Goodwill Community Needs Assessment

2010 Community Needs Assessment

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3 Background.................................................................................................................................. 3 Data Collection and Methodology............................................................................................... 5 Description of Goodwill Industries.............................................................................................. 6 History and Purpose..................................................................................................................... 6 Current Programs......................................................................................................................... 6 Community Description................................................................................................................ 8 Demographic Profiles .................................................................................................................. 8 Population Statistics................................................................................................................. 8 Age/Gender Statistics ............................................................................................................ 12 Poverty Statistics ................................................................................................................... 12 Disability Statistics ................................................................................................................ 13 Economic Conditions and Job Growth...................................................................................... 13 Job Trends.............................................................................................................................. 13 Community Assessment.............................................................................................................. 17 Perceptions of Social Issues ...................................................................................................... 18 Perceptions of Barriers to Employment..................................................................................... 20 Perceptions of Service Population............................................................................................. 22 Perceptions of Service Availability and Service Value............................................................. 27 Employment Opportunities........................................................................................................ 33 Goodwill Brand Awareness....................................................................................................... 36 Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 41 Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 43 Open-ended survey text responses ............................................................................................ 43

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee is one of 207 autonomous Goodwill organizations globally and part of the Goodwill Industries International (GII) network. Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee serves 46 counties in middle and west Tennessee. Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee is an independent 501(c) 3 non-profit corporation governed by a local board of directors. David Lifsey is the president and CEO. This Community Needs Assessment was initiated to determine the employment, training services, education and supportive services needs of the communities served by Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee. This needs assessment includes primary data in the form of survey results as well as secondary data in the form of demographics, economic data and employment data. The assessment is intended for use by the Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee board of directors and staff as they plan for future services and for the investment of Goodwill resources in the community. This assessment may also be useful to others interested in the planning and implementation of employment-related services.

The Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee Community Needs Assessment identified a number of areas in which Goodwill could provide new services and/or serve new populations.

The Community Needs Assessment also identified areas of services needed in the community that may be more appropriate to be provided by other agencies or by Goodwill partner agencies.

This summary provided general areas for consideration to be used for strategic planning purposes and is not intended to offer specific programs for consideration, but rather a general direction for what Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee may want to consider based on the findings.

The following summary offers various strategies for consideration: • • • •

Considerations for New Services/New Populations Considerations for Expansion of Current Services Considerations for Community Services Appropriate for Community Partners or Collaborators Considerations to Improve the Quality of Current Services

2

INTRODUCTION Background Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, its board of directors and staff, initiated the Community Needs Assessment for use in the development of the agency’s strategic plan for the next three to five years. Statewide demographics and trends are incorporated into the needs assessment to offer a “bigger picture” perspective. The project focus includes an assessment of multiple Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee areas of interest: workforce development; donated goods; and marketing. The information from this project will be used in board and staff strategic planning sessions to develop recommendations for funding of programs and services beginning in the 2009 program year and beyond. The needs assessment, in part, addresses how Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee can continue to manage its growth and continue providing high quality, in-demand services to the communities it serves.

The 2010 Community Needs Assessment is part of Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee’s ongoing commitment to determine how best to invest resources in the community. In 2008 Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee conducted a needs assessment utilizing the resources of Goodwill Industries International (GII) and its consulting team. The survey sample was generated through a selection process that chose specific individuals to broadly represent the stakeholders, workforce development professionals, elected leaders, and funders in our service counties. The purpose of this survey was to identify, at the community level, perceptions of needed services, perceptions of employment conditions, and perceptions of Goodwill of Middle Tennessee. The survey also sought to identify differences in perceptions based on the respondent’s association with Goodwill (e.g. stakeholder, elected official, etc.). Initially, 1290 individuals were identified for participation and a total of 282 individuals responded to the survey.

The results of the 2008 assessment offered the following major findings: •

Overall, respondents identify educational quality as the major social issue facing the area.

Alcohol/ drug abuse and economic development were also identified as top social issues.

These results appear to be driven by the opinions of individuals from Davidson County.

•

Among populations with disadvantaging conditions, respondents identified the working poor as most in need of services and the non-English speaking population as growing fastest. Among populations with disabilities, respondents identified individuals with psychiatric and/or emotional disorders as both most in need of services and growing fastest.

•

In the case of populations with disadvantages, a majority of the contrast groups (stakeholders and regional representatives) ranked the working poor as the number one

3

population in need of service. Specifically, respondents from the northern ring counties are substantially more concerned about single parents than any other region.

•

Overall, limited public transportation is ranked as the most pressing barrier to employment; however, this result is likely due to the opinions of individuals outside of Davidson County. Limited employment opportunities and limited work skills training were also selected by numerous respondents.

•

One interesting result is the marked difference in opinions held by Goodwill board members and the remainder of the sample. Board members identified limited job coaching nearly twice as often as all other groups.

•

Respondents are generally ambivalent regarding both service availability and job prospects in the region. The only exceptions to this finding are the perceived availability of GED preparation and testing services; respondents rate this service as more available than the remainder.

•

Goodwill rises to the “top of the respondents’ heads” when they are prompted to think of service organizations.

•

Goodwill enjoys very strong brand awareness among stakeholders in its territory.

Overall, 85 percent of the respondents identify Goodwill as a national charity that works in their community and 98 percent identify Goodwill as accepting donated goods. One potential problematic area is the northern ring counties; respondents from this area are less likely to recall Goodwill as a national charity that works in their area – even after completing a survey from Goodwill. Additional marketing or partnership building in these counties would likely improve this result.

•

Although Goodwill appears to enjoy relatively strong brand recognition, it still suffers from significant levels of misconception regarding its mission. Specifically, community advocates (the largest representative group in the sample) actually misidentify Goodwill’s mission more frequently than they identify it. The same may be also said of employers and elected officials. Furthermore, this level of misconception appears to occur across all regional representations, indicating that Goodwill needs to provide more community awareness to educate this target group about its business purposes across its entire territory.

The 2010 Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee Community Needs Assessment was directed

by Karl Houston, senior director of marketing & community relations and Niketa Hailey-Hill, marketing manager at Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee. Survey data collection was provided by Matthew Vile, manager of surveys and data analysis at GII.

4

The parameters of the Community Needs Assessment were defined to include the education, employment, and vocational training needs of the communities served by Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee within the defined territory. Although there are three major operational departments within Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee: donated goods, workforce development, and e-commerce; the information collected and the recommendations pertain included herein only apply to the donated goods and workforce development program areas. The donated goods division of Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee is the primary fund raising mechanism for the organization. The proceeds generated through the donated goods operation support all of the other program areas that serve the community. Although the retail stores do serve the community in the form of providing low cost, high quality used goods to shoppers, those services and the potential expansion of those services was not the focus of this Community Needs Assessment.

Data Collection and Methodology Primary Data GII performed an electronic survey that was sent via e-mail to stakeholders, including Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc. board members, community leaders/advocates, elected officials, employers/funders, referring agencies/service providers, and other non-profits. 226 individuals answered the online survey.

Secondary Data The Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc. Community Needs Assessment collected secondary data on the counties in which Career Solutions centers are located. This data was necessary to analyze and define the areas demographically and socially. This secondary data included the following: • • • •

Assessments and studies performed by state and national departments and organizations U.S. Census Data (2000) – The United States Census Bureau Data provided by GII’s CNA Databooks 2008 Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc. Community Needs Assessment GII Community Needs Assessment tools and data

5

DESCRIPTION OF GOODWILL INDUSTRIES History and Purpose Goodwill Industries, as a national movement, began in 1902, when a Methodist minister, who served a wealthy congregation in Boston, asked for members’ discards in order to create jobs for people out of work. The Goodwill movement has grown into more than 200 individual, local Goodwill agencies, throughout the U.S. and internationally.

Operating in Tennessee since 1957, Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee is one of the oldest and largest non-profit agencies in middle and west Tennessee. The organization’s mission is to provide jobs, job training, and job placement services to people with disabilities or other barriers to employment. In 2009, the company served more than 11,000 people and assisted 2,465 people in obtaining employment.

Our Goodwill has 32 stores throughout its territory, which runs from Jackson in west Tennessee, to Cookeville in the east and from Clarksville in northern Tennessee, to Lawrenceburg and Fayetteville in the southernmost region our coverage area. Goodwill has more than 60 donation centers with attendants who assist the customers as they donate their clothes and household items. Those items are processed and sent to the stores to be sold. The proceeds from the sale of those items support our efforts to provide job training and placement services to clients in need of our services.

Our Career Solutions job services programs are provided in 15 locations throughout Middle Tennessee: Nashville (main office), in the Berry Hill community in Nashville, Clarksville, Springfield, Franklin, Shelbyville, Gallatin, Murfreesboro, Cookeville, Jackson, Dickson, Spring Hill, Union City, Rivergate and Lewisburg.

Current Programs •

Job Readiness – Career Solutions offers a one-day information and training session followed by a one-on-one meeting with a career counselor. The career counselors aid clients in overcoming barriers, searching for job leads, creating a resume, filling out applications, improving interviewing skills and retaining employment. More than 11,000 people participate in Job Readiness training each year.

•

Computer Training – The Computer Training Program includes educational modules on Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook. The course also includes basic computer and Internet operations. The 10-week program includes textbooks, instruction, text simulation and five Certiport Microsoft Office Specialist exams. Goodwill also

6

provides classes for online applications, developing a resume, Introduction to Computers and other short-term classes. 561 people trained in 2009.

•

Forklift Certification – The 4-6 hour course includes class instruction, computer-based and hands-on training and operation practice of a forklift. 696 people trained in 2009.

•

Security Guard Certification – Recognized by the State of Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, students receive a certificate acknowledging their training in providing security service for a wide variety of businesses and institutions. The program has several components during the eight hours of classroom training, which covers orientation, legal powers and limitations of a security guard, emergency procedures, general duties, policies and procedures and a final written exam. 24 people trained in 2009.

•

Retail and Customer Service Training – Training for Retail Associate Certification (TRAC) offers two classes; TRAC 1 and TRAC 2. TRAC 1, designed for entry-level workers, teaches job readiness, customer service, product knowledge, selling tips, basic merchandising, safety and security, cash handling and basic point-of-sale (POS) skills.

TRAC 2, designed for assistant managers or lead workers, teaches basic supervision, cash handling and POS operation, merchandising, safety and security, bank transactions, upselling and cross-selling tips, facility maintenance, scheduling staff and customer complaints. 136 people trained in 2009.

•

Transitional Employment Services - For individuals with a documented physical, mental, or emotional disability, the Transitional Employment program provides individuals with employment at Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc. in retail, donations or production departments. Through this program individuals earn a paycheck while improving and developing job skills. 78 people participated in this training program in 2009

•

Call Center Training Program – Call Center skills are taught and demonstrated in the 8-12 week program. Trainees take live calls in the presence of a supervisor. 10 people have been trained to-date in 2010.

•

Life Skills Program – The Good Life program and staff provide a variety of support services and referrals to both Goodwill employees and clients. Since May 2010, staff has assisted with services/referrals in the areas of housing, education, transportation, childcare, medical, custody, budgeting, job training and home repair. 34 people were served from May-July in 2010.

7

COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION Data and Research Findings This section describes Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee’s current service areas and in the State of Tennessee. These statistics were generated by the U.S. Census Bureau. The purpose is to look at the areas of need based upon population, ethnicity, disability and poverty statistics.

The information covers the counties where Career Solutions centers are located.

Demographic Profiles Population Statistics The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau reports the population for the State of Tennessee was 5,689,283.

The population is projected to increase by 16.2 percent by 2014, equaling 6,644,850.

The 2000 population count and projected population counts for 2009 and 2014 of the Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc. territory is listed below: Projected Population Growths by County

8

These statistics indicate the three counties with the highest growth are Williamson (11.8%), Montgomery and Rutherford (11.1%). The three counties with the least growth are Obion (0.9%), Davidson (2.7%) and Madison (4.1%).

9

The next few tables contain demographic data for the territory served by Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc. and for the state of Tennessee.

Education Attainment and Transportation County Data from Census Bureau, STI: PopStats, Social Security Administration, and Bureau of Labor Statistics NOT a High School Graduate High School Graduate Some College, but No Degree Associate Degree Bachelor's Degree or Higher Education Attainment

Bedford

Davidson

Dickson

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Madison

Marshall

Maury

Montgomery

Obion

Putnam

Robertson

Rutherford

Sumner

Williamson

Tennessee

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. EDUCATION ATTAINMENT FOR PERSONS 25 YEARS AND OLDER (2009)

30.3%

18.5%

27.3%

20.2%

26.2%

21.2%

15.2%

29.0%

27.2%

25.3%

17.6%

20.0%

9.9%

23.5%

38.9%

24.7%

39.7%

30.7%

41.4%

36.4%

30.4%

41.2%

31.8%

38.9%

31.6%

32.0%

20.0%

31.4%

16.0%

21.6%

17.0%

21.7%

17.5%

22.3%

28.0%

17.0%

18.0%

19.4%

22.3%

22.9%

21.0%

20.2%

3.6%

4.9%

4.6%

5.3%

4.2%

6.4%

7.0%

2.5%

2.5%

4.5%

5.3%

6.2%

5.1%

4.8%

11.1%

30.2%

11.3%

22.1%

10.7%

13.6%

19.4%

10.4%

20.4%

11.8%

23.2%

18.9%

44.0%

20.0%

93.5%

91.9%

MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK FOR WORKERS 16 YEARS AND OLDER (2000) 95.1% 94.8% 94.8% 96.2% 93.9% 95.8% 93.5% 95.0%

95.6%

94.9%

92.9%

94.3%

0.6%

1.8%

0.3%

0.8%

0.4%

0.3%

0.9%

0.4%

0.2%

0.3%

0.2%

0.3%

0.2%

0.8%

1.8%

2.3%

0.9%

1.6%

1.2%

1.0%

2.1%

0.9%

2.4%

0.9%

1.0%

0.8%

0.7%

1.5%

Worked at Home

3.4%

3.1%

3.0%

1.9%

3.0%

1.9%

1.9%

2.1%

2.6%

2.8%

2.5%

3.2%

5.4%

2.6%

Other Means

0.7%

0.9%

0.7%

0.9%

0.6%

0.7%

1.2%

0.7%

1.2%

0.9%

0.7%

0.8%

0.9%

0.8%

Car, Truck, or Van Public Transportation Walked

10

Unemployment and Poverty County Data from Census Bureau, STI: PopStats, Social Security Administration, and Bureau of Labor Statistics UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (June 2010)*** PERSONS IN POVERTY (2008) PERSONS UNDER 18 YEARS IN POVERTY (2008)

Bedford

Davidson

Dickson

Madison

Marshall

Maury

Montgomery

Obion

Putnam

Robertson

Rutherford

Sumner

Williamson

Tennessee

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

12.6%

9.1%

9.7%

10.4%

16.7%

15.2%

10.0%

10.1%

9.5%

9.1%

9.3%

9.0%

7.5%

10.1%

16.7%

16.9%

13.8%

15.4%

14.4%

14.0%

13.3%

16.7%

17.9%

11.1%

10.2%

8.7%

5.0%

15.5%

22.5%

25.7%

19.2%

22.4%

22.1%

18.7%

18.6%

22.5%

21.7%

15.6%

12.3%

11.3%

6.0%

21.8%

White Alone

11.3%

8.1%

9.3%

7.3%

8.8%

8.7%

7.2%

10.5%

15.8%

7.2%

8.1%

6.9%

4.0%

10.8%

Black Alone American Indian or Alaska Native Alone

27.9%

23.7%

23.1%

27.1%

21.7%

21.8%

19.6%

32.4%

23.7%

27.3%

13.9%

22.5%

12.9%

25.3%

0.0%

13.3%

21.4%

34.8%

0.0%

27.8%

15.3%

64.3%

42.4%

1.6%

12.1%

5.0%

7.3%

17.2%

Asian Alone Pacific Islander Alone Some Other Race Alone Two or More Races

6.7%

14.7%

15.3%

0.9%

0.0%

0.0%

11.0%

0.0%

33.5%

4.7%

4.8%

11.4%

6.8%

12.6%

0.0%

32.9%

NA

57.9%

NA

NA

10.2%

0.0%

8.7%

0.0%

9.5%

0.0%

0.0%

14.9%

26.5%

27.8%

47.7%

25.2%

29.9%

20.9%

10.5%

53.4%

26.3%

17.6%

25.2%

34.2%

14.7%

26.6%

19.3%

20.8%

20.5%

18.1%

8.6%

12.0%

17.2%

43.1%

28.5%

8.9%

21.0%

13.6%

18.2%

20.5%

22.0%

25.9%

12.7%

18.9%

35.3%

11.8%

13.1%

42.0%

34.2%

29.8%

22.0%

22.6%

15.1%

23.3%

PERSONS IN POVERTY BY RACE (1999)

PERSONS IN POVERTY BY HISPANIC AND LATINO (1999)

11

Labor Statistics County Data from Census Bureau, STI: PopStats, Social Security Administration, and Bureau of Labor Statistics SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME RECIPIENTS (Dec. 2009) PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY 16 to 64 YEARS (2000) DISABILITY BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS (2000)

Persons 16 to 64 Years Not employed

Bedford

Davidson

Dickson

Madison

Marshall

Maury

Montgomery

Obion

Putnam

Robertson

Rutherford

Sumner

Williamson

Tennessee

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

Pct.

865

12,236

1,033

2,820

567

1,533

2,601

945

1,620

1,170

2,775

2,375

904

163,270

22.9%

18.7%

21.6%

20.3%

21.3%

18.4%

20.7%

22.2%

19.8%

21.6%

15.7%

17.6%

10.3%

21.0%

40.9%

40.9%

43.5%

42.4%

40.5%

41.0%

43.1%

50.9%

50.2%

38.5%

38.2%

41.0%

33.9%

47.0%

4.8%

2.7%

0.6%

0.9%

1.1%

1.0%

1.0%

0.9%

2.0%

1.6%

1.3%

0.8%

1.3%

1.1%

SPEAK ENGLISH "NOT WELL" OR "NOT AT ALL" (2000)

Persons 5 years and older

SINGLE MOTHER FAMILIES WITH RELATED CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS (1999) Income below poverty level Income at or above poverty level FOREIGN BORN POPULATION (2000) NUMBER OF VETERANS 18 YEARS AND OLDER (2000) PERSONS IN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS (2000)

32.6%

34.7%

33.5%

36.7%

30.2%

36.7%

33.6%

50.7%

38.1%

33.7%

25.8%

30.6%

19.4%

37.6%

67.4%

65.3%

66.5%

63.3%

69.8%

63.3%

66.4%

49.3%

61.9%

66.3%

74.2%

69.4%

80.6%

62.4%

6.4%

6.9%

0.7%

2.3%

1.4%

2.1%

4.4%

1.3%

3.4%

2.5%

3.6%

2.4%

3.9%

2.8%

12.6%

11.5%

14.9%

12.1%

11.8%

13.0%

20.3%

13.2%

12.1%

12.9%

12.5%

12.9%

10.4%

13.1%

0.3%

1.0%

0.4%

0.4%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.2%

0.3%

0.7%

12

Age/Gender Statistics Age is an important number to review when making decisions about the types of services to provide in a community. It is important to note generational differences in service areas.

The 2000-estimated median age projected median ages for 2009 and 2014 are as follows: County Bedford Davidson Dickson Madison Marshall Maury Montgomery Obion Putnam Robertson Rutherford Sumner Williamson Tennessee

2000 34.9 34.2 35.7 34.7 36.3 36.3 30.0 38.7 34.4 35.3 31.3 36.1 36.1 35.9

2009 32.1 32.3 33.2 31.6 33.5 33.5 28.8 35.0 31.4 33.1 29.8 34.0 34.1 33.3

2014 33.2 34.0 33.9 32.5 34.2 34.2 30.5 35.8 32.9 33.9 31.5 34.8 34.7 34.3

The youngest projected median age (30.5 years) resides in Montgomery County and the oldest median age (35.8 years) resides in Obion County, equaling more than a five-year age difference.

It is also worth noting the aging population of baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964), which is the largest sector of the U.S. population. By 2015, people age 50 and older will account for 45 percent of the U.S. population, followed by those persons born between 1980 and 1993, also known as the Millenials.

Poverty Statistics Poverty statistics are important to consider because many of the individuals seeking a job live in poverty. The poverty rate in the State of Tennessee is 15.5 percent, which is higher than the national average of 13.2 percent.

There are several counties in which our Career Solutions are located that rank above the average percent for the state, including: • • • •

Putnam County – 17.9% Davidson County – 16.9 % Bedford & Obion Counties – 16.7% Madison County – 15.4%

13

It is also worth noting that the poverty rate in Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner and Williamson counties are lower than the state and national poverty rates.

Disability Statistics According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of persons with disabilities not employed in Tennessee overall is 47 percent. Obion County (50.9%) has the highest percentage of persons with disabilities not employed, while Williamson County (33.9%) comes in with the lowest percentage of persons with disabilities not employed in relation to our service area.

Tennesseans with disabilities (age 16-64) is 21 percent. In reviewing percentages above that state figure in our service area, Bedford County (22.9%) has the highest percentage of persons with disabilities followed by Obion County (22.2%), Robertson and Dickson Counties (21.6%) and Marshall County (21.3%).

According to the Report of the 2007 Developmental Disabilities Task Force’s Fulfilling the Promise, there are fewer programs for Tennesseans with developmental disabilities compared to the availability of programs for Tennesseans with mental illness. Developmental disabilities include cerebral palsy, autism, and spina bifida, among others.

“For persons with development disabilities, getting a job or attending college is often extremely difficult. With services, training, and today’s technology, most people with developmental disabilities could join the Tennessee workforce, buy a home, pay taxes, and assume vital roles in our communities.” (2007 Developmental Disabilities Task Force’s “Fulfilling the Promise” pg. 1) “Studies indicate that people with developmental disabilities compromise between 1.2 and 1.65 percent of the United States population. Approximately one percent of the U.S. population is estimated to have mental retardation. From this, it can be projected that between 12,078 and 39,252 Tennesseans have developmental disabilities other than mental retardation.” (2007 Developmental Disabilities Task Force’s “Fulfilling the Promise” pg. 7)

Economic Conditions and Job Growth Job Trends Although the average length of time that an individual remains unemployed is substantially longer in the last quarter century, unemployment claims, while high, show stabilization and some decline. Total employment in Tennessee has shown some growth in early 2010—a much needed respite from the previous two years of uninterrupted decline. Recent data show some improvement among some mildly favorable employment indicators. Consumer confidence is improving, and low interest rates continue to be available. The Gross Domestic Product shows growth. Checking and savings deposits are growing. Consumption shows mild revival. The rate of increase in wages and benefits for workers has slowed in recent years.

14

Goods-producing industries are projected to decline 1.8 percent annually during 2010- 2011.

Service-providing industries are likely to decrease by a modest 0.4 percent. Continued growth is likely in health care; leisure and hospitality; professional, scientific, and technical services; other services; and educational services. Employment in wholesale trade is projected to decline by 0.4 percent. Retail trade is projected to decline 1.4 percent. Manufacturing, information, finance and insurance, transportation and warehousing, management of companies and enterprises, and construction are projected to fall significantly. Some of the declines projected for 2010 and 2011 have already occurred. Revival in consumer confidence with favorable interest rates is usually also favorable to growth in trade employment and may mitigate the decline projected in other industries.

More jobs are likely to become available from 2010 to 2018 in industries providing services than in the industries producing goods. Goods-producing industries are expected to decline slightly during the next 10 years. Manufacturing is expected to decline by 1.6 percent per year.

Construction is projected to be flat. Service-providing industries are likely to grow at 0.9 percent annually, with primary growth in education and health services; professional and business services; and other services.

Industries and occupations expected to be the most rapidly growing through 2018, requiring various skills and abilities, are identified. Successful training programs have content adequate to train employees with needed skills and knowledge and to attract new talent. Occupations with strong growth rates for the short term will require college degrees at the MA, BA, and AA levels.

Occupations with strong growth for the long term include those that require short-term training, insuring job openings for every level of training and education. (Tennessee Department of Labor & Workforce’s Annual Workforce Report 2010, Executive Summary, pg. 2) According to the State of Tennessee’s Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the top 10 occupations that are predicted to have the most future job openings in Tennessee are as follows:

15

Occupation Title

2006 2016 Employment Projected Employment

2006 2016 Annual Percent Change

Estimated Annual Openings

Growth Description

Retail Salespersons

85,990

104,720

2.0%

1,875

Growing

Registered Nurses

55,510

69,760

2.3%

1,425

Growing

Customer Service Representatives

48,390

62,440

2.6%

1,405

Growing

Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food

56,460

68,530

2.0%

1,205

Growing

Truck Drivers, Heavy and Tractor-Trailer

73,160

83,130

1.3%

995

Stable

Waiters and Waitresses

49,750

58,960

1.7%

920

Growing

Office Clerks, General

56,320

64,730

1.4%

840

Stable

Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education

30,740

38,000

2.1%

725

Growing

Nursing Aides, Orderlies, and Attendants

32,510

39,370

1.9%

685

Growing

Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners

42,840

48,750

1.3%

590

Stable

16

Furthermore, the following chart shows the top 10 fastest growing industries (by percentage of change of jobs) in Tennessee:

Industry Title

Funds, Trusts & Other Financial Vehicles

2006 Employment

2016 Projected Employment

Total Employment Change

Annual Percent Change

2006 2016 Total Percent Change

760

1,400

640

6.28%

83.8%

Social Assistance

41,350

60,270

18,920

3.84%

45.7%

Financial Investment & Related Activity

8,460

12,320

3,870

3.84%

45.7%

Water Transportation

2,350

3,410

1,060

3.81%

45.3%

Waste Management and Remediation Service

7,590

10,990

3,400

3.77%

44.8%

22,670

32,760

10,090

3.75%

44.5%

150

210

60

3.68%

43.5%

23,440

32,150

8,710

3.21%

37.1%

5,490

7,430

1,940

3.08%

35.4%

13,520

17,870

4,350

2.83%

32.2%

Health and Personal Care Stores Internet Publishing and Broadcasting Management of Companies and Enterprises Animal Production Warehousing and Storage

17

COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee: 2010 Community Needs Assessment The following tables represent the results from the most recent Community Needs Assessment survey conducted by Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee (GIMT). The data presented herein come from a convenience sample survey conducted for GIMT by Goodwill Industries International. No attempt is made to identify significant differences between stakeholder groups since the dynamics of a convenience sample completely preclude normal statistical analysis.

Differences of ten percentage points or greater (i.e. 10% compared to 21%) are likely to be important.

Between August 2 and Sept 3, Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee conducted a Community Needs Assessment Stakeholder Survey in conjunction with the Member Services Center of Goodwill Industries International, Inc. This project served as part of the Member Services Center’s new Community Needs Assessment Toolkit and employed a standardized survey instrument administered via online response. The survey sample was generated through a selection process that chose specific individuals to broadly represent the stakeholders, workforce development professionals, elected leaders and funders. The purpose of this survey was to identify, at the territory level, perceptions of needed services, perceptions of employment conditions, and perceptions of GIMT. The survey also sought to identify differences in perceptions based on the respondent’s association with Goodwill (e.g. stakeholder, elected official, etc.).

Initially, 1639 individuals were identified for participation. Of these, 75 e-mail addresses returned indicating routing errors and were undeliverable, which meant 1564 survey respondents received an attempted survey contact. A total 226 of individuals responded to the survey yielding a basic response rate of 14 percent.

The survey sample divides into five distinct groups. The table below reports the response count and rate for each of these groups. It is important to note that the response distributions of especially small groups are unstable and susceptible to large swings based on a change of opinion of just a few people. Generally speaking, the average responses from groups with fewer than 25 responses is susceptible to these kinds of dynamic fluctuations

Board member Community Advocate/Funder Elected Official Employer Service Provider

Sample Count 30 476 239 419 400

18

Responded 13 85 23 42 62

Response Rate 43% 17% 10% 10% 16%

Additionally, the survey sought to evaluate the response patterns from various regions within the member territory. GIMT covers a significant portion of Tennessee stretching from the middle of the state, along the I-24 corridor, to the western border with Arkansas and Missouri. This wide coverage area implies that GIMT faces many diverse local situations and issues. This report groups responses into five regional categories consisting of the following:

Davidson Southeast South Central North Central Western

Counties/ Areas All areas proximate to the Nashville Metropolitan area Bedford, Putnam, and Rutherford Manchester, Marshall, Maury, Williamson Dickson, Montgomery, Robertson, Sumner Madison, Obion

Responded 62 46 57 44 17

General Analysis of Group Responses: A review of each group’s average response on all the items in the survey reveals that the various stakeholder groups in the sample pool tend to be more idiosyncratic than comparable. Likewise, the regionally-grouped responses display a fair degree of idiosyncrasy. A review of the distribution of stakeholder groups by region reveals that stakeholders are not equally distributed across regions. Thus, some regional differences may result from the fact that one stakeholder group is larger than another group representing an area. (i.e. Davidson may appear different from South Central merely because Davidson is represented, primarily, by Community Advocates while South Central is represented by Service Providers.

Perceptions of Social Issues Facing the Area: The table below reports, by stakeholder group, the percentage of respondents identifying a particular social issue other than workforce development issues as one of the top three issues facing their area. Each stakeholder group and region is sorted separately from the others to highlight difference in the selection patterns between the groups.

19

Board Member 13

Community Advocate/ Funder 85

Elected Official 23 Economic 61% Development

77%

Educational Quality

42%

Alcohol/Drug Use

46%

Juvenile Crime

40%

Economic Development

48%

38%

Economic Development

39%

Educational Quality

35%

31%

Literacy

24%

23% 23%

Alcohol/Drug Use Public Safety

21% 20%

Family/Domestic Violence Available Healthcare Homelessness

15%

Transportation

19%

15%

Quality of Life

15%

Homelessness

Service Provider 62

57%

Alcohol/Drug Use

53%

Alcohol/Drug Use

Alcohol/Drug Use

40%

Economic Development

52%

Economic Development

Juvenile Crime

31%

Available Healthcare

44%

Transportation

26%

Public Safety

26%

Educational Quality

26%

Literacy

22% 22%

Educational Quality Quality of Life

26% 21%

Literacy Transportation

19% 19%

Juvenile Crime

17%

Homelessness

21%

Quality of Life

19%

Educational Quality Homelessness Family/Domestic Violence

14%

Literacy

17%

Emergency Preparedness

17%

Juvenile Crime

13%

Juvenile Crime

13%

Other

13%

Transportation

17%

Family/Domestic Violence

10%

Available Healthcare

10%

Public Safety

6%

Quality of Life

10% 5% 2%

Other Child Abuse Homelessness

6% 6% 6%

Child Abuse Public Safety Other

0% 0% 0%

Family/Domestic Violence Child Abuse Available Healthcare Other

0%

Hunger

4%

0%

Emergency Preparedness

1%

15%

Employers 42

12%

Quality of Life

13%

12% 9% 5%

Child Abuse Hunger Public Safety Emergency Preparedness

9% 4% 4%

Family/Domestic Violence Available Healthcare Literacy Child Abuse

4%

Other

2%

Hunger

5%

Hunger

Transportation

4%

Hunger

2%

Emergency Preparedness

3%

Emergency Preparedness

•

Economic Development and Alcohol/Drug Use appear most frequently among the top three selections.

•

Board members appear to rank the social issues in a substantially different order than the remaining stakeholder groups.

Reviewing the tables for the stakeholders and the various regions, it is clear that the different groups display some significant variation in their rank ordering of the social issues. In this case, Goodwill Board Members appear to be the dissimilar group, focusing on Educational Quality (and, to a lesser degree, Juvenile crime) almost to the exclusion of all others. The remaining stakeholder groups focus on Alcohol/Drug use and Economic Development. However, Community Advocates/Funders and Service Providers do not really differentiate between these two issues and the remaining two groups: Elected Officials and Employers are at odds regarding which issue is the most important.

20

Davidson 62

South East 46

48%

Educational Quality

65%

Alcohol/Drug Use

51%

44%

Economic Development

50%

Economic Development

37%

34%

Homelessness

30%

Transportation

33%

32%

Transportation

30%

29%

Alcohol/Drug Use

17%

Family/Domestic Violence Available Healthcare

27%

Juvenile Crime

15%

Educational Quality

19%

21% 13% 13% 13%

Literacy Quality of Life Available Healthcare Public Safety Family/Domestic Violence Other Hunger Child Abuse Emergency Preparedness

15% 13% 13% 11%

Literacy Juvenile Crime Child Abuse Homelessness

18% 14% 12% 12%

9%

Quality of Life

12%

9% 4% 4%

Other Public Safety Hunger Emergency Preparedness

11% 5% 5% 2% 0%

• •

2%

South Central 57 Economic Development

North Central 44

Western 17

61%

Alcohol/Drug Use

71%

Alcohol/Drug Use

Alcohol/Drug Use

30%

Literacy

65%

Economic Development

Transportation

27%

47%

Educational Quality

30%

Educational Quality

27%

29%

Juvenile Crime

26%

25%

24%

Literacy

20%

Educational Quality

18%

Transportation

20% 16% 14% 14%

Juvenile Crime Available Healthcare Homelessness Public Safety

18% 18% 12% 12%

11%

Quality of Life

6%

7% 7% 7%

Available Healthcare Family/Domestic Violence Quality of Life Juvenile Crime Literacy Other Emergency Preparedness Child Abuse Public Safety Hunger

Economic Development Family/Domestic Violence Transportation

11% 7% 7%

6% 6% 6%

4%

Homelessness

5%

Other Child Abuse Hunger Emergency Preparedness

Quality of Life Child Abuse Available Healthcare Homelessness Family/Domestic Violence Public Safety Other Hunger Emergency Preparedness

0%

Economic Development and Alcohol/Drug Use appear most frequently among the top three selections.

Respondents from Davidson and North Central tend to have different rank orderings from the remaining regions.

Respondents from the various regions tend to agree on the main social issues facing the territory: Alcohol/Drug use and Economic Development. Respondents from Davidson and the bordering North Central region tend to be the most dissimilar from the remaining areas. One interesting pattern that emerges across all the regions is the large gap between the most frequent selection(s) and the remaining concerns. These gap patterns most often appear during periods of general public dissatisfaction (as there would be during the recent economic crisis) because the general malaise leads individuals to focus on one or two overriding concerns.

Barriers to Employment: The table below reports, by stakeholder group, the percentage of respondents identifying a barrier to employment as one of the top three barriers facing their area. Each stakeholder group and region is sorted separately from the others to highlight difference is the selection patterns between the groups.

21

Board Member 13 Limited Employment 69% opportunities 46%

Community Advocate/ Funder 85 Limited Employment 68% opportunities

Limited Educational Opportunities

51%

Limited Work Skills Training Programs

42%

Limited Public Transportation

Elected Official 23 Limited Employment 78% opportunities 35%

Limited Work Skills 30% Training Programs Limited Employment 38% Limited Job Coaching 28% 30% Placement Assistance 46%

31% 23% 23% 15% 0% 0% 0%

Limited Childcare Options

28%

Limited Employment 24% Placement Assistance Limited Public Transportation Potential Loss of Healthcare Benefits/ Income Support Limited Job Accommodation Limited Eldercare Options Other

• •

18%

Limited Childcare Options Potential Loss of Healthcare Benefits/ Income Support Limited Educational Opportunities

30% 26% 22%

13% Limited Job Coaching 13% 9% 6% 4%

Limited Job Accommodation Limited Eldercare Options Other

9% 9% 4%

Limited Public Transportation Limited Work Skills Training Programs Limited Childcare Options Potential Loss of Healthcare Benefits/ Income Support

83% 43% 31% 31% 26%

Limited Employment 19% Placement Assistance

Employers 42 Limited Employment opportunities Potential Loss of Healthcare Benefits/ Income Support Limited Employment Placement Assistance Limited Public Transportation

23% 13%

Limited Eldercare Options

14%

Limited Job Accommodation

5% 5%

Limited Childcare Options Limited Employment 26% Placement Assistance

Limited Work Skills Training Programs Limited Educational Opportunities

Limited Eldercare Options

Limited Work Skills Training Programs Potential Loss of Healthcare Benefits/ Income Support Limited Educational Opportunities

13% Limited Job Coaching 11%

Limited Job Coaching 11% Other

Limited Public Transportation

45%

24%

17%

Limited Job Accommodation Other

58%

Limited Childcare Options

Limited Educational Opportunities

Limited Job Coaching 10%

Service Provider 62 Limited Employment 66% opportunities

2%

Limited Job Accommodation Limited Eldercare Options Other

Respondents overwhelmingly identify Limited Employment opportunities as the main barrier to employment.

Board Members and Employers are most dissimilar from the remaining stakeholder groups.

Although Tennessee in general, and GIMT’s specific territory, has both experienced improvement in terms of unemployment as compared to 20081, unemployment remains high and respondents believe this is impacting the jobs market. Overwhelming majorities of each stakeholder group cite the lack of employment opportunities as the main barrier to employment.

Beyond this consensus, Community Advocates, Elected Official and Service Providers also cite a lack of public transit options as a major barrier. Once again, Board Member and Employers differ from the other groups, but only in their selection of secondary barriers. Perhaps the most interesting result from these questions is the emphasis employers place on the potential loss of benefits as compared to the remaining groups. It may be that many employers are seeing high turnover or rejected job offers due to this issue.

1

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, July Local Area Unemployment estimates. Tennessee estimated a 10.9% unemployment rate in July 2008 and a 9.8% rate in July of 2010, a decline of 1.1 percentage points.

22

Davidson 62 Limited Employment opportunities Limited Public Transportation

87%

37%

Limited Work Skills Training Programs

39%

35%

Limited Childcare Options

30%

66% 44%

29%

50%

Limited Employment 24% Placement Assistance

24% Limited Job Coaching 24% 23% 16% 8%

Limited Educational Opportunities Potential Loss of Healthcare Benefits/ Income Support Limited Job Accommodation

11%

9%

Other

9%

2%

Limited Eldercare Options

4%

•

61%

Limited Childcare Options

35%

46%

Limited Employment 35% Placement Assistance Limited Work Skills Training Programs Potential Loss of Healthcare Benefits/ Income Support Limited Educational Opportunities

33% 23%

Limited Job Accommodation Limited Eldercare Options Other

South Central 57 Limited Employment opportunities Limited Public Transportation

73%

Limited Childcare Options

43%

Potential Loss of Healthcare Benefits/ Income Support Limited Work Skills Training Programs

45%

27% 23%

Limited Employment 20% Placement Assistance

North Central 44 Limited Employment opportunities Limited Public Transportation Potential Loss of Healthcare Benefits/ Income Support

76% 59% 41%

Western 17 Limited Employment opportunities Limited Work Skills Training Programs Limited Public Transportation

Limited Employment Limited Employment 35% Placement Assistance Placement Assistance Limited Childcare Options

24%

Limited Educational Opportunities

Limited Work Skills Training Programs

24%

Limited Childcare Options

Limited Educational Opportunities

18%

Limited Educational Opportunities

18%

Limited Eldercare Options

16%

Limited Eldercare Options

12%

11%

Limited Job Accommodation

11%

Limited Job Accommodation

6%

9%

Limited Job Coaching

7%

Limited Job Coaching

0%

Limited Job Coaching

4%

Other

0%

Other

0%

Other

18%

11% Limited Job Coaching 12%

5%

•

South East 46 Limited Employment opportunities Limited Public Transportation

Limited Job Accommodation Potential Loss of Healthcare Benefits/ Income Support Limited Eldercare Options

Respondents overwhelmingly identify Limited Employment opportunities as the main barrier to employment.

Respondents from the various regions mostly agree on the rankings of barriers to employment.

Unlike the rank ordering of responses by the various stakeholder groups, respondents from the different regions all largely agree that lack of jobs is the single largest barrier to employment in the territory. Below this, about half the respondents from each of the various regions cite a lack of public transit as a major impediment. In fact, the only major difference between the regions is that respondents from the western region rate the availability of work skills training as a more important barrier than the lack of public transit. Even then, approximately the same proportion of respondents from the western region rate the lack of public transit as a major barrier as do the remaining regions; the difference is merely that these respondents rate the work skills issue as slightly more important.

Perceptions of Service Populations: The table below reports, by stakeholder group, the percentage of respondents identifying each service population as one of the top three populations needing services and top three growing fastest in their area. Populations are separated into groups with disadvantaging conditions and groups with disabling conditions. Each stakeholder group and region is sorted separately from the others to highlight differences in the selection patterns between the groups.

23

Board Member

Community Advocate/ Funder

Elected Official

Employers

Service Provider

13

85

23

42

62

Populations Most in Need of Services 62%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

52%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

61%

At-Risk Youth

55%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

55%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

46%

At-Risk Youth

51%

Single parents

57%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

48%

Working Poor

50%

Working Poor

46%

Working Poor

47%

At-Risk Youth

52%

Working Poor

40%

Single parents

42%

Single parents

38%

Single parents

46%

Working Poor

35%

Older Workers (over 55)

31%

Older Workers (over 55)

27%

Older Workers (over 55)

31%

Welfare Recipients

33%

Older Workers (over 55)

30%

Single parents

31%

At-Risk Youth

27%

At-Risk Youth

23%

Non-English Speaking Residents

20%

Ex-Offenders

17%

Homeless

24%

Non-English Speaking Residents

27%

Ex-Offenders

23%

Homeless

15%

Non-English Speaking Residents

17%

Immigrants

24%

Ex-Offenders

23%

Non-English Speaking Residents

15%

Older Workers (over 55)

13%

Homeless

13%

Non-English Speaking Residents

24%

Welfare Recipients

21%

Welfare Recipients

15%

Ex-Offenders

9%

Welfare Recipients

13%

Welfare Recipients

5%

Homeless

15%

Homeless

0%

Immigrants

5%

Immigrants

4%

Ex-Offenders

5%

Other

5%

Other

0%

Other

2%

Other

0%

Other

2%

Immigrants

3%

Immigrants

54%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

57%

52%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

52%

Working Poor

52%

Working Poor

48%

50%

Single parents

45%

Populations Growing Fastest 62% 62%

Non-English Speaking Residents Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

Non-English Speaking Residents Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

Non-English Speaking Residents Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

46%

Working Poor

42%

Non-English Speaking Residents

39%

Working Poor

43%

Working Poor

45%

38%

At-Risk Youth

35%

Single parents

35%

Older Workers (over 55)

36%

Non-English Speaking Residents

29%

23%

Ex-Offenders

34%

Older Workers (over 55)

30%

Single parents

31%

Older Workers (over 55)

26%

At-Risk Youth

15%

Homeless

24%

At-Risk Youth

17%

At-Risk Youth

31%

Welfare Recipients

26%

Single parents

15%

Immigrants

12%

Homeless

17%

Ex-Offenders

19%

At-Risk Youth

23%

Ex-Offenders

8%

Older Workers (over 55)

12%

Immigrants

13%

Welfare Recipients

10%

Ex-Offenders

23%

Welfare Recipients

8%

Single parents

8%

Ex-Offenders

13%

Homeless

5%

Immigrants

15%

Homeless

0%

Welfare Recipients

8%

Welfare Recipients

13%

Immigrants

2%

Homeless

10%

Immigrants

0%

Other

1%

Other

4%

Other

0%

Other

3%

Other

24

Older Workers (over 55)

Davidson

South East

South Central

North Central

Western

62

46

57

44

17

Populations Most in Need of Services 50%

At-Risk Youth

52%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

67%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

55%

Working Poor

59%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

48%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

52%

Working Poor

53%

Single parents

48%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

47%

At-Risk Youth

44%

Working Poor

48%

Single parents

46%

Working Poor

43%

At-Risk Youth

41%

Single parents

34%

Single parents

37%

Older Workers (over 55)

40%

Older Workers (over 55)

41%

Single parents

41%

Working Poor

29%

Ex-Offenders

28%

At-Risk Youth

35%

At-Risk Youth

30%

Welfare Recipients

35%

Older Workers (over 55)

14%

Non-English Speaking Residents

27%

Older Workers (over 55)

35%

Ex-Offenders Non-English Speaking Residents

29%

Homeless

20%

Non-English Speaking Residents

21%

Non-English Speaking Residents

20%

Welfare Recipients

12%

Welfare Recipients

23%

Non-English Speaking Residents

24%

16%

Older Workers (over 55)

17%

Ex-Offenders

9%

Ex-Offenders

23%

Ex-Offenders

12%

Homeless

13%

Welfare Recipients

7%

Homeless

5%

Homeless

7%

Homeless

6%

Welfare Recipients

11%

Immigrants

7%

Other

4%

Immigrants

2%

Immigrants

0%

Immigrants

3%

Other

2%

Immigrants

2%

Other

2%

Other

0%

Other

Non-English Speaking Residents

50%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

65%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

50%

Working Poor

59%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

50%

Working Poor

48%

Working Poor

42%

Single parents

48%

Single parents

59%

Working Poor

45%

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

46%

Non-English Speaking Residents

42%

Working Poor

41%

47%

Non-English Speaking Residents

29%

At-Risk Youth

37%

Older Workers (over 55)

40%

Non-English Speaking Residents

39%

41%

Single parents

26%

Ex-Offenders

37%

Single parents

30%

Older Workers (over 55)

32%

Older Workers (over 55)

35%

Older Workers (over 55)

26%

Immigrants

26%

Welfare Recipients

23%

At-Risk Youth

27%

Welfare Recipients

29%

Welfare Recipients

24%

Older Workers (over 55)

20%

At-Risk Youth

12%

Welfare Recipients

23%

At-Risk Youth

18%

At-Risk Youth

21%

Homeless

13%

Ex-Offenders

9%

Immigrants

18%

Ex-Offenders

6%

Ex-Offenders

11%

Single parents

13%

Homeless

4%

Homeless

9%

Homeless

0%

Homeless

3%

Welfare Recipients

2%

Immigrants

4%

Other

2%

Immigrants

0%

Immigrants

2%

Other

0%

Other

2%

Ex-Offenders

2%

Other

0%

Other

Populations Growing Fastest 50%

25

Non-English Speaking Residents Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

Board Member

Community Advocate/ Funder

Elected Official

Employers

Service Provider

13

85

23

42

62

Populations Most in Need of Services 62%

Learning Disability

59%

Learning Disability

54%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

58%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

61% 57%

Learning Disability

55%

46%

Chemical Dependency

42%

Developmental Disability

43%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

46%

Developmental Disability

41%

Chemical Dependency

43%

Developmental Disability

31%

Other Physical Disability

29%

Other Physical Disability

30%

23%

Blind or Other Visual Impairment

13%

Neurological Disability

13%

23%

Neurological Disability

7%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

13%

8%

Other

6%

0%

Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

5%

0%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

4%

Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment Blind or Other Visual Impairment

Chemical Dependency

Other Physical Disability Blind or Other Visual Impairment Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

57%

69%

Learning Disability

Developmental Disability

58%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

52%

Chemical Dependency

50%

Chemical Dependency

43%

Other Physical Disability

39%

Developmental Disability

35%

Other Physical Disability

13%

Blind or Other Visual Impairment

8%

Neurological Disability

43% 7% 7%

Learning Disability

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability Blind or Other Visual Impairment Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

4%

Neurological Disability

2%

Neurological Disability

6%

Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

0%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

2%

Other

5%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

Other

0%

Other

0%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

3%

Other

Chemical Dependency

71%

Chemical Dependency

76%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

Populations Growing Fastest 62%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

60%

Chemical Dependency

78%

54%

Chemical Dependency

60%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

65%

Learning Disability

52%

Developmental Disability

66%

Chemical Dependency

50%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

58%

Learning Disability

46%

Learning Disability

53%

Learning Disability

57%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

23%

Developmental Disability

31%

Developmental Disability

43%

Developmental Disability

43%

Learning Disability

32%

Other Physical Disability

8%

Blind or Other Visual Impairment

29%

Other Physical Disability

13%

Other Physical Disability

31%

Other Physical Disability

26%

Developmental Disability

8%

Neurological Disability

9%

Neurological Disability

4%

Neurological Disability

7%

Neurological Disability

10% 5%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

8%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

9%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

4%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

2%

Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

8%

Other

6%

Other

4%

Other

2%

Other

5%

0%

Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

0%

0%

Blind or Other Visual Impairment

5%

Other

0%

Other Physical Disability

0%

0%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

3%

Neurological Disability

Blind or Other Visual Impairment Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

0% 0%

Blind or Other Visual Impairment Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

26

Blind or Other Visual Impairment Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

Davidson

South East

South Central

North Central

Western

62

46

57

44

17

Populations Most in Need of Services 63%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

70%

Learning Disability

67%

Learning Disability

59%

Learning Disability

71%

Chemical Dependency

56%

Learning Disability

54%

Chemical Dependency

47%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

52%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

47%

Other Physical Disability

42%

Chemical Dependency

52%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

44%

Developmental Disability

50%

Chemical Dependency

47%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

40%

Developmental Disability

52%

Developmental Disability

42%

Chemical Dependency

43%

Developmental Disability

41%

Learning Disability

27%

Other Physical Disability

37%

Other Physical Disability

33%

Other Physical Disability

36%

Other Physical Disability

35%

Developmental Disability

15%

Blind or Other Visual Impairment

7%

16%

Neurological Disability

11%

12%

Blind or Other Visual Impairment

11%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

7%

12%

Neurological Disability

10%

Neurological Disability

4%

Neurological Disability

5%

5%

Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

2%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

4%

3%

Other

0%

Other

Blind or Other Visual Impairment Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

5%

Blind or Other Visual Impairment Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

9%

Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment Blind or Other Visual Impairment

7%

Other

6%

Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

Other

5%

Neurological Disability

6%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

0%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

0%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

0%

Other

Populations Growing Fastest 71%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

70%

Chemical Dependency

58%

Learning Disability

73%

Chemical Dependency

88%

Chemical Dependency

63%

Chemical Dependency

65%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

53%

Chemical Dependency

70%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

59%

Other Physical Disability

43%

Learning Disability

47%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

55%

Learning Disability

61%

Learning Disability

49%

Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

24%

Developmental Disability

43%

Developmental Disability

42%

Developmental Disability

32%

Developmental Disability

35%

Learning Disability

16%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

28%

Other Physical Disability

33%

Other Physical Disability

25%

Other Physical Disability

24%

Developmental Disability

15%

Other Physical Disability

4%

Blind or Other Visual Impairment

12%

Neurological Disability

9%

Other

18%

Neurological Disability

5%

Other

4%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

7%

Other

7%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

6%

HIV Positive/ AIDS

3%

Neurological Disability

2%

Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

2%

5%

Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

0%

2%

Neurological Disability

0%

5%

Neurological Disability

0%

0%

Other

0%

2%

Blind or Other Visual Impairment

0%

2% 0%

Blind or Other Visual Impairment Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment Blind or Other Visual Impairment HIV Positive/ AIDS

27

Blind or Other Visual Impairment Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment Other

• • • • •

There is consensus among respondents as to the top populations with disadvantaging conditions and with disabilities; however, various stakeholder groups and regions rank these populations differently.

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers, At-Risk Youth, and the Working Poor are seen as the populations with disadvantaging conditions most in need of service.

Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers, the Working Poor, and Single Parents are seen as the populations with disadvantaging conditions which are growing fastest.

Respondents also focus on the growth rate of Non-English Speaking populations.

Individuals with Learning Disability, Psychiatric or Emotional Disability, and Chemical Dependency are seen as the populations with disabling conditions most in need of service and growing fastest.

As is often the case, respondents are generally in agreement regarding the disposition of populations with disadvantaging conditions and with disabilities, even if they disagree on the exact rankings of the various populations. It is important to note, however, that in many cases the ranking of various populations are separated by only a few percentage points, making the rankings virtually identical. For example, accounting for the small variations in selection percentages, the rankings of Employers and Service providers on populations with disadvantaging conditions are identical.

In cases such as this, it is often useful to evaluate the natural breakpoints in the rankings of the various groups and search for trends or patterns in those breakpoints. For instance, in evaluations of populations with disadvantaging conditions there is a clear break near the 40 percent mark. As such, Board Members and Community Advocates seem to focus on four populations while the remaining stakeholder groups really on focus on three. This pattern is basically the same for evaluations of populations with disabilities, except that the break point seems to be around the 50 percent mark, implying that all the stakeholders really only focus on two groups.

The same patterns hold when you evaluate response from the various regions in the territory.

Again, the rankings of respondents usually are only different by a few percentage points, implying that they are virtually identical. Additionally, one can assume the same “break-pointpattern” in the rankings, identifying those groups with whom the respondents are generally interested and those groups who generally fail to capture the interest of the respondents.

Perceptions of Service Availability and Opportunity for Employment in Selected Occupations: The charts on the following pages illustrate the respondents’ perceptions of the availability of selected workforce development service in the region, the perceived value or importance of a series of potential new services being considered by GIMT, and of the level of opportunity of employment in selected occupations.

28

Interpreting the Charts: The charts represent the average rating of the availability of the referenced item and the range into which that average might be expected to fall had the survey been conducted on a random sample.2 The horizontal hash mark represents the average score and the error lines represent the range. If one item or area range falls inside the range described by another’s error lines, the expected average of those two items should be considered equal. Conversely, when one item or area range falls outside the range described by another’s error lines, this is an indicator that there may be a difference of opinion on the two items.

Service Availability: • •

Respondents are generally pessimistic regarding the availability of services in the territory.

There are no systematic differences in perceptions of service availability between any of the stakeholder groups or between regions.

The most important point to note when evaluating the responses to the service availability questions is that the scale ranges from perfect availability to complete lack. Thus, with the responses clustered around the middle of the scale, respondents are indicating that they believe service availability is nowhere near what it should be (perfect availability) even if does not fall to the level of a complete lack of services. The only service that even begins to approach positive evaluations is GED Prep and Testing.

In terms of major differences, only two comparisons stand out. Understandably, Board members are more sanguine than Community Advocates regarding the availability of job training in occupations with high turnover. Employers are more pessimistic than service providers regarding the availability of ESL courses.

Proposed Service Value: • • •

Respondents see value in all of the proposed services.

On several items, Boards members rate the value of the proposed service higher than any of the other stakeholder groups.

There are no systematic differences in perceptions of proposed service value between the regions in the survey.

The most important point to note when evaluating the responses to the service value question is that it is very “easy” to say that any given service is important or valuable when the cost of providing that service isn’t considered. Since the respondents were not asked to trade off between the various services, the respondents could, theoretically, answer that all services were 2

Essentially, the charts are pretending that the survey was conducted using a standard random sample rather than a convenience sample The charts are an effort to highlight where there might be important similarities differences between the stakeholders and among the individual items.

29

equally “very important.” Because of this, the values assigned to each of the services are likely biased towards greater expressions of importance.

The above being said, there is an interesting pattern in the responses of the Board Members as compared to the other stakeholders. When evaluating Forklift training, Security Guard Training, and On-the-Job Coaching, Board Members rate these proposed services significantly higher than any other stakeholder group. Additionally, the overall rankings for Forklift Training and Security Guard Training are the closest to neutral in the entire set. It appears that there is a major disconnect between the Board and other stakeholders on the value of these services.

Occupational Opportunities: • •

Healthcare, Food Service and Installation/Maintenance Occupations are rated as having the highest levels of opportunity among the various occupations.

There are no systematic differences in perceptions of occupation opportunities between any of the stakeholder groups or between regions.

Perhaps the most interesting result in this section is the fact that almost all respondents rate Installation/Maintenance occupation so high (nearly as high as healthcare occupations). It is highly recommended that the GIMT staff validate this result by reviewing the occupational projections that can be found at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website.

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Goodwill Brand Awareness: The survey included an optional module covering respondent familiarity with, and perceptions of GIMT. It is generally recommended that local Goodwill members conduct regular stakeholder, client, and community brand awareness and satisfaction surveys. However, the stakeholder perception survey does offer a resource-friendly opportunity to assess these concepts.

The first component of the Image and Brand Recognition module asks survey respondents to identify national charities that work in the respondents’ community and those that actually accept donated goods. The purpose of these questions is to identify the degree to which Goodwill rises to the “top of the respondents’ mind” when they are prompted to think of service organizations.

While the reported level of awareness may be inflated in this type of survey (since Goodwill is mentioned earlier in the survey instrument), the results still serve as a good indicator of the direction of effort local marketing strategies should consider.

The table below reports, by stakeholder group, the percentage of respondents identifying a national charity as one of the top three charities working in their area.

13 100% American Red Cross 92% Goodwill Industries 85% Salvation Army 69% United Way 23% Local Church

Community Advocate/ Funder 85 86% Goodwill Industries 76% United Way 74% American Red Cross 64% Local Church 60% Salvation Army

96% 91% 78% 65% 57%

15%

Easter Seals

15%

Easter Seals

22%

8%

Disabled American Veterans

13%

Other

17%

Easter Seals

5%

Other

8%

4%

Vietnam Veterans of America

0%

Easter Seals

5%

Board Member

8% Volunteers of American 12% 8%

Other

0%

Vietnam Veterans of America

5%

South East

62 Goodwill Industries American Red Cross Salvation Army United Way Local Church

89% 76% 76% 67% 46%

18%

Easter Seals

15%

15%

Disabled American Veterans

9%

8% Volunteers of American 4% 5% 5% 92%

Vietnam Veterans of America Other Goodwill Industries

46 Goodwill Industries United Way Local Church American Red Cross Salvation Army Disabled American Veterans

23 Goodwill Industries American Red Cross United Way Local Church Salvation Army Disabled American Veterans

Employers 93% 62% 62% 62% 29% 14%

4% Volunteers of American 0%

2% Volunteers of American 4%

Davidson

92% 87% 79% 73% 37%

Disabled American Veterans Vietnam Veterans of America

Elected Official

Other

11%

57 Goodwill Industries Local Church American Red Cross United Way Salvation Army Disabled American Veterans

Vietnam Veterans of America

Service Provider 85% 74% 74% 69% 39% 18%

North Central

80% 77% 73% 66% 36% 16%

44 United Way Goodwill Industries American Red Cross Local Church Salvation Army Disabled American Veterans

62 Goodwill Industries United Way Local Church American Red Cross Salvation Army Disabled American Veterans Vietnam Veterans of America Easter Seals

5% Volunteers of American

0% Volunteers of American 3%

South Central

89% 88% 67% 63% 32%

42 Goodwill Industries American Red Cross United Way Local Church Salvation Army Disabled American Veterans

Other Western

94% 82% 71% 47% 47%

17 Goodwill Industries United Way American Red Cross Local Church Salvation Army

24%

Easter Seals

Other

9%

Easter Seals

9%

Other

24%

Disabled American Veterans

Easter Seals

7%

Other

5%

Vietnam Veterans of America

12%

Other

Vietnam Veterans of Vietnam Veterans of Vietnam Veterans of 5% 0% Easter Seals 0% America America America 2% Volunteers of American 2% Volunteers of American 0% Volunteers of American 0% Volunteers of American 89% Goodwill Industries 89% Goodwill Industries 80% United Way 94% Goodwill Industries 4%

37

The table below reports, by stakeholder group, the percentage of respondents identifying a national charity as one of the top three charities accepting donated goods in their area. Each stakeholder group and region is sorted separately from the others to highlight differences in the selection patterns between the groups.

Board Member 100% 92% 54%

13 Goodwill Industries Salvation Army Disabled American Veterans

Community Advocate/ Funder 85 96% Goodwill Industries 53% Local Church

100% 61%

49%

Salvation Army

Elected Official 23 Goodwill Industries Local Church

61%

Employers

Service Provider

90% 50%

42 Goodwill Industries Local Church

100% 92%

62 Goodwill Industries Salvation Army Disabled American Veterans

Salvation Army

31%

Salvation Army

54%

26%

Disabled American Veterans

21%

Other

31%

Local Church

31%

Local Church

25%

Disabled American Veterans

15%

Vietnam Veterans of America

15%

Other

22%

American Red Cross

14%

American Red Cross

15%

Vietnam Veterans of America

8%

Other

11%

American Red Cross

22%

Other

12%

Disabled American Veterans

8%

Other

0%

American Red Cross

7%

United Way

9%

Vietnam Veterans of America

2%

United Way

0%

American Red Cross

5%

Vietnam Veterans of America

4%

United Way

0%

Easter Seals

0%

United Way

0%

United Way

Vietnam Veterans of 0% Easter Seals America 0% Volunteers of American 0% Volunteers of American 0% Volunteers of American 0% Volunteers of American 0% Volunteers of American 0%

Easter Seals

0%

Davidson

Easter Seals

0%

South East

0%

South Central

North Central

100% 60%

62 Goodwill Industries Local Church

95% 76%

44%

Salvation Army

45%

24%

Other

39%

18%

Disabled American Veterans

15%

Other

13%

American Red Cross

19%

13%

American Red Cross

10%

Vietnam Veterans of America

4%

United Way

16%

8%

United Way

8%

American Red Cross

2%

Disabled American Veterans

3%

Vietnam Veterans of America

3%

Easter Seals

• •

Local Church

United Way

Western

98% 54%

57 Goodwill Industries Local Church

96% 68%

44 Goodwill Industries Local Church

98% 55%

17 Goodwill Industries Local Church

35%

Salvation Army

37%

Salvation Army

43%

Salvation Army

17%

Other

21%

Disabled American Veterans

23%

Other

Other

18%

Disabled American Veterans

American Red Cross

9%

United Way

9%

United Way

5%

American Red Cross

5%

Vietnam Veterans of America

2%

Vietnam Veterans of America

0%

Easter Seals

Vietnam Veterans of 2% Volunteers of American 0% Easter Seals America 0% Volunteers of American 0% Volunteers of American 0% Easter Seals 0% Volunteers of American

2% Volunteers of American 0% 0%

46 Goodwill Industries Salvation Army Disabled American Veterans

Easter Seals

Easter Seals

0%

Respondents readily identify GIMT as a major charity in the area.

GIMT generally has the highest level of name recognition in the survey.

The second segment of the Image and Brand Recognition module asked respondent to correctly identify Goodwill’s general mission of job training. The chart below reports, by stakeholder group, the proportion of respondents selecting each statement as the best description of GIMT’s mission.

38

39

• • • •

Respondents most frequently identify job training as the mission of Goodwill.

A majority of Community Advocates and Elected Officials actual misidentify Goodwill’s Mission.

A large majority of respondents from the western region misidentify Goodwill’s mission.

Among respondents who incorrectly identify Goodwill’s mission, operating donated goods retail stores is the most common incorrect choice across the board.

The final component of the module asks respondents a series of questions designed to assess the degree to which Goodwill’s services exceed their expectations. These customer satisfaction questions should probably be considered as general indicators of the stakeholder satisfaction with Goodwill rather than as specific areas for improvement. The chart on the following page illustrates the respondents’ perceptions of the degree to which Goodwill’s services exceed their expectations. The chart represents the average rating the referenced item and the range into which that average might be expected to fall had the survey been conducted on a random sample.

40

41

SUMMARY Social Issues • Overall, respondents in this 2010 survey identified alcohol/drug abuse and economic development as the two major social issues aside from workforce development issues facing the area. Economic development appeared in the top three for all respondents. In 2008, the top major social issue facing the area was educational quality, followed by alcohol/drug abuse and economic development.

•

One interesting pattern that emerges across all areas is the large gap between the most frequent selection(s) and the remaining concerns. These patterns most often appear during a period of general dissatisfaction (as there would be during the recent economic crisis).

Disabilities and Disadvantages •

Unemployed/dislocated workers, at-risk youth, and the working poor are seen as the populations with disadvantaging conditions most in need of service.

•

Unemployed/dislocated workers, the working poor, and single parents are seen as the populations with disadvantaging conditions, which are growing fastest.

•

Respondents also focus on the growth rate of non-English speaking populations.

•

Individuals with a learning disability, psychiatric or emotional disability, and chemical dependency are seen as the populations with disabling conditions most in need of service and growing fastest.

Barriers to Employment •

Overwhelmingly respondents identify limited employment opportunities as the main barrier.

•

Community advocates, elected officials and service providers also cite limited public transit as a major barrier.

•

The only major difference among the regions is the respondents from the western area rate the availability of work skills training as a more important barrier than the lack of public transit.

•

Employers place a great emphasis on the potential loss of benefits as compared to the other groups. It may be that employers are seeing high turnover or rejected job offers due to this issue.

42

Service Availability •

Respondents are generally pessimistic about service availability and job prospects in the region. The only service that even begins to approach positive evaluations is GED prep and testing.

•

Respondents see value in all of the proposed services. It is important to note that it is very easy to say that any given service is important or valuable when there is not a cost associated or considered.

•

The overall rankings for forklift training and security guard training are the closest to neutral in the entire set.

Occupational Opportunities •

Healthcare, food service and installation/maintenance occupations are rated as having the highest levels of opportunity.

Image and Brand Recognition •

Goodwill rises to the top of the respondents’ minds when they are prompted to think of charity organizations working with their communities. The next charities that come to mind are American Red Cross and United Way.

•

In regards to charities accepting donated goods, Goodwill is readily identified across the board. Local churches and Salvation Army rank second and third as charities that accept donated goods.

•

Respondents most frequently identify job training as the mission of Goodwill.

•

A majority of community advocates and elected officials misidentify Goodwill’s mission; in regards to location, a large number of respondents from the western region misidentify Goodwill’s mission.

•

Among respondents who incorrectly identify Goodwill’s mission, operating donated goods retail stores is the most common incorrect answer.

Demographic Profile: •

The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau’s population for the State of Tennessee was 5,689,283.

The population is projected to increase by 16.2 percent by 2014, totaling 6,644,850.

•

Poverty statistics are important to consider because many of the individuals seeking a job are living in poverty. The poverty rate in the State of Tennessee is 15.5 percent, which is higher than the overall poverty rate of 13.2 percent in the United States.

•

There are several counties in which our Career Solutions Centers are located that rank above the average percent for the state and nation: Putnam County (17.9%), Davidson County (16.9 %), Bedford & Obion Counties (16.7%) and Madison County (15.4%).

43

Economic Conditions and Job Growth •

Growth in the goods-producing sector: Goods-producing industries are expected to decline slightly during the next 10 years. Manufacturing is expected to decline by 1.6 percent per year.

•

Growth in the service-providing sector: More jobs are likely to become available from 2008 to 2018 in industries providing services than in the industries producing goods.

Service-providing industries are likely to grow at 0.9 percent annually, with primary growth in education and health services; professional and business services; and other services.

•

The highest occupational opportunities indentified in the assessment are healthcare, food service and installation/maintenance.

APPENDICES: Open-Ended Text Responses Please list any other gaps in workforce services to populations with disadvantages or disabilities in your area.

• •

• • • • •

• • •

Additional employment opportunities and training in retail Any new programs should look at a model similar to yours or Rochelle Center... where there is an opportunity for 'sheltered work,' then 'supported work,' then 'independent work' provided by partners who know the reputation of the program and are willing to work with the graduates.

Assistance in finding jobs for the disabled (desk, not standing) employment.

Child Day Care Services are limited and a big need exists.

Childcare, adult caregiver Dependable, accessible transportation is always a barrier in our local area for employment as well as training.

Employers need to know that the 50+ workforce is dependable and ready to work. Often that group does not know where to start looking for a job, or how to upgrade skills that could make them appeal to an employer. There is a lot of prejudice toward the older workers, when in reality they are probably more reliable than younger workers. The older segment of society is growing rapidly and will continue to grow at an alarming rate, and often find it very difficult to make it financially once they reach retirement age.

Even before retirement, the individuals in their 50's that lose a job really face a grim realty, no health insurance and no job. This group especially is being hit hard.

Extreme gap in services for ex-felons; Housing for ex-offenders especially sex offenders.

Finding resources for those to finish college and to further their education. If they have a disability and need to be on medication in order to focus making sure they are able to receive this service in order to do better academically.

High School Students with learning disabilities who need assistance, but are not 'severe' enough to qualify for most government programs. These students are very capable of successful employment, but seen to get lost in the system and many end up in trouble because they cannot get the assistance.

44

•

• • •

• • •

• • • •

I believe Dickson has many things in place; the problem I see is that many of those in need of the services do not want to work; they would rather be on the system. We already have in place ESL classes, GED Classes, workforce placement, workforce training...etc, etc.

I feel there needs to be more training for those that are handicap or that have different degrees of nervous disorders. This would really be of benefit to them as well as employers here in Springfield.

I find that people in need of work and help just do not know where to go or who to ask for help. Where do they go for help and advice?

I really cannot speak to some of the questions posed in this survey. Some things do not fit neatly into little boxes. My assessment is there are too many people who are essentially functionally illiterate. These people have just about no opportunity for advancement in the community because the same is foreclosed by their inability to read, write, perform simple math and communicate effectively. Many of these people are simply not suitable for jobs involving the public due to appearance and hygiene. The breakdown of the family unit has contributed significantly to many of the social issues too difficult to measure. I feel unless we get early intervention in our youth to avoid dropout and promote education this trend will continue to spiral downward. I see more and more people who have no life skills.

I think Goodwill does an excellent job in helping people seeking employment. I refer anyone to their agency in Gallatin.

I would appreciate more cooperation from Goodwill with Vocational Rehabilitation. We could share services and thus help the disabled clients that are trying to locate and secure employment.

It is my belief, as the executive representative of an organization that specializes in rendering services to those with disabilities, that there is a significant gap in truly understanding the needs associated with employing those with disabilities. VR is the expert however there are significant deficiencies in how readily they open cases, how open they are to aiding others and how adequately follow up and follow through takes place. Moreover, there may be a number of employment networks in the area; but communication and collaboration only takes place with a few. Lastly, I am not sure of how often there is communication with the community to ensure that needs are met or familiarization with programs and components are there. How are the poorest of individuals educated about the resources?

Lack of public transportation in smaller, outlying communities, no public transportation on Sunday, lack of affordable childcare and lack of conducive workforce hours for childcare services.

Major gaps include a lack of soft skills/ life skills training as well as lack of supportive services (help meeting everyday basic needs) while completing job training and skills programs.

Need jobs for adolescent Need to do more to create community awareness of the needs of the mentally challenged (i.e. MR), to get communities involved in interacting with the mentally handicapped and streamlining the mentally challenged into societal roles. This can be done by speaking at professional organizations, churches, schools. Needless to say, this will be an ongoing education for society. 'Inclusion' needs to be the focus of the presentations, as society generally tends to practice exclusion, and are oblivious to it.

45

• • • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • •

•

Outreach to find the disadvantaged, disabled, and draw them into the programs available in the community.

Personal Money Management Services are good, individuals simply cannot find jobs that pay as high as present unemployment benefits The existing mainstream work force and employers are not educated on the value those with disabilities can bring to organizations.

The Goodwill system is good for any community and especially relevant to the Manchester, TN vicinity.

The Voc. Rehab does not have contracts therefore, it cannot provide needed services.

There is not enough funding to provide adequate service to help those with special needs find work in their communities.

There is not training that deals with basic life skill and behavioral issues.

There should be some type of meeting session that the applicants can come together and express their experiences with the meetings, the facilitator's views, and the outcome of their overall experience. In addition, from the meetings there should be plans put into place to address their issues.

There is not enough opportunity for job coaching and job readiness.

Training in good customer service would be helpful for anyone just entering the work force.

Try to educate people to the importance of working and getting off welfare. This mindset is learned from generation to generation. We make it too easy for people to stay on welfare and decline jobs. Welfare should help people survive - not make it more profitable than working.

Tutoring for disadvantaged school children We have a good dependable and dedicated workforce available in our community. We continue to seek new commercial and industrial clients who can use the services these people can provide.

We just need significantly more living wage jobs in this area. In the meantime, more education and job training needed.

We need programs that will employee the blind, the individuals in wheel chairs, those with behavior issues. We need to educate these people so they can be more independent.

Most of our individuals are mental and physically disadvantaged, so finding work for them, even though we would provide a work-coach during the working hours, we cannot talk some of them into working because they are scared or have had a bad work experience in the past.

With the loss of follow along funding from DIDS this, present a huge barrier to individuals with intellectual disabilities.

What is one thing Goodwill Industries could improve?

•

•

Affordability of used clothing and household items. Our company often helps purchase these items for the youth and community we serve for basic needs and the cost is jaw dropping when considering it was all donated. Literally...JAW DROPPING! 2) Increase in the ease of hiring opportunities within your company for those in need, such as highrisk youth, or those needing a more flexible schedule due to being a single mom, in school, and working.

A covered area for dropping donations.

46

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

• • • • • •

Additional staff for training.

Awareness to the community and chamber on job training/employment training available Better communicating what they do.

Better communications about pick-up service.

Better management training Book prices are too high!

Collaborating with other organizations to fill the gaps in people's needs Communicating the job training and opportunities offered to the general community.

Communication with other community agencies letting them know of their employment/training opportunities Connecting with employment opportunities outside of Goodwill Industries... so individuals can transition into something else, leaving room for someone new to experience the training and supportive services Goodwill provides.

Conveying its mission to the public.

Coordinate with Public Works to operate collection sites co-located with PW operations such as recycling sites and convenience centers; possibly providing some staff to operate new sites.

Doing a great job.

Educate the community more on services other than the discount store.

Employee wages Employment training and finding more jobs for their applicants.

General participation in local community affairs Get their message out to more people that they help people find jobs, train, and prepare them. Everyone thinks it’s just where you get clothes and donate Have a more visible community involvement. I know about some of the services, but unless I am donating clothing or other household items or unless I see the billboard and/or television advertisements regarding employment services, I would not 'see' Goodwill Industries. You see the Salvation Army, as they have a huge community presence, especially around the Christmas holiday. They are synonymous with Christmas and giving at that time.

Help entry-level workers get placed with custodial, food service and customer service positions.

Helping more during a natural disaster or crisis.

Higher ratio of employees with disabilities I know that Goodwill is involved in workforce training, but I do not know to what extent, what all is offered, etc. I believe more information to the public is needed about all the services that Goodwill offers. Most people know that Goodwill accepts donations, operates thrift shops, trains and offers employment opportunities to person with disabilities. There has been a great publicity campaign for that. What else does Goodwill do?

I think Goodwill in our community does a good job meeting the needs. They network with many other agencies.

I would like to see Goodwill have much more of a presence in the community. I see the commercials on TV but cannot attest to ever seeing them in the community.

I would say just keep on doing what you are now, because it is working.

Increase availability of services.

Increase PR regarding training available to various populations.

I think Goodwill is doing a satisfactory job and is constantly striving to improve.

47

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Its ability to work with other agencies.

Job placement for all demographics Jobs for youth keeping prices lower Keeping their books better organized Let people know if donations and in-kind items serve this community Lower Prices in the store with more consistent pricing from store to store. In addition, there is a need for merchandise to be thoroughly checked for price stickers. Cleaner restrooms!

Marketing of their programs to large companies.

More clerks on half price Saturday More communication in the community of what our local Goodwill is doing to help train our local people. I see the commercials on television and assume that is how they operate, but I do not know.

More education for adults with developmental disabilities More emphasis on other jobs that people can do other than in Goodwill stores. Media presented shows individuals working at Goodwill. What about the idea that after Goodwill they can move into another job.

More exposure to community. People do not know how many services you offer.

More job training opportunities More promotion at the local level of the programs.

More promotion of their workforce development.

More publicity for job placement and training services More Soft Skills training More visibility in putting people with special needs to work in the community.

Need articles in the newspaper and on radio, public service announcements to get your message out to the public.

Need for them to tell their story in the community, go to the Kiwanis Club, Rotary and ask to speak. Tell us what you are about.

Needs to become more highly visible to the community Never knew you provided job skills and training.

Not being a slave to inflation. I donate clothes that my kids have outgrown, but often cannot afford to buy replacements there. Especially since Goodwill has become popular in our present economy.

Not make it so difficult for developmentally disadvantaged consumers to get jobs.

Nothing. I think your agency does better than most.

Open more career solution offices.

Orderliness of the Manchester, TN store.

Our mission is not understood by the majority of the community. Most think that Goodwill's mission is to operate a low cost thrift store for the community rather than training and providing employment.

Outreach--find more people in need of jobs training. Many are hidden.

Phone lines for the Career Solutions Centers that are independent of the retail stores.

Provide more jobs Public awareness of local example of success stories in providing Goodwill's clients with the tools/boost to be self-sufficient and improve quality of life.

Resume Services Second chances for employment by those facing chemical dependencies.

48

• • • • • • • • • • •

Their image. I donate quite a bit to this organization, and I think the Dickson Store has a lot going on over the other stores I have seen in Nashville. Good going Dickson!

Their job training partnerships with organizations that might already provide GED or computer skills.

There is always a need for more Career Solutions facilities and staff.

Think Goodwill is doing great job; think it is rest of community that doesn't utilize it as should Training to maintain a job after they are already in it.

Transitional employment program.

Until recently, I did not know that Goodwill provided job-training services. The image of Goodwill is that they only run thrift stores. Therefore, marketing of services is important.

Work training in places other than their retail outlets. I do not know of any training or education opportunities offered in our community from Goodwill Would prefer that no furniture or other items be set out side in the elements.

You need to let everyone know what you do more. Better brand your services to help get better support.

Your job skills training and career coaching is improving. Good work! The Greed of the Goodwill Thrift stores however, is becoming a joke in the community. Many people are starting to call it 'Greedwill'. Your prices compared to the idea that you are getting all of your merchandise free, is becoming ridiculous. The competition of your store managers, who get bonuses while the store workers are being pushed, stressed, and disrespected more and more and are being treated without some good will, is becoming obvious to many. I wish you luck.

If you have any additional comments or suggestions.

• • • • • • •

• • • •

Cleanliness of the store is always a priority. I stopped at a Salvation Army Store in Nashville and there was a smell of filthiness, the floors were nasty, not an enjoyable stop.

My stay was short.

Communication and training of clients Continue the good work. You are one of the very few agencies making a difference in such a large number of lives.

Continued visibility with transition programs in schools Currently I think many people believe everything goes to Nashville.

Goodwill could occasionally conduct a quiet campaign to fund important initiatives Goodwill helped me so much when I moved to TN in fall of 2007. Helped me search for work --right down to rewriting my resume for me. Even e-mailed me several months later to see how I was doing after having gone to work. Thanks for the help again. I have moved to western Tn. not seeing the same Goodwill Ind. that I left in middle Tn. In fact, I was told they are not associated with the same Goodwill Industries. They are wearing the same LOGO and Name.

Goodwill is a wonderful asset to have in our community.

Goodwill is an amazing company to work with, I appreciate the opportunity to GIVE feedback, in hopes that it will allow for a more cooperative alliance in working with your company to better meet my program's needs.

Goodwill is doing a good job.

Goodwill is one of our most valuable assets.

49

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Great location in Union City, very friendly helpful staff. Need to learn more about the programs that are provided at the location I have enjoyed receiving the publication, Ambassador. It has helped me to understand the mission of Goodwill Industries and Goodwill's involvement in the Middle Tennessee community.

I know firsthand how Goodwill trains people for jobs, because I have a woman here in Springfield that works there. I think this is a very worthwhile organization and I go there frequently.

I love Goodwill!

I love the drive through donation centers.

I think Goodwill is a worthwhile organization. Stepping out into the spotlight would help Goodwill and those in the community that Goodwill serves.

I think the awareness campaign that Goodwill Industries has embarked on over the past few years has been a valuable tool in changing people's perception about the brand...in a positive way.

I was a goodwill shopper before goodwill shopping was cool...

I would love to see education of our cities poor and disadvantaged so they can obtain decent jobs in our community. We also need an advocate for all disadvantaged people to help them find good jobs. Business owners need to step up and give someone a hand up, not just sell them goods, but create jobs so those who need and what to work, can. With respect for themselves, their employer and their community.

Job Services at Goodwill in the Gallatin area are viable to the success of my organization's recruiting needs.

Keep up the great work you do.

Keep up the hard work and may God Bless you all.

Let citizens know you are here for other purposes than a thrift store.

Love the drive up and drop lane! Men are always quick to help and so kind!

More focus on youth employment My experience with Goodwill Industries has been very positive.

Need clothing inspectors that take stains and tears in clothing into consideration when pricing items. All donated clothes are not created equal.

Overall, a decent store that appears to be utilized by a great deal of people in the community. The career center is a real plus especially in a county where the unemployment rate has hung steadily at second in the state for several months.

Overall, I think highly of Goodwill.

Remember we need to focus on helping people who want to help themselves and are not just interested in a handout. America needs to focus on not only feeding the hungry but also teaching them to feed themselves, by training them and finding them work.

The Goodwill Industries in our area are superior! The workers are friendly and helpful and the new center on Hwy 96 is great! Keep up the great work!

The local Goodwill office is very pleasant to work with.

The staff at Goodwill in Spring Hill, TN is great. They are very personable and helpful; they just do not have enough jobs right now to help as much as they desire to help. It is economy related. We need more jobs period.

There are opportunities in this employment crisis. We need to reframe how we conceptualize education and careers.

Work with local business leaders, including the non-profit agencies.

50