« New legislation to make sector initiatives part of the economic recovery | Main | Will unemployment top 10% nationally in 2009? Take the poll »


Racy Ming

Good post. I agree with Jacobson that not capturing the millions receiving core services has been a great disservice to the system. I hesitiate to attach performance goals to core services, however - one, I don't think we should increase the paperwork burden, and two, it is difficult to measure the impact of one or two visits on someone finding work, although the services are definitely necessary and needed.

I also agree that helping training program retention might be a good way to improve effectiveness. Community colleges must use a lottery system to give away their seats for programs with waiting lists, such as nursing programs. Sometimes they do not get the folks most likely to successfully complete the program, which is a shame since any non-completers essentially waste the seats. With a grant several years ago we were able to provide support to existing nursing students - tutoring, etc, which directly helped to improve the graduate rate - very good bang for the buck.


I mostly agree with you Racy. But I think that if we track people getting core services, we should track their outcomes. There are lots of people who come into the One-Stop and only need a little bit of help to get a job. Why shouldn't the One-Stop get credit for providing that little bit of help?

Of course we can't expect the same outcomes as for intensive services, so any kind of performance standards for core services couldn't be the same.

As for not adding to the paperwork burden, I think Jacobson would agree with you.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google


Support your favorite blog! Get cool stuff!

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 03/2006

Find Workforce Developments on

  • Blogarama - The Blog Directory
  • Add to Technorati Favorites
  • BlogBurst.com