City Government

Oakland Exceeds Performance Expectations for Job Placements

Published

9 years ago

February 2, 2017

The State of California recently released the 2015-2016 performance report for the state’s federally funded local workforce development services, which found that the city’s employment training providers performed well beyond state mandated goals for both its youth and adult programs.

Evaluating Oakland and other areas, this report compares actual performance for placements, job retention, and average wages to state-mandated goals set at the beginning of each program year.

These particular statistics are of vital importance for our local job seekers. The state’s report shows that the network of employment training providers for the City of Oakland performed well beyond state-mandated goals with both its youth and adult programs.

“In a challenging environment for job seekers, these results are a testament to the hard work of staff and the great partnerships with local employers,” said Gay Plair Cobb, CEO of Oakland PIC.

“We serve those that are most in need, having faced challenges such as lack of job training, incarceration, lack of housing and education, and computer literacy. It is our duty as workforce service providers to open doors of opportunity for our customers and help them achieve employment sustainability,” Cobb said.

Chris Iglesias, CEO, Unity Council

Chris Iglesias, CEO of The Unity Council, said, “This is a testament to the strengths of Oakland’s workforce provider network. We are proud to see our clients reaching employment success, many of whom face numerous barriers to employment including lack of formal education and limited English proficiency.”

“The Oakland workforce network has come together to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to find a career path and reach self-sufficiency,” he said.

“This year was the best performance of the City of Oakland’s local workforce system in the past three years, demonstrating continued improvement in how the city and its contracted service providers meet the needs of Oakland residents,” said Erica Derryck, Director of Communications for Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf.

The adult service provider network includes the Oakland Private Industry Council, the Unity Council, and ASSETS Senior Services. This performance report reflects the work of staff at these three organizations in providing job training and workforce services to adult job seekers in Oakland, including recently laid off workers.

For unemployed adults, who often have significant barriers to successful employment, the City of Oakland achieved more than 100 percent of the state-mandated goals for job placement, job retention, and average wage.

The report shows that the rate of successful placement of long term unemployed job seekers was 67 percent, (110 percent of the state’s expected placement rate of 60.5 percent). These job seekers had a starting average wage of $13 an hour, and 82 percent were retained in employment for more than six months, well in excess of the state’s goal.

The employment placement rate for laid off workers was even higher at 76 percent with a starting average wage of $19 an hour. Over 85 percent of laid off workers retained employment for more than six months.

All of these results were significantly higher than the goals set by the state.

Similarly, for the youth providers of Oakland, the 2015-2016 performance report indicates that more than 100 percent of state-mandated goals were achieved in two out of the three performance standards.

In particular, job placement for youth reported a success rate of 75 percent, which was 136 percent of the state mandated goal. Oakland’s youth service providers include: Youth Employment Partnership, Lao Family Community Development, Civicorps, Youth Radio and Youth Uprising.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Related Topics:Chris Iglesias City of Oakland Gaye Cobb Libby Schaaf Oakland PIC Private Industry Council the Unity Council

Up Next

Williams Chapel Community Forum Discusses How to Use Block Grant Funding

Don't Miss

Celebration of African American Poetry This Weekend

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Marin City Public Housing Residents Demand a Voice in County’s Renovation Plans

Representation has been a continuous struggle for the Residents Council, she said in an interview with the Post News Group. In 2014, the tenants took the county to federal court over this issue, and prevailed, resulting in an MOU that was in effect from 2014 to 2024, said McLemore. “Now, they are not responding to our rightful requests to participate. They are not giving us a legal justification for their position.”

Published

4 days ago

May 10, 2026

Oakland Post

The largest housing complex in Marin County, Golden Gate Village residents are for predominantly Black and low-income. Courtesy image.

Tenants say the County of Marin is ignoring federal law requiring resident council participation

By Ken Epstein

Marin City public housing residents say the County is illegally depriving them of their rights to participate in renovation decisions that affect the future of their housing, raising deep concerns over whether the county ultimately will find a way to displace them.

According to regulations established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Marin City public housing residents have the right to organize, elect resident councils, and hold public housing agencies accountable for involving them in management decisions.

Without resident participation, the Board of Housing Commissioners, made up of the five Marin County Board of Supervisors and two resident comissioners, has approved a $226 million project. The plan calls for renovation of the 296 units in Golden Gate Village (GGV) and focuses on interior improvements. The project is scheduled to start in July.

Residents’ concerns have a long history, said Royce McLemore, president of the Golden Gate Village Residents Council and a 50-year resident of Marin City,

With no current MOU mandating training and participation of residents, the legal basis for all the redevelopment decisions made by the county since 2024 is questionable, said Terrie Green, executive director of Marin City Climate Resilience. “We are experiencing voicelessness. If residents had a voice, we wouldn’t be where we are today,” she said.

County decisions include a plan, in line with federal regulations, to convert GGV from public housing to a public-private enterprise that allows for private investment. The Marin Housing Authority has created a limited partnership that includes Burbank Housing – which will renovate the units and manage the property – and Wells Fargo Bank, the investor.

This change in federal policy regarding public housing, which includes a shift to a Section-8 voucher system, has resulted in gentrification across the country, particularly affecting African Americans in cities such as San Francisco.

Shifts in criteria of what is considered affordable could also end up pricing residents out of their living units. At present, low income in Marin County is officially considered $156,000. But the median household income in Marin City is significantly lower at $68,846.

Damian Morgan, a community advocate with Marin City Climate Resilience, questioned why the county is renovating apartments without fixing toxic infrastructure that is impacting the lives of people in GGV.

Morgan said tenants have filed a class action lawsuit because of unsafe conditions at Golden Gate Village.

Residents are also concerned that the County still does not have an adequate family plan for temporary displacement while their apartments are being renovated. Although the County has suggested other community apartments as alternatives, nothing concrete has developed except vacant public housing units that have the same toxic conditions, such as mold and mildew.

Green said it doesn’t make sense. “…Why are we moving people around into temporary housing that’s uninhabitable, when you should be dealing first with the infrastructure, the foundational work, replacing old and rusted water pipes and new sewers.”

Morgan questions the County’s motivation for neglecting infrastructure repairs. “They’re remodeling the units but leaving the decayed infrastructure in place. I feel like they’re just setting this up for it to fail.”

“What slowed it down a little is that GGV is a historic preservation district, but I think what they’re striving for is demolition by neglect,” he said. “The neglect has always been on their part.”

Architect Ora Hatheway said her concern is about cutting corners. “You have to deal with the land issues. You have to deal with grading and drainage, and that’s being brushed under the rug.”

In an interview with KGO TV, Marin County Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters responded to some of these concerns. She said residents are guaranteed the right to return to their homes.

“This is a concern that we take seriously,” she said. “Every resident will move back into their own unit, and we’ve given this to them in writing. Before they leave their unit, we will sign a document together that guarantees their right to return.”

In response to residents who feel left out of the planning process, she said community input has focused on those affected by the first phase of the project. “So other residents may not have heard quite as much or felt like they had as much contact. But if there are residents who have concerns, we’re happy to hear from them. You can contact my office or the housing authority directly,” she said.

While County leaders may be giving some updates to some tenants, they are not sitting at the table with the Residents Council nor giving residents a voice in decision-making, said McLemore.

Without a voice in decisions, tenants are worried that Black people may be forced out of public housing, resulting in gentrification, she said in an interview with ABC 7. It’s still paternalistic, she said. “It’s still that ‘We know what’s best for you.’’’

Several years ago, the Residents Council proposed a land trust plan that would give tenants homeownership rights. Though the plan had broad support throughout the county, it was rejected by the Board of Supervisors

In the final analysis, Green said, for Marin City tenants the fight is not just for decent housing but to maintain their community with dignity under conditions of mutual respect.

“We’re talking about people who came here to work in the shipyards during World War II to bring about peace and safety to this country,” she said. “Look at the discrimination we’ve faced down through the years. Look at the life-span issue of Marin City folks – almost 20 years less than the rest of the County.”

“We want educational equity so our children will have decent schools. We need a land trust, property ownership, so we can have wealth creation. Marin City needs the same quality of life as other communities in Marin County.”