Reviews per Offer
By Reviewer on January 14, 2020 at 3:14 PM
|5: Exemplary||4: Good||4: Good||3: Adequate, with room for improvement||3: Adequate, with room for improvement|
The team had issues with some of the performance measures identified and thought their was not a clear link between what was measured and the outcomes you are trying to achieve. The team suggested changes or addition to the increase in new payroll measure to increase number of living wage jobs or tracking % of jobs recruited that pay a living wage. You could pull this data from average wage data you report to the state. We are unclear on what PPE is. If these impact measures aren’t available you could focus instead on outcomes like number of jobs, event attendance, businesses started, businesses recruited, etc. The team also had an issue with activities listed in outcomes plan under inclusive economy and are concerned that these activities will only help with engaging young people – not people of color, disabilities, or seniors. Lastly, in general it is unclear how this funding will directly support the strategic plan compared to the other offers. Staff positions and budget seem the same as in previous years with the exception of a few new positions that are funded through other offers. If you don’t change what you are focusing your money towards, how can we expect a different strategic direction? Perhaps a clearer outcomes plan could help tell the team exactly HOW you will implement to achieve the goals in your strategic plan.