State Capacity and Readiness Assessment for a State-Centered Refugee Resettlement Framework

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: docx | pdf | html

Survey 1: State Readiness Survey
Informed Consent
Purpose of This Information Collection
You are being invited to participate in this information collection to support the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s (ORR’s) understanding of State-level authority and governance structures, workforce coordination, and capacity related to initial and longer-term refugee resettlement. ORR is also assessing States’ readiness and interest in a potential State-centered resettlement model, which would have States serve as the primary administrators of refugee placement and resettlement and lead the coordination of those related services.  
Because States administer programs in different ways, ORR is gathering structured information to:
    • Understand how governance and coordination functions are currently structured
    • Assess readiness considerations related to potential State-centered coordination models
    • Identify areas where technical assistance or support may be helpful
    • Inform future program planning and guidance
The focus of this effort is informational and analytical. It is intended to provide a clearer picture of current structures and readiness considerations, not to implement predetermined changes.
This survey is intended to support planning and implementation of refugee resettlement — not to evaluate or grade States. Responses will provide directional insights to inform collaborative planning.  The survey is estimated to take 30-40 minutes to complete. 
Your participation is voluntary. You may skip any question or exit the survey at any time.

Legal Authority to Conduct the Survey

The Welcoming Initiative for Newcomers is authorized to conduct this survey on behalf of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, under The Refugee Act of 1980 (8 U.S.C. 1522). 



How Your Information Will Be Used
Information collected through this survey will be used by ORR to support:
    • Internal analysis of governance and coordination structures
    • Program planning and technical assistance development
    • Identification of common patterns, gaps, and support needs
Responses may be analyzed in aggregate to identify trends and themes across States.

What This Information Will Not Be Used For
Responses will not be used to determine:
    • Eligibility for ORR services
    • Continuation of eligibility for ORR programs

    • State-level funding decisions
    • Approval or denial of services
Participation in this survey does not affect funding allocations, program status, compliance determinations, or approval to participate in future State-centered      implementation. This effort is not intended to evaluate or rank individual States.

Privacy 
ORR will handle all information in accordance with applicable Federal privacy laws and requirements. Due to the nature of State-specific insights, surveys are not anonymous and responses may be linked to organizations. Access to information collected in this survey will be limited to authorized personnel, and findings will be reported in summary or aggregated form whenever possible.

Questions
If you have questions about this information collection or how your State’s responses will be used, please contact:
Welcoming Initiative for Newcomers [email protected]      
--
Survey

Section 0: Respondent Context
Which State are you responding about? (Dropdown)
In what capacity are you responding to this survey?
    • State Administered
    • Replacement Designee 
Section 1: Authority & Governance
A. Authority
If responsibility for coordinating statewide refugee capacity recommendations were to rest with the State, would your office have the authority to perform this role?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Conditional
Does your office currently have authority to coordinate statewide refugee capacity recommendations?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Partial
If your office were to assume a lead coordination role, what would be required? (Select all that apply)
    • New legislation
    • State-level executive action
    • Interagency agreement
    • Additional staffing or resources
    • Other (please specify)
    • None
B. Governance Structure
Where is the State Refugee Coordinator (SRC) function administratively located in your State?
    • Office of New Americans (ONA)
    • Department of Social Services / Human Services / Health and Human Services
    • Department of Labor or Workforce Development
    • Governor’s Office
    • Independent office or commission
    • Other (please specify)
Where does the SRC function sit in the reporting structure?
    • Reports directly to the head of the agency
    • Reports through one intermediary division or office
    • Reports through multiple layers of leadership
    • Other (please specify) 

Section 2: Capacity Assessment & Decision-Making 
The following questions focus on how your State currently assesses capacity and translates that into placement, planning, and service delivery decisions.

A. Capacity Assessment Approach
Does your State conduct a structured assessment of community capacity to inform refugee placement or service planning?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Informally
If yes or informally: How is capacity assessed in practice? (Select all that apply)
    • Formal analysis of data (e.g., State or federal datasets)
    • Input from resettlement agencies or service providers
    • Interagency coordination or review
    • Local consultations (e.g., community organizations, local government, employers)
    • Informal or ad hoc assessments
    • No standardized process
    • Other (please specify)
B. Participation & Coordination
Who participates in capacity or placement discussions? (Select all that apply)
    • Resettlement agencies (RAs)
    • State refugee coordinator’s office
    • State Refugee Health Coordinators (SRHCs) 
    • Federal partners (PRM/ORR)
    • Workforce or labor agencies
    • Local government representatives
    • Service providers (e.g., health, education, legal)
    • Employers or business groups
    • Community organizations
    • Unaccompanied Refugee Minors Program providers (as applicable) 
    • Other (please specify)
C. Use in Decision-Making
How is capacity information used? (Select all that apply)
    • Determines placement levels or recommendations
    • Guides geographic distribution of arrivals within the state
    • Informs service planning or resource allocation
    • Used informally but not directly tied to decisions
    • Not currently linked to placement or service delivery decisions
    • Other (please specify)
To what extent is this process standardized across the State?
    • Highly standardized (consistent statewide process)
    • Somewhat standardized (core elements consistent, some variation)
    • Largely decentralized (varies significantly by region or partner)
    • Not standardized
D. Decision Authority
Which entity is formally responsible for determining refugee capacity recommendations in your State?
 (Single select)
    • Governor’s office
    • State refugee coordination office (SRC)
    • Federal partners (PRM/ORR)
    • Resettlement agencies (RAs)
    • Multi-sector advisory or collaborative body
    • Other (please specify)
In practice, which entities most influence capacity recommendations? (Select all that apply)
    • Governor’s office
    • State refugee coordinator’s office (SRC)
    • Federal partners (PRM/ORR)
    • Resettlement agencies (RAs)
    • Multi-sector advisory or collaborative body
    • Other (please specify)

E. Domain Capacity Considerations
Does your State consider the following service sector domains when informing refugee placement or service planning?
Domain
Yes (formal)
Yes (informal)
No
Not sure
Workforce / labor market
☐
☐
☐
☐
Housing
☐
☐
☐
☐
Education (adult & youth)
☐
☐
☐
☐
Healthcare
☐
☐
☐
☐
Social or integration services
☐
☐
☐
☐
Staffing / administrative capacity
☐
☐
☐
☐
Public opinion / community context

☐
☐
☐
☐


Specific services for youth & children      
☐
☐
☐
☐


How are these domains typically incorporated into placement or service planning decisions?
(Select all that apply)
    • Through formal coordination with relevant State agencies (e.g., education, health, workforce)
    • Through input from local providers or partners
    • Through analysis of quantitative data or indicators
    • Through interagency planning or review processes
    • Considered indirectly based on partner input
    • Not systematically incorporated into decision-making
    • Other (please specify)
For the domains your State considers, which factors or indicators are most important when assessing capacity?
 (Select all that apply)
Workforce / Labor Market
    • Job availability / vacancies
    • Alignment with refugee skills
    • Wage levels
    • Employer engagement
    • Workforce program capacity (e.g., WIOA)
Housing
    • Housing availability
    • Housing affordability
    • Short-term / transitional housing capacity
    • Geographic distribution of housing
    • Local housing market conditions
Education
    • School enrollment capacity
    • ESL or language support services
    • Children and Youth services / supports
    • School district readiness
    • Access to adult education
Healthcare
    • Provider availability
    • Medicaid participation or eligibility
    • Access to initial medical screening/s 
    • Access to primary care
    • Behavioral health services
    • Language access in healthcare
Social / Integration Services
    • Case management capacity
    • Legal services availability
    • Language access services
    • Community-based organization capacity
    • Access to benefits and supports
Staffing / Administrative Capacity
    • Staffing levels
    • Caseload capacity
    • Program management capacity
    • Data and reporting capacity
    • Interagency coordination capacity

F. Data Used in Capacity Assessment
For each domain, what types of data or information are used to assess capacity?
 Select all that apply within each row. Examples include 
	- State admin data (e.g., unemployment data, Medicaid enrollment, school enrollment, staffing levels)
	- Data from resettlement agencies or service providers (e.g., provider capacity, caseloads)
	- Domain-specific operational data (e.g., job vacancies, housing avail., ESL capacity, provider avail.)
	-Stakeholder consultations (e.g., meetings, advisory groups)
Domain
State admin data 
Federal data
RA/provider data
Operational data
Community input
Stakeholder input
Informal
Not used
Other
Workforce
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Housing
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Education
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Healthcare
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Social services
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
Staffing
☐
☐
☐
☐
␀
☐
☐
☐
☐
Public opinion / community context
☐
☐
☐
☐
␀
☐
☐
☐
☐


Specific Services for Children & Youth 
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐
☐












Optional: For any domains where data is used, please describe the most important indicators or metrics your State relies on (e.g., Medicaid participation, provider availability, ESL capacity, job placement rates).

Does your State have access to analytic or forecasting capacity that could inform refugee placement or integration planning?
 (Select all that apply)
    • State demographer
    • State planning or economic analysis office
    • Workforce or labor market analysis unit
    • University or research partnerships
    • External consultants or partners
    • Interagency data or analytics team
    • No dedicated analytic capacity
    • Not sure
    • Other (please specify) 

Funding Flexibility and Private Funding
Does your State currently have the ability to accept or use private funding to support refugee resettlement or integration activities?
    • Yes — Directly through State government
    • Yes — Through a partner organization or intermediary
    • No
    • Not sure
If yes, please briefly describe the mechanism (e.g., foundation partnerships, fiscal sponsors, nonprofit intermediaries):
 Open text
If no, would your State be able to establish a mechanism to accept private funding if needed?
    • Yes
    • Possibly
    • No
    • Not sure
Please describe any considerations or constraints related to accepting private funding (optional):
 Open text

Section 3: Readiness & Directional Capacity Estimates 
A. State Role & Agency
To what extent can your State translate its understanding of local capacity into placement, planning, and service delivery decisions?
    • No ability — decisions are primarily determined externally
    • Limited ability — some input, but limited influence on outcomes
    • Moderate ability — input is considered, but not consistently reflected in decisions
    • Significant ability — strong influence on placement and planning decisions
    • Full ability — State plays a primary role in determining placement and service delivery
In what ways would your State want a more active role in consulting with ORR on refugee placement, planning, or service delivery? (Select all that apply)
    • Overall placement levels
    • Distribution across communities
    • Aligning placement with workforce or economic priorities
    • Coordination of service delivery across agencies
    • Adjusting placements based on real-time capacity changes
    • URM placement for vulnerable youth, as applicable 
    • Other (please specify)
What are the primary reasons for wanting a more active consultation role? (Select up to 3)
    • Better alignment with local capacity and conditions
    • Greater responsiveness to changes in housing, labor markets, or services
    • Improved coordination across State agencies and service providers
    • Better alignment with workforce or economic priorities
    • Increased accountability for outcomes within the State
    • Improved planning and resource allocation
    • Stronger engagement with local stakeholders and communities
    • Other (please specify)
Optional: Please briefly elaborate on your top selection.

B. Differentiation of Needs (Tiering Capability)
Some approaches align refugees with different levels of need (e.g., employment-ready, workforce development, or higher-support needs) to available service capacity.
To what extent does your State currently assess or consider differences in refugee needs (e.g., employment readiness, need for workforce development, or need for more intensive services) when planning placement or services?
    • Not at all
    • Limited
    • Moderate
    • Significant
    • Not sure
What would be required to more systematically align refugee needs with appropriate service capacity? (Select all 
that apply)
    • Additional guidance beyond current regulatory and sub-regulatory guidance
    • Data systems to assess needs and capacity
    • Coordination across service providers
    • Additional staffing or case management
    • Training or technical assistance
    • Stronger interagency coordination
    • Other (please specify)
Relatedly, some approaches also consider factors that influence whether placements are likely to be sustainable over time (e.g., community networks, employment pathways, and local context that may reduce secondary migration).
To what extent would your State be interested in incorporating these types of sustainability factors into placement or capacity decisions?
    • Not interested at this time
    • Interested, but not currently feasible
    • Interested and could begin exploring within 6–12 months
    • Already exploring this approach
    • Already incorporating these factors
    • Not sure 
Some States distinguish between capacity to support new arrivals (e.g., initial reception and placement) and capacity to support longer-term integration of non-citizens already in the community.
To what extent does your State currently assess or consider these types of capacity separately?
    • We assess arrival and longer-term integration capacity separately
    • We consider both, but not formally
    • We primarily focus on arrival capacity
    • We primarily focus on longer-term integration capacity
    • We do not currently distinguish between these
    • Not sure
If your State were to assess these separately, which areas would be most important for arrival-stage capacity? (Select up to 3)
    • Short-term housing availability
    • Initial case management capacity
    • School enrollment capacity
    • Health screening and initial healthcare access
    • Benefits enrollment capacity
    • Local service provider capacity
    • Transportation/logistics coordination
    • Community reception and support
    • Other (please specify)
Additional Populations & Planning Variability
ORR serves a range of eligible populations in addition to refugees, and arrivals may vary based on migration patterns and global events, or Congressional requirements.
To what extent do non-refugee populations currently affect your State’s capacity planning?
    • Significant impact
    • Moderate impact
    • Limited impact
    • No meaningful impact
    • Not sure
What considerations would be most important for supporting additional non-refugee populations in your State's planning and capacity recommendations? (Select up to 3)
    • Advance projections of expected arrivals
    • Timely funding aligned with arrivals
    • Flexibility in service delivery across populations
    • Consistent planning timelines across populations
    • Similar capacity determination process across populations
    • Improved communication about expected arrivals
    • This is not currently a major consideration in our State
    • Other (please specify)


C. Constraints & Data Gaps
Which domains most constrain refugee placement or service delivery in your State today? (Select up to 3)
    • Housing
    • Workforce
    • Education
    • Healthcare
    • Data systems
    • Staffing
    • Community readiness (e.g., local partner capacity, volunteer networks, coordination)
    • Public opinion / political climate 
    • Other (please specify)
Where are the biggest gaps in your State’s ability to access or use data? (Select up to 3)
    • Data access (not available or restricted)
    • Data integration across agencies
    • Data quality or consistency
    • Staff capacity to analyze or use data
    • Coordination with external partners
    • Lack of standardized indicators or definitions
    • Other (please specify)
D. Implementation Readiness
Would your office be prepared to lead a statewide capacity assessment process in FY2027?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Conditional
If conditional, what would be required? (Select all that apply)
    • Funding
    • Additional staffing
    • Technical assistance
    • Leadership or political approval
    • Data access or systems
    • Interagency coordination mechanisms
    • Other (please specify)

How prepared would your State be to align refugee needs (e.g., employment-ready, workforce development, higher-support needs) with available service capacity?
    • Not prepared
    • Somewhat prepared
    • Moderately prepared
    • Well prepared
    • Not sure
If implemented, how would your State most likely operationalize this approach? (Select all that apply)
    • Use existing capacity planning processes and provider input
    • Use capacity assessment results to inform placement levels and distribution
    • Align placement decisions with available services across levels of need
    • Expand or adapt services to meet identified needs
    • Develop new coordination or planning processes across agencies
    • Other (please specify)
E. Directional Capacity Estimates (Planning Input)
The following questions are intended to provide directional planning information only. Responses are not commitments and may change based on conditions such as housing availability, labor market conditions, and service capacity. 
To what extent could your State provide an estimate of potential refugee placement capacity if requested?
    • Not able to estimate at this time
    • Able to provide high-level directional estimate
    • Able to provide approximate range
    • Able to provide more detailed estimate
    • Not sure

Based on current conditions, approximately how many refugee arrivals could your State support annually? (Directional estimate only; not a commitment)
    • Unable to estimate at this time
    • <250
    • 250–500
    • 500–1,000
    • 1,000–2,500
    • 2,500+
    • Not sure 


Compared to current conditions, how might your State’s capacity change under a State-centered      coordination model?
    • Increase significantly
    • Increase somewhat
    • Remain about the same
    • Decrease somewhat
    • Decrease significantly
    • Not sure 

 If additional arrivals were possible, where within your State might capacity exist?
 (Select all that apply)
    • Major metro areas
    • Secondary cities
    • Smaller urban areas
    • Rural areas
    • Would vary depending on population characteristics
    • Not yet assessed
    • Other (please specify)
Optional: Please list specific regions, metros, or communities where capacity may exist.
How stable would this estimate likely be over time?
    • Highly variable
    • Somewhat variable
    • Relatively stable
    • Not sure 

Section 4: Workforce Alignment
A. Labor Market Infrastructure
Does your State maintain an official labor shortage or in-demand occupation list?
    • Yes
    • No
If yes, how frequently is it updated?
    • Annually
    • More frequently
    • Ad hoc
Which agencies are involved in identifying shortage occupations? (Select all that apply)
    • State workforce agency
    • Department of labor
    • Economic development agency
    • Governor’s office
    • Other (please specify)
B. Integration with Placement & Planning
How are labor market needs incorporated into refugee placement or capacity decisions?
    • Not at all
    • Informally
    • Formally
Optional: Please briefly describe how this occurs.
C. Workforce Coordination & Roles
Is there a designated workforce agency partner engaged in refugee integration?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Informally
How does coordination with the workforce system typically occur? (Select all that apply)
    • Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or formal agreement
    • Regular coordination meetings or shared planning
    • Informal coordination between agencies
    • Joint program implementation
    • No consistent coordination
    • Other (please specify)
Which entity is primarily responsible for connecting refugees to workforce services?
    • State refugee office
    • Workforce agency
    • Resettlement agencies
    • Shared responsibility
    • Other (please specify)
D. System Integration
Are refugees systematically connected to WIOA or State workforce services?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Varies
How does the workforce system engage with refugee service providers?
    • No coordination
    • Informal coordination
    • Regular coordination or shared planning
    • Formal partnership or program integration
E. Workforce Supports & Capacity
Does your State provide dedicated programs or resources to support refugee workforce integration beyond basic job placement?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Varies
If yes: What types of supports are available? (Select all that apply)
    • Sector-based training programs
    • Credential recognition support
    • Employer partnerships
    • Workforce bridge programs
    • Language + job training
    • Other (please specify)
How engaged is the workforce system in supporting refugee employment outcomes?
    • Limited engagement
    • Informal coordination
    • Regular coordination
    • Dedicated programs or initiatives
Does the State allocate funding or staff specifically for refugee workforce integration?
    • Yes
    • No
    • Unsure 

Section 5: Conditions for Participation
A. Conditions for Participation
If federal guidance established a State-centered      coordination role for refugee capacity recommendations, under what conditions would your State be willing to participate?
 (Select all that apply)
    • Dedicated or stable federal funding
    • Additional State staffing or administrative capacity
    • Federal technical assistance or implementation support
    • Access to relevant federal or national data
    • Additional federal guidance on roles, expectations, and decision-making authority
    • Alignment or support from State leadership (e.g., governor’s office or legislature)
    • Alignment across key State agencies (e.g., workforce, health, human services)
    • Support or buy-in from local stakeholders (e.g., resettlement agencies, service providers, community partners)
    • Other (please specify)
B. Key Risks
What are the primary risks your State would consider in taking on this role? (Select up to 3)
Operational Risks
    • Insufficient staffing or administrative capacity
    • Data limitations or lack of integration
    • Coordination challenges across agencies or partners
    • Misalignment between capacity assessments and placement decisions
    • Implementation complexity
Reputational / Political Risks
    • Political opposition at the State or local level
    • Stakeholder disagreement or resistance
    • Perceived accountability for outcomes without sufficient control
    • Public perception or community response
    • Other (please specify)
C. Priority Support Needs
Which types of federal support would most increase your State’s readiness to take on this role? (Select up to 3)
    • Funding stability or multi-year funding commitments
    • Flexible or streamlined funding structures (e.g., consolidated funding, adjustments for geographic cost of living)
    • Advance allocation information for planning purposes
    • Model frameworks or implementation templates
    • Integrated data tools or data-sharing support
    • Staffing or administrative funding support
    • Technical assistance or training
    • Clear federal guidance and expectations
    • Other (please specify)
D. Service Structure & Funding Considerations
How important would it be to streamline or package initial resettlement services to support State oversight under a State-centered      model (in addition to the traditionally funded cash, medical assistance, and support services)?
    • Critically important
    • Somewhat important
    • Not important
    • Not sure
If States were responsible for coordinating initial resettlement services, how prepared would your State be to take on this role?
    • Already prepared
    • Within 6–12 months
    • Within 12–18 months
    • More than 18 months
    • Hard to determine
    • Not sure
If ORR were to consider changes to funding structures to support a State-centered      model, which approach would you recommend?
    • Consolidate funding into a single new arrival services package (e.g., RCA/RMA/RSS/PIR/MG)
    • Consolidate some funding streams while maintaining others separately
    • Maintain the current structure
    • Other (please specify)
    • Not sure
Optional:
 What considerations should inform this approach?
 (Open text)

E. Political & Community Context
How would you describe the level of support within your State for taking on a more active role in refugee placement, planning, or coordination?
    • Strong support
    • Moderate support
    • Mixed or variable
    • Limited support
    • Not sure
Which factors most influence this level of support? (Select all that apply)
    • State leadership priorities (e.g., governor, legislature)
    • Alignment across State agencies
    • Local government perspectives
    • Resettlement agency or service provider perspectives
    • Employer or business community engagement
    • Community sentiment or public opinion
    • Media or public discourse
    • Other (please specify)
To what extent does community or public sentiment influence decisions related to refugee placement or service delivery in your State?
    • Not at all
    • Limited influence
    • Moderate influence
    • Significant influence
    • Not sure
How does community sentiment typically affect implementation in your State? (Select all that apply)
    • Influences placement levels or locations
    • Affects stakeholder coordination or partnerships
    • Shapes political or leadership decision-making
    • Impacts service delivery capacity or provider participation
    • Not a significant factor
    • Other (please specify)

F. Final Reflection (Optional)
What is the single biggest factor that would determine whether your State could successfully take on a State-centered      coordination role?
(short response)

Section 6: Information Collection Context
The following questions are intended to inform how future information collection efforts with States may be structured.
A. Source of Request
In your experience, does it make a difference whether a survey or information request comes directly from a federal agency versus from a partner organization working on its behalf?
    • No meaningful difference
    • Minor difference
    • Moderate difference
    • Significant difference
    • Not sure
B. Impact on Responses
If there is a difference, how does it typically affect how your office approaches responding? (Select all that apply)
    • Level of detail or specificity in responses
    • Perceived authority of the request
    • Expectations about how the information will be used
    • Expectations about whether responses will remain internal or be shared
    • Comfort discussing implementation challenges
    • Internal review or approval processes before responding
    • Other (please specify)
C. Preferred Conditions for Candid Input
What conditions or approaches would best support clear and candid feedback from your State? (Select up to 3)
    • Clear explanation of how responses will be used
    • Assurance that responses will be aggregated or not attributed
    • Opportunities for discussion (e.g., interviews, working sessions) in addition to surveys
    • Requests coming through trusted intermediaries or partners
    • Advance notice or coordination before requests are sent
    • Simplified or streamlined survey instruments
    • Other (please specify)

D. Additional Input (Optional)
Please share any additional thoughts on how information collection from States could be structured to support effective and candid engagement.



Section 7: Additional Input
A. Final Feedback (Optional)
Is there anything we did not ask that you believe is important for understanding State readiness or implementation considerations under a potential State-centered      model?
(Open text)
Do you have any additional feedback on the survey or overall approach?
(Open text)

B. Priority Organizations for Follow-Up
As part of the next phase of this work, a small number of organizations may be invited to participate in follow-up conversations (e.g., brief interviews, focus groups, or targeted surveys). These discussions will help provide additional context on capacity, implementation considerations, and local perspectives.
A. Key Service Providers (Client-Requested)
Please identify your State’s primary service providers in the following areas, if applicable:
1. Refugee      Support Services — Employment / Vocational
    • Organization name:
    • Location (city/region):
    • Optional contact person/email:
2. Refugee      Support Services — ESL / Language Services
    • Organization name:
    • Location (city/region):
    • Optional contact person/email:
3. Refugee Health Promotion / Health or Mental Health Services
    • Organization name:
    • Location (city/region):
    • Optional contact person/email:
4. School Impact / Youth Support Services
    • Organization name:
    • Location (city/region):
    • Optional contact person/email:

B. Additional Priority Organizations
Beyond the service providers listed above, please identify up to three additional organizations whose perspectives would be especially valuable for follow-up conversations.
These may include:
    • Employer partners
    • Workforce development organizations
    • Housing partners
    • Community-based organizations
    • Local government partners
    • Education partners
    • Health systems
    • Child Welfare Agencies 
    • Other stakeholders
Priority Organization 1
    • Organization name
    • Organization type (optional)
    • Location
    • Optional contact
    • Why helpful (optional)
Priority Organization 2
(same fields)
Priority Organization 3
(same fields)

C. Additional Organizations (Optional Catch-All)
If there are additional organizations whose perspectives may be helpful, please list them below.
(Open text or attachment)