Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies 1 

WORKING DRAFT 

NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANT PROMISING PRACTICES SERIES:

ESTABLISHING AND MANAGING A TEMPORARY JOBS PROGRAM

PREPARED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BY:

ABT ASSOCIATES INC.    WORKFORCE LEARNING STRATEGIES

55 WHEELER STREET    5 TENNEY STREET

CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138   CAMBRIDGE, MA 02140

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 

NEG disaster projects, like other NEGs, respond to significant dislocation events.  These

types of grants, however, differ from other NEGs in both their precipitating cause and

critical program elements.  The major activity in a disaster NEG is to establish a temporary

jobs program to assist with clean‐up, restoration, and the provision of humanitarian aid in

communities harmed by natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, or fires.  Disaster

grants can also operate like other types of NEGs by combining workforce services with the

temporary jobs program to support the permanent reemployment of those workers unlikely

to return to their previous jobs.   

The temporary jobs program that is implemented by the workforce system is the main focus

of an effective disaster response, but not all regions have experience in its critical

components: coordinating with disaster relief organizations and community stakeholders,

selecting work sites, and hiring and supervising temporary workers.  Effective practice in

establishing and operating a temporary jobs program carefully focuses on all stages of the

disaster NEG including.

Infrastructure and Readiness. Developing policies and procedures for a temporary

jobs program prior to an emergency situation allows a state and local area to

more effectively implement a disaster grant.  These program policies and

procedures allow a NEG operator to quickly identify an employer of record,

select work sites, and hire and deploy dislocated workers to provide clean‐up

and humanitarian assistance.   

Planning and Start‐up. The start‐up of a temporary jobs program requires

coordination with public partners such as emergency management agencies,

environmental agencies and local officials.  This coordination supports the

selection of priority work sites for clean‐up or humanitarian assistance, helps to

leverage resources from the community, and ensures compliance with

environmental regulations.

Program Design and Implementation.  The design of a temporary jobs program

requires comprehensive safety training and practice, efficient management and

supervision, and building reemployment services into the temporary jobs

program.  This helps to ensure the safe delivery of clean‐up and humanitarian

tasks, the recruitment and retention of work crews, and supports the temporary

workers who cannot return to old jobs to move into new, permanent

employment.

Learning from NEG Grantees:  This blueprint provides information on how four disaster

NEG grantees established effective temporary jobs programs and also used those programs

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
3

to support broader reemployment objectives.  Its purpose is to provide basic information to

new disaster grantees on establishing a temporary jobs program and to disseminate core

practices of experienced grantees to the workforce system at large.

Florida.  During the hurricane season of 2004, five significant storms hit all regions

of the State of Florida; some areas were hit more than once.  The broad and recurring

impacts of these hurricanes meant that it was impossible to identify what particular

damage was caused by a specific storm; therefore, the State served each of these

disasters through a single NEG.  The immediate need after each of the Florida

hurricanes was both clean‐up and humanitarian assistance.  NEG Award Amount:  

$69,266,299.

Mississippi.  The impact of hurricane Katrina was felt in all parts of the State of

Mississippi.  The southern coastal counties were the hardest hit, incurring long‐term

damage to their economic and civic infrastructure.  Mississippi initially concentrated

on providing immediate humanitarian assistance through its temporary jobs

program; however, it also faced the need to support longer‐term reemployment

goals as large numbers of workers were unable to return to their previous

employment.  NEG Award Amount: $95,000,000.

Pennsylvania.  In 2006, seven of Pennsylvania’s Local Workforce Investment Areas

experienced extensive flooding with most of the damage being concentrated in

three primarily rural regions.  The State administered the grant, and funds were

distributed among the workforce areas based on the extent of local damage.  While

the NEG supported the temporary jobs program, the local workforce areas used

formula funds to augment the initiative through the provision of workforce

development services.  NEG Award Amount: $4,835,970.

Louisiana.  The entire state of Louisiana suffered devastation from the combined

impacts of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  Parishes closest to the Gulf experienced the

most direct physical destruction while northern areas of the State were impacted by

an influx of evacuees.  These circumstances complicated the recruitment process as

well as the establishment of participant eligibility.  Louisiana began with an

emphasis on clean‐up and humanitarian assistance, but the long‐term impacts of

these hurricanes on employment created a need to provide broader workforce

services as the project continued.  NEG Award Amount: $73,642,093.

The temporary jobs programs implemented by each grantee are further described below.  

These examples of effective planning and operations can be adapted to the variety of

circumstances NEG disaster grantees face.  Specific practices discussed below include:  

Determining the employer of record;

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
4

Recruiting and retaining temporary workers; and

Selecting and overseeing worksites.

The discussion also includes a review of instances in which grantees have integrated

workforce services to facilitate the transition from temporary to permanent employment.

DETERMINING THE EMPLOYER OF RECORD 

One of the most immediate tasks in establishing a disaster grant temporary jobs program is

to determine who the employer of record will be.  The employer of record provides the

mechanism for hiring, insuring, overseeing, and paying the temporary workforce.  In

general, grantees based their selection of the employer of record on their perception of what

will help them:

Quickly implement a temporary jobs program;

Fully comply with employment law and regulations;

Control costs; and

Meet program goals.

Grantees in Louisiana and Pennsylvania chose to use the local Workforce Investment

Boards (WIBs) as the employer of record; Mississippi chose a single staffing agency that

had local subcontracts; and one Florida WIB chose to use a large local employer as one of

the employers of record in its area.  This diversity of approaches serves to illustrate the

range of factors that grantees have considered in identifying an employer of record that

allows for the rapid and efficient start‐up of a temporary jobs program in their area.

WIBs as Employer of Record.  In Louisiana and Pennsylvania, the local WIBs

receiving disaster grant funding through their States chose to act as the employer

of record.  This choice was made both in anticipation of the needs of participants

for permanent employment as well as to support State and local goals for

systems integration.  Local WIB staff believed that with the WIBs acting as the

employer of record, they could more directly integrate temporary workers into

the workforce system and help them make connections to permanent

employment opportunities.  They sought to structure the temporary employment

activities as work experience that supported participants in gaining permanent

employment.

In Louisiana, the mass evacuation of some areas, especially those in and around

New Orleans, caused a general shortage of workers available and eligible for

temporary jobs for at least a year.  Other regions had their populations double

overnight.  These areas had an abundance of potential workers for the temporary

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
5

employment jobs, but many individuals were also coping with the loss of their

homes, communities, and, in some cases, basic identification information.  In this

context, workforce staff viewed temporary employment as an incremental step

that provided individuals with some income and a more gradual opportunity to

prepare them for new employment.  The Lafayette County, Louisiana, WIB

believed that the most effective method of creating an integrated and

interconnected flow of support was for the WIB to take on the role of employer

of record.   

The Pennsylvania Tri‐County Workforce Investment Board (TCWIB) hired over

400 temporary employees through their disaster NEG.  This required the agency

to ramp‐up internal hiring processes including payroll services, insurance, and

supervision of employees.  They carefully documented the procedures they used

in hiring and supervising staff to be prepared for potential future disasters.

Representatives of WIBs acting as the employer of record acknowledged that this

role often results in additional expenses.  Most notably, the organization incurs

an increase in its workers compensation rates and may need to develop new

procedures such as a system to make and track wage garnishments.  These

representatives maintained, however, that, for them, theses costs were

outweighed by the benefits.

Staffing Agencies as Employer of Record.  The devastation of Hurricane Katrina in

Mississippi created an immediate and longer‐term need for large numbers of

temporary workers to provide clean‐up and humanitarian assistance.  As an

indication of the scale of this effort, the Twin Districts WIB in Hattiesburg, the

hardest hit region, processed between $1.3 and $1.6 million per week in salaries

at the peak of the temporary jobs program.  State officials consulted with local

grantees about how to determine an employer of record and found a consensus

among local area representatives about the need for consistency across the State

in the personnel policies and procedures related to temporary jobs.  The decision

was made, therefore, to use one staffing agency that could offer existing job

descriptions and employment policies as well as information on occupational

wage rates.  In some instances, this staffing agency maintained oversight but

subcontracted with a local staffing company.  Representatives from the State of

Mississippi felt that selection of a single responsible party allowed for more

immediate implementation of the temporary jobs program and helped to

maintain uniform quality of delivery across the State.

Local Employer as Employer of Record.  While most of its workforce areas utilized

staffing agencies, Florida was unique among the disaster grantees in that one

local WIB utilized a large local employer, Piper Aircraft, Inc., as the employer of

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
6

record.  Piper had to shut its plant down for several months while repairing

storm damage.  The local WIB decided to operate a temporary jobs program and

allow Piper aircraft to act as the employer of record.  This decision enabled the

workers to continue receiving health benefits, kept them in the region, and

facilitated record‐keeping since the company already had the required worker

identification information.  While these workers were not allowed to provide any

clean‐up services at their plant, they were utilized at approved public and non‐

profit worksites for hurricane‐related disaster clean‐up.

  

RECRUITING AND RETAINING TEMPORARY WORKERS 

Recruitment begins with identifying who is eligible to be hired for a temporary jobs

program.  Under a disaster NEG, the priority is on serving those whose jobs were

temporarily or permanently lost.  Other types of dislocated workers, however, can also be

eligible for temporary employment under a disaster NEG after enrolling workers directly

laid off as a result of the disaster.  

All of the disaster sites employed similar recruitment methods but differed slightly in the

types of dislocated workers who participated.  The hurricanes hitting Florida, Mississippi,

and Louisiana disrupted the ability of employers to quickly resume operations.  This meant

that there were large numbers of directly affected dislocated workers from almost every

industry and occupation available for temporary positions.  Many of these workers were not

able to return to previous employment.  In Pennsylvania, on the other hand, most

employers were not affected by the flooding for an extended time and were able to resume

their operations comparatively quickly.  Therefore, while recruiting was first aimed at

individuals dislocated from employment by the flood, the majority of those available and

eligible for temporary jobs were other types of eligible dislocated workers.  Against this

backdrop, several outreach plans and recruitment points were used by grantees to most

efficiently identify workers that are eligible for temporary positions:

The Unemployment Insurance (UI) application process.  While individuals cannot

simultaneously receive UI benefits and work in a temporary position, project

staff in Louisiana and Mississippi found that providing information on

temporary jobs to individuals seeking to sign up for unemployment benefits was

an effective outreach method.  Given the large numbers of jobs lost and the

accompanying need for income, interest in the temporary jobs also grew rapidly

by word of mouth.  The temporary opportunities that provided more income

than unemployment benefits attracted candidates with a variety of employment

backgrounds.  These included service workers in the coastal economy and

professional workers from leading employers such as Keesler Air Force Base,

Northrop Grumman, and Chevron.   

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
7

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Disaster Sites. Workforce Escarosa

Inc., a local WIB in the Florida panhandle, utilized FEMA Disaster Sites for

worker recruitment.  Within two days of the storm, staff members were on site at

all FEMA locations.  As they signed workers up for unemployment, they

simultaneously provided them with an application for a temporary job as an

alternative to collecting benefits.  This co‐location with FEMA provided

individuals with a firsthand look at an aggressive emergency response to the

disaster and may have motivated them to apply for the temporary jobs to help

their community.  

One‐Stop Career Centers.  The Pennsylvania sites utilized their One‐Stop Career

Centers (CareerLink) for recruitment, intake, and enrollment.  Recruitment

efforts were made through advertising on the CareerLink Web site as well as

through public service announcements in the local newspapers, radio stations,

and television stations.  In the Tri‐County workforce area the number of

individuals who applied for the temporary worker positions was so great that

CareerLink time‐stamped the applications to determine who had signed up the

earliest.   

While turnover of workers can be a problem in temporary jobs programs, the grantees

described in this blueprint developed methods of maintaining needed workforces.  In some

cases, this partly reflected the size of the disaster; for instance, one Mississippi workforce

staff member observed that there was minimal turnover in the temporary positions for the

first six months since there were limited permanent employment opportunities.  Several

other themes also emerged:   

Integrating reemployment assistance into the temporary jobs program. Staff indicated

that some of the workers were motivated to remain with a temporary jobs

program because it was designed to also help them pursue future employment.  

Integration of reemployment assistance is described in more detail in a later

section of this blueprint.

Careful monitoring of wage limits.  In the larger disasters that require longer‐term

cleanup, the wage limits established for an individual temporary worker can be

quickly met.  By carefully monitoring when workers were about to reach wage

limits, project staff were able to prepare workers for their next steps and to

identify the need for renewed recruitment efforts.   

Providing necessary training. The Pennsylvania sites with crews working in

intemperate weather and with potentially dangerous tools (e.g., chainsaws)

sternly emphasized safety at their worksites and monitored this carefully.  All

temporary workers were required to go through safety training prior to being

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
8

assigned to a worksite.  Each element of the safety training provided a certificate.  

For the crew leaders, this included a Red Cross certification for the first aid

training and a certificate for a two‐day chainsaw safety course.  All of the

temporary workers received a certificate from the OSHA training.  Additionally,

the crews got daily safety talks from site supervisors and the TCWIB had a safety

officer on staff who made daily unannounced safety inspections to work

locations.  Ultimately, this level of training and certification enhanced the job

stability among temporary workers and supported their future employability.

Ensuring the visibility of good work.  The NEG grantees indicated that the positive

response to the value and importance of the community work that was done

strengthened the morale and commitment of the temporary workers.  For

instance, in Pennsylvania local residents voluntarily provided coffee and donuts

to the crews to thank them for their work.  The crews received recognition from

state representatives and municipalities as well as positive stories in local

newspapers.  One WIB Director indicated that the recruitment of crew members

became easier as the project continued partly because of how well it was received

in the community.

WORKSITE SELECTION 

Temporary work funded under disaster NEGs can generally only be performed at public

and private non‐profit worksites.  As such, it requires that grantees have the capacity to

work collaboratively with other community stakeholders to identify worksites are

addressing the most pressing local needs.  Grantees also developed strong monitoring

systems to ensure the sites complied with existing regulations.  Several factors influenced

the selection of worksites across these disaster grantees:

Locally set priorities. In the Pennsylvania disaster NEG, the flooding damage was

severe but was generally restricted to

public lands with lesser impact on

private employers.  The Tri‐County

Workforce Investment Board

(TCWIB) began its worksite selection

by conducting meetings with county

commissioners and each county’s

emergency management department.  

TCWIB let the county commissioners

set the priority of where the

temporary workers would commence

clean‐up activities.  Within the

counties, WIB staff organized

“One promising practice was 

that we removed as much of the 

paperwork as possible in what 

we asked of them. We wanted 

their input [on worksites] but 

didn’t need 5 pages of 

paperwork. The main question 

was: where was the greatest 

need for clean-up by temporary 

workers.” 

– Frank Thompson, WIB Director, 

Northern Tier Pennsylvania

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
9

meetings of townships and boroughs seeking input on clean‐up priorities.  Once

sites were selected, the WIB staff required the commissioners to sign a worksite

agreement describing the tasks that would be undertaken and the responsibilities

of each entity.   

Provision of humanitarian aid. In Louisiana, the enormous devastation caused by

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita strained the infrastructure so severely in some

regions that the temporary jobs were first utilized for providing humanitarian

aid in areas receiving evacuees rather than the locations where most of the

damage occurred.  The Lafayette WIB was the first region to start its temporary

jobs program, and the worksites were primarily located at non‐profits and local

government offices where evacuees were employed to help other evacuees.  

Similarly, in Mississippi the primary emphasis in selecting worksites was on the

provision of essential humanitarian services by working in shelters to help

FEMA and the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) centers.

Support for emergency clean‐up. In all disaster grant areas, public sector

responsibilities grew dramatically with the need for cleaning up debris on public

property including roads, parks, and beaches.  These worksites and temporary

job responsibilities were broadly coordinated with FEMA and its state

counterparts that had major responsibilities for the more intensive clean‐up and

restoration tasks.  In general, the NEG‐funded temporary jobs required only the

use of hand tools (e.g., rakes, chainsaws) while FEMA handled tasks requiring

the use of heavy equipment (e.g., backhoes, cherry pickers).  NEG‐funded

temporary workers also supported municipalities with such tasks as recovering

soaked records and library books and providing teachers’ aides and school

counselors.   

OVERSEEING WORKSITES 

Grantees described numerous lessons learned surrounding the oversight of worksites.

  

Worksite supervision. While all of the grantees utilized WIB staff to oversee and

manage the worksites, they also needed to select crew leaders for on‐site

supervision.  The Pennsylvania, TCWIB selected its crew leaders based on a

review of the temporary workers’ prior experiences as well as observation and

interview.  TCWIB staff offered a two‐day orientation where temporary workers

completed paperwork, attended an eight‐hour Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) training, and participated in the required drug‐free

workplace and sexual harassment training.  After this orientation, WIB staff

members interviewed potential crew leaders to determine both abilities and

interest in the position.  Those selected as crew leaders received instructions on

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
10

the necessary paperwork and participated in Red Cross first‐aid and chainsaw

training.  Additionally, each crew leader was provided with laminated copies of

the worksite policies that he/she kept with him/her for reference during the

clean‐up activities.  Crew leaders also participated in meetings with WIB staff

members during off‐work periods such as rain days.  These meetings were used

for problem solving, additional training, and planning.

Worksite monitoring.  Each grantee established detailed policies for monitoring

worksites.  The Workforce Escarosa Florida WIB developed worksite job orders

asking each site to justify the hurricane‐related impact and the jobs duties

requested.  The job orders also listed a pay rate, which was verified by the

staffing agencies as being in line with wages for similar positions.  Every three

months, the sites would have to justify that the temporary work tasks continued

to be hurricane‐related.  The WIB kept a “firewall” between worksite monitors

and program staff to ensure objectivity as monitors reviewed sites for

compliance with regulations and safety procedures.   

In Pennsylvania, the TCWIB had a Quality Assurance Team conduct weekly

visits of the flood crew at each worksite.  During these visits the team completed

a monitoring form that included a review of: the Worksite Agreement, client

eligibility determination and documentation folder, site crew leader interview

notes, and crew member surveys.  The reports were submitted to the Quality

Assurance Officer who reviewed them and identified any needs for corrective

action.  If corrective action was deemed necessary, the report was given to the

Executive Director of the WIB.  A monthly report was submitted summarizing

the number of monitoring visits that were made.

Environmental issues.  Coordination between clean‐up and environmental

regulations is critical for NEG disaster grantees.  For example, at one

Pennsylvania worksite, work was stopped for a day when a crew member

identified a potential beaver dam.  The workers knew that beavers were

endangered within the region and, therefore, knew that they needed to call an

environmental official.  Additionally, in the Northern Tier the Department of

Environmental Protection, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,

and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation were observers as the

county offices of Emergency Management and Conservation District selected and

prioritized worksites.  This allowed representatives from these agencies to raise

any environmental issues or challenges related to potential worksites.  

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
11

PROVIDING WORKFORCE SERVICES TO TEMPORARY WORKERS 

While their overriding emphasis was on supporting local recovery through temporary jobs

programs, the disaster grantees provided a range of broader workforce services.  The

discussion below focuses on the workforce services directly connected to the temporary jobs

programs.  It is important to note, however, that grantees provided various career services

to temporary workers to assist them in finding permanent employment.   

In an earlier Pennsylvania disaster project, the local areas focused primarily on immediate

clean‐up needs and then turned their attention to helping temporary workers find more

permanent employment.  In contrast, this program was designed to provide career planning

assistance throughout the duration of the program.  The NEG jobs were temporary and some

were filled with individuals who previously had had great difficulty connecting to

permanent employment.   

During the clean‐up activities, program staff sought to proactively connect local employers

and temporary workers by bringing them in to observe worksites or meet with workers at

CareerLink.  These employers talked to the crew members employed in temporary jobs and

invited them to apply for open positions at their companies.  The WIB Director acted as a

reference and wrote letters of recommendation for crew members listing the tasks they were

responsible for and noting qualities such as good attendance or the ability to listen to

instructions.  The WIB contracted for on‐the‐job training for some of the temporary workers

once clean‐up was completed.

Additionally temporary workers visited a local

CareerLink Center to receive counseling and

attend computer literacy classes or job search

workshops.  The temporary workers engaged

in these career development activities on their

own time time.  Local workforce areas utilized

formula funds to support these reemployment

services.

How to Structure a Temporary 

Jobs Program to Support 

Reemployment 

 Connect temporary workers 

and local employers. 

 Implement structured skill 

building modules as needed 

(e.g., safety, equipment use) 

 Use temporary worksites to 

refine job readiness or “soft” 

skills. 

 Use any available time (e.g., 

like rain days) to provide 

workforce services. 

In many cases, the jobs formerly held by the

temporary workers in Louisiana and

Mississippi never reemerged.  Louisiana and

Florida structured their temporary jobs

programs so that each worker was required to

spend some time outside of paid work learning

job search and interviewing skills.  Some of the

One‐Stop Career Centers in each of these states

were damaged and therefore provided these

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies
12

Abt Associates/Workforce Learning Strategies

services at mobile units that had been purchased or borrowed for use during emergencies.  

Additionally, some temporary workers who were unable to return to their previous

employers were able to enroll in training.  Most of the local WIBs co‐enrolled NEG

participants in the WIA Dislocated Worker program to provide this training.

REEMPLOYMENT THROUGH NEG PROMISING PRACTICES 

The effective planning and implementation of a temporary jobs program in the aftermath of

a natural disaster is critical in promoting the reemployment of dislocated workers.  Sound

planning decisions around the structure and operation of the temporary jobs programs

allows for rapid and efficient start‐up, which translates into an immediate flow of income to

those needing work.  At the same time, careful selection of temporary worksites engages a

broader range of stakeholders while providing the greatest opportunity to address

community needs through the work program.  In addition to expediting clean‐up and

humanitarian aid, a well‐conceived temporary jobs program provides an opportunity to

transition workers to permanent employment opportunities.

 
1

PEER CONTACTS

Florida 

Alecia Shally 

Agency for Workforce Innovation 

850-245-7476 

Alecia.Shally@flaawi.com 

Susan Nelms, Executive Director 

Workforce Escarosa, Inc., Pensacola, Florida 

850-473-0930, Ext. 205 

snelms@escarosa.org 

Louisiana 

Stella Goodbee 

Louisiana Workforce Commission 

225-342-7629 

SGoodbee@ldol.state.la.us 

Glenn Dugas, WIB Director Lafayette Parish 

(337)706-1215 

glennd@cox-internet.com 

Mississippi 

Gary Lukens, Deputy Director 

Twin Districts, Hattiesburg, MS 

601- 545-2137 

glukens@smpdd.com 

Pennsylvania 

Dan Kuba 

Deputy Director, Pennsylvania Workforce Investment Board 

dkuba@state.pa.us 

(717) 772-4966 

Frank Thompson, Deputy Director 

Northern Tier Workforce Investment Board 

Towanda, Pennsylvania 

570-265-9103 

thompson@northerntier.org 

Fred Fornataro 

Tri-County Workforce Investment Board 

Butler, Pennsylvania 

(724) 282-9341 x11 

tcwib@tcwib.net