Council committee reviews Boston Residents Jobs Policy as dashboard shows low Boston‑resident and women participation

The Boston City Council’s Committee on Labor and Economic Development convened virtually on April 13 to review the Boston Residents Jobs Policy (BRJP), the city’s workforce participation goals for construction projects, and a new compliance dashboard the administration says will make contractor performance more transparent.

Chair Brian Worrell (District 4) opened the hearing by saying the BRJP aims for 51% of work hours to go to Boston residents, 40% to people of color and 12% to women. He and several councilors said the city is falling short, particularly for women and Boston residents, and stressed that access to ‘‘quality jobs’’ means living wages, career advancement and safety.

Why it matters: The committee heard administration officials and community advocates agree that disaggregated, accessible data is essential to direct training, outreach and procurement choices so that BRJP goals translate into sustained jobs for Boston residents, not one‑off hours on a project.

Action for Equity’s jobs co‑director Wheezy Walstein told the committee BRJP can mask job quality differences and urged the office to split data by union vs. nonunion contractors, trade and contractor type so policymakers can distinguish high‑quality union jobs from short‑term, lower‑paid placements. ‘‘We need to open up the numbers and have a practical conversation that’s respectful of unions,’’ Walstein said, adding that the city should look for Boston residents ‘‘sitting on the bench’’ who could be offered sustained work.

Administration presentation and data: Jody Sugarman Brozen, deputy chief in the Worker Empowerment Cabinet and director of the BRJP, described a new Salesforce database that now collects certified payroll records and supports a dashboard with filters by year, developer, contractor, subcontractor and trade. Sugarman Brozen said the office tracks seven compliance measures and has a stepped enforcement process: late payroll prompts a warning and corrective action meeting; continued noncompliance can lead to written warnings and, ultimately, recommended sanctions to the Boston Employment Commission. She said fines for violations can reach $300 per violation but that since implementing the system the office has not needed to refer a case for sanction because warnings generally prompted compliance.

Christopher Brown, senior manager for BRJP, presented monitored project numbers from Oct. 2025 through March 31, 2026: the office reviewed 142 projects and reported aggregate participation rates of about 19% Boston residents, 42% people of color and 7% women. Brown noted that private projects — which tend to be larger and more often unionized — show different mixes than public projects; some public projects tracked higher people‑of‑color rates but lower Boston‑resident or women percentages. He flagged that small city projects with short crews can depress women’s percentages in some departments (Parks was cited as an example with unusually low women representation).

Council questions and follow‑up directions: Councilors pressed the administration on several fronts. Councilor Flynn and others asked why Parks had 0% women on some projects; Brown said small crews and contractor composition factor heavily. Council President Braden asked what leverage the city has with private general contractors; Sugarman Brozen said BRJP holds general contractors responsible for subcontractors and that the office can share contractor performance with awarding authorities. Councilor Murphy asked whether poor BRJP performance results in losing future contracts; Sugarman Brozen said the office is constrained by procurement law but is working on better feedback loops so awarding departments can see contractors’ BRJP track records.

Corrective actions and limits: The administration described corrective action meetings as the principal tool for projects failing to meet targets. Sugarman Brozen underscored a legal limit: BRJP cannot fine contractors for failing to meet work‑hour targets unless they violate one of the seven administrative compliance measures (for example, failing to submit payroll). For wage‑related enforcement beyond BRJP scope, the office refers cases to the Attorney General’s fair labor division and works in tandem with the city’s wage‑theft executive order, which the administration said is moving toward ordinance status.

Data gaps and planned reporting: Councilors asked for more granular neighborhood and apprenticeship data. Sugarman Brozen and Brown said some reports already disaggregate people‑of‑color categories for the Boston Employment Commission and that the dashboard team is working on neighborhood‑level (ZIP code or neighborhood) views and additional trade‑level breakdowns. The administration pledged a biannual report with completed projects and final BRJP numbers and said an economic impact analysis will be shared in November.

Project spotlight: White Stadium: Brown provided project‑level detail for the White Stadium redevelopment, noting East and West grandstands are tracked separately (East as a public facilities project, West as private) and that the project showed relatively strong numbers for Boston residents and people of color compared with citywide averages.

What the committee asked staff to do next: councilors asked the administration to (1) add neighborhood and finer trade disaggregation to the dashboard; (2) publish wage data trends now that certified payroll records are collected in Salesforce; and (3) present the biannual report and economic impact analysis with completed‑project outcomes in November so awarding departments can use BRJP performance in procurement decisions.

The hearing included public testimony, a multi‑council question period and a staff presentation; no formal motions or votes were taken. Chair Worrell adjourned the hearing after asking staff to provide follow‑up materials and thanked the panel and public commenters.