oregon workforce investment boardoregon workforce investment board . annual business meeting . june...

Oregon Workforce Investment Board Annual Business Meeting

June 9, 2017 11:00 am – 4:00 pm

Chemeketa Center for Business and Industry (CCBI) 626 High Street NE Salem, OR 97301

Members

Ken Madden, Chair, Madden Industrial Craftsman Frank Wall, Vice Chair, Plumbing & Mechanical Contractors Association of Oregon Elana Pirtle-Guiney, Workforce and Labor Policy Advisor Office of the Governor Chris Harder, Director, Business Oregon Kim Thatcher, Oregon Legislature, Senator District 13 Joe Weber, ESCO

Carrie Chaffee, OSU Federal Credit Union

Charlie Hopewell, Jewett-Cameron Ali O’Neil, O’Neil Electric Michael Dembrow, Oregon Legislature, Senator Barbara Byrd, Oregon AFL-CIO Paul Holvey, Oregon Legislator, Representative Shari Dunn, Dress for Success Anne Mersereau, Portland General Electric

Gary Brown, Nvidia Corporation Kay Erickson, Employment Department Bob Halligan, Willamette Valley Company

Trina Lee, Director, Vocational Rehab, Department of Human Services Rod Belisle, NECA/IBEW Electrical Training Center Mark Mitsui, Portland Community College Matt Millard, OHSU – AFSCME Jeffrey Krolick, Options for Southern Oregon Inc.

Kristina Payne, Local Workforce Board – LWP Patrick Crane, Director, Office of Community Colleges and Workforce Development, HECC

Technical Advisors Karen Humelbaugh, Director, Office of Workforce Investments, HECC Jim Pfarrer, Director Workforce Operations Division, OED Dacia Johnson, Commission for the Blind Dan Haun, Deputy Director, Self Sufficiency, DHS Pete Karpa, Deputy Director, Vocational Rehabilitation, DHS Staff

Todd Nell, Executive Director, OWIB Clay Martin, OWIB and WF Analyst Jennifer Denning, Strategic Initiatives Program Analyst Kelly Dickinson, Strategic Initiatives Program Analyst

Oregon Workforce Investment Board (OWIB)

June 9th, 2017, 11:00am - 4:00pm Annual Business Meeting

Chemeketa Center for Business and Industry (CCBI) 626 High Street NE, Salem 97301

AGENDA

Persons wishing to testify during the public comment period should sign up at the meeting. Times are approximate and order of agenda may change.

11:00 am – 12:30 pm Working Lunch w/OWP (Broadway Commons) 1:00 pm 1.0 Call to Order/New Member Introductions 1:05 pm 2.0 Public Comment 1:10 pm 3.0 Consent Agenda

• Policies 1:20 pm 4.0 Policies 1:30 pm 5.0 Governor’s Office

• Legislative Update • Membership Update

1:50 pm 6.0 Budget 2:05 pm 7.0 Strategic Planning

• Approve Strategic Plan Updates • Approve Strategic Realignment of OWIB

Actions

2:25 pm 8.0 Break 2:35 pm 9.0 Oregon’s Economy

• Employment Landscape of Rural Oregon 3:00 pm 10.0 Local Areas

• Southern Oregon Workforce Investment Board

• Northwest Oregon Works • East Cascades Workforce Development Board

3:55 pm 11.0 Next Steps

4:00 pm Adjourn Meeting Materials are posted at http://www.oregon.gov/owib.

All meetings of the Oregon Workforce Investment Board are open to the public and will conform to Oregon public meetings laws. A request for an interpreter for the hearing impaired or for accommodations for people with disabilities should be made to Kelly Dickinson at (503) 947.1733 or by email at [email protected]. Requests for accommodation should be made at least 72 hours in advance. Staff respectfully requests that you submit 15 collated copies of written materials at the time of your testimony. Persons making presentations including the use of video, DVD, PowerPoint or overhead projection equipment are asked to contact OWIB staff 24 hours prior to the meeting.

mailto:[email protected]

Policies Review and approve the following policies:

One-Stop Certification Policy One-Stop Operator Procurement Policy MOU/Cost Sharing Policy Adult and Youth Formula Funding Policy Dislocated Worker Formula Funding Policy Priority of Service Policy

Minimum Training Expenditure Policy Review and approve the Minimum Training Expenditure (MTE) Policy pending a recommendation from the MTE Policy Workgroup. If the MTE Policy Workgroup does not recommend approval of the MTE Policy or recommends revisions to the MTE Policy, the MTE Policy will be pulled from the Consent Agenda and Discussed in Agenda Item 4 Policies.

Consent Agenda

Agenda Item 3

State of Oregon Workforce Programs

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Title I

Policy Subject: One-Stop Center Certification Policy

Number/Reference: WIOA 121(g) Effective Date: 6/9/2017 Revision # Original

Overview

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) requires that the Oregon Workforce Investment

Board (OWIB), in consultation with Local Chief Elected Officials (CEOs) and Workforce Development

Boards (WDBs), establish objective criteria and procedures to assess the effectiveness, physical and

programmatic accessibility, and continuous improvement of one-stop centers and the one-stop delivery

system. Local WDBs are responsible for the assessment based on established criteria and procedures.

The result of a successful assessment is certification, allowing the center to receive infrastructure funding

under the state funding mechanism as described in the Memorandum of Understanding between the

Local WDB and WorkSource Oregon (WSO) Center partners.

Policy Statement

Local Workforce Development Boards (WDBs) must certify all Comprehensive and Affiliate One-Stop

Centers in their Local Area by June 30, 2017 and at least once every three years afterwards. Partner

sites and specialized centers are not subject to certification (see Attachment A for definitions).

The certification process must include an on-site in-person evaluation of each Comprehensive and

Affiliate Center in the Local Area that includes an assessment of the minimum One-Stop Center

requirements in Attachment B.

The local certification process may include, if the Local WDB so decides, additional criteria beyond the

federal and state criteria. Local WDBs may not remove or replace any federal or state imposed criteria;

they may only add additional criteria that best suits the Local Area.

Local WDBs must submit documentation of the certification review and the outcome for all

Comprehensive and Affiliate Centers in their respective local areas in accordance with the requirements

in Attachment C.

Local WDB as One-Stop Operator

In the event that a Local WDB is the One-Stop Operator for the Local Area, the OWIB is responsible for

the assessment and certification of WSO Centers in that Local Area. Local WDBs must provide

notification consistent with the One-Stop Operator Procurement Policy to initiate OWIB responsibility.

Action(s)

Each Local WDB will implement a certification process for all Comprehensive and Affiliate Centers in their

Local Area. Local WDBs must submit documentation of the certification review and the outcome for all

Comprehensive and Affiliate Centers to [email protected] by June 30, 2017 and

for each subsequent certification process. Certification must be repeated at least once every three years.


2

Contact

[email protected]

Attachments

Attachment A – WSO Centers and Other Sites – Requirements Matrix

Attachment B – One-Stop Center Certification Minimum Requirements

Attachment C – Certification Documentation Requirements

Attachment D - References


Attachment A - WSO Centers and Other Sites – Requirements Matrix

* Currently, Title I and OED (Title III) are the only partners who have agreed to adopt the WSO

Operational Standards. Staff subject to the WSO Operational Standards will change when/if other

entities adopt the WSO Operational Standards.

Comprehensive WSO (One-Stop) Center Must provide access to the programs, services, and activities of ALL required one-stop partners (WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)), along with any additional partners as determined by the Local WDB. X

Must comply with the WSO Operational Standards X

Must be branded WSO and include “a proud partner of the American Job Center network” X

Must be certified (to receive infrastructure funding under the state funding mechanism) X

Must provide physical accessibility to individuals with disabilities X

Affiliate One-Stop Center One or more of the required one-stop partners’ programs, services, and activities are available to job seekers and employers (Exception: No stand-alone Wagner-Peyser program center). X

Must comply with the WSO Operational Standards (if Title I and III are present) X

Must be branded WSO and include “a proud partner of the American Job Center network” (if Title I and III are present) X

Must be certified (to receive infrastructure funding under the state funding mechanism) X


Partner Sites/Specialized Centers Stand-alone non-required-partner center or office X


Attachment B – One-Stop Center Certification Minimum Requirements

The certification process must include an on-site in-person evaluation of each Comprehensive and Affiliate Center in the Local Area that must minimally include an assessment of Center effectiveness, physical and programmatic accessibility, and factors relating to the continuous improvement of Centers and the one-stop delivery system (WIOA sec. 121(g)). In addition, Local WDBs must evaluate each Center and the one-stop delivery system to ensure compliance with the following:

WIOA sec. 121(e) – Center programs and programmatic access.

WIOA sec. 188 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) – Center physical access.

WIOA sec. 116 – Center effectiveness. Finally, all WorkSource Oregon Centers must comply with the WSO Operational Standards. The WSO Operational Standards were developed through an extended collaborative process to provide the minimum-level content/services(s) required to be available at all WSO Centers. They also build in an accountability mechanism to ensure that this effort will come to fruition across the entire state. Finally, they offer an opportunity to work together to continually improve the system, engage new partners, and better serve Oregon job seekers, workers, and businesses.

Attachment C – Certification Documentation Requirements

Local WDBs must submit documentation of the certification review and the outcome for all Comprehensive and Affiliate Centers in their respective local areas by June 30 of the program year prior to the beginning of the certification period (e.g., for Program Year 2017, certification outcomes must be submitted by June 30, 2017) to [email protected]. Documentation must include:

The Certification Period (e.g. PY 2017 through PY 2019)

The location/address and hours of operation for each Center being assessed

A list of the partner programs available at the center, and a list of onsite partners (including each partners’ hours, if not present full-time)

Local WDB certification assessment policy and procedure

Rating and review summary for each WSO Center

Corrective action plan for any Center(s) that fail certification


Attachment D – One-Stop Certification

References WSO OPERATIONAL STANDARDS: http://wsostandards.weebly.com/read-the-worksource-

oregon-operational-standards-here.html

One-Stop Operator Procurement Policy

Training and Employment Guidance Letter WIOA No. 16-16, One-Stop Operations Guidance for the American Job Center Network

http://wsostandards.weebly.com/read-the-worksource-oregon-operational-standards-here.html

http://wsostandards.weebly.com/read-the-worksource-oregon-operational-standards-here.html



Policy Subject: One-Stop Operator Procurement Policy

Number/Reference: WIOA 121(d) Effective Date: 6/9/2017 Revision # Original

Overview

The One-Stop Operator coordinates the service delivery of participating WorkSource Oregon (WSO)

Center partners and service providers and other duties identified by Local Workforce Development

Boards (WDBs) in each local area. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) requires that

Local WDBs use a competitive process for the selection of a One-Stop Operator. Competitive selection of

One-Stop Operators is intended to improve the ability of Local WDBs to regularly examine performance

and costs against original expectations.

Policy Statement

Local Workforce Development Boards (WDBs) must select their One-Stop Operator through a

competitive process at least once every four years (WIOA sec. 121(d)(2)(A)). The competitive process

must comply with 2 CFR § 200, including the Department of Labor specific requirements at 2 CFR part

2900. As part of that competitive process, Local WDBs are required to clearly articulate the expected

role(s) and responsibilities of the One-Stop Operator (20 CFR § 678.620(a)) and include the role(s) and

responsibilities in the resulting contract.

All One-Stop Operators must be in place and operating in the WSO Centers no later than July 1, 2017

(20 CFR § 678.635).

In Oregon, Local WDBs can only serve as a One-Stop Operator through a sole source process with

approval of the Chief Elected Official (CEO) and the Governor after the failure of the initial competitive

process to result in an entity capable of carrying out the duties of the One-Stop Operator.

Eligible Entities

One-Stop Operators may be a single public, private, or non-profit entity or consortium of entities.

However, if a consortium of entities consists of WSO Center partners, it must include a minimum of three

of the required WSO Center partners listed in WIOA sec. 121(b)(1). The types of entities eligible to be a

One-Stop Operator include the following (WIOA sec. 121(d)(2)(B)):

Government agencies or governmental units such as: local or county governments, school

districts, state agencies, and federal WIOA partners;

Employment Service state agencies under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended by title III of

WIOA;

Educational institutions, such as: institutions of higher education, nontraditional public secondary

schools such as night schools, and area career and technical education schools (however,

elementary and other secondary schools are not eligible to become a One-Stop Operator);

Community-based organizations, nonprofit entities, or workforce intermediaries;

Private for-profit entities;

2 H:\POLICIES\WIOA Policies\WIOA sec. 121(d)\170609 FINAL One-Stop Operator Procurement Policy.docm

Other interested organizations that are capable of carrying out the duties of the One-Stop

Operator as identified in Training and Employment Guidance Letter WIOA No. 15-16, Competitive

Selection of One-Stop Operators; and

Local WDBs, if approved by the CEO and the Governor as required in WIOA sec. 107(g)(2).

As stated above, a Local WDB can serve as a One-Stop Operator, but they cannot participate in the

initial competitive process. Local WDBs wanting to serve as One-Stop Operators must follow the process

in Attachment A.

Local WDBs must ensure that, in carrying out WIOA programs and activities, One-Stop Operators adhere

to the following (20 CFR § 678.600):

Disclose any potential conflicts of interest arising from the relations of the One-Stop Operator with

particular training service providers or other service providers in accordance with 2 CFR §

200.318.

Do not establish practices that create disincentives to providing services to individuals with

barriers to employment.

Comply with federal regulations and procurement policies relating to the calculation and use of

profits as outlined in 2 CFR § 200, including the Department of Labor specific requirements at 2

CFR part 2900.

Adhere to any applicable firewalls or internal controls.

Local WDBs must retain extensive written documentation of the procurement process (20 CFR §

678.605(d) and 678.610(b)). Local WDBs must also make available to the public, through electronic

means and open meetings, information regarding their selection of One-Stop Operators (WIOA sec.

107(e)).

Action(s)

Each Local WDB will implement a competitive process to select a One-Stop Operator for their Local

Area. Each Local WDB will enter into a contract with the selected One-Stop Operator and have the One-

Stop Operator in place by July 1, 2017 and repeat the process at least once every four years.

Contact

[email protected]

Attachments/Additional Resources/References

A. Process for Local Workforce Development Boards as One-Stop Operator

Training and Employment Guidance Letter WIOA No. 15-16, Competitive Selection of One-Stop

Operators

Training and Employment Guidance Letter WIOA No. 16-16, One-Stop Operations Guidance for

the American Job Center Network


Attachment A – Process for Local Workforce Development Boards as One-Stop Operator

Upon failure of the initial competitive process to result in an entity capable of carrying out the

duties of the One-Stop Operator, a Local Workforce Development Board (WDB) can serve as a

One-Stop Operator with approval of the CEO and the Governor. Local WDBs wanting to serve

as One-Stop Operators must:

Submit email request to the email address under the Contact section of the Policy to

begin the Governor’s review and approval process.

Submit all materials related to the initial procurement process including an analysis of

the failed One-Stop Operator procurement.

Submit sole source documentation regarding the Local WDB as One-Stop Operator.

Submit letter indicating approval of the Local WDB as One-Stop Operator from the Local

Area CEO.

Submit description of how potential conflicts of interest will be addressed.

The Governor will make a determination within 30 days of the receipt of the materials described

above. If approved, the Local WDB will become the One-Stop Operator immediately.

Attachment B – One-Stop Operator Procurement

References

Training and Employment Guidance Letter WIOA No. 15-16, Competitive Selection of One-Stop Operators

Training and Employment Guidance Letter WIOA No. 16-16, One-Stop Operations Guidance for the American Job Center Network



Policy Subject: Memorandum of Understanding and Cost Sharing Policy

Number/Reference: WIOA 121 Effective Date: 6/9/2017 Revision # Original

Overview

A critical component of the successful implementation of the State Plan vision is a well-articulated

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing the one-stop system in each Local Workforce

Development Area (Local Area). The law envisions that Local Workforce Development Boards (WDBs)

will act as both the convener of the MOU negotiations as well as the shaper of how one-stop services are

delivered within their Local Area.

Policy Statement

Local Workforce Development Boards (WDBs) must enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

as described in this policy between the Local WDB, the Chief Elected Official(s) (CEO) and all of the

Required One-Stop Partners (WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)) in the Local Workforce Development Area (Local

Area). The MOU must outline the operations of the one-stop delivery system and provide for cost sharing

among the Required One-Stop Partner workforce programs. The MOU must be signed by the Local

WDB, all Required One-Stop Partners, and the CEO(s) and must include, at a minimum (WIOA sec.

121(c)(2)):

A description of the services to be provided through the one-stop delivery system;

A plan for how costs of the services and the operating costs of the system will be funded;

Methods of referral to/from/between core programs;

Methods to ensure the needs of individuals with barriers are met; and

The duration of the MOU, methods for amendment, and assurances for review every three years.

Initial MOU Development Timeline

While developing MOUs, Local WDBs must remain aware of key deadlines included below:

February 10, 2017: Local WDBs email progress report/timeline to

[email protected]

April 1, 2017: Local WDBs email progress report/timeline to

[email protected]

April 30, 2017: Local WDBs that do not anticipate reaching consensus on infrastructure costs alert

OWIB if state funding mechanism needs to be triggered and submit supporting documentation.

June 16, 2017 Governor and OWIB notify Local WDBs of WSO Center Partner contributions

under state funding mechanism (if triggered).

June 30, 2017: Local WDBs upload electronic copies of completed MOUs to the state’s WIOA

website.

Submission of Signed MOUs

At the end of the initial MOU development process, the completed MOU(s) must be signed by an

authorized representative of the Local WDB, CEO, and all Required One-Stop Partners. An electronic



2 H:\POLICIES\WIOA Policies\WIOA sec. 121\170609 - FINAL MOU and Cost Sharing Policy.docm

copy must be uploaded to the state’s WIOA website (http://oregonlocalplanning.weebly.com/mous-and-

rsas.html) no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 30, 2017. Whenever subsequent changes or revisions are

made after June 30, 2017 to a Local Area’s MOU(s), a revised electronic copy of the signed MOU(s)

must be uploaded to the state’s WIOA website.

One-Stop Centers and the One-Stop Delivery System

One-Stop Centers and the one-stop delivery system are defined in the One-Stop Certification Policy. A

Local Area’s one-stop delivery system may be made up of a combination of different types of One-Stop

Centers (e.g. comprehensive, affiliated). All One-Stop Centers in a Local Area, regardless of type, must

be included in a MOU.

Access to Services at One-Stop Centers

While WIOA allows for various types of physical locations, there are specific minimums that apply only to

comprehensive One-Stop Centers. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) requires that

each Local Area in Oregon must have at least one comprehensive One-Stop Center where jobseeker

and employer customers can access programs, services, and activities of all required one-stop partners.

20 CFR § 678.400 lists the Required One-Stop Partners, and 20 CFR § 678.305 describes what types of

programs, services, and activities a comprehensive One-Stop Center must provide access to, and further

defines the requirements regarding the access to partner programs and services that must be available.

Attachment A identifies Required One-Stop Partners and includes additional spaces for Local Area-

specific information. Attachment B provides further definition of required access. Local WDBs should use

this table when determining the location, layout, and mix of services for the comprehensive One-Stop

Center(s) in their Local Area.

I. Development of a Memorandum of Understanding Each MOU should act as a functional tool as well as a visionary plan for how the Local WDB and

Required One-Stop Partners will work together to create a unified service delivery system that best meets

the needs of their shared customers. As such, MOUs must be negotiated amongst all Required One-Stop

Partners. Local WDBs are encouraged to develop a single “umbrella” MOU that addresses overarching

issues for the Local WDB, CEO, and Required One-Stop Partners as they relate to the local One-Stop

Center system. Alternatively, they may choose to enter into a separate MOU for each One-Stop Center.

In Oregon, separate MOUs with individual partners or partner groups are prohibited. MOU

development has two parts:

Part I: Service Coordination

For Part I, Local WDBs are expected to work with all of the Required One-Stop Partners in

their Local Area to reach agreement regarding the operations of the local one-stop delivery

system as it relates to shared services and customers.

Part II: Shared Resources and Costs

For Part II, Local WDBs should build upon the agreements established in Part I and determine

how to best support their established service delivery model through the sharing of resources

and costs.

http://oregonlocalplanning.weebly.com/mous-and-rsas.html

http://oregonlocalplanning.weebly.com/mous-and-rsas.html


The tables on Attachment C outline the minimum content for Part I and Part II of the MOU development

process. In addition, a Sample MOU can be found at Sample MOU and Infrastructure Costs Toolkit. The

Sample MOU, developed for the Innovation and Opportunity Network (ION), is intended to be a technical

assistance tool rather than a required template. As such, it should be used in whatever way best fits the

needs of the Local WDB.

Establishing a One-Stop Center(s) Budget

Local WDBs are encouraged to develop a combined operating budget clearly identifying infrastructure

and other shared costs for the One-Stop Center network in the Local Area to set the stage cost sharing.

However, separate budgets can be created for infrastructure and other shared costs and for each One-

Stop Center if desired. Whichever option is selected, all Required One-Stop Partners must be a party to

the negotiations and agree to the budget and cost allocation methodology. Budgets and allocated costs

must also meet the standards of proportionate use and relative benefit and comply with federal cost

principles. Budgets and cost allocation must be reviewed annually and updated if there are substantial

changes.

II. Infrastructure Costs Under WIOA, all Required One-Stop Partners must use a portion of the funds available for their program

and activities to help maintain the one-stop delivery system, including proportional payment of the

infrastructure costs of the One-Stop Centers (20 CFR § 678.700). The amount of funds each Required

One-Stop Partner is required to contribute must be based on their proportionate use of the One-Stop

Center(s). When determining each partner’s proportionate share, Local WDBs must remain in compliance

with the federal statute authorizing each partner’s program as well as the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200).

An infrastructure funding agreement (IFA) negotiated by the Local WDBs with all Required One-Stop

Partners for each One-Stop Center or network of One-Stop Centers is the local funding mechanism (20

CFR § 678.715).

The only exception is that Native American programs are not required to contribute to infrastructure

funding but, as a Required One-Stop Partner, they are encouraged to contribute. Any agreement

regarding the contribution or non-contribution to infrastructure costs by Native American programs must

still be recorded in the signed MOU (WIOA Section 121(h)(2)(D)(iv)). It is important to note that if the

Native American program partner chooses not to contribute to infrastructure costs and a One-Stop

Center identifies infrastructure costs that are allocable solely to the Native American program, those

costs cannot be allocated to the remaining partners and therefore must either be removed from the

center budget or paid for by an alternate source of funding.

Reconciliation of One-Stop Center Partner Contributions

The Local WDB is responsible for ensuring that all of the One-Stop Center infrastructure costs are paid

according to the provisions of their signed MOUs. The estimated proportionate share of costs for each

partner are based on budgeted expectations. Until the actual costs are known, and the usage and

benefits are calculated, each partner’s true proportionate share of costs will be unknown. Therefore, all

One-Stop Center Partner contributions, regardless of the type, must be reconciled on a regular basis

(e.g. monthly, quarterly), comparing expenses incurred to relative benefits received. The reconciliation

https://ion.workforcegps.org/resources/2017/03/23/13/30/Sample_MOU_Infrastructure_Costs_Toolkit?utm_source=Global+Notification+WFGPS&utm_campaign=7e6ea7f043-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_df70b47c9f-7e6ea7f043-421413149


process is necessary in order to ensure that the proportionate share each partner program is contributing

remains consistent with the cost methodology, is up to date, and in compliance with the terms of the

MOU. The MOU must also identify who will be responsible for this regular reconciliation.

Attachment D provides more detail on developing IFA Budgets and Cost Allocation Methodology.

State Infrastructure Funding Mechanism

One of the hallmarks of WIOA is an increased emphasis on Local WDBs as conveners who are

responsible for the MOU negotiation process. Initiating negotiations via a local funding mechanism allows

for decision making to be kept at the local level. However, if a Local WDB is unable to complete an IFA

with all of its Required One-Stop Partners, then the state funding mechanism will be triggered and the

Governor and OWIB must then determine the required contributions of each One-Stop Center Partner.

Oregon’s goal is to provide the support and guidance necessary to help all Local Areas reach agreement

under the local mechanism rather than under the state funding mechanism. Local WDBs are urged to

seek guidance and support from the state throughout the negotiation process to help prevent the

triggering of the state funding mechanism.

If a Local WDB does not believe they will be able to come to an agreement regarding joint infrastructure

costs with any of their Required One-Stop Partners by June 30, 2017, they must notify the State Board

no later than April 1, 2017. Once the notification has been received, the Governor will initiate a process to

determine each Required One-Stop Partner’s contribution to infrastructure costs in the Local Area for that

program year under the state funding mechanism. As part of their formal notification, Local WDBs will be

required to submit information including, but not limited to, the following:

IFA budget details (If a budget has been approved and accepted by Local WDB and all Required

One-Stop Partners, the Governor and the OWIB may accept this budget).

Local WDB Strategic Plan (Local Plan).

The cost allocation method or methods proposed by the partners.

The amount of total partner funds included.

The type of each partner’s funds (cash, non-cash, third-party in-kind).

Any agreements made related to the proposed MOU.

Summary of the meetings held to discuss the IFA and MOU (including dates, materials, and a list

of participating partners).

Identification of which partners have and have not agreed upon the budget and cost allocation

methodology.

A summary of technical assistance requested and received from the state.

The state will release supplementary guidance with further information on the state funding mechanism

and the appeal process at a later date.

III. Other Shared Costs In addition to jointly funding infrastructure costs, Required One-Stop Partners must use a portion of funds

made available under their authorizing federal statute (or fairly evaluated in-kind contributions) to pay the


additional costs relating to the operation of the One-Stop Center delivery system. These costs may be

shared through cash, non-cash, or third-party in-kind contributions (20 CFR § 678.760). The other system

costs budget must include applicable career services, and may include any other shared services that are

authorized for and commonly provided through the Required One-Stop Partner programs to any

individual, such as initial intake, assessment of needs, appraisal of basic skills, identification of

appropriate services to meet such needs, referrals to other Required One-Stop Partners, and business

services. Shared operating costs may also include shared costs related to the Local WDB’s functions.

The requirements presented in Reconciliation of One-Stop Center Partner Contributions (above) also

applies to other shared costs.

Attachment D provides more detail on determining Other Shared/System Costs.

Action(s)

Each Local WDB will ensure that this policy is brought to the attention of all Required One-Stop Partners

and will convene all Required One-Stop Partners for good-faith negotiations of a Local Area MOU(s) as

described in this policy.

Contact

[email protected]

Attachments

Attachment A – Required One-Stop Partner Programs, Services, and Activities

Attachment B – Access to Required Partner Programs and Services

Attachment C – MOU Development – Parts I & II

Attachment D – Infrastructure Funding Agreements, Cost Allocation Methodology, Other Shared

Costs

Attachment E – References



1

LWDB: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If a program or activity from the table below is carried out in the Local Area, it must be accessible at the physical location of any comprehensive One-Stop Center in that Local Area.

If a program or activity from the table below is not carried out in the Local Area, the requirements are not applicable.

Required One-Stop Partners Required Partner

Program/ Service State Partner

(Oregon) Local Partner MOU Signatory

Contact

(Local Area-specific)

Programs authorized under title I of WIOA, including: Adults

Basic and Individualized Career services*; Training Services

Office of Workforce

Investments (HECC)

LWDB/ Contracted Service Provider

Dislocated workers Basic and Individualized Career services*; Training Services

Office of Workforce

Investments (HECC)


Youth WIOA title I Youth Program services

Office of Workforce

Investments (HECC)


Job Corps Job Corps centers in Oregon are overseen by the San Francisco

Regional Office of Job Corps

N/A Current LWDBs: CWP NOW SOWIB WSI

YouthBuild N/A Local grant recipient varies

Native American programs

N/A Current LWDBs: ECWIB

http://www.jobcorps.gov/contact/san_francisco.aspx




2

EOWIB NOW

Migrant and seasonal farmworker programs (MSFW) – State Monitor Advocate System

Oregon Employment Department

Migrant and seasonal farmworker programs (MSFW) – National Farmworker Jobs Program

Oregon Human Development Corporation

The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) program authorized under title II of WIOA

Adult Education and Literacy Activities authorized under title II of WIOA

Community Colleges and Workforce

Development (HECC)

Contracted Service Provider

The Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service program authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended by WIOA title III

Employment services authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act; Basic and Individualized Career services


The Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program authorized under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by WIOA title IV

Vocational Rehabilitation program services

Department of Human Services

The Senior Community Service Employment Program authorized under title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965

Department of Human Services Ryan Kibby (main contact) [email protected] 503-373-1726

Easter Seals; Experience Works




3

Career and technical education programs at the postsecondary level authorized under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006

Community Colleges and Workforce

Development (HECC)

Community Colleges; Local Secondary Schools; others

Trade Adjustment Assistance activities authorized under chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974

Trade Adjustment Assistance activities


Jobs for Veterans State Grants programs

Jobs for Veterans State Grants


Employment and training activities carried out under the Community Services Block Grant

Oregon Housing and Community

Services

Employment and training activities carried out by the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Oregon Housing and Community

Services Office of Field Office Director

Programs authorized under State unemployment compensation laws

Other programs authorized under state unemployment compensation laws


Programs authorized under sec. 212 of the Second Chance Act of 2007

Department of Corrections

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families


http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/states/oregon/working/fpm/contacts

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/states/oregon/working/fpm/contacts


4

(TANF) Job Opportunity and Basic Skills (JOBS) program services

(Oregon requirement) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment and Training services


Various Any employment and training activities carried out under sec. 134(d) of WIOA

various

Various Other partners, services, or activities as determined by the LWDB

various

*These services must be available during all normal hours of operation at a Comprehensive One-Stop Center.

Legend – By Federal Department

Department of Labor Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Education Department of Justice

Department of Health and Human Services Department of Agriculture

Attachment B – Access to Required One-Stop Partner Programs and Services

Access to Required One-Stop Partner Programs and Services ‘‘Access’’ to programs and services means having:

1. Program staff physically present at the location; or 2. Partner program staff physically present at the One-Stop Center appropriately trained to

provide information to customers about the programs, services, and activities available through partner programs; or

3. Making available a direct linkage through technology to program staff that can provide meaningful information or services.

a. A ‘‘direct linkage’’ means providing direct connection at the One-Stop Center, within a reasonable time, by phone or through a real-time web-based communication to a program staff member who can provide program information or services to the customer.

b. A ‘‘direct linkage’’ cannot exclusively be providing a phone number or computer website or providing information, pamphlets, or materials.

At a comprehensive One-Stop Center, direct communication with an individual needs to be available/accessible – either by a program-funded individual, an appropriately trained partner staff, or through real-time communication (via the phone or web) for any and all of the required programs and activities that are carried out in the Local Area. Note: The direct communication does not have to be available immediately, but it does have to be available to the customer at the comprehensive One-Stop Center. In cases where access to a required program, service, or activity is only available on a part-time or intermittent schedule, Local WDBs are expected to take measures to ensure that the needs of their customer(s) are met in a reasonable and timely manner (e.g., a partner on site only once or twice a month may not be reasonable). Below are examples that illustrate what meets and does not meet the access requirement. Meets the access requirement:

o Arranging onsite meetings for a customer with a provider who is only physically present in the center on a part-time basis [Local WDBs (and/or their One-Stop Operators) are responsible for tracking availability of providers and the needs of customers in their Local Areas]

o Reserving a room with a phone on site and arranging a telephone appointment for a customer with an offsite provider

Does not meet the access requirement:

o Using offsite referrals or appointments as the sole means of connecting a customer with a required service or activity

o Distributing a business card, brochure, web address, etc., with an offsite provider’s contact information


1

LWDB: ____________________________________________________________________________ The tables below outline the minimum content for Part I and Part II of the MOU development process. The left column lists the provisions that each MOU must contain, as required by WIOA. The right column lists what corresponding information needs to be included in order to address each provision.

Part I Service Coordination

MOU Provisions Required under WIOA Section 121(c)

Corresponding Information Needed In the MOU

Services provided through the One-Stop delivery system WIOA sec. 121(c)(2)(A)(i) Describe the services to be provided through the One-Stop delivery system consistent with the requirements of this section, including the manner in which the services will be coordinated and delivered through such a system.

Define the purpose, mission, values and goals of the one-stop delivery system in the Local Area.

Identify the Required One-Stop Partner(s) included in the MOU.

Identify the One-Stop Centers covered by the MOU, indicating comprehensive one-stop centers and any affiliated sites and attach a map with the locations noted.

Identify the One-Stop Center(s) in the Local Area covered by the WSO Operational Standards.

Describe the One-Stop Center services that are applicable to each partner, including career services.

Identify the One-Stop Center system customers and describe shared customers.

Describe the responsibilities of the Required One-Stop Center Partner(s), including joint planning, and staff development/professional development.

Methods for Referring Customers WIOA sec. 121(c)(2)(A)(iii) Describe methods of referral of individuals between the One-Stop operator and the One-Stop partners for appropriate services and activities.

Describe the referral process within and between One-Stop Centers.

Describe commitment to ensuring a high quality customer service and customer-centered focus.

Access to Services WIOA sec. 121(c)(2)(A)(iv) Describe methods to ensure the needs of workers and youth, and individuals with barriers to employment, including individuals with disabilities, are addressed in the provision of necessary and appropriate access to services, including access to technology and materials, made available through the One-Stop delivery system.

Identify how the One-Stop Center(s) will provide access to partner services, including direct linkage through real-time technology.

Define how priority of service is ensured, including priority for veterans, recipients of public assistance, other low-income individuals, and individuals who are basic skills deficient in the Local Area in accordance with WIOA sec. 134(c)(3)(E).

Describe how the One-Stop Center(s) will ensure access to services for individuals with barriers to employment (WIOA sec. 3(24)).

Describe how the One-Stop Center(s) will


2

provide measures to promote nondiscrimination and equal opportunity.

Describe the One-Stop Center grievance procedures.

Include a commitment that the Required One-Stop Center Partner(s) and locations will comply with ADA physical and programmatic access requirements.

Duration of MOU WIOA sec. 121(c)(2)(A)(v) Describe the duration of the MOU and the procedures for amending the memorandum during the duration of the memorandum, and assurances that such memorandum shall be reviewed not less than once in every 3-year period to ensure appropriate funding and delivery of services.

Identify the effective dates of the MOU. Include an assurance to review the MOU at

least every three years. Describe the procedures established to revise

and modify the MOU. Describe the procedures established to

terminate the MOU. MOU must be signed by all Required One-Stop

Partners.


3

Part II Shared Resources and Costs

MOU Provisions Required under WIOA Section 121(c)

Corresponding Information Needed In the MOU

Funding of Services and Operating Costs WIOA Section 121(c)(2)(A)(ii) Describe how the costs of such services and the operating costs of such system will be funded, including the following: (I) Funding through cash and in-kind contributions (fairly evaluated), which contributions may include funding from philanthropic organizations or other private entities, or through other alternative financing options, to provide a stable and equitable funding stream for ongoing One-Stop delivery system operations. (II) Funding of the infrastructure costs of One-Stop centers in accordance with subsection (h).

Infrastructure Costs A budget clearly identifying the infrastructure

costs for each One-Stop Center or network of Centers in the Local Area with a detailed description of what specific costs are included in each line item.

The cost allocation methodology chosen to charge each partner in proportion to its use of the One-Stop Center(s) and benefit received, in accordance with Uniform Guidance.

The initial proportionate share of infrastructure costs allocated to each partner based on the agreed upon cost allocation methodology, each partner’s estimated total contribution amount, and whether it will be provided through cash, non-cash (in-kind), and/or third-party in-kind contributions. This initial determination must be periodically reconciled against actual costs incurred and adjusted accordingly.

For any identified non-cash or in-kind contributions, the method by which the value of the contribution was or will be fairly evaluated, in accordance with Uniform Guidance Section 200.306.

Other Shared Costs A budget clearly identifying other shared costs

for each One-Stop Center or network of Centers in the Local Area with a detailed description of what specific costs are included in each line item. The budget must include “applicable career services” as well as any other shared costs agreed upon by the Required One-Stop Center Partners.

The cost allocation methodology agreed to by all partners to charge other system costs according to if benefit is received and their proportionate use in accordance with Uniform Guidance.

The initial proportionate share of other system costs allocated to each partner based on the agreed upon cost allocation methodology, each partner’s estimated total contribution amount, and whether it will be provided through cash, non-cash (in-kind), and/or third-party in-kind contributions. This initial determination must be periodically reconciled against actual costs incurred and adjusted accordingly.

For any identified non-cash or in-kind


4

contributions, the method by which the value of the contribution was or will be fairly evaluated, in accordance with Uniform Guidance.

Process and Development The period of time in which the Infrastructure

Funding Agreement (IFA) and other shared costs agreement is effective.

Identification of all Required One-Stop Center Partners, Chief Elected Official(s) (CEO), and the Local WDB participating in the infrastructure and other shared costs funding agreements.

The Infrastructure Funding Agreement (IFA) and other shared costs agreement must be signed by all parties to each agreement.

Steps the Local WDB, CEO, and Required One-Stop Center Partners used to reach consensus and/or an assurance that the Local Area followed guidance for the state infrastructure funding mechanism.

A description of the process to be used among partners to resolve issues during the MOU duration period when consensus cannot be reached.

A description of the periodic modification and review process that will be used to ensure all Required One-Stop Center Partners continue to contribute their fair and equitable fair share of infrastructure and other system costs, including the identification of who will fulfill this responsibility.

Recommended MOU Provision

Optional Sections to include in the MOU

Administration and Operations Management Describe management operations, including site supervision and day to day operations.

Describe how the one-stop delivery system will handle dispute resolution.

Attachment D – Infrastructure Funding Agreements, Cost Allocation Methodology, Other

Shared Costs

Infrastructure Funding Agreements (IFA) The advantages of Local WDBs establishing self-negotiated, successful IFAs under the local funding mechanism include the following:

Local autonomy – Under the local funding mechanism, decisions remain at the local level which ensures the IFAs will be tailored to each Local Area’s unique needs.

Stronger regional partnerships – The more each partner can have a direct say in the local negotiations, the stronger the partnerships will be.

No caps on partner contributions – Under the state funding mechanism, specific caps are set on the amount and percent of each partner’s funds that may be contributed. However, under the local funding mechanism there are no caps.

Flexibility on funds used – Title I programs are allowed to use program funds to pay their proportionate share of the infrastructure costs when negotiating under the local funding mechanism. If the state funding mechanism is triggered, Title I programs may be required to pay their proportionate share only out of administrative costs.

IFA budgets include, but are not limited to, all non-personnel costs that are necessary for the physical operation of the One-Stop Center such as: rent, utilities and maintenance, equipment, technology, and non-marketing common identifier expenses. Every One-Stop Center infrastructure budget must also have an “Access and Accommodation” line item for ensuring physical and programmatic access to the One-Stop Center by individuals with disabilities. The budgets must contain descriptions of the specific costs grouped under each line item. Local WDBs may consolidate and/or break out line items as best fits with their individual area budgets and cost allocation methodology. Examples of costs that may fall under the above mentioned line items include, but are not limited to, the following:

Rental of the Facilities Utilities and Maintenance Costs

o Electric o Gas o Water o Sewer connections o High-speed internet connectivity o Telephones (landline for the center, not cell phones) o Facility maintenance contracts

Equipment Costs

o Assessment-related products o Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities o Copiers o Fax machines o Computers o Other tangible equipment used to serve all center customers (not specific to an

individual program partner)

Technology to Facilitate Access to the One-Stop Center Costs o Technology used for the center’s planning and outreach activities


Shared Costs

o Cost of creation and maintenance of a center website (not specific to an

individual program partner) that provides outreach to customers by providing information on One-Stop Center services and/or provides direct service access to One-Stop Center services

o This does not include data systems or case management systems specific to individual program partners.

Common Identifier Costs (Local option)

o Creating new signage o Updating templates and materials o Updating electronic resources

Note: If a Local WDB decides to include common identifier costs as part of the IFA, they cannot include costs associated with any sort of advertising campaign promoting the One-Stop Center under the new common identifier (WIOA Joint Final Rule Preamble page 55904). Cost Allocation Methodology Required One-Stop Center Partner’s proportionate share of infrastructure costs must be calculated in accordance with Uniform Guidance and based on a reasonable cost allocation methodology, whereby infrastructure costs are charged to each partner in proportion to their use of the One-Stop Center(s). All costs must be allowable, reasonable, necessary, and allocable (20 CFR § 678.715). After determining whether an IFA will be created for the local network of One-Stop Centers as a whole, or optionally, for each One-Stop Center, and determining the benefit received by each partner, the Local Board must select a cost allocation methodology to identify the proportionate share of infrastructure costs each partner will be expected to contribute. Any cost allocation methodology selected must adhere to the following:

Be consistent with the federal laws authorizing each partner’s program (including any local administrative cost requirements).

Comply with federal cost principles in the Uniform Guidance. Include only costs that are allowable, reasonable, necessary, and allocable to each

program partner. Be based on the proportionate use and if benefit is received by each partner.

Examples of cost allocation methods that may be used for infrastructure include, but are not limited to, the following:

The proportion of a partner program’s occupancy percentage of the One-Stop Center (square footage).

The proportion of a partner program’s participants compared to all participants served by the One-Stop Center (participant counts).

The proportion of partner program’s staff among all staff at the One-Stop Center (FTE). The proportion of a partner program’s use of equipment at the One-Stop Center

(various).


Shared Costs

Cash, In-Kind, or Third-Party In-Kind Contributions Required One-Stop Center Partners (or their respective state entity) may provide cash, non-cash, and third-party in-kind contributions to cover their proportionate share of infrastructure costs. If non-cash or in-kind contributions are used, they cannot include non-infrastructure costs (such as personnel), and they must be valued consistent with Uniform Guidance Section 200.306 to ensure they are fairly evaluated and meet the partner’s proportionate share (20 CFR § 678.720). If third-party in-kind contributions are made that support the One-Stop Center(s) as a whole (such as space), that contribution will not count toward a specific partner’s proportionate share of infrastructure. Rather, the value of the contribution will be applied to the overall infrastructure costs and thereby reduce the contribution required for all partners. When determining the use of non-cash and in-kind contributions, overall costs must be kept in mind as there must first be enough cash contributions to cover those. Determining the Source of Funds to Pay Infrastructure Costs When determining which funds can be used to pay infrastructure costs, Required One-Stop Center Partners must remain in compliance with their authorizing federal statute as well as 20 CFR § 678.720, which provides stipulations on the types of funds certain partners are allowed to use towards their proportionate share under the local funding mechanism. These limitations include the following:

WIOA Title I – Infrastructure costs can be paid as program and/or administrative costs. WIOA Title II – Infrastructure costs can only be paid from funds available for local

administrative expenses or from non-federal resources that are cash, in-kind, or third-party contributions.

WIOA Title III – As the regulations did not specify a funding source for Title III, any available funds may be utilized for infrastructure costs.

WIOA Title IV – Infrastructure costs are paid from administrative costs. Career and Technical Education – Infrastructure costs must be paid from funds available

for local administrative of postsecondary level programs and activities to eligible recipients, or a consortia of eligible recipients, and may be paid from funds made available by the state or non-federal resources that are cash, in-kind, or third-party contributions.

TANF/JOBS – Infrastructure costs are paid only from those funds used for the provision or administration of employment and training programs for the benefit of TANF participants.

SNAP Employment & Training - Infrastructure costs are paid from administrative costs. There are no set caps on the amount or percent of overall funding a Required One-Stop Center Partner is responsible for contributing to fund infrastructure costs under the local funding mechanism, except that contributions from administrative costs may not exceed the amount available for administrative costs under the authorizing statute of the partner program. Other Shared Costs Unlike the IFA, other system costs are not limited to the non-personnel costs of operating a One-Stop Center. They can include shared personnel costs such as a center receptionist or


Shared Costs

staff who are cross trained in and deliver services for multiple partner programs. Everything in the other system costs budget must be agreed to by all partners locally. There is no state funding mechanism for other system costs that will be triggered due to lack of agreement at the local level. As with infrastructure costs, other system costs must be allocable according to the proportion of benefit received by each of the Required One-Stop Center Partner programs, consistent with the partner’s authorizing federal statute and Uniform Guidance. The method(s) for allocating other system costs can include those allocation methods identified for infrastructure costs as well as other appropriate methods including, but not limited to, the proportion of a partner program’s service counts. The MOU must also include an agreed upon budget for these other costs along with the agreed upon cost sharing methodology. The agreed upon budget for other shared costs must align with Part I of the MOU that outlines shared customers and services. The other shared costs budget can be a part of one overall one-Stop Center system budget (including infrastructure) or it can be developed and described separately. The other shared costs budget must include a line item for applicable career services. Part I of the MOU requires identification of the career services that are applicable to each partner program. Accordingly, this budget must include each of the partner’s costs for the service delivery of each applicable career service and a consolidated system budget for career services applicable to more than one partner. The budget may also include shared services, which have been agreed upon by all partners, which are authorized for and may be commonly provided through the One-Stop Center system. Examples of these types of services include, but not limited to, the following:

Initial intake, assessment of needs, appraisal of basic skills, identification of appropriate services to meet such needs, and referrals to other Required One-Stop Center Partners. This may include costs such as technology and tools that increase integrated service delivery through the sharing of information and service delivery processes.

Business services. This may include costs related to a local or regional system business services team that has one or more partners on the team or has delegated a specific partner to provide business services on behalf of the system.

Required One-Stop Center Partner staff cross training. This may include any staff cross training on partner programs and eligibility identified in the Part I.

One-Stop operator. This may include the system role of the One-Stop operator (e.g., coordinating service providers across the WSO Center delivery system) when the role is not specific to the operation of the One-Stop Center and/or specific partner programs, so long as the role was defined by the Local WDB in the procurement process and agreed to by all Required One-Stop Center Partners in the MOU.

Shared personnel (and other non-infrastructure costs) for co-located partners. This may include center receptionists and/or center managers.

Process and Development The guidance presented in Cost Allocation Methodology (above) also applies to other shared costs although cost allocation methods will likely be different for many of the shared costs included.

Attachment E – Memorandum of Understanding and Cost Sharing

References Training and Employment Guidance Letter WIOA No. 16-16, One-Stop Operations Guidance for

the American Job Center Network

Training and Employment Guidance Letter WIOA No. 17-16, Infrastructure Funding of the One-Stop Delivery System

Sample MOU and Infrastructure Costs Toolkit

One-Stop Certification Policy

https://ion.workforcegps.org/resources/2017/03/23/13/30/Sample_MOU_Infrastructure_Costs_Toolkit?utm_source=Global+Notification+WFGPS&utm_campaign=7e6ea7f043-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_df70b47c9f-7e6ea7f043-421413149


Overview

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) requires the Governor, with assistance from the state board (WIOA sec. 101(d)(9)), to develop allocation formulas for the distribution of funds for employment and training activities to local areas as permitted under WIOA sec. 128(b)(3) and 133(b)(3). The following policy has been adopted to establish the formula for in-state allocation of WIOA Title I Adult and Youth Funds.

Policy Statement The State of Oregon currently uses the same formula for in-state allocations as is used (per DOL) when the State of Oregon receives its Federal funding allotment. The in-state allocation is based on the following formula:

One-third on the basis of the relative number of unemployed individuals in each area of substantial unemployment(1) compared to the total number of unemployed individuals in all areas of substantial employment in the entire state;

One-third on the basis of the relative excess number of unemployed individuals in each area compared to the total excess number of unemployed individuals in the entire state;

One-third based on the relative number of disadvantaged youths(2)/adults(3) in each area compared to the total number of disadvantaged youths/adults in the entire state(4).

(1)

Area of substantial unemployment is defined as an area that has an average rate of unemployment of at least 6.5% for the most recent 12 months. (2)

Youth is defined as an individual from 16 to 21. (3)

The term Adult means an individual who is age 22 or older. (4)

The definitions contained in the policy for Adult and Youth are allocation formula-specific, and do not apply to general program eligibility requirements.

After the initial allocation is figured, a hold-harmless formula will be applied in accordance with the requirements in WIOA.

Hold-harmless: A local area shall not receive an allocation percentage for a fiscal year that is less than 90 percent of the average allocation percentage of the local area for the 2 preceding fiscal years. Amounts necessary for increasing such allocations to local areas to comply with the hold-harmless shall be obtained by ratably reducing the allocations to be made to other local areas.

Action(s)

The state will use the federal formula for Adult and Youth funds for in-state allocations starting on 7/1/2017. This policy will be revisited every two years after consultation with chief elected officials and local boards in the local areas.

Attachments None

Oregon Workforce Investment Board Policy

Subject: Adult and Youth Formula Funding

Number/Reference: WIOA sec. 128(b)(1) and sec. 133(b)(1)

Effective Date: 6/9/2017 Revision # Original

1


Overview

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) requires the Governor, with assistance from the state board (WIOA sec. 101(d)(9)), to develop allocation formulas for the distribution of funds for employment and training activities to local areas as permitted under sections 133(b)(1)(B) of WIOA. The following policy and procedures have been adopted to provide for the establishment of the formula for in-state allocation of WIOA Title I Dislocated Worker Funds.

Policy Statement The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) requires the state to consider six factors in developing its in-state Dislocated Worker program allocation. The factors include:

Insured Unemployment

Unemployment Concentration

Plant Closing/Mass layoff

Declining Industries

Farmer-rancher Economic Hardship

Long Term Unemployment The formula for the State of Oregon Dislocated Worker program allocation in this policy meets the principles of fairness, recognition of urban/rural differences, program stability, and customer responsiveness. Multiple analyses were completed to determine these facts:

An analysis of the validity of the available data was done to predict the types of customers the system would serve based on future dislocations.

The analysis suggests that the best predictor of the types of people who would be served using prior customer data was the total number of unemployed.

In this analysis, no weight is given to the farmer/rancher factor since the only data that is available is based on gross sales and it has very little relationship to the dislocations at an area level.

The analysis confirmed that the formula adequately accounts for rural dislocations since it uses other factors that reflect these concerns.

It is the policy of the State of Oregon to allocate dislocated worker funds based on the average distribution of the data that reflects the following factors as they relate to the workforce areas (this average distribution assumes all factors are weighted equally):

Total Unemployed

Excess Unemployed

Exhaustees

Total UI Claimants

Declining Industries

The resulting average distribution per workforce area will be applied to the formula dollars the state will distribute to the areas. After the initial allocation is figured, a hold-harmless formula will be applied in accordance with the requirements in WIOA.


Subject: Dislocated Worker Formula Funding

W Number/Reference: WIOA sec.133 (B)(i)

Effective Date: 6/9/2017 Revision # Original

2

Hold-harmless: A local area shall not receive an allocation percentage for a fiscal year that is less than 90 percent of the average allocation percentage of the local area for the 2 preceding fiscal years. Amounts necessary for increasing such allocations to local areas to comply with the hold-harmless shall be obtained by ratably reducing the allocations to be made to other local areas.

Action(s)

The state will use this formula for Dislocated Worker funds for in-state allocations starting on 7/1/2017. This policy will be revisited every two years after consultation with chief elected officials and local boards in the local areas.

Attachments None


1


Subject: Priority of Service

Number/Reference: N/A Effective Date: 6/9/2017 Revision # Original

Overview

Local Workforce Development Boards (WDBs) must establish a policy to provide priority for individualized

career services and training services to recipients of public assistance, other low-income individuals, and

individuals who are basic skills deficient and veterans. Local WDBs must establish practices that support

Oregon’s priorities as identified by the Governor and the Oregon Workforce Investment Board (OWIB).

Policy Statement

The Jobs for Veterans Act (JVA) requires that processes to identify veterans are in place at the point of

entry, and that veterans are made aware of their entitlement to priority of services, the full array of

services available under priority of service, and applicable eligibility requirements for those programs and

services.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) requires priority be given to public assistance

recipients, other low-income individuals, and individuals who are basic skills deficient (WIOA sec. 3(5)),

when providing individualized career services and training services using WIOA title I Adult program

funds (WIOA sec. 134(c)(3)(E)).

Oregon’s Governor and/or the OWIB may identify additional populations and priorities based on

additional factors (e.g. economic shifts, business needs, and others). If the Governor and/or OWIB

identify additional populations and/or priorities, they will be detailed in a modification of Oregon’s WIOA

State Plan. Local WDBs must respond to these state-level changes appropriately (e.g. Local Plan

modification, new policies or procedures, etc.).

Applying Federal Priority of Service Requirements:

The priority of service for veterans always applies across all qualified employment and training programs.

Priority must be documented.

The priority of service for public assistance recipients, other low-income individuals, and individuals who

are basic skills deficient is a statutory priority that applies only to the receipt of individualized career

services and training services in the WIOA title I Adult program. Priority must be documented.

Local WDBs through their One-Stop Operator must ensure that priority provisions are addressed in

customer flow processes and staff coordination and coverage.

Local plans must describe the direction that Local WDBs have provided to the one-stop operator to

ensure priority for adult career and training services.


2

Applying Oregon’s Priorities:

Local plans must describe how Local WDBs support Oregon’s priorities as identified by the Governor and

the Oregon Workforce Investment Board (OWIB).

Action(s)

Local Workforce Development Boards must adopt local policies and/or procedures to ensure that priority

of service is given in accordance with state policy and federal law. The Higher Education Coordinating

Commission Office of Workforce Investments’ staff will monitor Local WDBs for compliance.

Contact

[email protected]

Attachments/Additional Resources/References

Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 10-09, Implementing Priority of Service for Veterans

and Eligible Spouses in all Qualified Job Training Programs Funded in whole or in part by the U.S.

Department of Labor (DOL).

Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 19-16, Guidance on Services Provided through the

Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA

or Opportunity Act) and the Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service (ES), as Amended by Title III of

WIOA, and for Implementation of the WIOA Final Rules.

WorkSource Oregon Operational Standards.

20 CFR § 680.600: What priority must be given to low-income adults and public assistance recipients

and individuals who are basic skills deficient served with adult funds under title I?

20 CFR § 680.650: Do veterans receive priority of service under the Workforce Innovation and

Opportunity Act?

20 CFR Part 1010, Application of Priority of Service for Covered Persons.




Subject: Minimum Training Expenditures

Number/Reference: N/A Effective Date: 6/9/2017 Revision # Original

Overview

The Oregon Workforce Investment Board’s (OWIB’s) Strategic Plan 2016-2020 includes Goal 3 which

reads: Invest in Oregonians to build in-demand skills, match training and job seekers to opportunities,

and accelerate career momentum. Consistent with this Goal, the OWIB established a minimum training

expenditure threshold for Local Workforce Development Boards (WDBs).

It is important to note that Local WDBs do not provide training directly to customers, but provide all direct

training services through contracts with a variety of service providers. Further, the statewide standard

expressed in this policy (25%) is considered an appropriate standard considering that significant staff

costs are essential to delivering training services to prepare customers for training, engage businesses in

sectors or for on-the-job training placements, administer the programs, and other related tasks and Local

WDBs are responsible for many other important functions besides training (WIOA sec. 107(d)).

Policy Statement

Local Workforce Development Boards (WDBs) must expend 25% of the Workforce Innovation and

Opportunity Act (WIOA) Adult and Dislocated Worker program allocations (excluding Administration

funds) that is within their direct board control on training as described in this policy (Option 1). This is a

minimum threshold; Local WDBs may expend more than 25% on training.

Local WDBs may petition for an alternate formula that demonstrates the same minimum commitment to

training (Option 2). Any Local WDB alternate formula must be proposed to and approved by the OWIB

using the local plan modification process. This option is primarily meant to allow boards flexibility to

include other funds beyond federal WIOA funds in the training expenditure percentage calculation. Some

examples include, but are not limited to: other grants received by the Local WDB (e.g. Back to Work

Oregon) or leveraged funds resulting in training. If leveraged funds are used, the Local WDB must

demonstrate that the leverage is the result of Local WDB actions.

Funding in this policy includes expenditures made during a completed Program Year (July 1 through

June 30 of the following year). For funding sources covering more than one Program Year, the Local

WDB must identify what portion of the funding is being counted in each Program Year that the funding

source covers.

The formula is as follows:

Total Qualifying Training Expenditures using Option 1 or Option 2 Funds ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ X 100 ≥ 25%

Total Option 1 or Option 2 Funds

2

Attachment A includes more detail regarding what is included in the numerator and denominator in the

above formula.

Qualifying Training Expenditures under this Policy

Expenditures for training as defined below can be counted toward the 25% minimum requirement.

The WorkSource Oregon (WSO) Operational Standards, and the definition of training within them, shall

be used as the basis for determining the eligibility of training expenditures under this policy. Within the

WSO Standards, Training Services are defined as:

1. Adult Education and Literacy (including, but not limited to, English language acquisition;

integrated education and training programs; and workforce preparation activities as defined under

WIOA sec. 203(17))

2. Talent Development (including, but not limited to, essential workplace skills: resume development,

basic computer skills, interviewing skills, networking/social media use, and soft skills; and may

also include short-term pre-vocational services)

3. Skill Development (including, but not limited to, skill upgrades; retraining; entrepreneurial training;

and occupational skills training leading to industry-recognized and post-secondary credentials)

4. Work-Based Learning (including, but not limited to, on-the-job training (OJT); apprenticeship; work

experiences and internships that are linked to careers; and career exploration)

The WSO Operational Standards define training services more broadly than WIOA (20 CFR § 680.200).

All WIOA-defined training services are included in the WSO Operational Standards. In addition,

expenditures on customized training and incumbent worker training (considered Business Services in the

WSO Operational Standards) are also Qualifying training expenditures.

In addition, expenditures for supportive services that are directly connected with training may also be

counted toward the 25% minimum requirement. Examples include:

Assistance with uniforms or other appropriate work attire;

Work-related tools, including such items as eyeglasses and protective eye gear;

Assistance with books, fees, school supplies, and other necessary items for students enrolled in

postsecondary education classes; and

Payments and fees for employment-related applications, tests, and certifications

In all cases, Qualifying expenditures are those that represent the cost of training as described above and

do not include personnel or operating expenditures related to the Local WDB or WSO Center.

Reporting and Monitoring

WIOA requires that Local WDBs track training-related expenditures (WIOA sec. 116(d)(2)(D) and WIOA

sec. 116(d)(3)(A)). For the purposes of this policy, Local WDBs will report prior Program Year training

expenditure outcomes during monitoring. A review of the requirement to expend 25% of the Workforce

Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funding that is within their direct board control on training as

described in this policy will be incorporated into the Monitoring Guide each Program Year.

3

Base Year

Program Year 2017-18 (July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018) will be the Base Year for the Minimum

Training Expenditures Policy. Methods of data collection and reporting and the determination of

incentives for exceeding and/or sanctions for falling short of the minimum training expenditures threshold

will be developed during the Base Year (Attachment B). The 25% standard will be reviewed and

reassessed to determine if it continues to be an appropriate standard after reviewing the results from

Program Year 2017-18. No incentives or sanctions will become effective for Program Year 2017-18.

Action(s)

Local WDBs may develop additional policies and procedures, as appropriate, to comply with the above

policy requirements. Local WDBs must track training-related expenditures and report Program Year

outcomes as they relate to this policy during monitoring according to the following timeline:

Local WDBs must select the method for reporting on the minimum training expenditure by June

30, 2017. Selecting Option 1 requires no additional action by a Local WDB. Selecting Option 2

(alternate formula) requires that it be approved by OWIB through the local plan modification

process.

Local WDBs must begin tracking training-related expenditures as they relate to this policy

beginning July 1, 2017.

Local WDBs must report training-related expenditures and the calculation to determine whether or

not the minimum training threshold was met during Program Year 2016-17 beginning with

monitoring in Program Year 2017-18 and continuing each subsequent year.

Attachments

Attachment A – Numerator-Denominator Detail

Attachment B – Base Year Activities

Attachment A – Numerator-Denominator Detail

The Numerator is Qualifying Training Expenditures under Option 1 or 2 made during a given Program Year (July 1 through June 30 of the following year) The Denominator is funds allocated or received for the same Program Year. For funding sources covering more than one Program Year, the Local WDB must identify what portion of the funding is being counted in each Program Year that the funding source covers.

Option 1 Numerator

Total Qualifying Training Expenditures from the WIOA Adult Allocation

+

Total Qualifying Training Expenditures from the WIOA DW Allocation

WIOA Adult Allocation (minus Local Administration)

+ WIOA Dislocated Worker Allocation (minus Local Administration)

Denominator

Option 2 Numerator

Total Qualifying Training Expenditures from funds included in the Denominator (including the value of training made available for free)

WIOA Adult Allocation (minus Local Administration)

[Required]

+ WIOA DW Allocation (minus Local Administration)

[Required]

+ Other funds included as determined by the Local

WDB

[Optional – See examples below*]

Denominator

*EXAMPLES (as determined by the Local WDB):

Total Back to Work Oregon (BTWO) funds received Total National Dislocated Worker Grant funds received Total value of federal, state, local, or private foundation

grants/funds received for a training project or initiative Total value of training provided by a post-secondary provider

leveraged through sector strategies and partnerships Total value of business training co-investment leveraged through

sector strategies, incumbent worker training, and partnerships (including the value of donated training)

TIP Under Option 2, do not include optional revenue in the denominator unless training expenditures are made from those funds that represent at least 25% of the revenue.

Attachment B – Base Year Activities

Establishing a Base Year for the Minimum Training Expenditures Policy provides an opportunity to:

1. Develop consistent, statewide methods and tools for data collection and reporting of training expenditures;

2. Develop recommendations regarding appropriate incentives and sanctions for this policy and how they will be applied; and

3. Gather and report on baseline training expenditure data to confirm the appropriateness of the 25% minimum threshold.

OWIB staff will assemble a work group consisting of:

OWIB Executive Director (Chair)

OWIB Staff (1)

HECC Office of Workforce Investments Staff (1)

Oregon Workforce Partnership Designees (maximum of 3) To meet at agreed-upon times during Program Year 2017-18 to address the three tasks identified above and make recommendations to the OWIB Executive Committee on or before May 16, 2018. The OWIB Executive Committee will consider the recommendations and approve any revisions to this policy subject to the full OWIB approval prior to July 1, 2018.

Minimum Training Expenditure Policy Review and approve the Minimum Training Expenditure (MTE) Policy pending a recommendation from the MTE Policy Workgroup. If the MTE Policy Workgroup recommends approval of the MTE Policy without revisions, the MTE Policy will be considered in the Consent Agenda, Item 3.

Policies

Agenda Item 4

OWIB Strategic Plan Interim Revision and Update Review and approve the OWIB Strategic Plan Interim Revision and Update – June 2017. The update incorporates the work of the Strategic Planning Taskforce and the work of the Youth Taskforce.

OWIB Planning Forecast - Alignment Summary Review and approve the OWIB Planning Forecast - Alignment Summary as the model for aligning OWIB planning efforts. The OWIB Planning Forecast assumes that HB 3437 passes which reassigns responsibility for the Talent Plan to the OWIB. If HB 3437 fails to pass or is substantially revised, this Planning Forecast will return to the full OWIB for reconsideration.

Strategic Planning

Agenda Item

7

[1]

Interim Revision and Update

June 2017

Oregon Workforce

Investment Board

Strategic Plan

2016 – 2020

[2]

Introduction The Oregon Workforce Investment Board

The Oregon Workforce Investment Board (OWIB) is the overall advisory board to the Governor on workforce

matters. Appointed by the Governor under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, the OWIB is made

up of leaders representing private business, labor, community-based organizations, Oregon legislature, local

government, and state agencies. The majority of the 34 member board represent business.

One of the primary duties of the OWIB is to assist the Governor by developing a strategic plan for Oregon's

workforce development system. This system provides a wealth of services including job placement and training

for youth and adults, employment-related services for veterans, people with disabilities, migrant farm workers,

limited English speakers and other Oregonians in need of special assistance. Particular attention and priority is

paid to communities that are frequently underserved including communities of color, rural communities, and

families in poverty. The system also serves employers by providing job listings and qualified applicants, as well as

testing, screening, and labor market information.

The Workforce Development System

When we use the term “workforce development system” we are referring to the group of agencies in the State

of Oregon that provide workforce services to Oregonian individuals and businesses. Offering a variety of services

across these agencies, the workforce system has two primary customers:

1. Job seekers/working learners, including a) youth and young adults ages 14-24; b) adults transitioning

from unemployment, dislocation, or public assistance to employment; and c) current workers

2. Businesses seeking qualified candidates for job openings and partnering on solutions for economic and

workforce challenges.

There are several agencies that contribute oversight, resources, and programming to the workforce

development system. At the State level, this includes:

Oregon Employment Department (OED)

Oregon Commission for the Blind (OCB)

Department of Humans Services (DHS)

Higher Education Coordinating Commission

(HECC)

Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI)

Each of these agencies oversees and/or provides investment in programs that are delivered locally through an

additional layer of agencies and organizations, including:

Local Workforce Development Boards

Community Colleges

Oregon Commission for the Blind

WorkSource Oregon Centers


The role of the OWIB is to convene these agencies, provide oversight to the system, and promote alignment and

integration of services and resources to provide effective solutions to businesses and individuals for their

workforce needs.

OWIB’s role also includes assessing current and future programs to ensure that job seekers are put on a trajectory to break the cycle of poverty through placement in high wage, high demand jobs and/or jobs with robust training, a clear career ladder, and advancement opportunity. OWIB helps ensure that engaged businesses are aligned with

[3]

existing state priorities and strategic plans and that businesses invest in workforce training and contribute to long-term economic growth.

Other state agencies and local organizations are also key workforce system partners. These entities, while not

under the oversight of the OWIB, include the state Department of Education, Business Oregon, universities,

local school districts, educational service districts, organized labor, local economic development organizations,

community-based organizations, businesses and business or trade associations.

The workforce system is guided by a set of principles that serve as an identification of the values that should

transcend all work of the system, through this strategic plan or otherwise.

--------------------------------------------------

The Oregon Workforce Investment Board Strategic Plan The vision statement is an ideal guidepost that depicts what the state of Oregon and its economy will look like if

the OWIB is successful in achieving its goals.

VISION

MISSION

A strong state economy and prosperous communities fueled by

skilled workers, quality jobs and thriving businesses.

The Oregon Workforce Investment Board advises the Governor on workforce policy and plans, and

contributes to the economic success of Oregon by:

Aligning state workforce policy and resources with education and economic development;

Promoting a proactive, flexible and innovative talent development system; and,

Holding the workforce system accountable for results to ensure Oregonians develop the skills they

need to sustain rewarding careers and businesses have the talent they need to be competitive.

[4]

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The guiding principles identify core or foundational values for the workforce development system that

will be used as a lens for evaluating the goals, strategies and actions.

Customers of the workforce system include both businesses and individuals (job seekers, working

learners and youth).

Data, including customer input, drives continuous improvement and accountability of the system.

The state supports local decision-making to achieve the OWIB’s vision and goals.

Strategies are business-led, demand-driven and benefit all customers.

Customers have access to a simple, flexible and streamlined system.

System agencies and organizations are agile and nimble to respond to customer needs.

The system promotes equity via the Equity Lens on Workforce and strives to reach equitable

outcomes, including but not limited to addressing the unique needs of families in poverty,

communities of color, and rural communities.

Collaboration within the workforce system and with other policy areas occurs between state

agencies, through sector strategies, and at the local and regional level.

Investments and decisions are results driven, not program-driven, to optimize long-term results for

clients served, build a strong economy and achieve the state’s goals.

The system adopts tools and promising practices from other states or communities rather than

creating new ones, whenever appropriate.

The workforce system targets investments to high-wage, high-demand occupations in sectors where

the opportunities are the greatest.

[5]

GOALS & STRATEGIES

GOAL 1: Create a customer-centric workforce system that is easy to access, highly effective, and simple to understand.

Strategies:

1.1 | Create a framework for effective partnering within the workforce system.

1.2 | Align and leverage resources (data, funding, capacity, etc.) to collectively impact common outcomes and reward collaboration.

1.3 | Build accountability mechanisms focused on results (for example, the WorkSource Oregon Operational Standards).

1.4 | Build a solution-driven (vs. program-driven) culture.

1.5 | Market coordinated system services and unite communications and information sharing among workforce, economic development and education.

Goal 2: Provide business and industry customized workforce solutions to prepare and deliver qualified and viable candidates and advance current workers.

Strategies:

2.1 | Create a sustainable framework for locally-driven sector partnerships to understand, anticipate, and respond to the needs of business and industry.

2.2 | Foster positive perceptions in business and industry about the workforce system.

2.3 | Actively communicate the coordinated services of economic development, workforce and education services to business and industry.

2.4 | Create a single, unified Workforce and Talent Development Plan each biennium that significantly engages business and industry stakeholders to identify and prioritize in-demand jobs and in-demand skills.

[6]

Goal 3: Invest in Oregonians to build in-demand skills, match training and job seekers to opportunities, and accelerate career momentum.

Strategies:

3.1 | Actively reach out and engage customers, especially target populations, about education, training, employment, and entrepreneurial opportunities.

3.2 | Empower Oregonians with the access, knowledge, tools, and resources to launch and accelerate career momentum, including information on local in-demand skills and careers.

3.3 | Increase resources for occupational skill development and hold local workforce boards to a minimum investment in occupational training, which shall be established by the state board in local plan guidance.

3.4 | Rethink and restructure training and skill development to include innovative and effective work-based learning and apprenticeship models and to accelerate training.

Goal 4: Create and develop talent by providing young people with information and experiences that engage their interests, spur further career development, and connect to Oregon employers.

Strategies:

4.1 | Create pipeline plans, as part of Oregon’s sector strategy approach, to connect in-school and out-of-school youth to opportunities in local sector partnerships.

4.2 | Pursue additional resources to support local initiatives in both rural and urban communities.

4.3 | Expand and invest in strategies that provide work experience and essential workplace skills (including life skills and soft skills) and result in demonstrated proficiency in academic and professional skill sets.

4.4 | Provide technical assistance and/or incentives to support adoption and expansion of work-based learning, apprenticeships, and internships.

4.5 | Build partnerships to increase exposure to job and career opportunities and better connect school to work by strengthening alignment between secondary and post-secondary education and workforce development programs and services at both the state and local levels and in both rural and urban communities.

Oregon Workforce Investment Board Planning Forecast - Alignment Summary(assumes HB 3437 passes)

FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY

ALIGNMENT

Legislative Process Short Session Legislative Days Legislative Days Long Session

Budget Process ARB GRB Biennial Budget

PLANNING

Agency Talent Summit Agency Talent Summit (A) Agency Talent Summit (B)

Talent Plan Talent Plan

OWIB Strategic Plan OWIB Strategic Plan

State Plan State Plan

Local Plans Local Plans

ACCOUNTABILITY

Federal Reporting Annual Report

Local WDB Monitoring Results of Monitoring

System Performance Review of Performance Data

Even Years Odd YearsACTION

Oregon’s Economy Oregon Employment Department Research staff will present the findings of a recent research report titled, The Employment Landscape of Rural Oregon.

Oregon’s Econom

y

Agenda Item 9

THE EMPLOYMENT LANDSCAPE OF RURAL OREGON

The Employment Landscape of Rural OregonMay 2017

For questions regarding the content of this publication, contactJessica Nelson, [email protected], (503) 947-1276

To download this report, visit the Publications page at QualityInfo.org.

Special thanks to those whose work contributed to this report:Nick Beleiciks Gail Krumenauer Mark Miller Kathi Riddell Graham SlaterErik Knoder Paul Marche Jessica Nelson Damon Runberg

1

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary............................................................................................. 02Introduction .......................................................................................................... 03Unemployment Rates Are Higher in Rural Oregon.............................................. 05An Uneven Recovery........................................................................................... 07 Job Losses and Gains by Industry Wage Level ............................................. 08Rural Oregon Jobs Profile ................................................................................... 10 Nonfarm industries ......................................................................................... 11 Rural Employment Is Concentrated in a Few Industries ........................... 11 The Decline of Manufacturing Jobs over Time .......................................... 11 Public-Sector Jobs in Rural Oregon ......................................................... 14 Tribal Government Jobs Are a Large Part of Some Rural Economies ...... 16 Agriculture’s Impact on Rural Employment ..................................................... 17The Aging of Rural Oregon’s Population and Workforce ..................................... 20 Slow Population Growth ................................................................................. 20 Aging Population............................................................................................. 21 Aging Workforce ............................................................................................. 22 Economic Indicators Influenced by Aging ....................................................... 24 Labor Force Participation .......................................................................... 24 Per Capita Personal Income...................................................................... 25Infrastructure Needed to Get Rural Goods to Market .......................................... 26 Freight Corridors............................................................................................. 27 Commercial Air Service .................................................................................. 28 Broadband Internet Service ............................................................................ 29Other Constraints to Consider ............................................................................. 29Rural Job Opportunities ....................................................................................... 30 Replacement Job Openings ........................................................................... 32 High-Wage and High-Demand Jobs ............................................................... 34Working Toward the Economy of the Future ....................................................... 35Appendices .......................................................................................................... 38

2

Executive Summary • After seven years of uneven economic recovery, 17 out of

Oregon’s 23 rural counties remain below peak employment.

• Rural areas of Oregon have higher unemployment rates and less diverse economies than metro areas. This leaves them more vulnerable to economic shocks and recessions.

• The Great Recession was worse in many rural Oregon counties than in metro Oregon. Nationally, the recession lasted from late 2007 until June 2009, but recovery continues today in many rural counties.

• The jobs that have returned in nonmetro counties have been largely low wage, while jobs in high-wage industries remain below pre-recession levels in rural areas.

• Most rural counties face a two-part demographic challenge. A larger share of the rural workforce is at least 55 years old, while the rural population below age 18 shows long-term decline.

• Limited infrastructure reduces options for rural businesses transporting goods to metro markets and increases the difficulty of recruiting new businesses to rural areas.

• Job opportunities exist all around the state; many opportunities will be created in all areas of Oregon as today’s older workers retire.

“Rural Oregon” is made up of 23 diverse counties with different histories and economic conditions. Rural Oregon, for the purposes of this report, includes any county characterized as “nonmetropolitan” in federal data sources.

3

IntroductionOregon’s rapid job growth has received significant attention as employment growth ranked eighth fastest in the United States over the past year. The economy is near full employment and overall, Oregon’s employment levels have reached all-time highs.

Much of the current economic expansion is being driven by job growth in the state’s major urban centers. While most of rural Oregon saw faster job growth than the U.S. average last year, most rural counties still have fewer jobs today than they did 10 years ago. Twenty of Oregon’s 36 counties have yet to recover from the Great Recession – of those, 17 are rural. Why is the pace of recovery so much slower in rural Oregon?

A variety of factors have led to a much slower recovery in rural Oregon. Less indus-try diversity in the rural economy increases vulnerability to economic shocks. The rural population and workforce are aging quickly. And rural Oregon needs improved access to infrastructure in order to get rural goods to market. Local areas across Oregon are working toward the economy of the future. New opportunities exist today, with more on the horizon.

Defining Rural Oregon by County

Baker

Benton

Clackamas

ClatsopColumbia

Coos

Crook

Curry

Deschutes

Douglas

Gilliam

Grant

Harney

Hood River

Jackson

Jefferson

Josephine

Klamath Lake

Lane

Lincoln

Linn

Malheur

Marion

MorrowMultnomah

Polk

Sherman

Tillamook

UmatillaUnion

Wallowa

Wasco

Washington

Wheeler

Yamhill

Urban or Metro

Rural or Nonmetro

4

The heading “Rural Oregon” is somewhat arbitrary and unspecific – it captures a broad diversity of places across the state. There is no one rural Oregon. About 17 percent of Oregon’s population lives in the state’s 23 nonmetropolitan counties. Those 23 counties have histories and economies as diverse as their landscapes.

The 23 rural counties combined accounted for 13 percent of Oregon’s job total in 2016; a small enough share to be lost in broader analyses of the state economy. Problems with losing the nonmetro trend under the weight of the larger metro area economies are not unique to Oregon. The economic challenges faced by rural communities are also not unique to Oregon. Urbanization and growth of city centers, concentration of economic and political power in metropolitan areas, and the advantages metropolitan areas derive from a large and diverse economic base are a worldwide phenomenon.

In Oregon, statewide trends in job growth and unemployment are tightly tied to trends in metro areas. It isn’t until we break out the nonmetro areas that we see the variety of economic experiences happening under the state umbrella. When we break the data down by county an even larger variety of economic trajectories shines through.

Rural Oregon, for the purposes of this report, includes any county characterized as “nonmetropolitan” in federal data sources.

Urban counties are those defined as part of a “metropolitan statistical area.” We selected this definition due to the breadth of information available at the county level. A shortcoming of this definition is that it undercounts the true impact of rural places. Areas inside metropolitan counties but outside city limits – some of them heavily agricultural and quite rural in appear-ance and activity – are included as urban here. Polk County is one example of a place characterized in federal data as “metropolitan” because it is part of the Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area, but traveling westward on Highway 22 you’d have trouble pointing out urban features of the landscape in the agricultural valleys and forested coastal range. Another example is Deschutes County, federally known as the Bend-Redmond Metropolitan Statistical Area. While Bend is quite well known for its growth over the past couple of decades, much of the outlying land in Deschutes County is unchanged by the growth of the city center.

5

Unemployment Rates Are Higher in Rural OregonNonmetro Oregon has higher unemployment rates than metro Oregon. This has been the case since at least 1990, the farthest back these data are available. From 1990 on-ward, the long-run average of nonmetro unemployment rates (8.4%) is a full 2 percent-age points higher than the long-run average of metro unemployment rates (6.4%).

Currently, after years of economic expansion, the unemployment rates for both Or-egon’s nonmetro areas and Oregon’s metros are below their long-run averages. In 2016 the nonmetro unemployment rate fell below 6.0 percent and stayed there for several months. This was the first time that has occurred since 2007, prior to the Great Reces-sion. Metro unemployment rates dipped below 5.0 percent for much of 2016, again, a lower level of unemployment than at any time since 2007. The economy is strong, and much of Oregon – nonmetro and metro – is benefiting from that strength.

The gap between the unemployment rates of nonmetro and metro counties in Oregon has narrowed over time. Back in the 1990s, nonmetro unemployment rates were often 3 to 4 percentage points above the level in the state’s metros. Early in the 2000s, metro areas were significantly impacted by the bursting of the dot-com bubble, which was particularly acute in Oregon’s largest metro area, Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro. At that point, nonmetro unemployment rates converged with the metro rates, bringing nonmet-ros within a percentage point of the metro unemployment rate. The subsequent Great Recession moderated that trend, with nonmetro unemployment rates remaining higher

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Jan-90 Jan-95 Jan-00 Jan-05 Jan-10 Jan-15

Unemployment Rates Are Usually Higher in Rural AreasOregon Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Rates

Oregon

Metro

Nonmetro

6

for longer than in metro areas. In 2016, Oregon’s nonmetro areas had unemployment rates that were averaging 1.2 percentage points higher than in metro areas.

The seasonal pattern of unemployment in nonmetro areas is much stronger than in metro areas. The nonmetro unemployment rate spikes early in the year when there is little outdoor work and retailers and package deliveries slow after the holiday season. Rural Oregon sees the lowest unemployment rates in the late summer and early fall, as harvest season continues and local schools return for a new school year.

It is likely that nonmetro areas will always have unemployment rates that run a bit high-er, on average, than in metro areas. There are many possible reasons:

• A larger share of rural economic activity is based on seasonal agriculture and re-source extraction industries, leading to a higher degree of seasonal unemployment in these local economies.

• It might also be more difficult for workers losing or leaving one job to find their next job, due to the smaller number of businesses and jobs within commuting distance, which likely means a longer time period spent unemployed and seeking that next job, increasing frictional unemployment.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16

Seasonal Unemployment Is Higher in Rural AreasOregon Not Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Rates

Metro Nonmetro

7

• To the extent that a rural economy is dependent on a single business or a certain type of economic activity, if that business suffers, local workers may have difficulty finding a similar role using their skills at another business, leading to increased structural unemployment.

An Uneven RecoveryOregon has been in a period of employment expansion since February 2010. In October 2014 statewide employment levels exceeded the pre-recession peak. It was a long recession and slow recovery, taking six and a half years to add back all the lost jobs. However, in rural Or-egon the recovery is ongoing. Today, employment remains 3.2 percent below the pre-recession peak in the combined rural counties, while metro counties as a group are solidly above their pre-recession peak employment. In order to fully recover from the recession, rural counties would need to add about 7,800 additional jobs, which would take another two years at the cur-rent pace of job growth. Twenty counties in Oregon remain below their pre-recession employment peak and 17 of them are rural counties. The influence of sharing transportation corridors with large metros is evi-dent when we look at the nonmetros that seem to be doing well after the recession. The strong recovery is evident along the I-5 corridor and the Columbia Gorge. The southern and eastern parts of the state continue to face a long road to recovery from the Great Recession.

Rural Oregon

Urban Oregon

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103 109

Perc

ent o

f Pre

viou

s Pe

ak E

mpl

oym

ent

Months Since Previous Peak Employment

Rural Oregon Has Not Recovered from the Recession

8

Job Losses and Gains by Industry Wage LevelIn addition to having further to grow to reach pre-recession employment levels in some rural areas around the state, the jobs that have returned in nonmetro areas have more often been lower- and mid-wage jobs. Higher-wage jobs have yet to recover.

Between the second quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2009, Oregon’s rural counties lost almost 27,000 private-sector jobs. When the industries are lined up in terms of median wage and split into higher-wage, mid-wage, and lower-wage thirds by industry, the largest job loss occurred in the higher-wage industries. Rural Oregon’s high-wage industries – such as wood product manufacturing, specialty trade contractors, and forestry and logging – dropped more than 11,000 jobs in the Great Recession. Mid-wage industries dropped about 6,000 jobs in rural Oregon, and lower-wage industries lost 9,000 jobs.

In the recovery period from the second quarter of 2009 through the second quarter of 2016, lower- and mid-wage industries, such as food services and drinking places, have made full recoveries in Oregon’s rural counties overall, with nearly 14,000 lower-wage jobs and 10,000

9

-9,010

-6,129

-11,374

13,721

10,114

6,016

-15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000

Lower-wage industries

Mid-wage industries

Higher-wage industries

Net Change in Number of Jobs

Rural Oregon Lost Many High-Wage Jobs in RecessionNonmetro Counties Private-Sector

Job Loss and Job Growth*

2Q2009-2Q20162Q2007-2Q2009

Source: Oregon unemployment insurance wage records

*after nearly seven years of recovery

+

+

+

-64,430

-71,689

-28,607

113,809

70,790

64,049

-80,000 -60,000 -40,000 -20,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000120,000

Lower-wage industries

Mid-wage industries

Higher-wage industries

Net Change in Number of Jobs

Metro Oregon Has Recovered from RecessionMetro Counties Private-Sector

Job Loss and Job Growth*

2Q2009-2Q20162Q2007-2Q2009

Source: Oregon unemployment insurance wage records

*after nearly seven years of recovery

+

+

+

10

mid-wage jobs added. The higher-wage industries have added 6,000 jobs, little more than half of the jobs lost between 2007 and 2009. Jobs in higher-wage construction of buildings, specialty trade contractors, and wood product manufacturing remain more than 20 percent below the level in 2007.

There’s a sharp contrast with the employment re-covery in Oregon’s urban centers. Much less of the metro area job loss between the second quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2009 took place in higher-wage industries; job losses in urban areas were more concentrated in mid-wage industries such as metal and transportation equipment manu-facturing. Mid-wage industries almost recovered the jobs lost by the second quarter of 2016.

Lower-wage industries in the urban areas look similar to rural areas, with more jobs added in

recovery than were lost in recession. However, urban Oregon has regained more than twice the number of jobs lost in higher-wage industries, such as corporate headquarters and construction of buildings. Higher-wage industries dropped 29,000 jobs between the second quarters of 2007 and 2009 and subsequently gained 64,000 jobs by the second quarter of 2016. Thus, the recession in urban areas was less concentrated in higher-wage employment and the urban recovery brought a larger share of higher-wage jobs.

Rural Oregon Jobs ProfileRural Oregon counties had 238,000 jobs in 2016. The 23 counties combined accounted for 13 percent of Oregon’s job total last year. About 180,000 rural jobs are in private sector industries and another 57,000 jobs are in government at the federal, state and local levels.

Many rural communities are heavily dependent on just a handful of industries. This makes them particularly vulnerable to localized economic shocks and can make it diffi-cult for these communities to recover. In contrast, larger urban areas are less dependent on individual businesses or industries. A local shock in one industry can be overcome by gains in a different industry.

The Great Recession created a painful scaling back of what we lost in the early 80s with the downturn of the timber industry. This created great vulnerability for the entire economic base.

Ginger Castillo, South Central Oregon

Economic Development District

11

Nonfarm IndustriesRural Employment Is Concentrated in a Few Industries

Rural Oregon was hit hard during the most recent recession because a large share of its employment base was concentrated in wood product manufacturing and related industries. When the national housing bubble burst, the demand for manufactured wood products was greatly diminished. The result was massive layoffs in communities such as Prineville, Klamath Falls, Madras, Roseburg, and Gilchrist.

More than 40 percent of rural Oregon employment is concentrated in natural resources, leisure and hospitality (tourism), and government. Together those three sectors make up around 27 percent of the employment in urban Oregon. Many of the major industry sec-tors in rural communities continue to struggle, while the hot industries across the state, such as construction and professional and business services are more heavily concentrated in cities.

The Decline of Manufacturing Jobs over Time

Oregon’s manufacturing employment declined 8 percent between 1990 and 2016, even as total nonfarm employment grew 46 percent. In addition, the location of manufacturing in Oregon has shifted, with more manufacturing happening in the Portland metro area and less in rural counties. Access to transportation infrastructure is one critical compo-nent of this shift, and one that we cover later in this report.

-10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

Private sector

Professional and business services

Education and health services

Financial activities

Information

Mining, logging, and construction

Manufacturing

Trade, transportation, and utilities

Leisure and hospitality

Public sector

Rural Percentage Point Difference from Urban Industry Employment Concentrations

How Does Rural Oregon Compare with Urban Oregon?

12

Portland(OR Portion)

49%

All Other Metros23%

Future MSA*9%

Rural Oregon 19%

Even in 1990, Half of Oregon Manufacturing Took Place in Portland

1990 Manufacturing Employment

*Albany, Bend, and Grants Pass

Portland (OR Portion)

58%

All Other Metros28%

Rural Oregon 14%

Rural Oregon's Share of Manufacturing Has Declined2015 Manufacturing Employment

13

Oregon’s current metro areas contained 81 percent of all manufacturing jobs in 1990. Now they account for 86 percent of all manufacturing jobs. Portland’s share increased from 49 percent to 58 percent of statewide manufacturing employment. The influence of fast growth in high-tech industries helped to shift manufacturing concentration toward Portland.

Manufacturing is an economic base sector that is traded outside of the local economy, bringing dollars into the local area. Historically, it provided high-paying jobs with rela-tively low education requirements. For the last couple of decades, these jobs have been disappearing from rural Oregon. In 1990, rural Oregon had about 43,000 manufacturing jobs; but by 2015, the total across rural counties dropped to 26,000.

Historically, rural Oregon’s economy was dependent on resource extraction, such as logging and farming. There are nearly 20 million acres of forestland in rural Oregon. For much of the 20th century, Oregon averaged well over 7 billion board feet of timber harvested each year. Annual timber harvests dropped significantly in the 1990s. Logging on federal forestlands was greatly reduced due to concerns around a variety of endan-gered species. Although timber harvests remain much lower than the historic average, there has been a rebound in harvests, which are back to pre-recession levels.

Despite timber harvest levels recovering from the recession, employment in rural Oregon will likely not depend on resource extraction to the degree it did historically. Labor productivity has increased over time. As companies shed jobs and reorganize

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Mill

ion

Boa

rd F

eet P

er Y

ear

Num

ber o

f Saw

mill

s

Fewer Mills Are Producing More Lumber than in the PastSawmills Operating in the Western U.S. 1990-2014

Sawmills (left scale)

Average Production Per Mill (right scale)

Source: Western Wood Products Association

14

for the future with each business cycle, they can return to prior production levels with-out as many workers. This has been the case in the wood products sector. The number of sawmills in the western U.S. has fallen dramatically since 1990, but the sawmills that remain are producing more board feet than ever before. With increased labor productivity it’s possible to produce the same level of output or increase output without employing as many workers.

Public-Sector Jobs in Rural Oregon

Rural Oregon has a high concentration of employment in the public sector. Although the public sector is a critical employer in rural Oregon, it is not a growth industry. Across rural Oregon, government jobs account for nearly a quarter (24%) of total nonfarm employment compared with around 16 percent of jobs in metro areas. All levels of government (federal, state, and local government) have higher shares of total nonfarm employment in rural Oregon.

Of rural Oregon’s 57,400 total government jobs, local government makes up by far the largest share, with 40,300 jobs. Many of these workers are in local schools, health districts and hospitals, or working for tribal governments. Local government jobs make up 17 percent of rural Oregon employment, compared with 12 percent of metro area employment. State government accounts for 10,600 government workers in rural coun-ties. State government jobs are 5 percent of employment in rural Oregon, compared

Federal, 3%State, 4%

Local, 17%

Private Sector, 76%

Government Accounts for Larger Share of Rural JobsEmployment by Ownership in Rural Oregon Counties

15

with 3 percent in metro Oregon. Federal government is the smallest slice of government employment, with 6,500 jobs in rural counties. Federal jobs account for 3 percent of employment in rural Oregon compared with 1 percent in metro Oregon.

Government accounts for a larger share of employment in rural counties for a variety of reasons. First, there is a lot of public land to be managed in rural Oregon. Much of this land is managed by federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Fourteen rural Oregon counties have more than half of their land owned by governments, whether it is federal, state or tribal government. Counties in southern Oregon and eastern Oregon have high shares of land owned by the federal government, with Malheur, Lake, and Harney counties topping 70 percent of the land owned by the federal government. In Curry County on the sparsely populated south coast, the federal government owns 66 percent of the land. In Hood River, at the north-ern edge of the Mt. Hood National Forest, the federal government owns 65 percent of the county’s land.

16

Tribal Government Jobs Are a Large Part of Some Rural Economies

Tribal governments within Oregon provided about 8,100 jobs on average over the last year. Three out of four tribal government jobs are in rural Oregon counties. Of the other one-quarter lo-cated within metro counties, many jobs are located in rural areas within the metro county. All tribal employment is counted as part of local government employment.

Tribal government jobs account for less than 1 percent of total employ-ment statewide. However, in some counties their pres-ence makes up a sizeable share of local economic ac-tivity. The greatest concen-tration was in rural Jefferson County, where tribal gov-ernment employment rep-resented 16 percent of the nonfarm jobs in the county. In metro Polk County, 8 percent of jobs were in tribal government establishments; in rural Lincoln County, they accounted for 6 percent of employment; and in rural Umatilla County, they made up 5 percent of jobs.

Tribal jobs pay less than the average for all jobs in Oregon, but are closer to the aver-age in the rural Oregon counties where they’re located. Tribal jobs paid an average of $36,536 across the 10 rural counties with tribal jobs, while the overall average paid in those counties was $37,756.

County Federal State TribalTotal - Non-MSA Counties 54% 3% 2%

Baker 51% 0% 0%Clatsop 2% 30% 0%Coos 24% 7% 1%Crook 50% 1% 0%Curry 66% 1% less than 1%Douglas 52% 2% less than 1%Gilliam 9% 0% 1%Grant 62% 1% 0%Harney 72% 3% less than 1%Hood River 65% 1% less than 1%Jefferson 29% 0% 22%Klamath 58% 2% less than 1%Lake 73% 2% 0%Lincoln 31% 4% 1%Malheur 73% 5% less than 1%Morrow 18% 0% 0%Sherman 14% 1% 1%Tillamook 21% 42% 0%Umatilla 24% 1% 8%Union 50% 1% less than 1%Wallowa 59% 1% 1%Wasco 18% 2% 25%Wheeler 30% 0% 3%

County Federal State TribalTotal - MSA Counties 47% 2% less than 1%

Benton 19% 6% 0%Clackamas 51% 1% 1%Columbia 3% 4% 0%Deschutes 75% 3% 0%Jackson 51% 0% 0%Josephine 67% 1% 0%Lane 59% 1% less than 1%Linn 38% 2% 0%Marion 30% 4% less than 1%Multnomah 29% 3% 0%Polk 9% 2% less than 1%Washington 3% 11% 0%Yamhill 13% 0% 2%

Government Land Ownership Across Oregon

Metropolitan Counties

Nonmetropolitan Counties

17

Much of tribal employment is concentrated in casinos and resorts, with relatively low-paid jobs. But tribal governments provide jobs in many industries. About 4,800 jobs were in casinos and resorts, while another 2,400 jobs were in public administration. Other industries accounted for 12 percent of tribal government jobs, including employment in agriculture, utilities, construction, manufacturing, retail trade, information, financial activi-ties, professional and business services, and educational and health services.

Agriculture’s Impact on Rural EmploymentOregon’s climate and landscape support employment in logging, mining, farming, and ranching. Logging is important to the economy in the mountainous regions along the coast range, Cascades, Blue Mountains, and Klamath Mountains. The fertile river val-leys, such as the Willamette and Rogue valleys, support high-value agriculture, with vegetable crops, fruits, and wine grapes. The dry side of the state is farming and ranch-ing country with crop production concentrated around animal feedstock, grains, pota-toes, and onions.

Ranching and farming are not limited to the rural counties. In fact, the largest concen-tration of agricultural jobs is in the densely populated Willamette Valley (18,700 jobs) followed by the even more densely populated Portland Metro area (15,100 jobs). The Willamette Valley and Portland Metro area combined account for 60 percent of the state’s agricultural jobs. Although the raw number of jobs is much higher in the metro-politan counties of the state, farming and ranching plays a more central role in Oregon’s rural economies.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Jan10 Jan11 Jan12 Jan13 Jan14 Jan15 Jan16

Most Tribal Government Jobs Are at Resorts and CasinosTribal Government Jobs in Oregon

Other IndustryCasino/ResortTribal Government

18

36%

10%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Farm Wages and Salaries Total Nonfarm Payroll

Farm Wages and Salaries Are Important in Rural OregonNonmetro Share of Oregon's Wages

Source: Oregon Employment Department and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Agriculture is a critical industry in rural communities. There were around 20,300 agricul-tural jobs in Oregon’s rural counties in 2015. That represents 36 percent of statewide agricultural jobs. This compares with 17 percent of the state’s population and just 13 percent of the state’s nonfarm payroll jobs being in rural counties.

Similar to the share of agricultural jobs, farm wages and salaries earned in rural counties account for 36 percent of statewide farm earnings. Nonfarm payroll wages in rural coun-ties account for just 10 percent of the statewide total. Agriculture is a classic traded-sector industry, where nearly all of the crops or animals raised are sold outside of the local econ-omy. Rural Oregon’s disproportionate share of farm wages helps stabilize demand for local support industries as these wages are spent at local grocery stores and restaurants.

Over the past 10 years (2005-2015) agricultural employment declined by 4 percent (-2,100 jobs) across Oregon. The statewide figure is pulled down by declines in met-ropolitan counties (-2,700), whereas rural counties saw employment rise a modest 3 percent over the past decade (+600 jobs).

19

-20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%

Rogue

Portland

Central

Eastern

Coast

Willamette

Klamath

Columbia River

Percent Change (2005-2015)

Agriculture Employment Gains Are Limited to Areas along the Columbia and the Klamath Basin

This urban/rural divide doesn’t paint a complete picture as rural employment gains are driven by growth in two regions, the Columbia River Gorge (especially Hood River, Umatilla, and Morrow counties) and the Klamath Basin. Employment increased by near-ly 1,000 jobs in counties stretching along the Columbia River from the Gorge east to Hermiston. Despite years of sustained drought, employment in the Klamath Basin rose by around 150 jobs (+7%). Agricultural employment declined in all other rural regions of the state from 2005 to 2015, including the coast, Eastern Oregon, and Central Oregon.

Despite inconsistent trends in Oregon’s agricultural sectors, farming and ranching will continue to be big business for rural communities. New consumer preferences for local and organic foods will likely increase demand for crops and animals produced in rural Oregon. Long-term agricultural employment declines are being driven by increased efficiency through larger farms and more mechanization and heavy equipment, while production levels are on the rise.

20

The Aging of Rural Oregon’s Population and WorkforceDemographic trends are leading to rapid aging in rural communities. Natural population growth is low, in-migration is slow, and young people often leave rural communities to seek educational or employment opportunities in urban centers. Older in-migrants choos-ing rural locales for retirement bring dollars into their new home communities and increase local demand for goods and services. Dealing with aging populations and the need to replace many workers reaching retirement are major challenges for some areas.

Slow Population GrowthOregon’s rural communities are growing, just at a much slower pace than in urban cen-ters. According to Portland State University, rural counties added 14,500 new residents between 2010 and 2015, a growth rate of 2.2 percent. Urban counties expanded by 5.3 percent over the same period.

Below the surface, trends in population growth are even more striking. Net population change results from the combination of two factors: natural increase or decrease in a population (births minus deaths); and net migration (in-migrants minus out-migrants). Essentially, in-migration – new residents moving in – accounts for all of the population growth in rural Oregon between 2010 and 2015. In total from 2010 to 2015, Oregon’s 23 rural counties combined had a natural increase of just 10 residents. Births across rural Oregon were nearly evenly matched by deaths. In metro counties, natural increase ac-counted for 38 percent of population gains between 2010 and 2015.

The lack of natural population increase in rural Oregon hides a lot of variety beneath its surface. Curry and Wheeler counties had sizeable natural population declines of about 4 percent from 2010 to 2015, shrinking these already small counties even further. In each case the natural population decrease was almost equally matched by net in-migration, leaving these two counties’ total populations flat overall. Another seven rural Oregon counties had natural population decreases of 1 percent to 2 percent: Coos, Wallowa, Lincoln, Douglas, Grant, Crook, and Baker.

Overall – once natural population change and net migration are taken into account – three Oregon counties lost population between 2010 and 2015; all of them are rural. Population declined 1.7 percent in Harney County, a loss of 127 residents. Declines were very small in both Grant (-0.2%) and Coos (-0.1%) counties.

21

Natural Population Increase by County, 2010-2015Natural Increase = Births - Deaths

Baker

Benton

Clackamas

ClatsopColumbia

Coos

Crook

Curry

Deschutes

Douglas

Gilliam

Grant

Harney

Hood River

Jackson

Jefferson

Josephine

Klamath Lake

Lane

Lincoln

Linn

Malheur

Marion

MorrowMultnomah

Polk

Sherman

Tillamook

UmatillaUnion

Wallowa

Wasco

Washington

Wheeler

Yamhill

Natural Increase

0 to -1,850

1 to 500

501 to 2,000

2,001 to 21,400

Rural areas of the state that are growing the fastest include the Columbia Basin area, with Morrow County growing 3.8 percent between 2010 and 2015 and Umatilla County not far behind that with 3.4 percent growth. In both cases, most of the population growth was natural increase – the result of more births than deaths within the counties. For Morrow, eight out of 10 new residents were the result of natural population increase and in Umatilla that jumped to nine out of 10. Hood River added 2.5 percent to its popula-tion, but in its case seven out of 10 new residents were the result of in-migration. Mal-heur County, on the Oregon-Idaho border, grew 2.2 percent; all of its population growth resulted from natural increase, as net migration was negative for this county. Jefferson County also grew 2.2 percent, with natural increase accounting for two out of three new residents.

Almost all Oregon counties added population since 2010, but population trends and the drivers of those trends are mixed and speak of many different experiences depending on location within rural Oregon.

Aging PopulationAlthough rural Oregon continues to grow, it is the nature of the growth that raises con-cern for the long-term economic outlook. Rural Oregon’s share of population 65 years of age and older increased from around 18 percent in 2010 to nearly 22 percent in 2015. The retirement age population grew by 24 percent, while the working age population (-3%) and youth population (-2%) both declined.

22

The fact that the retirement age cohort is growing is less of a concern than the fact that youth and working age populations are declining. This means that as folks age out of the labor force there are fewer individuals to replace those who retire. As The Economist magazine pointed out in an April 2014 analysis entitled “Age Invaders,” fewer work-ers results in less output, which is another way of saying that economic growth will be greatly reduced in these aging communities.

Local areas with low shares of youth below the age of 18 and high shares of people ages 65 and over are likely to face the greatest economic difficulties related to aging. Statewide in 2016, 21 percent of the population was below the age of 18 and 17 percent of the population was age 65 or older. In Curry, Wheeler, Grant, Gilliam, and Lincoln counties, less than 18 percent of the population was below the age of 18 AND more than 27 percent of the 2016 population was age 65 or older. Curry County seems to face the most dire circumstance, with 14 percent of the population below the age of 18, and 32 percent of the population ages 65 and older. All Oregon counties with the high-est shares of older population and with the lowest shares of youth population are rural. (Full county table in appendix.)

Aging WorkforceThese population trends translate directly into the workforce, which is aging rapidly. Twenty years ago only 13 percent of the workforce in rural Oregon was 55 or older. That share has roughly doubled to 27 percent of the workforce. There are more than 35,000 additional workers ages 55 and older in rural Oregon today. Meanwhile, the prime work-ing age and youth workforces are both smaller today than back in 1995.

At a glance, the share of the rural workforce that is above the age of 55 doesn’t seem too far off from the share in metro areas, which is 23 percent compared with 27 percent in nonmetro counties. However, combined with the smaller population under the age of 18, retirements are likely to hit these communities harder as there are fewer young workers to rejuvenate the workforce.

In some counties the share of older workers is much higher. Every county with greater than 30 percent of its workforce over the age of 55 is rural. The concentration of older workers is greatest in Wheeler County (37%), Wallowa County (33%), Lake and Gilliam counties (32%), and Grant and Lincoln counties (31%). These areas will face a signifi-cant challenge in replacing workers as they retire. (Full county table in appendix.)

23

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Perc

ent o

f Rur

al O

rego

n W

orkf

orce

Rural Oregon's Workforce Much Older Today

55 and Older

25 to 54

24 and Younger

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Local Employment Dynamics

All Ages (14-99) 55-64 65-99 Share 55+Nonmetro 227,761 45,278 16,462 27%Metro 1,530,653 261,189 88,637 23%Oregon 1,758,414 306,467 105,099 23%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Local Employment Dynamics.

Workers 55+ in Nonmetro and Metro Oregon, Average Second Quarter 2015 - First Quarter 2016

There are also rural counties with lower shares of the workforce ages 55 and older that are comparable to the statewide average. In Hood River and Umatilla counties, the share of the workforce ages 55 and over is 25 percent, and in Klamath, Union and Malheur counties it is 26 percent. These areas are still likely to struggle to replace aging workers – a workforce challenge occurring statewide – but the challenge is likely to be less severe where there is a lower concentration of older workers.

24

Economic Indicators Influenced by AgingThe aging of rural communities is showing up in many economic indicators and influ-encing the trends we can expect to see in a variety of economic measures. So while it may look like an economic issue when these indicators show unfavorable differences between nonmetropolitan and metropolitan areas, some of the perceived weakness in rural Oregon economies is actually a reasonable effect of demographic differences, not a sign of economic weakness.

Labor Force Participation

Labor force participation rates (LFPR) – the share of the civilian noninstitutional popula-tion ages 16 and over that is working or actively looking for work – tend to be lower in rural counties. But there’s actually a lot of diversity under that overarching statement. For instance, Josephine County (one of the state’s newest metros with Grant’s Pass now a metropolitan area) has one of the lowest labor force participation rates in the state. And Hood River, a nonmetro county within commuting distance of the Portland metro area and southwest Washington, has the state’s highest LFPR.

Aging is a major determining factor in labor force participation. Counties with the largest shares of population ages 65 and older have the lowest participation in the labor force – because many residents are retired. The bottom nine counties in terms of LFPR all have large older populations, with more than 25 percent of the population age 65 and

Rank County LFPR Rank County LFPR1 Hood River County 75.5% 19 Harney County 56.9%2 Washington County 67.4% 20 Wallowa County 56.9%3 Multnomah County 66.0% 21 Lane County 56.8%4 Yamhill County 65.1% 22 Union County 56.6%5 Morrow County 65.0% 23 Jefferson County 56.5%6 Wasco County 63.9% 24 Jackson County 56.4%7 Clackamas County 63.7% 25 Lake County 55.8%8 Umatilla County 63.4% 26 Tillamook County 53.7%9 Sherman County 63.2% 27 Klamath County 53.3%10 Wheeler County 61.4% 28 Gilliam County 52.0%11 Marion County 61.1% 29 Grant County 51.4%12 Benton County 60.5% 30 Baker County 51.3%13 Deschutes County 59.9% 31 Lincoln County 51.0%14 Clatsop County 59.3% 32 Crook County 50.7%15 Columbia County 58.0% 33 Douglas County 49.7%16 Polk County 58.0% 34 Coos County 49.2%17 Malheur County 57.7% 35 Josephine County 47.4%18 Linn County 57.3% 36 Curry County 44.0%

Oregon Labor Force Participation Rates by County, 2015Oregon Statewide = 61.1%

Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics

25

older. The counties with the highest LFPRs have lower shares of older residents, with the population ages 65 and over coming in around the statewide average of 17 percent or lower. These counties include the state’s largest counties in the Portland Metro area, where just 12 percent of the population is age 65 or older.

Per Capita Personal Income

Rural counties also tend to have lower per capita personal income (PCPI) than metro counties. The math behind this indicator is simple: per capita income is the total per-sonal income in an area divided by the population. Wages and salaries are typically the largest source of personal income. Areas with large youth populations or large retire-ment populations have lower per capita income because a larger share of their popula-tion isn’t working and earning income. In total, nonmetro Oregon had per capita person-al income of $37,332 in 2015, while metro Oregon’s PCPI was $45,040.

Overall, per capita income in Oregon nonmetros is very close to nonmetro income na-tionwide, while Oregon’s metros are further behind the national level of income for met-ros. The nonmetro gap with the national nonmetros is just 1.4 percent while the metro gap is 9.6 percent.

The only component of Oregon’s per capita income that results in higher income in rural counties is per capita transfer receipts, which was $11,196 in nonmetros and $8,406

Total Metro NonmetroPer capita personal income

United States $48,112 $49,827 $37,866Oregon $43,783 $45,040 $37,332

Per capita net earningsUnited States $30,729 $32,260 $21,584Oregon $26,467 $27,911 $19,058

Per capita transfer receiptsUnited States $8,334 $8,118 $9,624Oregon $8,861 $8,406 $11,196

Per capita dividends, interest, and rentUnited States $9,049 $9,449 $6,658Oregon $8,455 $8,723 $7,078

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Per Capita Personal Income in Metro and Nonmetro Areas in Oregon and the U.S., 2015

in metros in 2015. For other sources of income, Oregon’s nonmetro counties are far behind the metro areas. Net earnings were $19,058 per capita in nonmetros compared with $27,911 in metros. Per capita dividends, interest and rent were $7,078 in nonmet-ros and $8,723 in metros.

26

More income in rural areas comes from transfer receipts – such as social security ben-efits – and the major difference is the larger retirement age population in rural Oregon.

Although overall PCPI is lower in rural Oregon compared with metro Oregon, rural coun-ties sometimes top the list of county-level PCPI, particularly grain-growing counties in the Columbia Gorge with very small populations. In 2015, Sherman County fit this bill, with the highest per capita personal income in the state at $57,526. Hood River and Morrow coun-ties, also along the northern edge of the state, were the only other rural counties to beat the statewide PCPI level in 2015.

The bottom five counties in terms of PCPI were all rural and all have per capita income below $36,000: Malheur, Jefferson, Baker, Klamath, and Douglas. Of the bottom 10 counties, nine were rural counties, and the sole metro county was Josephine, one of Oregon’s newest metropolitan areas. Looking at that group of 10 counties, five of them have outsized older populations, with more than 25 percent of the population age 65 or older and another two counties have larger than average youth populations. (Full county table in appendix.)

Infrastructure Needed to Get Rural Goods to MarketThe lack of critical infrastructure is one of the more observable challenges faced by rural com-munities. Businesses concentrate where they can easily get the supplies they need and trans-port the goods they’re making to markets. Yet building new highways that enable heavy truck transportation to serve sparsely populated areas requires considerable invest-ment. That’s also the case for establishing commercial air service. And that investment is needed prior to rural economies achieving a more connected appearance in order to draw the businesses they need to thrive.

Parts of rural Oregon are very remote, far removed from jobs and employers. This map shows where jobs are concentrated in Oregon. Each square mile block with at least one employer establishment is shaded in tan. The 157 square mile blocks in green have job concentrations of at least 2,490 jobs – and they range up to more than 63,000 jobs con-centrated in a single square mile. Half of the jobs in Oregon reside in those 157 green blocks, which are crowded around Portland and the state’s other metros, with occasion-al green blocks elsewhere in the state. Employer establishments are more spread out, but most of the square mile blocks in Oregon don’t have any establishments or jobs. Establishments outside of major transportation corridors are spread thinly.

Long, often treacherous weather during the winter is a discouragement for industry requiring transportation of goods. Access to entertainment, goods and services is also a factor in recruiting skilled and professional workers for new industry.



27

Freight CorridorsMany goods producing businesses depend on major freight corridors to transport their goods to market. The farther a business is located from these major corridors, the more expensive it can be to transport those goods. Interstate 5 is a major truck transportation corridor that runs from Oregon’s northern border to its southern bor-der. As a result, we see a high concentration of manufacturing firms in this part of Oregon.

Another major freight corridor is through the Columbia River Gorge with Interstate 84 and barge traffic on the Columbia River, as well as the Union Pacific and BNSF Rail lines. This major freight corridor runs through the rural counties of Hood River, Wasco, Sherman, Gilliam, Morrow, and Umatilla. Only six rural counties have recovered all jobs lost during the recession. It is no coincidence that four of those six counties are along the Columbia River (Hood River, Wasco, Sherman, and Morrow). Among other things,

Costs of transportation discourage companies that are interested in the geography and lifestyle of the area. While they appreciate the community and area they cannot justify locating here because transportation costs become a weighted factor in their siting decisions.



28

access to critical transportation and freight infrastructure helped to lessen the impact of the recession and allowed those communities to recover faster. However, much of rural Oregon is isolated from these major freight networks, making it difficult for them to at-tract more diverse goods-producing firms.

Commercial Air ServiceAnother major infrastructure challenge facing rural areas is access to commercial air service. Just as many businesses require access to major freight corridors or fast inter-net speeds, other businesses need to be near airports in order to travel to their clients or transport their clients here to Oregon. There are currently seven airports in Oregon that offer commercial passenger service (Portland, Eugene, Redmond, Medford, North Bend, Klamath, and Pendleton).

Activity at Oregon airports is heavily concentrated at the metro airports, while total operations at rural airports are much, much lower. The Crater Lake – Klamath Regional airport had the most operations among rural airports, with 55,761 total operations in 2015 (counting both itinerant and local flights of civil and military aircraft). The two other airports located in rural counties had fewer than 20,000 total operations apiece in 2015.

National TotalRank Facility Name Civil Military Civil Military Operations

42 PDX Portland International 210,171 3,461 4,355 34 218,02155 HIO Portland-Hillsboro 75,584 367 110,446 5 186,40294 TTD Portland-Troutdale 35,548 141 93,284 60 129,033

277 EUG Mahlon Sweet Field 38,559 1,831 17,749 1,824 59,963299 LMT Crater Lake - Klamath Regional Airport 16,473 9,964 18,888 10,436 55,761348 RDM Redmond - Roberts Field 22,858 307 22,138 408 45,711391 MFR Rogue Valley International - Medford Airport 32,060 355 5,534 120 38,069406 SLE Salem - McNary Field 22,028 2,331 9,443 1,857 35,659503 OTH Southwest Oregon Regional Airport 9,973 2,598 751 3,336 16,658514 PDT Eastern Oregon Regional Airport 8,410 894 1,662 841 11,807517 UAO Aurora State Airport 3,385 20 1,762 38 5,205

Source: Federal Aviation Administration

2015 Oregon Total Airport Operations

Itinerant Local

Rural Airports Support a Small Share of Flights in Oregon

Close proximity to commercial passenger air service offers three benefits to a local area, as highlighted by a 2005 study, “The Economic and Social Benefits of Air Trans-port,” produced by the Air Transport Action Group. First, it allows businesses to serve larger markets. Second, air transport can make it easier to attract high-quality workers. Finally, air transport can help stimulate tourism by reducing the barriers to visitation.

29

Broadband Internet ServiceThe United States economy is becoming more dependent on service rather than goods producing firms. The Internet evens the playing field, allowing folks to work remotely and provide their services away from major population clusters. However, an-other major infrastructure challenge in rural commu-nities is access to Internet service that qualifies as broadband. The broadband definition is constantly changing as technology advances, but it is critical for Internet based businesses, online retailers, and other technology related firms.

According to the National Broadband Map, only about 55 percent of people living in rural areas have access to speeds that qualify as broadband, compared with 94 percent of the urban population. The digital divide isn’t quite that bad in Oregon; however, lack of broadband access is a critical challenge preventing many rural communities from drawing more businesses that rely on the Internet to sell or distribute their services. As high quality Internet service becomes pervasive, new opportunities to sell local goods and services to a worldwide market will continue to emerge.

Other Constraints to ConsiderOther factors may be limiting the growth of rural job markets or the availability of workers to fill rural job openings.

Housing availability and affordabil-ity is one such factor: in order to fill jobs and grow the local economy, workers need places to live. Stories about housing shortages in metro-politan areas are often repeated, but many rural areas are also dealing with low vacancy rates, a short supply of affordable hous-ing, and an aging housing stock. Recent work by Oregon’s Office of Economic Analysis (OEA) shows

There’s some cachet in Oregon goods. “Made in rural Oregon” can be an advantage for certain types of products which the Internet allows people to market to larger places.

Bruce Weber, Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University

Transportation options are important to Central Oregon’s rural communities – especially for the senior, low-income, and veteran populations that depend on public transit to access essential services like medical appointments. Providing public transit to rural communities is challenging for Cascades East Transit because residents are typically spread over a large geographic area with low density. For rural communities, CET offers demand-response transit service that requires riders to make appointments the previous day to be guaranteed a ride. While this type of service is well-utilized by some, demand-response service is not as convenient or cost-effective as fixed-route service that adheres to a schedule and relies more on population density to pool trips. Additionally, rural communities are less able to provide the level of funding necessary to meet the needs of their populations.

Judy Watts, Central Oregon

Intergovernmental Council

30

that although rural Oregon housing is more affordable relative to metropolitan areas, it is among the least affordable compared with other rural communities across the na-tion. Many of Oregon’s rural counties are in the 10th percentile for least affordable rural counties in the United States. Rural communities struggle with housing affordability for a variety of reasons. OEA discusses how resort housing, vacation homes, and retirees may all be contributing factors in rural housing prices, particularly along the coast and in Central Oregon.

Another commonly discussed challenge in rural communities is access to child care, in particular affordable child care. When child care options are limited or unaffordable, it can limit work opportunities for parents, which reduces the earning power of households and decreases the size of the labor force. According to the 2016 Childcare Market Price Study by Oregon’s Department of Human Services, the average hourly rate for home-based toddler care is roughly $2.75 an hour in rural counties, compared with the statewide rate of around $3.00. To put it another way, child care expenses are roughly 8 percent lower in Oregon’s rural communities than the state as a whole. However, when controlling for local earnings we find that child care is more expensive in many rural Oregon com-munities as the per capita net earnings are 27 percent lower in rural Oregon than the state as a whole. In addition to child care, elder care is also a concern for many families, and constrains the labor force in a similar way – if affordable care for families is not available, these workers are less able to be present and effective at work.

Finally, lack of reliable or consistent public transportation is another constraint rural Or-egon residents deal with as they travel to and from work. Without reliable public trans-portation more workers are likely to be marginally attached to the labor force due to a lack of transportation. Short housing supply can compound the issue as workers may be traveling farther to reach their work locations. Developing a robust public transporta-tion network without a critical mass of people to utilize the service is very difficult. Even in large metropolitan areas public transportation is often subsidized in order to continue operation. The cost per rider skyrockets in rural communities where there are far fewer individuals using the transportation network.

Rural Job OpportunitiesThe economy has been strong in recent years in much of the state. Unemployment rates are below their long-term averages and job growth has occurred in all areas of the state. Employers are having increasing difficulty finding the workers they need to fill job vacancies. And on the horizon, with an aging population there will be many job openings and employers seeking their next great hire over the coming years. Opportunities are out there!

31

Anticipated job growth in rural areas of Oregon, according to employment projections covering the 2014 to 2024 period, is muted compared with anticipated growth in metro areas. Between 2014 and 2024 statewide growth is anticipated to be about 14 percent. In the eight-county Eastern Oregon region, growth is pegged at 6 percent – less than half the statewide rate. South Central Oregon (Klamath and Lake counties) anticipates growth of almost 7 percent. In the Southwestern Oregon area – made up of Coos and Curry counties along the south coast and Douglas County inland – projections show growth of 7 percent by 2024.

Rural areas that come close to matching the anticipated growth in the state’s metros include the Central Oregon area, where very fast growth in Bend is providing some job opportunities for outlying areas, too. The three-county Central Oregon area (Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson counties) anticipates faster than statewide growth, with a pro-jected rate of 16 percent by 2024. The Columbia Gorge is also expected to grow faster than most rural areas, with a projected gain of 11 percent by 2024. The Columbia Gorge benefits from proximity to the Portland area, a transportation corridor along I-84, and renewable energy development.

Regional Employment Projections 2014-2024

Job Growth (%)15% or more10% to 14%5% to 9%Less than 5%

32

Replacement Job Openings

Even when an economy isn’t growing fast, there are opportunities due to the need to replace workers who leave their occupations, largely due to retirement. Statewide, 63 percent of total projected job openings between 2014 and 2024 are expected due to the need to replace workers, and the other 37 percent are due to growth. In some areas of the state replacement openings make up an even larger share. In several rural regions, replacements outweigh growth openings by a three-to-one margin. While rural econo-mies in some areas of the state aren’t expected to grow quickly, there are opportunities for new workers to replace those who leave the workforce..

17%

20%

22%

24%

25%

25%

27%

28%

30%

32%

34%

39%

40%

83%

80%

78%

76%

75%

75%

73%

72%

70%

68%

66%

61%

60%

0% 100%

Southeast Oregon

South Coast

Northeast Oregon

South Central Oregon

Columbia Basin

Northwest Oregon

Douglas County

Rogue Valley

Mid-Valley

Columbia Gorge

Lane County

Portland Tri-County

Central Oregon

Share of Total Regional Job Openings

Most Job Openings Occur Due to Replacement, 2014-2024Growth Openings Replacement Openings

Taking a look at one of the slowest-growing areas of the state, Southeast Oregon (Harney and Malheur counties) projections show job growth of 4 percent by 2024, with 600 openings anticipated due to growth and another 3,800 job openings anticipated due to replacement needs. Government, education and health services, and retail trade are the top sources of projected replacement openings – each industry will need to replace about 700 workers by 2024.

In Northeast Oregon (Baker, Union, and Wallowa counties), job growth of about 6 percent is anticipated between 2014 and 2024, with 1,100 openings projected due to growth and 4,600 to replace workers leaving their occupations. Education and health

33

services employers can anticipate more than 900 openings due to replacements; it is the industry with the most replacement needs over the decade. Retail trade, govern-ment and leisure and hospitality will also need to replace a significant number of cur-rent workers, each with more than 500 replacement openings expected. More than 400 replacement openings are expected in manufacturing.

Projections show growth of 5 percent in the South Coast region (Coos and Curry coun-ties), with 1,600 growth openings and 7,200 replacement openings projected. Replace-ments are expected to be greatest in education and health services, followed by retail trade and leisure and hospitality – each industry expects more than 1,100 replacement openings between 2014 and 2024. Replacement openings in government should num-ber close to 900 in the two counties. Manufacturing can anticipate a need for about 500 workers to fill jobs as current workers leave their occupations.

Employment in the Columbia Basin (Grant, Morrow, and Umatilla counties) is expected to grow 7 percent between 2014 and 2024. More than 2,900 job openings are anticipat-ed due to growth and another 9,600 openings are anticipated to replace workers leaving their occupations, mostly through retirements. Government is the top source of replace-ment needs, with more than 1,500 replacement openings over the decade. Education and health services will have 1,400 replacement openings, while manufacturing, retail trade, and natural resources industries will have more than 1,000 apiece.

South Central Oregon (Klamath and Lake counties) is expected to grow about 7 percent between 2014 and 2024. The region anticipates 1,800 job openings due to growth and 6,500 due to replacements by 2024. The educational and health services industry is once again a major source of replacement openings, accounting for 1,300 openings. Retail trade and leisure and hospitality will each have close to 1,000 replacement openings.

Projected job growth is pegged at 9 percent in Douglas County between 2014 and 2024. The county can expect 3,300 job openings due to growth and 9,000 to replace workers leaving their occupations. The most replacements are expected in education and health services, at 1,600. Another 1,300 replacement openings are expected in retail trade. Man-ufacturing and leisure and hospitality will each have about 1,000 replacement openings.

The Columbia Gorge area is the fastest-growing rural region in Oregon, with growth projected at 11 percent between 2014 and 2024. Growth will add about 3,300 job open-ings, while 7,300 replacement openings are projected. Leisure and hospitality expects the most replacement openings, swiftly followed by education and health services, and natural resources – each accounts for about 1,200 openings by 2024.

The Northwest Oregon region includes two metropolitan counties and three nonmetro-politan counties along the north coast. The data is heavily weighted toward the larger metro counties; projections for 2014 to 2024 show growth of 7 percent. Northwest Oregon can anticipate 7,400 openings due to growth and another 24,200 to replace

34

workers who leave their occupations. Industries with the greatest anticipated replace-ment openings include education and health services, leisure and hospitality, and retail trade. Regional manufacturers can anticipate needing to fill more than 2,000 openings to replace current workers by 2024.

High-Wage and High-Demand Jobs

Another way of thinking about future opportunities in rural areas is to examine occupations that are high-wage and high-demand – those that pay more than the median wage for the area under consideration and that also have more than the median number of total openings projected between 2014 and 2024.

In Southeast Oregon (Harney and Malheur counties), high-wage and high-demand oc-cupations with the most total openings projected between 2014 and 2024 include oc-cupations in corrections and protective service, health care, transportation, and agricul-ture. Northeast Oregon (Baker, Grant and Wallowa counties) jobs in top demand include positions in health care, education, production and transportation, showing the wide range of opportunity available even in a comparatively slow-growing area of the state.

Occupations with the most total openings in the South Coast (Coos and Curry counties) high-wage and high-demand occupations list include production jobs tied to wood prod-ucts and logging, health care, transportation, and education. Inland Douglas County will need many workers in the same types of roles as their neighbors on the South Coast.

Klamath and Lake counties’ top high-wage and high-demand occupations include those geared toward education, production, transportation, and management jobs.

In the Columbia Gorge the high-wage and high-demand occupations are weighted toward health care, education, agriculture, transportation and construction jobs. The Columbia Basin (Grant, Morrow and Umatilla counties) anticipates many high-wage and high-demand openings in transportation, corrections and protective service, education, and production occupations.

What’s largely missing in the high-wage and high-demand snapshots of smaller areas of the state are the high-tech jobs that have grown over time in metro areas and are ex-pected to continue to grow. In the Portland metro area, software developers, computer systems analysts, web developers, and the sales workforce are all a much larger part of economic activity and anticipated labor demand.

No matter the size of the local economy, a certain level of demand for workers exists. Approaching opportunity through the lens of high-wage and high-demand jobs or the level of replacement openings in an area illustrates how varied job opportunities are in rural Oregon.

Rural and frontier areas of Oregon continue to struggle with a lack of nurses, and we need to find innovative ways to recruit and retain nurses in those areas.

Jana Bitton, Oregon Center for Nursing

35

Working Toward the Economy of the FutureRural Oregon is made up of places with diverse economic histories and trends. In gen-eral, rural communities are trying to address issues such as a lack of industry diversity, an aging workforce, and an absence of critical infrastructure.

Local economies are often influenced by variables that are outside the control of many within the community. Luck plays a major role. For instance, Bend would not have developed into the thriving metro area it is today without the Cascades in its back-yard or the Deschutes River winding through town. These natural amenities allowed outdoor-based tourism to fill the void left by the timber industry and eventually led to rapid economic expansion. Many communities do not have these amenities. Their vision for growing the economy of the future must be different than becoming the next Bend or Hood River. However, many residents of rural communities don’t want their town to become the next Bend. They simply want the community to maintain its character, job base, and values. A rural eastern Oregon resident summed it up well when she said, “I don’t want my community to become like the big city, but I want there to be enough op-portunity for my children to live and work here if they so choose.”

Growth doesn’t have to be the goal: a desire to thrive with the current level of population and busi-ness activity is understandable. Whatever the lo-cal community’s goals, local people organizing and achieving the economy and community they aim for should be supported. An individual with an idea can have a major impact in a small rural economy. Rural success stories often highlight a single individual or organization that made a large difference and sent the community down a new path. But by working together, local communities can strategically move toward a future that everyone can be excited about.

Rural communities will always struggle to maintain a diverse economy. By their very nature rural areas are small on people and large on space. That does not bode well for developing a diverse economic base. However, rural areas can be more respon-sive to the changing economic landscape. For instance, there are efforts in Prineville to expand their existing mountain bike trail network. Focusing on these recreational amenities will benefit their tourism industry, but it may also lead to more workers at the high-tech data centers deciding to live in Prineville instead of commuting from Bend.

How do rural economies overcome a declining labor force? In today’s economy many workers are drawn to lifestyle communities. These are areas known for quality of life, recreation, and health. Preliminary research by Damon Runberg with the Oregon Em-ployment Department – in an article titled “Is Today’s Labor Force Drawn to Lifestyle

In every instance, the part we can’t predict is around new partnerships and the learning that goes on locally. Local leaders uncover opportunities for growth and the future.

Mary Bosch, Rural Development Initiatives,

rdiinc.org

36

Communities?” – shows more vibrant labor force and job growth in these lifestyle metro areas around the United States. As Runberg says, “Lifestyle communities tend to be tourism destinations and they have a larger share of their workforce concentrated in tourism-related industries. However, these lifestyle communities are also experiencing significantly faster job growth than the average metro area.” He points out that both total nonfarm employment and the labor force are growing faster in these lifestyle communi-ties than in the average metro area.

What can rural locations take from this example? A dependence on tourism can be seen as negative because the jobs are often part time, seasonal, and pay relatively lower wages. But drawing new people to recreate in your small town can also introduce prospective workers to the local community, which could provide a competitive advantage as labor sup-ply is constrained across the country by the aging and retirement of the baby boomer generation.

Two communities in Oregon, Bend and Hood River, each made the transition from a ru-ral town with a traditional natural resource based economy to a small urban center with a more diverse economy. The turning point for both of those communities was expan-sion of the tourism industry and growth in recreational amenities (wind surfing, mountain biking, skiing, golfing, etc.). Tourism introduced visitors to the community and some of those tourists eventually became residents – some even moved their businesses. Capi-talizing on the lifestyle amenities of a rural community is one way to persuade young people from leaving and can be a tool for attracting young families to that community. Mary Bosch of Rural Development Initiatives notes, “These little clusters of entrepre-neurial activity become magnets that give young people a glimpse…there’s something cool for me to do here.”

Many workers, particularly millennials, are prioritizing work/life balance over career opportunities, accord-ing to the 2016 Deloitte Millennial Survey. The sur-vey found that millennials ranked a “good work/life balance” as the single most important factor when evaluating a job opportunity. This trend bodes well for rural communities that often rank high on quality of life measures, such as access to recreation.

The Deloitte study also found that “Millennials feel underutilized and believe they’re not being devel-

oped as leaders.” Also, “Millennials often put their personal values ahead of organi-zational goals.” Rural Oregon is in need of its next generation of leaders and could benefit from the aspirations of millennials if they can successfully introduce their local

Tourism is as strong as ever and we still need to work on models to help businesses survive for a 12-month cycle.

Mary Bosch, Rural Development Initiatives,

rdiinc.org

Taking an idea and moving it forward doesn’t necessarily require a city – certain activities that can draw on agricultural or local products provide potential for young people to develop their own niches.

Bruce Weber, Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University

37

areas to this younger generation. Younger workers moving into rural Oregon – and potentially raising their families there – could alleviate the tendency toward aging that is a major challenge in parts of rural Oregon.

Read More about Your Local Area at QualityInfo.org

There’s no way to sufficiently cover the unique conditions found in different corners of our state in one report. The Oregon Employment Department has economists stationed throughout the state who write about Oregon’s local areas in much more detail. To find more information about your local area, please visit QualityInfo.org and click on your area of the Oregon map to find local labor market information and contacts.

38

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016United States 4.6 4.6 5.8 9.3 9.6 8.9 8.1 7.4 6.2 5.3 4.9Oregon 5.3 5.2 6.5 11.3 10.6 9.5 8.8 7.9 6.8 5.6 4.9

Baker 6.3 5.8 7.1 10.4 10.3 10.9 10.6 9.6 8.3 6.9 6.4Benton 4.7 4.1 4.7 8.0 7.1 6.4 6.0 5.7 5.1 4.3 3.9Clackamas 4.8 4.6 5.7 10.4 10.1 8.9 8.0 7.1 6.2 5.2 4.4Clatsop 5.0 4.7 5.3 9.1 10.0 9.4 8.7 7.8 6.6 5.6 4.8Columbia 5.7 5.7 7.1 13.3 12.9 11.3 10.7 9.7 8.4 7.2 6.2Coos 6.7 6.6 8.3 13.0 12.7 11.6 11.1 10.3 9.0 7.6 6.5Crook 5.9 6.2 9.9 18.2 15.9 14.3 13.6 12.1 9.8 8.5 7.0Curry 6.8 6.5 8.1 13.2 12.6 12.0 11.8 10.6 10.2 8.5 6.9Deschutes 4.6 5.0 8.2 14.9 13.8 12.3 11.3 9.5 7.8 6.0 4.9Douglas 7.4 7.7 9.9 15.7 14.0 12.7 12.0 10.6 9.2 7.7 6.4Gilliam 4.8 4.5 4.3 6.9 9.0 9.7 10.1 9.5 8.1 6.5 5.9Grant 8.3 8.0 10.6 13.7 13.7 13.8 14.0 12.4 10.5 8.9 7.8Harney 8.0 7.3 9.5 16.3 14.2 13.3 11.8 11.6 9.6 7.3 6.3Hood River 5.4 4.5 5.4 8.2 8.3 7.9 7.2 6.3 5.5 4.7 4.2Jackson 5.7 5.6 7.9 12.8 12.5 11.7 11.1 9.8 8.4 6.9 5.8Jefferson 5.6 6.7 10.1 15.0 13.7 12.7 11.8 10.5 8.9 7.4 6.7Josephine 6.6 7.0 9.2 14.5 14.0 12.6 12.2 11.1 9.4 7.9 6.6Klamath 6.6 6.9 9.2 14.1 12.9 12.0 11.7 10.8 9.4 8.0 6.9Lake 7.5 7.3 8.6 12.6 13.5 13.1 12.9 11.4 9.6 7.8 6.4Lane 5.4 5.2 6.7 12.3 11.0 9.7 8.9 8.0 6.9 5.9 5.1Lincoln 6.0 5.5 6.6 10.6 11.0 10.4 9.9 8.8 7.8 6.8 5.7Linn 6.5 6.3 7.8 14.0 12.8 11.4 10.7 9.7 8.1 6.9 5.8Malheur 6.3 5.6 7.5 10.9 9.7 9.4 9.4 8.5 8.0 6.5 5.6Marion 5.6 5.4 6.6 11.1 11.2 10.5 10.0 8.9 7.4 6.1 5.1Morrow 6.5 5.4 6.4 9.4 9.3 8.2 8.1 7.7 6.9 5.8 5.0Multnomah 5.1 4.9 5.9 10.6 9.6 8.3 7.6 6.8 5.9 5.0 4.3Polk 4.9 4.9 5.6 9.5 9.7 9.3 8.9 8.1 6.8 5.7 5.1Sherman 5.9 4.8 5.9 9.1 11.7 11.1 10.8 9.3 7.5 6.3 4.6Tillamook 5.5 4.9 5.5 9.6 10.5 9.9 9.7 8.3 6.9 5.8 5.0Umatilla 6.7 5.8 6.6 9.8 10.3 9.5 9.1 8.8 7.8 6.5 5.4Union 5.9 5.5 8.1 11.6 10.3 10.0 9.4 8.4 7.3 6.3 5.9Wallowa 6.5 6.1 7.6 12.0 12.9 12.2 11.5 11.1 10.0 7.9 6.7Wasco 5.4 4.9 6.1 9.1 9.6 8.8 8.4 7.6 6.6 5.7 4.9Washington 4.4 4.3 5.3 9.5 9.0 7.7 7.1 6.3 5.6 4.8 4.2Wheeler 6.5 5.6 6.0 9.1 9.5 8.5 6.9 6.3 6.3 5.2 4.3Yamhill 5.1 5.0 6.5 11.6 10.4 9.2 8.5 7.6 6.5 5.3 4.7

Annual Average Unemployment Rates in Oregon Counties

Appendix A: Unemployment Rates by County

39

TotalPopulation Ages 0-17

Ages 0-17 as % of Total

Population Ages 18-64

Ages 18-64 as % of Total

PopulationAges 65 and

over

Ages 65 and over as % of

TotalPopulation

Oregon 4,076,350 870,019 21.3% 2,521,212 61.8% 685,119 16.8%

Baker 16,510 3,177 19.2% 9,018 54.6% 4,315 26.1%Benton 91,320 14,812 16.2% 61,995 67.9% 14,514 15.9%Clackamas 404,980 88,628 21.9% 246,237 60.8% 70,115 17.3%Clatsop 38,225 7,569 19.8% 22,747 59.5% 7,909 20.7%Columbia 50,795 10,903 21.5% 30,937 60.9% 8,956 17.6%Coos 63,190 11,855 18.8% 35,471 56.1% 15,864 25.1%Crook 21,580 4,182 19.4% 11,851 54.9% 5,547 25.7%Curry 22,600 3,207 14.2% 12,067 53.4% 7,326 32.4%Deschutes 176,635 39,151 22.2% 106,020 60.0% 31,464 17.8%Douglas 110,395 21,065 19.1% 61,445 55.7% 27,885 25.3%Gilliam 1,980 349 17.6% 1,088 54.9% 543 27.4%Grant 7,410 1,199 16.2% 3,909 52.8% 2,302 31.1%Harney 7,320 1,509 20.6% 4,089 55.9% 1,722 23.5%Hood River 24,735 5,964 24.1% 15,111 61.1% 3,660 14.8%Jackson 213,765 44,084 20.6% 124,196 58.1% 45,485 21.3%Jefferson 22,790 5,198 22.8% 13,384 58.7% 4,208 18.5%Josephine 84,675 16,146 19.1% 46,458 54.9% 22,071 26.1%Klamath 67,410 13,897 20.6% 39,363 58.4% 14,150 21.0%Lake 8,015 1,361 17.0% 4,691 58.5% 1,963 24.5%Lane 365,940 66,938 18.3% 230,582 63.0% 68,420 18.7%Lincoln 47,735 7,866 16.5% 26,993 56.5% 12,876 27.0%Linn 122,315 28,190 23.0% 72,052 58.9% 22,074 18.0%Malheur 31,705 7,700 24.3% 18,494 58.3% 5,511 17.4%Marion 333,950 85,007 25.5% 198,519 59.4% 50,425 15.1%Morrow 11,745 3,035 25.8% 6,857 58.4% 1,853 15.8%Multnomah 790,670 153,166 19.4% 539,138 68.2% 98,367 12.4%Polk 79,730 19,037 23.9% 46,957 58.9% 13,736 17.2%Sherman 1,795 341 19.0% 998 55.6% 456 25.4%Tillamook 25,920 5,121 19.8% 14,452 55.8% 6,348 24.5%Umatilla 79,880 20,581 25.8% 47,484 59.4% 11,815 14.8%Union 26,745 6,055 22.6% 15,263 57.1% 5,427 20.3%Wallowa 7,140 1,389 19.4% 3,699 51.8% 2,052 28.7%Wasco 26,700 6,016 22.5% 15,157 56.8% 5,527 20.7%Washington 583,595 140,312 24.0% 370,717 63.5% 72,567 12.4%Wheeler 1,465 258 17.6% 734 50.1% 473 32.3%Yamhill 104,990 24,753 23.6% 63,038 60.0% 17,199 16.4%

Source: Portland State University, Population Research Center

Estimates of Population Age Groups (ages under 18 yrs., 18-64 yrs., and 65 yrs. and over) for Oregon and Its Counties, July 1, 2016

Appendix B: County Population by Age Group

40

All Ages (14-99) 55-64 65-99 Share 55+Oregon 1,758,414 306,467 105,099 23%

Baker 4,989 1,013 346 27%Benton 35,890 7,043 2,055 25%Clackamas 155,736 27,025 9,471 23%Clatsop 15,842 3,128 1,199 27%Columbia 9,720 1,761 623 25%Coos 21,055 4,556 1,585 29%Crook 5,333 1,056 370 27%Curry 5,893 1,235 486 29%Deschutes 70,265 11,590 3,865 22%Douglas 33,761 6,880 2,139 27%Gilliam 739 178 58 32%Grant 1,966 461 150 31%Harney 2,131 475 149 29%Hood River 12,082 2,131 838 25%Jackson 81,398 15,038 5,465 25%Jefferson 5,987 1,169 436 27%Josephine 24,141 4,711 1,660 26%Klamath 21,211 4,077 1,401 26%Lake 2,101 492 188 32%Lane 145,497 27,125 9,233 25%Lincoln 16,279 3,550 1,477 31%Linn 42,705 7,876 2,770 25%Malheur 12,756 2,447 884 26%Marion 144,620 26,284 9,331 25%Morrow 5,003 959 386 27%Multnomah 485,413 78,783 26,100 22%Polk 18,879 3,371 1,263 25%Sherman 638 129 45 27%Tillamook 8,821 1,778 682 28%Umatilla 29,120 5,141 2,019 25%Union 9,506 1,822 637 26%Wallowa 2,449 585 214 33%Wasco 9,813 1,943 740 27%Washington 283,297 44,609 14,504 21%Wheeler 286 73 33 37%Yamhill 33,092 5,973 2,297 25%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Local Employment Dynamics.

Workers 55+ by County, Average 2Q2015 - 1Q2016

Appendix C: County Workforce by Age Group

41

Per Capita Personal Income

Per Capita Net Earnings

Per Capita Personal Current Transfer

Receipts

Per Capita Dividends, Interest,

and RentSherman $57,526 $35,465 $12,862 $9,199Washington $51,909 $35,543 $6,527 $9,839Clackamas $49,565 $32,582 $7,072 $9,910Multnomah $49,230 $32,150 $7,633 $9,447Hood River $45,856 $27,352 $7,451 $11,052Deschutes $44,435 $25,189 $9,337 $9,908Morrow $44,281 $30,732 $8,439 $5,111Oregon $43,783 $26,467 $8,861 $8,455Gilliam $43,694 $24,119 $10,807 $8,768Wallowa $41,949 $19,579 $11,993 $10,377Benton $41,676 $25,179 $6,275 $10,222Wasco $40,989 $23,811 $10,479 $6,699Jackson $40,698 $21,158 $10,643 $8,897Clatsop $40,278 $21,953 $10,461 $7,864Lane $39,871 $22,177 $9,679 $8,015Lincoln $38,968 $19,112 $11,333 $8,523Yamhill $38,920 $23,134 $8,755 $7,031Columbia $38,845 $23,608 $9,837 $5,400Curry $38,707 $16,104 $13,568 $9,035Grant $38,647 $19,240 $10,974 $8,433Coos $38,475 $18,317 $13,156 $7,002Tillamook $38,276 $18,572 $11,436 $8,267Harney $38,253 $20,434 $10,718 $7,101Linn $37,355 $20,217 $11,289 $5,849Marion $37,199 $21,128 $9,811 $6,260Lake $36,944 $18,038 $10,556 $8,350Polk $36,797 $21,507 $8,628 $6,662Umatilla $36,434 $21,584 $9,268 $5,583Wheeler $36,294 $15,697 $12,113 $8,483Union $36,268 $19,047 $10,643 $6,578Crook $36,153 $17,325 $11,718 $7,110Josephine $36,013 $16,169 $12,848 $6,997Douglas $35,977 $16,839 $12,284 $6,854Klamath $35,216 $17,295 $11,656 $6,265Baker $35,153 $15,135 $11,449 $8,569Jefferson $32,178 $15,979 $11,089 $5,110Malheur $30,255 $14,511 $10,423 $5,321

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Components of Per Capita Personal Income in Oregon Counties, 2015

Appendix D: County Components of Per Capita Personal Income

State of Oregon Employment Department

www.Employment.Oregon.gov RSPUB 293 (0517)

OWIB Roles under WIOA and ORS Reference document summarizing the State Board roles under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and Oregon Revised Statutes. OWIB is designated as the State Board in Oregon. The reference document incorporates changes to Oregon Revised Statutes anticipated in House Bill 3437 B-Engrossed. If House Bill 3437 fails to pass or is revised further, this summary must be updated.

Resources

Summary of State Board Roles under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and Oregon Revised Statutes

(Incorporates changes to Oregon Revised Statutes anticipated in House Bill 3437 B-Engrossed)

Advise/Assist the Governor Accountability Budget Board Operations Develop, implement, and modify the 4-year Oregon

Unified State Plan [§ 679.130(a)]

Review of statewide policies, programs, and recommendations to align workforce development programs to support a comprehensive and streamlined workforce development system [§ 679.130(b)]

Identify barriers and means for removing them to better coordinate, align, and avoid duplication among programs [§ 679.130(c)(1)]

Develop strategies to support career pathways [§ 679.130(c)(2)]

Develop strategies to provide outreach and improve access for individuals and employers [§ 679.130(c)(3)]

Develop and expand strategies to meet the needs of employers, workers, and job seekers particularly through industry or sector partnerships [§ 679.130(c)(4)]

Identify regions, including planning regions and develop a policy for designation of local areas [§ 679.130(c)(5) and § 679.230]

Develop strategies to support staff training [§ 679.130(c)(7)]

Identify and disseminate information on best practices including one-stop operations, effective Local WDBs, and effective training programs [§ 679.130(e)]

Develop strategies for technological improvements to facilitate access to, and improve the quality of services and activities provided through the one-stop delivery system [§ 679.130(g)]

Development of strategies for aligning technology and data systems across one-stop partner programs [§ 679.130(h)]

Develop other policies as may promote statewide

Develop and continuously improve the one-stop delivery system in local areas including providing assistance to Local WDBs, one-stop operators, one-stop partners, and providers [§ 679.130(c)(6)]

Develop and update comprehensive State performance and accountability measures to assess core program effectiveness [§ 679.130(d)]

Develop and review statewide policies affecting the coordinated provision of services through the State’s one-stop delivery system including criteria and procedures for Local WDBs to assess physical and programmatic accessibility and one-stop certification [§ 679.130(f)]

Prepare annual reports for the US Department of Labor [§ 679.130(j) and § 677.240(a)]

Develop statewide workforce and labor market information system [§ 679.130(k)]

Review and approve Local WDB workforce plans [ORS 660.318(e)-(f)]

Hold state workforce agencies and local workforce boards accountable for performance

Develop allocation formulas for the distribution of funds for employment and training activities to local areas [§ 679.130(i)]

Develop and issue guidance regarding one-stop infrastructure funding [§ 678.705]

Recommend uses of statewide reserve funding and State General Fund workforce investments when available

Collaborate with other State boards or commissions on strategic investments

Maintain Board membership, meetings, and operations in accordance with WIOA [§ 679.100-160], State law [ORS 660.321], and the Bylaws

Hire a Director to assist in carrying out the functions of the Board [§ 679.160]

Operate Committees and Work Groups a. Executive Committee b. WIOA Implementation

Committee c. Youth Taskforce d. Strategic Planning

Taskforce e. Local Liaison Team

f. Others committees, taskforces, and workgroups to be established as needed

objectives for and enhance the performance of the workforce development system in the State [§ 679.130(l)]

Establish criteria, information requirements, and procedures governing the eligibility of training providers and programs [§ 680.430(a) and § 680.450(c)]

Identify key industries in the State and the workforce skills needed for the key industries, the needs for education, training, work experience, and job preparation, and opportunities for partnerships [ORS 660.324(1)]

Consult and collaborate with chief elected officials, local workforce boards, and other workforce stakeholders [ORS 660.324(2)(b)]

Provide Local WDB workforce plan guidance and direction to Local WDBs [ORS 660.324 (4)]

Advisory to the Employment Department [ORS 660.324(6)(a)]

Collaborate with other advisory boards [ORS 660.324(6)(b)-(c)]

Convene, engage, and coordinate with key industries and State workforce stakeholders to determine needs to grow relevant talent pipelines having specific components, utilizing sector partnerships, and ensuring and optimizing alignment [ORS 660.324(7)

Create a single, unified Workforce and Talent Development Plan every biennium in collaboration with key industries and State workforce stakeholders [ORS 660.324(8)]

goals and system outcomes [ORS 660.324(6)(d)]

If House Bill 3437 fails to pass or is revised further, this summary must be updated.

oregon workforce investment boardoregon workforce investment board . annual business meeting . june...

Documents