Travis County Commissioners Court

March 27, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 5

View captioned video.

Item 5, receive update from Health And Human Services and Veterans Service and Ray Marshall Center on the 2011 Evaluation Of Workforce Development Investments.

>> good afternoon, judge, Commissioners, sherri flemming.
as you may recall, about 2004, we made a substantial increase in our investments and workforce development and as a part of that process, we -- we embarked down a road of evaluation of those investments.
in order to be able to provide information to you that roughly answers the question, whether or not your investments in workforce development make a difference for your constituents.
so we have had a long standing and I would have to say very wonderful relationship with the ray marshall center over at the university of Texas.
this today is their annual report.

>> what I would like to do is introduce this and then turn it over to terra smith, the director for the center.

>> dr. King, introduce yourself.

>> I'm sorry, I'm chris king, I thought -- I've done this a number of times, it's great to be back.
I should say.

>> makes you feel right at home, right?

>> I do.
except for maybe the bright lights.
so I direct the ray marshall center and have enjoyed working on this project with -- with county staff.
enjoy briefing you all on what we're coming up with.
I will introduce it, turn it over to tara, she's been directing the center really from the get-go.
I just wants to say picking up on what sherri said, I'm going to impress upon you how unique both the program investments that you are making are as well as our relationship with you all doing the ongoing evaluation work.
so I travel around the world looking at workforce in education programs, looking at how things are financed.
I can't think of more than two or three I've run across where particularly in the u.s.
you have local governments making an investment in real workforce and education services for those who are beyond school age.
traditional school age.
so will fact that you are doing that is remarkable in and of itself.
I think the range of services that you are putting your funds into also stand out considerably.
we all know Austin is different.
I think it's different in some very good ways.
I also do find in the places that I'm familiar with and visit and talk with, a place where they have an ongoing relationship with a partner that's giving them results, looking at patterns of participation, reporting back on outcomes, particularly doing what you are going to hear about today.
actually estimating value added from the service is the impacts, using a pretty state-of-the-art research approach and investing in knowing about returns on the investments.
we are finally delivering on something that we've talked about for several years, which was connecting up the cost side of this.
with the actual returns that you are getting.
so -- so I think that you are going to like what you hear.
we've been really excited to work on it and I'm getting now phone calls from around the country saying okay now how did you do this?
how did you set this up?
so -- so I think that it's a model that probably has legs even beyond Travis County.
so with that, I'm going to ask tara to please take us through the updated findings.
she knows me, swe knows that I'll jump in when I see an opening.

>> good morning or good afternoon, rather.
we'll be looking at findings from two sets of investments.
one in workforce demonstration projects and the other in your ongoing workforce service providers as well as looking at the findings from our roi analysis of the capital idea program.

>> roi meaning?

>> return on investment.
thank you.
roi is return on investment.
the evaluation data sources are from program and project records as well as the unemployment insurance wage records and claim files that are maintained by the Texas workforce commission.
with we looked at four measures in terms of outcomes, quarterly employment, average quarterly earnings of those employed, eligibility for ui benefits in the event of a job loss and -- and claims filed for ui benefits.
for the workforce demonstration projects, both of those, the rapid employment model, rem project, and the gainful employment model, gem project, were operated in partnership with workforce solutions, the capital area workforce board.
we are looking at 2007 through '09 cohorts of the rem project.
participants that went through preemployment and life skills training as well as short term occupational skills training, less than six weeks in careers like nurse aide, truck driving, construction, being the primary onesment and for the gainful employment model it built on that rem design but extended the length of training for up to nine months for careers such as bookkeeping, administrative assistant, pharmacy tech.
and automotive technician is another one.
what we found is that the -- that the rem project primarily served ex-offenders from the state's project rio program.
and the majority of those saw training in construction, office skills and truck driving.
for the gainful employment model program, the majority of the participants came from the tanf program and bookkeeping administrative assistants were the two primary areas of training.
though a large share did participate in english as a second language classes.
for the rem program, all of the cohorts demonstrated their strongest employment levels in that second quarter post service, so six months after leaving training the -- was the highest employment levels.
looking across all of the post service quarters, through March 2011, participants in the rem program more than doubled their quarterly employment from what their preemployment levels were.
average quarterly earnings increased approximately 20% between the post service and the preservice period and the share who were monetarily eligible for ui benefits in the events of a job loss more than doubled.

>> just a quick point on that.
so we can't measure full eligibility for ui because we don't know why people left their job.
it's not something we have ready access to.
but I think the fact that they are monetarily eligible tells you that you have taken a group and bumped them up into eligibility for what we view as the first tier safety net, right?
you lose a job, you get access to unemployment benefits.

>> two quarters or six months after the participants left gainful employment model training, we saw a slight increase in employment and earnings.
58% employed in that and average earnings were $3,601.
this is something in the report next year we will have a much longer time period of follow-up and be able to have more conclusions from that program.
turning to the workforce providers, we are looking at seven -- ranging from basic adult education to short term occupation skills training, we're going to look at the short term providers first, the majority of providers.
we've moved in years past we had been analyzing cohorts through 2006.
in this latest round of the evaluation, we have shifted to focus on 2007 and 2008 participants.
and so we're looking at outcomes and impacts for those participants up to two and a half or three and a half years after they left their training program.
what I'm going to focus on today is our impacts analysis.
and as chris mentioned, this is a design quasi experimental impacts design looking at the outcomes of participants and comparing them to the outcomes of individuals who sought job search assistance at a local one-stop career center.
again, we're looking at four measures, quarterly employment, average quarterly earnings, that monetary eligibility for ui benefits and claims filed for ui benefits.
american youth works, is a long standing provider here in the community, they offer training and education services in a service learning model, we looked at participants in their environmental core program as well as their casa verde builder program.
for those 2007 and 2008 participants we saw a 13 percentage point increase in employment.
and a 10 percentage gain in the share that were monetarily eligible for ui benefits in relation to the comparison group.
and american youthworks participants showed an $854 advantage in average quarterly earnings.
over the comparison group.
the next slide is a chart which looks at the combined impact of employment and earnings?
so earnings regardless of whether or not an individual was employed.
you will see in the latest quarter available that american youth works participants had about a thousand dollars advantage in that quarter over -- over the comparison group members.
I would say that's a fairly large impact.
all right?
these are -- these are, you know, fairly young not completely young, but these are youth by and large young adults.
to have a thousand dollars a quarter difference over and above a comparison group that was getting some minimal services, that's noteworthy.

>> we have some of our partners in this arrangement with american youthworks and t.n.r.
in the audience, any questions that you have, if they want to add on to our relationship I would be sure they would be happy to speak up.

>> okay.
looking at Austin academy, this is an organization that provides adult basic education and office skills training.
participants showed a 5 percentage point increase in employment in relation to the comparison group.
however, participants earned on average about $662 less per quarter than their matched comparison group member.
if you look at the chart on the next slide, you will see that in the initial post service period, say through four quarters post-service, which is approximately one year, the Austin academy participants were outearning the comparison group, but over time that advantage has declined.

>> do we know why?

>> one of the things we see with short-term training investments is that their impact seems to be in the immediate post-service period.
over time as individuals in the comparison group might access other education and training services or enter into different career opportunities, their earnings seem to have an advantage.
and those are information that we just don't have available to find out if those individuals have taken additional training or other steps that might increase their earnings.

>> although I would say in the future we're hoping we will.
we're involved in another project where we're kind of broadening our scope in terms of data sources we can access and one of them is kind of that full range of workforce services available through the Texas workforce commission, including at our local workforce solutions group.
we're hoping we can round out our understanding and maybe close the gap for what we know about these folks.

>> it's one of the issues that we're looking at and how our investments over time is what can we do to prolong the impact, providing more retention, more advance in services once you have those initial steps in the workforce.

>> it's kind of the trick for us, it's part of the fun of this collaboration, actually, I think between city, county and the workforce board is we're trying, we all know capital idea is does a great job.
it's also not cheap.
we keep looking for that sweet spot.
what's the next thing that you could do below that, that would produce a long-lasting impact, at a lot lower cost.
so we keep kind of working collaboratively to tweak the model and try it out.
so far I think we're honing in on it, but we're not quite there yet.

>> Austin academy and american youthworks has a very similar demographic.
the age of the participants --

>> Austin academy is primarily adults.

>> oh, it is.

>> youthworks is going to be mostly 17 to 24.
I think -- does that sound right to you?

>> sounds about right.

>> and then so Austin academy is more adults, primarily women, but a little bit different.

>> I would say of your -- of the range of providers, marijuana youthworks serves youth,

>> [indiscernible] provides service, all of the others are working in the adult population and typically individuals with a high school diploma or less.
and very little participation in higher education.
so you'll see that Austin academy, urban league, and goodwill, which is not included here, all serve kind of a similar profile, individual.

>> do they also have responsibilities for children?

>> which --

>> in this -- they

>> [multiple voices]

>> in some cases.

>> they probably would have responsibilities for children.

>> I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, yes, but most of those in the Austin academy a large portion are moms. Goodwill a large portion are parents.
capital idea of course, many, many parents.
so there's probably american youthworks probably a lesser amount just because they're youth.
construction gateway is probably a lesser number.
more like a non-custodial parents I guess.

>> when you go through this and end up going to the minimum wage situation that I'm looking at, some of this documentation referring to minimum wage, what is that amount minimum wage?
how do we define that as far as monetary?
what is that number?

>> talking about a wage that makes someone economically self sufficient or the federal minimum?

>> well, that's what I'm relying on you.

>> okay.

>> to tell me.

>> okay so --

>> several references that go to minimum wage.

>> right.

>> I want to know what one are you landing on.

>> federal minimum wage now I should be able to knock this -- 7.25 an hour.
in Austin, the latest results that I've seen coming out of the center for public policy priorities, living wage job for a family of three is about 18 to 2 two dollars an hour.
-- $22 an hour.
Austin is not a cheap place to live, I guess we all know that, but it is again if you have a couple of kids, it's roughly 20 bucks an hour.
so it's not cheap.
that's -- I mean, think about that.
that's a $40,000 a year job for somebody working 2,000 hours a year.
which is essentially full time.

>> one, $20 an hour job.
frequently if you are talking about two parents, it's the combined of 20 or higher, so ...

>> Austin area urban league the impact analysis was found to have a positive association with -- with lower ui claims. Ui -- urban league participants filed claims for ui benefits at a significantly lower rate than their comparison group.
two other measures showed a significant relationship, urban league participants were eligible for ui benefits at a lower rate.
than their comparison group.
and participants earned less per quarter than the comparison group.
looking at the chart of urban league participation, you will see that in the post-service period, in those first four to five quarters, urban league participants had a very similar employment and earnings trajectory as the comparison group and over time their earnings and employment has fallen off in relation to the comparison group.

>> which may suggest actually either to tighten up the program model generally or maybe focus on a different set of jobs coming out the door.
because when you see that pattern, in the chart, so the comparison group folks, it has some job search assistance, some referrals, out of the workforce board, for them to be doing better than the comparison group at that point suggests they are finding their way to jobs that might be of a higher quality.
than these, so it may be just a change in --

>> a large portion of the services that urban league was providing during this period were job search assistance.
there was not much classroom, skill building, it was very much focused on how do I get a person where they are into a job.
they are shifting their approach and increasingly trying to do more as all of our partners are trying to do more to build skills for their participant and help address some of the gaps that we are seeing from this cohort.

>> the last short term training provider that we have here is the construction gateway.
kind of two caveats.
one is that we were only able to establish a comparison group for the 2007 cohort and, two, that our data source, unemployment insurance wage records have a known coverage issue in the construction industry.
which is largely driven by self-employment and independent contracting.
so that -- so that we would take the estimates here as a lower bound of what actual employment in earnings likely is for participants.
the impact showed lower quarterly excitement by about 6 percentage points and -- employment six percentage points, fewer eligible for ui benefits, about 9 percentage points, again, that would not be a surprise given the industry that they were in training for.
looking at the chart you see a large initial increase in earnings for those individuals.
which they sustained over the first four or five quarters after leaving the construction gateway.
this one here is with the data we were able to access, we're not as confident that we're making a good match on these folks because while we know they are serving a fair share of ex-offenders, our comparison group data source doesn't have a flag that tells us whether we have an ex-offender.
they may be matched on earnings, they may be matched on education.
if you are missing an ex-offender flag you have to wonder about how good that match is likely to be.
we are continuing to explore ways that let's us get a better match on that one.
as tara said, going out we have a sense that probably the group that's being treated is going disproportionately into an industry that we are not measuring as much of the employment earnings for.
so we have a dispirate match on the frond end, on the back end, we would love to shape this one up further going forward and continue exploring ways to do that.

>> I'm going to talk now about capital idea, which is a long-term training program looking at placing individuals in high school, high wage occupations, primarily nursing and allied health profession.
training for capital idea can last for several years.
so it's -- so it's a very fundamentally different approach than what the other training providers are offering to participants.
capital idea includes a college prep academy, weekly peer support sessions, as well as that long-term occupational training.
and for this evaluation period, we looked at participants who started or completed their program between 2003 and 2008.
for this group capital idea was positively associated with three of your outcome measures, percentages with a 12.3 percentage increase in quarterly employment, a 12.3 percentage point increase in monetary eligibility for ui benefits and a $759 advantage in average quarterly earnings for those employed.
if you will look at the chart for capital idea participation, this chart is -- kind of summarizes the impact of employment and earnings over time, regardless of whether an individual was employed in any given quarter and in the most recent quarter available, capital idea participants were showing a $2,000 advantage over the earnings of those matched comparison group members.
very large and substantial increase and the trajectory was that that will continue to grow over time.
whereas we saw more of a flat tension out of the comparison -- flattening out of the comparison group member earnings.

>> just to point out, that's 29 quarters out.
that's a long shot at a post-service period.
so we are really confident that we're measuring something real and as tara said, it's substantial.
this is much better than you see from pretty much any workforce program that we're familiar with.
although we've seen comparable random assignment based evaluation results for some of its family kinds of programs. Also sectoral job training programs results look very similar.
so again we think we are getting a pretty accurate measure of what's happening over time for the capital idea folks.

>> do you recall how many participants that capital idea data cover?

>> that is a great question.

>> probably 350, 400, something like that, maybe month?
maybe more?

>> I want to say it's 400.
I did not write that number down.
I did not think to look at how many participants that was.

>> I didn't bring that --

>> I can get back to you with that answer.

>> okay.

>> we also wanted to present today some of our findings on on exploratory return on investment analysis.
we have had this in the he felt I can't is for a couple of years.
it got to the point where we felt like we were comfortable with our findings to be able to present them.
we focused on the 2003 and 2004 cohorts of capital idea participants.
we wanted to have a long follow-up period to look at what their labor market outcomes were.
we -- we used the quasi experimental findings as the basis, again looking at impacts on quarterly employment, quarterly earnings and the ui measures.
participants from the 2003 and 2004 cohorts averaged about one and a half years in capital idea training at an estimated cost of $6,459.
approximately two third of capital idea training is funded by taxpayers.
returns to taxpayers from capital idea, we focused on returns from welfare and food stamp benefits as well as increased tax receipts.
total returns were estimated at 165% over 10 years.
and 501% over 20 years.
and another way of thinking about that is that in the first 10 years, after leaving capital idea -- after investing in capital idea, each dollar returned $1.65 to taxpayers for an annual return rate of 9%.

>> better than my ira.

>> over 20 years, each dollar invested returned 5.01 to taxpayers for an annual return rate of 17%.

>> just a few comments about that.
for the 10 year estimate, normally we might do five years and 10 years.
we did some work at the state level looking at workforce service.
we really only did five years and 10 years in part, because we think the labor market is so dynamic these days, how long do we think these effects are likely to last.
in this case, for the 10 year period, we have already got actual measurements on eight of the 10 years.
and that graph is still basically the trend lines pretty much still spreading out.
a little wrinkle here and there, but the -- but they are trained in occupations and sectors that have pretty substantial growth projected for the future.
if that gap is continuing to grow, we feel very confident in projecting those out.
so I think these are pretty solid measures.
I guess the other thing that I would tell you, we feel good enough about these data here that we've actually taken this model which we probably know.
we had a role in designing the forerunner of this project quest in san antonio.
the ray marshall center was involved in the get-go at coming up with the design.
we have now exported that pod del as part of two generation strategy I was talking with Commissioner Eckhardt about before the meeting started.
so we're using that model to train the parents at head start and the early head start kids to try to move two generations up at the very same time and actually multiply those impacts.
so again we feel very good about those, good enough to take this model and keep kind of exploring it.
the other thing that I would say is what's not measured.
all right.
if you look at things like measurement for head start and you look at the long term benefits and cost, key benefit coming out of head start participation and most other kinds of human programs would be averted criminal expenses.
we haven't yet put those into these estimates, so these are simply things that we can model and directly look at, if we were to add averted criminal justice involvement those numbers would be even higher.

>> you know, when you talk about how over a 10-year period you're concerned about spreading your window of analysis beyond the 10 year because of the changing market, you struggle -- we struggle with that, too, in our mark -- in our market salary survey by the way.
in a conversation that I was having yesterday there was concerned about linking our

>> [indiscernible] to our workforce training programs on the believe that we in our workforce training programs wouldn't be as dynamic in responding to the market with regard to what jobs we should be training folks for.
there was concern about , you know, this was an employer concerned about -- about being required to -- to hire from our workforce training.
should our workforce training not meet their market needs.
can you respond to that as far as our dynaism as far as our --

>> sure.
actually I think the county's investment helps complement what's available through the workforce boards locally, through federal and state sources.
I think it's important to note that our portfolio, if you will, of options in the Austin area is much greater than you would get in most places.
second piece that I would note, it's too bad tamara or allan miller isn't here, they just came back from baltimore where they won the grand prize for the outstanding workforce board.
which is not a small accomplishment.
in part that's based on things that we know very well.
they are willing to innovate.
they work with the city, they work with the county, this notion of the rem and the gainful employment model model is a pretty good example of that.
they are always trying to find how to make things better over time.
so we view ourselves not just as evaluators, but we are part of a continuous improvement process.
so that on the outcome side: I know allan miller and tamara are also very involved with the Texas workforce commission and the greater Austin chamber, so they are actively out there analyzing pretty granular data and not just taking bls data at face value, but really trying to find out who are those people, what are the jobs really likely to look at, including talking to employers to get a fix on not what are the jobs we are currently measuring in the data, I'm a labor economist, data or backward looking.
data measure what we have already set in place tools to measure.
there are things happening in a rapidly growing market like ours, we are gaming in high tech stuff or still kind of reigning you have jobs that aren't even in the data sets yet.
you need to be talking to employers what are the emerging jobs.
they are actively involved in that process and I think quite responsive.
so I would think their coming here, I think that it's a pretty strong statement to be able to make.
this is a very dynamic workforce board and the surrounding institutions, civically, educationally, tight relationship with a.c.c.
as well as other training providers.
so -- so I would encourage you to think twice.

>> can I have one thing.

>> good point and commission

>> [indiscernible] you know, some time ago we had -- I'm going to go very brief about it, but we had a work session.
of course that particular work session was looking at economic development settings, of course

>> [indiscernible] folks from the state that come here, we had different chamber of commerce folks and city of Austin was here and kevin johns and others.
it was a pretty good discussion that we are looking at as far as direction that I think we need to go as far as making sure that -- that what water we're doing here -- what we're doing here is really the outreach component that we need to make sure that we get diverse employment opportunities, skill sets that are very important, very critical in making sure those opportunities was for workforce, work source solutions and others.
we're on the same page, going the same direction.
of course diverse, diverse employment opportunities, something that we have been hammering on for a long time coming from this court.
even with even with the ex-offenders program, which is something else that doesn't really -- we talk about it, but of course it's a part of all of this.
making sure we get a fair shot of employment opportunities, also.
skill sets are very critical.
of course I am still in -- in

>> [indiscernible] court I'm not speaking for everybody, I know the subcommittee as far as economic development situation are looking for that nexus that we need to have employed to make sure that what we're doing here and -- is -- is positioning ourselves to make sure that those skills are met.
of course a.c.c.
is -- is a good component, but there are others, you mentioned some of these folks here that are getting training also.
my concern of course overall as everyone else's is that we make sure that nexus is met, to make sure those particular skill sets are affordable because we do have a great workforce here, but there are still folks that sometimes are left, whether they slip through the cracks, we really aren't getting to the folks that also are -- are needing those skill sets, bringing them up to par where they can get those skill sets so they can be employable.
I just think we still got some work to do.
no doubt about it.
but I think laying the things out the way you have laid them out.
let me ask this question.
what can we do now -- you know, we looked at the return on investment, with we looked at projecting -- okay, there are other entities involved, not only track, other persons that invest city of Austin others that are involved in putting money on the table.
what can we get from the return investment?
is there any way possible that those viewing persons in the audience that would like to see what we're talking about here, you brought some good points during this presentation, but is there any way this information could be made available to the general public website via -- how can they get access to what we're doing here.
especially the taxpayers you all spent this much money, what do we get return for?
this is what we get return for then.
those kind of things like that.
is there any way possible that information can be made available to the public whereby they will have the same information that we have before us today.
is there any way possible to do that.

>> that's a great question.
in fact tara has copies which we will hand out.
we did prepare because nobody is going to read long reports --

>> I understand.

>> but we have produced some --

>> hey!

>> [multiple voices]

>> some people.
this court excluded.
but a lot of people will not read it.
they will read short summaries and they like pictures, so do i.
so we created a short piece with pictures.
and in fact this piece reporting on these results was circulated to members of our own state legislature.
it also made its way, because I took those copies, to the u.s.
senate health education labor and pension committee, which is still looking at reauthorizing some of the major federal legislation.
so I think --

>> thank you.

>> you are zeroing in on a very important point.
people simply are not aware or misinterpret the findings of most of the work that we've done over the last several years.
I have another paper, all of this is on our website.
we push it through our website newsletter all of that kind of thing.
but I think people have the impression that most job training and job search interventions are ineffective and I think that's simply wrong.
so it's part of our mission at the ray marshall center to kind of counter that viewpoint, keep getting the word out, we've been working pretty hard at it.
lots more to do, there's always somebody else to reach.

>> getting back to Commissioner Eckhardt your comment it's important to think about the county investment as part of a broader public system, there are some things that we can do well.
there's some things that we are not positioned to do well.
certain limits on what counties can and cannot do.
so we have tried to find the things that we can do best to fill in.
that tends to be, you know, looking at more disadvantaged residents, trying to get those first couple of steps into the labor market.
there are others that we do work closely with all of the time, workforce solutions, through a.c.c., other education providers, they are doing a lot more of the high end kind of jobs that you're talking about.
one of the advantages is that the workforce system under the workforce boards through a.c.c.
is increasing focusing not just on the traditional degree model.
but focused much more on certification for particular skill sets.
so you could be much more responsive in figuring out not that I need to get a student through an associate's degree in a given skill set but to do a couple of months to get that particular technology certification that translates into the jobs that we're looking for.
so we do have a very diverse and I think a very fertile system in our community right now.

>> lawrence, I think that you make a really good point.
as we look at Travis County investments and what our workforce board is doing, it's -- it bears repeating that where Travis County makes investments is usually on the end of the spectrum that is more difficult to serve.
so I'm not freaked out when I see urban league numbers for instance.
knowing that there's a broader investment by our partners in the full spectrum.
it's fitting that we as a governmental entity should concentrate on some of the more difficult populations to serve.
because we are probably the only ones who will.

>> therefore we have concluding observations, they are.

>> Travis County is a national leader in these investments.
we just don't see that in any other area of the country that we work in.
the demonstration projects especially have lead to new and ongoing investments for county residents through the workforce board.
we know that they are actively engaged in trying to reach as many eligible participants as they can.
and have structured their new Austin workforce approach going forward on some of their lessons learned from those demonstration projects.
the short term training investments that are the predominant investment made by Travis County have a large impact in the immediate post-service period when people are needing that first step to get into that job to connect with an employer.
that's the period that we see the most impact from those investments.
to change somebody's employment and earnings trajectory over time, however, it takes a longer term investment like in capital idea.
as we saw the roi, the return on that investment is pretty substantial.

>> could I add one thing.
our plan has been to get that return on investment for more than just capital idea.
that was the one that came together more cleanly.
there are more challenges in other areas, we hope to get a comparable study on other investments as well.

>> two quick comments.
for some of the shorter term investments we don't see the long impact on earnings, but one of the this I think so that I think we did take comfort in you did change the long-term eligibility for employment benefits, which many of these folks did not have before.
so if there's another economic disruption coming in their future, instead of fall back on public assistance and other sources, they are likely to be able to turn to unemployment insurance benefits, which is a social insurance program.
they in fact have given at the office, as it were, as their employer, to support these funds.
so I think that's an important move forward, even for the short-term investments.
there was something else that I was going to say but I completely lost it.
oh, I know what.
so part of the challenge that I think we face, I teach a class on human capital.
at the l.b.j.
school.
one of the big problems we have, if you talk to the state legislature, if you talk to the congress, so the house is about ready to eliminate all funding for workforce training in this country.
they think of the investments that are made in workforce investment act programs and related steps simply as a cost.
they are not really thinking of it as an investment with this long-term payout.
well, as long as you are just trying to scrub the budget and cut money, it's easy to see something that you could whack out.
if instead you think about that as something that might yield a potential return, not only for the participants but for the employers who capture most of it to tell you the truth, and taxpayers, well that changes your perspective.
we are not making enough in roads I think on changing the way we think about these things.

>> I'll say as we go forward with the evaluation this year, we will be adding additional cohorts.
we'll also extend the follow-up period.
and one of the things that we're working with the county on now is adding in the offender workforce development program.
we've had some initial conversations with the team on that program and we might have some -- we hope to have a first look at the preliminary outcomes from that program and -- in this year's report, but going into the future we will have more information on that.

>> okay.

>> thank you.

>> no, thank you.

>> I understand your point about the advantages to the short term.
participants.
but let me know if there's something wrong with this thinking.
if our goal is to beat the comparison group in some of these programs we clearly are not.
I understand your point about the other advantages and benefits.
but it seems to me at some point we have to conclude that either we redesign the program and services to beat the comparison group or we redirect those funds.

>> I think potentially that's right.
on the other hand what I like about this collaboration is it's an active conversation pretty much every time we get together.
what should we be doing differently?
if we're going to -- because that is the game.
let's see if we can't do better than what they would normally get walking in by themselves and getting just light touch services if you will from the workforce board.
so what's that next thing up we can do, the least cost, that changes that earnings trajectory just a bit.
we hope we can bump that employment, how with --

>> the pilots that we have tried to use have always been about we know how to get people into a job, a lot of the customers that we're essentialing don't have the choice to take a long period.
they need to move very quickly and get that first step in.
we continue to struggle with how do we take advantage of that window of disability to then build a next step and the next step on top of that.
that's what we continue working onment hopefully we will be able to show you better numbers in the future.

>> okay.

>> let's leave that in your lap until the next time.

>> thank you, judge.

>> thank you.

>> thank you all so very much for what you do, really, thank you.

>> let's get a quick one out of the way, then back to compensation.

The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.