[ Main Page of Report | Contents of Report ]
The WtW grants were intended not only to move individuals into jobs, but also to help them obtain the kind of jobs that could potentially lead to sustained employment, career advancement, and self-sufficiency. While all of the study programs have maintained employment as their highest priority, each adopted a range of strategies to help individuals prepare for and move into the labor market, as discussed in the previous chapter. No single approach or model is being used in the WtW programs, and not all participants are receiving the same mix of services, even within the same site. Job placement rates varied across the programs studied, reflecting different program models as well as individual pathways to employment.
Examining the service delivery features and how administrators and staff describe their programs reveals that there are three general service delivery models that describe the primary approaches, or philosophies, operating in the WtW-funded programs in the study sites (Table V.1):
| Study Site | Enhanced Direct Employment Model | Developmental/ Transitional Employment Model | Post-Employment Skills Development Model |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boston-Employer Sponsored Programs and Enhanced Community Service | X |
||
| Chicago-Immediate Job Placement Programs | X |
||
| Chicago-Temporary Employment Programs | X |
||
| Chicago-Business and Industry Partnerships | X |
||
| Chicago-Supportive Work/Paid Work Experience Programs | X |
||
| Fort Worth WtW Program | X |
||
| Indiana-RVR WtW Program | X |
||
| Milwaukee-Dept. of Corrections, Nontraditional Opportunities for Work (NOW) Program | X |
||
| Nashville Works/Pathways Program | X |
||
| Philadelphia-TWC Phil@Work | X |
||
| Phoenix EARN Program | X |
||
| West Virginia-HRDF WtW | X |
||
| Yakima, WA, WtW Program | X |
||
| Yakima, WA, SHARE Program | X |
||
| Yakima OIC/Youthbuild/ Americorps Program | X |
||
| JHU-SCANS 2000-CTS Program (Baltimore, St. Lucie FL, and Long Beach, CA) | X |
One of the more striking operational observations in the study sites is that, while all of the WtW-funded study programs developed service delivery strategies that emphasized employment--even rapid employment in some places--none of the study sites provide just job search assistance or job-readiness skills alone. There is, though, substantial variation across programs in the degree to which they place priority on moving individuals quickly into employment versus providing more skills development or subsidized or transitional employment. There is also variation in the extent to which grantees emphasize post-employment services, although only one program included in this study--the JHU-CTS program--focuses primarily on post-employment services. Excluding JHU, about half of the study programs have what are referred to here as Direct Employment Models and half have Developmental or Transitional Employment Models.
Enhanced Direct Employment Models maintain a primary focus on moving individual participants into employment as soon as possible, usually after a short (e.g., one to three weeks) pre-employment job readiness component. Administrators and staff explain that their top priority is to place individuals into either unsubsidized employment as soon as possible, or into transitional or subsidized employment as soon as possible (often as an alternative when work opportunities in a community are limited). This immediate employment goal, though, is accompanied by individualized counseling and support, social services, and extended follow-up services post-employment, including education in some cases. Sites in the evaluation that implemented an enhanced direct employment model are:
Developmental/Transitional Employment Models provide services designed to gradually and systematically improve individual participants' employability while also addressing their family service and other needs. The objective is to ultimately (not immediately) obtain unsubsidized employment, followed by ongoing post-employment supports and services, including education and skills development in some cases. In these types of programs, however, it is expected that participants will first generally engage in an intermediate activity before entering a regular job. The intermediate activity is intended to improve work or basic skills, or address specific work-related problems. Various intermediate activities are incorporated into the study sites which have developmental or transitional models, including paid work experience and internships, workplace-based employer partnerships, temporary jobs, peer support groups, and sheltered workshops. Study sites that implemented Developmental/Transitional Employment models are:
Post-Employment Skills Development Models provide services and support primarily only after a participant starts a job. The post-employment model is distinguished from other models in which some post-employment services might be provided (e.g., to improve job retention), but where the primary service approach emphasizes pre-employment activities. Post-employment skills development programs might provide education and skills training, workplace-based services, mentoring/coaching on the job, employer liaisons, and career development services. Only one study site, Johns Hopkins University-SCANS 2000-Career Transcript System (Baltimore MD, St. Lucie FL, Long Beach CA) implemented this model. Each of the three programs is unique, adapting aspects of the JHU-designed CTS model, curriculum, and material. While all three primarily emphasize post-employment services, each also provided some pre-employment services, such as job placement assistance and job counseling to some individuals who were not working. All three, however, maintain as their primary objective a focus on improving skills of individuals once they have started working, with most activities provided at the workplace and involving supervisors as well as the participating worker.
The job placement rate--that is, the percentage of program enrollees who enter an unsubsidized job in the regular labor market--is traditionally used to gauge how well welfare-employment programs are doing. However, placement rates reflect other factors besides the effect of the program, including how individuals enroll in the program and how the program relates to TANF policies and programs (e.g., whether TANF participants routinely participate in TANF-sponsored pre-employment workshops or job search prior to referral to WtW).
Across the study programs for which MIS data are available, about half the participants entered an unsubsidized job after enrolling in the program,(23) at a starting hourly wage of about seven dollars. On average, participants who obtained employment did so about 15 weeks after enrolling in the program (Table V.2). This ranges from fairly rapid employment (4 to 12 weeks) in the immediate or temporary job placement programs in Chicago, Phoenix, and Indiana-RVR; to over 50 weeks in West Virginia-HRDF, where most participants engage in six months of occupational exploration (work experience). Job placement rates in the study programs range from 30 percent to 72 percent.
Not surprisingly, job entry rates are relatively higher in those programs that emphasize immediate job placement, and lower in the programs that provide primarily post-employment services. The highest job entry rate (72 percent) in the study sites is reported for the Chicago temporary employment program operated by Suburban Job Link, where the intent is to place individuals in temporary jobs with the expectation that they will transition to permanent positions. All who begin a temporary job are considered to have "entered an unsubsidized job" since their wages are paid by the employer. In addition to the Suburban Job Link program, the
| Site | % of Participants Already Employed Upon Enrollment | % of Participants Placed in Unsubsidized Jobs After Enrollment | Average # of Weeks From Enrollment to Placement | Average Starting Hourly Wage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ENHANCED DIRECT EMPLOYMENT MODELS |
||||
| Chicago - Immediate Job Placement Programs | <1 | 57 | 12 | $6.96 |
Chicago - Temporary/ Transitional Employment Programs |
0 | 72 | 5 | $5.44 |
Fort Worth |
9 | 45 | 18 | $7.23 |
Phoenix |
<1 | 66 | 10 | $7.39 |
West Virginia-HRDF |
0 | 61 | 57 | $5.84 |
Yakima |
0 | 49 | 27 | $7.00 |
Yakima-SHARE |
0 | 67 | 23 | $8.00 |
DEVELOPMENTAL/ TRANSITIONAL EMPLOYMENT MODELS |
||||
Chicago-Business & Industry Partnerships |
0 | 67 | 14 | $7.96 |
Chicago-Supportive Work/ Paid Work Experience Programs |
0 | 48 | 16 | $6.88 |
Nashville |
<1 | 58 | 15 | $7.10 |
Philadelphia-TWC |
<1 | 38 | 19 | $7.20 |
POST-EMPLOYMENT SKILLS DEVELOPMENT MODELS |
||||
JHU-Baltimore |
70 | 30 | 11 | $8.00 |
JHU-St. Lucie, FL |
41 | 59 | 4 | $6.00 |
| Source: Program Management Information Systems.
Note: Administrative data were not collected for the evaluation from Indiana-RVR and JHU-Long Beach; and MIS data were not available for this report for Boston and Milwaukee-NOW. Numbers reflect jobs entered by April 2001 by participants who had enrolled in each program by December 2000. |
||||
highest placement rates (of more than 60 percent) are in the Phoenix EARN program, which emphasizes job search and job placement, the Chicago Business and Industry Partnership programs, where employers make strong commitments to hire participants, and the Yakima SHARE program for noncustodial fathers. These programs have a strong job placement focus, or close linkages to employers, or they serve men. Lower job entry rates are reported by JHU-Baltimore, for example, because most participants are already employed when they enter the program. A job placement would be recorded only for the relatively small number of individuals who were not employed when they entered the program and those individuals who lost jobs while in the program and subsequently obtained another job.
While the job entry rates in programs that have the same general service model are somewhat similar, not all participants--even within the same program--receive the same sequence of services or remain in a program the same length of time. Some individuals gain employment quickly, while others participate in several different activities before becoming employed. In other words, the theoretical models do not necessarily correspond to distinct patterns of activity. Regardless of the primary service model operating in a program, and regardless of the ranges of services potentially available through the program, individuals follow different "pathways" to employment.
Administrative MIS data made available by most of the study sites were used to more closely examine the various pathways to employment--that is, the mix of activities in which participants who did obtain jobs were involved. About 80 percent of participants in the study sites received some type of pre-employment preparation services, which includes job search assistance, job readiness instruction workshops, employment counseling, or job placement services. However, over a third of the participants also engaged in one or more activities other than job search or job readiness services, such as paid or unpaid work experience, supported work, classroom education, or occupational training.
While all the study programs operated some type of job readiness workshop or job search session, each of them also had in place a number of other types of work activities and components. The result, operationally, is that WtW participants could engage in a variety of activities and follow different pathways that could result in employment. Four different combinations of activities--or pathways to employment--were identified, referred to here as:
These four prototypes represent general pathways to employment, each of which could involve a number of different combinations and sequences of services. A few of the more common combinations followed in each prototypical pathway are shown in Chart V.1.
The four pathways to employment do not necessarily correspond to the three general program models described earlier because the models represent the overall design of entire programs while the pathways refer to how individuals move through the programs. Certainly, programs that have similar general service delivery models also appear similar in terms of the predominant pathway to employment. However, participants in any program can obtain employment at different points and in different ways--regardless of the total services that could potentially be made available to them. For example, while many participants in an enhanced direct employment program follow the basic pathway to employment, some individuals first participate in work experience or transitional employment if, for example, they have little recent work experience. Conversely, in a program designed to be mainly developmental with transitional employment, some individuals obtain jobs quickly (i.e., follow the basic pathway to employment), even though intensive supportive employment or training activities are encouraged and available to them had they remained in the program. Most participants in post-employment programs already have jobs, so do not fall into any of the above four pathways, although a few have to, or choose to, find a new job.
Regardless of the overall program model adopted, the most common pathway to employment in the study sites consisted of basic pre-employment preparation. Across the programs for which MIS data were available, about 61 percent of individuals who obtained a job had participated only in job search or job readiness activities through the program (Pathway A).
Chart V.1
Prototypes of Pathways to Employment
About 20 percent of those who entered employment had been in a work experience, internship, or subsidized job activity, often in addition to job readiness (Pathway C). About five percent of WtW participants in these study sites who found jobs had received some pre-employment education or training (Pathway B), again often in combination with job readiness services or subsidized employment, and about 14 percent participated in both work experience and education/training (Pathway D). There is, though, variation across programs. In no program or study site do all participants follow the same pathway or sequence of activities, although some pathways seem to prevail in certain programs (Chart V.2).
Over 90 percent of the participants in the large Chicago immediate job placement programs and the Chicago temporary employment program who get jobs were active only in job search and job readiness services. Still, about 39 percent of the participants across all the 11 study sites who got jobs received some education or training services or were in a subsidized employment activity. In fact, some programs which are described by administrators and staff as having very strong "work first" approaches nonetheless incorporate education, training, or subsidized employment. The HRDF programs in West Virginia, for example, operate an extensive occupational exploration component, where participants who are not able to secure regular unsubsidized jobs are placed into subsidized work experience. Over 40 percent of HRDF participants were in occupational exploration for an average of six months. And in Phoenix, where the EARN program's approach is also described as "strong work-first," over 40 percent of participants engage in some type of education or skills development, such as computer-based training with occupational modules (e.g., customer service representative, general office work, and security officer) or English classes while looking for work.
Chart V.2
Pathways to Employment in Selected WtW Sites
A. Enhanced Direct Employment Programs
B. Developmental/Transitional Employment Programs
Source: Program Management Information Systems.
Similarly, some programs that adopted service models that are defined by highly individualized and comprehensive developmental strategies have substantial proportions of participants who enter employment after participating only in the up-front basic job readiness activities offered. For example, the Nashville Pathways program consists of very individualized and supportive activities individually planned to eventually result in employment. Even so, over 50 percent of the Pathways participants who obtain employment do so after receiving just job readiness services. In Philadelphia, TWC's program, by design, includes paid supportive work experience with wrap-around education and training, but about 30 percent of participants who enter employment do so after engaging only in Philadelphia-TWC's job readiness component.
Thus, as in many TANF-work programs, many WtW participants who get jobs do so with just pre-employment preparation--more than half of those who got a job in the study programs had engaged only in pre-employment preparation services. However, one defining characteristic of the WtW-funded programs in the study sites is that they each offered a range of work-related activities beyond basic job search and job readiness. A relatively high proportion of participants in these WtW programs who got jobs had also participated in developmental activities, such as formal work experience (mainly with pay), sheltered workshops, occupational internships, education, or skills development activities. (24)
23. It is important to note that the job entry rate is based on program MIS data regarding the number of participants programs report as entering an unsubsidized job after enrolling in the program. It is not based on UI quarterly employment and wage records. A subsequent report on participant employment and welfare outcomes will include employment using the UI quarterly employment and wage records.
24. These figures are derived by combining percentages of participants in study programs who obtained a job through the Work Experience/Internship Pathway with the Mixed Activities Pathway on Chart V.2.
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)