account within the WIB’s strategic policy
framework.
17
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
a) Approve the Youth Service Provider funding levels and deferral of funding Youth Radio
and Youth UpRising until each agency successfully fulfills their respective Corrective
Action Plans as presented in Table 4 and Option 2 of the Youth section of the budget
presentation;
b) Approve the Adult FY 2015-2016 contract amounts as presented in Table 7; and
c) Approve the WIB FY 2015-2016 budget as presented on Attachment A.
Thank you for your consideration of staff’s budget proposals.
18
A B C D E F G H I J K L
Line Items FY 14-15
ADULT
FY 15-16
ADULT
FY 14-15
DISLOCATED
WORKER
FY 15-16
DISLOCATED
WORKER
FY 14-15
RAPID
RESPONSE
FY 15-16
RAPID
RESPONSE
FY 14-15
YOUTH
FY 15-16
YOUTH
FY 14-15
TOTAL
FY 15-16
TOTAL
$
DIFFERENTIAL %
WIA Formula Allocations $1,579,174 $1,542,588 $1,195,435 $1,211,036 $250,000 $246,250 $1,603,729 $1,567,314 $4,628,338 $4,567,188 -$61,150 -1%
Carry Forward/Transfer $430,000 $0 $150,000 $0 $105,000 $0 $380,000 $0 $1,065,000 $0 -$1,065,000 -100%
OJT Grant $988,217 $0 $988,217 $20,000 -$968,217 -98%
Total Revenue $2,009,174 $1,542,588 $2,333,652 $1,211,036 $355,000 $246,250 $1,983,729 $1,567,314 $6,681,555 $4,587,188 -$2,094,367 -31%
ASSETS $130,000 $100,000 $130,000 $100,000 -$30,000 -23%
Comprehensive Career Center $498,000 $492,334 $710,000 $424,402 $300,000 $233,937 $1,508,000 $1,150,673 -$357,327 -24%
Neighborhood Career Centers $348,000 $394,000 $87,000 $165,000 $435,000 $559,000 $124,000 29%
OPIC OJT Project $175,522 $175,522 $0 -$175,522 -100%
Unity Council OJT Project $65,400 $65,400 $0 -$65,400 -100%
English Center OJT Project $67,189 $67,189 $0 -$67,189 -100%
Lao Family OJT Project $115,469 $115,469 $0 -$115,469 -100%
Year-Round Youth Programs $1,311,247 $1,048,883 $1,311,247 $1,048,883 -$262,364 -20%
EASTBAY Works $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 $60,000 $0 0%
Summer Youth Program $200,000 $117,945 $200,000 $117,945 -$82,055 -41%
Subtotal of Programs $1,001,000 $1,011,334 $1,245,580 $614,402 $300,000 $233,937 $1,521,247 $1,176,828 $4,067,827 $3,036,501 -$1,031,326 -25%
Adult/DW Training Funds $270,000 $255,000 $225,000 $160,000 $55,000 $550,000 $415,000 -$135,000 -25%
OJT Project Training $475,000 $475,000 $0 -$475,000 -100%
Adult/DW Supportive Services $70,000 $50,750 $30,000 $29,250 $100,000 $80,000 -$20,000 -20%
Subtotal Direct Client Support $340,000 $305,750 $730,000 $189,250 $55,000 $1,125,000 $495,000 -$630,000 -56%
Total Program Expenditure $1,341,000 $1,317,084 $1,975,580 $803,652 $355,000 $233,937 $1,521,247 $1,176,828 $5,192,827 $3,531,501 -$1,661,326 -32%
Professional Services $25,000 $5,000 $25,000 $10,000 $25,000 $10,000 $75,000 $25,000 -$50,000 -67%
Operation & Maintenance $15,500 $6,000 $15,500 $7,500 $15,500 $16,500 $46,500 $30,000 -$16,500 -35%
Internal Services Fees $41,000 $7,000 $45,000 $7,500 $35,000 $3,094 $17,594 $17,594
City Personnel $586,674 $207,504 $317,572 $382,384 $12,313 $386,982 $360,892 $1,367,228 $983,093 -$384,136 -28%
Subtotal of City Operations $668,174 $225,504 $403,072 $407,384 $12,313 $462,482 $390,486 $1,488,728 $1,055,687 -$433,042 -29%
Total Expenditures $2,009,174 $1,542,588 $2,333,652 $1,211,036 $355,000 $246,250 $1,983,729 $1,567,314 $6,681,555 $4,587,188 -$2,094,368 -31%
27-May-15
4) The City contributes approxmately $120,000 in direct and indirect general fund support for the Workforce Development Unit.
Oakland Workforce Investment Board FY 2015-2016 BUDGET Attachment A
1) 6.33 FTE are charged to the WIA portion of this budget for the City.
2) The total cost of allowable administration for the City portion of this budget is $287,977, which is 6.3% of the FY 15-16 WIA allocation.
3) The remaining $695,116 of staff costs go towards allowable program and system support activities.
19
Attachment B
YOUTH SERVICE PROVIDER PERFORMANCE
TABLE 1
FUNDS AVAILABLE
Service Provider Contract Amount
Funds Remaining
Civicorps $225,000 $84,375
Lao Family $250,000 $250,000
Youth Employment Partnership $300,000 $300,000
Youth Radio $208,980 $156,735
Youth UpRising $250,000 $109,963
TABLE 2
ENROLLMENTS
Service Provider Enrolled Enrollment
Goal % of Enrollment
Goal
Civicorps 28 44 64%
Lao Family 39 40 98%
Youth Employment Partnership 41 60 68%
Youth Radio 11 40 28%
Youth UpRising 16 35 46%
TABLE 3
PLACEMENT IN EMPLOYMENT OR EDUCATION
Service Provider Category Total Combined
Quarters State Goals
% of Placement
to Exit Success
Rate
Civicorps
Placement 13
55.0% 52.0% 95% Exit 25
Lao Family
Placement 25
55.0% 78.1% 142% Exit 32
Youth Employment Partnership
Placement 65
55.0% 63.1% 115% Exit 103
Youth Radio
Placement 12
55.0% 92.3% 168% Exit 13
Youth UpRising
Placement 1
55.0% 8.3% 15% Exit 12
20
TABLE 4
ATTAINMENT OF DEGREE OR CERTIFCATE
Service Provider Category Total Combined
Quarters State Goals
% of Attainment to
Exit Success
Rate
Civicorps
Attainment 23
56.5% 62.2% 110% Exit 37
Lao Family
Attainment 10
56.5% 37.0% 66% Exit 27
Youth Employment Partnership
Attainment 31
56.5% 37.3% 66% Exit 83
Youth Radio
Attainment 0
56.5% 0.0% 0% Exit 7
Youth UpRising
Attainment 0
56.5% 0.0% 0% Exit 6
TABLE 5
LITERACY AND NUMERACY GAINS
Service Provider Category Total Combined
Quarters State Goals % of Gain to
Deficient Success
Rate
Civicorps
Gains 0
40.5% 0.0% 0% Deficient 17
Lao Family
Gains 22
40.5% 88.0% 217% Deficient 25
Youth Employment Partnership
Gains 0
40.5% 0.0% 0% Deficient 10
Youth Radio
Gains 2
40.5% 11.1% 27% Deficient 18
Youth UpRising
Gains 0
40.5% 0.0% 0% Deficient 9
Failure in meeting Literacy and Numeracy measures is not unique to Oakland and in fact is a
measure that is being failed significantly across the country. This measure is proposed to be
replaced under WIOA.
21
ITEM #5
MEMORANDUM
To: Oakland WIB
From: John R. Bailey, Executive Director
Date: May 27, 2015
Re: Summer Program Funding Recommendations
Per City Council Resolution No. 84373 C.M.S., the Oakland WIB is authorized to approve the
disbursement of funds for the Mayor’s Summer Jobs Program to contracted youth service
providers without the need for staff to return to the City Council for approval. While Mayor
Schaaf has directed staff to develop an internship-focused summer and year-round program
model called “Classrooms 2 Careers,” the legislation remains in effect regarding disbursement of
summer program funds.
Oakland Housing Authority Grant
The Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) Board of Directors has again approved a $450,000 grant
to serve 260 OHA residents between the ages of 16 and 21. The program model includes a total
of 20 hours of per-employment and job retention training, and 100 hours of paid work experience
at the City’s new minimum wage rate of $12.25/hr. The OHA grant pays service providers a flat
fee of $500 per participant for Program and Administrative support, and up to $1,225 for youth
wages.
Any costs above and beyond the $1,725 per participant, such as training incentives and
bonuses, mandatory withholding taxes, and other program costs must be borne by the
service providers.
Staff is recommending that we go with the same three service providers that opted in to the OHA
grant last year, and disburse summer program funds using a pro-rated formula based on the
number of OHA slots each agency is getting.
The WIA funds are intended to provide operating support for allowable summer youth activities
in conjunction with year-round services, which may include defraying the costs not covered by
the OHA grant. The miscellaneous funds are also intended to help defray the costs not covered
by the OHA grant. Any funds above and beyond those needed to cover all costs associated with
the OHA grant must be used to create new summer program opportunities for youth ages 16-21,
including work experience, stipended internships, service-learning and the like.
22
Note the Miscellaneous Allocations are not guaranteed. They will be disbursed based upon the
approval of the Office of the Mayor and availability of funds. The WIB’s authorization to
disburse these funds is essential to receive now for purposes of program responsiveness.
Following is a table of recommended OHA service and summer program funding allocation
levels:
2015 PROPOSED SUMMER PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS
LFCD YEP YU TOTALS
OHA GRANT ALLOCATIONS
Number of OHA Youth Proposed: 100 100 60 260
Total Proposed cost to OHA: $172,500 $172,500 $103,500 $448,500
Pro-rata share: 38.46% 38.46% 23.08% 100%
FY 2014-2015 WIA ALLOCATIONS
WIA Youth One Stop Cost: $38,462 $38,462 $23,077 $100,000
MISCELLANEOUS ALLOCATIONS*
Recommended First-Wave Allocations: $15,385 $15,385 $9,231 $40,000
Not-to-Exceed Allocations: $38,462 $38,462 $23,077 $100,000
Sub-Totals: $226,346 $226,346 $135,808 $588,500
* Note the Miscellaneous Summer Program fund allocations are not guaranteed. Per City Council fund distribution authorization, the WIB must approve the disbursement of Summer Program funds to contracted youth service providers. Staff is recommending these not-to-exceed fund disbursements in the event the City raises $100,000. The proposed distribution of funds is based on agency capacity estimates derived from the allocation of OHAslots, which the agencies proposed.
On May 13, 2015, the Youth Council approved the 2015 Proposed Summer Program
Allocations. Staff requests that the Executive Committee also approve the recommendations for
fund disbursement levels reflected in the 2015 Proposed Summer Program Allocations
worksheet above.
The Executive Committee also approved this item by consensus on May 20, 2015.
Staff requests the full WIB’s consideration to approve the 2015 Proposed Summer Program
Allocations as shown on the table above.
Thank you.
23
ITEM #6
WIB ACTIVITIES STATUS TRACKING REPORT
Date: 5/21/15
ITEM DATE LEAD(S) COMMENTS STATUS
By-Laws
amendments
9/26/13 John Bailey Discussed changing to
Rosenberg’s Rules of Order;
other sections of the By-
Laws need updating; staff
will review for changes
WIOA regulations are
released
In progress
OJT Grant
Implementation
6/19/2014 Al Auletta,
Tamara Walker
EDD Regional Advisor
Gabriel Garcia met with
staff and providers to review
progress on the grant. He
implemented changes to the
program such as increasing
the grant period, creating
more flexible eligibility
requirements and increasing
the types of activities that
could be funded.
In progress
Youth Working
Group (West
Oakland)
6/19/2014 Youth Co-
Chairs/Ricardo
Quezada
The group held its first
meeting in February, and
must reconvene as a publicly
noticed sub-committee due
to the inclusion of non-
Youth Council members.
In progress
WIOA
Implementation
3/16/2015 Al Auletta WIB staff is assessing our
System’s readiness for the
implementation of WIOA
and prioritizing phasing
activities.
In progress
Summer Youth
Program 2015
2/26/2015 John
Bailey/Jacqueline
Noguera
Jacqueline Noguera has
joined the staff team to help
implement the new
Classrooms2Careers
program for youth in
conjunction with the
Mayor’s Office.
In progress
24
EDD Fiscal
Monitoring
5/4/2015 Honorata
Lindsay
The EDD Fiscal Monitor has
been reviewing files at the
City. The exit interview is
scheduled for May 29th
.
Pending
Oakland Call
Center
Opportunities
5/20/15 John Bailey Review potential of
employing Oakland
residents at Call Center.
To be
staffed
Viability of
linking
transportation
to employment
5/20/15 John Bailey Review potential of
providing transportation to
employment hubs.
To be
staffed