Employment Advisory Committee Meetings
EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
MINUTES
August 3, 2006
1. Call to Order/ Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 1:35p.m. A quorum was present.
Members Present
Commissioner Faye Woo Lee, Molly Baier, Jose Bondoc, Jerry Jones, Suzanne Korey, Patrick Regan, Ken Stram, Norma Tecson, John Weber
Members Absent
Commissioner Carlota del Portillo, Bridgett N. Brown, John Crowley Ronnie Rhoe, Adrian Trujillo
Staff Present
Linda Chin, Kabir Hypolite, Mary Gin Starkweather, Mariko Yoshihara (HRC Intern)
Guests
Chris Iglesias Program Director CityBuild, Rhonda Simmons Director of Workforce Development, Glenn Eagleson, Senior Planner and Policy Analyst
2. Adoption of Agenda
Jose Bondoc moved to adopt the June 1, 2006 agenda. Norma Tecson seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.
3. Adoption of April 6, 2006 Minutes
Ken Stram moved to adopt the minutes. Jose Bondoc seconded and the motion was carried unanimously.
4. Public Comment for items not on the Agenda
None
5. Commissioner Report
Commissioner Faye Woo Lee reported that Commissioner del Portillo will not be present and noted that both Commissioners will be absent in December. At her request, Jerry Jones volunteered to chair the December meeting.
6. Staff Report
Kabir Hypolite reported that the Department on the Status of Women staff had not clarified what action the DOSW had taken on its proposed exotic dancer legislation as of meeting time. Mr. Hypolite will follow-up with DOSW. Mr. Hypolite also noted that Bridgett Brown and Mr. Rhoe would not be present at today’s meeting.
7. Old Business:
a) CityBuild – Chris Iglesias, CityBuild Director, reviewed the most recent outcome statistics regarding CityBuild Academy’s first graduating class. He also introduced Ms. Simmons the new Director of Workforce Development who recently relocated to San Francisco from Seattle where she set up a service delivery system to coordinate that city’s strategic plan for workforce development. In San Francisco, the goal is to ensure that City workers in specified employment sectors have livable wage jobs. Beyond construction, she will present a robust strategic plan in the next six months.
Mr. Weber welcomed Ms. Simmons and noted that PIC has restructured. He asked about the reorganization of PIC. Ms. Simmons noted that PIC is part of the strategic plan and its role needs to be sorted out. Part of the funding comes from federal funding and these resources are decreasing. Organizations that wish to contribute to the work plan will have avenues to contribute to the strategic planning.
Mr. Stram asked Ms. Simmons’s sense of San Francisco’s workforce system and what she believes are the most urgent matters to be addressed. She noted that the current situation looks chaotic because it is not coordinated and therefore not leveraged from a funding or a programmatic standpoint. San Francisco’s diversity has resulted in the participants acting individually but without sufficient scale to be effective. She has been documenting this situation and will be sorting out solutions. She is optimistic because the City is placing emphasis on reorganization and leveraging public and private resources.
Commissioner Lee asked what problem is the most urgent. Ms. Simmons said residents would say “jobs” and preferably at a livable wage. She stated that the first part of a solution is to identify the sectors that will deliver living wage jobs from the lowest incomes all the way up the continuum.
Mr. Jones asked whether Ms. Simmons will be seeking job sources from private or government sectors and noted that the cost of living in San Francisco is very high so an eight dollar an hour job will not be sufficient. Ms. Simmons indicated that both government and private sectors are in play because one size solution does not fit all. She observed that in City government there is an ongoing ‘aging out’ process. Ideally these positions will be filled by San Francisco residents. On the private sector there is construction, healthcare, while light industry has left the city. There is a commitment in the City to develop the workforce and resources that can be leveraged to bring in more resources.
Mr. Bondoc asked if Ms. Simmons’ study of the City’s populations revealed any specific issues regarding the immigrant communities. She cited the loss of the garment industry and the displacement of workers. For what work will they be retrained? How will industries be attracted to the City in the future? She noted the City College retraining program and cited the English as a second language issue as pertinent to immigrant communities and noted that this is really a supply and demand issue.
Ms. Tecson urged that a single agency be assigned to coordinate and collaborate with government, community and business to provide an umbrella structure in the City or even the Bay Area. Ms. Simmons noted her function is to coordinate what the City and County government is doing with their workforce resources. She will try to influence organizations outside of the City, but she noted that there is great competition among Bay Area governmental entities. An organized San Francisco may foster collaboration in the community, but she does not anticipate ‘telling’ the community what they will do.
Mr. Weber noted historically certain sectors have been locked out of the job market. He asked how she will address the problems of individuals with disabilities. Ms. Simmons suggested the need for a menu of services that is well funded and well coordinated with a mix of internships, hands on experience. She wants to strengthen the work of DCYF and to address discrimination against disable people and provide access to training.
Commissioner Lee asked about state funding for workforce development. Ms. Simmons noted that there are small pots of money but pure workforce development comes from federal and local funds. The State transfers most federal dollars to the individual counties. Mr. Hypolite inquired about the funding trends. She noted the trend is down 12-15 percent. She is creating strategies to address the gap. Her focus is on maximizing leverage of these resources. Some money is spent on job development such as on the City’s One Stop system of services and training. She expects to recommend a combination of cuts, leveraging, and efficiency. She sees the federal funding as ‘dry’. Cities will have to confront the workforce development issues locally. San Francisco has a youth employment issue, a significant ex-offender population that needs jobs, a significant homeless population. We will have to devise a local strategy to address these problems and not rely on the federal government.
Mr. Iglesias provided an overview of CityBuild’s initiatives and recent developments. First he noted CityBuild is now operational. The construction boom in San Francisco is populated with public works projects through the Department of Public Works, MUNI, the Port of San Francisco, and San Francisco International Airport. He cited the need to take advantage of these projects to employ local residents. Private employers are also seeking local residents to meet their demand for labor. In addition private construction is strong currently. Private employers are using First Source program to the hilt. This is a voluntary service oriented program that links private contractors to the local workforce. 186 people have been placed, 70 on private projects. Forty to fifty of these individuals have come through CityBuild. CityBuild is working closely with SFUSD and the building trades to create avenues for employment. Contractors are providing funding, teachers, and helping to develop the City Build curriculum. They see many of their older workers getting ready to retire in great numbers while there are fewer middle-aged and younger workers. They are especially interested in young workers with leadership qualities and they want CityBuild to assist in supplying that need.
Ms. Bondoc asked about the potential competition with union jobs. Mr. Iglesias noted that the positions being filled are apprenticeship positions. He reviewed the June 2006 CityBuild Monthly Placement Report. He praised City College’s participation in the program and the Human Rights Commission’s staff for identifying projects that are ripe for job placements. There are currently 300 projects about to start. The next class graduates on September 13th. Ms. Simmons praised Mr. Iglesias for building strong relationships with private sector employers.
Mr. Hypolite asked about the longevity of the current boom. Mr. Iglesias said the current boom will continue for the next five years according to current projections. PUC has 10 large projects slated for future development. Ms. Korey, who works at City College, said private sector businesses are coming to CityBuild because the program is so well run. Mr. Iglesias noted that contractors resisted the prior relationship with the City because goals were imposed on them. Now they are negotiating with CityBuild to boost their participation. Ms. Weber expressed concern that people of color and women are not tracked for management positions. Mr. Iglesias noted that CityBuild has an MOU with PG&E to identifying participants to participate in a PG&E specific leadership program. Private foundations are also funding CityBuild to address this area.
b) Youth Employment - Glenn Eagleson, DCYF Senior Planner and Policy Analyst – presented an overview of history and factors impacting the City’s efforts to develop programs for youth (defined as 14-18) employment in San Francisco. Historically the federal government funded youth workforce development through the Private Industry Council and the Workforce Investment Board (WIB). Federal funding agencies encouraged the local business community to define the focus and create curriculums for local investment programs. Today federal funding has largely ended and the role of the PIC has diminished.
Since state government has historically been inactive except in the area of juvenile probation programs local government is now left to fill the funding gap while PIC continues to redefine its role and focus more on policy rather than funding.
Currently 12 City Departments and the PIC administer youth employment funds and programs. PIC still funds 22 non-profit youth employment programs and staffs the Youth Council which coordinates federal youth employment funds in San Francisco. A current proposal would have the Youth Council coordinate all local investment funds as well, but a global strategic plan is needed.
Local funding in San Francisco the Children’s Fund and property taxes are projected to contribute $36 million in fiscal year 2007-08. DCYF manages these funds through the Mayor’s Youth Employment Enterprise Program (MYEEP) which has approximately 1500 participants. DCYF conducts a needs assessment every three years and beginning in February 2007, will to hold 26 community meetings to assess community needs. Beginning in February 2007, DCYF plans to hold 26 community meetings to assess community needs.
Human Services Agency administers One Stops in San Francisco and places 2000 participants annually. However, it does not have traditional funding support.
City College and San Francisco Unified School District focus on skills building and are an under utilized resource in Mr. Eagleson’s opinion.
CityBuild and these other City Departments also impact youth employment in San Francisco: Public Works, Environment, Public Health, Human Services Agency, Juvenile Probation, MOCD, Port of San Francisco, Recreation and Parks, San Francisco International Airport, and the Public Utilities Commission (SEE CHART).
Private and Non-profit players include: 1) Jobs for Youth - a private sector program that emerged in 2005 to help young adults 18 and over in their career development, 2) Transitional Youth Task Force – which focuses on housing as well as employment for emancipated, disabled and foster care youth, 3) ITOP (Improving Transitional Outcomes Project) which also focuses on emancipated, disabled and foster care youth, and 4) the Youth Employment Coalition – which has a 22 year history of volunteer, clearing house, and community based organization leadership and is an untapped resource in San Francisco.
8. New Business:
Proposed amendment to Chapter 12A and 12B of the San Francisco Administrative Code eliminating upper age jurisdiction limit for age discrimination complaints – Mariko Yoshihara, Legal Intern and Mary Gin Starkweather, HRC Compliance Officer presented this action item which would remove the current age restriction on complainants seeking to file complaints of employment discrimination with the Human Rights Commission. The current Commission jurisdiction is limited to age 65. Federal and state statutes contain no upper age restriction for purposes of jurisdiction by anti-discrimination agencies. This proposal would make the City’s ordinance consistent with state and federal statutes. Final passage requires approval by the Board of Supervisors.
The historical age limit of 65 was used because of the long acceptance of that age as a standard retirement age both in the Social Security Act and in private pension plans. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendment of 1978 raised the age limit for private employers to 70 and removed it altogether for federal employees. In 1987 the limit was eliminated altogether because studies showed the widespread public support for its elimination. Another study showed that older workers can be just as productive as their younger counterparts and that for many workers job performance actually improves with age. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
The next meeting will be held:
Date: Thursday, September 7, 2006
Time: 1:30 to 3:30 PM
Place: HRC Offices
25 Van Ness Avenue, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
10) Adjournment
Rich Bondoc moved and Norma Tecson seconded to adjourn at 3:35pm. It carried unanimously.