Return-Path: <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fA6I0Q018271; Tue, 6 Nov 2001 13:00:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 13:00:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <170.3775d5c.29197e43@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: KathleenBombach@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-workplace@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WORKPLACE:341] RE: One-Stops X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 97 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_170.3775d5c.29197e43_boundary" Status: O Content-Length: 9070 Lines: 104 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here in El Paso, use of the one stops by both job seekers and employers is far less than under the old system. I think the following reasons come into play: 1. Our county is 1002 square miles, and the one stop is located in only one place. The old system had employment services available in multiple locations in every area of town. Although there are several satellite offices, they offer minimal services--mostly use of computers and assessment for service level two people. They don't want the service level threes--in fact, the demand occupations list now includes 'pediatric surgeon' and very few people are placed in training. 2. No partner agency can afford to place services at more than one location; in fact, most of the partners have pulled staff out of the main location because so little traffic went through the one stop. The staff sat there all day with nothing to do while the staff at the old locations were overwhelmed picking up the workload caused by placing people at the one stop. 3. The one stop is seen by employers as "PIC", which it substantially is (same employees, same services, same clientele). Employers never turned to the PIC here for skilled employees, and they don't turn to the one stop. 4. One stops were set up with the convenience of the staff and management of the one stops in mind, which have been mostly PIC redux. Now there is a new contractor (ACS, formerly Lookheed-Martin) and we are waiting to see if they change the philosophy. They have gone through at least three operations directors in six months, so who knows. 5. The one stop needs a larger clientele base that addresses employer needs for higher skilled workers. But the way the one stops were envisioned, a skilled worker will fall into the level one service profile and their name and particulars will not even be recorded into the system. Under the old system, every walk-in could be entered as a job seeker. 6. The one stops are not perceived by anyone as offering the convenience and services of the old Texas Employment Commission. They are perceived as a cutback in government services. When the system was being recreated, I was on the organizing committee for the new workforce development board and on the subcommittee to redesign the system. I argued strongly for a no wrong door approach based on cross training and using the WIA administrative/management resources to augment services at existing locations where job seekers and employers already go (community college locations, trade schools, human services offices, high schools, libraries, chambers of commerce, grocery stores, malls, economic development departments, etc.). I argued that human power and physical resources both had to be dispersed so that full services were accessible in multiple existing locations (not the unstaffed computer work station/kiosks that were tried under the old system and barely used). I was dropped from both committees because I did not support the one centralized location approach and refused to shift any program resources over to the one stop. Of course, I repeatedly offered to 'host' one stop activities, to integrate the services into my programs, to cross-train my staff, and to supervise one stop employees. After all, I had 6,000 students and several hundred employers already receiving services. from my programs each year. I wanted to better serve these people by including the enhanced services WIA could have offered. I think the difference between me and the people who planned the one stop is that I spent many years of my life being poor, have been a client of these systems, and I successfully worked with employers and business recruitment people on a daily basis for customized training as well as with adult literacy students. I had also worked for the old PIC and had sought services under CETA. I had multiple perspectives. Agency people designed the system for what made sense to them; it was not a combination of employers and job seekers. Employers deferred to the agency people, and job seekers were excluded from the process completely. If employers and job seekers had designed the system (no agency people), it would look much different. Kathleen Bombach El Paso Texas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:18 EST