Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workforce Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task force debates ZIP‑code targeting, capacity study and race‑neutral options as backup to MWBE program
Summary
Committee members discussed workforce goals tied to targeted high‑poverty ZIP codes, recommended training partnerships, and debated a capacity study as a contingency if formal MWBE programs face legal challenges. Participants urged parallel tracks: immediate outreach and longer‑term capacity building.
Committee members and county staff discussed workforce development goals for the Regional 1 rebuild, including how to recruit from targeted high‑poverty ZIP codes and how to prepare if formal MWBE programs are constrained by changes in federal policy or court rulings.
Commissioner Turner (appearing as the committee lead on the resolution) said the resolution identifies specific ZIP codes with high poverty and that procurement documents and workforce plans should highlight those ZIP codes so contractors understand hiring expectations. He listed examples of training and education partners the committee expects to involve, including Memphis‑Shelby County Schools career technical education, Tennessee Technology Center and other programs.
JW Gibson asked that the committee consider shorter credentialing partners—he cited Code Crew as an example—because some technical education programs take 18–26 months and shorter programs could put job seekers into credentials faster. ‘‘That’s a great point and we'll do so,’’ the committee’s project representative said, noting the committee will pursue multiple training partners.
Several members raised the question of feasibility: what if the pool of qualified candidates in the targeted ZIP codes is insufficient when it is time to hire? Mr. Turner and other members said the ZIP codes remain in the procurement universe but that the intent is to prioritize outreach to areas that have been historically left out. The group discussed doing a capacity study to measure local business readiness and workforce capacity; that capacity study is a separate contract from Griffin and Strong and has started, the committee was told.
Participants also discussed legal uncertainty. Several speakers referenced Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision as reasons to prepare a race‑neutral capacity approach in addition to the disparity study. Michael Wilburn (ELC) and Kim Brown (county consultant) said a capacity study could help shape race‑neutral approaches that still enable locally owned small businesses—many of which are Black‑owned—to compete if formal MWBE programs become legally constrained.
Why it matters: workforce development and the choice of inclusion mechanisms determine whether local residents and firms in the named ZIP codes get jobs and contracts on the rebuild. Committee members emphasized parallel planning: continue the disparity study and MWBE preparations while building capacity and race‑neutral options in case federal or judicial policy changes.
The committee asked subcommittees to coordinate follow‑up work, and the workforce subcommittee agreed to refine recommendations and circulate a written report to committee members.
