(SCSEP) State Plan - Texas Workforce Commission

State of Texas
Senior Community Service Employment Program State Plan
For Program Years 2008–2011 (PY’08–PY’11)
For the Period
July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2012
In Accordance with
Section 503(a) of the Older Americans Act as Amended on October 17, 2006,
and
Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 16-07
Prepared By
Texas Workforce Commission
Austin, Texas
Submitted June 2008

Table of Contents
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………... 5
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
Section 1. Purpose of the State Plan……………………………………………………………. 7
Section 2. Involvement of Organizations and Individuals……………………………………… 9
Section 3. Solicitation and Collection of Public Comments…………………………………... 10
Section 4. Basic Distribution of SCSEP Positions within the State……………………………11
a. Location of Positions…………………………………………………………. 13
b. Rural and Urban Populations…………………………………………………. 17
c. Specific Population Groups…………………………………………………... 23
Section 5. Supporting Employment Opportunities for Participants……………………………31
a. Statewide and Regional Economic Analysis…………………………………… 31
b. SCSEP Participants’ Employment Histories and Types of Skills………………33
c. Criteria for Selecting Community Service Assignments and Host Agencies….. 33
d. Developing or Finding Additional Skills Training Opportunities……………… 36
Section 6. Increasing Participant Placement in Unsubsidized Employment and Employer
Outreach……………………………………………………………………………. 39
a. Engaging and Developing Partnerships with Employers………………………. 39
b. Identifying Employment Opportunities with Established Career Ladders…….. 42
c. Placing Individuals in Industries and Occupations with High Growth or
Substantial Employment……………………………………………………….. .42
d. Retention Activities……………………………………………………………. .43
e. Increasing Placements in Unsubsidized Jobs…………………………………... 43
f. Specialized Training Plans……………………………………………………... 44
2

g. How the State Will Work to Ensure the State Subgrantee is Meeting Its
Negotiated Entered Employment Performance Target………………………… 45
Section 7. Community Service Needs………………………………………………………… 47
Section 8. Coordination with Other Programs, Initiatives, and Entities………………………. 48
a. Title I WIA Activities, Boards, and Texas Workforce Centers…………………48
b. Activities Carried Out under Other Titles of the Older Americans Act………... 51
c. Public and Private Entities and Programs that Provide Services to Older
Americans………………………………………………………………………. 51
d. Other Education and Training Providers……………………………………….. 52
e. Other Labor Market and Job Training Initiatives……………………………….53
f. Leveraging Resources from Other Key Partners……………………………….. 53
Section 9. Avoidance of Disruptions in Service………………………………………………. 55
Section 10. Improvement of SCSEP Services………………………………………………….. 56
a. Grantee Communications………………………………………………………. 56
b. Subgrantee Selection…………………………………………………………… 56
Section 11. Appendices…………………………………………………………………………. 57
Appendix 1
Designation of Responsibility for Development and Submission
of the Senior Community Service Employment Program State
Plan………………………………………………………………….58
Appendix 2 Stakeholder Invitations to Provide Input for SCSEP State Plan…… 61
Appendix 3 Public Comments Received on Draft SCSEP State Plan…………. 102
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Appendix 7
PY’07–’08 SCSEP Equitable Distribution Report, effective
09/01/07……………………………………………………………104
PY’08–’09 SCSEP Equitable Distribution Report, effective
07/01/08……………………………………………………………110
PY’07–’08 Quarter 3 Statewide Quarterly Progress Report………116
Statewide Shift-Share Analysis of Industries……………………...120
Appendix 8 Statewide Industry Evaluation (INDEVAL)……………………… 124
3

Appendix 9 Industries Adding the Most Jobs………………………………….. 127
Appendix 10 Fastest-Growing Industries……………………………………….. 130
Appendix 11 SCSEP-Relevant Occupations Adding the Most Jobs……………. 133
Appendix 12 Fastest-Growing SCSEP-Relevant Occupations………………….. 136
Appendix 13 SCSEP-Relevant Occupations with the Most Projected
Annual Average Openings………………………………………...139
4

List of Tables
Table 1 SCSEP State Plan Partners…………………………………………………………… 10
Table 2 Texas Population Ages 55 Years and Older – 2008 and 2012………………………. 11
Table 3
Table 4
Metropolitan Statistical Area Population Ages 55 Years and Older – 2008 and
2012…………………………………………………………………………………... 13
Distribution of SCSEP-Eligible Individuals by Local Workforce Development
Area……………………………………………………………………………………15
Table 5 Urban/Rural Distribution of Population in Local Workforce Development Areas –
2000……………………………………………………………………………………20
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Urban/Rural Distribution of Population in Grantee Service Areas – 2000……………21
2000 Texas Population Ages 55 and Older at or Below 125% of HHS Poverty
Guidelines…………………………………………………………………………….. 24
Distribution of SCSEP’s Special Population Groups in Texas’ Population and
Texas SCSEP’s PY’07–PY’08 Enrollments…………………………………………. 26
Additional SCSEP Enrollment Statistics on Special Population Groups in
PY’07–PY’08………………………………………………………………………… 27
Table 10 Statewide List of SCSEP-Relevant Targeted Industries………………………………34
Table 11 Statewide List of SCSEP-Relevant High-Priority Occupations……………………… 35
Table 12 Status of MOUs between Boards and Grantees..…………………………………….. 50
5

List of Figures
Figure 1 Metropolitan Statistical Areas in Texas……………………………………………... 12
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Local Workforce Development Areas in Texas……………………………………...14
Distribution of SCSEP Grantee Service Areas in Texas……………………………..16
Urban/Rural Spectrum of Texas Counties……………………………………………19
6

Senior Community Service Employment Program State Plan
Section 1. Purpose of the State Plan
The goals of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Senior Community Service Employment
Program (SCSEP) are to:
• enable older low-income job seekers to develop the skills and self-confidence to obtain
unsubsidized jobs and become financially self-sufficient; and
• provide valuable community services at on-the-job training (OJT) sites for SCSEP
participants as a means of improving participants’ self sufficiency, providing meaningful
civic engagement, and strengthening communities.
In Texas, the Office of the Governor has designated the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) as
the state’s grantee for SCSEP (see Appendix 1). Using TWC’s standard Request for Proposal
procurement process, TWC subcontracts the state’s portion of the SCSEP grant to a not-forprofit
entity. The five national grantees operating in Texas receive SCSEP grants directly from
DOL. They include the following:
• AARP Foundation
• Experience Works
• National Asian Pacific Center on Aging (NAPCA)
• SER–Jobs for Progress National, Inc. (SER)
• Senior Service America, Inc. (SSA)
The relationship between the state and national grantees is collaborative, by statute, and—with
the new plan requirements in Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 16-07,
issued on December 31, 2007—ensures that the state, grantees, Local Workforce Development
Boards (Boards), employers, and a variety of social service, economic development, education
and training, and other entities collaborate to improve SCSEP services to senior Texans.
The goals of Texas’ SCSEP State Plan are to:
• enhance coordination and integration of SCSEP with the Texas workforce system to
maximize the impact of limited workforce resources and ensure that services are customerfriendly;
• increase public and employer awareness about SCSEP, the benefits of hiring older workers,
and senior-friendly policies and practices;
• ensure that training and employment strategies are based on local market conditions;
• provide priority of service to areas and individuals most in need, particularly rural areas; and
• strengthen services to increase the placement and retention of SCSEP “graduates” in
unsubsidized employment.
The labor force of the U.S. and the state is graying and becoming more diverse. According to a
recent Bureau of Labor Statistics publication, “the 55-years-and-older workforce is expected to
grow by 46.7 percent from 2006–2016…more than five times the growth projected for the
7

aggregated labor force.” 1 There are practical and personal reasons for the increase in mature
workers:
• Older individuals are healthier and living longer.
• The trend continues toward defined contribution plans and away from defined benefit
pension plans.
• The U.S. Social Security Administration’s delay of eligible age for full retirement benefits
and decreased benefits for early retirement.
• The high cost of health insurance combined with a decrease in health benefits. 2
As a result, the median age of the labor force is expected to increase from 40.8 in 2006 to 42.1 in
2016, 3 the highest level ever recorded.
Texas’ labor force, because of its size and diversity, is expected to mirror national trends.
Predictions indicate that there will be an inadequate supply of trained workers to meet employers’
needs unless older workers are trained, hired, and retained or other sources of workers are found.
For more than 35 years, SCSEP has provided older, low-income Americans with the opportunity to
learn workforce skills through OJT while they provide important services for their communities.
Texas’ challenge is to continue to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of SCSEP so that more
senior Texans can obtain and retain unsubsidized jobs. Our economy’s success in the future will
depend on an adequate supply of trained workers and on ensuring seniors remain financially
independent as long as possible. The State of Texas is committed to meeting this challenge.
1 Mitra Toossi, Labor Force Projections to 2016: More Workers in Their Golden Years, Monthly Labor Review,
November 2007, page 33.
2 Ibid., pages 40-41.
3 Ibid., pages 48-49.
8

Section 2. Involvement of Organizations and Individuals
To lay the groundwork for developing a meaningful SCSEP plan, in 2006 TWC began
consulting with:
• Boards;
• Experience Works (the state’s subgrantee); and
• the five national grantees operating in Texas.
Conference calls were held with Boards and with the national grantees and the state subgrantee
(Grantees), and TWC met with Grantees during Workforce Innovations 2007 in Kansas City,
Missouri.
Once DOL’s guidance in TEGL 16-07 was published, TWC invited Boards, Grantees, and the
Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) to provide input for the SCSEP
State Plan. A conference call was held with the Boards, and five conference calls were held with
Grantees and DADS on all elements of the plan. In addition, invitations requesting input on the
SCSEP State Plan were sent to more than 500 stakeholders, including:
• state- and local-level nonprofit social service agencies, including the United Way,
Community Action Agencies, AARP, and many others;
• Texas Association of Business;
• DADS, local Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs), and Aging Texas Well committee members;
• Texas Interagency Council on the Homeless and Texas Homeless Network;
• hospitals and university researchers focused on aging issues;
• Texas Silver-Haired Legislature; and
• Texas AFL-CIO.
These invitations constituted the broadest effort to date to obtain stakeholder input from the start
for the SCSEP State Plan. Copies of invitations are included in Appendix 2.
9

Section 3. Solicitation and Collection of Public Comments
Once the draft SCSEP State Plan was completed, on May 13, 2008, TWC approved the posting
of the draft for public comment. The draft SCSEP State Plan was posted for public comment on
TWC’s Web site from May 14, 2008, to May 23, 2008. All stakeholders who were invited to
provide input on the SCSEP State Plan were sent the draft and invited to submit comments to
TWC during the public comment period. Four public comments were received and are listed in
Appendix 3. Table 1 below highlights stakeholder contributions to the SCSEP State Plan.
Table 1
SCSEP State Plan Partners
Organization/Entity
Texas SCSEP Grantees and
Subgrantees
Provided
Information for
Draft SCSEP
State Plan
Received Draft
SCSEP State Plan
Provided
Comments on
Draft SCSEP
State Plan
X X X
Boards X X X
Texas Workforce
Investment Council
X
X
Texas Department of Aging
and Disability Services
X X X
Area Agencies on Aging X X
Social Service Agencies X X
Business Organizations and
Businesses
Labor Organizations
University Researchers and
Staff
Texas SCSEP Participants
and Other Interested Seniors
X
X
X
X
X
X
10

Section 4. Basic Distribution of SCSEP Positions
According to the Texas State Data Center, by 2000, Texas had become the second most populous
state in the United States. In numerical terms, Texas was:
• the second fastest-growing state between 1990 and 2000, adding 3,865,310 people; and
• the fastest-growing state from 2000 to 2007, adding 3,052,560 people.
In percentage terms, Texas was:
• the eighth fastest-growing state between 1990 and 2000, with a 22.8 percent increase in
population; and
• the sixth fastest-growing state from 2000 to 2007, with a 14.6 percent increase in
population. 4
Individuals are attracted to Texas by the favorable economy, absence of state income tax, and
mild climate. As with the rest of the nation, Texas’ population is aging as a result of increased
longevity and the aging of the post-war baby-boom generation—individuals born between 1946
and 1964. 5
Table 2 provides the distribution of senior Texans by age range in 2008 and 2012, with the 55
and older population increasing from 20.0 percent to 21.7 percent of the total population.
Table 2
Texas Population Ages 55 Years and Older – 2008 and 2012
Population Category 2008
Percent of
Percent of
Population 2012 Population
State Population 23,614,468 100.0% 25,056,035 100.0%
State Population Ages 55 and Older 4,724,716 20.0% 5,427,257 21.7%
Population Ages 55 to 59 1,298,614 27.5% 1,489,856 27.4%
Population Ages 60 to 64 1,026,198 21.7% 1,226,641 22.6%
Population Ages 65 to 69 741,737 15.7% 914,832 16.9%
Population Ages 70 to 74 575,440 12.2% 642,418 11.8%
Population Ages 75 to 79 456,631 9.7% 477,412 8.8%
Population Ages 80 to 84 331,322 7.0% 345,916 6.4%
Population Ages 85 and Older 294,774 6.2% 330,382 6.1%
Source: Texas State Data Center (2007), Population Projection Migration 0.5 Scenario
4 Eschbach, Karl. “Population Change in Texas: To and From 2000,” presentation to Texas Monthly, January 14,
2008. The University of San Antonio, Institute for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research, Texas State Data
Center.
5 Murdock, Steve H., Steve White, Md. Nazrul Hoque, Beverly Pecotte, Xiuhong You, and Jennifer Balkan. A
Summary of the Texas Challenge in the Twenty-First Century: Implications for Population Change for the Future of
Texas. College Station: Department of Rural Sociology, Texas A&M University System, December 2002.
11

Figure 1 maps the 2004 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in Texas. Table 3 compares the
proportion of the population ages 55 and older by MSA in 2008 and 2012. San Antonio,
Lubbock, and areas outside of the MSAs continue to have a higher proportion of individuals 55
and older than the state average.
Figure 1
Metropolitan Statistical Areas in Texas
12

Table 3
Metropolitan Statistical Area Population Ages 55 Years and Older – 2008 and 2012
Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA)
All Ages
2008 2012
Percent
55+ Yrs 55+ All Ages 55+ Yrs
Percent
55+
State of Texas 23,614,468 4,724,716 20.0% 25,056,035 5,427,257 21.7%
Other (Including Rural
Areas) 7,091,083 1,682,781 23.7% 7,393,279 1,845,858 25.0%
San Antonio 1,905,094 406,280 21.3% 1,999,152 459,838 23.0%
Lubbock 268,726 54,842 20.4% 275,699 60,468 21.9%
Houston-Sugar Land-
Baytown 5,374,147 994,775 18.5% 5,720,167 1,181,414 20.7%
Dallas-Fort Worth-
Arlington 5,982,560 1,068,616 17.9% 6,416,045 1,265,435 19.7%
Austin-Round Rock 1,499,718 257,348 17.2% 1,628,007 318,808 19.6%
El Paso 778,695 143,634 18.4% 830,897 162,712 19.6%
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission 714,445 116,440 16.3% 792,789 132,724 16.7%
Source: Texas State Data Center (2007), Population Projection Migration 0.5 Scenario
Figure 2 maps the 28 Local Workforce Development Areas (workforce areas) in Texas. Table 4
provides the distribution of SCSEP-eligible individuals by workforce area, based on Census
2000.
a. Location of Positions
The ratio of eligible individuals in each Grantee service area to the total eligible population in the
state is indicated by the equitable share allocation of SCSEP slots in the Equitable Distribution
Report (EDR). Appendix 4 is the PY’07–PY’08 SCSEP EDR organized by county and reflects a
total of 3,290 slots for the state. The distribution of Grantee service areas is illustrated in Figure 3.
Grantees have worked closely with TWC during the last three years to:
• shift SCSEP slots from overserved to underserved counties;
• shift slots to eliminate duplication of Grantees in all but two counties; and
• exchange counties between Grantees to further consolidate Grantee service areas and
increase the efficiency of operations.
13

Figure 2
Local Workforce Development Areas in Texas
1. Panhandle 15. Rural Capital Area
2. South Plains 16. Brazos Valley
3. North Texas 17. Deep East Texas
4. North Central Texas 18. South East Texas
5. Tarrant County 19. Golden Crescent
6. Dallas County 20. Alamo
7. North East Texas 21. South Texas
8. East Texas 22. Coastal Bend
9. West Central Texas 23. Lower Rio Grande Valley
10. Upper Rio Grande 24. Cameron County
11. Permian Basin 25. Texoma
12. Concho Valley 26. Central Texas
13. Heart of Texas 27. Middle Rio Grande
14. Capital Area 28. Gulf Coast
14

Table 4
Distribution of SCSEP-Eligible Individuals by Local Workforce Development Area
Workforce Area
No.
Local Workforce
Development Area
Population Eligible
for SCSEP by Age
and Income
Percent of
SCSEP-Eligible
Population
State 705,248 100.0%
1 Panhandle 16,578 2.4%
2 South Plains 16,357 2.3%
3 North Texas 10,605 1.5%
4 North Central Texas 35,055 5.0%
5 Tarrant County 30,360 4.3%
6 Dallas County 50,645 7.2%
7 North East Texas 16,165 2.3%
8 East Texas 39,050 5.5%
9 West Central Texas 19,306 2.7%
10 Upper Rio Grande 31.949 4.5%
11 Permian Basin 16,600 2.4%
12 Concho Valley 6,892 1.0%
13 Heart of Texas 16,450 2.3%
14 Capital Area 12,355 1.8%
15 Rural Capital Area 14,515 2.1%
16 Brazos Valley 10,445 1.5%
17 Deep East Texas 22,100 3.1%
18 South East Texas 16,525 2.3%
19 Golden Crescent 10,315 1.5%
20 Alamo 61,930 8.8%
21 South Texas 10,735 1.5%
22 Coastal Bend 26,821 3.8%
23 Lower Rio Grande Valley 37,455 5.3%
24 Cameron County 20,420 2.9%
25 Texoma 8,670 1.2%
26 Central Texas 11,685 1.7%
27 Middle Rio Grande 11,835 1.7%
28 Gulf Coast 123,430 17.5%
Source: Census 2000
15

Figure 3
Distribution of SCSEP Grantee Service Areas in Texas
16

Our goal is to continue to increase the number of counties with zero balance—where the
equitable share is equal to the number of authorized slots—so that the difference between them,
as reflected in the EDR, is zero. A proposal to revise the EDR, submitted to DOL in April 2008,
included these changes:
• Shifting four state slots from four overserved counties (Rusk, Starr, Upshur, and Wharton) to
four counties that currently have no authorized slots (Kenedy, Loving, McMullen, and
Terrell)
• Shifting Anderson County from the state to Experience Works/federal, allowing the state to
add slots to ten underserved counties (Calhoun, Comal, Gillespie, Grimes, Kerr, Lavaca,
Madison, Wichita, Wilson, and Wood), and allowing Experience Works/federal to shift slots
from 13 overserved counties (Coke, Comanche, Henderson, Hood, Hopkins, Kaufman,
Lamar, Montague, Orange, Palo Pinto, Sabine, Somervell, and Trinity) to Anderson County
• Shifting four AARP slots from overserved counties (Concho, Crockett, Mason, and Menard)
to underserved counties (Cameron and Travis)
• Shifting two SER slots from overserved counties (Ellis and Galveston) to an underserved
county (Tarrant)
• Shifting one SSA slot from an overserved county (Cochran) to an underserved county
(Lubbock)
Because of a 2.67 percent decrease in funding statewide, DOL’s SCSEP slots in Texas will
decrease 2.8 percent statewide in PY’08–PY’09. As a result, the equitable share for 44 counties
will decrease, and the number of authorized slots for Texas Grantees will decrease from 3,290
slots to 3,197.
Appendix 5 is the EDR effective July 1, 2008, which incorporates:
• the slot and county shifts requested in April 2008 and
• the slot decreases required by the 2.67 percent reduction in PY’08-PY’09 funding.
These slot and county shifts will enable Texas to provide SCSEP services to all 254 counties,
reflecting the state’s commitment to serving even the most geographically isolated rural counties.
In addition, these slot and county shifts will achieve:
• the desired zero balance in 24 additional counties;
• a net improved balance in 27 counties; and
• zero balance in a total of 204 of 254 (80 percent) Texas counties.
b. Rural and Urban Populations
An estimated 17.5 percent of the state’s population resides in rural areas. Definitions of rural are
based on Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes, defined at the census tract level. The
map in Figure 4 highlights the geographic expanse of the state’s rural areas. Of Texas’ 254
counties, 37 are mostly rural—with more than half of the population living in rural areas. There
are 158 counties in Texas that are completely rural, with the entire population residing in rural
areas. Frontier counties, which are a subset of rural counties, average less than seven individuals
per square mile and are the most sparsely settled and isolated rural counties, as well as the most
difficult counties to serve. Sixty-four counties, or one-fourth of the state’s counties, are frontier
counties.
17

The urban/rural distribution of the population in workforce areas and in Grantee service areas is
provided in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Four workforce areas (North East Texas, West Centr
Texas, Deep East Texas, and Golden Crescent) are mostly rural. One workforce area (Middle
Rio Grande) is 100 percent rural.
In PY’07–PY’08, 34.8 percent of new SCSEP participants statewide, enrolled between July and
December, resided in rural areas—far exceeding the state’s estimated 17.5 percent of rural senior
Texans. Thus, Grantees have been quite successful in reaching out to individuals in rural areas.
Characteristics of SCSEP participants are included in Appendix 6, the PY’07–PY’08 Quarter 3
Statewide Quarterly Progress Report (QPR).
Adequate access to transportation is the most critical concern in rural areas. The minimal
transportation available in small towns is geared toward persons with disabilities and to taking
people to doctor appointments. The majority of SCSEP participants drive their own cars, but for
those who do not have cars, the lack of transportation poses a significant barrier to SCSEP
participation and, once trained, to finding and retaining unsubsidized employment.
Strategies that Grantees will employ to address transportation needs include the following:
• Seeking to place participants and rotate participants in community service assignments as
close as possible to their residences. (Timeline: ongoing)
• Seeking host agency assignments that have transportation resources. For example, if
community service assignments with a school district or child care facility are feasible and
appropriate for participants’ career goals, Grantees will seek to negotiate with agencies to
enable participants to use the same bus or van transportation provided for children so that
participants have ways to get to and from their community service assignment. Grantees will
contact school districts and child care networks/facilities to determine in which rural areas
the school bus is a feasible alternative. In addition, churches and faith-based organizations
providing community services such as help lines or food pantries may be able to serve as host
agencies and provide transportation. The limitation for churches and faith-based
organizations to serve as host agencies is that Grantees must ensure that participants’
community service assignments are separated in time and space from religious worship.
(Timeline: PY’08–PY’09—begin and ongoing)
Coordinating with local transportation providers and planners, AAAs and other human service
agencies, elected officials, community and faith-based organizations, Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT), Boards and Texas Workforce Centers, employers, and other interested
stakeholders to form a workgroup to identify area transportation gaps and seek to create a
working group to address local transportation needs, including those of participants and
graduates. Two recent publications 6 described transportation options for older adults, including
volunteer driver programs, paratransit service, door-through-door service, travel training, taxi
service, transportation voucher programs, and mobility managers, such as a transportation
navigator position for a Texas Workforce Center or group of Texas Workforce Centers.
6 “Brief #1B: Strategies for Workforce Development Agencies,” January 2008; National Center on Senior
Transportation, “Transportation Options for Older Adults,” no date.
18

Figure 4
Urban/Rural Spectrum of Texas Counties
19

Table 5
Urban/Rural Distribution of Population in Local Workforce Development Areas – 2000
Local Workforce
Development Area
Urban Rural Total
Percent
Rural
Total 17,208,332 3,643,488 20,851,820 17.5%
Panhandle 220,006 182,856 402,862 45.4%
South Plains 254,193 123,678 377,871 32.7%
North Texas 141,380 82,986 224,366 37.0%
North Central Texas 1,325,783 318,376 1,644,159 19.4%
Tarrant County 1,446,219 ----- 1,446,219 0.0%
Dallas County 2,218,899 ----- 2,218,899 0.0%
North East Texas 92,145 178,323 270,468 65.9%
East Texas 401,354 343,826 745,180 46.1%
West Central Texas 145,577 179,324 324,901 55.2%
Upper Rio Grande 679,622 24,696 704,318 3.5%
Permian Basin 237,132 139,540 376,672 37.0%
Concho Valley 104,010 44,202 148,212 29.8%
Heart of Texas 228,291 93,245 321,536 29.0%
Capital Area 812,280 ----- 812,280 0.0%
Rural Capital Area 369,583 164,970 534,553 30.9%
Brazos Valley 162,242 104,843 267,085 39.3%
Deep East Texas 15,286 340,576 355,862 95.7%
South East Texas 314,026 71,064 385,090 18.5%
Golden Crescent 87,995 95,910 183,905 52.2%
Alamo 1,543,737 264,131 1,807,868 14.6%
South Texas 193,117 71,060 264,177 26.9%
Coastal Bend 349,530 199,482 549,012 36.3%
Lower Rio Grande Valley 571,875 17,670 589,545 3.0%
Cameron County 321,158 14,069 335,227 4.2%
Texoma 117,566 60,634 178,200 34.0%
Central Texas 304,128 70,390 374,518 18.8%
Middle Rio Grande ----- 154,381 154,381 100.0%
Gulf Coast 4,551,198 303,256 4,854,454 6.2%
Source: 2000 RUCA Codes, based on census tract level data
20

Table 6
Urban/Rural Distribution of Population in Grantee Service Areas – 2000
Grantee Urban Rural Total
Percent
Rural
AARP Foundation 8,738,369 301,479 9,039,848 3.3%
Experience Works/Federal 2,174,527 1,243,887 3,418,414 36.4%
National Asian Pacific Center on Aging 717,309 0 717,309 0.0%
SER–Jobs for Progress National 3,151,631 61,941 3,213,572 1.9%
Senior Service America 619,776 549,209 1,168,985 47.0%
Experience Works/State 1,806,720 1,484,559 3,291,279 45.1%
Total 17,208,332 3,641,075 20,849,407 17.5%
Source: 2000 RUCA Codes, based on census tract level data
The following federal funding sources have been identified and will be researched:
• Limited “3b funds” under the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006 for support
services that may be used for transportation. (Contacts: AAA)
• Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310) grants—capital grants or
loans for services to public and private nonprofit groups. (Contacts: organizations in 25
transportation districts)
• Federal Rural Public Transportation (Section 5311) Grant Program—goal is to enhance
access to employment and other services for people in communities with less than 50,000
people. Up to 15 percent of funds can be spent on rural intercity bus needs. (Contacts: 39
regional contacts for rural public transportation systems)
• Federal Job Access and Reverse Commute (Section 5316) initiative—grants for
transportation for low-income workers and workers commuting to suburban jobs
• Federal New Freedom (Section 5317) grants—to assist individuals with disabilities with
transportation to and from jobs and employment support services
• Federal Supported Employment Services for Individuals with Most Significant Disabilities—
includes funding for states to develop collaborative programs with public and private
nonprofit organizations to provide employment services, including transportation services, to
those with the most significant disabilities
• Federal Centers for Independent Living Program—assists local nonprofit centers for
independent living with transportation and other services to individuals with the most
significant disabilities
• Federal Vocational Rehabilitation grants—provides funding to state vocational rehabilitation
agencies to provide employment-related services, including transportation services for
employment or to attend training, to individuals with disabilities
The federal United We Ride grant award to TxDOT provides technical assistance on the
coordination of transportation services for people with disabilities, older adults, and individuals
with lower incomes. TWC will do initial research on funding and information sources for
transportation and will share findings with Grantees. Once local transportation needs assessment
and research on local, state, and federal funding sources have been completed, the local
21

workgroup should evaluate alternative coordination and funding strategies and transportation
options, and should pursue strategies to meet community transportation needs, including for
older workers. (Timeline: PY’08–PY’09 – begin and ongoing)
A second resource in short supply in rural areas is technology, i.e., access to computers and the
Internet. Strategies that Grantees will employ to address technology needs include the following:
• Contacting local businesses, government, and community and faith-based organizations
regarding computer and Internet access for participants on an ongoing basis. (Timeline:
PY’08–PY’09—begin and ongoing)
• Exploring the use of air cards that plug into the USB port of Grantees’ laptop computers—
where cell phone service is available—to access the Internet, develop Internet search skills,
and apply for jobs online. This effort will be combined with research on low-cost laptop
computers, including those similar to durable laptops being offered to developing countries.
(Timeline: PY’08–PY’09—experiment with air cards; ongoing exploration of potential
technology solutions)
• Researching foundations to determine which ones have priorities or core values that are
compatible with purchasing technology/laptops for hands-on skills training for seniors.
Grantees will divide up research, taking advantage of online resources on private
foundations, community foundations, grant-making public charities, and corporate-giving
programs in Texas. TWC will research funding options online and at the University of
Texas’ Regional Foundation Library. Grantees and their field staff will coordinate to inquire
about local funding opportunities. When grant opportunities are identified, Grantees will
share guidelines and determine how best to structure a funding proposal and whether
Grantees should apply collectively or individually, depending on grant eligibility and
limitations. (Timeline: PY’08–PY’09—begin and ongoing)
Additional skills training also is scarce in rural communities. Grantees will pursue the following
strategies to expand opportunities for participants’ specialized training:
• Purchasing software or online access to training, such as AARP’s WorkSearch Assessment
System (WorkSearch), which was developed by National Business Services Alliance.
WorkSearch offers access to online skills assessments required in different types of jobs,
courses to address skill gaps, and tests and certifications to demonstrate competence in the
required skills. SSA uses KeyTrain, a system based on WorkKeys to assess and teach
transferable workplace skills. KeyTrain is available in Web-based, software, or print
formats. Experience Works is currently pilot-testing JobReady, a different version of
WorkSearch. (Timeline: PY’08–PY’09—Experience Works will decide whether and how to
rollout JobReady to field staff nationwide. Grantees’ exploration of software and online
training opportunities will be ongoing.)
• Working with local community colleges and employers to expand the skills training available
and offer low-cost or no-cost courses for seniors to develop relevant skills. Grantees will
coordinate with Boards and Texas Workforce Centers to review community college training
22

elated to targeted industries and high-priority occupations in their local Grantee service
areas. Grantees also will explore training opportunities with employers. Even if an employer
does not have an immediate job opening, participants can attend specialized training for highpriority
occupations so when there are job openings, participants will already have the
required skills for these jobs. Two examples of this approach are AARP securing cashier
training for participants at HEB, a regional Texas supermarket chain, and SER–Jobs for
Progress National’s customer service training for participants at CVS Pharmacy. (Timeline:
PY’08–PY’09—All but one Grantee will include requests for additional training funds in
their PY’08–PY’09 grant applications. Grantees will make ongoing efforts to contact local
community colleges to explore partnership opportunities to expand short-term training.)
A fourth resource that is lacking in most rural areas is basic skills training. Many rural seniors
have less than a ninth grade education. Strategies that Grantees will use to develop more
opportunities for basic skills training include the following:
• Piloting software and online access to basic skills training. AARP’s WorkSearch provides
some basic skills training. Teknimedia is a software package purchased by Experience
Works and other organizations to provide basic skills training. (Timeline: PY’08–PY’09—
AARP will continue to use WorkSearch. Experience Works will decide whether and how to
rollout JobReady or another software or online learning package nationally to its
participants. SSA will continue using KeyTrain. Grantees’ sharing of experiences will be
ongoing.)
• Exploring with local school districts, community colleges, and literacy organizations the
possibility of pooling resources to schedule low-cost or no-cost basic skills classes for
seniors and other residents in rural communities. Grantees will coordinate with Boards and
Texas Workforce Centers to review basic skills training opportunities in their workforce
areas. (Timeline: PY’08–PY’09—Begin and ongoing)
Timeline for all strategies to meet rural challenges: Grantees will share results, challenges,
ideas, and opportunities on a quarterly basis, beginning in July 2008. In situations where
timeliness is important, such as with grant opportunities, Grantees will share ideas and
information immediately.
c. Specific Population Groups
Table 7 provides statistics on various categories of the SCSEP-eligible population in Texas.
These statistics are presented with the caveat that the number of SCSEP-eligible individuals who
are actually able to work and the number of SCSEP-eligible individuals who are seeking or may
seek employment are unknown. Noteworthy highlights of the SCSEP-eligible population from
Census 2000 include the following:
• 64.0 percent were women;
• 66.5 percent were 65 years or older;
• 37.9 percent had less than a ninth grade education; and
• 13.8 percent were veterans.
23

Table 7
2000 Texas Population Ages 55 and Older at or Below 125% of HHS Poverty Guidelines
TEXAS
Total
Ages 55
to 59
Ages 60
to 64
Ages 65
to 69
Ages 70
to 74
Ages 75
and Over
Total 705,225 121,145 115,070 105,300 107,890 255,815
Sex:
Male 253,680 52,845 49,060 42,920 39,015 69,835
Female 451,545 68,300 66,010 62,380 68,875 185,980
Educational attainment:
Less than 9th grade 267,475 38,225 39,660 41,855 44,995 102,740
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 158,915 26,060 25,655 23,665 24,815 58,725
High school graduate (including
equivalency) 154,810 29,520 27,465 23,000 20,835 53,990
Some college, no degree 72,800 16,270 13,575 10,455 10,535 21,960
Associate degree 9,790 2,320 2,085 1,250 1,490 2,645
Bachelor's degree 24,805 5,480 4,195 3,080 3,155 8,895
Graduate or professional degree 16,630 3,270 2,435 2,005 2,065 6,855
Veteran Status:
Civilian veteran 97,190 13,450 14,860 17,655 18,245 32,985
Non-veteran 608,035 107,695 100,210 87,650 89,650 222,830
Disability Status:
With a disability 416,180 61,345 59,330 51,980 57,770 185,755
No disability 289,045 59,800 55,740 53,320 50,120 70,065
Race:
White alone 506,155 79,895 77,925 71,435 75,835 201,065
Black or African American alone 113,825 21,315 20,340 19,035 18,035 35,100
American Indian and Alaskan
Native alone 3,495 1,005 695 550 480 765
Asian alone 9030 2,035 1,710 1,685 1,800 1,795
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander alone 315 70 75 40 60 65
Some other race alone 58,340 13,655 11,545 10,255 9,565 13,325
Two or more races 14,060 3,165 2,780 2,300 2,115 3,705
Hispanic Origin:
Hispanic or Latino 219,700 45,665 41,960 38,580 36,670 56,830
Not Hispanic or Latino 485,525 75,480 73,110 66,725 71,220 198,985
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Data, excludes those in the U.S. Armed Forces
24

Table 8 provides statewide statistics on several special population groups that have priority for
SCSEP enrollment, as well as statewide SCSEP enrollment statistics for PY’07–PY’08 through
Quarter 3. Unless otherwise specified, eligible population refers to individuals ages 55 and older who
have incomes at or below 125 percent of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
poverty levels. Grantees have been very successful in recruiting rural and minority population groups
in higher percentages than exist in the current population. For example:
• 28.8 percent of participants—but only 17.5 percent of the statewide eligible population—live in
rural areas.
• 87.2 percent of participants—but only 69.9 percent of the statewide eligible population—are
below HHS poverty levels.
• 35.0 percent of participants—but only 31.2 percent of the statewide eligible population—are
Hispanic or Latino.
• 25.0 percent of participants—but only 16.1 percent of the statewide eligible population—are
Blacks or African Americans.
There are several additional categories of special population groups introduced in the Older
Americans Act Amendments of 2006 for which there are no statewide statistics or incomplete
statewide statistics available. The PY’07–PY’08 enrollment statistics for these categories are
included in Table 9.
Additional priority populations as identified in the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006
include the following:
• Eligible individuals with the “greatest economic need”—individuals with incomes at or below the
HHS poverty levels. For SCSEP-eligible individuals ages 60 and over, 69.9 percent had incomes
below poverty levels. 7
• Eligible individuals who have the “greatest social need”—need caused by noneconomic factors,
which include physical and mental disabilities, language barriers, and cultural, social, or
geographic isolation. Although there are no unduplicated statistics for this category, there are
individual statistics for people with disabilities, people who have limited English proficiency
(LEP), and individuals experiencing geographic isolation. Approximately 2.4 percent of SCSEPeligible
individuals in Texas live in 64 frontier counties, which average less than seven persons
per square mile.
In addition to revised definitions of special population groups in the Older Americans Act
Amendments of 2006, there is a revised performance measure for “most-in-need” beginning in
PY’07–PY’08, as defined in TEGL 30-06, issued on June 21, 2007, and entitled “SCSEP
Performance Measures and Goals for Program Year 2007.” Most-in-need is the average number of
special population characteristics, based on dividing the total number of most-in-need
characteristics by the number of participants. As of PY’07–PY’08 Quarter 3, Texas Grantees’
statewide average number of most-in-need characteristics was 2.68 per participant.
7 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2004, Texas is tied with New York state for
the seventh- and eighth-highest percentages of seniors in poverty.
25

Table 8
Distribution of SCSEP’s Special Population Groups in Texas’ Population
and Texas SCSEP’s PY’07–PY’08 Enrollments 8
Priority Population Groups
Statewide
Distribution
% of Statewide
Eligible
Population
% of PY’07–
PY’08
Participants
Statewide
Total Eligible Population 705,220 100.0% 100.0%
Eligible Population Ages 65 &
Older
469,005 66.5% 43.4%
Eligible Seniors with a Disability 416,170 59.0% 14.3%
Eligible Seniors Ages 60 & Older
with Limited English Proficiency
Eligible Seniors With Low
Literacy Skills (Less Than 9th
Grade Education)
Eligible Seniors Residing in Rural
Areas
Eligible Seniors Who Are Veterans
or Eligible Spouses
Eligible Seniors Who Are
Homeless
Eligible Seniors Ages 60 & Older
with the Greatest Economic Need
(Below HHS Poverty Levels)
Eligible Seniors Who Are Hispanic
or Latino
Eligible Seniors Who Are Black or
African American Alone
Eligible Seniors Who Are
American Indian and Alaskan
Native Alone
Eligible Seniors Who Are Asian
and Pacific Islander Alone
81,840 (92%
speak Spanish, 5%
speak Asian
languages)
17.1% (of Eligible
Population Ages
60 & Older)
17.5% (of
Participants
Ages 55 &
Older)
267,475 37.9% 22.5%
113,275 17.5% 28.8%
97,195 veterans 13.8% veterans 10.4%
21,600–27,000
annually (13,500 at
any one time)
334,190
3.1%–3.8%
annually
69.9% (of Eligible
Population 60 Yrs
& Older)
6.6% (Homeless
or At Risk of
Homelessness)
87.2%
219,705 31.2% 35.0%
113,825 16.1% 25.0%
3,495 0.5% 0.9%
9,335 1.3% 2.2%
Source: Census 2000 for all statistics except homeless and persistent unemployment data
Homeless data source: Texas Homeless Network
Persistent poverty data source: USDA, Economic Research Service—includes counties with annual average
unemployment rates more than 20 percent higher than the national average for two of the last three years.
8 Enrollments in PY’07–PY’08 Quarter 3
26

Table 9
Additional SCSEP Enrollment Statistics on Special Population Groups in PY’07–PY’08
Enrollment Characteristics
Percent of Enrollments
Low employment prospects 91.7%
Failed to find job after using Title I WIA 12.0%
Displaced homemakers 14.9%
Receiving public assistance 33.6%
Severe disabilities 2.8%
Age eligible but not enough work history to
2.5%
receive Social Security Title II
Severely limited employment prospects 26.1%
Recruitment and Selection Techniques
Grantees work closely with local agencies to target recruitment activities to:
• underserved areas;
• areas of higher concentrations of minorities; and
• those most-in-need and/or individuals in priority populations.
Targeted recruitment efforts are based on:
• local and state demographic charts;
• Texas population and aging statistics;
• census data; and
• labor market information.
Texas Workforce Center staff, local elected officials, minority and disadvantaged advocates, and
faith-based representatives know which individuals in their areas are most-in-need and,
therefore, can help target recruitment efforts.
Recruitment activities include:
• listing SCSEP openings with Texas Workforce Centers and WorkInTexas.com;
• advertising in local newspapers, penny saver newspapers, and newsletters, including
minority-focused newspapers;
• distributing brochures, flyers, posters, and fact sheets throughout the community;
• running public service announcements on local radio and cable networks;
• participating in radio and television interviews;
• working with local newspapers to print human interest stories on SCSEP participants and
host agencies;
• making presentations at local civic and faith-based organizations and business meetings;
• asking host agencies’ representatives, existing participants, and local officials to use word of
mouth to promote services;
27

• coordinating outreach activities with other local partners, including placing flyers in food
bank distribution packets, attending senior health fairs, participating in local job fairs, and
visiting senior nutrition sites;
• networking with organizations who serve and advocate for those who are classified as mostin-need
or minority, and/or those who are in special population groups; and
• visiting locations where priority populations may congregate, such as laundries, senior
centers, nutrition centers, health clinics, and other health care providers.
Local partners who assist in recruitment activities and/or refer applicants to Grantees include:
• AAAs;
• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs;
• Social Security Administration;
• Boards;
• vocational rehabilitation agencies;
• Goodwill;
• United Way;
• food banks;
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development;
• senior housing centers;
• food stamp offices;
• faith-based organizations;
• medical centers;
• libraries;
• community colleges and schools;
• elected officials;
• ministers;
• transportation authorities;
• ex-offender programs;
• homeless coalitions;
• homeless and domestic violence shelters; and
• county and city agencies.
Grantees work closely with Texas Workforce Centers and solicit referrals from them. As of
February 2008, 42 Grantee field staff members were colocated in Texas Workforce Centers—at
least part-time—routinely conducting recruitment activities there. All Texas Workforce Centers
are provided printed materials and contact information for local Grantee field staff. A
memorandum of understanding (MOU) is developed with each Board, outlining the referral
process to be used and the coordination of services to be provided to older applicants.
Applicants who do not qualify for SCSEP services are routinely referred to Texas Workforce
Centers for assistance.
28

Grantees track enrollment levels and enrollment of targeted groups on an ongoing basis. Staff
receives training to profile and manage their territories, which includes:
• tracking/planning for exits;
• planning for adequate recruitment activity to fill vacancies quickly; and
• ensuring targeted groups are adequately served.
Grantee staff members also are trained to track the results of their recruitment efforts to
determine which recruitment methods are most effective in various areas of their territories and
in reaching specific targeted groups.
Some individuals in targeted groups may be difficult to reach using traditional recruitment
methods. In these instances, alternative recruitment techniques are utilized, such as:
• requesting assistance from local community and business leaders who are members of local
ethnic or cultural groups (such as minorities or LEP individuals);
• using Spanish-language recruitment materials;
• partnering with agencies that serve the disabled; and
• networking with key neighborhood organizations and faith-based institutions that share our
mission to aid those in greatest need.
Veterans are targeted through collaboration with veteran representatives in Texas Workforce
Centers, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) organizations, and veteran medical clinics. TWC
coordinates with the Texas Veterans Commission to identify the most-effective methods for
informing veterans about SCSEP. Rather than requiring all applicants to come to a designated
office, initial applications may be taken at public meeting places in the local communities that
are more easily accessible to applicants with barriers.
Grantees’ field staff is responsible for determining participant eligibility, completing the intake
on each applicant, and identifying special population status within the program. An individual's
initial eligibility for SCSEP is verified and documented during a face-to-face interview. Written
proof verifying eligibility criteria is reviewed and copied during this process. DOL requirements
are followed in determining eligibility, including guidance given in Older Worker Bulletins,
TEGLs, Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006, and SCSEP rules (once they are finalized).
Most Grantees give priority to eligible applicants according to the special population groups
outlined in the Older Americans Act, Section 518(b)(1) and (2). These applicants are unlikely to
obtain employment without the assistance of SCSEP Grantees or other employment and training
programs.
Grantees have successfully recruited minority participants, and they monitor those participants to
ensure that minorities are adequately served according to their ratios in the state. Beginning in
PY’07–PY’08, the Grantees will receive annual reports from DOL on the number of minority
individuals served, because statistics on ethnic (Hispanic) and racial categories overlap and are
captured separately in the SCSEP Performance and Results Quarterly Progress Report (QPR)
[SPARQ] database. According to the PY’07–PY’08 QPR for Quarter 3, the state subgrantee
reported the following minority enrollment statistics:
29

• 30% Hispanic
• 1% American Indian or Alaskan native
• 0% Asian or Pacific Islander
• 16% Black or African-American
Applicants who are not eligible are notified of their ineligibility during the application process
and are referred to other local agencies—including Texas Workforce Centers—for services to
address their specific needs. Eligibility forms are:
• completed by a Grantee representative;
• signed and dated by the participant; and
• verified for accuracy by a staff member who was not involved in preparing the forms.
All eligibility forms and related participant information are considered confidential.
30

Section 5. Supporting Employment Opportunities for Participants
a. Statewide and Regional Economic Analysis
The Standardized Occupational Components for Research and Analysis of Trends in
Employment System (SOCRATES) labor market analyses include a step-by-step process to
generate a list of:
• targeted industries;
• high-growth, high-demand occupations; and
• high-priority occupations.
Targeted industries are those industries with the most prospects for employment now and in the
future. High-growth, high-demand occupations are those occupations that have higher-thanaverage
projected employment levels or projected growth rates in the region or are occupations
in targeted industries. High-priority occupations are a subset of high-growth, high-demand
occupations and generally include occupations that:
• have projected growth rates that exceed the region’s average projected occupational growth
rate;
• have an above-average number of job openings;
• have entry-level wages exceeding the regional average; and/or
• are in targeted industries.
Local wisdom also may be used to justify high-priority occupations, based on input from local
employers on specific economic development initiatives, business expansion plans, emerging
and evolving occupations, and changing skill needs. SCSEP high-priority occupations are
occupations that are further screened for appropriateness for senior workers.
The statewide industry analysis began with a shift-share analysis to define the competitiveness of
each region’s industries and analyze the local economic base using historical trends from the first
quarter of 2000 to the first quarter of 2007 (see Appendix 7). The analysis identifies whether
regional employment growth is attributable to:
• growth of the national economy;
• a combination of faster- and slower-than-average growing industries; or
• the competitive nature of local industries.
The shift-share analysis provides a starting point for differentiating between industries that are
most likely to have potential job opportunities and industries with potential comparative
advantage in comparison to industries that are less likely to offer employment opportunities or
have no defined pattern of employment potential.
A second step in industry analysis is industry evaluation, or INDEVAL (see Appendix 8), which
is a more comprehensive economic analysis tool that ranks industries in order of the greatest
potential for job opportunities, based on the following variables in terms of historical, current,
and projected time frames:
• Largest industries in the region with comparative advantage
• Industries that added the most net new jobs
31

• Industries with the greatest increase in business establishments
• Industries with the largest number of employers
• Industries with the highest average weekly wage
• Industries with the greatest number of new hires.
Based on the shift-share analysis and INDEVAL, a tentative list of statewide targeted industries
was generated.
Staffing patterns in the preliminary targeted industries were reviewed to identify the industries
with the highest levels of employment in occupations suitable for SCSEP participants. SCSEP
participants include the full spectrum of mature job seekers in terms of education, work
experience, skill sets, and health status. Occupational reviews considered the following factors:
• Basic hiring requirements, to ensure the education and experience requirements were
attainable by some SCSEP participants
• Short-term or moderate-term OJT requirements
• Transferable skill sets
• Occupations occurring across several industries
• Appropriateness of working conditions and job demands for seniors.
Senior-friendly work environments were generally identified as having a relatively calm
environment, not requiring excessive physical strength or stamina, and having both part-time and
full-time jobs available.
The occupational analysis continued by generating a list of the top ten occupations in each
industry on the preliminary targeted industry list. This preliminary list of high-priority
occupations was filtered to include:
• occupations with growth rates exceeding the regional average growth rate for all occupations;
• occupations adding the most jobs in the region;
• fastest-growing occupations in the region 9 ; and
• occupations in the region with the most projected annual average job openings.
Based on these criteria, a statewide list of high-growth, high-demand occupations was generated.
Table 10 is a statewide list of SCSEP-relevant targeted industries that may be suitable for older
job seekers. Further industry analysis at the workforce area level included identifying the
industries adding the most jobs (see Appendix 9) and the fastest-growing industries (see
Appendix 10). These workforce area-level analyses revealed the importance of local industry
evaluation for generating a meaningful list of targeted industries in a large state like Texas.
Because of the striking variation in high-growth targeted industries among workforce areas,
Grantees will use targeted industry lists generated at the local or workforce area level—as well
as local wisdom from Boards and other economic development entities—to home in on the mostpromising
industry sectors.
9 Fastest-growing occupations must have had at least 500 or more employed in the region in 2004.
32

The statewide occupational analysis provides very different results from the statewide industry
analysis. Table 11 is the statewide list of SCSEP-relevant high-priority occupations. Appendix
11 lists the SCSEP-relevant occupations adding the most jobs statewide and by workforce area.
Appendix 12 lists the fastest-growing SCSEP-relevant occupations statewide and by workforce
area. Appendix 13 lists the SCSEP-relevant occupations with the most projected average annual
job openings statewide and by workforce area. In contrast to the varied targeted industries by
workforce area, the occupational analyses are much more consistent with the statewide SCSEPrelevant
high-priority occupations list in Table 11.
b. SCSEP Participants’ Employment Histories and Types of Skills
Although SCSEP participants’ employment histories vary considerably, they have been aptly
categorized by the state’s subgrantee as primarily two groups of individuals:
• Those who need to update their skills and/or learn a few additional skills to be become
employable again; and
• Those who are most-in-need, have little employment history (such as displaced homemakers),
have multiple barriers to overcome, and require extensive hands-on work experience and
support services to become employable or job ready.
The skills that participants most often bring to the training-employment equation have been
acquired formally and informally from years of work, community activities, and raising families.
Their skills often include soft skills or personal qualities, such as:
• dependability and loyalty;
• a strong work ethic; and
• transferable workplace skills, such as analytical, organizational, interpersonal, and judgment
skills.
The skills that most SCSEP-eligible individuals lack are technology skills, especially computer,
software, and Internet skills. Grantees’ training approach is to build on what participants already
know and know how to do, support their efforts, and help them develop the confidence to obtain
and retain unsubsidized employment. To address technology skill deficiencies, Grantees will
seek opportunities for participants to learn computer skills earlier and perhaps more intensively
in their community service assignments.
c. Criteria for Selecting Community Service Assignments and Host Agencies
Community service training assignments are as diverse as the people and locations served. The
development of community-service, work-based training assignments is an ongoing process,
requiring staff to balance the following requirements:
• Relevant to participant’s skills, abilities, skill gaps, and employment goals, as determined in
the assessment and Individual Employment Plan (IEP) process
• Provides training for job skills that match local jobs that are in demand
• Meets the need to provide essential services to the community and contributes to a balance
between services for the general population and services for the elderly population.
33

NAICS
Code
Table 10
Statewide List of SCSEP-Relevant Targeted Industries
NAICS Industry Title
Rankings
for
Industries
with Most
Jobs 10
Rankings
for
Industries
Adding the
Most Jobs
Rankings
for Fastest-
Growing
Industries 11
6111 Elementary & Secondary Schools 1 1 4
9399 Local Government 2 7
7222 Limited-Service Eating Places 3 3
7221 Full-Service Restaurants 4 2 7
6221 General Medical & Surgical Hospitals 5 6
4529 Other General Merchandise Stores 6 10
5613 Employment Services 7 5 5
4451 Grocery Stores 8 14
6216 Home Health Care Services 9 4 1
6211 Offices of Physicians 10 8 2
9299 State Government 11 16
9199 Federal Government 12
5221 Depository Credit Intermediation 13 11
5617 Services to Buildings & Dwellings 14 12
6244 Child Day Care Services 15 9 6
6231 Nursing Care Facilities 13
4441 Building Material & Supplies Dealers 15
6241 Individual & Family Services 3
10 Industries with the most jobs ranking on this list have at least one percent of the total jobs statewide, or 105,000 jobs.
11 Industries with the fastest-growing ranking on this list are projected to add at least 18,000 jobs between 2004 and
2014.
34

SOC
Code
Table 11
Statewide List of SCSEP-Relevant High-Priority Occupations
Occupation Title
Rankings for
Occupations with
Most Projected
Annual Average
Job Openings 12
Rankings for
Occupations
Adding the
Most Jobs
41-2031 Retail Salespersons 1 1
35-3021 Combined Food Preparation &
Serving Workers
41-2011 Cashiers 3
2 2
Rankings for
Fastest-
Growing
Occupations 13
39-9021 Personal & Home Care Aides 4 3 2
39-9011 Child Care Workers 5 6
43-4051 Customer Service Representatives 6 4
43-9061 Office Clerks, General 7 9
37-2011 Janitors & Cleaners, excluding
Maids & Housekeeping Cleaners
43-6011 Executive Secretaries &
Administrative Assistants
8 5
9 11
25-9041 Teacher Assistants 10 7
31-1011 Home Health Aides 11 10 1
43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, & Audit
Clerks
43-4171 Receptionists & Information Clerks 13 12
31-1012 Nursing Aides, Orderlies, &
Attendants
43-6014 Secretaries, excluding Legal,
Medical, & Executive
53-3033 Truck Drivers, Light 16
12
14 8
Sources: TRACER Web site, Industrial & Occupational Projections, TWC Labor Market & Career
Information.
15
12 Occupations on this list ranked with most average job openings are projected to add at least 4,100 jobs between
2004 and 2014.
13 Fastest-growing occupations on this list had 2,500 or more workers employed in 2004 and are projected to grow at
least 34 percent between 2004 and 2014.
35

Most jobs and careers will require some degree of computer literacy. As a result, most
community service assignments must include opportunities to learn, practice, and refine
computer skills.
Grantees recruit host agencies with these criteria in mind:
• Community service assignment options that are a good match with participant’s training needs
and the needs of local employers
• Proximity of the assignment to the participant’s residence
• Commitment to providing quality training, supervision, and support for SCSEP participants
• Potential for, and/or the ability of, the host agency to meet special participant needs, such as
providing assistive technology needs or English as a Second Language (ESL) training
• Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
• Provision of a safe and beneficial working environment that supports a participant’s ability to
carry out SCSEP assignments and obtain employment
• Agreement to give SCSEP participants priority consideration for relevant job openings and
consideration of track record for hiring previous participants
• Opportunities for career advancement for entry-level employees
• Agreement to comply with SCSEP regulations and Grantee policies and procedures
Some types of training positions arranged by Grantees at host agencies include data entry clerk,
file clerk, retail salesperson, maintenance person, janitor, museum docent, library clerk, food
service staff, child care worker, and customer service representative.
Grantees work closely with host agency supervisors to ensure training assignments develop
participants’ transferable skill sets and prepare them for high-priority occupations. Grantees
encourage host agencies to train participants in the skills needed to be successful in employment
at the host agency.
NAPCA, which operates through the Chinese Community Center (CCC) in Houston, has
participants that speak many different Asian languages. As a result, NAPCA has an additional
criterion for host agencies: their staff must speak the same language as the participant. If
participants are bilingual in English, they may be assigned as participant staff and provide
valuable assistance with translations for participants.
d. Developing or Finding Additional Skills Training Opportunities
With the assistance of online labor market information and consultation with Texas Workforce
Centers, regional economic development staff, and local business partners, Grantees in PY’07–
PY’08 are becoming more knowledgeable about:
• local industry sectors that:
‣ are expanding;
‣ have the most job openings; or
‣ have emerging or evolving occupations;
• local high-priority occupations; and
• skill sets required by local employers.
36

O*Net, a free online source of occupational information, is useful for matching participants’
skills with relevant occupations, as well as identifying the skill sets generally required for
specific occupations.
Host agencies also are encouraged to include participants in any skill training opportunities
offered outside of the normal community service assignment that may enhance the participant’s
potential for employment. Some of the training opportunities arranged by host agencies outside
of participants’ community service assignments have included case management training,
advanced teaching skills, curator and research training, and CPR training.
All Texas Grantees but one intend to apply for additional training funds in their applications for
PY’08–PY’09 funding. Grantees will pursue opportunities to provide computer training early in
participants’ training. With an early, short, intensive introduction to a combination of basic
keyboarding, computer literacy, software, and/or Internet skills, participants will be able to
provide useful services for host agencies much earlier in their community service assignments,
and accelerate their learning curve in becoming computer savvy and job ready.
As described earlier for rural areas, Grantees will pursue several strategies to expand
opportunities for participants’ specialized training, including software purchases and online
training. Grantees will also coordinate with Boards and Texas Workforce Centers to encourage
local community colleges and school districts to expand short-term, intensive training on:
• basic skills;
• General Educational Development (GED);
• ESL and vocational ESL;
• computer skills; and
• specialized skills training that is relevant to local targeted industries and high-priority
occupations.
NAPCA’s subgrantee, CCC, reports that Asian and Pacific Islander participants come from all
parts of Houston—Texas’ largest city in terms of square miles and population. This situation
presents special transportation and scheduling challenges for arranging ESL and other classes for
participants. Although CCC offers ESL, GED, and other classes, some of which are off-site, it is
difficult for most of CCC’s participants to attend. TWC will continue to seek options to address
language barriers for LEP participants who speak diverse languages and who are scattered
throughout the city.
Grantees will research the availability of no-cost or low-cost curricula that are relevant for skill
sets and occupations in demand. For example, TWC will soon make available a downloadable,
80-hour retail sales curriculum. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) will soon offer three
industry-focused curricula on sales and service, health care, and manufacturing at no charge.
These curricula are specifically designed for adults with LEP—i.e., English levels 1 and 2.
Grantees will coordinate with Boards and Texas Workforce Centers to encourage community
colleges to teach these and other short-term, industry-focused curricula, which are relevant to
participants’ career objectives and local employers’ needs.
37

TWC has funded several workforce literacy projects targeting LEP job seekers. Recently, TWC
published the LEP Guide for Workforce Professionals
(http://www.twc.state.tx.us/boards/guides/lep_guide_all.pdf) to assist Boards and Texas
Workforce Center staff, as well as education and training professionals, in working with
employers to design and deliver effective workforce training for the growing LEP workforce in
Texas. TWC will continue to seek and promote effective training opportunities that combine
vocational English with short-term occupational training for LEP individuals, including SCSEP
participants.
Texas Workforce Centers offer a variety of training workshops to all center customers, including
workshops on résumés, job search techniques, soft skills, interviewing, communications, and
career planning. Some Texas Workforce Centers also offer computer classes or make their
computer rooms available for Grantee classes. Job club meetings are also available for
participants to attend. Grantees will encourage Texas Workforce Centers to coenroll, when
possible, participants seeking full-time employment, so that participants can take advantage of
additional training resources in addition to the core services described above.
Grantees will explore specialized training opportunities with employers. For example, HEB, a
regional Texas supermarket chain, has provided cashier training for participants so when there
are cashier job openings, participants already have the basic knowledge and skills required.
Other examples that have been successful are:
• call center training;
• teacher assistant training provided by some school districts; and
• nurse aide/home health aide/personal care attendant training provided by home health
agencies and nursing homes.
Grantees will encourage more on-the-job experience (OJE) as a training and employment
strategy. Most Grantees have not used OJE extensively as a training-employment retention
strategy. Yet these private sector internships offer both employers and older job seekers with the
opportunity to determine, on a trial basis, if the job seeker and the specific job opening and
employer culture are a good match. OJEs are particularly suitable for those participants who
have most of the required skills but need to:
• polish their skills;
• learn employer-specific technologies and procedures;
• increase their self-confidence; and
• ease their transition from training to unsubsidized employment.
Grantees will share—both informally and in structured quarterly discussions—their successes,
challenges, lessons learned, and other insights on training provided by host agencies, Texas
Workforce Centers, community colleges, OJEs, and other training providers.
38

Section 6. Increasing Participant Placement in Unsubsidized Employment and Employer
Outreach
The state’s overall goals are for all Grantees to meet or exceed their Entered Employment
performance targets negotiated with DOL and to demonstrate continuous improvement in the
number of participants successfully placed and retained in unsubsidized employment. To meet
these goals, Grantees will employ several strategies to:
• develop partnerships with employers;
• identify employment opportunities with established career ladders;
• place individuals in industries and occupations that have high-growth or substantial
employment; and
• support retention of participants in unsubsidized employment.
a. Engaging and Developing Partnerships with Employers
Grantees will work closely with Boards and Texas Workforce Centers—particularly Business
Services Units (BSUs)—local chambers of commerce, and other economic development
organizations to:
• find out which employers are hiring; and
• contact employers to find out the skills and qualities needed to be successful in these jobs.
In addition to pursuing partnerships with employers that are hiring, Grantees will pursue
partnerships with employers that:
• are host agencies that may have job openings for individuals with the same or similar skill
requirements;
• have successfully placed previous Grantee participants;
• are listed as AARP’s National Employer Team, which is committed to hiring seniors;
• are identified in online labor market information as major employers in local targeted
industries; or
• are identified by the local wisdom of Boards and business organizations as more receptive to
hiring senior Texans.
Two Grantees—SER–Jobs for Progress National and Experience Works—have staff whose
specific responsibilities are to network with employers and community organizations. Grantees
will seek to attend chamber of commerce meetings and other business networking opportunities
to expand their networks in the employer community. TWC’s Workforce Business Services
department also will encourage Boards’ BSUs to consider the older worker pool when
addressing the hiring needs of local employers.
Grantees must view both employers and participants as customers. To bridge the divide between
the business and education/social service spheres, Grantees will need to emphasize their
commitment to assisting employers to find and hire workers with the needed skills and qualities.
In a 2007 research report by the University of Indianapolis, six of the top seven most important
qualities sought by employers are often found in older job seekers. These qualities include:
• commitment to doing quality work;
• strong customer service orientation;
39

• getting along with other employees;
• dependability in times of crisis;
• able to pass a drug test; and
• consistent, reliable performance. 14
Communications with employers must be concise and focused on results. As noted in a recent
Webinar on employer outreach strategies 15 , workforce intermediaries—including Grantees—need
to market access to trained workers as a business service solution that adds value to companies,
rather than marketing the idea that hiring older workers is the right thing to do. Grantees will ask
employers to describe the skills, knowledge, attitudes, and qualities they are looking for. They
also will consult with employers about how SCSEP can bypass application hurdles.
Understanding the hiring process will help build relationships over time with private sector
employers in local targeted industries.
Several employer outreach initiatives will be pursued over the next four years. TWC will invite
Grantees, Boards, Texas Workforce Centers, DADS, AAAs, and senior-friendly employers to form
a workgroup to explore and implement several initiatives, including the following:
• Developing a coordinated effort to annually organize and publicize statewide and local events
promoting National Employ Older Workers Week (NEOWW) in September. In the past, TWC
has issued press releases to publicize NEOWW and has forwarded NEOWW materials in
English and Spanish to Boards for distribution in Texas Workforce Centers. The goal would
be for Grantees, Boards, and TWC to coordinate a state-level NEOWW event with
participation by the Governor, other prominent elected officials, state and local workforce
executives, business leaders, and other stakeholders. The event could be publicized throughout
the Texas workforce system, to the more than 350 chambers of commerce that are members of
the Texas Association of Business, and through other media channels. Local events may
include holding senior job fairs, hosting other public events honoring older workers, and
developing articles and media spots featuring events and older worker stories of interest.
Awards for Outstanding Older Workers and Outstanding Host Agencies could be given at this
event.
Timeline: PY’08–PY’09
PY’09–PY’10
PY’10–PY’11
1st phase of expansion of publicity and events
2nd phase of expansion of publicity and events, culminating
in a state-level event
3rd phase of expansion of publicity and events, extending to
additional local areas
• Developing a modifiable silver tool kit—which includes information for employers on the
benefits of hiring older workers, how to attract and retain older workers, and characteristics of
a “senior-friendly” workplace. Grantees and Boards could use the tool kit for employer
outreach on behalf of older job seekers, featuring common—rather than conflicting or
competing—messages. Boards that are already proactive in conducting outreach to employers
14 University of Indianapolis, Center for Aging and Community, Gray Matters. Opportunities and Challenges for
Indiana’s Workforce. Phase II. A Workforce Conundrum, n.d., p. 10.
15 Stacking the Deck: Effective Strategies for Engaging Employers, Workforce3one Webinar, January 17, 2008.
40

on behalf of older workers will be an especially important resource for the workgroup. The
tool kit would include existing materials as well as new materials. Electronic copies of the
materials would be disseminated to all Boards, Texas Workforce Centers, and Grantees.
Timeline: PY’08–PY’09 Develop and disseminate materials/kit
• Exploring the possibility of developing and publicizing an online statewide list of seniorfriendly
employers. The concept is to establish criteria for employers who are older-workerfriendly,
invite employers to submit assurances that they meet all the criteria, and then
publicize this senior-friendly recognition on TWC’s Web site and in other venues.
Timeline: PY’08–PY’09 Research the process/criteria, determine feasibility, and
recommend whether and how to proceed at the state level.
PY’09–PY’10 If the decision is to implement, establish a steering committee
to develop an action plan, including finalizing the criteria
and a process for self-attestation, designing a Web site, and
developing a marketing plan to publicize an invitation for
employers to participate. Share the action plan with Boards
that may be interested in implementing the senior-friendly
employer list locally.
PY’10–PY’11 If the decision is to implement, set a goal to have several
employers listed by the end of the program year.
• Exploring the possibility of developing annual awards for exemplary employers, outstanding
older workers, excellence in media, and outstanding SCSEP Board/Texas Workforce Center
collaboration. Experience Works’ awards for large employers, small-to-mid-sized employers,
and nonprofit employers could be extended to include nominations from all Texas Grantees.
Nominations for these awards could be judged by Texas Grantees and could be presented at
TWC’s Annual Workforce Conference.
Timeline: PY’08–PY’09 Consult with other states and awards programs to research
best practices.
PY’09–PY’10 Gather input from relevant stakeholders, research potential
corporate sponsors, and determine feasibility. Decide
whether and which awards to implement, establish a steering
committee, and develop an action plan.
PY’10–PY’11 If the decision is to implement, carry out an action plan,
culminating in awards at TWC’s Annual Workforce
Conference in fall 2011.
• Developing and offering concise information on older workers and best practices for Texas
Business Conferences and other venues attended by employers.
Timeline: PY’08–PY’09 Provide selected elements from the silver tool kit, research
exhibit/booth possibilities, and offer the kit for Texas
Business Conferences beginning in fall 2008.
41

• Expanding TWC’s SCSEP Web site to reflect a statewide perspective on senior issues, best
practices, and resources and useful links. Phase 1 of Web site enhancement occurred in early
2008, adding Grantee field staff contacts by county. Phase 2 may include adding information
specifically for employers, Boards and Texas Workforce Centers, potential participants,
potential host agencies, and the general public. Grantees, BSUs, employers, and other
stakeholders will be invited to provide input, ideas, and feedback on the Web site design and
contents.
Timeline: Fall 2008 Request input from stakeholders on Web site enhancements.
2009 Implement Web site enhancements.
b. Identifying Employment Opportunities with Established Career Ladders
Grantees will use the following strategies to identify relevant career ladders for SCSEP
participants:
• Research career pathways and ladders using Web sites such as the National Association of
State Directors of Career and Technical Consortium, Career Ladders Handbook, and TWC’s
Labor Market and Career Information, specifically “Pathways to Personal Independence.”
• Consult with Texas Workforce Centers regarding career ladders that are relevant for senior
Texans in the local community.
c. Placing Individuals in Industries and Occupations with High Growth or Substantial
Employment
Grantees will employ the following strategies at the local level to ensure that SCSEP participants
are placed in targeted industries and high-priority occupations:
• Research labor market information and consult with Boards, Texas Workforce Centers,
economic development agencies, chambers of commerce, and local business partners to
identify:
‣ targeted industries and high-priority occupations appropriate for seniors;
‣ local employers who are hiring; and
‣ the skills and qualities needed to be successful in these jobs, hiring requirements,
application period, starting wages, and hiring protocol.
• Continue to strengthen initial assessments of participant skills, knowledge, interests, aptitudes,
and qualities to assist participants with defining career objectives that are relevant for the
participant’s interests and abilities and local business needs. Assess the participant’s barriers
and skill gaps to generate detailed IEPs with timelines for OJT, specialized training, and
support services to address these challenges.
• Continue to ensure that host agency assignments provide skill training that is relevant for
participant career objectives and employer needs.
42

• Continue to develop effective relationships with participants and monitor their training
progress closely so that Grantees can gauge when participants are truly ready to start looking
for employment and can intervene or revise IEPs, as appropriate, to meet participants’ needs.
Job readiness is a measure of not only IEP goal attainment but the participant’s state of mind.
Grantees counsel and monitor participants to promote a motivated attitude. SER–Jobs for
Progress National even offers a 30-hour course for all participants who have the necessary
job skills to ensure they have the confidence and motivation required for a successful job
search.
• Continue to coordinate with Texas Workforce Centers to provide effective job search
preparation and support. All participants are required to register with a Texas Workforce
Center and with WorkInTexas.com, TWC’s online employment resource that matches
employers with qualified job seekers.
• Follow-up frequently with participants in OJE arrangements to ensure that participants have
the skills, confidence, and qualities to be successful in the job. Grantees will intervene as
needed early on to resolve any obstacles to successful employment.
• Offer and honor participants’ right of refusal of a job if they feel unprepared or unsuited for
the job.
d. Retention Activities
In addition to the strategies listed above under “Placing Individuals in Industries and
Occupations with High Growth or Substantial Employment,” Grantees will do the following:
• Follow up with participants as soon as possible after placement in unsubsidized jobs, so that
support services or other needed interventions can be provided as soon as needed to promote
retention. Follow-ups must meet DOL’s follow-up requirements and also provide feedback
on participants’ job satisfaction.
• Follow up with employers to ensure satisfaction with the progress of the placed participant.
Ask employers to contact Grantees if placed participants need any assistance or intervention
to remain, thrive, and advance on the job.
e. Increasing Placements in Unsubsidized Jobs
In addition to the strategies listed above under “Placing Individuals in Industries and
Occupations with High Growth or Substantial Employment,” Grantees will implement the
following strategies:
• Continue to inform participants and host agencies during initial orientations and throughout
participants’ SCSEP tenure that SCSEP is a temporary training program, not an employment
program. The goal of SCSEP is for participants to obtain unsubsidized employment.
43

• Use online resources such as job searches, including WorkInTexas.com, RetiredBrains.com,
RetirementJobs.com, Seniors4Hire.org, seniorjobbank.org, National Older Worker Career
Center’s Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) Program, 16 and Workforce50.com. 17
• Assist participants in taking advantage of online advice to older job seekers, such as
AARP.com, Monster.com, and Quintscareer.com.
Additional online resources developed by TWC’s nationally recognized Labor Market and
Career Information Department include:
‣ Tips on Work Search, Interviews, and Résumés Web page;
‣ Occupation and Skill Computer-Assisted Researchers (OSCAR); and
‣ Texas WorkPrep Learning Management System, which includes the online courses,
Texas Job Hunter’s Guide and Succeed at Work.
f. Specialized Training Plans
• Pursuing low-cost or no-cost computer training for most participants before they report to
their community service assignment or early in their assignment. The sooner participants
develop basic computer proficiency, the more quickly they will be able to learn additional
computer skills and provide useful community services at their host agencies. Free or lowcost
training is often available at libraries, Texas Workforce Centers, school districts’
community education programs, Goodwill, and community colleges. AARP’s WorkSearch
and Experience Works’ JobReady provide:
‣ skills and knowledge training for different occupations;
‣ software training that crosses most industries;
‣ testing and certification of skills learned; and
‣ comprehensive assessment and local job search functions.
• Pursuing OJE agreements with local employers.
• Pursuing specialized training opportunities through employers in which a job opening is not
required. Participants attend training, such as cashier training, so that when job openings are
available, participants will be trained and ready for placement.
• Pursuing certificate training opportunities for high-priority occupations and/or in targeted
industries. For example, Experience Works has had participants take teacher assistant
classroom training and then do six-week internships to receive a certificate from a local
school district that then hired them.
• Identifying relevant curricula for short-term training that is free or low-cost and encouraging
local training providers, such as community colleges or TEA’s Texas Learns (adult
education), to offer training in these areas. For example, TWC plans to post a free
16 SEE matches experienced seniors with jobs in environmental, conservation, and natural resource programs,
including both clerical and professional jobs.
17 Online resources for older job seekers cited in DOL’s Training and Employment Notice 34-07, issued on March 4,
2008, and entitled “Release and Availability of Current Strategies to Employ and Retain Older Workers Report.”
44

downloadable 80-hour retail sales curriculum. Another example of industry-focused
curricula is TEA’s soon-to-be-released curricula in sales and service, health care, and
manufacturing. These curricula are targeted to LEP individuals at the lowest English
competency levels (levels 1 and 2). TWC will explore the involvement of SCSEP
participants in pilot training opportunities for these curricula.
• Pursuing or providing transferable workplace skills training. For example, SER–Jobs for
Progress National provides 30 hours of training for participants who are close to being job
ready, but need a little more self-assurance and motivation. Community colleges and Texas
Workforce Centers will be encouraged to offer more transferable workplace skills courses.
g. How the State Will Work to Ensure the State Subgrantee is Meeting Its Negotiated
Entered Employment Performance Target
TWC’s SCSEP grant manager and the subgrantee’s project director confer at least weekly to
discuss a variety of topics. TWC will also institute monthly conference calls with the subgrantee’s
project director, regional director, and other staff as appropriate to review project goals,
performance, accomplishments, and concerns. Currently, SPARQ’s management reports can be
used to determine the status of waiting lists, enrollments, and follow-ups, etc. To keep up with
changes in SPARQ reporting requirements, TWC’s subgrantee, Experience Works, is in the
process of updating its internal performance/management report to reflect the QPR’s revised
format. When this process is completed, TWC and Experience Works will be able to review the
current status of performance targets on a much more frequent basis. Accomplishments, concerns,
and the efficacy of strategies related to training, placement, and retention will also be discussed.
TWC’s grant manager and contract manager will both conduct annual on-site visits to review
program operations and contract compliance, meet with staff, and review records related to
training, placement, and retention. The grant manager works closely with the contract manager on
programmatic issues and performance measures. The grant manager plans to visit or contact field
staff, participants, and host agencies semiannually to get a better sense of how the program
interfaces with participants and host agencies.
Both TWC and Experience Works are committed to taking advantage of all technical assistance
opportunities—whether face-to-face, online, or through printed materials and media resources—
that promote performance improvement as well as the continuous improvement approach of
services provided to senior Texans. TWC and Experience Works participated in pilot telephone
training sessions on Common Measures in October and November 2007. In March 2008, three
TWC staff members and two Experience Works staff members participated in DOL’s Technical
Assistance Training sessions in Dallas, Texas. The Texas team developed Performance
Improvement Plans (PIPs) for the Retention and Average Earnings performance measures. The
development of these PIPs included:
• reviewing performance trends and analyzing performance data;
• using a diagnostic checklist to determine the source(s) of the problem;
• developing an action plan with time frames;
• noting technical assistance required;
45

• providing for monitoring; and
• recognizing how actions to improve one performance measure may have positive or negative
effects on another performance measure.
TWC expects that the Retention and especially Average Earnings performance measures will
continue to be the most challenging measures for Experience Works. TWC will continue to
implement and refine the PIPs based on the performance data and lessons learned in PY’08–PY’09
and beyond.
46

Section 7. Community Service Needs
Grantees will use AAAs, United Way, Community Action Agencies, and Area 2-1-1 coordinators,
as well as selected local government officials and informal networks with colleagues in local
organizations and agencies, to identify the localities and populations for which community service
projects like SCSEP are most needed.
Timeline:
Grantees will confer with community organizations annually regarding the
community needs assessment. Grantees will review host agencies annually to
ensure that community service assignments represent a balance of services for the
general community and for the elderly and are focused to the extent possible on
services in areas identified as the greatest need and for populations most-in-need.
Host agencies will also be evaluated on their support for SCSEP’s dual goals of
community service and increased placements in unsubsidized employment, and on
whether participants are receiving the skills training that is relevant for their
career objectives and employer needs.
47

Section 8. Strategies for Coordinating with Other Programs, Initiatives, and Entities
Grantees will pursue both state- and local-level strategies to strengthen partnerships and working
relationships in each of the categories below. Statewide communications planned are described
in Section 10.
a. Title I WIA Activities, Boards, and Texas Workforce Centers
State-level strategies:
• Monitor status of MOUs and remind Grantees and Boards when MOU expiration dates are
within three months. Table 12 lists the current MOUs by workforce area.
• Develop an MOU template that:
‣ lists coordination items to be included in MOUs, as well as options to consider including
in MOUs;
‣ provides for MOUs to be reviewed and updated as needed at least every two years; and
‣ may be a single umbrella template for each Board and the Grantees serving its workforce
area. Currently half, or 14, of Texas’ 28 Boards have more than one Grantee serving
their workforce area.
The purpose of the MOU template is to define roles and responsibilities more clearly and
develop some consistency in the scope of items addressed in MOUs. TWC will facilitate the
participation of Boards and Grantees in the MOU template development process. For
example, one likely required responsibility would be conducting employer outreach on behalf
of older job seekers. Each Board and its respective Grantee(s) would determine how this
outreach would be accomplished. An example of an optional item in an MOU might be
whether to deem SCSEP participants eligible for WIA adult services as allowed in Section
510 of the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006. The template will not dictate the
format, but will list the items that must be addressed in MOUs. Boards and Grantees are
welcome to include additional items in their MOUs.
• Coordinate with Boards and Texas Workforce Centers to conduct a statewide outreach
campaign to employers and the general public, as previously described in Section 6.
• Invite Boards, Texas Workforce Centers, and Grantees to attend an annual meeting to discuss
coordination on behalf of older job seekers, including employer outreach and how each can
benefit from working together to improve services for senior Texans. For example, the
annual meeting could be held in conjunction with TWC’s Annual Workforce Conference.
• Commit to proposing sessions on older worker issues and best practices at the TWC Annual
Workforce Conference.
• Commit to proposing at least one breakout session on older worker issues and best practices
at Workforce Forums held twice each year.
48

• Explore the possibility of using federal or state funding sources for training in which older
job seekers would be given preference for training slots.
• Through TWC’s Workforce Business Services, encourage employers and Boards’ BSUs to
consider the untapped older worker pool to meet the hiring needs of local employers.
• Seek more substantive participation of SCSEP in TWC’s strategic plans and updates.
Grantees’ current local-level strategies:
Grantees work closely with Texas Workforce Centers and solicit referrals from them. Currently,
42 Grantee staff members are colocated at Texas Workforce Centers. All SCSEP participants
are required to register with their local Texas Workforce Center. Through partnerships with
Boards and Texas Workforce Centers, participants have access to all core workforce services,
including:
• orientation to workforce services;
• job counseling;
• job placement (employment referral);
• enhanced assessment and skills testing;
• assistance with career path through preparation of employment-related information;
• referrals to workforce training;
• referrals to partner agencies for support services; and
• referrals to other services as needed.
Services available in Texas Workforce Centers are promoted by Grantees in their participant and
employer outreach efforts. Participants are often assigned to Texas Workforce Centers to receive
training and assist in expanding services offered. They serve as greeters, resource room
assistants, training facilitators, clerical assistants, and older worker specialists. Currently, there
are 155 participants, or 5 percent, who are assigned to Texas Workforce Centers for their
community service assignments.
Routine Texas Workforce Center partner meetings are held, and Grantees interact regularly with
partners to develop a clear understanding of the services they offer. Grantees assist Texas
Workforce Centers and partners in understanding and addressing the needs of older workers.
Grantees’ new local-level strategies:
• Attend Board meetings and provide brief updates to Board staff and Texas Workforce Center
staff on SCSEP activities and successes in the workforce area.
• Participate in Texas Workforce Center partner meetings.
• Designate one Grantee contact person for the Board/Texas Workforce Center.
• Seek Texas Workforce Center agreement to share list of older job seekers on a regular basis to
increase targeted referrals.
49

Table 12
Status of MOUs Between Boards and Grantees
No. Workforce Area Grantee MOU? Expiration Date/Status
1 Panhandle SSA Y no expiration date
2 South Plains SSA Y no expiration date
3 North Texas
SSA Y no expiration date
EW (State & Federal) Y 8/30/09
4 North Central Texas
EW (Federal) Y 8/30/09
SER Y no expiration date
5 Tarrant County SER Y no expiration date
6 Dallas County AARP Y no expiration date
7 North East Texas EW (Federal) Y 8/30/09
8 East Texas EW (State & Federal) Y 8/30/09
9 West Central Texas
SSA Y no expiration date
EW (State & Federal) Y no expiration date
10 Upper Rio Grande
EW (State) Y 8/30/09
AARP Y no expiration date
11 Permian Basin
EW (State & Federal) Y 8/30/09
SSA Y no expiration date
12 Concho Valley
AARP Y 8/30/09
EW (Federal) Y 8/30/09
13 Heart of Texas
EW (State & Federal) Y no expiration date
SER Y no expiration date
14 Capital Area AARP Y 8/31/09
15 Rural Capital Area AARP Y no expiration date
16 Brazos Valley EW (State & Federal) Y 8/30/10
17 Deep East Texas EW (State & Federal) Y 8/30/09
18 South East Texas
SER Y 10/2/06
EW (Federal) Y no expiration date
19 Golden Crescent EW (State) Y no expiration date
20 Alamo
AARP Y no expiration date
EW (State) Y 8/30/09
21 South Texas
AARP Y no expiration date
EW (State) Y 8/30/10
22 Coastal Bend
AARP Y no expiration date
EW/State Y 9/30/13
23 Lower Rio Grande Valley
AARP Y no expiration date
EW (State) Y 8/30/08
24 Cameron County AARP Y 6/30/08
25 Texoma EW (Federal) Y no expiration date
26 Central Texas EW/Federal Y no expiration date
27 Middle Rio Grande
AARP Y no expiration date
EW (State) Y 8/30/10
AARP
Y no expiration date
NAPCA
28 Gulf Coast
SER Y no expiration date
EW (State & Federal) Y no expiration date
50

• Collaborate as appropriate with Boards and Texas Workforce Centers on employer outreach on
behalf of senior Texans and on continuous improvement of senior service strategies.
• Seek involvement in Board plan development processes.
• Encourage coenrollment in WIA, where possible, for participants seeking full-time
employment.
b. Activities Carried Out under Other Titles of the Older Americans Act
Grantees will employ the following strategies to promote an ongoing dialog and coordination
with AAAs:
State-level strategies:
• TWC and DADS will share information monthly or bimonthly.
• DADS will be invited to participate in the annual SCSEP State Plan update.
• TWC and DADS will attend each others’ annual conferences, when possible.
Grantees’ local-level strategies:
• Ask to serve on AAAs’ Regional Advisory Councils.
• Attend AAAs’ Aging Service Provider quarterly meetings.
• If assistance is needed for training and employment services with the deaf and hard of
hearing, follow up with DARS’ regional specialists to schedule interpreters and other
communication access services (www.dars.state.tx.us/services/regionalspecialist.shtml).
TWC has an interagency contract with DARS to provide this service, including sensitivity
training, at no charge to TWC, Board, or contractor staff.
c. Public and Private Entities and Programs that Provide Services to Older Americans
State-level strategy:
Share information on senior-related issues and activities with state-level service and support
agencies, such as the United Way and Texas Association of Community Action Agencies.
Grantees’ local-level strategies:
• Use 2-1-1 and other directories of service and support organizations to identify entities and
programs in the community that provide referrals and support services to seniors.
51

• Coordinate with local service providers and community stakeholders to assess needs and
develop solutions for local transportation services, as discussed previously in Section 4.
• Participate in meetings, as appropriate, with senior service providers, both public and private.
For example, NAPCA’s subgrantee, the Chinese Community Center, attends monthly United
Way meetings and stays in touch with other local service providers.
• Communicate and coordinate with DARS and other members of the local disability
community regarding activities, resources, and services for seniors with disabilities in the
workforce area. There are three Aging and Disability Resource Center projects in Texas:
‣ Tarrant County (north Texas);
‣ Bexar County (south Texas); and
‣ Bell, Milam, Hamilton, Coryell, and Lampasas counties (central Texas).
The DOL-funded Texas Disability Navigator Initiative, which has been implemented in 14
workforce areas and is facilitated by TWC, is helping to increase access to employment and
training services and increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities.
• SSA reports that the “weakest link in SCSEP service delivery is the distance between towns
in Texas. This distance can be minimized by placing participant case managers and job
developers in these areas.”
d. Other Education and Training Providers
SSA has worked with the American Association for Community Colleges to expand education
and training opportunities at community colleges for low-income seniors. TWC will seek to
build on their important efforts.
State-level strategies:
• Participate in meetings with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB),
which oversees community colleges; DARS, which administers vocational rehabilitation
programs; Texas Learns, TEA’s manager of adult and community education grants; and
state-level literacy and adult education organizations to discuss needs and resources related to
serving older individuals.
• Through TWC’s Workforce Business Services department and its contacts with community
colleges on behalf of the Skills Development Fund, encourage colleges to offer more shortterm
skills training courses in high-growth, high-demand occupations and industries that are
appropriate for older workers.
• Attend relevant THECB, DARS, TEA, and state-level literacy and ESL meetings and
conferences, when possible, to gain more insight into best practices, resources, and
opportunities to leverage and expand education, training, and vocational rehabilitation
resources for seniors.
52

Grantees’ local-level strategies:
• Continue to utilize computer, adult basic education (ABE), GED, continuing education, and
other targeted training courses at community colleges, taking advantage of course discounts
for individuals 55 to 64 years of age and free classes for individuals 65 years of age and older
at community colleges. Libraries and community-based organizations also offer ABE, GED,
and ESL classes.
• Work with Boards to encourage community colleges to create short-term education and
training programs that are relevant for local targeted industries and high-priority occupations.
• Encourage community colleges to develop education and training programs that are relevant
for older people’s learning styles, particularly with regard to pace.
• Continue two-way referrals to local vocational rehabilitation programs.
e. Other Labor Market and Job Training Initiatives
Previously, Grantees have not participated in planning processes to apply for DOL-funded
industry training initiatives. To date, projects in the advanced manufacturing, aerospace,
automotive, biotechnology, construction, health care, and transportation industries have been
funded in Texas by the President’s High Growth Job Training Initiative. The President’s
Community-Based Job Training Grants funded 11 private-public sector projects for training in
the advanced manufacturing, healthcare, construction, aerospace, and information technology
industries at community colleges. Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development
(WIRED) has funded one project thus far in advanced manufacturing for the South Texas Board.
In April 2008, DOL announced that the Upper Rio Grande Board was awarded a Regional
Innovation Grant to support the design and development of comprehensive regional and strategic
regional plans.
Each of the Texas Grantees will be contacted to encourage tapping older jobseekers, either
directly or indirectly, in workforce training efforts. However, the state’s goal will be to ensure—
through closer coordination with Boards and Texas Workforce Centers, economic development
entities, community colleges, and other stakeholders—that Grantees will be involved in the
planning efforts for grant applications and regional initiatives.
f. Leveraging Resources from Other Key Partners
Grantees rely on a variety of local partnerships and networks to:
• expand recruitment outreach;
• facilitate access to workforce programs and services;
• increase the types and amount of support services available for SCSEP participants and
graduates; and
• expand the training opportunities available to participants.
53

Recruiting efforts involve Texas Workforce Centers, faith-based and community-based
organizations, AAAs, local print and broadcast media, and other entities to increase enrollments
and minimize the lag time between participant exits and new enrollments. Grantees seek to
expand participant access to Texas Workforce Center programs and services by arranging for
Grantee staff to be colocated in Texas Workforce Centers, as well as arranging for a number of
Texas Workforce Centers to serve as host agencies for participants. Grantees encourage
coenrollment of SCSEP participants seeking full-time employment in WIA adult programs.
To help eliminate barriers to training, support services are provided through referrals to local
organizations or by obtaining services directly from these organizations. Participants have
access to food, health care, housing, transportation, legal assistance, tutoring in ABE and ESL,
and other services provided by:
• area churches and faith-based organizations;
• Catholic Charities;
• AAAs;
• Salvation Army;
• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs;
• Texas Workforce Centers;
• Boards;
• chambers of commerce;
• community colleges;
• community action agencies;
• homeless coalitions;
• TxDOT;
• local transit authorities;
• literacy programs;
• adult learning centers;
• Goodwill; and
• AmeriCorps.
Grantees are thinking strategically about expanding collaborations to increase training and
employment options for participants. Boards and Texas Workforce Centers provide valuable
labor market information and updates on local economic initiatives, company expansion plans,
emerging and evolving occupations, and employment opportunities for senior Texans. BSUs
conduct outreach to employers in their workforce areas. Grantees will proactively seek to
coordinate with BSUs to identify businesses that are senior-friendly and jointly conduct outreach
to employers on behalf of older jobseekers.
Employer outreach also will be used to gather specific input regarding skills and qualities needed
in high-priority occupations and to pursue OJE arrangements for job-ready participants or nearly
job-ready participants in these occupations. Grantees will seek to build partnerships with the
Retired Senior Volunteer Program and the Senior Core of Retired Executives to assist
participants whose career objectives are to start their own businesses.
54

Section 9. Avoidance of Disruptions in Service
DOL allocates SCSEP-subsidized community service slots to each county using a formula based
on the number of individuals ages 55 and older with incomes at or below 125 percent of the
federal poverty level in each county. Slots may need to be shifted for the following reasons:
• Increases or decreases in county populations, which affect the number of slots allocated per
county.
• Seeking to improve an equitable balance in counties by shifting slots from overserved areas
to underserved areas.
• Consolidation of Grantee service areas to improve efficiency of operations.
• Redistribution of Grantee service areas as a result of DOL’s Solicitation of Grant
Applications from national grantees, such as occurred in spring 2006.
When a shift in county slots is required, Texas SCSEP Grantees will use a gradual approach to
redistribute the slots via attrition and by encouraging and assisting job-ready participants to find
unsubsidized employment. Texas Grantees will also comply with the new 48-month individual
participant time limit, effective July 1, 2007, as specified in the Older Americans Act
Amendments of 2006. Texas Grantees await direction from DOL concerning new regulations
for implementing the durational limit.
When there is a change of grantee or Grantee service area, the state will proactively seek to avoid
a disruption in service for participants and host agencies. The state will host a meeting or
conference call to develop a transition plan and timetable for:
• informing participants and host agencies in advance;
• transferring records;
• holding orientations for participants and host agencies; and
• supporting continuity in administrative and programmatic functions.
55

Section 10. Improvement of SCSEP Services
a. Grantee Communications
Texas Grantees will increase the frequency of formal collaboration with each other to:
• compare alternative solutions to challenges;
• share best practices and performance progress; and
• coordinate on specific initiatives such as outreach to employers.
The size of Texas—268,581 square miles—makes it difficult to plan regularly scheduled face-toface
meetings. Grantees will schedule quarterly conference calls and additional calls as needed
to coordinate and share information. Grantees will schedule face-to-face meetings by
piggybacking on other meetings, such as:
• a meeting with Boards at TWC’s Annual Workforce Conference;
• meetings at semiannual Workforce Forums; and
• a Texas Grantee meeting during SCSEP Business Meeting/Workforce Innovations.
TWC staff will attend other Grantees’ annual meetings when possible. The state grant manager
has previously attended SER and SSA’s annual conferences.
On the local level, Grantees in the same workforce area or region are encouraged to meet
monthly or bimonthly to coordinate and support each other in their local areas.
On the national level, SSA has proposed holding an all-Grantee meeting in conjunction with
Workforce Innovations. This excellent idea will benefit all Grantees by promoting information
sharing and best practices and discussing problem-solving approaches in a variety of situations.
Texas Grantees look forward to participating.
Grantees will consider developing a list-serve for Texas Grantees and their field staff to
coordinate state-level and local-level strategies as well as facilitate sharing information and best
practices.
Timeline:
July—Texas Grantee meeting during SCSEP Business Meeting/Workforce Innovations.
July—All-Grantee meeting during Workforce Innovations.
August 2008—Initiate statewide Grantee list-serve.
April, July, October, and January—Quarterly conference calls.
February and August (approximately)—Optional Texas Grantee meeting following TWC’s
Workforce Forums.
December—Texas Grantee meeting during TWC’s Annual Conference.
b. Subgrantee Selection
Grantees will continue to review subgrantees’ accomplishments annually, monitoring and
providing technical assistance as needed. Grantees will include performance as a criterion for
selecting subgrantees and deciding whether to continue working with subgrantees.
56

Section 11. Appendices
57

Appendix 1
Designation of Responsibility for Development and Submission
ofthe Senior Community Services Employment Program State Plan
(a) Cover letter to DOL's Alexandra K. Kielty from Texas Governor Rick Perry
(b) Designation statement signed by Diane Rath, Chairperson, Texas Workforce Commission, and
Rick Perry, Governor ofTexas
58

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RICK PERRY
GOVERNOR
January 31, 2008
Ms. Alexandra K. Kielty
Office of Workforce Investment
Division of Adult Services
U.S. Department of Labor/ETA
200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room S-4209
Washington, D.C. 20210
Dear Ms. Kielty:
I am designating the Texas Workforce Commission CTWC) as the entity responsible for
developing and submitting the State Senior Community Service Employment Program Plans for
the State of Texas for 2008 and subsequent years. Enclosed is the required statement, which I
have signed along with Diane Rath, TWC Chair and Commissioner Representing the Public.
Sincerely,
Governor
RP:bop
Enclosure
59
POST OFFICE Box 12428 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 (512) 463-2000 (VOIcE)/DIAL 7-1-1 FOR RELAY SERVICES
VISIT \1\'WW.TEXASONLINE.COM TI-lE OFFICIALWEB SITE OF TI-lE STATE OF TEXAS

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
RICK PERRY
GOVERNOR
As Governor of Texas, I hereby delegate the responsibility for the development and submission
of the Senior Community Services Employment Program State Plan to the Texas Workforce
Commission. This delegation of State Plan development and submission responsibility is
consistent with state law and regulations and is to continue until further notice.
&K~eR£)
Governor ofTexas
Diane Rath, Chairperson
Texas Workforce Commission
POST OFFICE Box 12428 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 (512) 463-2000 (VOICE)/DlAL 7-1-1 FOR RELAY SERYICES

Appendix 2
Stakeholder Invitations to Provide Input for Draft SCSEP State Plan
(a) List of Addressees
(b) Copies of E-mail Invitations
1
61

List of Addressees
SCSEP Grantees:
AARP - Jim Seith, Roberto Yzaguirre,
Experience Works - Becky Scott, Wes Cowan, Dave Lack, Diane Cowan
National Asian Pacific Center on Aging - Christine Takada, Melanie Lu
SER-National- Maria Gomez
Senior Service America - Marta Ames, Chris Garland, Janet Parsons
Texas Department ofAging and Disability Services (DADS)
Betty Ford, Manager, Area Agencies on Aging
Texas Workforce Development Board Executive Directors:
Alamo WDB - Chakib Chehadi
Brazos Valley WDB - Tom Wilkinson
Cameron County WDB - Frank Castellanos
Capital Area WDB - Alan Miller
Central Texas WDB - Susan Kamas
Coastal Bend WDB - Mary Ann Rojas
Concho Valley WDB - Johnny Griffm
Dallas County WDB - Laurie Larrea
Deep East Texas WDB - Charlene Meadows
East Texas WDB - Wendell Holcombe
Golden Crescent WDB - Laura Sanders
Gulf Coast WDB - Rodney Bradshaw
Heart ofTexas WDB - Anthony C. Billings
Lower Rio Grande Valley WDB - Bonnie Gonzalez
Middle Rio Grande Valley WDB - Ricky McNiel
North Central WDB - David Setzer
North East Texas WDB - Kay O'Dell
North Texas WDB - Mona Williams Statser
Panhandle WDB - Tom Dressler
Permian Basin WDB - Willie Taylor
Rural Capital WDB - James Satterwhite
South East Texas WDB - Linda Brown Turk
South Plains WDB - Martin Aguirre
South Texas WDB - Rogelio Treviiio
Tarrant County WDB - Judy McDonald
Texoma WDB - Janie Bates
Upper Rio Grande Valley WDB - Lorenzo Reyes
West Central WDB - Mary Ross
Texas Workforce Investment Council- Marilyn Humbert
2
62

Board-recommended contacts:
• Phil Neighbors, President & CEO, San Angelo Chamber of Commerce - (325) 655-4136,
phil@sanangelo.org
• Rosie Quintella, Concho Valley COG, AAA, (325) 944-9666, rosie@cvcog.org
• Adan Dominguez, ED, Rio Grande AAA, (915) 533-0998, adand@riocog.org
• AARP, EI Paso Volunteer Information Center, (915) 595-9841
• Xavier Bafiales, ED, LULAC Project Amistac, (915) 0532-3415,
xbanales@projectamistad.com
• Doni Van Ryswyk, North Central Texas AAA, (817) 691-9293, dvanryswyk@nctcog.org
• Don Smith, United Way ofMetropolitan Tarrant County, (817) 258-8081,
dsmith@uwmtc.org
• Monita McGhee, Dallas County AAA, (214) 871-5065, (214) 871-5065,
mmcghee@ccgd.org
Business organizations:
Texas Association ofBusiness and Chambers ofCommerce - bhammond@txbiz.org
Texas Association ofMexican American Chambers ofCommerce - publicrelations@tamacc.org
Texas Minority Chambers ofCommerce & Minority Business Councils - 5 listings (sent 2/11)
Tri-County Black Chamber ofCommerce -- leondria@,tricountyblackchamber.org
Central South Texas Minority Business Council-- Jennifer@cstmbc.org'
Texas Association ofHUBs -- rmata({l)tgsaustin.com
Dallas Ft. Worth Minority Business Development Council-- business@dfwmbc.com Houston
Minority Business Council-- angela.freeman@hmbc.org
Texas AFL-CIO:
becky@texasaflocio.org
Advocates and Service Providers for Low-Income Senior Texans:
cbarasch@aarp.org; kbhatia@aarp.org; pquscard@hotmail.com; dgoertz@aarp.org;
flampkin@aarp.org; amccloskey@aarp.org; mnarvaez@aarp.org; jsanchez@aarp.org;
mcrutcher@accessmhmr.org; jmccully@accessmhmr.org; adapt@adapt.org;
mbumpas@advocacyinc.org; ngutierrez@advocacyinc.org; mmelton@advocacyinc.org;
brashin@advocacyinc.org; smurphree@advocacyinc.org; jtate@advocacyinc.org;
sruff@aacog.com; cwalsh@aacog.com; kbush@andrewscenter.com; holson@co.andrews.tx.us;
mbright@thearcoftexas.org; secretary@thearcoftexas.org; amizcles@thearcoftexas.org;
mhawkins@atcog.org; vlarry@atcog.org; dmckinnon@atcog.org;
lisa.maldonado@atcmhmr.com; lajuana.smith@atcmhmr.com; johnm@a5rcil.com;
charlotte.brooks@atcmhmr.com; phyllis.wolf@atcmhmr.com; rcrawford@bhcmhmr.org;
clove@bhcmhmr.org; jwilliamson@bhcmhmr.org; dlong@aacog.com;
lennifer.birkholz@bluebonnetmhmr.org; vick.hastings@bluebonnetmhmr.org;
booth.oquinn@bluebonnetmhmr.org; ofamia.perez@bluebonnetmhmr.org;
Victoria.garcia@bluebonnetmhmr.org; leglan@bvcog.org; bjeffries@bvcog.org;
tlopez@bvcog.org; roseh@burke-center.org; pattih@burke-center.org; dorish@burke-center.org;
dannat@burke-center.org; jashley@yahoo.com; ttocker@capcog.org; ed.parrott@cccmhmr.org;
Candice.shoaf@cccmhmr.org; anna.williamson@cccmhmr.org;
elizabeth. wells@ctmhmr.hhscn.org; alecha@clplains.org; jo@clpains.org; amyr@clplains.org;
63
3

Advocates and Service Providers for Low-Income Senior Texans (continued):
mchatell@onr.com; Michele. 0 brien@christushealth.org; Lloyd.davis@christushealth.org;
joseph.gonzalez@christushealth.org; jponce@ci.laredo.tx.us; betsy.c1eaver@cohs.net;
dborel@cotwd.org; cotwd@io.com; delia@chcog98.org; Sandra@cbcog98.org;
tony@cbcog98.org; felipa@cbcog98.org; 19onzale@cpmhmr.org; gmoreno@cpmhmr.org;
rweir@cpmhmr.org; lisaaven@hotmaiLcom; ghennesay@hotmaiLcom; liz@cvcog.org;
patsy@cvcog.org; epacheco.ctchc@tachc.org; mvera.ctchc@tachc.org; mdickson@ccdg.org;
mlatson@ccdg.org; ctoliver@ccdg.org; wowens@dallasmetrocare.com; macord@detcog.org;
Harold.cauley@detcog.org; rlhl12434@aoLcom; Brenda.barton@dentonmhmr.org;
paulad@dentonmhmr.org; toni@ucptexas.org; flo.francis@twc.state.tx.us;
Emily. taylor@twc.state.tx.us; jhullum@rescare.com; wlang@rescare.com;
asutton@rescare.com; guillermogarl@aoLcom; c11316@fm-na.com; ppabst.fbfhc@tachc.org;
vsimmons.fbfhc@tacha.org; bluejay4everjean@yahoo.com; sue.garland@fmc-na.com;
jeannine.jones@us.gambro.com; joyce.hernandez@us.gambro.com; rutheLgoss@genzyme.com;
maryh@gcrpc.org; genevab@gcrpc.org; cgrutzmacher@gulfbend.org;
mresendez@gulfbend.org; crobles@gulfbend.org; rowaida.zaidanabclkhalek@cityofhouston.net;
henry.ansah@cityofhouston.net;
jomarie.august@cityofhouston.net; nawita.hardy@cityofhouston.net;
charlesetta.lewis@cityofhouston.net; teresa.martinez@cityofhouston.net;
rose.ortega@cityofhouston.net; carolny.paige@cityofhouston.net;
donna.sullivan@cityofhouston.net; Suzanne.terry@cityofhouston.net;
Kathy.lyons@hot.cog.tx.us; amy.mcmahon@hotrmhmr.org; pegg.williams@hotrmhmr.org;
susan.adkins@hot.cog.txlus; tamra. fuentes@hot.cog.tx.us; G loria.martinez@hot.cog.tx.us ;
Jamie. perry@hot.cog.tx.us; hope.richardson@hot.cog.tx.us; ann.garner@hot.cog.tx.us;
ed.jordan@hot.tx.us; maria.okafor@hot.cog.tx.us; Sylvia.netherland@hotrmhmr.org;
steven.scheifley@hotrmhmr.org; c1aytone@helenfarabee.org; keyd@helenfarabee.org;
glenice.como@h-gac.com; Virginia.eckert@h-gac.com; gmccray@h-gac.com;
pam.mckown@hot.cog.tx.us; lisaa@lrmhmrc.org; geneb@lrmhmrc.org; glendac@lrmhmrc.org;
·lmffoundation@earthlink.net; valegria2002@yahoo.com; uperez@lrgvdc.org;
mmurdock@lubbockmhmr.org; jmcphail@maryleefoundation.org; hbarriga@echd.org;
adacost@mhd.com; cherylAG@mhmrtc.org; kiml@mhmrtc.org; stacdp@mhmrtc.org;
jeanr@mhmrtc.org; margeer@mhmrtc.ort; marthas@mhmrtc.org; neileerc@mhmrtc.org;
carmenmg@mhmrtc.org; tcollins@mhmrcv.org; gbentley@mhmrst.org; kbrown@mhmrst.org;
jwhite@mhmrst.org; bwigley@mhmrst.org; lrhodes@mhmrabv.org; asullivan@mhmrabv.org;
mhstone@cox.net; sanjuanita.galvan@mrgdc.org; kim.suiter@txh.nmss.org;
amber.mccarthy@txh.nmss.org; jhenning@nctcog.org; Ident@nortexrpc.org;
amiles@nortexrpc.org; ayoung@nortexrpc.org; kwade@txk.net; agomez@ncmhmr.org;
aleach@ncmhmr.org; mcarter@theprpc.org; scowart@prpc.cog.tx.us; morr@prpc.cog.tx.us;
jprice@prpc.cog.tx.us; vdevault@parknet.phm.org; ladrian@aaapb.com;
yhernandez@aaapb.com; plindsey@aaapb.com; sbenton@pbmhmr.com; mdelao@pbmhmr.com;
flacacata@aoLcom; ppat 1 OO@aol.com; yvonnefuentes@sbcglobaLnet;
renep@riocog.org; mmelton@seton.org; obrooks@spag.org; aggarcia@spag.org;
plara@spag.org; amartinez@spag.org;jbeasley@texashan.org; irisg@stdc.cog.tx.us;
imeldam@stdc.cog.tx.us; bmolina@stdc.cog.tx.us; arivera@stdc.cog.tx.us;
yrivera@stdc.cog.tx.us; nancyrdz@stdc.cog.tx.us; jsanchez@stdc.cog.tx.us;
toye. babb@stmhmr.org; karan.shay@stmhmr.org; gwags 14002@hotmai1.com;
64
4

Advocates and Service Providers for Low-Income Senior Texans (continued):
dforest917@aol.com; susan.davenport@texanamhmr.com; sharp@tamu.edu;
rstatman@thearcoftexas.org; jmeadours@thearcoftexas.org; bethferris@peoplepc.com;
grogers@capcog.org; wilmacrain@yahoo.com; colleen.horton@mail.utexas.edu;
lender@theseniorsource.org; carlostx@sbcglobal.net; c.parks@TXSHL.org;
mcarpenter@texoma.cog.us; ethe1@chcs.hhscn.org; anthonyj@chcs.hhscn.org;
acalvert@chcs.hhscn.org; kelley@chcs.hhscn.org; Kathy@chcs.hhscn.org;
lindare@chcs.hhscn.org; beckye@gcmhmr.com; cherylf@gcmhmr.com; cindyb@tcmhmrs.org;
satirah@tcmhmrs.org; selrod@txcouncil.com; jean1@ucptexas.org; dleatham@vitaliving.org;
rwallace@vitaliving.org; wctaaajw@swbell.net; gail. wells@wtcmhmr.org;
cruthehrford@ppri.tamu.edu; coe1dlaw@flash.net;
Advocates and Service Providers for Low-Income Senior Texans - University Researchers and
Staff:
bill.gustafson@ttu.edu; aimeeg@bcm.tmc.edu; adavila@panam.edu; arubin@mail.utexas.edu;
achenbaum@uh.edu; a-rettenmaier@tamu.edu; awoods@bcm.tmc.edu;
anke.s.runge@uth.tmc.edu; abrooks@uts.cc.utexas.edu; Barbara.cherry@ttmc.ttuhsc.edu;
barbara. pence@ttuhsc.edu; byee@utmb.edu; Belinda. vicioso@utsouthwestem.edu;
ben.dickerson@baylor.edu; bert.smith@mail.utexas.edu; betsy.jones@ttuhsc.edu;
sbrenda@utep.edu ; byoung-suk-kweon@tamu.edu; cstreeter@mail.utexas.edu;
carlosr@cortex.ama.ttuhsc.edu; cdionne@utep.edu;
carole_ashendorfUIo7988317@fax.bcm.tmc.edu; c.holahan@mail.utexas.edu; charvey@etbu.edu;
cmbrown@mail.utexas.edu; hawes@medicine.tamu.edu; cs-huang@tamu.edu;
phillipscd@medicine.tamu.edu; charles.stelle@ttu.edu; charles.mcconne1@utsouthwestem.edu;
c-glover@tamu.edu; charless@bcm.tmc.edu; Charlie.pruitt@gero.acu.edu;
charlotte.dunham@ttu.edu; harding@scs.cmm.unt.edu; chia-ying.wang@UTSouthwestem.edu;
ccollins@mail.la.utexas.edu; Christie.osuagwu@uthct.edu; cellison@mail.la.utexas.edu;
jolly@mail.utexas.edu; ctking@uts.cc.utexas.edu; marvshepherd@aiLutexas.edu;
abellc@mail.utexas.edu;ctorres@rsocsun. tamu.edu; cbuckley@mail.la.utexas.edu;
raehl@cortex.ama.ttuhsc.edu; creadyc@scs.cmm.unt.edu; yeatts@scs.cmm.unt.edu;
odonnell@mail.utexas.edu; david. wamer@maiLutexas.edu; dchiribo@mhost.utmb.edu;
umberson@mai1.la.utexas.edu; dennis_myers@baylor.edu; dzoller@ama.ttuhsc.edu;
ddinitto@maiLutexas.edu; dmoss@utep.edu; Dorothy. pace@tamuk.edu;
d.paul.johnson@ttu.edu; du.feng@ttu.edu; eb061 fl@panam.edu; bpomeroy@mail.utexas.edu;
efox@hs.ttu.edu; Elizabeth.mcdonald@utsouthwestem.edu; estevens@uh.edu;
estevens@uh.edu; emilyw@tamu.edu; efemand@mail.smu.edu; fdb@prc.utexas.edu;
goquinn@utep.edu; gayle.acton@mail.utexas.edu; gwbush@dcccd.edu; gdavid@uh.edu;
glen. provost@ttmc.ttuhsc.edu; gmcdougall@mail.nur.utexas.edu;
guy.manaster@mail.utexas.edu; gwen.sorell@ttu.edu; harriet@unt.edu;
heatherbecker@mail.utexas.edu; heather .stieglitz@utsouthwestem.edu;
htanaka@maiLutexas.edu; Eisner@cl.uh.edu; jwatson@sfasu.edu;jangel@mail.utexas.edu;
james.puckett@tamuk.edu; jsgoodwi@utmb.edu; jboes@mail.utexas.edu; jknebl@hsc.unt.edu;
jean.scott@ttu.edu; jpdavis@bcm.tmc.edu; j-savell@tamu.edu; jmchen@tauk.edu;
jrhymes@bcm.tmc.edu; jimschwab@mail.utexas.edu; johill@utep.edu; jlj@mail.utexas.edu;
jml262I @neo.tamu.edu; jmcneil@maiLutexas.edu; jstames@mail.utexas.edu;
65
5

University Researchers and Staff (continued):
joyceharris@mail.utexas.edu; jfarness@bcm.tmc.edu; jmd@hlkn.tamu.edu;
jcummins@utep.edu; kathykramer@mail.utexas.edu; tumer@scs.cmm.unt.edu;
hCmoseley@twu.edu; kapfel@mail.utexas.edu; kevan.namazi@utsouthwestem.edu;
lanie.domier@ttu.edu; mccullou@bcm.tmc.edu; ldicke@ttacs.ttu.edu; lisa_taylor@baylor.edu;
ldillon@utep.edu; ljanderson@tarleton.edu; lynne.kirk@utsouthwestem.edu;
bgillham@mail.utexas.edu; Elizabeth. paulk@utsouthwestem.edu; crismon1@mail.utexas.edu;
mpn@psyc.tamu.edu; mfhilley@mail.utexas.edu; maguilar@tamiu.edu;
marianh@admin.stedwards.edu;m.pattillo@mail.utexas.edu; musick@prc.utexas.edu;
mlknapp@mail.utexas.edu; mstratton@uh.edu; mark.sizemore@utsouthwestem.edu;
lopez@psy.utexas.edu; marvshepherd@mail.utexas.edu; mcarlson@utep.edu;
admissions@umhb.edu; marye@mail.utexas.edu; marye _ tharp@alumni.utexas.net;
mdd@hlkn.tamu.edu; lichtenstei@uthscsa.edu; m11@mail.utexas.edu; jmpatrick@tamiu.edu;
saunders@uthscsa.edu; nchoi@mail.utexas.edu; nwilson@bcm.tmc.edu;
N atalie.garry@utsouthwestem.edu; n.griffm-shirley@ttu.edu; frisbie@prc.utexas.edu;
pcarter@mail.nut.utexas.edu; patwong@mail.utexas.edu; pheller@ttmcelp.ttuhsc.edu;
Rebecca.sleeper@ttmc.ttuhsc.edu; lusky@scs.cmm.unt.edu; eakin@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu;
rhummer@prc.utexas.edu; rroush@bcm.tmc.edu; Buchanan@srph.tamushsc.edu;
rluchi@bcm.tmc.edu; bspina@mail.utexas.edu; rmapes@sagu.edu; rgreene@mail.utexas.edu;
ro bin.hilsabeck@ttmc.ttuhsc.edu; rfarrar@mail.utexas.edu; rangel@mail.la.utexas.edu;
rkstanley@utep.edu; rosemary.wilson@utsouthwestem.edu; Russell. porter@mwsu.edu;
utgero@uts.cc.utexas.edu; sselleck@bcm.tmc.edu; Sharon.k.ostwalk@uth.tmc.edu;
slaffrey@mail.utexas.edu; shaulotte@mail.utexas.edu; ingman@scs.cmm.unt.edu;
sbakarich@utep.edu; Stephanie.l.mcfall@uth.tmc.edu; srshelto@utmb.edu; s-crouse@tamu.edu;
sms@psyc.tamu.edu; sapplewhite@uh.edu; nizielski@srph.tamu.edu; eve@scs.cmm.unt.edu;
srodiek@taz.tamu.edu; swittjen@twu.edu; flores@scs.cmm.unt.edu; tnutt@sagu.edu;
tfairchi@hsc.unt.edu; Teasdale@bcm.tmc.edu; tmarg@mail.utexas.edu; t-saving@tamu.edu; t­
anderson@tamuk.edu; tyrone.borders@ttuhsc.edu; ubraun@bcm.tmc.edu;
vaunette. p.fay@uth.tmc.edu; vivyenne.roche@utsouthwestem.edu; spirduso@mail.utexas.edu;
james _ ellor@baylor.edu
Advocates and Service Providers for Low-Income Senior Texans -- Texas Conference on Aging
2007 Committee:
barthur@haltomcitytx.com; mbrown@ccgd.org; vchamblee@ci.bedford.tx.us;
loisdur@mowacr.com; elainenss@gtbizc1ass.com; anita.thomas@sanangelotexas.us;
laronda. trammel@sanangelotexas.us; alan.woods@comcast.net; marshhumble@aol.com
Advocates and Service Providers for Low-Income Senior Texans -- Texas Department ofAging
and Disability Services:
Richard.aguirre@dads.state.tx.us; jenny. baker@dads.state.tx. us; rea. barry@dads.state.tx.us;
norma.benavides@dads.state.tx.us; Daniel.bravo@dads.state.tx.us; carol.sloan@dads.state.tx.us;
jcastillo38@satx.rr.com; Thelma.diaz@dads.state.tx.us; maria.duncan@dads.state.tx.us;
bo bby. ebeling@dads.state.tx.us; maria. faccio@dads.state.tx.us; cindy. flores@dads.state.tx.us;
patricia.frost@dads.state.tx.us; edna.fuentes@dads.state.tx.us; Rogelio.fuentes@dads.state.tx.us;
lynn.garner@dads.state.tx.us; patricia.george@dads.state.tx.us; sandy.gregory@dads.state.tx.us;
caro1.harrell@dads.state.tx.us; Valerie.houston@dads.state.tx.us;
66
6

Texas Department ofAging and Disability Services (continued):
Christine.jaimez@dads.state.tx.us; debraljefferson@dads.state.tx.us;
rudy.jimenez@dads.state.tx.us; Alvin.johnson@dads.state.ts.us; yussuf.kalib@dads.state.tx.us;
donna.kennum@dads.state.tx.us; cindy .kennea1ly@dads.state.tx.us;
genny.manley@dads.state.tx.us; byron.morgan@dads.state.tx.us;
Carolyn.myers@dads.state.tx.us; sara.paris@dads.state.tx.us; carryall.payne@dads.state.tx.us;
elnora.robins@dads.state.tx.us; cathy.ross@dads.state.tx.us; Winnie.rutledge@dads.state.tx.us;
Stephanie.ryan@dads.state.tx.us; barb.scobey@dads.state.tx.us; lisa.scruggs@dads.state.tx.us;
Marcia.shultz@dads.state.tx.us; mary.skillman@dads.state.tx.us;
carol.sloan@dads.state.tx. us;nina.sodus@dads.state.tx.us; Martha.strickland@dads.state.tx.us;
pam.stroman@dads.state.tx.us; jannie.thompson@dads.state.tx.us;
billy.thompson@dads.state.tx.us; patricia.thompson@dads.state.tx.us;
alma. vela@dads.state.tx.us; Rebecca. ve1a@dads.state.tx.us; Sharon. wallace@dads.state.tx.us;
chris.welch@dads.state.tx.us; renee.wheeler@dads.state.tx.us; luz.white@dads.state.tx.us;
john.willis@dads.state.tx.us; lizann.wisdom@dads.state.tx.us; mindy.wright@dads.state.tx.us;
lanice.wallace@dads.state.tx.us; barry.waller@dads.state.tx.us; dbilla@aacog.com;
jmattson@atcog.org; czemial@aacog.com; rgipson@bvcog.org; grogers@capcog.org;
dir14@centexaaa.com; betty@cbcog98.org; mmcghee@ccgd.org;handerson@detdob.org;
claude. andrews@twc.state.tx.us; cindyco@gcrpc.org; Char lene.james@cityofhouston.net;
gary.luft@hot.cog.tx.us; curtis.cooper@h-gac.com; jgonzalez@lrgvdc.org;
Gloria.perez@mrgdc.org; dvanryswyk@nctcog.org; rpogue@nortexrpc.org;
mcarter@prpc.cog.tx.us; sfielder@aaapb.com; challiburton@setrpc.org; plara@spag.org;
arivera@stdc.cog.tx.us; jfullylove@texoma.cog.tx.us; ckaiser@wctcog.org;
franabrown@aol.com
Advocates and Service Providers for Low-Income Senior Texans --Texas Department of State
Health Services:
joan.aalbers@dshs.state.tx.us; john.allen@dshs.state.tx.us; greg.beets@dshs.state.tx.us;
lisa. betterson@dshs.state.tx.us; Vicky. contreras@dshs.state.tx.us;
Marjorie.doubleday@dshs.state.tx.us; jean.gibson@dshs.state.tx.us;
pat.greenwood@dshs.state.tx.us; Dwayne.haught@dshs.state.tx.us;
scott.homey@dshs.state.tx.us; marthalicia.leal@dshs.state.tx.us;
Deborah.lewis@dshs.state.tx.us; marlene.cmleod@dshs.state.tx.us;
joanne.munday@dshs.state.tx.us; jenny.penny@dshs.state.tx.us; Sharon.rotan@dshs.state.tx.us;
becky.ruiz@dshs.state.tx.us; Raymond.tumer@dshs.state.tx.us; Eileen. walker@dshs.state.tx.us;
Katherine. wells@dshs.state.tx.us; crystal. womack@dshs.state.tx.us;
peggy. wooten@dshs.state.tx.us;
67
7

Advocates and Service Providers for Low-Income Senior Texans -- Aging Texas Well
Committee Members:
abcrocker@ag.tamu.edu; barrett.markland@dads.state.tx.us; bee@texasimpact.com;
betsey.bishop@dads.state.tx.us; camille.keith@wnco.com; chris.fowler@thecb.state.tx.us;
cynthia-co lbert@austindiocese.org; donna.morstad@lbb.state.tx.us;
alicia.essary@dads.state.tx.us; janie.eubanks@dads.state.tx.us; west8659@sbcglobal.net;
grace.sanders2@dars.state.tx.us; harriet@unt.edu; lori.henry@dfps.state.tx.us;
janna.zumbrun@dshs.state.tx.us; jgonzalez@1rgvdc.org; karen.johnson@uwtexas.org;
jeffrey .kaufinann@dads.state.tx.us; marc.go ld@dads.state.tx.us;
michael.lyttle@tdhca.state.tx.us; saunders@uthscsa.edu; drpgw@yahoo.com;
pauline.mikus@house.state.tx.us; pmrussell@austin.rr.com; jimmy. perez@dads.state.tx.us
holly.riley@dads.state.tx.us; penny.steele@dads.state.tx.us; stabone@texasnurses.org;
sd0739@sbc.com; painter@bgct.org; thairston@orca.state.tx.us;
troy.alexander@speaker.state.tx.us; karl. urban@dads.state.tx.us;
jon. weizenbaum@dads.state.tx.us; jl-warren@tamu.edu
United Ways ofTexas:
karen.johnson@uwtexas.org
Texas Association ofCommunity Action Agencies
stella@tacaa.org
Texas Interagency Council for the Homeless:
'Hamilos, Lance'; 'Barbara Wand James'; 'Philip Cochran'; Donoghue, Beverly; 'Dorothy
Calhoun'; 'Frank Deutsch'; 'Greta Mankins'; 'Jeannette Burke'; 'Jeff Johnson'; 'Joshua Martin';
'Judy Telge'; 'Ken Martin'; 'Krista Delgallo'; 'Leroy Arnold'; 'Marc Gold'; 'Paul Ferris'; 'Theresa
Tod'; 'Alison Smith'; 'Ann Denton'; 'Charles Buerschinger'; 'Dan Rawlins'; 'Jami Hart'; 'JoAnn
DePenning'; 'John Salmons'; 'Michael J. Doyle'; 'Richard Lopez'
Added Mike Gerber, Erin Ferris, April Zamora (TDCJ)
Texas Homeless Network
ken@thn.org; greg@thn.org
Texas Veterans Commission
conniej@tvc.state.tx.us
68
8

Page 1 of2
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Wednesday, January 23, 20089:05 AM
'Scryzaguir@aol.com'; 'jseith@aarp.org'; 'Wes_Cowan@experienceworks.org';
'Becky_Scott@experienceworks.org'; 'dave_lack@experienceworks.org';
'diane_ cowan@experienceworks.org'; 'christine@napca.org'; 'Maria Gomez'; 'jparsons@ssa-i.org';
'betty.ford@dads.state.tx.us'
'cgarland@ssa-i.org'
SCSEP State Plan - Request for Availability * Stakeholders * Input
Attachments: !TEGL 16-07.pdf; SCSEP Grantee Input Outline.doc; Initiatives Previously Discussed with Grantees or
Boards.doc; DADS-AAA Input Outline.doc
Please confirm with "Received" that you received this e-mail. Thank you!
Everyone,
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07, New State
Plan Requirements for the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). National SCSEP grantees and the
state's SCSEP subgrantee (Grantees) as well as the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) and
Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) are key stakeholders in the SCSEP State Plan development process. The State Plan will
be a four-year strategic plan instead of the annual "snapshot" previously required by DOL. Thanks to DOL's postponing
the State Plan deadline, we will have time to gather stakeholder input and hold discussions to develop meaningful
strategies for improving services to senior Texans. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) is requesting the following
assistance with the State Plan:
• your availability for an initial conference call this week or next week
• your recommendations for stakeholders to provide input on the State Plan
• your input on the State Plan.
1) Conference call availability -- by tomorrow (Thursday, January 24th).
Please advise about your availability for an initial conference call on Friday afternoon or next week. We will discuss
the plan development timeline and process, information sources, and schedule two conference calls during the first two
weeks of February.
2) Recommendations for stakeholders to provide input on the State Plan - by COB Thursday,
January 24th.
We hope to cast as wide a "net" as possible for plan input, particularly from organizations, community leaders, and
interested individuals who are seeking ways to collaborate and improve services to seniors. We would like to invite these
entities to participate in the conference calls and/or provide input for the plan:
• Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs)
• State and local agencies serving senior Texans
• Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) - Older Americans Act (OAA) Title "I leaders and other
departments administering OAA programs and services
• State and local community-based organizations
• Business organizations
• Labor organizations.
What individuals and agencies should be "at the table" to share information and ideas for the SCSEP State Plan? Please
provide your recommendations for state-level and local stakeholders so that we can invite them to provide input from the
beginning.
3) Input on the State Plan - in two phases
I have attached Training and Employment Guidance Letter 16-07EGL for the State Plan for your information and am
requesting your organization's written input in two phases:
• Grantee input on Sections 4 through 6 by Friday, February 1 st
• Grantee, DADS, AAA, and other stakeholder input on Sections 7 through 10 by Friday, February 8 th .
Please submit your comments in the format that is most convenient for you. Excerpts from grant applications, annual
69
3/1/2008

Page 2 of2
reports, or other documents that are relevant to Texas operations are welcome. Grantees may review the TEGL to
respond to Sections 4-10, OR you may use the attached ·SCSEP Grantee Input Outline" to provide your responseswhatever
is easiest for you. DADS/AAA staff may also review the TEGL to respond to Sections 7, 8, and 10, OR you may
use the attached "DADS/AAA Input Outline." Your input, whether in complete sentences or "bullets," and program data
will enable us to put together a statewide picture of where we are now, what we are doing in different parts of the state.
We will use your input and program data to do a "SWOT" situation analysis of SCSEP statewide: identifying strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to generate strategies for collaboration and program improvement.
Additionally, we are requesting that you provide input on the attached initiatives that were discussed with Texas SCSEP
grantees and/or workforce boards last year. Please submit your comments on these ideas by Friday, February 1 st .
If you have questions aboutthe plan requirements, please let me know.
Developing the State Plan enables us to shift gears from an annual snapshot to a view of short-term and long-term
SCSEP goals, strategies, and activities. Let us consider not only ideas previously discussed but also think creatively
about how we can collaborate to improve services to senior Texans and assist them to become financially independent.
Thank you in advance for your contributions to this effort. I look forward to:
• receiving your conference call availability and stakeholder recommendations by COB Thursday, January 4th
• receiving your input on Sections 4 - 6 of the State Plan and previously discussed initiatives by February 1 st and on
Sections 7 - 10 of the State Plan by February 8 th
• our discussions on SCSEP statewide and strategies to improve SCSEP services in Texas.
Cordially,
Beverly
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
70

Page 1 of2
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Walthall Ashworth, Erin D on behalf of Fuller, John
Tuesday, January 22, 20084:33 PM
L WDA Exec Dir
Fuller, John; Bell, Cameron; Donoghue, Beverly
Subject: Invitation to SCSEP Conference Call - January 29
Attachments: !TEGL 16-07.pdf; Request for Board input on specific sections.doc
Dear Executive Director:
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07,
New State Plan Requirements for the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). Texas'
workforce development boards (Boards) are key stakeholders in the SCSEP State Plan development process.
The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) is requesting the following Board assistance with the State Plan:
(1) Designation of a Board staff member to address follow-up questions about the SCSEP State Plan by close
of business (COB) on Monday, January 28 th , 2008.
(2) Recommendations for individuals to provide input on the SCSEP State Plan - by COB on M'onday,
January 28 th , 2008.
DOL requires a variety of stakeholders to contribute to the SCSEP State Plan. TWC is requesting Board
recommendations for:
• local organizations providing services to older individuals;
• community leaders;
• business organizations; and
• labor organizations.
(3) Comments and suggestions on SCSEP State Plan -- by COB on Monday, February 4,2008.
This year's SCSEP State Plan shifts from an annual "snapshot" to a strategic four-year perspective. These
plan sections are of most interest to Boards:
• Section 5 - Supporting Employment Opportunities for PartiCipants;
• Section 6 -Increasing Participant Placement in Unsubsidized Employment and Employer Outreach;
• Section 8 - Coordination with Other Programs, Initiatives and Entities; and
• Section 10- Improvement of SCSEP Services.
Please find TEGL 16-07 attached for your information. Since the last State Plan was submitted, Boards
and SCSEP grantees have provided helpful comments and innovative suggestions on strategies to further
integrate SCSEP into the Texas workforce system and improve services to senior Texans. Although TWC
welcomes Board comments on any and all aspects of the State Plan, Board input on the four plan sections
listed above would be especially useful. Please find attached TWC's Request for Board Input on Specific
Sections in the SCSEP State Plan. Please key your Board's responses in this document, adjusting the
space as needed.
(4) Participation in a Board conference call to discuss Board input on relevant sections of the State Plan -- on
Tuesday, January 29 th from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Conference call number: (800) 930-8716
Passcode:
13337#
(5) Comments on the draft State Plan during the public comment period in April-May 2008. TWC will advise
Boards when the State Plan has been posted for public comment on TWC's Website.
If you have questions about the SCSEP State Plan, please contact Cameron Bell at (512) 936-6139 or at
cameron.bell@twc.state.tx.us.
3/1/2008
71

Page 2 of2
We are pleased that the State Plan will provide a strategic view of SCSEP and look forward to:
• receiving your Board's designated contact for the State Plan and your Board's recommendations for other
stakeholders to provide input on the SCSEP State Plan by COB on Monday, January 28 th ;
• your participation on the Board conference call on Tuesday, January 29 th at 2:00 p.m.; and
• receiving your Board's input by COB on Monday, February 4th.
Thank you in advance for your contributions to the SCSEP State Plan.
Sincerely,
John H. Fuller, Director
Workforce Network Support
Phone: (512) 463-7459
Fax: (512) 463-6280
john.fuller@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
72

Page 1 of2
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Donoghue, Beverly
Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:37 PM
'mhumbert@governor.state.tx.us'
Subject: FW: Invitation to SCSEP Conference Call - January 29
Attachments: !TEGL i6-07.pdf; Request for Board input on specific sections.doc
Marilyn,
You are invited to participate in TWC's conference call with the Boards to discuss the SCSEP State Plan:
Tuesday, January 29 th , 2:00 to 3:00 p.m.
Cordially,
Beverly
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
From: Walthall Ashworth, Erin D On Behalf Of Fuller, John
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:33 PM
To: LWDA Exec Dir
Cc: Fuller, John~ Bell, Cameron~ Donoghue, Beverly
Subject: Invitation to SCSEP Conference Call - January 29
Dear Executive Director:
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07,
New State Plan Requirements for the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). Texas'
workforce development boards (Boards) are key stakeholders in the SCSEP State Plan development process.
The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) is requesting the fOllowing Board assistance with the State Plan:
(1) Designation of a Board staff member to address fOllow-up questions about the SCSEP State Plan
by close of business (COB) on Monday, January 28 th , 2008.
(2) Recommendations for individuals to provide input on the SCSEP State Plan - by COB on
Monday, January 28 th , 2008.
DOL requires a variety of stakeholders to contribute to the SCSEP State Plan. TWC is requesting Board
recommendations for:
• local organizations providing services to older individuals;
• community leaders;
• business organizations; and
• labor organizations.
(3) Comments and suggestions on SCSEP State Plan -- by COB on Monday, February 4,2008.
This year's SCSEP State Plan shifts from an annual "snapshot" to a strategic four-year perspective. These
plan sections are of most interest to Boards:
• Section 5 - Supporting Employment Opportunities for Participants;
3/1/2008

Page 2 of2
• Section 6 - Increasing Participant Placement in Unsubsidized Employment and Employer
Outreach;
• Section 8 - Coordination with Other Programs, Initiatives and Entities; and
• Section 10- Improvement of SCSEP Services.
Please find TEGL 16-07 attached for your information. Since the last State Plan was submitted, Boards
and SCSEP grantees have provided helpful comments and innovative suggestions on strategies to further
integrate SCSEP into the Texas workforce system and improve services to senior Texans. Although TWC
welcomes Board comments on any and all aspects of the State Plan, Board input on the four plan sections
listed above would be especially useful. Please find attached TWC's Request for Board Input on Specific
Sections in the SCSEP State Plan. Please key your Board's responses in this document, adjusting the
space as needed.
(4) Participation in a Board conference call to discuss Board input on relevant sections of the State
Plan -- on Tuesday, January 29 th from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Conference call number: (800) 930-8716
Passcode:
13337#
(5) Comments on the draft State Plan during the public comment period in April-May 2008. TWC will
advise Boards when the State Plan has been posted for public comment on TWC's Website.
If you have questions about the SCSEP State Plan, please contact Cameron Bell at (512) 936-6139 or at
cameron. bell@twc.state.tx.us.
We are pleased that the State Plan will provide a strategic view of SCSEP and look forward to:
• receiving your Board's designated contact for the State Plan and your Board's recommendations
for other stakeholders to provide input on the SC~EP State Plan by COB on Monday, January 28 th ;
• your participation on the Board conference call on Tuesday, January 29 th at 2:00 p.m.; and
• receiving your Board's input by COB on Monday, February 4th.
Thank you in advance for your contributions to the SCSEP State Plan.
Sincerely,
John H. Fuller, Director
Workforce Network Support
Phone: (512) 463-7459
Fax: (512) 463-6280
john.fuller@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
74

Page 1 of 1
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Wednesday, February 13, 200S 9:16 AM
'phil@sanangelo.org'
SCSEP State Plan -- Invitation to Provide Input
Attachments: SCSEP summary - 02 12 OS.doc; Request for Input on SCSEP Employer Outreach Strategies 02 22
OS.doc
Mr. Neighbors,
At the suggestion of Mary Kay Kuss of the Concho Valley Workforce Development Board, the Texas Workforce
Commission is contacting you to invite your input on employer outreach strategies for the Senior Community Service
Employment Program (SCSEP) State Plan.
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training to develop the skills needed to obtain unsubsidized
jobs and become financially independent. I have attached a brief program summary for your information. Many employers
are keenly aware of the impending shortage of skilled workers and the need to broaden the pool of workers for the
available jobs. Trained seniors are an underutilized source of skilled workers that employers can tap to meet their
workforce needs - resulting in a "Win-Win' situation for employers and older job seekers alike.
One requirement of the SCSEP state plan is to include employer outreach strategies. We welcome your input on
employer outreach strategies that would be most appealing and cost-effective. The request for input on specific strategies
is attached. We would like to receive your comments by Friday, February 22 nd . Please e-mail comments to me at
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us. We will incorporate feedback received in the draft SCSEP State Plan, which will be
posted for public comment this spring. Your comments will also be welcome during the public comment period.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (512) 936-2146 or e-mail me. Thank you in advance for any input that
you provide.
Cordially,
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 7S77S-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-62S0 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
75

Page 1 of2
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Tuesday, February 12,20088:43 AM
'rosie@cvcog.org'
SCSEP State Plan -- Invitation to Provide Input
Attachments: !TEGL 16-07.pdf
Ms. Quintella,
At the suggestion of Mary Kay Kuss with Concho Valley Workforce Development Board, the Texas Workforce
Commission is contacting your organization to invite your input on the Senior Community Service Employment Program
(SCSEP) State Plan.
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training to develop the skills needed to obtain unsubsidized
jobs and become self-sufficient. SCSEP participants are assigned to host agencies, community-based organizations or
government entities, to receive training related to their career objectives. While in training, participants provide valuable
community services to their local areas. To be eligible for SCSEP, individuals must be 55 years or older, have incomes
that are 125 percent or less than the federal poverty guidelines, and unemployed.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07, New State
Plan Requirements for SCSEP, which is attached for your information. The SCSEP State Plan is intended to provide a
strategic four-year perspective - with goals, objectives, activities, and timelines - for increasing collaboration with key
stakeholders to improve services and focusing program resources to serve those who are most in need.
We welcome your input on all sections of the plan. The sections that may be of most interest to your organization include:
Section 4. Basic Distribution of SCSEP Positions
What recruiting strategies does your organization recommend to recruit specific population groups oflow-income
seniors identified as priority individuals for SCSEP services? These groups include seniors who:
• are 65 years or older
• have a disability
• have a limited English proficiency
• have low literacy skills
• have low employment prospects.
Section 7. Community Service Needs
• How should SCSEP identify local community services that are most needed and local populations who are most
in need to community services?
• How should SCSEP recruit appropriate host agencies that meet local communities' needs?
Section 8. Coordination with Other Programs, Initiatives, and Entities
• How should SCSEP coordinate with activities carried out in the state under other titles of the Older Americans
Act?
• How should SCSEP collaborate with other public and private entities and programs that provide services to older
Americans, such as community-based organizations, transportation programs, and programs for those with
special needs or disabilities?
• How should SCSEP leverage resources from other key partners to support SCSEP activities? Organizations
providing leveraged resources could include state and local government agencies, foundations, community-based
organizations, and other entities.
Section 10. Improvement of SCSEP Services
3/1/2008
76

Page 2 of2
• Ifyou are familiar with SCSEP, what are your recommendations to improve SCSEP services to senior Texans?
We are requesting your input by close of business on Friday, February 22 nd . We will also invite your comment on the
draft plan when it is posted for public comment later this spring.
Thank you in advance for any comments or suggestions you provide.
Cordially,
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
( 512) 936-2146 phone
( 512) 463-6280 fax
t?~.y'~[!y_,g9_!l9..9J:tY~~lWQ:_§t~!~,1~_._!J_§.
3/1/2008
77

Page 1 of2
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Tuesday, February 12,20089:06 AM
'adand@riocog.org'
SCSEP State Plan -- Invitation to Provide Input
Attachments: !TEG L 16-07.pdf
Mr. Dominguez,
At the suggestion of Martin Bombach with Upper Rio Grande @ Work, the Texas Workforce Commission is contacting
you to invite your input on the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) State Plan.
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training to develop the skills needed to obtain unsubsidized
jobs and become self-sufficient. SCSEP participants are assigned to host agencies, community-based organizations or
government entities, to receive training related to their career objectives. While in training, participants provide valuable
community services to their local areas. To be eligible for SCSEP, individuals must be 55 years or older, have incomes
that are 125 percent or less than the federal poverty guidelines, and unemployed.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07, New State
Plan Requirements for SCSEP, which is attached for your information. The SCSEP State Plan is intended to provide a
strategic four-year perspective - with goals, objectives, activities, and timelines - for increasing collaboration with key
stakeholders to improve services and focusing program resources to serve those who are most in need.
We welcome your input on all sections of the plan. The sections that may be of most interest to your organization include:
Section 4. Basic Distribution of SCSEP Positions
What recruiting strategies does your organization recommend to recruit specific population groups oflow-income
seniors identified as priority individuals for SCSEP services? These groups include seniors who:
• are 65 years or older
• have a disability
• have a limited English proficiency
• have low literacy skills
• have low employment prospects.
Section 7. Community Service Needs
• How should SeSEP identify local community services that are most needed and local populations who are most
in need to community services?
• How should SCSEP recruit appropriate host agencies that meet local communities' needs?
Section 8. Coordination with Other Programs, Initiatives, and Entities
• How should SeSEP coordinate with activities carried out in the state under other titles of the Older Americans
Act?
• How should SeSEP collaborate with other public and private entities and programs that provide services to older
Americans, such as community-based organizations, transportation programs, and programs for those with
special needs or disabilities?
• How should SeSEP leverage resources from other key partners to support SeSEP activities? Organizations
providing leveraged resources could include state and local government agencies, foundations, community-based
organizations, and other entities.
Section 10. Improvement of SCSEP Services
3/1/2008
78

Page 2 of2
• If you are familiar with SCSEP, what are your recommendations to improve SCSEP services to senior Texans?
We are requesting your input by close of business on Friday, February 22 nd . We will also invite your comment on the
draft plan when it is posted for public comment later this spring.
Thank you in advance for any comments or suggestions you provide.
Cordially,
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
79

Page 1 of2
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Tuesday, February 12,20089:42 AM
'aarpinfo@sbcglobal.net'
SCSEP State Plan -- Invitation to Provide Input
Attachments: !TEG L 16-07.pdf
Mr. Malone,
At the suggestion of Martin Bombach with Upper Rio Grande @ Work, the Texas Workforce Commission is contacting
MRP's Volunteer Information Center to invite your input on the Senior Community Service Employment Program
(SCSEP) State Plan.
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training to develop the skills needed to obtain unsubsidized
jobs and become self-sufficient. SCSEP participants are assigned to host agencies, community-based organizations or
government entities, to receive training related to their career objectives. While in training, participants provide valuable
community services to their local areas. To be eligible for SCSEP, individuals must be 55 years or older, have incomes
that are 125 percent or less than the federal poverty guidelines, and unemployed.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07, New State
Plan Requirements for SCSEP, which is attached for your information. The SCSEP State Plan is intended to provide a
strategic four-year perspective - with goals, objectives, activities, and timelines - for increasing collaboration with key
stakeholders to improve services and focusing program resources to serve those who are most in need.
We welcome your input on all sections of the plan. The sections that may be of most interest to your organization include:
Section 4. Basic Distribution of SCSEP Positions
What recruiting strategies does your organization recommend to recruit specific popUlation groups oflow-income
seniors identified as priority individuals for SCSEP services? These groups include seniors who:
• are 65 years or older
• have a disability
• have a limited English proficiency
• have low literacy skills
• are minorities
• have low employment prospects.
Section 7. Community Service Needs
• How should SCSEP identify local community services that are most needed and local populations who are most
in need to community services?
• How should SCSEP recruit appropriate host agencies that meet local communities' needs?
Section 8. Coordination with Other Programs, Initiatives, and Entities
• How should SCSEP coordinate with activities carried out in the state under other titles ofthe Older Americans
Act?
• How should SCSEP collaborate with other public and private entities and programs that provide services to older
Americans, such as community-based organizations, transportation programs, and programs for those with
special needs or disabilities?
• How should SCSEP leverage resources from other key partners to support SCSEP activities? Organizations
providing leveraged resources could include state and local government agencies, foundations, community-based
organizations, and other entities.
3/1/2008
80

Section 10. Improvement of SCSEP Services
Page 2 of2
• If you are familiar with SCSEP, what are your recommendations to improve SCSEP services to senior Texans?
We are requesting your input by close of business on Friday, February 22 nd . We will also invite your comment on the
draft plan when it is posted for public comment later this spring.
Thank you in advance for any comments or suggestions you provide.
Cordially,
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 u1 Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
81

Page 1 of 2
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Tuesday, February 12,20089:10 AM
'xbanales@projectamistad.com'
SCSEP State Plan -- Invitation to Provide Input
Attachments: !TEGL 16-07.pdf
Mr. Banales,
At the suggestion of Martin Bombach with Upper Rio Grande @ Work, the Texas Workforce Commission is contacting
you to invite your input on the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) State Plan.
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training to develop the skills needed to obtain unsubsidized
jobs and become self-sufficient. SCSEP participants are assigned to host agencies, community-based organizations or
government entities, to receive training related to their career objectives. While in training, participants provide valuable
community services to their local areas. To be eligible for SCSEP, individuals must be 55 years or older, have incomes
that are 125 percent or less than the federal poverty guidelines, and unemployed.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07, New State
Plan Requirements for SCSEP, which is attached for your information. The SCSEP State Plan is intended to provide a
strategic four-year perspective - with goals, objectives, activities, and timelines - for increasing collaboration with key
stakeholders to improve services and focusing program resources to serve those who are most in need.
We welcome your input on all sections of the plan. The sections that may be of most interest to your organization include:
Section 4. Basic Distribution of SCSEP Positions
What recruiting strategies does your organization recommend to recruit specific population groups oflow-income
seniors identified as priority individuals for SCSEP services? These groups include seniors who:
• are 65 years or older
• have a disability
• have a limited English proficiency
• have low literacy skills
• are minorities
• have low employment prospects.
Section 7. Community Service Needs
• How should SCSEP identify local community services that are most needed and local populations who are
most in need to community services?
• How should SCSEP recruit appropriate host agencies that meet local communities' needs?
Section 8. Coordination with Other Programs, Initiatives, and Entities
• How should SCSEP coordinate with activities carried out in the state under other titles ofthe Older
Americans Act?
• How should SCSEP collaborate with other public and private entities and programs that provide services to
older Americans, such as community-based organizations, transportation programs, and programs for those
with special needs or disabilities?
• How should SCSEP leverage resources from other key partners to support SCSEP activities? Organizations
providing leveraged resources could include state and local government agencies, foundations, community­
based organizations, and other entities.
Section 10. Improvement of SCSEP Services
3/112008
82

Page 2 of2
• If you are familiar with SCSEP, what are your recommendations to improve SCSEP services to senior
Texans?
We are requesting your input by close of business on Friday, February 22 od . We will also invite your comment on the
draft plan when it is posted for public comment later this spring.
Thank you in advance for any comments or suggestions you provide.
Cordially,
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
83

Page 1 of2
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Tuesday, February 12, 20089:15 AM
'dvanryswyk@nctcog.org'
SCSEP State Plan -- Invitation to Provide Input
Attachments: !TEGL 16-07.pdf
To Doni Van Ryswyk,
At the suggestion of Stephanie Coleman with Workforce Solutions of North Central Texas, the Texas Workforce
Commission is contacting you to invite your input on the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) State
Plan.
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training to develop the skills needed to obtain unsubsidized
jobs and become self-sufficient. SCSEP participants are assigned to host agencies, community-based organizations or
government entities, to receive training related to their career objectives. While in training, participants provide valuable
community services to their local areas. To be eligible for SCSEP, individuals must be 55 years or older, have incomes
that are 125 percent or less than the federal poverty guidelines, and be unemployed.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07, New State
Plan Requirements for SCSEP, which is attached for your information. The SCSEP State Plan is intended to provide a
strategic four-year perspective - with goals, objectives, activities, and timelines - for increasing collaboration with key
stakeholders to improve services and focusing program resources to serve those who are most in need.
We welcome your input on all sections ofthe plan. The sections that may be of most interest to your organization include:
Section 4. Basic Distribution of SCSEP Positions
What recruiting strategies does your organization recommend to recruit specific population groups oflow-income
seniors identified as priority individuals for SCSEP services? These groups include seniors who:
• are 65 years or older
• have a disability
• have a limited English proficiency
• have low literacy skills
• are minorities
• have low employment prospects.
Section 7. Community Service Needs
• How should SCSEP identify local community services that are most needed and local populations who are most
in need to community services?
• How should SCSEP recruit appropriate host agencies that meet local communities' needs?
Section 8. Coordination with Other Programs, Initiatives, and Entities
• How should SCSEP coordinate with activities carried out in the state under other titles ofthe Older Americans
Act?
• How should SCSEP collaborate with other public and private entities and programs that provide services to older
Americans, such as community-based organizations, transportation programs, and programs for those with
special needs or disabilities?
• How should SCSEP leverage resources from other key partners to support SCSEP activities? Organizations
providing leveraged resources could include state and local government agencies, foundations, community-based
organizations, and other entities.
3/1/2008
84

Section 10. Improvement of SCSEP Services
Page 2 of2
• If you are familiar with SCSEP, what are your recommendations to improve SCSEP services to senior Texans?
We are requesting your input by close of business on Friday, February 22 nd . We will also invite your comment on the
draft plan when it is posted for public comment later this spring.
Thank you in advance for any comments or suggestions you provide.
Cordially,
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
85

Page 1 of2
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Tuesday, February 12,20089:33 AM
'dsmith@uwmtc.org'
SCSEP State Plan -- Invitation to Provide Input
Attachments: !TEGL 16-07.pdf
Mr. Smith,
At the suggestion of Stephanie Coleman with Workforce Solutions of North Central Texas, the Texas Workforce
Commission is contacting you to invite your input on the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) State
Plan.
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training to develop the skills needed to obtain unsubsidized
jobs and become self-sufficient. SCSEP participants are assigned to host agencies, community-based organizations or
government entities, to receive training related to their career objectives. While in training, participants provide valuable
community services to their local areas. To be eligible for SCSEP, individuals must be 55 years or older, have incomes
that are 125 percent or less than the federal poverty guidelines, and be unemployed.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07, New State
Plan Requirements for SCSEP, which is attached for your information. The SCSEP State Plan is intended to provide a
strategic four-year perspective - with goals, objectives, activities, and timelines - for increasing collaboration with key
stakeholders to improve services and focusing program resources to serve those who are most in need.
We welcome your input on all sections of the plan. The sections that may be of most interest to your organization include:
Section 4. Basic Distribution of SCSEP Positions
What recruiting strategies does your organization recommend to recruit specific population groups oflow-income
seniors identified as priority individuals for SCSEP services? These groups include seniors who:
• are 65 years or older
• have a disability
• have a limited English proficiency
• have low literacy skills
• are minorities
• have low employment prospects.
Section 7. Community Service Needs
• How should SCSEP identify local community services that are most needed and local populations who are most
in need to community services?
• How should SCSEP recruit appropriate host agencies that meet local communities' needs?
Section 8. Coordination with Other Programs, Initiatives, and Entities
• How should SCSEP coordinate with activities carried out in the state under other titles ofthe Older Americans
Act?
• How should SCSEP collaborate with other public and private entities and programs that provide services to older
Americans, such as community-based organizations, transportation programs, and programs for those with
special needs or disabilities?
• How should SCSEP leverage resources from other key partners to support SCSEP activities? Organizations
providing leveraged resources could include state and local government agencies, foundations, community-based
organizations, and other entities.
3/1/2008
86

Section 10. Improvement of SCSEP Services
Page 2 of2
• If you are familiar with SCSEP, what are your recommendations to improve SCSEP services to senior Texans?
We are requesting your input by close of business on Friday, February 22 nd . We will also invite your comment on the
draft plan when it is posted for public comment later this spring.
Thank you in advance for any comments or suggestions you provide.
Cordially,
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15u1
Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
87

Page 1 of2
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Tuesday, February 12, 20089:36 AM
'mmcghee@ccgd.org'
SCSEP State Plan -- Invitation to Provide Input
Attachments: !TEGL 16-07.pdf
Ms. McGhee,
At the suggestion of Stephanie Coleman with Workforce Solutions of North Central Texas, the Texas Workforce
Commission is contacting you to invite your input on the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) State
Plan.
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training to develop the skills needed to obtain unsubsidized
jobs and become self-sufficient. SCSEP participants are assigned to host agencies, community-based organizations or
government entities, to receive training related to their career objectives. While in training, participants provide valuable
community services to their local areas. To be eligible for SCSEP, individuals must be 55 years or older, have incomes
that are 125 percent or less than the federal poverty guidelines, and be unemployed.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07, New State
Plan Requirements for SCSEP, which is attached for your information. The SCSEP State Plan is intended to provide a
strategic four-year perspective - with goals, objectives, activities, and timelines - for increasing collaboration with key
stakeholders to improve services and focusing program resources to serve those who are most in need.
We welcome your input on all sections of the plan. The sections that may be of most interest to your organization include:
Section 4. Basic Distribution of SCSEP Positions
What recruiting strategies does your organization recommend to recruit specific population groups oflow-income
seniors identified as priority individuals for SCSEP services? These groups include seniors who:
• are 65 years or older
• have a disability
• have a limited English proficiency
• have low literacy skills
• are minorities
• have low employment prospects.
Section 7. Community Service Needs
• How should SCSEP identify local community services that are most needed and local populations who are most
in need to community services?
• How should SCSEP recruit appropriate host agencies that meet local communities' needs?
Section 8. Coordination with Other Programs, Initiatives, and Entities
• How should SCSEP coordinate with activities carried out in the state under other titles ofthe Older Americans
Act?
• How should SCSEP collaborate with other public and private entities and programs that provide services to older
Americans, such as community-based organizations, transportation programs, and programs for those with
special needs or disabilities?
• How should SCSEP leverage resources from other key partners to support SCSEP activities? Organizations
providing leveraged resources could include state and local government agencies, foundations, community-based
organizations, and other entities.
3/1/2008
88

Section 10. Improvement of SCSEP Services
Page 2 of2
• If you are familiar with SCSEP, what are your recommendations to improve SCSEP services to senior Texans?
We are requesting your input by close of business on Friday, February 22 nd . We will also invite your comment on the
draft plan when it is posted for public comment later this spring.
Thank you in advance for any comments or suggestions you provide.
Cordially,
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
89

Page 1 of 1
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Wednesday, February 13, 20088:40 AM
'bhammond@txbiz.org'
Invitation to Provide Input on Employer Outreach Strategies
Attachments: SCSEP summary - 02 12 08.doc; Request for Input on SCSEP Employer Outreach Strategies.doc
Mr. Hammond,
The Texas Workforce Commission is seeking input from the Texas Association of Business and its employer and
chamber of commerce members on employer outreach strategies for the Senior Community Service Employment
Program (SCSEP).
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training and supportive services to develop the skills needed to
attain unsubsidized jobs and become self-sufficient. I have attached a brief program summary for your information. Many
employers are keenly aware of the impending shortage of skilled workers and the need to broaden the pool of workers for
the available jobs. Trained seniors are an underutilized source of skilled workers that employers can tap to meet their
workforce needs -- resulting in a "Win-Win" situation for employers and older job seekers alike.
We welcome input from you and your colleagues on which employer outreach strategies would be most appealing and
cost-effective. We would appreciate your forwarding this invitation to employer and chamber members of the Texas
Association of Business or providing us with their e-mail addresses. The request for input on specific employer outreach
strategies is attached.
We are requesting input from the business community by close of business, Tuesday, February 26 th . Comments should
be e-mailedtomeatbeverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us. We will incorporate feedback received in the draft SCSEP State
Plan to be presented for the Commission's approval. Businesses' comments will also be welcome when the draft SCSEP
state plan is posted for public comment on TWC's Website this spring.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 936-2146 or e-mail meatbeverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us. Thank you
in advance for your assistance and any input that you and your colleagues provide.
Cordially,
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 u1 Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
Age is an asset. Experience, a benefit.
31112008
90

Page 1 of 1
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
Donoghue, Beverly
Monday, February 11, 2008 3:09 PM
To: Donoghue, Beverly ( bGC: Mj v'lovi-kf i3us ~ ness Cot;Vl C:, J5)
Subject: Senior Employment Program -- Invitation to provide input on employer outreach strategies
The Texas Workforce Commission invites your input on ways to conduct effective outreach to employers on behalf of
older job seekers who have been trained in the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP).
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training and supportive services to develop the skills needed to
obtain unsubsidized jobs and become self-sufficient. SCSEP participants enrolled in the current program year are 35
percent Hispanic and 23 percent African American - higher proportions than the 31 percent Hispanic population and 16
percent African American population eligible for SCSEP in Texas according to the 2000 census. Most employers are
acutely aware of the impending shortage of skilled workers and the need to broaden the pool of workers for the available
jobs. Previous SCSEP performance and additional plans for targeting training indicate that trained seniors can help meet
employers' increasing need for skilled workers.
We welcome your organization's input on ways to conduct effective outreach to employers on behalf of older job seekers.
Our goal is to provide employers with individuals who have the skills employers need and increase participants' ability to
find unsubsidized jobs related to their training. We would welcome your recommendations for ways to engage and
develop partnerships with employers on behalf of older job seekers.
We will use the input provided by business organizations and employers to design and implement employer outreach
strategies in Texas. Thank you in advance for any comments and recommendations that you provide.
If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (512) 936-2146.
Cordially,
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
91

Page 1 of2
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11 :52 AM
'becky@texasaflcio.org'
SCSEP State Plan -- Invitation to Provide Input
Attachments: !TEGL 16-07.pdf
Becky,
It was great to talk with you earlier this morning. Even though I'm no longer TWC's Apprenticeship Program Manager, I'm
a lifelong apprenticeship supporter. I still view apprenticeship as the most effective job-training strategy around.
I would like to invite input from unions on the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) State Plan.
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training to develop the skills needed to obtain unsubsidized
employment and become self-sufficient. SCSEP participants are assigned to host agencies, community-based
organizations or government entities, to receive training related to their career objectives - similar to the apprenticeship
concept but without the accompanying classroom training. Individuals who are 55 years or older, have incomes that are
125% or less than the federal poverty guidelines, and are not employed are eligible for SCSEP.
The u.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07, New State
Plan Requirements for SCSEP, which is attached for your information. The SCSEP State Plan is intended to provide a
strategic, multi-year perspective on increasing collaboration with key stakeholders to improve services and increase
participants' successful placement and retention in unsubsidized jobs.
Some "younger" SCSEP participants may be suitable candidates for registered apprenticeships in less strenuous
occupations. If so, we would like to explore this possibility with interested unions.
We welcome input from labor unions on all sections of the plan. The sections that may be of most interest to you and
your colleagues include Sections 6, 8, and 10:
Section 6. Increasing Participant Placement in Unsubsidized Employment
• What industries and occupations have high growth and/or substantial employment opportunities for union
members - and may be suitable for "younger" SCSEP participants? - i.e., those that require less strength and
stamina
• If there are apprenticeships that may be suitable for senior Texans, what is the best way to explore
apprenticeships as unsubsidized employment possibilities with interested unions?
Section 8. Coordination with Other Programs, Initiatives, and Entities
• Do SCSEP and the AFL-CIO along with its member unions have mutual interests?
• How should SCSEP leverage resources from other key partners to support SCSEP activities?
Section 10. Improvement of SCSEP Services
Ifyou are familiar with SCSEP, what are your recommendations to improve SCSEP services to senior Texans?
We are requesting your input by Friday, February 29 th . Please e-mail your comments to me at
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us. We will also invite your comments on the draft plan when it is posted for public
comment this spring.
Thank you in advance for any comments or suggestions that you and your union colleagues provide.
Cordially,
Beverly Donoghue. Ed.D.
3/112008

Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
Page 2 of2
3/1/2008
93

Page 1 of 2
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Monday, February 11, 2008 4:48 PM
Donoghue, Beverly
SCSEP State Plan -- Invitation to Provide Input
Attachments: !TEGL 16-07.pdf
To Advocates and Service Providers for Low-Income Senior Texans:
The Texas Workforce Commission invites your input on the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)
State Plan.
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training to develop the skills needed to obtain unsubsidized
employment and become self-sufficient. SCSEP participants are assigned to host agencies, community-based
organizations or government entities, to receive training related to their career objectives. While in training, participants
provide valuable community services to their local areas. Individuals who are 55 years or older, have incomes that are
125% or less than the federal poverty guidelines, and are not employed are eligible for SCSEP.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07, New State
Plan Requirements for SCSEP, which is attached for your information. The SCSEP State Plan is intended to provide a
strategic, multi-year perspective -- with goals, objectives, activities, and timelines -- for increasing collaboration with key
stakeholders to improve services and focusing program resources to serve those who are most in need.
We welcome your input on all sections of the plan. The sections that may be of most interest to you and your organization
include:
Section 4. Basic Distribution of SCSEP Positions
What outreach strategies do you recommend to recruit specific population groups oflow-income. seniors identified as
priority individuals for SCSEP services? These groups include low-income seniors who:
• Are 65 years or older
• Have a disability
• Have limited English proficiency
• Have low literacy skills
• Are veterans or eligible spouses
• Have low employment prospects
• Are homeless or at risk for homelessness
• Have income levels at or below the federal poverty guidelines
• Are minorities
• Have the greatest social need resulting from cultural, social, or geographical isolation.
Section 7. Community Service Needs
• How should SCSEP identify local community services that are most needed and local populations who are most
in need of community services?
• How should SCSEP recruit appropriate host agencies to meet community needs?
Section 8. Coordination with Other Programs, Initiatives, and Entities
• How should SCSEP coordinate with activities being carried out in the state under other titles of the Older
Americans Act?
• How should SCSEP collaborate with other public and private entities and programs that provide services to older
Americans, such as community-based organizations, transportation programs, and programs for those with
special needs or disabilities?
How should SCSEP leverage resources from other key partners to support SCSEP activities? Organizations providing
leveraged resources include state and local government agencies, foundations, community-based organizations, and
94
3/1/2008

other entities.
Page 2 of2
Section 10. Improvement of SCSEP Services
If you are familiar with SCSEP, what are your recommendations to improve SCSEP services to senior Texans?
We are requesting your input by close of business on Friday, February 22 nd - because of the lead time required to draft
and refine the SCSEP State Plan. Please send your comments to me at beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us. We will also
invite your comment on the draft plan when it is posted for public comment this spring.
Thank you in advance for any comments or suggestions you provide.
Cordially,
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
'\01 E. 15 1h Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly .donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
95

Page 1 of2
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Monday, February 11, 2008 3:32 PM
'karen.johnson@uwtexas.org'
SCSEP State Plan -- Invitation to Provide Input
Attachments: !TEG L 16-07.pdf
Karen,
Thank you very much for your willingness to forward the message below to the appropriate organizations and individuals.
I look forward to gathering perspectives statewide on outreach to seniors, collaboration with other organizations, and
continuous improvement of SCSEP services for senior Texans.
Cordially,
Beverly
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
To Advocates and Service Providers for Low-Income Senior Texans:
The Texas Workforce Commission invites your input on the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)
State Plan.
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training to develop the skills needed to obtain unsubsidized
employment and become self-sufficient. SCSEP participants are assigned to host agencies, community-based
organizations or government entities, to receive training related to their career objectives. While in training, participants
provide valuable community services to their local areas. Individuals who are 55 years or older, have incomes that are
125% or less than the federal poverty guidelines, and are not employed are eligible for SCSEP.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07, New State
Plan Requirements for SCSEP, which is attached for your information. The SCSEP State Plan is intended to provide a
strategic, multi-year perspective -- with goals, objectives, activities, and timelines -- for increasing collaboration with key
stakeholders to improve services and focusing program resources to serve those who are most in need.
We welcome your input on all sections of the plan. The sections that may be of most interest to you and your organization
include:
Section 4. Basic Distribution of SCSEP Positions
What outreach strategies do you recommend to recruit specific population groups oflow-income seniors identified as
priority individuals for SCSEP services? These groups include low-income seniors who:
• Are 65 years or older
• Have a disability
• Have limited English proficiency
• Have low literacy skills
• Are veterans or eligible spouses
• Have low employment prospects
• Are homeless or at risk for homelessness
• Have income levels at or below the federal poverty guidelines
• Are minorities
3/1/2008

Page 2 of2
• Have the greatest social need resulting from cultural, social, or geographical isolation.
Section 7. Community Service Needs
• How should SCSEP identify local community services that are most needed and local populations who are most
in need of community services?
• How should SCSEP recruit appropriate host agencies to supervise the training of SCSEP participants and help
meet community needs?
Section 8. Coordination with Other Programs, Initiatives, and Entities
• How should SCSEP coordinate with activities being carried out in the state under other titles ofthe Older
Americans Act?
• How should SCSEP collaborate with other public and private entities and programs that provide services to older
Americans, such as community-based organizations, transportation programs, and programs for those with
special needs or disabilities?
How should SCSEP leverage resources from other key partners to support SCSEP activities? Organizations providing
leveraged resources include state and local government agencies, foundations, community-based organizations, and
other entities.
Section 10. Improvement of SCSEP Services
Ifyou are familiar with SCSEP, what are your recommendations to improve SCSEP services to senior Texans?
We are requesting your input by close of business on Friday, February 22 nd - because of the lead time required to draft
and refine the SCSEP State Plan. Please send your comments to me bye-mail at beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us or
by fax at (512) 463-6280. We will also invite your comment on the draft plan when it is posted for public comment this
spring.
Thank you in advance for any comments or suggestions you provide.
Cordially,
Beverly
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street- Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
97

Page 1 of2
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Monday, February 11, 2008 4: 16 PM
'stella@tacaa.org'
SCSEP State Plan -- Invitation to Provide Input
Attachments: !TEGL 16-07.pdf
Stella,
Thank you very much for considering the invitation to provide input for the Senior Community Service Employment
Program (SCSEP) State Plan. I apologize for the extremely short notice, with a due date of Friday, February 22nd. I only
recently became aware of your organization at the statewide level. As noted below, the draft SCSEP State Plan will be
posted for public comment on our website this spring. Also, the SCSEP State Plan is intended to be a "living" document,
so we welcome feedback at any time.
Thank you again for considering this inviation.
Cordially,
Beverly
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
To Advocates and Service Providers for Low-Income Senior Texans:
The Texas Workforce Commission invites your input on the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP)
State Plan.
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training to develop the skills needed to obtain unsubsidized
employment and become self-sufficient. SCSEP participants are assigned to host agencies, community-based
organizations or government entities, to receive training related to their career objectives. While in training, participants
provide valuable community services to their local areas. Individuals who are 55 years or older, have incomes that are
125% or less than the federal poverty guidelines, and are not employed are eligible for SCSEP.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07, New State
Plan Requirements for SCSEP, which is attached for your information. The SCSEP State Plan is intended to provide a
strategic, multi-year perspective -- with goals, objectives, activities, and timelines -- for increasing collaboration with key
stakeholders to improve services and focusing program resources to serve those who are most in need.
We welcome your input on all sections of the plan. The sections that may be of most interest to you and your organization
include:
Section 4. Basic Distribution of SCSEP Positions
What outreach strategies do you recommend to recruit specific population groups of low-income seniors identified as
priority individuals for SCSEP services? These groups include low-income seniors who:
• Are 65 years or older
• Have a disability
• Have limited English profiCiency
• Have low literacy skills
• Are veterans or eligible spouses
3/1/2008

Page 2 of2
• Have low employment prospects
• Are homeless or at risk for homelessness
• Have income levels at or below the federal poverty guidelines
• Are minorities
• Have the greatest social need resulting from cultural, social, or geographical isolation.
Section 7. Community Service Needs
• How should SCSEP identify local community services that are most needed and local populations who are most
in need ofcommunity services?
• How should SCSEP recruit appropriate host agencies to supervise the training of SCSEP participants and help
meet community needs?
Section 8. Coordination with Other Programs, Initiatives, and Entities
• How should SCSEP coordinate with activities being carried out in the state under other titles ofthe Older
Americans Act?
• How should SCSEP collaborate with other public and private entities and programs that provide services to older
Americans, such as community-based organizations, transportation programs, and programs for those with
special needs or disabilities?
How should SCSEP leverage resources from other key partners to support SCSEP activities? Organizations providing
leveraged resources include state and local government agencies, foundations, community-based organizations, and
other entities.
Section 10. Improvement of SCSEP Services
Ifyou are familiar with SCSEP, what are your recommendations to improve SCSEP services to senior Texans?
We are requesting your input by close of business on Friday, February 22 nd - because ofthe lead time required to draft
and refine the SCSEP State Plan. Please send your comments to me bye-mail at beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us or
by fax at (512) 463-6280. We will also invite your comment on the draft plan when it is posted for public comment this
spring.
Thank you in advance for any comments or suggestions you provide.
Cordially,
Beverly
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
99

Page 1 of 1
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Friday, February 15, 20085:07 PM
'Hamilos, Lance'; 'Barbara Wand James'; 'Philip Cochran'; 'Dorothy Calhoun'; 'Frank Deutsch'; 'Greta
Mankins'; 'Jeannette Burke'; 'Jeff Johnson'; 'Joshua Martin'; 'Judy Telge'; 'Ken Martin'; 'Krista Delgallo';
'Leroy Arnold'; 'Marc Gold'; 'Paul Ferris'; Theresa Tod'; 'Alison Smith'; 'Ann Denton'; 'Charles
Buerschinger'; 'Dan Rawlins'; 'Jarni Hart'; 'JoAnn DePenning'; 'John Salmons'; 'Michael J. Doyle'; 'Richard
Lopez'; 'Erin Ferris'; 'mike.gerber@tdhca.state.tx.us'; 'John Rio'; 'eric@thn.org'
SCSEP State Plan - Invitiation to Provide Input
Attachments: !TEGL 16-07.pdf
To Advocates and Service Providers for homeless Texans:
The Texas Workforce Commission invites your input on the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) State
Plan.
SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training to develop the skills needed to obtain unsubsidized
employment and become self-sufficient. SCSEP participants are assigned to host agencies, community-based organizations
or government entities, to receive training related to their career objectives. While in training, participants provide valuable
community services to their local areas.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07, New State Plan
Requirements for SCSEP, which is attached for your information. The SCSEP State Plan is intended to provide a strategic,
multi-year perspective for increasing collaboration with key stakeholders to improve services and focusing program resources
to serve those who are most in need.·
We welcome your input on all sections of the plan. The parts that may be of most interest to you are Sections 4, 8, and 10.
Section 4 includes outreach strategies for specific population groups of low-income seniors.
What strategies do you recommend to conduct effective outreach to homeless individuals or those at risk ofbeing homeless?
Section 8 addresses coordination with other programs, initiatives, and entities.
With which public and private entities should SCSEP collaborate to better serve SCSEP participants who are homeless or at
risk ofbeing homeless?
What collaboration strategies do you recommend?
Are there specific government agencies, foundations, community-based organizations, and other entities from which SCSEP
should seek to leverage resources to belter serve participants who are homeless or at risk ofbeing homeless?
Section 10. Improvement of SCSEP Services
Ifyou are familiar with SCSEP, what are your recommendations to improve SCSEP services to senior Texans?
We are requesting your input by close of business on Friday, February 29 th . Please e-mail your comments to
_Q~i!..~rJY-,d.QD.9..9.h~.@t~9-,~rnte.tl5.,-~. We will also invite your comment on the draft plan when it is posted for public comment
this spring.
Thank you in advance for any comments or suggestions you provide.
Cordially,
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly .donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008

Page 1 of 1
Donoghue, Beverly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donoghue, Beverly
Friday, February 15,20084:19 PM
'conniej@tvc.state.tx.us'
SCSEP State Plan - Invitation to Provide Input
Attachments: !TEGL 16-07.pdf
Connie,
I would like to invite your input for the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) State Plan. As you
know, SCSEP provides low-income seniors with paid, on-the-job training to develop the skills needed to obtain
unsubsidized jobs and become self-sufficient. One of the priority populations for SCSEP grantees to serve is veterans or
their eligible spouses, who meet the requirements of the Jobs for Veterans Act, 38 U.S.C. sec. 4215(a)(1):
• Married to a veteran who died of a service-connected disability
• Married to a member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty who is missing in action, captured in the line of duty
by a hostile force, or forcibly detained or interned in the line of duty by a foreign power
• Married to a veteran who has a total disability resulting from a service-connected disability
• Married to a veteran who died while a disability so evaluated was in existence.
The U.S. Department of Labor recently published Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 16-07, New State
Plan Requirements for SCSEP, which is attached for your information. The SCSEP State Plan is intended to provide a
strategic four-year perspective for increasing collaboration with key stakeholders to improve services and focusing
program resources to serve those who are most in need.
I would welcome your input on all sections of the plan. The sections that may be of most interest to you are Sections 4c
and Section 7:
1) Section 4c includes outreach to priority populations, including veterans or their eligible spouses. What suggestions do
you have for the most effective outreach to veterans or eligible veterans' spouses? SCSEP grantees work with the
veterans representatives at workforce centers, but there are many rural counties and communities that don't have
workforce centers. Are there other ways to effectively conduct outreach to veterans and eligible spouses?
2) Section 7 includes coordinating with and leveraging resources from public and private entities and programs to meet
the needs of low income seniors. Are public or private entities serving veterans that would be useful for SCSEP grantees
to collaborate with to better serve veterans and eligible spouses. Are there public or private entities whose resources
might be leveraged by SCSEP grantees to better serve veteran participants?
I would like to receive your input by close of business on Monday, February 25 th if possible. We will also invite your
comments on the draft plan when it is posted for public comment later this spring.
Thank you in advance for any input you provide.
Cordially,
Beverly Donoghue, Ed.D.
Texas SCSEP Grant Manager
Texas Workforce Commission
101 E. 15 th Street - Room 252T
Austin, TX 78778-0001
(512) 936-2146 phone
(512) 463-6280 fax
beverly.donoghue@twc.state.tx.us
3/1/2008
101

Appendix 3
Public Comments Received on
Senior Community Service Employment Program State Plan
The comment period for the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) State
Plan was from May 14, 2008, to May 23, 2008. The Texas Workforce Commission
(Commission) received the following comments.
Comment: One commenter representing the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services
(DADS) expressed appreciation for the opportunity to review the plan and had no recommended
revisions. The commenter confirmed that DADS provided input on and agreed to the partnership
activities between DADS and Area Agencies on Aging that were described in the plan.
Response: The Commission appreciates the comment and support for the SCSEP State Plan.
Comment: One commenter representing a Local Workforce Development Board (Board) did
not support the concept of reserving training funds for older workers but preferred to treat all
customers the same and minimize the administrative burden of tracking funds for a specific
target group. The commenter also preferred to have individual memoranda of understanding
(MOUs) with SCSEP providers rather than one “umbrella” MOU with all SCSEP providers for a
particular local workforce development area (workforce area).
Response: The SCSEP State Plan provides for exploring the possibility of using federal or state
funding sources for training in which older job seekers would be given preference for training
slots (Section 8, page 49). Regarding MOUs, the Commission encourages, but will not require,
Boards to implement a single “umbrella” MOU with all SCSEP providers in their workforce
areas (Section 8, page 48).
Comment: One commenter representing the Texas Workforce Investment Council supported
the Commission’s efforts to partner with SCSEP Grantees and other workforce system partners.
The commenter also recognized that the workforce system will play an increasingly important
role in facilitating mature workers’ access to employment and training opportunities.
Response: The Commission appreciates the input and support.
Comment: One commenter representing Senior Service America, Inc. (SSA), a national SCSEP
grantee, appreciated the Commission’s collaborative process to develop the plan and the
strategies developed to increase the effectiveness of the program, particularly in rural areas. The
commenter suggested two edits:
• Expanding the community service aspect of SCSEP’s dual mission description in Section 1,
Purpose of the State Plan, as a way to improve participants’ self-sufficiency, provide
meaningful civic engagement, and strengthen communities—in accordance with the Sense of
Congress in the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006, Section 516.
102

• Adding a sentence to Section 9, Avoidance of Disruption of Service, to convey that Texas
Grantees await direction from the U.S. Department of Labor on new regulations for
implementing the durational limit for participants.
Response: The Commission appreciates the support and participation of SSA and other SCSEP
Grantees in developing the SCSEP State Plan and looks forward to working with Grantee
partners to implement the strategies developed to better serve older workers. The Commission
appreciates the suggested edits and has incorporated them into the plan (Section 1, page 7, and
Section 9, page 55).
103

Appendix 4
PY 07-08 SCSEP Equitable Distribution Report - effective 10/01/07
County Factor Share State AARP EW NAPCA SER SSA Totals Difference
Anderson County, TX 0.0044 14 14 14 0
Andrews County, TX 0.0008 3 2 2 -1
Angelina County, TX 0.0050 17 17 17 0
Aransas County, TX 0.0021 7 7 7 0
Archer County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
Armstrong County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Atascosa County, TX 0.0026 9 9 9 0
Austin County, TX 0.0018 6 6 6 0
Bailey County, TX 0.0007 2 2 2 0
Bandera County, TX 0.0013 4 3 3 -1
Bastrop County, TX 0.0030 10 10 10 0
Baylor County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Bee County, TX 0.0021 7 7 7 0
Bell County, TX 0.0087 29 28 28 -1
Bexar County, TX 0.0623 205 205 205 0
Blanco County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Borden County, TX 0.0000 0 1 1 1
Bosque County, TX 0.0019 6 6 6 0
Bowie County, TX 0.0060 20 20 20 0
Brazoria County, TX 0.0090 30 29 29 -1
Brazos County, TX 0.0037 12 12 12 0
Brewster County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Briscoe County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Brooks County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Brown County, TX 0.0034 11 11 11 0
Burleson County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Burnet County, TX 0.0020 7 7 7 0
Caldwell County, TX 0.0022 7 7 7 0
Calhoun County, TX 0.0013 4 3 3 -1
Callahan County, TX 0.0010 3 5 5 2
Cameron County, TX 0.0290 95 91 91 -4
Camp County, TX 0.0010 3 3 3 0
Carson County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Cass County, TX 0.0036 12 12 12 0
Castro County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Chambers County, TX 0.0013 4 3 3 -1
Cherokee County, TX 0.0042 14 14 14 0
Childress County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Clay County, TX 0.0008 3 3 3 0
Cochran County, TX 0.0003 1 2 2 1
Coke County, TX 0.0004 1 2 2 1
Coleman County, TX 0.0013 4 4 4 0
Collin County, TX 0.0072 24 24 24 0
Collingsworth County, TX 0.0004 1 2 2 1
104

Appendix 4
PY 07-08 SCSEP Equitable Distribution Report - effective 10/01/07
County Factor Share State AARP EW NAPCA SER SSA Totals Difference
Colorado County, TX 0.0022 7 7 7 0
Comal County, TX 0.0034 11 10 10 -1
Comanche County, TX 0.0017 5 6 6 1
Concho County, TX 0.0004 1 2 2 1
Cooke County, TX 0.0020 7 7 7 0
Coryell County, TX 0.0019 6 6 6 0
Cottle County, TX 0.0003 1 2 2 1
Crane County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Crockett County, TX 0.0004 1 2 2 1
Crosby County, TX 0.0009 3 3 3 0
Culberson County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Dallam County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
Dallas County, TX 0.0718 236 236 236 0
Dawson County, TX 0.0011 4 4 4 0
Deaf Smith County, TX 0.0014 5 5 5 0
Delta County, TX 0.0007 2 2 2 0
Denton County, TX 0.0070 23 23 23 0
DeWitt County, TX 0.0026 9 9 9 0
Dickens County, TX 0.0004 1 2 2 1
Dimmit County, TX 0.0013 4 4 4 0
Donley County, TX 0.0004 1 2 2 1
Duval County, TX 0.0015 5 5 5 0
Eastland County, TX 0.0021 7 7 7 0
Ector County, TX 0.0074 24 24 24 0
Edwards County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
El Paso County, TX 0.0425 140 139 139 -1
Ellis County, TX 0.0041 13 14 14 1
Erath County, TX 0.0018 6 6 6 0
Falls County, TX 0.0021 7 7 7 0
Fannin County, TX 0.0027 9 9 9 0
Fayette County, TX 0.0023 8 8 8 0
Fisher County, TX 0.0005 2 3 3 1
Floyd County, TX 0.0008 3 3 3 0
Foard County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Fort Bend County, TX 0.0075 25 24 24 -1
Franklin County, TX 0.0008 3 3 3 0
Freestone County, TX 0.0016 5 5 5 0
Frio County, TX 0.0016 5 5 5 0
Gaines County, TX 0.0009 3 3 3 0
Galveston County, TX 0.0113 37 38 38 1
Garza County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
Gillespie County, TX 0.0022 7 4 4 -3
Glasscock County, TX 0.0001 0 1 1 1
Goliad County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
Gonzales County, TX 0.0019 6 6 6 0
105

Appendix 4
PY 07-08 SCSEP Equitable Distribution Report - effective 10/01/07
County Factor Share State AARP EW NAPCA SER SSA Totals Difference
Gray County, TX 0.0018 6 6 6 0
Grayson County, TX 0.0075 25 25 25 0
Gregg County, TX 0.0063 21 21 21 0
Grimes County, TX 0.0027 9 6 6 -3
Guadalupe County, TX 0.0036 12 12 12 0
Hale County, TX 0.0027 9 9 9 0
Hall County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
Hamilton County, TX 0.0010 3 3 3 0
Hansford County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Hardeman County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
Hardin County, TX 0.0027 9 9 9 0
Harris County, TX 0.1167 384 198 81 105 384 0
Harrison County, TX 0.0041 14 14 14 0
Hartley County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Haskell County, TX 0.0008 3 3 3 0
Hays County, TX 0.0025 8 8 8 0
Hemphill County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Henderson County, TX 0.0065 21 22 22 1
Hidalgo County, TX 0.0447 147 145 145 -2
Hill County, TX 0.0033 11 11 11 0
Hockley County, TX 0.0017 6 6 6 0
Hood County, TX 0.0019 6 7 7 1
Hopkins County, TX 0.0026 8 9 9 1
Houston County, TX 0.0025 8 8 8 0
Howard County, TX 0.0028 9 10 10 1
Hudspeth County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Hunt County, TX 0.0048 16 16 16 0
Hutchinson County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Irion County, TX 0.0001 0 1 1 1
Jack County, TX 0.0007 2 3 3 1
Jackson County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Jasper County, TX 0.0033 11 11 11 0
Jeff Davis County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Jefferson County, TX 0.0157 52 51 51 -1
Jim Hogg County, TX 0.0007 2 2 2 0
Jim Wells County, TX 0.0037 12 12 12 0
Johnson County, TX 0.0054 18 18 18 0
Jones County, TX 0.0021 7 7 7 0
Karnes County, TX 0.0016 5 5 5 0
Kaufman County, TX 0.0040 13 14 14 1
Kendall County, TX 0.0012 4 3 3 -1
Kenedy County, TX 0.0001 0 0 0
Kent County, TX 0.0001 0 1 1 1
Kerr County, TX 0.0035 11 10 10 -1
Kimble County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
106

Appendix 4
PY 07-08 SCSEP Equitable Distribution Report - effective 10/01/07
County Factor Share State AARP EW NAPCA SER SSA Totals Difference
King County, TX 0.0000 0 1 1 1
Kinney County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Kleberg County, TX 0.0022 7 7 7 0
Knox County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
La Salle County, TX 0.0007 2 2 2 0
Lamar County, TX 0.0043 14 15 15 1
Lamb County, TX 0.0017 6 6 6 0
Lampasas County, TX 0.0013 4 4 4 0
Lavaca County, TX 0.0026 9 7 7 -2
Lee County, TX 0.0011 4 4 4 0
Leon County, TX 0.0016 5 5 5 0
Liberty County, TX 0.0045 15 15 15 0
Limestone County, TX 0.0024 8 8 8 0
Lipscomb County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Live Oak County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Llano County, TX 0.0016 5 5 5 0
Loving County, TX 0.0000 0 0 0
Lubbock County, TX 0.0115 38 37 37 -1
Lynn County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Madison County, TX 0.0011 4 3 3 -1
Marion County, TX 0.0014 5 5 5 0
Martin County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Mason County, TX 0.0004 1 2 2 1
Matagorda County, TX 0.0028 9 9 9 0
Maverick County, TX 0.0054 18 18 18 0
Mc Culloch County, TX 0.0010 3 3 3 0
Mc Lennan County, TX 0.0120 39 4 35 39 0
Mc Mullen County, TX 0.0001 0 0 0
Medina County, TX 0.0023 8 8 8 0
Menard County, TX 0.0003 1 2 2 1
Midland County, TX 0.0048 16 16 16 0
Milam County, TX 0.0022 7 7 7 0
Mills County, TX 0.0007 2 2 2 0
Mitchell County, TX 0.0011 4 4 4 0
Montague County, TX 0.0020 6 7 7 1
Montgomery County, TX 0.0096 32 31 31 -1
Moore County, TX 0.0010 3 3 3 0
Morris County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Motley County, TX 0.0002 1 2 2 1
Nacogdoches County, TX 0.0038 13 13 13 0
Navarro County, TX 0.0036 12 12 12 0
Newton County, TX 0.0015 5 5 5 0
Nolan County, TX 0.0017 5 6 6 1
Nueces County, TX 0.0189 62 62 62 0
Ochiltree County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
107

Appendix 4
PY 07-08 SCSEP Equitable Distribution Report - effective 10/01/07
County Factor Share State AARP EW NAPCA SER SSA Totals Difference
Oldham County, TX 0.0001 0 1 1 1
Orange County, TX 0.0050 16 17 17 1
Palo Pinto County, TX 0.0023 7 8 8 1
Panola County, TX 0.0022 7 7 7 0
Parker County, TX 0.0034 11 11 11 0
Parmer County, TX 0.0007 2 2 2 0
Pecos County, TX 0.0014 5 4 4 -1
Polk County, TX 0.0040 13 13 13 0
Potter County, TX 0.0073 24 24 24 0
Presidio County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Rains County, TX 0.0009 3 3 3 0
Randall County, TX 0.0030 10 10 10 0
Reagan County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Real County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Red River County, TX 0.0017 6 6 6 0
Reeves County, TX 0.0015 5 5 5 0
Refugio County, TX 0.0008 3 3 3 0
Roberts County, TX 0.0000 0 1 1 1
Robertson County, TX 0.0018 6 6 6 0
Rockwall County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Runnels County, TX 0.0015 5 5 5 0
Rusk County, TX 0.0041 13 14 14 1
Sabine County, TX 0.0014 5 6 6 1
San Augustine County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
San Jacinto County, TX 0.0023 8 8 8 0
San Patricio County, TX 0.0042 14 14 14 0
San Saba County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Schleicher County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Scurry County, TX 0.0013 4 4 4 0
Shackelford County, TX 0.0004 1 2 2 1
Shelby County, TX 0.0026 9 9 9 0
Sherman County, TX 0.0002 1 2 2 1
Smith County, TX 0.0102 34 33 33 -1
Somervell County, TX 0.0004 1 2 2 1
Starr County, TX 0.0062 20 21 21 1
Stephens County, TX 0.0008 3 3 3 0
Sterling County, TX 0.0001 0 1 1 1
Stonewall County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Sutton County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Swisher County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Tarrant County, TX 0.0430 142 139 139 -3
Taylor County, TX 0.0066 22 22 22 0
Terrell County, TX 0.0002 1 0 -1
Terry County, TX 0.0009 3 3 3 0
Throckmorton County, TX 0.0002 1 2 2 1
108

Appendix 4
PY 07-08 SCSEP Equitable Distribution Report - effective 10/01/07
County Factor Share State AARP EW NAPCA SER SSA Totals Difference
Titus County, TX 0.0020 7 7 7 0
Tom Green County, TX 0.0052 17 17 17 0
Travis County, TX 0.0175 58 54 54 -4
Trinity County, TX 0.0018 6 7 7 1
Tyler County, TX 0.0019 6 6 6 0
Upshur County, TX 0.0026 8 9 9 1
Upton County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Uvalde County, TX 0.0024 8 8 8 0
Val Verde County, TX 0.0043 14 14 14 0
Van Zandt County, TX 0.0042 14 14 14 0
Victoria County, TX 0.0046 15 15 15 0
Walker County, TX 0.0037 12 12 12 0
Waller County, TX 0.0015 5 4 4 -1
Ward County, TX 0.0011 3 3 3 0
Washington County, TX 0.0026 8 8 8 0
Webb County, TX 0.0134 44 44 44 0
Wharton County, TX 0.0032 10 11 11 1
Wheeler County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Wichita County, TX 0.0066 22 21 21 -1
Wilbarger County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Willacy County, TX 0.0022 7 7 7 0
Williamson County, TX 0.0052 17 17 17 0
Wilson County, TX 0.0023 8 5 5 -3
Winkler County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Wise County, TX 0.0027 9 9 9 0
Wood County, TX 0.0033 11 9 9 -2
Yoakum County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Young County, TX 0.0017 5 5 5 0
Zapata County, TX 0.0011 4 4 4 0
Zavala County, TX 0.0015 5 5 5 0
TOTALS: 1.0000 3,290 670 1,303 566 81 393 277 3,290 0
109

Appendix 5
PY 08-09 SCSEP Equitable Distribution Report - effective 07/01/08
County Factor Share State AARP EW NAPCA SER SSA Totals Difference
Anderson County, TX 0.0044 14 13 13 -1
Andrews County, TX 0.0008 2 2 2 0
Angelina County, TX 0.0050 16 15 15 -1
Aransas County, TX 0.0021 7 7 7 0
Archer County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
Armstrong County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Atascosa County, TX 0.0026 8 8 8 0
Austin County, TX 0.0018 6 6 6 0
Bailey County, TX 0.0007 2 2 2 0
Bandera County, TX 0.0013 4 3 3 -1
Bastrop County, TX 0.0030 10 10 10 0
Baylor County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Bee County, TX 0.0021 7 7 7 0
Bell County, TX 0.0087 28 27 27 -1
Bexar County, TX 0.0623 199 199 199 0
Blanco County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Borden County, TX 0.0000 0 1 1 1
Bosque County, TX 0.0019 6 6 6 0
Bowie County, TX 0.0060 19 19 19 0
Brazoria County, TX 0.0090 29 27 27 -2
Brazos County, TX 0.0037 12 12 12 0
Brewster County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Briscoe County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Brooks County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Brown County, TX 0.0034 11 11 11 0
Burleson County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Burnet County, TX 0.0020 6 6 6 0
Caldwell County, TX 0.0022 7 7 7 0
Calhoun County, TX 0.0013 4 4 4 0
Callahan County, TX 0.0010 3 3 3 0
Cameron County, TX 0.0290 93 91 91 -2
Camp County, TX 0.0010 3 3 3 0
Carson County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Cass County, TX 0.0036 12 12 12 0
Castro County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Chambers County, TX 0.0013 4 3 3 -1
Cherokee County, TX 0.0042 14 14 14 0
Childress County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Clay County, TX 0.0008 3 3 3 0
Cochran County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Coke County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Coleman County, TX 0.0013 4 4 4 0
Collin County, TX 0.0072 23 23 23 0
Collingsworth County, TX 0.0004 1 2 2 1
Colorado County, TX 0.0022 7 7 7 0
Incorporates changes submitted for DOL approval in April 2008 and Grantee slot deletions required by 2.8% statewide decrease in SCSEP slots for PY'08-'09
110

Appendix 5
PY 08-09 SCSEP Equitable Distribution Report - effective 07/01/08
County Factor Share State AARP EW NAPCA SER SSA Totals Difference
Comal County, TX 0.0034 11 11 11 0
Comanche County, TX 0.0017 5 5 5 0
Concho County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Cooke County, TX 0.0020 7 7 7 0
Coryell County, TX 0.0019 6 6 6 0
Cottle County, TX 0.0003 1 2 2 1
Crane County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Crockett County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Crosby County, TX 0.0009 3 3 3 0
Culberson County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Dallam County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
Dallas County, TX 0.0718 230 229 229 -1
Dawson County, TX 0.0011 3 4 4 1
Deaf Smith County, TX 0.0014 4 5 5 1
Delta County, TX 0.0007 2 2 2 0
Denton County, TX 0.0070 22 22 22 0
DeWitt County, TX 0.0026 8 8 8 0
Dickens County, TX 0.0004 1 2 2 1
Dimmit County, TX 0.0013 4 4 4 0
Donley County, TX 0.0004 1 2 2 1
Duval County, TX 0.0015 5 5 5 0
Eastland County, TX 0.0021 7 7 7 0
Ector County, TX 0.0074 24 24 24 0
Edwards County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
El Paso County, TX 0.0425 136 135 135 -1
Ellis County, TX 0.0041 13 13 13 0
Erath County, TX 0.0018 6 6 6 0
Falls County, TX 0.0021 7 7 7 0
Fannin County, TX 0.0027 9 9 9 0
Fayette County, TX 0.0023 7 7 7 0
Fisher County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
Floyd County, TX 0.0008 2 2 2 0
Foard County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Fort Bend County, TX 0.0075 24 22 22 -2
Franklin County, TX 0.0008 3 3 3 0
Freestone County, TX 0.0016 5 5 5 0
Frio County, TX 0.0016 5 5 5 0
Gaines County, TX 0.0009 3 3 3 0
Galveston County, TX 0.0113 36 36 36 0
Garza County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
Gillespie County, TX 0.0022 7 6 6 -1
Glasscock County, TX 0.0001 0 1 1 1
Goliad County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
Gonzales County, TX 0.0019 6 6 6 0
Gray County, TX 0.0018 6 6 6 0
Incorporates changes submitted for DOL approval in April 2008 and Grantee slot deletions required by 2.8% statewide decrease in SCSEP slots for PY'08-'09
111

Appendix 5
PY 08-09 SCSEP Equitable Distribution Report - effective 07/01/08
County Factor Share State AARP EW NAPCA SER SSA Totals Difference
Grayson County, TX 0.0075 24 24 24 0
Gregg County, TX 0.0063 20 19 19 -1
Grimes County, TX 0.0027 9 9 9 0
Guadalupe County, TX 0.0036 11 11 11 0
Hale County, TX 0.0027 9 9 9 0
Hall County, TX 0.0005 1 2 2 1
Hamilton County, TX 0.0010 3 3 3 0
Hansford County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Hardeman County, TX 0.0005 1 2 2 1
Hardin County, TX 0.0027 9 9 9 0
Harris County, TX 0.1167 373 191 79 102 372 -1
Harrison County, TX 0.0041 13 13 13 0
Hartley County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Haskell County, TX 0.0008 3 3 3 0
Hays County, TX 0.0025 8 8 8 0
Hemphill County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Henderson County, TX 0.0065 21 21 21 0
Hidalgo County, TX 0.0447 143 141 141 -2
Hill County, TX 0.0033 10 10 10 0
Hockley County, TX 0.0017 5 6 6 1
Hood County, TX 0.0019 6 6 6 0
Hopkins County, TX 0.0026 8 8 8 0
Houston County, TX 0.0025 8 8 8 0
Howard County, TX 0.0028 9 9 9 0
Hudspeth County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Hunt County, TX 0.0048 15 15 15 0
Hutchinson County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Irion County, TX 0.0001 0 1 1 1
Jack County, TX 0.0007 2 3 3 1
Jackson County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Jasper County, TX 0.0033 11 11 11 0
Jeff Davis County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Jefferson County, TX 0.0157 50 50 50 0
Jim Hogg County, TX 0.0007 2 2 2 0
Jim Wells County, TX 0.0037 12 12 12 0
Johnson County, TX 0.0054 17 17 17 0
Jones County, TX 0.0021 7 7 7 0
Karnes County, TX 0.0016 5 5 5 0
Kaufman County, TX 0.0040 13 13 13 0
Kendall County, TX 0.0012 4 3 3 -1
Kenedy County, TX 0.0001 0 1 1 1
Kent County, TX 0.0001 0 1 1 1
Kerr County, TX 0.0035 11 11 11 0
Kimble County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
King County, TX 0.0000 0 1 1 1
Incorporates changes submitted for DOL approval in April 2008 and Grantee slot deletions required by 2.8% statewide decrease in SCSEP slots for PY'08-'09
112

Appendix 5
PY 08-09 SCSEP Equitable Distribution Report - effective 07/01/08
County Factor Share State AARP EW NAPCA SER SSA Totals Difference
Kinney County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Kleberg County, TX 0.0022 7 7 7 0
Knox County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
La Salle County, TX 0.0007 2 2 2 0
Lamar County, TX 0.0043 14 14 14 0
Lamb County, TX 0.0017 5 6 6 1
Lampasas County, TX 0.0013 4 4 4 0
Lavaca County, TX 0.0026 8 7 7 -1
Lee County, TX 0.0011 4 4 4 0
Leon County, TX 0.0016 5 5 5 0
Liberty County, TX 0.0045 14 14 14 0
Limestone County, TX 0.0024 8 8 8 0
Lipscomb County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Live Oak County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Llano County, TX 0.0016 5 5 5 0
Loving County, TX 0.0000 0 1 1 1
Lubbock County, TX 0.0115 37 37 37 0
Lynn County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Madison County, TX 0.0011 4 4 4 0
Marion County, TX 0.0014 4 4 4 0
Martin County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Mason County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Matagorda County, TX 0.0028 9 9 9 0
Maverick County, TX 0.0054 17 17 17 0
Mc Culloch County, TX 0.0010 3 3 3 0
Mc Lennan County, TX 0.0120 38 4 34 38 0
Mc Mullen County, TX 0.0001 0 1 1 1
Medina County, TX 0.0023 7 7 7 0
Menard County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Midland County, TX 0.0048 15 15 15 0
Milam County, TX 0.0022 7 7 7 0
Mills County, TX 0.0007 2 2 2 0
Mitchell County, TX 0.0011 4 4 4 0
Montague County, TX 0.0020 6 6 6 0
Montgomery County, TX 0.0096 31 30 30 -1
Moore County, TX 0.0010 3 3 3 0
Morris County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Motley County, TX 0.0002 1 2 2 1
Nacogdoches County, TX 0.0038 12 12 12 0
Navarro County, TX 0.0036 11 11 11 0
Newton County, TX 0.0015 5 5 5 0
Nolan County, TX 0.0017 5 5 5 0
Nueces County, TX 0.0189 61 61 61 0
Ochiltree County, TX 0.0005 2 2 2 0
Oldham County, TX 0.0001 0 1 1 1
Incorporates changes submitted for DOL approval in April 2008 and Grantee slot deletions required by 2.8% statewide decrease in SCSEP slots for PY'08-'09
113

Appendix 5
PY 08-09 SCSEP Equitable Distribution Report - effective 07/01/08
County Factor Share State AARP EW NAPCA SER SSA Totals Difference
Orange County, TX 0.0050 16 16 16 0
Palo Pinto County, TX 0.0023 7 7 7 0
Panola County, TX 0.0022 7 7 7 0
Parker County, TX 0.0034 11 11 11 0
Parmer County, TX 0.0007 2 2 2 0
Pecos County, TX 0.0014 5 4 4 -1
Polk County, TX 0.0040 13 13 13 0
Potter County, TX 0.0073 23 24 24 1
Presidio County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Rains County, TX 0.0009 3 3 3 0
Randall County, TX 0.0030 10 10 10 0
Reagan County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Real County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Red River County, TX 0.0017 5 5 5 0
Reeves County, TX 0.0015 5 5 5 0
Refugio County, TX 0.0008 3 3 3 0
Roberts County, TX 0.0000 0 1 1 1
Robertson County, TX 0.0018 6 6 6 0
Rockwall County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Runnels County, TX 0.0015 5 5 5 0
Rusk County, TX 0.0041 13 13 13 0
Sabine County, TX 0.0014 4 4 4 0
San Augustine County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
San Jacinto County, TX 0.0023 7 7 7 0
San Patricio County, TX 0.0042 13 13 13 0
San Saba County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Schleicher County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Scurry County, TX 0.0013 4 4 4 0
Shackelford County, TX 0.0004 1 2 2 1
Shelby County, TX 0.0026 8 8 8 0
Sherman County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Smith County, TX 0.0102 33 32 32 -1
Somervell County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Starr County, TX 0.0062 20 20 20 0
Stephens County, TX 0.0008 3 3 3 0
Sterling County, TX 0.0001 0 1 1 1
Stonewall County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Sutton County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Swisher County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Tarrant County, TX 0.0430 138 137 137 -1
Taylor County, TX 0.0066 21 22 22 1
Terrell County, TX 0.0002 1 1 1 0
Terry County, TX 0.0009 3 3 3 0
Throckmorton County, TX 0.0002 1 2 2 1
Titus County, TX 0.0020 6 6 6 0
Incorporates changes submitted for DOL approval in April 2008 and Grantee slot deletions required by 2.8% statewide decrease in SCSEP slots for PY'08-'09
114

Appendix 5
PY 08-09 SCSEP Equitable Distribution Report - effective 07/01/08
County Factor Share State AARP EW NAPCA SER SSA Totals Difference
Tom Green County, TX 0.0052 17 17 17 0
Travis County, TX 0.0175 56 54 54 -2
Trinity County, TX 0.0018 6 6 6 0
Tyler County, TX 0.0019 6 6 6 0
Upshur County, TX 0.0026 8 8 8 0
Upton County, TX 0.0003 1 1 1 0
Uvalde County, TX 0.0024 8 8 8 0
Val Verde County, TX 0.0043 14 14 14 0
Van Zandt County, TX 0.0042 13 13 13 0
Victoria County, TX 0.0046 15 15 15 0
Walker County, TX 0.0037 12 12 12 0
Waller County, TX 0.0015 5 4 4 -1
Ward County, TX 0.0011 3 3 3 0
Washington County, TX 0.0026 8 8 8 0
Webb County, TX 0.0134 43 43 43 0
Wharton County, TX 0.0032 10 10 10 0
Wheeler County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Wichita County, TX 0.0066 21 22 22 1
Wilbarger County, TX 0.0012 4 4 4 0
Willacy County, TX 0.0022 7 7 7 0
Williamson County, TX 0.0052 17 17 17 0
Wilson County, TX 0.0023 7 7 7 0
Winkler County, TX 0.0006 2 2 2 0
Wise County, TX 0.0027 9 9 9 0
Wood County, TX 0.0033 11 10 10 -1
Yoakum County, TX 0.0004 1 1 1 0
Young County, TX 0.0017 5 5 5 0
Zapata County, TX 0.0011 4 4 4 0
Zavala County, TX 0.0015 5 5 5 0
TOTALS: 1.0000 3,197 651 1,266 550 79 382 269 3,197 0
Incorporates changes submitted for DOL approval in April 2008 and Grantee slot deletions required by 2.8% statewide decrease in SCSEP slots for PY'08-'09
115

Appendix 6
PY 2007-08 Quarter 3 Statewide QPR
Texas SCSEP Grantees
AARP EW/Fed NAPCA SER SSA EW/State
Statewide
Total
Statewide
Average
2000
Census
PY 06-07
Natl Total
Number of authorized positions 1,303 566 81 393 277 670 3,290 60,438
PY 06-07
Natl %
Participation Levels
Participants served
Carried over from previous year
New participants
Total exits
Current participants
Vacancies
2,251
1,173
1,078
1,033
1,218
85
885
433
452
380
505
61
102
87
15
40
62
19
447
327
120
141
306
87
419
254
141
153
242
11
1,070
607
463
393
677
0
5,174
2,881
2,269
2,140
3,010
263 7.99%
68,855
29,369
38,854
30,788
37,435
22,594 32.8%
Rejected records 0 0 0 0 24 0 24 0.46%
632 0.9%
Persons on waiting list
Customer flow
Co-enrollments
26
45
1,049
0
72
173
0
-25
0
8
-21
342
0
-12
99
0
70
166
34
129
1,829
0.66%
35.35%
1,347
8,066
20,694
2.0%
30.1%
Exits due to unsubsidized employment 581 153 9 57 60 192 1,052
12,127 17.6%
Average starting wage (last 4 qtrs) $7.87 $8.33 $5.79 $8.43 $7.90 $7.78 $7.93
$8.57
% of placements with benefits (last 4
qtrs) 16% 31% 21% 42% 36% 18% 32%
Other reasons for exit
Exclusions
Exclusions after exit
107
345
34
130
81
8
10
21
0
39
45
12
39
54
3
86
74
4
411
620
12,579
6,076
18.3%
8.8%
Participants transferred into project 0 44 0 1 0 16 61
10,775
Participants transferred out of project 0 16 0 0 0 41 57
118
Regular placements (last qtr)
OJE placements (last qtr)
192
1
54
1
5
0
19
1
17
0
69
0
356
3
not available
not available
Regular placements (ytd)
OJE placements (ytd)
624
13
156
1
9
0
56
6
61
0
203
0
1,109
20
51.82%
0.93%
10,812
184
35.1%
0.6%
Non-SCSEP-eligible placements
Non-qualifying placements
Number of hours of training
0
83
17,850
0
22
188
0
1
500
0
6
8,444
0
4
373
0
12
559
0
128
27,914
3
425
1,121,426
0.0%
0.6%
Participants assigned 18-22 hrs/week 16% 33% 78% 36% 36% 41% not available
116

Appendix 6
PY 2007-08 Quarter 3 Statewide QPR
Texas SCSEP Grantees
AARP EW/Fed NAPCA SER SSA EW/State
Statewide
Total
Statewide
Average
2000
Census
PY 06-07
Natl Total
PY 06-07
Natl %
Community Service Assignments
No. of participants serving gen.
commun. 1,759 758 73 329 334 851 4,104 78.76%
68,112 72.4%
Total hrs serving gen. community 544,624 278,585 39,349 192,302 134,048 387,442 1,576,350
28,157,411 71.3%
No. of participants serving elderly 596 110 20 124 68 189 1,107 21.24%
25,958 27.6%
Total hrs serving elderly 191,697 65,905 11,054 67,224 26,837 95,616 458,333
11,352,719 28.7%
No. of participants serving community 2,244 868 102 446 395 1,040 5,095
94,070
Total hrs serving community 736,599 344,490 56,493 263,572 161,779 483,058 2,045,991
39,510,130
Participant Characteristics
Gender: Male
Gender: Female
Age: 55-59
Age: 60-64
Age: 65-69
Age: 70-74
Age: 75 & over
Ethnicity: Hispanic
870
1,380
806
644
430
251
120
1,296
190
693
293
230
169
114
79
30
43
59
27
31
25
13
7
4
113
334
141
109
96
61
40
79
104
291
121
89
67
65
53
74
186
884
281
284
236
166
103
322
1,506
3,641
1,669
1,387
1,023
670
402
1,805
29.3%
70.7%
32.4%
26.9%
19.9%
13.0%
7.8%
35.0%
36.0%
64.0%
17.2%
16.3%
14.9%
15.3%
36.3%
31.2%
23,513
55,145
26,859
20,198
15,243
9,634
6,910
9,400
29.9%
70.1%
39.0%
29.3%
22.1%
14.0%
10.0%
13.7%
Race: American Indian or Alaska native 12 6 0 2 7 16 43 0.9% 0.5% 2,103 3.1%
Race: Asian 25 1 83 1 1 1 112 2.3% 1.3% 2,619 3.8%
Race: Black or African American
Race: Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Race: White
Educ: 8th grade & under
Educ: 9th-12th grade, no diploma
Educ: hs diploma or GED
Educ: 1-3 years college
574
2
1,448
547
306
761
430
163
1
705
30
172
343
216
7
0
6
10
11
31
20
254
0
147
50
74
203
87
39
0
320
51
69
164
69
167
1
833
135
207
397
198
1,204
4
3,459
823
839
1,899
1,020
25.0%
0.1%
71.7%
16.0%
16.3%
36.9%
19.8%
16.1%
0.0%
71.8%
37.9%
22.5%
22.0%
10.3%
24,710
482
44,810
7,125
14,100
30,674
15,729
35.9%
0.7%
65.1%
10.3%
20.5%
44.5%
22.8%
Educ: post-sec certificate 9 43 0 2 6 50 110 2.1%
1,511 2.2%
Educ: associate's degree
Educ: Bachelor's degree or equivalent
11
126
26
36
1
26
1
22
17
12
27
40
83
262
1.6%
5.1%
1.4%
3.5%
1,741
5,346
2.5%
7.8%
Educ: some graduate school 21 5 1 3 1 7 38 0.7%
858 1.2%
Educ: master's degree 36 12 2 2 0 8 60 1.2%
1,417 2.1%
Educ: doctoral degree 4 2 0 2 1 1 10 0.2%
280 0.4%
117

Appendix 6
PY 2007-08 Quarter 3 Statewide QPR
Texas SCSEP Grantees
AARP EW/Fed NAPCA SER SSA EW/State
Statewide
Total
Statewide
Average
2000
Census
PY 06-07
Natl Total
PY 06-07
Natl %
Other: income at or below poverty level 2,106 725 94 392 309 885 4,511 87.2%
Other: individuals with disabilities 267 149 2 87 107 128 740 14.3% 59.0%
67,084 97.4%
15,004 21.8%
Other: individuals with LEP
Other: individuals with low literacy
650 9 91 25 13 118 906 17.5% 16.0% 7,626 11.1%
skills
Other: individuals living in rural areas
761 44 87 72 36 164 1,164 22.5%
10,409 15.1%
(new participants only)
Other: individuals with low employment
37 274 0 5 91 289 696 28.8% 17.5% not available
prospects
Other: WIA Title I exiters who failed to
2,100 821 90 342 393 997 4,743 91.7%
63,832 92.7%
find jobs (new participants only)
Other: individuals ≥ 75 yrs at date of
91 50 1 21 4 110 277 12.0%
not available
report
Other: individuals who are homeless or
184 108 11 59 78 211 651 12.6%
not available
at risk of homelessness
Other: displaced homemakers
Other: veterans (or spouses)
Other: individuals receiving public
225
406
274
53
103
64
0
17
0
18
14
55
7
51
83
37
178
64
340
769
540
6.6%
14.9%
10.4% 13.8% Vets
2,282
9,774
10,708
3.3%
14.2%
15.6%
assistance
Other: individuals with severe disability
883
57
212
31
17
0
163
16
134
5
328
35
1,737
144
33.6%
2.8%
33,101
not available
48.1%
Other: individuals who are frail
Other: individuals old enough for but
56 8 0 6 2 23 95 1.8%
not available
not receiving SS Title II 74 20 0 7 1 25 127 2.5%
not available
Other: individuals with severely limited
employment prospects in areas of
persistent unemployment 881 183 0 57 6 225 1,352 26.1%
not available
118

Appendix 6
PY 2007-08 Quarter 3 Statewide QPR
Texas SCSEP Grantees
Performance Measures
AARP EW/Fed NAPCA SER SSA EW/State
Statewide
Total
Statewide
Weighted
Goal
Statewide
Average
Weighted
Averages
2000
Census
PY 06-07
Natl Total
PY 06-07
Natl %
Community Service 70% 74% 86% 84% 71% 88% 84% 77% 86%
Common Measures: EE 70% 53% 50% 61% 59% 69% 39% 64% 48%
Common Measures: Retention 65% 55% 100% 76% 73% 50% 63% 62% 66%
Common Measures: Average Earnings $8,691 $7,254 $3,516 $8,620 $6,721 $4,885 $8,030 $7,553 not available
Service Level 173% 156% 126% 114% 143% 160% 160% 157% 151.0%
Service to Most in Need -- Baseline
year, no goal set 2.91 2.58 2.73 1.95 2.47 2.79 2.67 not available
Retention at 1 year -- Baseline year, no
goal set 62% 53% 100% 72% 72% 49% 51% not available
119

Appendix 7
Statewide Shift-Share Analysis
120

SOCRA TES - Targeting, Shift Share Analysis
Page 1 of3
SHIFT SHARE ANALYSIS
3/2/2008
ENTIRE STATE ((iO}: ht Qtt' :won" 1st Qtt' 2(l07
tnJ.u:,try lith;
Employment
(Clkk ,; titk 1,)[ ttl':' % Chg Nat'i hdust 1..(;(:,,1 Ab~
("ptlml oLldding 10 Y,)Ul' L0C Er:.1.p Shitre }vi1); Stwr(; Chg
TaIgded !t,du~Hi(;$ List.) ht Qtr 2000 ht Qtr 2007 l,t Qtr 2000 ) iit Qu' 2007
Greatest Likelihood for Potential Job Opportunities
611 Educational Services 899598 1060646 10908436 12325002 1836864 79958 44226161048
621 !~m!:mJJitQl'Y-lh'!;IJ!lLc..!!~__S!;IYi£!;;L 357380 492549 4315065 5443579 3814645 78820 41704135169
541 Professional and Technical Services 442091 531203 6666499 7567237 2018116 41617 29379 89112
561 Administrative and Support Services 546273 607248 7364808 7719715 1122385 3939 34650 60975
522 Credit Intennediation & Related Act 189399 238370 2544744 2913172 26 7761 19660 21550 48971
622 UQlmi1!;1J~_ 303894 345002 4825725 5406218 1412453 24103 4552 41108
452 General Merchandise Stores 217813 248662 2728344 2967025 14 8926 10129 11794 30849
237 Heavy and Civil Engineering Constm 91078 119950 820076 896011 32 3732 4701 20439 28872
493 Warehousing and Storage 19112 42696 504206 649577 123 783 4727 18074 23584
448 CJJ)_th.ing,illl~.tc..JQthj)lg,A);j;_~~~_~()riesJi­ 93578 112855 1294253 1455417 21 3835 7818 7624 19277
444 Building Material & Garden SUlW1y S 75541 91905 1092903 1264694 22 3096 8779 4490 16364
488 Support Activities for Transportati 54483 66838 525241 573934 23 2233 2818 7304 12355
211 Oil and Gas Extraction 62001 72556 124225 140724 17 2541 5694 2320 10555
713 Aml~~_~m!;JJ.1.Jh'-mQlillg,_&';__R!{fXI

SOCRATES - Targeting, Shift Share Analysis Page 2 of 3
532 Rental and Leasing Services 56410 58372 664218 622487 3 2312 -5856 5506 1962
515 fuQllJJ!!~!UPQlt ActL 14486 13221 280975 283427 -9 594 -467 -1391 -1265
443 Electronics and Appliance Stores 47290 45522 564382 550957 -4 1938 -3063 -643 -1768
512 Motion Picttu'e & SOWld R!;cording In 17320 15488 377163 361850 -II 710 -1413 -1129 -1832
486 Pipeline Transponation 16407 13003 45712 39822 -21 672 -2786 -1290 -3404
454 NQJ.l.s.lQr.e..R.~t!!iJ.eJl!' 23787 19397 479714 427826 -18 975 -3548 -1817 -4390
111 Crop Production 25701 20986 464093 441551 -18 1053 -2302 -3467 -4715
339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 38239 31635 737911 638367 -17 1567 -6725 -1446 -6604
511 Publishing Indusui.es 55133 48466 1012997 897327 -12 2259 -8555 -372 -6667
321 Wood ImQllCl Marmrn.ctllD»Z- 34194 26755 613298 516958 -22 1401 -6773 -2068 -7439
322 Paper Manufucturing 28072 20227 609270 460697 -28 1150 -7996 -1000 -7845
323 Printing and Related SutlPOrt Actiyi 45932 34354 810308 624387 -25 1882 -12421 -1039 -11578
325 Chemical Manufacturing 85909 73740 983516 858285 -14 3520-14459 -1230 -12169
517 TeJ..~i;QlJJmUm\;l!liQ!J.!i.. 120752 95019 1227802 1033704 -21 4948 -24037 -6644 -25733
315 ApPHrel Mllnutacturing 33479 6222 516438 217251 -81 1372 -20767 -7862 -27257
334 Computer and Electronic Product Mfg 165859 114449 1767133 1289942 -31 6797 -51585 -6622 -51410
Indeterminate / No Defined Pattern
939 [.o(:al Gov't. 294699 326049 4574422 5514006 11 12076 48455 -29181 31350
624 Social Assistance 132863 150048 1928849 2465127 13 5444 31495 -19755 17185
623 Nursing and Residential Care Fai;ili 155227 168891 2761958 3119162 9 6361 13715 -6412 13664
425 m~~tmnir,;..Mll.rk~t~..@d..Ag.eJ.l.tS.mt9.k~. 37972 45500 597169 807285 20 1556 11805 -5833 7528
236 Construction of Buildings 141191 146903 1483301 1706791 4 5786 15488 -15561 5712
446 Health and Personal Care Stores 54568 57720 897598 978423 6 2236 2678 -1762 3152
813 Membership Organizations & Associat 53563 55223 1202173 1297651 3 2195 2059 -2594 1660
112 J.\...ill!.lli.lJ...l'Illih!i;tiQ!1.. 21397 22338 190906 213737 4 877 1682 -1618 941
485 Transit and Ground Passenger Transp 16001 16435 378897 412177 3 656 750 -971 434
812 Personal and Laundry Services 90975 90969 1217586 1277859 o 3728 775 -4509 -6
114 Fishing Hunting and Trapping 462 414 10159 8091 -10 19 -113 46 -48
533 l.&~!!Q!'s..,.NQ.l}tJ.l}@~iaU.l}w.\giRJ..~.A!!. 2162 2101 28748 27644 -3 89 -172 22 -61
487 Scenic and Sightseeing TnmSll0rtati 734 634 25350 21575 -14 30 -139 9 -100
483 Water Transpo11atiOn 5090 4845 51938 60090 -5 209 590 -1044 -245
313 Textile Mills 3600 3047 382570 176774 -15 148 -2084 1384 -553
312 lkY!l.rl!g.f;;..¢'LliWj!~i;Q.fro(l!!.r,;lManlJJjKL 11626 10979 203377 189383 -6 476 -1276 153 -647
324 Petroleum & Coal Products Manufactu 24983 23638 121770 110936 -5 1024 -3247 878 -1345
337 Furniture and Related Product Mfg 33403 32053 684446 536578 -4 1369 -8585 5866 -1350
314 Textile ProdlK;t Mills 9924 8249 217211 159731 -17 407 -3033 951 -1675
814 rriYl!.l~J:IQl~~.eJ.lQJ.d~~L 28294 26582 414128 539318 -6 1159 7394 -10265 -1712
316 Leather and Allied Product Manuta.ct 6252 4437 70960 34477 -29 256 -3471 1399 -1815
331 Primal), Metal Manufacnu'illg 28337 25968 626376 459025 -8 1161 -8732 5202 -2369
221 Utilities 47499 44845 602567 544927 -6 1946 -6490 1890 -2654
335 l:;k.\;.u:i..liruJiQ,Y!urm:nLIiI.ld.A.pplia!l!;.es 22707 19514 588886 428980 -14 930 -7096 2973 -3193
311 Food Manufacturing 92575 89308 1527351 1448068 -4 3794 -8599 1538 -3267
447 Gasoline Stations 70251 66042 923205 847023 -6 2879 -8676 1588 -4209
122
http://socrates.cdr.state.tx.us/iSocrates/Targeting/TGTssAnalysis.asp?BASEPER=20001&TERMP... 3/2/2008

saCRATES - Targeting, Shift Share Analysis
Page 3 of3
491 Postlll Service 56241 50076 881587 765679 -11 2305 -9699 1229 -6165
481 Air TramiPortation 73389 65565 598444 483214 -11 3007 -17138 6307 -7824
326 Pla~tics &, Rul)ber Products Manyfru

Appendix 8
Statewide Industry Evaluation (INDEVAL)
124

SOCRATES - Industry Ranking, Printable
Page 1 of2
INDUSTRY EVALUATION
3/2/2008
ENTIRE STATE (00)
NAICS Industry
INatll
Emply
Emply Estab Estab Avg Ind Loe ABS Pet Na~ Quotient Rank
Change Change WageLQs Proj Chg Chg ProJ
12004·141 1stQtr 0512004·14 1200001· 120141 2004 • 2014 1
621 Ambulatory Health Care Services 5 5 15 55 3 3 4 3 1 5 7.15 1
611 Educational Services 4 1 20 63 1 7 1 1 3 9 7.6 2
722 Food Services and Drinking Places 3 2 27 95 2 13 2 2 5 2 10.8 3
561 Administrative and Support Services 1 3 35 66 4 16 3 4 7 3 11.3 4
541 Professional and Technical Services 2 4 48 22 5 17 5 5 8 4 11.3 5
622 Hospitals 13 6 53 43 6 19 6 6 11 8 15.4 6
423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods 11 9 16 21 7 23 9 12 37 12 16.25 7
522 Credit Intermediation & Related Activity 9 11 30 27 9 24 11 10 23 15 16.4 8
452 General Merchandise Stores 6 10 18 81 10 35 10 11 33 13 20.15 9
624 Social Assistance 43 16 56 87 11 4 12 9 2 16 21.3 10
939 Local Gov't. 21 8 58 51 8 38 7 7 25 1 21.5 11
484 Truck Transportation 16 25 34 48 17 33 24 20 26 29 25.55 12
623 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 46 13 71 83 12 27 16 13 6 10 25.8 13
213 Support Activities for Mining 7 30 2 11 32 58 35 22 12 75 26.05 14
441 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 49 14 28 46 15 43 17 16 32 19 26.85 15
444 Building Material & Garden Supply Stores 17 32 44 67 23 31 30 18 14 33 27.85 16
488 Support Activities for Transportation 22 40 9 45 31 26 39 30 10 56 27.85 17
332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 10 20 31 39 21 50 23 25 42 31 28.7 18
336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 19 29 74 23 18 25 32 27 30 23 29.95 19
713 Amusement, Gambling & Recreation Ind 28 37 69 91 22 14 36 21 9 25 31 20
811 Repair and Maintenance 29 26 22 62 26 54 26 24 35 32 31.95 21
531 Real Estate 35 22 36 40 20 40 22 29 49 26 32.05 22
551 Management of Companies and Enterprises 20 45 93 8 28 8 45 35 16 22 32.7 23
721 Accommodation 27 28 73 74 16 20 29 31 40 20 33.85 24
445 Food and Beverage Stores 54 12 46 88 13 53 14 17 55 14 34.8 25
493 Warehousing and Storage 26 56 52 60 39 11 53 37 4 50 35.6 26
524 Insurance Carriers & Related Activities 80 17 49 18 14 36 18 26 61 18 35.6 27
929 State Gov't. 14 21 64 52 25 65 19 23 57 6 35.9 28
448 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 23 27 40 90 24 51 27 32 43 28 35.95 29
333 Machinery Manufacturing 18 35 41 17 30 44 37 38 52 38 36.25 30
424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods 31 15 39 28 29 74 20 28 60 21 36.25 31
238 Specialty Trade Contractors 8 7 43 57 94 90 8 8 18 7 36.35 32
518 ISPs, Search Portals, & Data Processing 55 59 12 13 40 5 59 47 28 62 37.65 33
236 Construction of Buildings 15 18 23 29 95 95 21 15 19 24 38.3 34
237 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 12 24 6 38 93 92 25 19 22 40 38.9 35
442 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 32 53 38 69 41 21 51 43 24 51 39.65 36
443 Electronics and Appliance Stores 30 51 26 59 48 46 49 40 20 53 40.1 37
919 Federal Gov't. 24 19 47 26 36 77 15 36 73 17 40.5 38
532 Rental and Leasing Services 37 43 13 49 43 49 44 42 46 48 40.95 39
812 Personal and Laundry Services 65 33 45 85 27 41 31 33 48 30 41.9 40
211 Oil and Gas Extraction 25 38 1 1 58 84 40 39 44 83 42.1 41
562 Waste Management and Remediation Service 36 67 42 33 53 15 65 51 15 69 43 42
425 Electronic Markets and Agents/Brokers 33 54 66 19 38 12 55 50 50 45 43.35 43
813 Membership Organizations & Associations 83 46 87 70 33 22 13 14 45 11 43.9 44
311 Food Manufacturing 38 31 55 54 37 66 33 41 63 27 45.35 45
523 Financial Investment & Related Activity 34 55 77 2 51 48 56 44 29 41 45.5 46
481 Air Transportation 94 41 5 24 54 79 38 34 31 60 46.2 47
334 Computer and Electronic Product Mfg 88 23 19 5 19 39 28 94 89 34 47 48
327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Mfg 51 52 17 41 52 55 50 49 47 61 47.45 49
453 Miscellaneous Store Retailers 79 42 50 82 34 28 43 48 59 37 48.85 50
515 Broadcasting (except Internet) 48 64 29 34 59 37 63 53 36 73 49.05 51
517 Telecommunications 95 34 14 15 35 61 34 71 84 39 51.45 52
326 Plastics & Rubber Products Manufacturing 41 49 60 44 47 47 52 54 65 49 51.6 53
492 Couriers and Messengers 52 58 54 61 50 34 58 52 51 54 51.7 54
511 Publishing Industries 56 48 68 20 45 45 47 56 69 35 51.9 55
446 Health and Personal Care Stores 84 62 68 44 42 46 45 54 36 52.1 56
125
http://socrates.cdr.state.tx.us/iSocrates/Targeting/indprint.asp?Weight1 =0.1 & Weight2=0.15& Weig ... 3/212008

saCRATES - Industry Ranking, Printable
Page 2 of2
711 Performing Arts and Spectator Sports 85 72 70 16 46 1 70 57 41 68 52.85 57
525 Funds, Trusts & Other Financial Vehicles 50 81 11 9 74 30 82 67 34 85 52.95 58
451 Sporting Goods/Hobby/BooklMusic Stores 40 57 63 93 68 81 57 46 27 47 55.65 59
325 Chemical Manufacturing 89 36 21 7 42 63 41 93 90 42 56.3 60
712 Museums, Parks and Historical Sites 61 84 57 77 73 6 83 66 17 79 57.05 61
447 Gasoline Stations 78 39 32 89 49 72 42 58 77 43 57.45 62
454 Nonstore Retailers 81 73 84 58 60 18 73 59 39 64 59.75 63
533 Lessors, Nonfinancial Intangible Assets 58 90 33 10 83 67 91 75 13 90 60.75 64
221 Utilities 92 50 24 6 55 68 54 81 85 59 60.95 65
485 Transit and Ground Passenger Transport 60 75 89 78 65 29 76 61 38 66 61.6 66
337 Furniture and Related Product Mfg 44 62 61 65 71 82 62 55 56 58 61.8 67
331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 47 66 72 35 63 57 67 62 68 71 62 68
321 Wood Product Manufacturing 39 63 79 56 67 70 64 60 62 57 62.45 69
491 Postal Service 82 47 51 36 57 73 48 73 83 46 62.45 70
324 Petroleum & Coal Products Manufacturing 87 68 4 4 66 59 69 78 80 84 62.75 71
516 Internet Publishing and Broadcasting 63 92 90 14 81 10 93 79 21 88 63.05 72
112 Animal Production 45 70 10 75 80 87 71 63 67 70 63.85 73
512 Motion Picture & Sound Recording Ind 76 76 88 71 61 9 75 65 64 67 64.6 74
519 Other Information Services 59 88 59 72 76 2 89 77 53 86 64.6 75
335 Electrical Equipment and Appliances 53 74 86 37 64 32 74 69 72 72 64.65 76
115 Agriculture & Forestry Support Activity 42 77 75 79 72 52 78 68 66 80 67.8 77
486 Pipeline Transportation 73 78 3 3 75 80 79 90 91 93 69.95 78
323 Printing and Related Support Activities 91 60 67 47 56 56 60 92 93 55 70.05 79
312 Beverage & Tobacco Product Manufacturing 57 79 65 30 77 75 80 72 74 76 70.7 80
339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 86 61 78 50 69 76 61 74 81 52 71.2 81
814 Private Households 67 65 82 94 62 60 68 89 87 44 72.2 82
212 Mining (except Oil and Gas) 77 80 83 31 78 83 81 70 58 77 73.15 83
521 Monetary Authorities - Central Bank 69 91 25 25 84 85 92 82 70 92 73.3 84
482 Rail Transportation 71 95 7 42 88 69 77 87 86 74 73.4 85
483 Water Transportation 62 85 37 12 79 71 86 88 94 87 73.75 86
316 Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing 64 86 8 73 90 91 87 83 78 89 75.15 87
322 Paper Manufacturing 90 71 85 32 70 62 72 91 92 63 76.1 88
111 Crop Production 75 69 81 86 92 93 66 64 71 65 76.95 89
314 Textile Product Mills 68 83 80 80 89 89 84 76 76 78 80.6 90
113 Forestry and Logging 72 89 92 53 86 88 90 80 75 95 82.6 91
313 Textile Mills 74 87 95 64 82 78 88 86 88 81 83.5 92
487 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation 70 93 94 92 85 64 94 85 79 94 83.85 93
114 Fishing, Hunting and Trapping 66 94 76 84 87 86 95 84 82 91 84.15 94
315 Apparel Manufacturing 93 82 91 76 91 94 85 95 95 82 89.65 95
WEIGHTS:
Local Employment Change 1st Qtr 2004-1st Qtr 2006 0.1
Local Employment 1 st Qtr 2006 0.15
Local Industry Employment Location Quotients 1st Qtr 2006 0.1
Local Average Weekly Wages 1 st Qtr 2006 0.05
Local Short Term Projected Employment Abs Chg 2006-2008 0.15
Local Short Term Projected Employment Pct Chg 2006-2008 0.1
Local Long Term Projected Employment 2014 0.05
Local Long Term Projected Abs Change 2004-2014 0.1
Local Long Term Projected Pct Change 2004-2014 0.15
National Projected Employment in 2014 0.05
* A weight of 0.0 means the variable was not used to calculate the rankings.
Print this Report
126
http://socrates.cdr.state.tx.us/iSocrates/Targeting/indprint.asp?Weightl=0.1&Weight2=0.15&Weig... 3/2/2008

Appendix 9
Industries Adding the Most Jobs
Industry Title
Elementary & Sec. Schools
Full-Service Restaurants
Limited-Service Eating Places
Home Health Care Services
Employment Services
Hospitals, Public & Private
Local Government
Offices of Physicians
Colleges & Universities
Child Day Care Services
Other General Merchandise Stores
Depository Credit Intermediation
Services to Bldgs & Dwellings
Nursing Care Facilities
Religious Organizations
Grocery Stores
Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers
Support Activities for Mining
State Government
Nondepository Credit Intermed
Automobile Dealers
Statewide
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Panhandle
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
South
Plains
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
North
Texas
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
North
Central
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Tarrant
County
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Dallas
County
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
North
East
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
East
Texas
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
West
Central
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1
1 1
General Merchandise Stores 1 1 1 1 1
General Freight Trucking 1 1 1 1 1
Federal Government 1 1 1
Individual & Family Services 1
Junior Colleges 1
Traveler Accommodation 1 1 1
Business Support Services 1 1
Department Stores 1
Offices of Other Hlth Practitioners 1 1 1
Automotive Repair & Maintenance 1 1 1
Other Amusemt & Rec Activities 1 1
Clothing Stores 1
Warehousing & Storage 1 1 1 1
Grocery & Related Wholesalers 1 1
Office Administrative Services 1 1
Elderly Commun Care Facilities 1 1 1
Legal Services 1
Accting, Tax Prep, Bookkeeping 1 1 1
Facilities Support Services
Credit Intermediation 1
Oil & Gas Extraction
Health & Personal Care Stores 1
Crop Production 1
Special Food Services 1
Support Activities for Transport
Insurance Carriers
Lessors of Real Estate
Investigation & Security Services 1
Other Ambulatory Hlth Care Serv
Couriers 1
Support Activities for Crop Prod 1
Other Residential Care Facilities
Specialty Hospitals
Amusement, Gambing, & Rec
Prof & Com Equip & Sup Whole 1
Elec Power Gen, Transm, & Dist 1
Auto Parts, Access, & Tire Stores 1
Freight Transport Arrangement
Specialized Freight Trucking
Offices of Dentists 1
Agencies, Brokers, & Other Insur 1
Vocational Rehab & Other Serv 1
Wired Telecommun Carriers 1
Animal Production 1
20 21 23 20 20 19 21 22 20 21 21
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Upper
Rio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
127

Appendix 9
Industries Adding the Most Jobs
Industry Title
Elementary & Sec. Schools
Full-Service Restaurants
Limited-Service Eating Places
Home Health Care Services
Employment Services
Hospitals, Public & Private
Local Government
Offices of Physicians
Colleges & Universities
Child Day Care Services
Other General Merchandise Stores
Depository Credit Intermediation
Services to Bldgs & Dwellings
Nursing Care Facilities
Religious Organizations
Grocery Stores
Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers
Support Activities for Mining
State Government
Nondepository Credit Intermed
Automobile Dealers
Statewide
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Permian
Basin
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Concho
Valley
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Heart of
Texas
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Capital
Area
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rural
Capital
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Brazos
Valley
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Deep
East
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
South
East
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Golden
Crescent
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
General Merchandise Stores 1 1 1 1
General Freight Trucking 1
Federal Government 1 1 1
Individual & Family Services 1
Junior Colleges 1 1 1 1
Traveler Accommodation 1 1
Business Support Services 1 1
Department Stores 1 1
Offices of Other Hlth Practitioners 1
Automotive Repair & Maintenance 1
Other Amusemt & Rec Activities 1 1 1
Clothing Stores 1
Warehousing & Storage
Grocery & Related Wholesalers 1
Office Administrative Services
Elderly Commun Care Facilities
Legal Services 1 1
Accting, Tax Prep, Bookkeeping
Facilities Support Services 1
Credit Intermediation 1
Oil & Gas Extraction 1
Health & Personal Care Stores
Crop Production 1
Special Food Services 1
Support Activities for Transport
Insurance Carriers 1
Lessors of Real Estate
Investigation & Security Services
Other Ambulatory Hlth Care Serv
Couriers
Support Activities for Crop Prod
Other Residential Care Facilities 1
Specialty Hospitals
Amusement, Gambing, & Rec 1
Prof & Com Equip & Sup Whole
Elec Power Gen, Transm, & Dist
Auto Parts, Access, & Tire Stores
Freight Transport Arrangement
Specialized Freight Trucking
Offices of Dentists
Agencies, Brokers, & Other Insur
Vocational Rehab & Other Serv
Wired Telecommun Carriers
Animal Production
20 19 18 19 18 18 20 21 18 19 22
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Alamo
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
128

Appendix 9
Industries Adding the Most Jobs
Industry Title
Elementary & Sec. Schools
Full-Service Restaurants
Limited-Service Eating Places
Home Health Care Services
Employment Services
Hospitals, Public & Private
Local Government
Offices of Physicians
Colleges & Universities
Child Day Care Services
Other General Merchandise Stores
Depository Credit Intermediation
Services to Bldgs & Dwellings
Nursing Care Facilities
Religious Organizations
Grocery Stores
Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers
Support Activities for Mining
State Government
Nondepository Credit Intermed
Automobile Dealers
Statewide
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
South
Texas
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Coastal
Bend
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Lower
Rio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cameron
County
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Texoma
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Central
Texas
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Middle
Rio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Gulf
Coast
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total No.
WDBs
28
27
28
28
24
28
28
27
21
28
11
16
13
20
16
16
21
13
19
3
13
1
1
1
General Merchandise Stores 1 1 11
General Freight Trucking 1 1 1 1 1 11
Federal Government 1 1 1 1 10
Individual & Family Services 1 1 1 1 1 7
Junior Colleges 1 1 7
Traveler Accommodation 1 1 7
Business Support Services 1 1 1 7
Department Stores 1 1 1 1 7
Offices of Other Hlth Practitioners 1 1 6
Automotive Repair & Maintenance 1 1 6
Other Amusemt & Rec Activities 5
Clothing Stores 1 1 1 5
Warehousing & Storage 1 5
Grocery & Related Wholesalers 1 4
Office Administrative Services 1 3
Elderly Commun Care Facilities 3
Legal Services 3
Accting, Tax Prep, Bookkeeping 3
Facilities Support Services 1 2
Credit Intermediation 2
Oil & Gas Extraction 1 2
Health & Personal Care Stores 1 2
Crop Production 2
Special Food Services 2
Support Activities for Transport 1 1 2
Insurance Carriers 1 2
Lessors of Real Estate 1 1
Investigation & Security Services 1
Other Ambulatory Hlth Care Serv 1 1
Couriers 1
Support Activities for Crop Prod 1
Other Residential Care Facilities 1
Specialty Hospitals 1 1
Amusement, Gambing, & Rec 1
Prof & Com Equip & Sup Whole 1
Elec Power Gen, Transm, & Dist 1
Auto Parts, Access, & Tire Stores 1
Freight Transport Arrangement 1 1
Specialized Freight Trucking 1 1
Offices of Dentists 1
Agencies, Brokers, & Other Insur 1
Vocational Rehab & Other Serv 1
Wired Telecommun Carriers 1
Animal Production
20 24 20 24 22 20 22 20 20
129

Appendix 10
Fastest Growing Industries
Industry Title
Home Health Care Services
Office Administrative Services
Offices of Physicians
Individual & Family Services
Educational Support Services
Offices of Other Hlth Practitioners
Outpatient Care Centers
Vocational Rehab & Other Serv
Specialty Hospitals
Elderly Commun Care Facilities
Freight Transport Arrangement
Elementary & Sec. Schools
Employment Services
Child Day Care Services
Other Ambulatory Hlth Care Serv
Full-Service Restaurants
Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers
Statewide
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Panhandle
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
South
Plains
1
1
1
1
1
1
North
Texas
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
North
Central
1
1
1
1
1
1
Tarrant
County
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Dallas
County
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
North
East
1
1
1
1
1
1
East
Texas
West
Central
1
1
1
1
1
1
Upper
Rio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Permian
Basin
1
1 1
1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1
Hospitals, Public & Private 1 1 1 1
Limited-Service Eating Places 1 1 1 1 1
Nursing Care Facilities 1 1 1 1 1 1
Colleges & Universities 1 1 1 1 1
Offices of Dentists 1 1 1 1 1 1
Services to Bldgs & Dwellings 1 1 1
Local Government 1 1 1
Support Activities for Mining 1 1 1 1
Religious Organizations 1 1 1 1
Automotive Repair & Maintenance 1 1 1 1 1
Other Amusemt & Rec Activities 1 1 1 1 1
Warehousing & Storage 1 1 1
General Freight Trucking 1 1
General Merchandise Stores 1 1 1
State Government 1
Specialized Freight Trucking 1 1 1
Depository Credit Intermediation 1
Traveler Accommodation 1 1 1
Junior Colleges
Accting, Tax Prep, Bookkeeping 1
Clothing Stores 1 1
Health & Personal Care Stores 1 1
Automobile Dealers 1
Legal Services 1 1
Department Stores 1
Other General Merchandise Stores 1
Support Activities for Road Transp
Auto Parts, Access, & Tire Stores 1 1
Business Support Services 1
Personal Care Services 1 1
Special Food Services 1
Nondepository Credit Intermed 1
Investigation & Security Services 1
Agencies, Brokers, & Other Insur 1 1
Facilities Support Services 1
Oil & Gas Extraction 1 1
Mining ex Oil & Gas 1 1
Animal Production 1 1
Misc. Durable Goods Merch/Whole 1 1
Used Merchandise Stores 1
Activities Related to Real Estate 1 1
Lessors of Real Estate 1
Community Food/Housing/Emerg 1 1
Consumer Goods Rental 1
Other Residential Care Facilities 1
Grocery & Related Wholesalers 1
Wireless Telecom Carriers 1
Activities Related to Credit Interm
Civic & Social Organizations 1
Grocery Stores 1
Offices of Real Estate Agents 1
Advertising & Related Services 1
Motor Vehicle & Parts Wholesale 1
Misc. Nondurable Goods Whole 1
Crop Production 1
Pipeline Transportation 1
Forestry & Logging 1
Rail Transportation 1
Couriers 1
Wired Telecommun Carriers 1
Credit Intermediation 1
Amusement, Gambling, Rec
Insurance Carriers
Other Motor Vehicle Dealers
16 19 19 21 19 19 15 20 12 20 20 13 21
1
1
1
1
1
Concho
Valley
1
1
1
1
1
1
130

Appendix 10
Fastest Growing Industries
Industry Title
Home Health Care Services
Office Administrative Services
Offices of Physicians
Individual & Family Services
Educational Support Services
Offices of Other Hlth Practitioners
Outpatient Care Centers
Vocational Rehab & Other Serv
Specialty Hospitals
Elderly Commun Care Facilities
Freight Transport Arrangement
Elementary & Sec. Schools
Employment Services
Child Day Care Services
Other Ambulatory Hlth Care Serv
Full-Service Restaurants
Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers
Statewide
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Heart of
Texas
1
1
1
1
1
Capital
Area
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rural
Capital
1
1
1
1
1
Brazos
Valley
1
1
1
1
1
Deep
East
1
1
1
1
1
South
East
1
1
1
1
Golden
Crescent
1
1
1
1
1
Alamo
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
South
Texas
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Coastal
Bend
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
Hospitals, Public & Private 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Limited-Service Eating Places 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nursing Care Facilities 1 1 1 1 1 1
Colleges & Universities 1 1 1 1 1
Offices of Dentists 1 1 1 1 1
Services to Bldgs & Dwellings 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Local Government 1 1 1 1 1 1
Support Activities for Mining 1 1 1 1 1
Religious Organizations 1 1 1
Automotive Repair & Maintenance 1 1
Other Amusemt & Rec Activities 1 1 1
Warehousing & Storage 1 1 1
General Freight Trucking 1 1 1 1
General Merchandise Stores 1
State Government 1 1 1
Specialized Freight Trucking 1 1
Depository Credit Intermediation 1 1 1 1
Traveler Accommodation 1
Junior Colleges 1 1 1
Accting, Tax Prep, Bookkeeping 1 1 1
Clothing Stores 1
Health & Personal Care Stores 1 1
Automobile Dealers 1
Legal Services 1
Department Stores 1 1 1
Other General Merchandise Stores 1 1 1
Support Activities for Road Transp 1
Auto Parts, Access, & Tire Stores
Business Support Services 1 1
Personal Care Services 1
Special Food Services 1 1
Nondepository Credit Intermed 1
Investigation & Security Services 1 1
Agencies, Brokers, & Other Insur 1
Facilities Support Services
Oil & Gas Extraction 1
Mining ex Oil & Gas
Animal Production
Misc. Durable Goods Merch/Whole
Used Merchandise Stores 1
Activities Related to Real Estate
Lessors of Real Estate
Community Food/Housing/Emerg
Consumer Goods Rental 1
Other Residential Care Facilities 1
Grocery & Related Wholesalers 1
Wireless Telecom Carriers
Activities Related to Credit Interm 1
Civic & Social Organizations
Grocery Stores
Offices of Real Estate Agents
Advertising & Related Services
Motor Vehicle & Parts Wholesale
Misc. Nondurable Goods Whole
Crop Production
Pipeline Transportation
Forestry & Logging
Rail Transportation
Couriers
Wired Telecommun Carriers
Credit Intermediation
Amusement, Gambling, Rec 1
Insurance Carriers
Other Motor Vehicle Dealers 1
16 16 14 15 17 20 13 17 15 25 19 19 21
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Lower
Rio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cameron
County
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
131

Appendix 10
Fastest Growing Industries
Industry Title
Home Health Care Services
Office Administrative Services
Offices of Physicians
Individual & Family Services
Educational Support Services
Offices of Other Hlth Practitioners
Outpatient Care Centers
Vocational Rehab & Other Serv
Specialty Hospitals
Elderly Commun Care Facilities
Freight Transport Arrangement
Elementary & Sec. Schools
Employment Services
Child Day Care Services
Other Ambulatory Hlth Care Serv
Full-Service Restaurants
Bldg Material & Supplies Dealers
Statewide
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Texoma
1
1
1
1
1
Central
Texas
1
1
1
1
Middle
Rio
1
1
1
1
1
Gulf
Coast
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total No.
WDBs
26
6
27
14
1
12
9
4
2
11
6
24
22
22
6
20
19
1
1
1
1 1
Hospitals, Public & Private 1 1 1 18
Limited-Service Eating Places 1 1 1 15
Nursing Care Facilities 1 1 1 15
Colleges & Universities 1 1 12
Offices of Dentists 1 12
Services to Bldgs & Dwellings 1 1 12
Local Government 1 1 1 12
Support Activities for Mining 1 10
Religious Organizations 1 1 1 10
Automotive Repair & Maintenance 1 1 9
Other Amusemt & Rec Activities 1 9
Warehousing & Storage 1 1 8
General Freight Trucking 1 7
General Merchandise Stores 1 1 6
State Government 1 1 6
Specialized Freight Trucking 5
Depository Credit Intermediation 5
Traveler Accommodation 1 5
Junior Colleges 1 1 5
Accting, Tax Prep, Bookkeeping 4
Clothing Stores 1 4
Health & Personal Care Stores 4
Automobile Dealers 1 1 4
Legal Services 1 4
Department Stores 4
Other General Merchandise Stores 4
Support Activities for Road Transp 1 1 1 4
Auto Parts, Access, & Tire Stores 1 1 4
Business Support Services 3
Personal Care Services 3
Special Food Services 3
Nondepository Credit Intermed 1 3
Investigation & Security Services 3
Agencies, Brokers, & Other Insur 3
Facilities Support Services 1 1 3
Oil & Gas Extraction 3
Mining ex Oil & Gas 2
Animal Production 2
Misc. Durable Goods Merch/Whole 2
Used Merchandise Stores 2
Activities Related to Real Estate 2
Lessors of Real Estate 1 2
Community Food/Housing/Emerg 2
Consumer Goods Rental 2
Other Residential Care Facilities 2
Grocery & Related Wholesalers 2
Wireless Telecom Carriers 1 2
Activities Related to Credit Interm 1 2
Civic & Social Organizations 1
Grocery Stores 1
Offices of Real Estate Agents 1
Advertising & Related Services 1
Motor Vehicle & Parts Wholesale 1
Misc. Nondurable Goods Whole 1
Crop Production 1
Pipeline Transportation 1
Forestry & Logging 1
Rail Transportation 1
Couriers 1
Wired Telecommun Carriers 1
Credit Intermediation 1
Amusement, Gambling, Rec 1
Insurance Carriers 1 1
Other Motor Vehicle Dealers 1
16 21 20 23 18
132

Appendix 11
SCSEP-Relevant Occupations Adding the Most Jobs
Occupation Title
Retail Salespersons
Combined Food Prep & Serving Wkrs
Personal & Home Care Aides
Customer Service Reps
Waiters & Waitresses
Janitors & Cleaners
Child Care Workers
Teacher Assistants
Truck Drivers, Heavy
Nursing Aides
Office Clerks, General
Home Health Aides
Exec Secretaries & Admin Assistants
Receptionists & Info Clerks
Cashiers
Statewide
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Panhandle
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
South
Plains
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
North
Texas
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
North
Central
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Tarrant
County
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Dallas
County
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
North
East
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
East
Texas
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
West
Central
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
1
Truck Drivers, Light 1
Correctional Officers
Bookkeeping, Accting, & Audtng Clerks
School Bus Drivers
Tellers
Security Guards 1
Shipping, Receiving, & Traffic Clerks
Secretaries, ex. Med, Legal, Exec 1
Stock Clerks 1
14 12 14 13 15 13 15 14 14 14 15
1
1
Upper
Rio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
133

Appendix 11
SCSEP-Relevant Occupations Adding the Most Jobs
Occupation Title
Retail Salespersons
Combined Food Prep & Serving Wkrs
Personal & Home Care Aides
Customer Service Reps
Waiters & Waitresses
Janitors & Cleaners
Child Care Workers
Teacher Assistants
Truck Drivers, Heavy
Nursing Aides
Office Clerks, General
Home Health Aides
Exec Secretaries & Admin Assistants
Receptionists & Info Clerks
Cashiers
Statewide
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Permian
Basin
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Concho
Valley
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Heart of
Texas
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Capital
Area
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rural
Capital
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Brazos
Valley
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Deep
East
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
South
East
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Golden
Crescent
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
1
Truck Drivers, Light
Correctional Officers 1
Bookkeeping, Accting, & Audtng Clerks 1 1
School Bus Drivers
Tellers
Security Guards
Shipping, Receiving, & Traffic Clerks
Secretaries, ex. Med, Legal, Exec
Stock Clerks
14 14 12 13 11 12 14 14 14 14 15
Alamo
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
134

Appendix 11
SCSEP-Relevant Occupations Adding the Most Jobs
Occupation Title
Statewide
Texas Bend Rio County
Texas Rio Coast WDBs
South Coastal Lower Cameron
Central Middle Gulf Total No.
Texoma
Retail Salespersons
Combined Food Prep & Serving Wkrs
Personal & Home Care Aides
Customer Service Reps
Waiters & Waitresses
Janitors & Cleaners
Child Care Workers
Teacher Assistants
Truck Drivers, Heavy
Nursing Aides
Office Clerks, General
Home Health Aides
Exec Secretaries & Admin Assistants
Receptionists & Info Clerks
Cashiers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
28
28
27
28
28
28
28
28
25
26
26
20
23
13
20
Truck Drivers, Light 1 2
Correctional Officers 1 2
Bookkeeping, Accting, & Audtng Clerks 2
School Bus Drivers 1 1 2
Tellers 1 1
Security Guards 1
Shipping, Receiving, & Traffic Clerks 1 1
Secretaries, ex. Med, Legal, Exec 1
Stock Clerks 1
14 17 15 15 15 13 14 15 13
135

Appendix 12
Fastest Growing SCSEP-Relevant Occupations
Occupation Title
Statewidhandle
Plains Texas Central County County East Texas Central Rio
Pan-
South North North Tarrant Dallas North East West Upper
Home Health Aides
Personal & Home Care Aides
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Medical Records & Hlth Info Techs
Teacher Assistants
1
1 1 1
1
1
1 1
1
Customer Service Representatives 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nursing Aides 1 1 1 1 1
Janitors & Cleaners 1 1 1 1
School Bus Drivers 1 1 1 1
Receptionists & Info Clerks 1 1 1 1
Combined Food Prep & Serving Wkrs 1 1 1 1
Waiters & Waitresses 1 1 1 1 1 1
Child Care Workers 1 1 1 1
Retail Salespersons 1 1 1
Food Preparation Workers 1 1 1
Tellers 1 1 1
Truck Drivers, Light 1 1
Truck Drivers, Heavy 1 1
Bill & Account Collectors 1 1 1
Landscaping & Groundskeeping Wkrs 1
Counter & Rental Clerks 1
Counter Attendants, Cafeteria etc. 1
Social & Human Service Assistants 1
Correctional Officers
Exec Secys & Admin Assistants
Security Guards
Interviewers, ex. Eligibility & Loan
Shipping, Receiving, & Traffic Clerks
3 10 12 13 3 4 5 13 6 12 7
136

Appendix 12
Fastest Growing SCSEP-Relevant Occupations
Occupation Title
Home Health Aides
Personal & Home Care Aides
Medical Records & Hlth Info Techs
Teacher Assistants
Statewide
1
1
1
Permian
Basin
1
1
Concho
Valley
1
1
Heart of
Texas
1
1
Capital
Area
1
1
Rural
Capital
1
1
Brazos
Valley
1
1
Deep
East
1
1
South
East
1
Golden
Crescent
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Customer Service Representatives 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nursing Aides 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Janitors & Cleaners 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
School Bus Drivers 1 1 1 1 1 1
Receptionists & Info Clerks 1 1 1 1 1
Combined Food Prep & Serving Wkrs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Waiters & Waitresses 1 1 1 1 1
Child Care Workers 1 1 1 1
Retail Salespersons 1 1 1 1 1
Food Preparation Workers 1 1 1 1
Tellers 1 1
Truck Drivers, Light 1 1 1
Truck Drivers, Heavy 1 1 1
Bill & Account Collectors 1
Landscaping & Groundskeeping Wkrs 1 1
Counter & Rental Clerks 1 1
Counter Attendants, Cafeteria etc. 1
Social & Human Service Assistants
Correctional Officers 1
Exec Secys & Admin Assistants 1
Security Guards
Interviewers, ex. Eligibility & Loan
Shipping, Receiving, & Traffic Clerks
3 11 12 13 7 11 7 14 9 13 3
1
Alamo
1
1
1
137

Appendix 12
Fastest Growing SCSEP-Relevant Occupations
Occupation Title
Home Health Aides
Personal & Home Care Aides
Medical Records & Hlth Info Techs
Teacher Assistants
Statewide
1
1
1
South
Texas
1
1
Coastal
Bend
1
1
Lower
Rio
1
1
Cameron
County
1
1
Texoma
1
1
Central
Texas
1
1
Middle
Rio
1
1
Gulf
Coast
1
1
Total No.
WDBs
27
27
2
23
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Customer Service Representatives 1 1 1 1 1 1 18
Nursing Aides 1 1 1 1 1 1 18
Janitors & Cleaners 1 1 1 1 1 16
School Bus Drivers 1 1 1 1 1 15
Receptionists & Info Clerks 1 1 1 1 1 1 15
Combined Food Prep & Serving Wkrs 1 1 1
14
Waiters & Waitresses 1 1
1
14
Child Care Workers 1 1 1 1 1 13
Retail Salespersons 1 1 1 1 1 13
Food Preparation Workers 1 1 9
Tellers 1 1 1 8
Truck Drivers, Light 1 1 1 8
Truck Drivers, Heavy 1 1 1 8
Bill & Account Collectors 1 1 6
Landscaping & Groundskeeping Wkrs 1 1 5
Counter & Rental Clerks 1 4
Counter Attendants, Cafeteria etc. 2
Social & Human Service Assistants 1 2
Correctional Officers 1 2
Exec Secys & Admin Assistants 1 2
Security Guards 1 1
Interviewers, ex. Eligibility & Loan 1 1
Shipping, Receiving, & Traffic Clerks 1 1
3 14 9 11 13 13 14 12 3
138

Appendix 13
SCSEP-Relevant Occupations with the Most Projected Annual Average Openings
Occupation Title
Statewidhandle
Plains Texas Central County County East Texas Central Rio
Pan-
South North North Tarrant Dallas North East West Upper
Retail Salespersons 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Combined Food Prep & Serving Wkrs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cashiers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Waiters & Waitresses 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Personal & Home Care Aides 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Child Care Workers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Customer Service Representatives 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Office Clerks, General 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Janitors & Cleaners 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Exec Secys & Admin Assistants 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Truck Drivers, Heavy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Teacher Assistants 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Bookkeeping, Accting, & Audit Clerks 1 1 1 1 1
Secys, ex Legal, Medical & Exec 1 1 1 1 1
Receptionists & Info Clerks 1 1 1
Nursing Aides 1 1 1 1 1 1
Home Health Aides 1 1 1 1 1
Stock Clerks & Order Fillers 1 1 1 1 1
Tellers
Correctional Officers
Security Guards 1
Shipping, Receiving, & Traffic Clerks
15 14 13 15 14 15 15 14 14 14 14
139

Appendix 13
SCSEP-Relevant Occupations with the Most Projected Annual Average Openings
Occupation Title
Statewide
Basin Valley Texas Area Capital Valley East East Crescent
Permian Concho Heart of Capital Rural Brazos Deep South Golden
Alamo
Retail Salespersons 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Combined Food Prep & Serving Wkrs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cashiers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Waiters & Waitresses 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Personal & Home Care Aides 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Child Care Workers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Customer Service Representatives 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Office Clerks, General 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Janitors & Cleaners 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Exec Secys & Admin Assistants 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Truck Drivers, Heavy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Teacher Assistants 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Bookkeeping, Accting, & Audit Clerks 1 1 1 1 1 1
Secys, ex Legal, Medical & Exec 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Receptionists & Info Clerks 1 1 1 1
Nursing Aides 1 1 1 1
Home Health Aides 1 1 1
Stock Clerks & Order Fillers
Tellers 1
Correctional Officers 1
Security Guards
Shipping, Receiving, & Traffic Clerks
15 15 14 14 13 12 13 14 13 13 15
140

Appendix 13
SCSEP-Relevant Occupations with the Most Projected Annual Average Openings
Occupation Title
Statewide
Texas Bend Rio County
Texas Rio Coast WDBs
South Coastal Lower Cameron
Central Middle Gulf Total No.
Texoma
Retail Salespersons 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
Combined Food Prep & Serving Wkrs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
Cashiers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
Waiters & Waitresses 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
Personal & Home Care Aides 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24
Child Care Workers 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
Customer Service Representatives 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
Office Clerks, General 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
Janitors & Cleaners 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28
Exec Secys & Admin Assistants 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26
Truck Drivers, Heavy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23
Teacher Assistants 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25
Bookkeeping, Accting, & Audit Clerks 1 1 1
1 12
Secys, ex Legal, Medical & Exec 1 1 1 1 1 1 15
Receptionists & Info Clerks 1 1 1 1 1 9
Nursing Aides 1 1 1 1 1 15
Home Health Aides 1 1 1 1 1 13
Stock Clerks & Order Fillers 1 6
Tellers 1 2
Correctional Officers 1 2
Security Guards 1
Shipping, Receiving, & Traffic Clerks 1 1
15 17 15 16 16 15 13 13 15
141