goodwill community needs assessment

2010 Community Needs Assessment

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3 Background.................................................................................................................................. 3 Data Collection and Methodology............................................................................................... 5

Description of Goodwill Industries .............................................................................................. 6

History and Purpose..................................................................................................................... 6 Current Programs......................................................................................................................... 6

Community Description................................................................................................................ 8

Demographic Profiles .................................................................................................................. 8 Population Statistics................................................................................................................. 8 Age/Gender Statistics ............................................................................................................ 12 Poverty Statistics ................................................................................................................... 12 Disability Statistics ................................................................................................................ 13

Economic Conditions and Job Growth...................................................................................... 13 Job Trends.............................................................................................................................. 13

Community Assessment .............................................................................................................. 17

Perceptions of Social Issues ...................................................................................................... 18 Perceptions of Barriers to Employment..................................................................................... 20 Perceptions of Service Population............................................................................................. 22 Perceptions of Service Availability and Service Value............................................................. 27 Employment Opportunities........................................................................................................ 33 Goodwill Brand Awareness....................................................................................................... 36

Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 41 Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 43

Open-ended survey text responses ............................................................................................ 43

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee is one of 207 autonomous Goodwill organizations globally and part of the Goodwill Industries International (GII) network. Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee serves 46 counties in middle and west Tennessee. Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee is an independent 501(c) 3 non-profit corporation governed by a local board of directors. David Lifsey is the president and CEO. This Community Needs Assessment was initiated to determine the employment, training services, education and supportive services needs of the communities served by Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee. This needs assessment includes primary data in the form of survey results as well as secondary data in the form of demographics, economic data and employment data. The assessment is intended for use by the Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee board of directors and staff as they plan for future services and for the investment of Goodwill resources in the community. This assessment may also be useful to others interested in the planning and implementation of employment-related services. The Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee Community Needs Assessment identified a number of areas in which Goodwill could provide new services and/or serve new populations. The Community Needs Assessment also identified areas of services needed in the community that may be more appropriate to be provided by other agencies or by Goodwill partner agencies. This summary provided general areas for consideration to be used for strategic planning purposes and is not intended to offer specific programs for consideration, but rather a general direction for what Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee may want to consider based on the findings. The following summary offers various strategies for consideration:

• Considerations for New Services/New Populations • Considerations for Expansion of Current Services • Considerations for Community Services Appropriate for Community Partners or

Collaborators • Considerations to Improve the Quality of Current Services

3

INTRODUCTION

Background Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, its board of directors and staff, initiated the Community Needs Assessment for use in the development of the agency’s strategic plan for the next three to five years. Statewide demographics and trends are incorporated into the needs assessment to offer a “bigger picture” perspective. The project focus includes an assessment of multiple Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee areas of interest: workforce development; donated goods; and marketing. The information from this project will be used in board and staff strategic planning sessions to develop recommendations for funding of programs and services beginning in the 2009 program year and beyond. The needs assessment, in part, addresses how Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee can continue to manage its growth and continue providing high quality, in-demand services to the communities it serves. The 2010 Community Needs Assessment is part of Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee’s ongoing commitment to determine how best to invest resources in the community. In 2008 Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee conducted a needs assessment utilizing the resources of Goodwill Industries International (GII) and its consulting team. The survey sample was generated through a selection process that chose specific individuals to broadly represent the stakeholders, workforce development professionals, elected leaders, and funders in our service counties. The purpose of this survey was to identify, at the community level, perceptions of needed services, perceptions of employment conditions, and perceptions of Goodwill of Middle Tennessee. The survey also sought to identify differences in perceptions based on the respondent’s association with Goodwill (e.g. stakeholder, elected official, etc.). Initially, 1290 individuals were identified for participation and a total of 282 individuals responded to the survey. The results of the 2008 assessment offered the following major findings:

• Overall, respondents identify educational quality as the major social issue facing the area. Alcohol/ drug abuse and economic development were also identified as top social issues. These results appear to be driven by the opinions of individuals from Davidson County.

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

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

4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2010 Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee Community Needs Assessment was directed by Karl Houston, senior director of marketing & community relations and Niketa Hailey-Hill, marketing manager at Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee. Survey data collection was provided by Matthew Vile, manager of surveys and data analysis at GII.

5

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

Data Collection and Methodology Primary Data GII performed an electronic survey that was sent via e-mail to stakeholders, including Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc. board members, community leaders/advocates, elected officials, employers/funders, referring agencies/service providers, and other non-profits. 226 individuals answered the online survey. Secondary Data The Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc. Community Needs Assessment collected secondary data on the counties in which Career Solutions centers are located. This data was necessary to analyze and define the areas demographically and socially. This secondary data included the following:

• Assessments and studies performed by state and national departments and organizations

• U.S. Census Data (2000) – The United States Census Bureau Data provided by GII’s CNA Databooks

• 2008 Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc. Community Needs Assessment • GII Community Needs Assessment tools and data

6

DESCRIPTION OF GOODWILL INDUSTRIES

History and Purpose Goodwill Industries, as a national movement, began in 1902, when a Methodist minister, who served a wealthy congregation in Boston, asked for members’ discards in order to create jobs for people out of work. The Goodwill movement has grown into more than 200 individual, local Goodwill agencies, throughout the U.S. and internationally. Operating in Tennessee since 1957, Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee is one of the oldest and largest non-profit agencies in middle and west Tennessee. The organization’s mission is to provide jobs, job training, and job placement services to people with disabilities or other barriers to employment. In 2009, the company served more than 11,000 people and assisted 2,465 people in obtaining employment. Our Goodwill has 32 stores throughout its territory, which runs from Jackson in west Tennessee, to Cookeville in the east and from Clarksville in northern Tennessee, to Lawrenceburg and Fayetteville in the southernmost region our coverage area. Goodwill has more than 60 donation centers with attendants who assist the customers as they donate their clothes and household items. Those items are processed and sent to the stores to be sold. The proceeds from the sale of those items support our efforts to provide job training and placement services to clients in need of our services. Our Career Solutions job services programs are provided in 15 locations throughout Middle Tennessee: Nashville (main office), in the Berry Hill community in Nashville, Clarksville, Springfield, Franklin, Shelbyville, Gallatin, Murfreesboro, Cookeville, Jackson, Dickson, Spring Hill, Union City, Rivergate and Lewisburg. Current Programs

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

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

7

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

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

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

• Retail and Customer Service Training – Training for Retail Associate Certification

(TRAC) offers two classes; TRAC 1 and TRAC 2. TRAC 1, designed for entry-level workers, teaches job readiness, customer service, product knowledge, selling tips, basic merchandising, safety and security, cash handling and basic point-of-sale (POS) skills. TRAC 2, designed for assistant managers or lead workers, teaches basic supervision, cash handling and POS operation, merchandising, safety and security, bank transactions, up-selling and cross-selling tips, facility maintenance, scheduling staff and customer complaints. 136 people trained in 2009.

• Transitional Employment Services - For individuals with a documented physical, mental,

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

• Call Center Training Program – Call Center skills are taught and demonstrated in the

8-12 week program. Trainees take live calls in the presence of a supervisor. 10 people have been trained to-date in 2010.

• Life Skills Program – The Good Life program and staff provide a variety of support

services and referrals to both Goodwill employees and clients. Since May 2010, staff has assisted with services/referrals in the areas of housing, education, transportation, childcare, medical, custody, budgeting, job training and home repair. 34 people were served from May-July in 2010.

8

COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION Data and Research Findings This section describes Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee’s current service areas and in the State of Tennessee. These statistics were generated by the U.S. Census Bureau. The purpose is to look at the areas of need based upon population, ethnicity, disability and poverty statistics. The information covers the counties where Career Solutions centers are located. Demographic Profiles Population Statistics The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau reports the population for the State of Tennessee was 5,689,283. The population is projected to increase by 16.2 percent by 2014, equaling 6,644,850. The 2000 population count and projected population counts for 2009 and 2014 of the Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc. territory is listed below:

Projected Population Growths by County

9

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

10

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

Bedford Davidson Dickson Madison Marshall Maury Montgomery Obion Putnam Robertson Rutherford Sumner Williamson Tennessee County Data from Census Bureau, STI: PopStats, Social Security Administration, and Bureau of

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

NOT a High School Graduate 30.3% 18.5% 27.3% 20.2% 26.2% 21.2% 15.2% 29.0% 27.2% 25.3% 17.6% 20.0% 9.9% 23.5%

High School Graduate 38.9% 24.7% 39.7% 30.7% 41.4% 36.4% 30.4% 41.2% 31.8% 38.9% 31.6% 32.0% 20.0% 31.4%

Some College, but No Degree 16.0% 21.6% 17.0% 21.7% 17.5% 22.3% 28.0% 17.0% 18.0% 19.4% 22.3% 22.9% 21.0% 20.2%

Associate Degree 3.6% 4.9% 4.6% 5.3% 4.2% 6.4% 7.0% 2.5% 2.5% 4.5% 5.3% 6.2% 5.1% 4.8% Bachelor's Degree or Higher Education Attainment

11.1% 30.2% 11.3% 22.1% 10.7% 13.6% 19.4% 10.4% 20.4% 11.8% 23.2% 18.9% 44.0% 20.0%

MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK FOR WORKERS 16 YEARS AND OLDER (2000) Car, Truck, or Van 93.5% 91.9% 95.1% 94.8% 94.8% 96.2% 93.9% 95.8% 93.5% 95.0% 95.6% 94.9% 92.9% 94.3% Public Transportation 0.6% 1.8% 0.3% 0.8% 0.4% 0.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.8%

Walked 1.8% 2.3% 0.9% 1.6% 1.2% 1.0% 2.1% 0.9% 2.4% 0.9% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 1.5% Worked at Home 3.4% 3.1% 3.0% 1.9% 3.0% 1.9% 1.9% 2.1% 2.6% 2.8% 2.5% 3.2% 5.4% 2.6% Other Means 0.7% 0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 0.6% 0.7% 1.2% 0.7% 1.2% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8%

11

Unemployment and Poverty


Labor Statistics Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (June 2010)***

12.6% 9.1% 9.7% 10.4% 16.7% 15.2% 10.0% 10.1% 9.5% 9.1% 9.3% 9.0% 7.5% 10.1%

PERSONS IN POVERTY (2008) 16.7% 16.9% 13.8% 15.4% 14.4% 14.0% 13.3% 16.7% 17.9% 11.1% 10.2% 8.7% 5.0% 15.5% PERSONS UNDER 18 YEARS IN POVERTY (2008)

22.5% 25.7% 19.2% 22.4% 22.1% 18.7% 18.6% 22.5% 21.7% 15.6% 12.3% 11.3% 6.0% 21.8%

PERSONS IN POVERTY BY RACE (1999)

White Alone 11.3% 8.1% 9.3% 7.3% 8.8% 8.7% 7.2% 10.5% 15.8% 7.2% 8.1% 6.9% 4.0% 10.8%

Black Alone 27.9% 23.7% 23.1% 27.1% 21.7% 21.8% 19.6% 32.4% 23.7% 27.3% 13.9% 22.5% 12.9% 25.3% American Indian or Alaska Native Alone

0.0% 13.3% 21.4% 34.8% 0.0% 27.8% 15.3% 64.3% 42.4% 1.6% 12.1% 5.0% 7.3% 17.2%

Asian Alone 6.7% 14.7% 15.3% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 11.0% 0.0% 33.5% 4.7% 4.8% 11.4% 6.8% 12.6% Pacific Islander Alone 0.0% 32.9% NA 57.9% NA NA 10.2% 0.0% 8.7% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 0.0% 14.9% Some Other Race Alone 26.5% 27.8% 47.7% 25.2% 29.9% 20.9% 10.5% 53.4% 26.3% 17.6% 25.2% 34.2% 14.7% 26.6%

Two or More Races 19.3% 20.8% 20.5% 18.1% 8.6% 12.0% 17.2% 43.1% 28.5% 8.9% 21.0% 13.6% 18.2% 20.5% PERSONS IN POVERTY BY HISPANIC AND LATINO (1999)

22.0% 25.9% 12.7% 18.9% 35.3% 11.8% 13.1% 42.0% 34.2% 29.8% 22.0% 22.6% 15.1% 23.3%

12

Labor Statistics


Labor Statistics Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME RECIPIENTS (Dec. 2009)

865 12,236 1,033 2,820 567 1,533 2,601 945 1,620 1,170 2,775 2,375 904 163,270

PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY 16 to 64 YEARS (2000)

22.9% 18.7% 21.6% 20.3% 21.3% 18.4% 20.7% 22.2% 19.8% 21.6% 15.7% 17.6% 10.3% 21.0%

DISABILITY BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS (2000)

Persons 16 to 64 Years Not employed

40.9% 40.9% 43.5% 42.4% 40.5% 41.0% 43.1% 50.9% 50.2% 38.5% 38.2% 41.0% 33.9% 47.0%

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

Persons 5 years and older 4.8% 2.7% 0.6% 0.9% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 2.0% 1.6% 1.3% 0.8% 1.3% 1.1%

SINGLE MOTHER FAMILIES WITH RELATED CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS (1999) Income below poverty level 32.6% 34.7% 33.5% 36.7% 30.2% 36.7% 33.6% 50.7% 38.1% 33.7% 25.8% 30.6% 19.4% 37.6%

Income at or above poverty level

67.4% 65.3% 66.5% 63.3% 69.8% 63.3% 66.4% 49.3% 61.9% 66.3% 74.2% 69.4% 80.6% 62.4%

FOREIGN BORN POPULATION (2000)

6.4% 6.9% 0.7% 2.3% 1.4% 2.1% 4.4% 1.3% 3.4% 2.5% 3.6% 2.4% 3.9% 2.8%

NUMBER OF VETERANS 18 YEARS AND OLDER (2000)

12.6% 11.5% 14.9% 12.1% 11.8% 13.0% 20.3% 13.2% 12.1% 12.9% 12.5% 12.9% 10.4% 13.1%

PERSONS IN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS (2000)

0.3% 1.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.7%

13

Age/Gender Statistics Age is an important number to review when making decisions about the types of services to provide in a community. It is important to note generational differences in service areas. The 2000-estimated median age projected median ages for 2009 and 2014 are as follows:

County 2000 2009 2014 Bedford 34.9 32.1 33.2 Davidson 34.2 32.3 34.0 Dickson 35.7 33.2 33.9 Madison 34.7 31.6 32.5 Marshall 36.3 33.5 34.2 Maury 36.3 33.5 34.2 Montgomery 30.0 28.8 30.5 Obion 38.7 35.0 35.8 Putnam 34.4 31.4 32.9 Robertson 35.3 33.1 33.9 Rutherford 31.3 29.8 31.5 Sumner 36.1 34.0 34.8 Williamson 36.1 34.1 34.7 Tennessee 35.9 33.3 34.3

The youngest projected median age (30.5 years) resides in Montgomery County and the oldest median age (35.8 years) resides in Obion County, equaling more than a five-year age difference. It is also worth noting the aging population of baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964), which is the largest sector of the U.S. population. By 2015, people age 50 and older will account for 45 percent of the U.S. population, followed by those persons born between 1980 and 1993, also known as the Millenials. Poverty Statistics Poverty statistics are important to consider because many of the individuals seeking a job live in poverty. The poverty rate in the State of Tennessee is 15.5 percent, which is higher than the national average of 13.2 percent. There are several counties in which our Career Solutions are located that rank above the average percent for the state, including:

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

14

It is also worth noting that the poverty rate in Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner and Williamson counties are lower than the state and national poverty rates. Disability Statistics According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of persons with disabilities not employed in Tennessee overall is 47 percent. Obion County (50.9%) has the highest percentage of persons with disabilities not employed, while Williamson County (33.9%) comes in with the lowest percentage of persons with disabilities not employed in relation to our service area. Tennesseans with disabilities (age 16-64) is 21 percent. In reviewing percentages above that state figure in our service area, Bedford County (22.9%) has the highest percentage of persons with disabilities followed by Obion County (22.2%), Robertson and Dickson Counties (21.6%) and Marshall County (21.3%). According to the Report of the 2007 Developmental Disabilities Task Force’s Fulfilling the Promise, there are fewer programs for Tennesseans with developmental disabilities compared to the availability of programs for Tennesseans with mental illness. Developmental disabilities include cerebral palsy, autism, and spina bifida, among others. “For persons with development disabilities, getting a job or attending college is often extremely difficult. With services, training, and today’s technology, most people with developmental disabilities could join the Tennessee workforce, buy a home, pay taxes, and assume vital roles in our communities.” (2007 Developmental Disabilities Task Force’s “Fulfilling the Promise” pg. 1) “Studies indicate that people with developmental disabilities compromise between 1.2 and 1.65 percent of the United States population. Approximately one percent of the U.S. population is estimated to have mental retardation. From this, it can be projected that between 12,078 and 39,252 Tennesseans have developmental disabilities other than mental retardation.” (2007 Developmental Disabilities Task Force’s “Fulfilling the Promise” pg. 7) Economic Conditions and Job Growth Job Trends Although the average length of time that an individual remains unemployed is substantially longer in the last quarter century, unemployment claims, while high, show stabilization and some decline. Total employment in Tennessee has shown some growth in early 2010—a much needed respite from the previous two years of uninterrupted decline. Recent data show some improvement among some mildly favorable employment indicators. Consumer confidence is improving, and low interest rates continue to be available. The Gross Domestic Product shows growth. Checking and savings deposits are growing. Consumption shows mild revival. The rate of increase in wages and benefits for workers has slowed in recent years.

15

Goods-producing industries are projected to decline 1.8 percent annually during 2010- 2011. Service-providing industries are likely to decrease by a modest 0.4 percent. Continued growth is likely in health care; leisure and hospitality; professional, scientific, and technical services; other services; and educational services. Employment in wholesale trade is projected to decline by 0.4 percent. Retail trade is projected to decline 1.4 percent. Manufacturing, information, finance and insurance, transportation and warehousing, management of companies and enterprises, and construction are projected to fall significantly. Some of the declines projected for 2010 and 2011 have already occurred. Revival in consumer confidence with favorable interest rates is usually also favorable to growth in trade employment and may mitigate the decline projected in other industries. More jobs are likely to become available from 2010 to 2018 in industries providing services than in the industries producing goods. Goods-producing industries are expected to decline slightly during the next 10 years. Manufacturing is expected to decline by 1.6 percent per year. Construction is projected to be flat. Service-providing industries are likely to grow at 0.9 percent annually, with primary growth in education and health services; professional and business services; and other services. Industries and occupations expected to be the most rapidly growing through 2018, requiring various skills and abilities, are identified. Successful training programs have content adequate to train employees with needed skills and knowledge and to attract new talent. Occupations with strong growth rates for the short term will require college degrees at the MA, BA, and AA levels. Occupations with strong growth for the long term include those that require short-term training, insuring job openings for every level of training and education. (Tennessee Department of Labor & Workforce’s Annual Workforce Report 2010, Executive Summary, pg. 2) According to the State of Tennessee’s Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the top 10 occupations that are predicted to have the most future job openings in Tennessee are as follows:

16

Occupation Title 2006 Employment

2016 Projected Employment

2006 - 2016 Annual Percent Change

Estimated Annual Openings

Growth Description

Retail Salespersons 85,990 104,720 2.0% 1,875 Growing

Registered Nurses 55,510 69,760 2.3% 1,425 Growing

Customer Service Representatives 48,390 62,440 2.6% 1,405 Growing

Combined Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food

56,460 68,530 2.0% 1,205 Growing

Truck Drivers, Heavy and Tractor-Trailer 73,160 83,130 1.3% 995 Stable

Waiters and Waitresses 49,750 58,960 1.7% 920 Growing

Office Clerks, General 56,320 64,730 1.4% 840 Stable

Elementary School Teachers, Except Special Education

30,740 38,000 2.1% 725 Growing

Nursing Aides, Orderlies, and Attendants

32,510 39,370 1.9% 685 Growing

Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners

42,840 48,750 1.3% 590 Stable

17

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

Industry Title 2006 Employment

2016 Projected

Employment

Total Employment

Change

Annual Percent Change

2006 - 2016 Total

Percent Change

Funds, Trusts & Other Financial Vehicles

760 1,400 640 6.28% 83.8%

Social Assistance 41,350 60,270 18,920 3.84% 45.7%

Financial Investment & Related Activity

8,460 12,320 3,870 3.84% 45.7%

Water Transportation 2,350 3,410 1,060 3.81% 45.3%

Waste Management and Remediation Service

7,590 10,990 3,400 3.77% 44.8%

Health and Personal Care Stores

22,670 32,760 10,090 3.75% 44.5%

Internet Publishing and Broadcasting 150 210 60 3.68% 43.5%

Management of Companies and Enterprises

23,440 32,150 8,710 3.21% 37.1%

Animal Production 5,490 7,430 1,940 3.08% 35.4%

Warehousing and Storage 13,520 17,870 4,350 2.83% 32.2%

18

COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT

Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee: 2010 Community Needs Assessment The following tables represent the results from the most recent Community Needs Assessment survey conducted by Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee (GIMT). The data presented herein come from a convenience sample survey conducted for GIMT by Goodwill Industries International. No attempt is made to identify significant differences between stakeholder groups since the dynamics of a convenience sample completely preclude normal statistical analysis. Differences of ten percentage points or greater (i.e. 10% compared to 21%) are likely to be important. Between August 2 and Sept 3, Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee conducted a Community Needs Assessment Stakeholder Survey in conjunction with the Member Services Center of Goodwill Industries International, Inc. This project served as part of the Member Services Center’s new Community Needs Assessment Toolkit and employed a standardized survey instrument administered via online response. The survey sample was generated through a selection process that chose specific individuals to broadly represent the stakeholders, workforce development professionals, elected leaders and funders. The purpose of this survey was to identify, at the territory level, perceptions of needed services, perceptions of employment conditions, and perceptions of GIMT. The survey also sought to identify differences in perceptions based on the respondent’s association with Goodwill (e.g. stakeholder, elected official, etc.).

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

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

Sample Count Responded Response Rate Board member 30 13 43% Community Advocate/Funder 476 85 17% Elected Official 239 23 10% Employer 419 42 10% Service Provider 400 62 16%

19

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

Counties/ Areas Responded Davidson All areas proximate to the Nashville Metropolitan area 62 Southeast Bedford, Putnam, and Rutherford 46 South Central Manchester, Marshall, Maury, Williamson 57 North Central Dickson, Montgomery, Robertson, Sumner 44 Western Madison, Obion 17

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

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

20

Board Member Community Advocate/

Funder Elected Official Employers Service Provider 13 85 23 42 62

77% Educational Quality 42% Alcohol/Drug Use 61% Economic Development 57% Alcohol/Drug Use 53% Alcohol/Drug Use

46% Juvenile Crime 40% Economic Development 48% Alcohol/Drug Use 40% Economic

Development 52% Economic Development

38% Economic Development 39% Educational Quality 35% Juvenile Crime 31% Available Healthcare 44% Transportation

31% Literacy 24% Family/Domestic Violence 26% Public Safety 26% Educational Quality 26% Literacy

23% Alcohol/Drug Use 21% Available Healthcare 22% Educational Quality 26% Literacy 19% Educational Quality 23% Public Safety 20% Homelessness 22% Quality of Life 21% Transportation 19% Homelessness

15% Transportation 19% Juvenile Crime 17% Homelessness 21% Quality of Life 19% Family/Domestic Violence

15% Quality of Life 14% Literacy 17% Emergency Preparedness 17% Juvenile Crime 13% Juvenile Crime

15% Homelessness 13% Other 13% Transportation 17% Family/Domestic Violence 10% Available Healthcare

15% Family/Domestic Violence 12% Quality of Life 13% Family/Domestic

Violence 10% Public Safety 6% Quality of Life

0% Child Abuse 12% Child Abuse 9% Available Healthcare 10% Other 6% Child Abuse 0% Available Healthcare 9% Hunger 4% Literacy 5% Child Abuse 6% Public Safety 0% Other 5% Public Safety 4% Child Abuse 2% Homelessness 6% Other

0% Hunger 4% Emergency Preparedness 4% Other 2% Hunger 5% Hunger

0% Emergency Preparedness 1% Transportation 4% Hunger 2% Emergency

Preparedness 3% Emergency Preparedness

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

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

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

21

Davidson South East South Central North Central Western 62 46 57 44 17

48% Educational Quality 65% Alcohol/Drug Use 51% Economic Development 61% Alcohol/Drug Use 71% Alcohol/Drug Use

44% Economic Development 50% Economic

Development 37% Alcohol/Drug Use 30% Literacy 65% Economic Development

34% Homelessness 30% Transportation 33% Transportation 27% Economic Development 47% Educational Quality

32% Transportation 30% Family/Domestic Violence 30% Educational Quality 27% Family/Domestic

Violence 29% Juvenile Crime

29% Alcohol/Drug Use 17% Available Healthcare 26% Available Healthcare 25% Transportation 24% Literacy

27% Juvenile Crime 15% Educational Quality 19% Family/Domestic Violence 20% Educational Quality 18% Transportation

21% Literacy 15% Literacy 18% Quality of Life 20% Juvenile Crime 18% Quality of Life 13% Quality of Life 13% Juvenile Crime 14% Juvenile Crime 16% Available Healthcare 18% Child Abuse 13% Available Healthcare 13% Child Abuse 12% Literacy 14% Homelessness 12% Available Healthcare 13% Public Safety 11% Homelessness 12% Other 14% Public Safety 12% Homelessness

11% Family/Domestic Violence 9% Quality of Life 12% Emergency

Preparedness 11% Quality of Life 6% Family/Domestic Violence

5% Other 9% Other 7% Child Abuse 11% Other 6% Public Safety 5% Hunger 4% Public Safety 7% Public Safety 7% Child Abuse 6% Other 2% Child Abuse 4% Hunger 7% Hunger 7% Hunger 6% Hunger

0% Emergency Preparedness 2% Emergency

Preparedness 4% Homelessness 5% Emergency Preparedness 0% Emergency

Preparedness

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

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

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

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

22



69% Limited Employment opportunities 68% Limited Employment

opportunities 78% Limited Employment opportunities 83% Limited Employment

opportunities 66% Limited Employment opportunities

46% Limited Educational Opportunities 51% Limited Public

Transportation 35% Limited Public Transportation 43%

Potential Loss of Healthcare Benefits/

Income Support 58% Limited Public

Transportation

46% Limited Work Skills Training Programs 42% Limited Work Skills

Training Programs 30% Limited Work Skills Training Programs 31% Limited Employment

Placement Assistance 45% Limited Childcare Options

38% Limited Job Coaching 28% Limited Employment Placement Assistance 30% Limited Childcare

Options 31% Limited Public Transportation 26% Limited Employment

Placement Assistance

31% Limited Childcare Options 28% Limited Childcare

Options 30% Potential Loss of

Healthcare Benefits/ Income Support

26% Limited Childcare Options 24% Limited Work Skills

Training Programs

23% Limited Employment Placement Assistance 24%


Income Support 26% Limited Employment

Placement Assistance 19% Limited Work Skills Training Programs 23%


Income Support

23% Limited Public Transportation 18% Limited Educational

Opportunities 22% Limited Educational Opportunities 17% Limited Educational

Opportunities 13% Limited Educational Opportunities

15% Potential Loss of


13% Limited Job Coaching 13% Limited Eldercare Options 14% Limited Job

Accommodation 13% Limited Job Coaching

0% Limited Job Accommodation 9% Limited Job

Accommodation 9% Limited Job Coaching 10% Limited Eldercare Options 11% Limited Job

Accommodation

0% Limited Eldercare Options 6% Limited Eldercare

Options 9% Limited Job Accommodation 5% Limited Job Coaching 11% Limited Eldercare

Options 0% Other 4% Other 4% Other 5% Other 2% Other

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

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

Although Tennessee in general, and GIMT’s specific territory, has both experienced improvement in terms of unemployment as compared to 20081, unemployment remains high and respondents believe this is impacting the jobs market. Overwhelming majorities of each stakeholder group cite the lack of employment opportunities as the main barrier to employment. Beyond this consensus, Community Advocates, Elected Official and Service Providers also cite a lack of public transit options as a major barrier. Once again, Board Member and Employers differ from the other groups, but only in their selection of secondary barriers. Perhaps the most interesting result from these questions is the emphasis employers place on the potential loss of benefits as compared to the remaining groups. It may be that many employers are seeing high turnover or rejected job offers due to this issue.

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

23


66% Limited Employment opportunities 87% Limited Employment

opportunities 61% Limited Employment opportunities 73% Limited Employment

opportunities 76% Limited Employment opportunities

44% Limited Public Transportation 50% Limited Public

Transportation 46% Limited Public Transportation 45% Limited Public

Transportation 59% Limited Work Skills Training Programs

37% Limited Work Skills Training Programs 39% Limited Childcare

Options 35% Limited Childcare Options 43%


Income Support 41% Limited Public

Transportation

35% Limited Childcare Options 30% Limited Employment

Placement Assistance 35% Potential Loss of


27% Limited Employment Placement Assistance 35% Limited Employment

Placement Assistance

29% Limited Employment Placement Assistance 24% Limited Work Skills

Training Programs 33% Limited Work Skills Training Programs 23% Limited Childcare

Options 24% Limited Educational Opportunities

24% Limited Job Coaching 24% Potential Loss of


23% Limited Employment Placement Assistance 20% Limited Work Skills

Training Programs 24% Limited Childcare Options

23% Limited Educational Opportunities 11% Limited Educational

Opportunities 18% Limited Educational Opportunities 18% Limited Educational

Opportunities 18% Limited Job Accommodation

16% Potential Loss of


11% Limited Job Coaching 12% Limited Eldercare Options 16% Limited Eldercare

Options 12% Potential Loss of


8% Limited Job Accommodation 9% Limited Job

Accommodation 11% Limited Job Accommodation 11% Limited Job

Accommodation 6% Limited Eldercare Options

5% Other 9% Limited Eldercare Options 9% Limited Job Coaching 7% Limited Job Coaching 0% Limited Job Coaching

2% Limited Eldercare Options 4% Other 4% Other 0% Other 0% Other

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

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

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

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

24

Board Member Community Advocate/ Funder Elected Official Employers Service Provider 13 85 23 42 62

Populations Most in Need of Services 62% Unemployed/ Dislocated

Workers 52% Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers 61% At-Risk Youth 55% Unemployed/ Dislocated

Workers 55% Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

46% At-Risk Youth 51% Single parents 57% Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers 48% Working Poor 50% Working Poor

46% Working Poor 47% At-Risk Youth 52% Working Poor 40% Single parents 42% Single parents

38% Single parents 46% Working Poor 35% Older Workers (over 55) 31% Older Workers (over 55) 27% Older Workers (over 55)

31% Welfare Recipients 33% Older Workers (over 55) 30% Single parents 31% At-Risk Youth 27% At-Risk Youth

23% Non-English Speaking Residents 20% Ex-Offenders 17% Homeless 24% Non-English Speaking

Residents 27% Ex-Offenders

23% Homeless 15% Non-English Speaking Residents 17% Immigrants 24% Ex-Offenders 23% Non-English Speaking

Residents

15% Older Workers (over 55) 13% Homeless 13% Non-English Speaking Residents 24% Welfare Recipients 21% Welfare Recipients

15% Ex-Offenders 9% Welfare Recipients 13% Welfare Recipients 5% Homeless 15% Homeless

0% Immigrants 5% Immigrants 4% Ex-Offenders 5% Other 5% Other

0% Other 2% Other 0% Other 2% Immigrants 3% Immigrants

Populations Growing Fastest 62% Non-English Speaking

Residents 54% Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers 57% Non-English Speaking

Residents 52% Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers 52% Working Poor

62% Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers 52% Working Poor 48% Unemployed/ Dislocated

Workers 50% Single parents 45% Non-English Speaking Residents

46% Working Poor 42% Non-English Speaking Residents 39% Working Poor 43% Working Poor 45% Unemployed/ Dislocated

Workers

38% At-Risk Youth 35% Single parents 35% Older Workers (over 55) 36% Non-English Speaking Residents 29% Older Workers (over 55)

23% Ex-Offenders 34% Older Workers (over 55) 30% Single parents 31% Older Workers (over 55) 26% At-Risk Youth

15% Homeless 24% At-Risk Youth 17% At-Risk Youth 31% Welfare Recipients 26% Single parents 15% Immigrants 12% Homeless 17% Ex-Offenders 19% At-Risk Youth 23% Ex-Offenders

8% Older Workers (over 55) 12% Immigrants 13% Welfare Recipients 10% Ex-Offenders 23% Welfare Recipients

8% Single parents 8% Ex-Offenders 13% Homeless 5% Immigrants 15% Homeless

0% Welfare Recipients 8% Welfare Recipients 13% Immigrants 2% Homeless 10% Immigrants

0% Other 1% Other 4% Other 0% Other 3% Other

25


Populations Most in Need of Services 50% At-Risk Youth 52% Unemployed/ Dislocated

Workers 67% Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers 55% Working Poor 59% Unemployed/ Dislocated

Workers

48% Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers 52% Working Poor 53% Single parents 48% Unemployed/ Dislocated

Workers 47% At-Risk Youth

44% Working Poor 48% Single parents 46% Working Poor 43% At-Risk Youth 41% Single parents

34% Single parents 37% Older Workers (over 55) 40% Older Workers (over 55) 41% Single parents 41% Working Poor

29% Ex-Offenders 28% At-Risk Youth 35% At-Risk Youth 30% Welfare Recipients 35% Older Workers (over 55)

29% Homeless 20% Non-English Speaking Residents 14% Non-English Speaking

Residents 27% Older Workers (over 55) 35% Ex-Offenders

21% Non-English Speaking Residents 20% Welfare Recipients 12% Welfare Recipients 23% Non-English Speaking

Residents 24% Non-English Speaking Residents

16% Older Workers (over 55) 17% Ex-Offenders 9% Ex-Offenders 23% Ex-Offenders 12% Homeless 13% Welfare Recipients 7% Homeless 5% Homeless 7% Homeless 6% Welfare Recipients

11% Immigrants 7% Other 4% Immigrants 2% Immigrants 0% Immigrants

3% Other 2% Immigrants 2% Other 2% Other 0% Other

Populations Growing Fastest 50% Non-English Speaking

Residents 50% Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers 65% Unemployed/ Dislocated

Workers 50% Working Poor 59% Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers

50% Working Poor 48% Working Poor 42% Single parents 48% Single parents 59% Working Poor

45% Unemployed/ Dislocated Workers 46% Non-English Speaking

Residents 42% Working Poor 41% Non-English Speaking Residents 47% Non-English Speaking

Residents

29% At-Risk Youth 37% Older Workers (over 55) 40% Non-English Speaking Residents 39% Unemployed/ Dislocated

Workers 41% Single parents

26% Ex-Offenders 37% Single parents 30% Older Workers (over 55) 32% Older Workers (over 55) 35% Older Workers (over 55)

26% Immigrants 26% Welfare Recipients 23% At-Risk Youth 27% Welfare Recipients 29% Welfare Recipients

24% Older Workers (over 55) 20% At-Risk Youth 12% Welfare Recipients 23% At-Risk Youth 18% At-Risk Youth 21% Homeless 13% Ex-Offenders 9% Immigrants 18% Ex-Offenders 6% Ex-Offenders

11% Single parents 13% Homeless 4% Homeless 9% Homeless 0% Homeless

3% Welfare Recipients 2% Immigrants 4% Other 2% Immigrants 0% Immigrants

2% Other 0% Other 2% Ex-Offenders 2% Other 0% Other

26

Board Member Community Advocate/ Funder Elected Official Employers Service Provider 13 85 23 42 62

Populations Most in Need of Services 62% Learning Disability 59% Learning Disability 61% Chemical Dependency 57% Learning Disability 69% Learning Disability

54% Psychiatric or Emotional Disability 58% Psychiatric or Emotional

Disability 57% Learning Disability 55% Developmental Disability 58% Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

46% Chemical Dependency 42% Developmental Disability 43% Psychiatric or Emotional Disability 52% Chemical Dependency 50% Chemical Dependency

46% Developmental Disability 41% Chemical Dependency 43% Developmental Disability 43% Other Physical Disability 39% Developmental Disability

31% Other Physical Disability 29% Other Physical Disability 30% Other Physical Disability 43% Psychiatric or Emotional Disability 35% Other Physical Disability

23% Blind or Other Visual Impairment 13% Neurological Disability 13% Blind or Other Visual

Impairment 7% Blind or Other Visual Impairment 13% Blind or Other Visual

Impairment

23% Neurological Disability 7% HIV Positive/ AIDS 13% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment 7% Deaf or Other Hearing

Impairment 8% Neurological Disability

8% Other 6% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment 4% Neurological Disability 2% Neurological Disability 6% Deaf or Other Hearing

Impairment

0% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment 5% Blind or Other Visual

Impairment 0% HIV Positive/ AIDS 2% Other 5% HIV Positive/ AIDS

0% HIV Positive/ AIDS 4% Other 0% Other 0% HIV Positive/ AIDS 3% Other

Populations Growing Fastest 62% Psychiatric or Emotional

Disability 60% Chemical Dependency 78% Chemical Dependency 71% Chemical Dependency 76% Psychiatric or Emotional Disability

54% Chemical Dependency 60% Psychiatric or Emotional Disability 65% Learning Disability 52% Developmental Disability 66% Chemical Dependency

46% Learning Disability 53% Learning Disability 57% Psychiatric or Emotional Disability 50% Psychiatric or Emotional

Disability 58% Learning Disability

23% Developmental Disability 31% Developmental Disability 43% Developmental Disability 43% Learning Disability 32% Other Physical Disability

8% Blind or Other Visual Impairment 29% Other Physical Disability 13% Other Physical Disability 31% Other Physical Disability 26% Developmental Disability

8% Neurological Disability 9% Neurological Disability 4% Neurological Disability 7% Neurological Disability 10% HIV Positive/ AIDS

8% HIV Positive/ AIDS 9% HIV Positive/ AIDS 4% HIV Positive/ AIDS 2% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment 5% Blind or Other Visual

Impairment

8% Other 6% Other 4% Other 2% Other 5% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

0% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment 0% Blind or Other Visual

Impairment 0% Blind or Other Visual Impairment 0% Blind or Other Visual

Impairment 5% Other

0% Other Physical Disability 0% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment 0% Deaf or Other Hearing

Impairment 0% HIV Positive/ AIDS 3% Neurological Disability

27


Populations Most in Need of Services 63% Psychiatric or Emotional

Disability 70% Learning Disability 67% Learning Disability 59% Learning Disability 71% Chemical Dependency

56% Learning Disability 54% Chemical Dependency 47% Psychiatric or Emotional Disability 52% Psychiatric or Emotional

Disability 47% Other Physical Disability

42% Chemical Dependency 52% Psychiatric or Emotional Disability 44% Developmental Disability 50% Chemical Dependency 47% Psychiatric or Emotional

Disability 40% Developmental Disability 52% Developmental Disability 42% Chemical Dependency 43% Developmental Disability 41% Learning Disability 27% Other Physical Disability 37% Other Physical Disability 33% Other Physical Disability 36% Other Physical Disability 35% Developmental Disability

15% Blind or Other Visual Impairment 7% Blind or Other Visual

Impairment 16% Neurological Disability 11% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment 12% Blind or Other Visual

Impairment

11% HIV Positive/ AIDS 7% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment 5% Blind or Other Visual

Impairment 9% Blind or Other Visual Impairment 12% Neurological Disability

10% Neurological Disability 4% Neurological Disability 5% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment 7% Other 6% Deaf or Other Hearing

Impairment

5% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment 2% HIV Positive/ AIDS 4% Other 5% Neurological Disability 6% HIV Positive/ AIDS

3% Other 0% Other 0% HIV Positive/ AIDS 0% HIV Positive/ AIDS 0% Other

Populations Growing Fastest 71% Psychiatric or Emotional

Disability 70% Chemical Dependency 58% Learning Disability 73% Chemical Dependency 88% Chemical Dependency

63% Chemical Dependency 65% Psychiatric or Emotional Disability 53% Chemical Dependency 70% Psychiatric or Emotional

Disability 59% Other Physical Disability

55% Learning Disability 61% Learning Disability 49% Psychiatric or Emotional Disability 43% Learning Disability 47% Psychiatric or Emotional

Disability 24% Developmental Disability 43% Developmental Disability 42% Developmental Disability 32% Developmental Disability 35% Learning Disability

16% HIV Positive/ AIDS 28% Other Physical Disability 33% Other Physical Disability 25% Other Physical Disability 24% Developmental Disability

15% Other Physical Disability 4% Blind or Other Visual Impairment 12% Neurological Disability 9% Other 18% Neurological Disability

5% Other 4% HIV Positive/ AIDS 7% Other 7% HIV Positive/ AIDS 6% HIV Positive/ AIDS

3% Neurological Disability 2% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment 2% Deaf or Other Hearing

Impairment 5% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment 0% Blind or Other Visual

Impairment

2% Blind or Other Visual Impairment 2% Neurological Disability 0% Blind or Other Visual

Impairment 5% Neurological Disability 0% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment

0% Deaf or Other Hearing Impairment 0% Other 0% HIV Positive/ AIDS 2% Blind or Other Visual

Impairment 0% Other

28

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

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

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

• Respondents also focus on the growth rate of Non-English Speaking populations. • Individuals with Learning Disability, Psychiatric or Emotional Disability, and Chemical

Dependency are seen as the populations with disabling conditions most in need of service and growing fastest.

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

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

The same patterns hold when you evaluate response from the various regions in the territory. Again, the rankings of respondents usually are only different by a few percentage points, implying that they are virtually identical. Additionally, one can assume the same “break-point-pattern” in the rankings, identifying those groups with whom the respondents are generally interested and those groups who generally fail to capture the interest of the respondents.

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

29

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

Service Availability:

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

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

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

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

Proposed Service Value:

• Respondents see value in all of the proposed services. • On several items, Boards members rate the value of the proposed service higher than any

of the other stakeholder groups. • There are no systematic differences in perceptions of proposed service value between the

regions in the survey.

The most important point to note when evaluating the responses to the service value question is that it is very “easy” to say that any given service is important or valuable when the cost of providing that service isn’t considered. Since the respondents were not asked to trade off between the various services, the respondents could, theoretically, answer that all services were 2 Essentially, the charts are pretending that the survey was conducted using a standard random sample rather than a convenience sample The charts are an effort to highlight where there might be important similarities differences between the stakeholders and among the individual items.

30

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

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

Occupational Opportunities:

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

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

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

37

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

The first component of the Image and Brand Recognition module asks survey respondents to identify national charities that work in the respondents’ community and those that actually accept donated goods. The purpose of these questions is to identify the degree to which Goodwill rises to the “top of the respondents’ mind” when they are prompted to think of service organizations. While the reported level of awareness may be inflated in this type of survey (since Goodwill is mentioned earlier in the survey instrument), the results still serve as a good indicator of the direction of effort local marketing strategies should consider.

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



100% American Red Cross 86% Goodwill Industries 96% Goodwill Industries 93% Goodwill Industries 85% Goodwill Industries 92% Goodwill Industries 76% United Way 91% American Red Cross 62% American Red Cross 74% United Way 85% Salvation Army 74% American Red Cross 78% United Way 62% United Way 74% Local Church 69% United Way 64% Local Church 65% Local Church 62% Local Church 69% American Red Cross 23% Local Church 60% Salvation Army 57% Salvation Army 29% Salvation Army 39% Salvation Army

15% Easter Seals 15% Easter Seals 22% Disabled American Veterans 14% Disabled American

Veterans 18% Disabled American Veterans

8% Disabled American Veterans 13% Other 17% Easter Seals 5% Other 8% Vietnam Veterans of

America

8% Volunteers of American 12% Disabled American Veterans 4% Vietnam Veterans of

America 0% Easter Seals 5% Easter Seals

8% Other 5% Vietnam Veterans of America 4% Volunteers of American 0% Vietnam Veterans of

America 5% Volunteers of American

0% Vietnam Veterans of America 2% Volunteers of American 4% Other 0% Volunteers of American 3% Other

Davidson South East South Central North Central Western

62 46 57 44 17 92% Goodwill Industries 89% Goodwill Industries 89% Goodwill Industries 80% United Way 94% Goodwill Industries 87% American Red Cross 76% United Way 88% Local Church 77% Goodwill Industries 82% United Way 79% Salvation Army 76% Local Church 67% American Red Cross 73% American Red Cross 71% American Red Cross 73% United Way 67% American Red Cross 63% United Way 66% Local Church 47% Local Church 37% Local Church 46% Salvation Army 32% Salvation Army 36% Salvation Army 47% Salvation Army

18% Easter Seals 15% Disabled American Veterans 11% Disabled American

Veterans 16% Disabled American Veterans 24% Easter Seals

15% Disabled American Veterans 9% Other 9% Easter Seals 9% Other 24% Disabled American

Veterans

8% Volunteers of American 4% Easter Seals 7% Other 5% Vietnam Veterans of America 12% Other

5% Vietnam Veterans of America 4% Vietnam Veterans of

America 5% Vietnam Veterans of America 0% Easter Seals 0% Vietnam Veterans of

America 5% Other 2% Volunteers of American 2% Volunteers of American 0% Volunteers of American 0% Volunteers of American

92% Goodwill Industries 89% Goodwill Industries 89% Goodwill Industries 80% United Way 94% Goodwill Industries

38

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



100% Goodwill Industries 96% Goodwill Industries 100% Goodwill Industries 90% Goodwill Industries 100% Goodwill Industries 92% Salvation Army 53% Local Church 61% Local Church 50% Local Church 92% Salvation Army

54% Disabled American Veterans 49% Salvation Army 61% Salvation Army 31% Salvation Army 54% Disabled American

Veterans

31% Local Church 25% Disabled American Veterans 26% Disabled American

Veterans 21% Other 31% Local Church

15% Vietnam Veterans of America 15% Other 22% American Red Cross 14% American Red Cross 15% Vietnam Veterans of

America

8% Other 11% American Red Cross 22% Other 12% Disabled American Veterans 8% Other

0% American Red Cross 7% United Way 9% Vietnam Veterans of America 2% United Way 0% American Red Cross

0% United Way 5% Vietnam Veterans of America 4% United Way 0% Easter Seals 0% United Way

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

0% Volunteers of American 0% Volunteers of American 0% Volunteers of American 0% Volunteers of American 0% Volunteers of American

Davidson South East South Central North Central Western

62 46 57 44 17 100% Goodwill Industries 95% Goodwill Industries 98% Goodwill Industries 96% Goodwill Industries 98% Goodwill Industries 60% Local Church 76% Salvation Army 54% Local Church 68% Local Church 55% Local Church

44% Salvation Army 45% Disabled American Veterans 35% Salvation Army 37% Salvation Army 43% Salvation Army

24% Other 39% Local Church 17% Other 21% Disabled American Veterans 23% Other

18% Disabled American Veterans 15% Other 13% American Red Cross 19% Other 18% Disabled American

Veterans

13% American Red Cross 10% Vietnam Veterans of America 4% United Way 16% American Red Cross 9% United Way

8% United Way 8% American Red Cross 2% Disabled American Veterans 9% United Way 5% American Red Cross

3% Vietnam Veterans of America 3% United Way 0% Easter Seals 5% Vietnam Veterans of

America 2% Vietnam Veterans of America

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

0% Easter Seals 0% Volunteers of American 0% Volunteers of American 0% Easter Seals 0% Volunteers of American

• Respondents readily identify GIMT as a major charity in the area. • GIMT generally has the highest level of name recognition in the survey.

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

40

• Respondents most frequently identify job training as the mission of Goodwill. • A majority of Community Advocates and Elected Officials actual misidentify Goodwill’s

Mission. • A large majority of respondents from the western region misidentify Goodwill’s mission. • Among respondents who incorrectly identify Goodwill’s mission, operating donated

goods retail stores is the most common incorrect choice across the board.

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

42

SUMMARY

Social Issues

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

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

Disabilities and Disadvantages

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

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

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

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

Barriers to Employment

• Overwhelmingly respondents identify limited employment opportunities as the main barrier.

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

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

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

43

Service Availability

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

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

• The overall rankings for forklift training and security guard training are the closest to

neutral in the entire set.

Occupational Opportunities

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

Image and Brand Recognition

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

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

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

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

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

Demographic Profile:

• The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau’s population for the State of Tennessee was 5,689,283. The population is projected to increase by 16.2 percent by 2014, totaling 6,644,850.

• Poverty statistics are important to consider because many of the individuals seeking a job

are living in poverty. The poverty rate in the State of Tennessee is 15.5 percent, which is higher than the overall poverty rate of 13.2 percent in the United States.

• There are several counties in which our Career Solutions Centers are located that rank

above the average percent for the state and nation: Putnam County (17.9%), Davidson County (16.9 %), Bedford & Obion Counties (16.7%) and Madison County (15.4%).

44

Economic Conditions and Job Growth

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

• Growth in the service-providing sector: More jobs are likely to become available from

2008 to 2018 in industries providing services than in the industries producing goods. Service-providing industries are likely to grow at 0.9 percent annually, with primary growth in education and health services; professional and business services; and other services.

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

APPENDICES: Open-Ended Text Responses

Please list any other gaps in workforce services to populations with disadvantages or disabilities in your area.

• Additional employment opportunities and training in retail • Any new programs should look at a model similar to yours or Rochelle Center... where

there is an opportunity for 'sheltered work,' then 'supported work,' then 'independent work' provided by partners who know the reputation of the program and are willing to work with the graduates.

• Assistance in finding jobs for the disabled (desk, not standing) employment. • Child Day Care Services are limited and a big need exists. • Childcare, adult caregiver • Dependable, accessible transportation is always a barrier in our local area for

employment as well as training. • Employers need to know that the 50+ workforce is dependable and ready to work. Often

that group does not know where to start looking for a job, or how to upgrade skills that could make them appeal to an employer. There is a lot of prejudice toward the older workers, when in reality they are probably more reliable than younger workers. The older segment of society is growing rapidly and will continue to grow at an alarming rate, and often find it very difficult to make it financially once they reach retirement age. Even before retirement, the individuals in their 50's that lose a job really face a grim realty, no health insurance and no job. This group especially is being hit hard.

• Extreme gap in services for ex-felons; Housing for ex-offenders especially sex offenders. • Finding resources for those to finish college and to further their education. If they have a

disability and need to be on medication in order to focus making sure they are able to receive this service in order to do better academically.

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

45

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Need jobs for adolescent • Need to do more to create community awareness of the needs of the mentally challenged

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

46

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

• Personal Money Management • Services are good, individuals simply cannot find jobs that pay as high as present

unemployment benefits • The existing mainstream work force and employers are not educated on the value those

with disabilities can bring to organizations. • The Goodwill system is good for any community and especially relevant to the

Manchester, TN vicinity. • The Voc. Rehab does not have contracts therefore, it cannot provide needed services. • There is not enough funding to provide adequate service to help those with special needs

find work in their communities. • There is not training that deals with basic life skill and behavioral issues. • There should be some type of meeting session that the applicants can come together and

express their experiences with the meetings, the facilitator's views, and the outcome of their overall experience. In addition, from the meetings there should be plans put into place to address their issues.

• There is not enough opportunity for job coaching and job readiness. • Training in good customer service would be helpful for anyone just entering the work

force. • Try to educate people to the importance of working and getting off welfare. This mindset

is learned from generation to generation. We make it too easy for people to stay on welfare and decline jobs. Welfare should help people survive - not make it more profitable than working.

• Tutoring for disadvantaged school children • We have a good dependable and dedicated workforce available in our community. We

continue to seek new commercial and industrial clients who can use the services these people can provide.

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

• We need programs that will employee the blind, the individuals in wheel chairs, those with behavior issues. We need to educate these people so they can be more independent. Most of our individuals are mental and physically disadvantaged, so finding work for them, even though we would provide a work-coach during the working hours, we cannot talk some of them into working because they are scared or have had a bad work experience in the past.

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

What is one thing Goodwill Industries could improve?

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

• A covered area for dropping donations.

47

• Additional staff for training. • Awareness to the community and chamber on job training/employment training available • Better communicating what they do. • Better communications about pick-up service. • Better management training • Book prices are too high! • Collaborating with other organizations to fill the gaps in people's needs • Communicating the job training and opportunities offered to the general community. • Communication with other community agencies letting them know of their

employment/training opportunities • Connecting with employment opportunities outside of Goodwill Industries... so

individuals can transition into something else, leaving room for someone new to experience the training and supportive services Goodwill provides.

• Conveying its mission to the public. • Coordinate with Public Works to operate collection sites co-located with PW operations

such as recycling sites and convenience centers; possibly providing some staff to operate new sites.

• Doing a great job. • Educate the community more on services other than the discount store. • Employee wages • Employment training and finding more jobs for their applicants. • General participation in local community affairs • Get their message out to more people that they help people find jobs, train, and prepare

them. Everyone thinks it’s just where you get clothes and donate • Have a more visible community involvement. I know about some of the services, but

unless I am donating clothing or other household items or unless I see the billboard and/or television advertisements regarding employment services, I would not 'see' Goodwill Industries. You see the Salvation Army, as they have a huge community presence, especially around the Christmas holiday. They are synonymous with Christmas and giving at that time.

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

• Helping more during a natural disaster or crisis. • Higher ratio of employees with disabilities • I know that Goodwill is involved in workforce training, but I do not know to what extent,

what all is offered, etc. I believe more information to the public is needed about all the services that Goodwill offers. Most people know that Goodwill accepts donations, operates thrift shops, trains and offers employment opportunities to person with disabilities. There has been a great publicity campaign for that. What else does Goodwill do?

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

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

• I would say just keep on doing what you are now, because it is working. • Increase availability of services. • Increase PR regarding training available to various populations. • I think Goodwill is doing a satisfactory job and is constantly striving to improve.

48

• Its ability to work with other agencies. • Job placement for all demographics • Jobs for youth • keeping prices lower • Keeping their books better organized • Let people know if donations and in-kind items serve this community • Lower Prices in the store with more consistent pricing from store to store. In addition,

there is a need for merchandise to be thoroughly checked for price stickers. Cleaner restrooms!

• Marketing of their programs to large companies. • More clerks on half price Saturday • More communication in the community of what our local Goodwill is doing to help train

our local people. I see the commercials on television and assume that is how they operate, but I do not know.

• More education for adults with developmental disabilities • More emphasis on other jobs that people can do other than in Goodwill stores. Media

presented shows individuals working at Goodwill. What about the idea that after Goodwill they can move into another job.

• More exposure to community. People do not know how many services you offer. • More job training opportunities • More promotion at the local level of the programs. • More promotion of their workforce development. • More publicity for job placement and training services • More Soft Skills training • More visibility in putting people with special needs to work in the community. • Need articles in the newspaper and on radio, public service announcements to get your

message out to the public. • Need for them to tell their story in the community, go to the Kiwanis Club, Rotary and

ask to speak. Tell us what you are about. • Needs to become more highly visible to the community • Never knew you provided job skills and training. • Not being a slave to inflation. I donate clothes that my kids have outgrown, but often

cannot afford to buy replacements there. Especially since Goodwill has become popular in our present economy.

• Not make it so difficult for developmentally disadvantaged consumers to get jobs. • Nothing. I think your agency does better than most. • Open more career solution offices. • Orderliness of the Manchester, TN store. • Our mission is not understood by the majority of the community. Most think that

Goodwill's mission is to operate a low cost thrift store for the community rather than training and providing employment.

• Outreach--find more people in need of jobs training. Many are hidden. • Phone lines for the Career Solutions Centers that are independent of the retail stores. • Provide more jobs • Public awareness of local example of success stories in providing Goodwill's clients with

the tools/boost to be self-sufficient and improve quality of life. • Resume Services • Second chances for employment by those facing chemical dependencies.

49

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

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

• There is always a need for more Career Solutions facilities and staff. • Think Goodwill is doing great job; think it is rest of community that doesn't utilize it as

should • Training to maintain a job after they are already in it. • Transitional employment program. • Until recently, I did not know that Goodwill provided job-training services. The image of

Goodwill is that they only run thrift stores. Therefore, marketing of services is important. • Work training in places other than their retail outlets. I do not know of any training or

education opportunities offered in our community from Goodwill • Would prefer that no furniture or other items be set out side in the elements. • You need to let everyone know what you do more. Better brand your services to help get

better support. • Your job skills training and career coaching is improving. Good work! The Greed of the

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

If you have any additional comments or suggestions.

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

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

such a large number of lives. • Continued visibility with transition programs in schools • Currently I think many people believe everything goes to Nashville. • Goodwill could occasionally conduct a quiet campaign to fund important initiatives • Goodwill helped me so much when I moved to TN in fall of 2007. Helped me search for

work --right down to rewriting my resume for me. Even e-mailed me several months later to see how I was doing after having gone to work. Thanks for the help again. I have moved to western Tn. not seeing the same Goodwill Ind. that I left in middle Tn. In fact, I was told they are not associated with the same Goodwill Industries. They are wearing the same LOGO and Name.

• Goodwill is a wonderful asset to have in our community. • Goodwill is an amazing company to work with, I appreciate the opportunity to GIVE

feedback, in hopes that it will allow for a more cooperative alliance in working with your company to better meet my program's needs.

• Goodwill is doing a good job. • Goodwill is one of our most valuable assets.

50

• Great location in Union City, very friendly helpful staff. Need to learn more about the programs that are provided at the location

• I have enjoyed receiving the publication, Ambassador. It has helped me to understand the mission of Goodwill Industries and Goodwill's involvement in the Middle Tennessee community.

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

• I love Goodwill! • I love the drive through donation centers. • I think Goodwill is a worthwhile organization. Stepping out into the spotlight would help

Goodwill and those in the community that Goodwill serves. • I think the awareness campaign that Goodwill Industries has embarked on over the past

few years has been a valuable tool in changing people's perception about the brand...in a positive way.

• I was a goodwill shopper before goodwill shopping was cool... • I would love to see education of our cities poor and disadvantaged so they can obtain

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

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

• Keep up the great work you do. • Keep up the hard work and may God Bless you all. • Let citizens know you are here for other purposes than a thrift store. • Love the drive up and drop lane! Men are always quick to help and so kind! • More focus on youth employment • My experience with Goodwill Industries has been very positive. • Need clothing inspectors that take stains and tears in clothing into consideration when

pricing items. All donated clothes are not created equal. • Overall, a decent store that appears to be utilized by a great deal of people in the

community. The career center is a real plus especially in a county where the unemployment rate has hung steadily at second in the state for several months.

• Overall, I think highly of Goodwill. • Remember we need to focus on helping people who want to help themselves and are not

just interested in a handout. America needs to focus on not only feeding the hungry but also teaching them to feed themselves, by training them and finding them work.

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

• The local Goodwill office is very pleasant to work with. • The staff at Goodwill in Spring Hill, TN is great. They are very personable and helpful;

they just do not have enough jobs right now to help as much as they desire to help. It is economy related. We need more jobs period.

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

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

goodwill community needs assessment

Documents

population statistics

perceptions of barriers

community description

agegender statistics

poverty statistics

disability statistics

service value

perceptions of social