Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Evaluation of the Summer Youth Program Under ARRA: Lessons from 20 Sites
Jeanne Bellotti
Recovering America’s Youth Summit
November 17-18, 2009
Chicago, IL
Mathematica® is a registered trademark of Mathematica Policy Research.
The Evaluation
Overall Perceptions
Organizational and Service Models
Youth and Employer Recruitment
Work Experiences
Presentation Overview
2
The Evaluation
3
20 purposefully selected LWIAs
2 ½ day site visits in July and August 2009– Interviewed 459 administrators, staff, and employers– Interviewed 149 participating youth
Analysis of state performance data
Final report to be released in spring 2010
Evaluation Overview
4
Nominated by DOL regional offices– At least 3 sites in each region– Mix of rural, mid-size, urban areas
Total enrollment goal of 22,500 youth– Varied from 120 to 5,550 youth per site
All planned to spend majority of ARRA youth funds in summer 2009
16 had summer programs for WIA year-round youth
Site Characteristics
5
Overall Perceptions
6
“As tiring as it’s been, we’ll be ready to go again next year. We look at all those youth in jobs and it’s worth it to see them succeed.” – Youth Provider Director
“They’ll remember their first job. They took ownership of their work, developed a team mentality, and took pride in it. We got them on the right direction to have a positive work experience in their next job.” - Employer
Staff and Employers Were Very Positive
7
“I always wanted to work with kids, so this is going to be like an extremely big help…my first step to my career that I want.”
“Just now I can do more than I was before which I think would be able to help me get another job, kind of like a get your foot into the door type thing.”
Youth Were Grateful for the Program
8
Organizational and Service Models
9
3 sites provided services directly
9 sites chose to issue RFPs– 4 sites had 18 or more applications– 4 reported funding organizations new to WIA
5 sites exercised waivers from procurement
3 sites reported they did not need a waiver due to recent procurement of WIA providers
Over Half of Sites Did Not Use Open Procurement
10
7 sites focused mainly on youth work experiences– 5 of these offered some supportive services
9 sites offered significant academic components– Academics targeted by age, industry or credential
5 sites had other components that varied by provider– Ranged in content and intensity
One Third of Sites Focused Solely on Work
11
16 sites required all providers to offer WRT
Of these, 9 used common curriculum for all youth
Timing of WRT varied– Before youth were placed in jobs (10 sites)– Throughout work experience (3 sites)– Before placement AND during work experience (1 site)– Varied by youth provider (6 sites)
Most Offered Work Readiness Training (WRT)
12
Youth and Employer Recruitment
13
At least one provider in 3 sites had trouble recruiting or did not reach goals
5 sites hired new eligibility workers– Others shifted existing WIA workers to intake roles
13 sites reported challenges in determining eligibility– Difficulty collecting documents from families and youth– Timeframe too short given volume of youth– Too much paperwork for short summer program
Veterans and their spouses are one of the least represented target populations
Several Youth Intake Challenges Emerged
14
All sites used social service agencies and schools as referral sources
6 sites sent lists of applicants to partners to verify eligibility and reduce paperwork for families
1 site received a list from TANF of eligible youth to help with recruitment and intake
Community Partners Helped Streamline Intake
15
“With the state of the economy, people wanted to be a part of the recovery. In the past, there would have been a lot of reasons for not participating. Now everyone wants to help.” – Work Site Recruiter
Sites often targeted employers before youth
All but one site used private, non-profit, and public
Most had formal screening processes– In-person visits before placing youth– Work site agreements with employers
Many Employers Were Willing to Hire Youth
16
6 sites were reluctant to recruit from private sector– No time to recruit if had not worked with private before– Uncomfortable choosing one employer over another– Not enough information on job quality– More requirements on youth age and background– Less familiarity with OSHA and child labor laws
Remaining sites reported benefits of private sector– More variety in industry and occupations– Better fit based on youth interests– More likely to hire for permanent placement
Mixed Opinions on Private Sector Employers
17
Work Experiences
18
Matching strategies varied by site– Youth interviewed by employers (5 sites)– Youth matched by staff, some allowed youth input (10 sites)– Most youth matched by staff but some interviews (5 sites)
7 sites did not match based on youth interests
2 sites said youth were not placed if they interviewed poorly with prospective employers
10 sites said transportation was factor in matching
Job Matching Most Often Driven by Youth Interests
19
Duration ranged from 4 weeks to 14 weeks
Nearly all provided part-time experiences– Most paid 20 to 30 hours per week (15 sites)– Some paid fewer hours for younger youth (3 sites)
Average potential wages of about $1550– Average total available hours was just over 200– Average hourly wages were $7.75
Youth wanted more hours for more weeks
Work Experiences Typically Lasted 7 Weeks
20
Confusion about definition
11 sites reported little success with green jobs– Timeframe for implementation was too tight– Very little green industry in local area
9 sites reported some success– Recycling– Park reclamation or green space protection– Weatherization and energy efficiency– Community gardening
Some Sites Reported Success With Green Jobs
21
Unanimous that vital for resolving issues early
9 sites had informal visits by youth provider staff– Often tied to timesheet pick up or paycheck drop off
3 sites did formal monitoring visits only– Guided by standard protocol or checklist– Spoke with supervisor & youth and observed worksite
8 sites did mixture of informal and formal
Work Site Monitoring Considered Critical
22
8 sites had timesheet issues– Errors by employers and youth– Challenges collecting timesheets on time
7 sites reported check issues– Problems distributing checks to youth– Errors in amount paid to youth– Youth paying large surcharges to cash checks
Potential solutions include formal timesheet orientation, electronic timesheets and payroll, or outside payroll vendors
Some Sites Had Problems with Payroll
23
Mathematica® is a registered trademark of Mathematica Policy Research.
Please contact:
– Jeanne Bellotti – Evaluation Project Director• [email protected]
– Janet Javar – DOL Project Officer for the Evaluation• [email protected]
For More Information
24
