CSBG INNOVATION PROJECT 200708

1
CSBG INNOVATION PROJECT 2007-08

• Seattle Conservation Corps
• Deconstruction

2
Performance Against Goals

• Goal To train staff and homeless individuals in
  effective techniques for building deconstruction
  and to conduct a feasibility study on the risks
  and benefits of warehousing and marketing of
  salvaged materials as a possible training and
  revenue generating line of business for SCC.
• NPI goals 1.1 C (obtained living wage job with
  benefits) by providing training for new living
  wage employment opportunities and 1.2 A obtained
  pre-employment skills/competencies required for
  employment and received training program
  certificate or diploma) by providing homeless
  individuals with new paid training opportunities
  that will enhance their ability to find living
  wage jobs).

3
Performance Against Goals

• Actual
• SCC was unable to provide sufficient on the
  job training in deconstruction to adequately
  prepare a participant for employment in that
  field, however, SCC continues to research
  opportunities and strategies in Green
  Employment which will, over time, result in
  improved employment opportunities for our
  participants.

4
Performance Against Goals

• Progress
• Provided 56 hours of on the job training in
  deconstruction to participants through the
  Innovation Grant
• Completed one deconstruction and reclamation of
  lumber prior to the start of the grant
• Collected promising information on potential
  Green Jobs and training in this area
• Developed new partnership with Seattle Public
  Utility staff committed to environmental
  initiatives and developing new ways of doing
  business
• Developed new partnership with the Re-Store, a
  non-profit business dedicated to the reuse and
  recycling of building debris
• Established contacts within Seattle Department of
  Economic Development with interest in Green
  Jobs and how SCC can fit into that initiative

5
Performance Against Schedule

• Plan
• February - Feasibility study complete
• March Training as indicated by feasibility
  study. Second deconstruction
• June Third and fourth deconstructions.
  Resale of salvaged materials
• October - Fifth deconstruction

• Actual
• Feasibility study applications to the Daniel J.
  Evans School of Public Affairs at the University
  of Washington and Leadership Tomorrow were
  declined
• Feasibility study not completed
• Focus of project changed to Green Jobs employer
  and training survey completed in March
• Deconstruction opportunities did not appear as
  anticipated. First real deconstruction
  opportunity came up in August without advanced
  notice

6
Performance Against Budget

• Budget
• The majority of the budget was earmarked for on
  the job training activities. Anticipated help
  with the feasibility study from one of two no
  cost sources did not materialize.
• .

• Because deconstruction opportunities were not
  available the majority of the budget was not
  spent.
• No deconstructions meant no salvage materials to
  sell.
• We did not receive support for feasibility study
  from either organization resulting in loss of
  salvage material to market

7
Planning
8
Project Planning

• Manager was responsible for the grant application
  and the original plan.
• Support at that time was reserved but possible?
• Was project well defined from beginning?
• Project was fairly well defined but depended too
  much on outside sources and unforeseen factors.
• There were multiple meetings with the operations
  staff before the 1st deconstruction.
• A lot of time was spent waiting for houses to
  become available as that was the largest budget
  item. This made following a plan or changing the
  plan difficult.

9
Was the Plan the Right One?

• It was a good plan
• Addressed a City of Seattle need to develop
  deconstruction contractors
• Good media coverage and opportunities
• Provided good work training opportunities
• The plan was overly optimistic
• Underestimated
• Number of deconstructions available
• Amount of training that could be provided with
  such limited funds
• Level of difficulty for our program participants
• Unable to meet benchmarks due to lack of support
• Looked for alternate training opportunities
• Continued roadblocks

10
How Effective Efficient Was RD?

• Identifying solving technical problems
• Issues not apparent until after the first
  deconstruction
• First trainer was not a good match
• Unanticipated lack of suitable houses for this
  project
• Lack of suitable houses for deconstruction meant
  lack of salvage materials to market
• Estimates execution
• Unable to spend budget due to lack of suitable
  houses
• Budget would not have been sufficient for five
  deconstructions
• Because of our limited experience with this type
  of project the budget estimate was too low and
  outcomes overly optimistic

11
How Was the Project Managed?

• Consistent attempts to get buy-in from staff
• Many Operations discussions about appropriateness
  of work for SCC
• Changes Changes were not made soon enough.
• Waited too long for other factors to come together

12
Quality Assurance Support

• More deconstruction projects required to gain
  experience and improve quality of work
• To continue deconstructions we need extensive
  training to support the environmental goals and
  challenges encountered
• More training would encourage support within our
  staff and partners

13
Marketing

• Project Launch
• First deconstruction went well. Partners from
  Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle Parks
  Department and the community were present. Media
  covered the event.
• Inability to move forward due to lack of houses
  and lack of support in the organization

14
Outcomes

• Proposal was brought to operations staff early in
  process
• Many meetings and discussions uncovered serious
  concerns from operations staff about the
  difficulties of this project
• It was important to actually deconstruct a
  building so we could accurately assess the scope
  of the work

15
Outcomes

• After the first deconstruction support for the
  program dissolved
• Staff expressed concerns that the work was too
  difficult and too dangerous
• Site issues made the project more difficult than
  it might have been
• The trainer was not a good fit

16
Outcomes

• Lack of additional houses to deconstruct stalled
  the project until August when supervisors were
  committed to other projects
• During the wait for suitable houses other
  partnerships developed that will be useful
• Seattle Public Utility waste reduction
  personnel
• Re-Store deconstruction and salvage experts
• Department of Economic Development - Green Jobs
  Initiative

17
Key Lessons
18
What Went Right

• Completion of one deconstruction and reclamation
  of lumber prior to the start of the grant
• Collected information on potential Green Jobs
  and training in this area
• Developed new partnership with Seattle Public
  Utility staff committed to environmental
  initiatives and new ways of doing business
• Developed new partnership with the Re-Store, a
  non-profit business dedicated to the reuse and
  recycling of building debris
• Established contacts within Seattle Department of
  Economic Development with interest in Green
  Jobs and how SCC can fit into that initiative

19
What Went Not So Right

• Problems
• Lack of support in the organization
• Lack of interest
• Concern the project was not a good fit for SCC
• Lack of training made staff feel unsafe
• Difficult to complete with current staffing
  expertise and resources
• Lack of suitable project houses
• Obstacles
• Hazardous materials
• Difficult access
• Did not get anticipated help with feasibility
  study
• How did team respond to problems?

20
Recommendations

• Next Steps
• SCC will continue to pursue projects offering
  training opportunities in Green Job employment
  sectors
• SCC will continue to explore deconstruction work.
  Perhaps hiring someone with a construction
  background and strong interest in waste
  reduction, reuse and recycling specifically for
  deconstruction work
• SCC will continue to build on our partnerships
  with Seattle Public Utilities whose leadership in
  environmentally sound practices has offered us
  training opportunities in the past including the
  Green Grid Project and the Rain Garden projects
• SCC will build on our relationship with the
  Office of Economic Development to pursue City of
  Seattle projects that will enhance our
  participants employability in the Green Jobs
  sector
• SCC will pursue available funding to enhance our
  ability to offer outside training to participants
  interested in future employment in Green Jobs

21
Questions Comments