NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANTS PROMISING PRACTICES SERIES:

WORKING ACROSS BOUNDARIES IN PLANNING A NEG RESPONSE

55 WHEELER STREET    5 TENNEY STREET

CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138   CAMBRIDGE, MA 02140

WORKING ACROSS BOUNDARIES IN PLANNING A REGIONAL NEG RESPONSE

PREPARED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BY:

ABT ASSOCIATES INC.    WORKFORCE LEARNING STRATEGIES

NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANT PROMISING PRACTICES SERIES:

1

ABOUT THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANT PROMISING PRACTICES SERIES 

States and local areas that administer National Emergency Grants (NEGs) have developed a

growing body of expertise in the effective management of these grants.  The National

Emergency Grant Promising Practices Series is a compilation of ten documents whose purpose

is to highlight and share some exemplary approaches that were instrumental in preparing

for, planning, and implementing a NEG.  The intent of disseminating these effective

methodologies on a broad, national level is to facilitate the continuous improvement of NEG

project operations and to promote peer‐to‐peer information‐sharing among practitioners.  

The information presented in the NEG Promising Practices Series was gleaned from a study,

which focused on the in‐depth review of fifteen NEG projects that varied in type, size, and

scope.  Collectively, these projects represent an investment of $282,377,589 made by the

Department of Labor (DOL) that helped states assist dislocated workers obtain

reemployment in the aftermath of a large layoff or disaster‐related event.  The insights

shared by these grantees were synthesized for dissemination, resulting in a set of promising

practices that build upon four broad themes:

Infrastructure and Readiness.  How grantees have organized state and local

delivery systems to ensure effective and efficient use of NEG resources;

Planning and Start‐Up.  How grantees have mobilized key resources and

stakeholders to facilitate effective grant planning and implementation;

Program Design and Implementation.  What specific interventions and services have

been implemented to support the unique reemployment needs of dislocated

workers; and

Institutional Results.  How NEG investments have directly or indirectly resulted

in an enhanced capacity to respond to unexpected economic events.  

Listed below are the ten documents, which comprise the National Emergency Grant Promising

Practices Series.  Each review addresses a specific area of NEG management and has been

written to emphasize the specific planning, design, and operational decisions that

contributed to successful retraining and reemployment strategies.   

Working Across Boundaries in Planning a Regional NEG Response

Expanding NEG Training Capacity Through Partnerships with Community Colleges

Aligning NEG Strategies with High Growth Sectors and Occupations

Peer Support Systems that Strengthen Outreach and Participation

Preparing for the Unexpected in Disaster Grants

Establishing and Managing a Temporary Jobs Program

Implementing Transition Teams to Lead the Dislocation Response

Partnering with Organized Labor to Support Reemployment

Coordinating Resources to Meet the Reemployment Challenge

Using Data Strategically to Align Job Seekers and Occupational Demand

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
2

PREVIEW 

Neither natural disasters nor economic dislocations are constrained by geographic borders

or program jurisdictions that comprise the workforce investment system.  An effective NEG

response is often contingent upon the ability of planners and practitioners to work across

these boundaries.  Successful collaboration across regions and states is driven by shared

commitment to the provision of workforce services to dislocated workers and recognition

that the end result is best achieved through a collaborative effort that entails leveraging

resources across jurisdictional lines as well as aligning policies and systems.

Beyond commitment, collaboration requires a willingness to proactively identify and share

resources, expertise, processes, and past experiences.  Not only will this avoid unnecessary

duplication, but it potentially enhances the speed of the response by avoiding “reinventing

the wheel.”  This blueprint will discuss how NEG projects are enhanced when grantees

commit to collaboration and communication that span across traditional boundaries.  These

efforts may positively impact the following phases of a NEG’s lifespan, resulting in

desirable outcomes that collectively contribute to the ultimate goal of the reemployment of

dislocated workers:

Planning and Start‐up. Broader stakeholder base to support NEG planning;

improved capacity to leverage community resources; and shared understanding

of common issues and resource needs.

Program Design and Implementation. Improved ability to access to affected

populations and customize a response; more efficient and impactful use of

system resources; greater access to training, education, and support resources;

and greater consistency of services.

Learning from NEG Grantees:  The following six exemplary NEG grantees initiated and

implemented collaborative responses to natural disasters and major dislocation events that

crossed different types of jurisdictional boundaries:  

Florida.  A series of hurricanes—Charley, Frances, and Ivan—crossed the State of

Florida in 2004 causing widespread destruction.  Working through the Hurricanes/

Storms 2004 NEG, the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation (AWI) supported a

collaborative response across multiple jurisdictions in a statewide response by

leading regular conference calls with State stakeholders and representatives of Local

Workforce Investment Areas (LWIAs).  The calls allowed for real‐time

communication and resource sharing among Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs).  

NEG Award Amount:  $69,266,299.

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
3

Mississippi. Hurricane Katrina devastated the Mississippi Gulf Coast in 2005.  The

State was awarded the Hurricane Katrina NEG to support clean‐up and  

re‐development through temporary employment and workforce training.  Almost

immediately, the State disaster response team from Florida came on site to share its

resources and expertise with Mississippi.  This interstate assistance helped to more

quickly and efficiently reach and provide services to the dislocated workers.  NEG

Award Amount:  $95,000,000.

Missouri.  In 2004, Ford Motor Company and Lear Corporation laid off a combined

total of over 2,700 workers in the St. Louis metropolitan area.  These workers lived

throughout a multi‐county region that crossed multiple WIB program jurisdictions.  

To most efficiently and effectively provide reemployment opportunities, the State of

Missouri used resources from its Ford/Lear Dual Enrollment NEG to implement

consistent policies and service delivery approaches across the four affected WIBs.

NEG Award Amount:  $1,938,618.

Massachusetts.  Five companies in the central Massachusetts region closed down

during the summer of 2006, affecting over 300 workers.  The State packaged a

response into a single NEG project application, Central Massachusetts Trade Dual

Enrollment.  While the affected workforce stretched across a geographic area that

included multiple LWIAs and One‐Stop Career Centers State policies permitted the

flexible use of training vouchers that allowed workers to access services closest to

their homes.  NEG Award Amount:  $927,957.  

Virginia.  In January 2006, Independence Air ceased operations and laid off over

3,000 workers in Northern Virginia.  To provide the needed resources for the two

affected WIBs to respond to this event, the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC)

applied for and received the Independence Air NEG.  Upon grant receipt, the VEC

quickly designated two local project operators and then helped broker conversations

between the two WIBs to ensure consistent policies for all workers.  Both project

operators served local residents and coordinated service delivery for affected

workers residing throughout the country.  NEG Award Amount:  $724,808.

The experience of these grantees offers several promising practices in accessing assistance

and coordinating services across boundaries:

Communicate with stakeholders to allow for real time exchange of information

and resources to address reemployment needs.

Tap the expertise and experience of practitioners to replicate the features of

policies and programs that have been successfully implemented elsewhere under

similar circumstances.

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
4

Coordinate outreach strategies, training policies, and service delivery systems

across affected political boundaries or program jurisdictions.

COORDINATING A DISASTER RESPONSE THROUGH THE SHARING OF 

INFORMATION, RESOURCES, AND EXPERTISE 

Sharing of information and expertise is critical to a timely and effective disaster response.  

Equally important is to avoid letting artificial jurisdictional boundaries slow down the flow

of recovery efforts.  As discussed in examples below, states can play an important role in

facilitating cross‐boundary responses.  

Florida—Allocating Resources Across WIBs in Real Time:  During a disaster event, quick

dissemination of information helps local areas address immediate needs and initiate long‐

term recovery.  This was critical in Florida in the aftermath of a series of back‐to‐back

hurricanes that impacted every county in the State.  NEG funds were initially distributed to

all twenty‐four WIBs in the form of a start‐up allocation to ensure the immediate flow of

resources; however, each WIB continued to face a set of conditions and challenges that were

changing almost daily.  This dynamic landscape reflected, for instance, additional insight

gained from updated damage assessments, the ongoing work of Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) in the area, and even additional damage from subsequent

storms.  

Florida’s Agency for Workforce Innovation (AWI) recognized the critical importance of

constant contact and communication in order to:

Ensure the flow of consistent, current information to all WIBs;

Allow for the efficient exchange of information across impacted jurisdictions;

Ensure that NEG resources were allocated to the most pressing needs across the

State; and  

Harness the collegiality that characterized the workforce development

professionals in the State to respond to a natural disaster.

To create such effective communication, AWI led system‐wide conference calls with

representatives of all twenty‐six WIBs on a regular basis.  Calls started as a storm was

approaching and occurred as often as twice a day during the height of the response.  

Conference calls systematically reviewed WIBs’ updated damage assessments, progress in

identifying temporary job sites, and recruiting workers as well as their expenditure profile

relative to local needs.  The net result was a real time review of needs and resources that

resulted in sharing of staff (WIB to WIB and State to WIB), shifting of infrastructure (lending

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
5

of mobile One‐Stop units), and actual redistribution NEG dollars which were de‐obligated

and re‐obligated based on evolving local needs.

While system‐wide conference calls may appear to be a simple, straightforward

communication strategy, there were a number of factors that made this a particularly

effective device for efficiently managing NEG and ancillary resources.   

Visible executive leadership.  Each call was led by AWI’s Deputy Director.  The

active involvement of high‐level State leadership was critically important in

transforming a set of routine conference calls into a productive working group.  

Those at the local level understood that the information being given was the

most current available and that

it could be trusted.  

Additionally, following the

calls, the regional WIB directors

were willing to aggressively

implement emergency measures

because they knew the support

of the agency was behind them.

Inclusive group of participants.

All WIB directors and State

stakeholders were invited to participate in the calls.  While meetings were large

and potentially unwieldy, it was felt that an integrated statewide response could

not be orchestrated without full participation of those with decision‐making

authority.  

Florida Agency for Workforce 

Innovation

“It was critical to have Deputy 

Director Griffin leading the call. 

Her presence assured the regional 

WIB directors that they could trust 

the information that they were 

receiving, that it was timely and 

accurate.” 

- Larry McIntyre, Special Coordinator, 

 

Flexible and evolving agenda.  Sensitive to the evolving nature and demands of a

statewide emergency, the call agendas shifted to reflect the current situation

being faced by stakeholders.  The frequency of the calls also changed, decreasing

as the response moved from emergency to recovery.  State leaders continuously

gauged the response climate to ensure that the calls conveyed current, timely

information without detracting from immense responsibilities and demands on

staff time.  

Open dialogue and communication.  The calls provided a venue for regional players

to openly assess current circumstances and communicate their resource

availability and pending needs.  AWI’s effective leadership served to create a

culture of collaboration and trust that allowed for candid conversations and

willingness to support statewide rather than strictly proprietary interests.  

Ultimately, the net result of this intensive level of communication was a workforce system

that was able to function on more of a “just in time” basis.  Both AWI and WIB

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
6

representatives feel strongly that this coordinated response helped to ensure that NEG

resources were distributed to areas of the State with the greatest need.   

Mississippi—A Neighbor’s Helping Hand:  Hurricane Katrina tore through the State of

Mississippi damaging or destroying much of the physical and economic infrastructure of

the southern region of the State.  Within days of the event, representatives from the State of

Florida1 were on the ground in Mississippi, providing in‐depth technical assistance related

to disaster response.  The coordinator and a team of approximately fifty people traveled to

Mississippi for two months to lend expertise and experience to the response effort.  The

team came with a simple mandate from their Governor: provide assistance as if the disaster

had occurred in Florida.  Service and expertise came in many forms, including:

Staff from local Florida UI offices.  This allowed the Mississippi Department of

Employment Security (MDES) to better handle the high volume of UI paperwork

(processing claims/checks).

A loaned mobile One‐Stop Career Center office.  This provided greater flexibility to

offer claims assistance where offices had been damaged by the storm.

Information Technology (IT) support to facilitate online UI registration.  The State of

Mississippi had never previously processed web‐based claims until it received

assistance in connecting local offices to the Internet.

Access to out‐of‐state call centers.  This was orchestrated through an AT&T switch

that allowed Florida and several other States to take information and claims data

and then relay the information back to Mississippi at the end of each day.

Access to web‐based library of resources to support the temporary jobs program.  The

library provided easily adaptable examples of, for instance, waiver requests,

work‐site agreements, monitoring forms, etc.

State officials feel strongly that collectively this type of support both enhanced and

accelerated Mississippi’s capacity to respond, whether it was completing the NEG

application, responding to the onslaught of UI claims or responding to the immediate

employment and restoration needs of local communities.

Florida’s ability to provide this type of cross‐border collaboration and support exemplified

the following principles:

 

1

 While Mississippi received assistance from a number of States, the Florida example is

emphasized in that they offered a unique level of expertise in addressing natural disasters in the

Gulf Coast region. 

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
7

Think regionally.  While the two States do not share a border, they are both part of

the larger Gulf Coast economy that has been historically impacted by tropical

storms.  This shared regional perspective fueled much of the impetus to work

across artificial boundaries.

Respond first.  While state bureaucracies are often bound by polices and

procedures, the circumstances demanded immediate intervention.  Both States

acted with the priorities and confidence needed to establish immediate

collaboration and to address procedural implications as a secondary matter.  

Document the experience.  Florida’s AWI was able to provide interstate support

efficiently because many of its prior experiences had been documented and

organized.  

“Pay it forward.”  As readily as it was aided by Florida, Mississippi later extended

a hand to the State of Iowa as it responded to the devastation brought by severe

flooding in 2008.  This willingness to “respond in kind” furthers the collaborative

momentum and spirit that is needed to successfully address challenges in

serving dislocated workers.

One major challenge in cross‐border support of this magnitude is the financial burden

potentially placed on the state sending the assistance.  During disasters, states and

municipalities often adapt or suspend rules and procedures to be able to provide assistance

quickly.  Now there are further mechanisms in place to allow for interstate assistance and

reimbursement of costs.  Specifically, the Emergency Management Assistance Compact

(EMAC) is an interstate mutual aid agreement that was developed out of the need to assist

and coordinate resources across states in the event of a disaster.  Administered under a

FEMA‐sanctioned compact, states can provide assistance knowing that they will be

reimbursed by the impacted state.  Working through a “Request of Assistance” approved by

an EMAC Coordinator, officials from Mississippi did reimburse other States for their

support in processing UI claims.  While Florida was repaid for a portion of its expenses,

many of its services were provided on a humanitarian aid basis in which no reimbursement

request was submitted.  

COORDINATING OUTREACH STRATEGIES, TRAINING POLICIES, AND SERVICE 

DELIVERY SYSTEMS ACROSS AFFECTED PROGRAM JURISDICTIONS 

In addition to shaping an emergency response to a natural disaster, cross‐boundary

collaboration can also entail more deliberate levels of service integration to support the

reemployment of dislocated workers.  This is particularly critical when the dislocation is

spread across a regional economy served by multiple WIBs.   

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
8

While businesses are stationary and are located within a single workforce investment area,

their employees often are not.  Workforce professionals are often faced with the need to

coordinate service delivery across multiple WIBs.  Coordination is motivated by a number

of factors, including:

An objective to serve as many workers as possible;

An intent to minimize workers’ commute time to a One‐Stop Career Center or

training facility; and

A responsibility to provide fair and standard benefits to all affected workers

regardless of where they access services.

A continuum of service integration approaches has been implemented across the country;

these approaches range from the state establishing regional policies with input from affected

WIBs to the state serving as a facilitator of similar policies between independently operating

WIBs.  The three NEGs profiled below—Missouri, Massachusetts, and Virginia—each

involve the loss of a major employer in the local economy; a dispersed worker population

throughout the region, State, or country; and a need to reach as many people as possible

with outreach and training.   

Missouri—Establishing Regional Polices to Foster Cross‐Boundary Response:  The State

of Missouri and workforce staff from the four WIBs that comprise the St. Louis, Missouri,

Metropolitan Area have a tradition of working collaboratively to address the needs of

dislocated workers.  The State has historically played a strong leadership role in convening

stakeholders to inform the establishment of policies.  This process was utilized during the

implementation of the Ford/Lear Dual Enrollment NEG where dislocated workers were

enrolled under both the NEG and the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program.  Dual

enrollment NEGs allow eligible participants to receive training provided by the TAA

program as well as case management assistance and supportive services funded by the

NEG.  These NEGs implemented within a single region require increased collaboration

among NEG staff and the TAA program; however, the level of collaboration needed

increases dramatically when the implementation spans four workforce investment areas.  

In preparing the NEG application, State officials convened representatives of all four WIBs

to develop broad policies that were to govern the training and reemployment process and to

ensure a consistent level of service in all workforce investment areas.  After the award of the

NEG, the agreed‐upon policies were translated into a set of guidelines, which were

distributed to all staff who would be talking with affected workers.  The guidelines clearly

outlined:

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
9

Resources available for training;

Ineligible training expenses;

Areas of opportunity to coordinate with TAA funds; and

Procedures for monitoring and tracking performance.

Periodic meetings were also held for case management staff working on the NEG in order to

reiterate policies and clarify any issues that arose during implementation.  

Financially, the State acted as the grant recipient and allocated resources to each of the

affected WIBs according to the number of individuals who lived in its region.  The allocation

was done using participant home addresses that were gathered during the Rapid Response

process.  If, in the end, one region ended up serving more individuals than expected, it

could request additional funds from the State to cover its expenses.

The coordination and policy‐setting done at the State level allowed the affected WIBs to

focus on service delivery rather than resource availability and service coordination.  By

having consistent services implemented throughout the region, workers were able to go to

the most convenient One‐Stop Career Center without being concerned that they could get

additional benefits at a different location.   

Massachusetts—Building Upon State Policy to Foster a Cross‐Boundary Response:  In

2006, a number of businesses closed in central Massachusetts, and the Central Massachusetts

Trade Dual Enrollment NEG was awarded to provide workers from five of these employers

with reemployment services.  The challenge in implementing this particular NEG was that a

large number of the affected workers were dispersed throughout an expansive rural area.  

In fact, many affected workers lived between

thirty and fifty miles from their previous place

of employment.  If workforce development

services were to only be offered in a

centralized location, as was the common

practice, the population’s geographic

dispersion was less likely to take advantage of

them.  In response, the project operator,

Workforce Central Career Center, and State

officials adopted an established voucher

program so that a geographically dispersed

set of providers could deliver the needed services.  The vouchers were used to hold

enrollment spots for individuals who would not receive services directly from the project

operator.  By pre‐establishing a number of vouchers to be set aside for individuals who

lived outside the core commuting area, the NEG project operator was able to substantially

increase the breadth of its outreach and recruitment efforts.

 

“It isn’t customer friendly to 

insist that workers go to one 

central site to access 

reemployment assistance. 

They need options that allow 

them to determine where they 

will access services.” 

- Catherine Daniels, Grant 

Administrator/Planner, 

Employment Training Resources

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
10

Ultimately, five different One‐Stop Career Centers delivered voucher‐based services using

the following basic procedures:

1. In order to be compensated via a NEG voucher, a One‐Stop Career Center

that has a NEG‐eligible individual contacts the project operator.

2. The project operator determines if there are sufficient resources within the

voucher allocation to enroll the worker in the grant.

3. Those who are enrolled in the NEG using a voucher at a remote One‐Stop

Career Center are eligible for all NEG services regardless of where they

receive them.

4. When a worker is enrolled in the NEG using a voucher, the One‐Stop Career

Center he/she is working with can invoice the project operator to help defray

the cost of providing services.

Although it does not deliver all of the services, the project operator retains ultimate

responsibility for the outcomes of the grant.  In order to more closely monitor performance

at voucher sites, new oversight reports were added to the State’s centralized data

management system, the Massachusetts One‐Stop Employment System (MOSES).  The

reports track staff interaction with each dislocated worker, specifically whether an

individual had been contacted or received services within the past thirty days.  The reports

also allow managers and the project operator to monitor One‐Stop Career Center

productivity and ensure consistent implementation of grant benefits.  If voucher sites are

not achieving expected outcomes, the project operator is able to engage them in a discussion

of potential methods for improving performance.

While the use of vouchers is a straightforward program feature, a number of factors made

this a feasible and effective strategy for delivering services across multiple jurisdictions:  

Centralized management database. The State’s previous investment in its centralized

data management system, MOSES, was critical to operationalizing the voucher

system.  In MOSES, the project operator can track individuals and ensure that

they are receiving the full set of services available to them; in general, it is the

centralized tracking system that allows for sufficient coordination and record‐

keeping to maintain trust between the project operator and the voucher sites.

Precedent for using vouchers. Vouchers had been used successfully in several

previous layoffs in the State of Massachusetts and in conjunction with NEGs.  

This previous experience created the precedent for vouchers and demonstrated

how to maximize customer choice in terms of where workers receive assistance.   

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
11

Flexible state policies. Staff from the State’s Department of Workforce

Development Division of Career Services (DCS) have created a flexible policy

environment that allows for the use of vouchers without requiring that they be

used in every dislocation event.   

Readily available technical assistance. When vouchers seem to be a desirable

approach, DCS provides project operators with a sample contract and training

policy guidelines, as well as technical assistance on how to effectively implement

a voucher system.

Virginia—Brokering Collaboration to Support a Cross‐Boundary Response:  The State of

Virginia faced a unique dislocation event when Independence Air announced it was closing

and that over 3,000 workers would be dislocated.  Two WIBs, located in close geographic

proximity to the Dulles airport where Independence Air had been based, were identified to

help provide dislocated worker assistance as project operators.

The State played a strategic role in applying for the NEG and in helping to broker consistent

workforce service policies between the two WIBs.  Instead of State officials defining polices

with local input, as was the case in Missouri, their aim was to broker communications

between the two WIBs to ensure policy alignment so that workers would receive a

consistent level of training and supportive service benefits.  Aligned efforts included:

Resources available for training.  While each WIB established its own training

reimbursement maximum, the State ensured that the caps were similar.

Support services. Similarly, the State ensured that consistent support service

policies were established by both WIBs.

Coordinated marketing and

outreach effort.  A joint

marketing campaign was

coordinated that included

letters, brochures (see exhibit

“Is Your Career Ready for Take

Off?”), and emails  sent to all

dislocated workers who could

be served by the multiple One‐

Stop Career Centers operated

by the two WIBs.

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
12

Within these general parameters, the State of Virginia successfully acknowledged the

diversity of cultures across the two affected WIBs and allowed each to adapt its approach

according to its own strengths.  By not mandating an identical approach, the State ensured

that the services delivered fit within the existing organizational structure and culture, which

ultimately allowed for the most efficient roll‐out of services.

The Independence Air event moved beyond regional collaboration between two WIBs to

include coordination of services across State boundaries as well.  This became necessary as

the Rapid Response planning team determined that a substantial portion of the affected

pilots and flight attendants did not, in fact, live in Virginia, but rather, throughout the

country.  A system had to be put in place that would allow these individuals to access

available services and benefits outside of Virginia.   

There was not an established method for the two project operators to compensate One‐Stop

Career Centers throughout the country for providing intensive services to NEG‐eligible

individuals.  They decided to coordinate as needed to ensure that individuals received the

services and benefits for which they were eligible.  Generally, workers would call one of the

two One‐Stops and be offered two ways of receiving service:  

Referral to a local One‐Stop Career

Center.  Dislocated workers could be

referred to a local One‐Stop Career

Center at a convenient distance from

their home.  The project operator in

Virginia was readily available to the

local One‐Stop staff to discuss the

benefits available under the NEG

and help process paperwork for

enrollment in training.  The local

One‐Stop provided intensive

services, and training costs were

reimbursed by Virginia.   

- Project Operator Funding Award 

Letter from Virginia Employment and 

Training Commission

“Because the employees affected by 

the Independence Air closing are 

representative of the entire 

Northern Virginia Metro Region, 

we are asking that all NEG 

resources be used in a regionally 

collaborative approach. 

Recruitment and marketing efforts 

should direct affected workers to 

any of the One-Stop Career Centers 

within LWIA’s 11 and 12.” 

Receipt of phone‐based services from a project operator.  The alternative offered to

workers was to receive all services over the phone, including assistance with the

development of a training plan as well as with the completion of the paperwork

needed to enroll in training.  This approach was practical for many

Independence Air workers because they were pilots looking to enroll in a specific

training course that would enhance their credentials for rehire in the airline

industry.   

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
13

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies

REEMPLOYMENT THROUGH NEG PROMISING PRACTICES 

Collaboratively working across geographic boundaries and program jurisdictions can

effectively serve to maximize the reemployment of dislocated workers.  The importance of

cross‐boundary collaboration is crucial in the planning and start‐up as well as the design

and implementation phases of project.  During the planning and preparation phases, active

coordination across WIBs or states broadens the overall resource base and increases the

likelihood of a regionally integrated NEG response.  In turn, this increases the overall

capacity of NEG project operators to reach and enroll dislocated workers and provide

targeted and convenient services.

1

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies

WORKING DRAFT

PEER CONTACTS 

Florida 

Larry McIntyre, Special Projects Coordinator 

Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation 

(850) 921-3323 

larry.mcintyre@flaawi.com

Jackie R. Phillips, Senior Management Analyst 

Supervisor 

Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation 

(850) 921-3311 

jackie.phillips@flaawi.com

Massachusetts 

Alice Sweeney, Director, Special Projects 

Department of Workforce Development 

Division of Career Services 

(617) 626-6449 

asweeney@detma.org

Mike Beaudry, Project Coordinator 

Workforce Central Career Center, Worcester 

(508) 799-1600 

mbeaudry@detma.org

Catherine Daniels, Grant Administrator/Planner 

Employment and Training Resources, 

Marlborough 

(508) 786-0928 

cdaniels@detma.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi 

Jeanine Lilly, Director 

Office of Grants Management 

Mississippi Department of Employment Security 

(601) 321-6050 

jlilly@mdes.ms.gov

Yolanda Boone, NEG Grant Administrator 

Mississippi Department of Employment Security 

(601) 321-6000 

yboone@mdes.ms.gov

Gary Lukens, Deputy Director 

Twin Districts Workforce Investment Board, 

Hattiesburg 

(601) 545-2137 

glukens@smpdd.com

Missouri 

Debra Minish, Rapid Response Coordinator 

Division of Workforce Development 

Missouri Department of Economic Development 

(573) 526-8273 

debra.minish@ded.mo.gov

 

Virginia 

Harold L. Kretzer, Jr., Policy and Planning 

Specialist 

Commissioner's Office, Virginia Employment 

Commission 

(804) 786-6130 

harold.kretzer@vec.virginia.gov

Carla Leap, Workforce Manager 

Arlington County Department of Human 

Services 

(703) 228-1447 

cleap@arlingtonva.us

David Hunn, Executive Director 

Northern Virginia Workforce Investment Board 

(703) 752-1606 

david.hunn@myskillsource.org