The Y-Works Project - University of South...

The Y-Works Project

Exploring Youth Employment as a Successful Pathway from Delinquency

and Other-At-Risk Behaviors

A Youth-at-Promise Research Initiative of the YMCA of the Suncoast, Clearwater, Florida Funded and Published by the Eckerd Family Foundation, © 2005

Y-Works Project Executive Summary Page 1

THE Y-WORKS PROJECT: EXPLORING YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

AS A SUCCESSFUL PATHWAY FROM DELINQUENCY AND OTHER AT-RISK BEHAVIORS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Y Works project seeks to locate and establish an entry point for involving businesses as employers in youth workforce preparation. We learned from our interviews and meetings with human resources representatives and business owners that they understand that today’s youth are the workers of tomorrow, although they expressed less clarity about at-risk youth populations. They established once and for all that they agree with research findings that employers assign personal qualities, including attitude, work ethic, dependability, initiative, enthusiasm, and the like, the highest value when they select among candidates for employment. Case workers and youth informed us that they are aware of employer priorities—they listed nearly the same things as the employer community when asked to identify what employers look for when they hire. Employers we surveyed did not express bias against at-risk youth because of their risk factors, such as prior substance abuse, adjudication, poverty, homelessness, or disability. They did, however, identify authentic disqualifying deficits that may be generally characteristic of at risk youth, and as such, affect placement rates. Employers did not express sensitivity to reasons why at-risk youth may have greater difficulty than other candidates in meeting minimum performance standards like attendance and punctuality. If businesses are to be involved in helping to improve the placement rate of at-risk youth, as they say they are willing to be if certain conditions can be put in place, they believe they have the right to expect that they will be shown youth candidates who are adequately prepared by advisors, custodians, counselors, and teachers. Employers do not have a broad or deep awareness of the reasons why at risk youth may have difficulty meeting minimum standards for employment, nor are they familiar with the work or experience of youth advisors, case workers, or other youth services personnel. Instead, they tend to hold youth more accountable than preparatory systems do, and tend to regard the deficits they observe in youth as more willful and controllable than they are. Despite the fact that multiple agencies and privatized youth service providers are funded to assist in preparation and job placement of at-risk youth, the youth themselves report that when they found the job they presently hold, it was through friends, family, or random search methods like the want ads. Case workers reported that youth unemployment is affected by adjudication, transportation, family factors, availability of jobs, skill deficits, and other reasons, also citing personal qualities as influential. Both unemployed and employed youth in the survey report that case workers are not among the main sources of work and job preparatory and job search assistance. A majority of employed youth in the survey report that they value on-the-job training higher than any other performance support that their employers might be willing to provide. Since employers say they value those who value learning, this is particularly important.

Y-Works Project Executive Summary Page 2

Disclosure of adjudication is a pivotal issue upon which case workers and employers disagree. We believe that it is among the most important elements of at-risk youth employment upon which all parties must agree in order for youth as well as the public to be best served. Youth should not be counseled to misrepresent their backgrounds but should be taught to represent their accountability and their rehabilitation effectively, although that may not ensure employment. Case workers report that employer discovery of criminal record is one of the main reasons youth lose a job. It is also a primary reason that case workers cite for adjudicated youth being rejected for employment, suggesting the need for case workers to become more involved in the development of a network of potential employers for adjudicated youth. We found the job preparatory and job search resources available to the youth we surveyed to be very fundamental and not well aligned with employer values that tend more toward well established personal qualities that display potential and a cultural fit with the employer organization. However, it is likely that this has to do with the structure and accessibility of social services, such as case worker accountabilities and competencies, than deliberate simplification of youth needs. That said, it is clear that youth in this category are well behind their first time worker peers when it comes to knowing the most basic job information: how to dress, how to address others, and how to complete a tax form may represent more advanced elements of work preparation for these youth. According to case workers, even the notion that they should work at all is a view that their families or custodial care providers may not support. We believe the most important finding is the communication gap among all parties to the survey. We think that there is considerable room for improvement in the way that case workers and their organizations move youth in the direction of employment, either by changing the case worker job or by adding job development responsibilities to the advocacy equation. It is critical that someone coordinate between the youth and the organizations across his or her community that might offer resources including employment. The translation of their respective needs to each other and the integration of what is learned in the vortex could make the critical difference to any individual youth, or all of them. Last, with respect to content, it is apparent to us that without long range concentration on the development of the personal qualities that employers seek when making hiring decisions, no amount of fundamental job preparation is going to make a difference to many of the at-risk youth seeking to enter the workforce. We think that a better option may be to adopt workforce preparation as one of the most fundamental objectives of residential therapeutic intervention and other youth development services. If work preparation can be integrated into youth services models and made more lasting, understandable, and appealing to at-risk youth populations, the youth of today will become highly valued and productive workers of tomorrow. Further, they will be better equipped, as such, to prepare future generations for the same thing.

Y-Works Project: Exploring Youth Employment as a Successful Pathway From Delinquency and Other At risk Behaviors Page 1

THE Y-WORKS PROJECT: EXPLORING YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AS A SUCCESSFUL PATHWAY FROM

DELINQUENCY AND OTHER AT-RISK BEHAVIORS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2 A. Project Purpose................................................................................................................. 2 B. Project Goals .................................................................................................................... 2

II. Research on Youth Employment....................................................................................... 4 A. Research on Employability and First Time Workers ......................................................... 4 B. Research on Employability and At-Risk Youth ................................................................. 5

1. Focus on Juvenile Offenders and Employment—Quantitative Findings ....................... 5 2. Focus on Juvenile Offenders and Employment—Qualitative Findings.......................... 6

III. Approach ...................................................................................................................... 8 A. Foundational Questions ................................................................................................... 8 B. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 9

IV. Findings...................................................................................................................... 13 A. Employer Intentions and Expectations ........................................................................... 13 B. Youth Intentions and Expectations ................................................................................. 14 C. Youth Case Worker Intentions and Expectations ........................................................... 15 D. Disclosure—The Pivotal Issue of Trust.......................................................................... 17 E. Job Preparation, Job Search, and Job Performance Services ............................................ 18 F. Communication Gap...................................................................................................... 19 G. Program Content ........................................................................................................... 20

V. Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 22 VI. Endnotes......................................................................................................................... 25

APPENDICES EMPLOYER SURVEY REPORT……………………………………………………….APPENDIX A

YOUTH CASE WORKER SURVEY REPORT……………………………………….….APPENDIX B

YOUTH SURVEY REPORT………………………………………………………..…APPENDIX C

YOUTH VOCATIONAL BEST PRACTICES MATRIX…………………………….…….APPENDIX D

EXECUTIVE ROUNDTABLE SUMMARY REPORT……………………………………..APPENDIX E

ABOUT THE Y WORKS PROJECT…………………………………………………...APPENDIX F

Publication Reference The Y-Works Project: Exploring Youth Employment as a Successful Pathway from Delinquency and Other At-Risk Behaviors by James P. Sartain, Kathryn W. Davanzo, Catherine B. Martin & C. Edgar Hart. A youth-at-promise research initiative of the YMCA of the Suncoast funded and published by the Eckerd Family Foundation, Clearwater, FL., ©2005. Reproduction of any portion of this report for commercial sale is prohibited.

For copies of this report, please contact: The YMCA of the Suncoast

2469 Enterprise Road, Clearwater, Florida, 33763 727-467-9622

www.suncoastymca.org


THE Y-WORKS PROJECT: EXPLORING YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

AS A SUCCESSFUL PATHWAY FROM DELINQUENCY AND OTHER AT-RISK BEHAVIORS

I. INTRODUCTION

In the spring of 2004, the Y-Works team collaborated to develop a research project to add to

the body of knowledge about “what works” with delinquent and at-risk youth. Inspired by the

work of Jack and Ruth Eckerd, team members expressed interest in focusing a unique project on

youth vocational preparation and employment and its promise as a successful pathway from

delinquency and other risk behaviors. Recent research has shown that if an at-risk or delinquent

youth can be prepared for, and connected to, meaningful employment—his or her chances of

further delinquency or other risk behaviors are significantly reduced (Brown, 2002, National

Youth Employment Coalition, 2005).1 This emerging empirical evidence is encouraging,

particularly for youth serving organizations like the YMCA of the Suncoast and Eckerd Youth

Alternatives, Inc. who routinely seek to identify enhancements to their programming with at-

risk youth to produce more effective and lasting outcomes.

A. Project Purpose

The purpose of the Y-Works project is to continue the inquiry regarding the potential positive

outcomes of employment for at-risk and delinquent youth. By exploring the attitudes, beliefs,

perceptions and experiences of youth, employers and youth case workers, we hope to contribute

key information that will help shape future employment policy for at-risk youth, guide the

creation of more responsive job readiness content, and provide employers information to help

create workplace environments that maximize the contributions of this untapped labor market.

B. Project Goals

Through this and future Y-Works project initiatives, we will target the following goals:

Produce a body of work that would better prepare potential employers to hire and supervise

delinquent youth.

Form the basis for additional research in the area of employer and business intentions,

attitudes, and behavior toward marginalized youth populations.


Assist social services programs to better prepare vulnerable youth for eventual employment

at livable wages through a comprehensive curriculum based on the experiences of prior

transition youth, youth case workers, employers, research, and best practice findings.

Establish an employer network committed to providing vulnerable youth with meaningful

first time work experiences and gainful employment.

Inform funded support systems about the effectiveness or inherent performance shortfall of

existing systems so that they can be made more efficacious.

Build relationships and social capital within the Human Resources professional community

that might be converted to useful support for change in attitudes and intentions toward

youth in the workplace.

Establish a body of employment and selection research that uses the Human Resources

professional community as the spokespeople for business hiring, training, and development

practices.


II. RESEARCH ON YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

A. Research on Employability and First Time Workers

Significant prior research has been conducted on the topic of the employability skills and job

readiness of the general youth population. Cotton (2001), for example, cites 41 studies, reviews

and evaluations that have identified the skills and traits that employers’ value in entry level

employees or targeted the effectiveness of job readiness programming for the general youth

population.2 The majority of these studies targeting young first time workers share several

findings.

Employers have been generally dissatisfied with the level of preparation that these youth

bring to the workplace (Byrne, Constant, & Moore, 1992; Charner, 1988; Commission on

Skills; 1990; Kazis, 1993; Packer, 1992).3 The Secretary’s commission on Achieving

Necessary Skills (1992) found that:

“More than half our young people leave school without the knowledge or

foundation required to find and hold a good job.4 (p. xv)

Employers value the more basic employability skills and traits over specific occupational or

technical skills (Baxter and Young, 1982; Beach, 1982; Busse, 1992; Commission on Skills,

1990; Natrillo, 1989; and Young, 1986)5 The Committee for Economic Development

(1985) noted:

“…survey [results] confirm what has long been suspected of the business community:

Specific occupational skills are less crucial for entry-level employment than a generally

high level of literacy, responsible attitudes toward work, the ability to communicate

well, and the ability to continue to learn.”6 (p. 17).

Prior studies have typically restricted their inquiries to either business and industry

representatives (for studies to identify what the employer values and experiences with youth)

and teachers and secondary students (for studies targeting job readiness and school-based pre-

vocational programming). No major studies were identified in the literature review that

targeted multiple subject categories within the research design (e.g., a focused inquiry targeting

youth, employers AND case workers or teachers).


B. Research on Employability and At-Risk Youth

While skills and employability issues have received significant prior focus, comparably few

studies have focused on the employability of youth who are vulnerable to a variety of risk factors

and challenges including, but not limited to, delinquency, substance abuse, family problems,

academic failure, and the instability of the home environment.7 What is available often paints a

sobering picture of the need for job readiness training and employment and what happens when

it is either not available or effective.

For example, the Youth Transition Funders Group & Foster Care Work Group (2004) in its

publication “Connected by 25: A Plan for Investing in Successful futures for Foster Youth” found

that 12 to 18 months after leaving the Fostercare system, only about 38% of the youth were

employed, and fewer than half have ever held a full-time job. Of those who have been

employed, their median salary is less than the wages of a full-time worker receiving minimum

wage.8

Research and position papers have targeted employment and its impact on specific risk factors

of youth, such as poverty,9 but little has been done to evaluate job readiness and employability

for youth made vulnerable due to a combination of risk factors such as emotional problems,

social difficulties, substance use and family instability.

1. Focus on Juvenile Offenders and Employment—Quantitative Findings

Less than five years ago, studies targeting one specific category of at risk or vulnerable youth;

juvenile offenders, were noted as “severely lacking.” American Youth Policy Forum Director

Richard Mendel (2001) noted that:

“Nationwide, detailed information about the scope and quality of education and

training programs for delinquent youth is virtually non-existent.10

He further cited federally funded studies that supported this finding:

“No systematic and cumulative data exist to show what programs [youthful offenders]

receive, from what kinds of staff, at what cost-let alone what results.”11

The recent collaboration between the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the National Youth

Employment Coalition (NYEC) formed to focus on workforce and youth development

initiatives for young offenders represents a significant step in addressing this prior lack of focus

and effort. David E. Brown, co-author of the jointly sponsored Casey/NYEC publication

“Barriers and Promising Approaches to Workforce and Youth Development for Young Offenders” and

NYEC Executive Director noted:


“If young people have been effectively prepared for life and careers, and are

productively engaged in employment or educational activities, they’re less likely to

commit delinquent acts and more likely to be productive members of society.”12

Similarly, Richard Mendel wrote:

“If we want to hasten the pace at which delinquent youth mature into adulthood and

terminate delinquent behavior patterns (as most eventually do), helping youth prepare

for and enter the labor market is critical.”13

For these and other findings, we predict that gainful and deliberate employment will

increasingly become a variable evaluated in the analysis of effective interventions for juvenile

offenders; a list that has historically (and predominantly) included the type and duration of the

intervention model (e.g., residential programs, non-residential programs, prevention programs,

aftercare, diversion, and most all of their differentiated categories or models) and the varying

treatment modalities (e.g., multi-systemic family therapy, peer group counseling, cognitive

behavioral approaches).

2. Focus on Juvenile Offenders and Employment—Qualitative Findings

The promising impact of employment on at-risk youth is further supported by the significant

experiences of social services agencies and programs including project partners— the YMCA of

the Suncoast and Eckerd Youth Alternatives (EYA). Both agencies have shared success stories

involving youth who were placed in structured and deliberate first time jobs at a livable wage.

The agencies also shared their belief that the job itself was critical to the youth’s long term

success.

For example, a large part of EYA’s service continuum for juvenile offenders includes the

coordination and delivery of needed services and support for youth who are transitioned from

secure juvenile justice residential programs back into their home communities.14 In this role,

the EYA ReEntry Counselors15 are responsible for connecting youth to prevocational

opportunities and gainful employment. The EYA ReEntry staff cited numerous examples of

youth returning to home and community without the skill sets necessary to obtain employment

and examples of youth struggles to remain crime-free when facing economic realities.

ReEntry Counselors shared explanations offered by local employers when refusing to hire youth

including perceptions that the youth lacked required foundational skills, had poor work

attitudes, and were generally unprepared for the workplace. They also shared employer


concerns about workplace safety, reliability, trustworthiness and attendance. Finally, they

shared discouraging examples of youth fortunate enough to obtain employment but unlikely to

achieve their potential because they worked for an employer who was neither interested in, or

capable of, creating a deliberate, safe and effective first time work experience.

These qualitative findings along with the empirical research cited earlier helped to shape the

approach and direction of the Y-Works project.


III. APPROACH

A. Foundational Questions

The recent spotlight on employment as an effective intervention strategy for delinquent and at-

risk youth has significant implications on youth rehabilitation and development, youth policy,

rehabilitative programming and vocational education. We understand, however, that the

practice of connecting at-risk youth to meaningful employment is a complex and layered issue

plagued by perception barriers and disconnects that could prevent the practice from becoming a

broadly accepted or replicated pathway. In other words, even if the research team could

contribute to the case for work as a promising intervention for at–risk youth (particularly

delinquent youth), are there perceptions and actual trends associated with employing these

youth that remove or limit this as an option? In considering this possibility, the research team

generated a list of questions seeking answers from various perspectives.

Are employers biased against hiring at-risk youth?

Does a history of delinquency, substance abuse or other risk factors routinely eliminate a

youth from consideration for employment?

What are the actual experiences of at-risk youth in the labor market? Are they being met

with opportunities to aid in their rehabilitation or are they consistently experiencing closed

doors?

What are the intentions of employers toward this population? Do perceptions of suppliers—

staffing agencies and government support systems match the intentions of employers?

What would it take to increase the possibility of creating a successful youth and work

connection from the employer’s perspective and from the youth’s perspective?

What are at-risk youth saying about challenges they face in obtaining and maintaining

successful employment?

Additionally, what are the experiences of youth case workers charged with helping youth

find employment after their release from custodial or substitute care or as a component of

their service or treatment planning? Are they guiding youth realistically, with knowledge

and understanding of employer needs and expectations? Are they connected to the

intentions of the employer community?


We hope that responses to these, and related questions, will help in the development of

strategies to maximize the opportunities for gainful employment of at-risk youth by removing

barriers, identifying needs, and exploring best practices to prepare the employer community,

social services agencies, and the youth for a successful workplace partnership.

B. Methodology

These and similar questions prompted the Y-Works team to center their exploration on actual

structured but open-ended interviews with the three primary stakeholders in the youth

employment equation: The youth, the youth case worker, and the employer.

1. Key Research Activities

Over the course of twelve months, the research team conducted the following activities:

Interviews with officers, owners, Human Resources, recruitment, and operational leadership

of 40 companies representing 15 industry segments including manufacturing, government,

restaurant services, hotel services, entertainment, retail, publishing, social services, health

care, distribution, research & development, insurance, utilities, and general services. Survey

questions targeted employer issues, experiences and attitudes surrounding hiring at-risk or

delinquent youth.

Surveys of 32 youth case workers and supervisors employed by Eckerd Youth Alternatives,

Inc. who provide aftercare and/or case management support to transition youth who leave

custodial or substitute care.

Surveys of 151 at-risk and delinquent youth about their perceptions of, and actual

experiences with, finding and securing meaningful work. Questions were developed to

target youth understanding of work, what youth believe they need to be more prepared for

work, what youth consider to be the primary barriers to employment, what they need once

they are employed, and what worked (or didn’t work) from previous prevocational training.

A review of evidence-based programs that focus on employment as a critical intervention for

at-risk and delinquent youth.

Facilitation of an Executive Employer Roundtable with Senior HR Executives to discuss

and explore the initial findings of the Y-Works Project. The roundtable was sponsored by

the Suncoast Human Resources Associations and hosted at Tech Data Corporation in

Clearwater, Florida with participation from eight large and influential employers, the

project sponsors and the research team. The roundtable provided an opportunity for


interaction and discussion among the employer group and allowed for a more

comprehensive exploration of key issues.

2. Key Terms

Throughout this report and the corresponding Appendices, we have used the term “at-risk” to

categorize the entire population of youth considered vulnerable to a variety of risk factors,

including those who may have already become involved in the Juvenile Justice, Fostercare or

Mental Health systems.16 Specific definitions of the broader category of at-risk youth and more

specific sub-categories of at-risk youth are as follows:

At Risk Youth: A youth (ages 14 -21) who lacks the basic resources or conditions necessary

for physical and emotional growth and development that will prepare him/her for entry into

school, for continuous progress in school to graduation, for post secondary education, for

gainful employment and for a viable position in society. He or she may present emotional,

social, and/or behavioral problems and/or unstable, temporary, or dysfunctional home

environments that increase the possibility of academic failure, delinquency,

underemployment, victimization, and substance abuse. The terms “vulnerable youth” and

“youth at promise” are often used synonymously.

Delinquent Youth or Youthful Offender: Youth who have committed a criminal offense

and have been adjudicated (found guilty and sentenced) by the court system and placed

under supervision by the Department of Juvenile Justice, Department of Corrections, or the

Court system. These include youth defined by the Department of Juvenile Justice as “low

risk”—including those youth with first time and minor offenses—to “high risk”—youth

who have either committed serious crimes or have a chronic history of criminal behavior.

Delinquent youth are typically placed into programs reflecting their risk level. Programs

can include probation and community control (both as a diversionary first-step placement

and as a post-residential program option) to high risk residential programs requiring periods

of incarceration ranging from two months to several years.

Transition Youth: Transition youth refers to youth who have left rehabilitative programs or

substitute care settings and who have reentered or are in the process of reentering their

home community. Youth transitioning from juvenile justice systems are typically placed on

some type of supervision status including aftercare, probation, post-placement community

control, day treatment or conditional release. Foster youth in transition are usually aging

out of the system and are facing the challenges of independent living with limited levels of


support and resources. Youth exiting from mental health programs are typically

transitioned back to community environments and out-patient programs. This last subset

of at-risk youth requires significant attention from researchers and social services providers

as this period of transition is critical in establishing whether the youth will transition to a

safe, law-abiding and productive life.

For the purposes of some of the survey questions that were developed for the employers, we

asked them to contrast at-risk youth with the broader category of first time workers. The

definition of first time worker used for this project is as follows:

First Time Worker: Any person, regardless of age, entering the full-time workforce for the

first time. First time workers may have served as volunteers, had part-time work experience

in a formal employment setting or work experiences such as a paper route, babysitting or

assisting part-time in a family owned business.

3. Tools

Three surveys were constructed as a result of a review of available literature on the youth and

work connection and based on interviews with our social services partners. They include:

Employer Interview Survey: A 30-item survey instrument that was administered face-to-face

to targeted employers by one of the four principal researchers. Questions were designed to

identify factors that influenced hiring managers, to identify qualities associated with

successful employees in their companies, to identify skills and knowledge gaps observed in

the overall applicant pool in general and first time workers and at risk youth in particular, to

identify policy issues that may prohibit hiring of at-risk youth, to identify any formal

programs or informal activity that were designed to increase the success of first time

employees, to identify prior experiences in hiring at-risk youth, and factors and

programming that might influence their decision to hire at-risk youth.

Youth Case Worker Survey: A 21-item questionnaire administered according to a specific

protocol to Youth Case Workers employed by Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. (specifically

EYA ReEntry staff) by two of the principal researchers. Questions targeted workers’

perceptions of why they believe youth on their caseload are not employed, their ideas on

predictors of successful employment and maintenance of employment, methods used to

help prepare the youth for employment, typical responses received from employers, and

their recommendations for additional support needed to ensure that more youth are

successfully placed in jobs.


Youth Survey: A 27-item interview administered to youth receiving services from the YMCA

of the Suncoast or Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. Youth Case Workers or Supervisors

from both agencies conducted the interviews designed to identify reasons for why youth

are/are not currently working, how they prepared for employment, what they needed to be

successful, and other barriers associated with obtaining and maintaining work.

4. Detailed Methodology Information

To provide a consistent model for identifying and labeling skills and traits identified in the three

surveys, the principal researchers categorized specific responses identifying employment skills

and competencies using the U.S. Department of Labor Secretary’s Commission on Achieving

Necessary Skills (SCANS). (See the following Box). In addition, specific information regarding

the methodology used in the project including the response structure of the surveys, the survey

protocols, the selection process for participants, methods to ensure inter-reliability, sample sizes

and descriptions, and descriptive statistics and graphs of all survey responses are included in the

respective Appendices attached to this report including:

Specific methodology and results for the employer interviews (Appendix A),

Specific methodology and results for Youth Case Worker surveys (Appendix B)

Specific methodology and results for youth surveys (Appendix C)

Summary of best practice programming (Appendix D)

Summary of the Employer Executive Roundtable (Appendix E).

Summary of Y-Works Project Partners and Sponsors (Appendix F).

SCANS Workplace Skills and CompetenciesA model to define and categorize workplace skills and competencies developed by the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) required for workplace success. Categories include: 1. Foundational Skills

Basic Skills: Reading, writing, math, speaking, listening, dexterity. Thinking Skills: learning, reasoning, creative thinking, decision-making and problem-solving. Personal Qualities: Individual responsibility, self-esteem, self-management, sociability, integrity, attitude,

personal appearance, willingness to work, work ethic, flexibility, punctuality, attendance, conscientiousness. 2. Workplace Competencies

Resources: Ability to allocate time, money, materials, space and staff. Information: Ability to acquire and evaluate data, organize and maintain files, interpret and communicate,

and process information. Interpersonal Skills: Ability to work on teams, to teach others, to serve customers, to lead, to negotiate, and

to work well with people from culturally diverse backgrounds. Systems: Ability to understand social, organizational and technological systems, monitor and correct

performance, and design or improve systems. Technology: Ability to select equipment and tools, apply technology to specific tasks, and maintain and

trouble-shoot equipment.


IV. FINDINGS

The appendices associated with this project summary are filled with data. The data reflect

conditions that have been in place, according to the literature, for twenty years or more:

Employers base hiring decisions on the behavior they see before them and assume that it

predicts success in the workplace.

In the eyes of employers, youth frequently display behavior in the initial phases of job

seeking, such as the interview, that portends poor work ethic, the antithesis of most of the

personal qualities they seek.

In the hiring phase, employers value personal qualities higher than all other assets brought

to the work transaction by prospective employees.17

Both case workers and youth appear to be in full agreement—personal qualities and the ability

to display them in the interview and on the application for employment are the most important

assets for an at-risk youth to acquire and offer.

There is little else on which all three groups agree. There is little else they mutually understand

so consistently. Yet, none of the three groups appears to be engaged in an attempt to improve

the frequency or condition of personal qualities among at-risk youth.

A. Employer Intentions and Expectations

Employer intentions toward at-risk youth seemed vague or nonexistent—with no perceived bias

one way or another. There is no evidence of overt bias toward the at-risk group overall,

although subcategories of the group may be excluded from employment consideration for

specific reasons, along with adults, as in the case of violence, or active substance abuse revealed

in a drug screen. Other logical disqualifiers that youth may share with adults include inability

to get to the job site because of transportation difficulties, inability to complete the employment

application, or inability to convey valued personal qualities sought by employers.

However, according to our employer participants, an individual youth who meets employer

expectations during the hiring process is unlikely to be disqualified due to risk factors, such as

past delinquency or a history of substance abuse, alone.

Employers in our project overwhelmingly pointed to personal qualities as the determinants of

who gets hired and who is regarded as successful in the workplace. Seventy-nine percent of all

of the factors identified by employers as characteristic of successful employees were personal


qualities including a positive attitude, a good work ethic, accountability, resiliency, honest,

motivation, alertness, flexibility, initiative, diplomacy and personal presentation. Seventy-five

percent of the employer sample listed at least one of these personal qualities.

While there is no bias universally directed toward the at-risk youth, there is no outstretched

helping or welcoming hand or evidence of institutional understanding of this population, either.

While individuals we surveyed may know or know of one or more at-risk youth, they did not

reveal an intentional connection to the challenge of linking those kids to work. Many

employers were surprised to learn about obstacles on the road to workforce entry faced by this

population, even though the employers themselves may be participating in the landscaping of

those very obstacles.

There is little or no standardization among the employers with whom we spoke. We expected a

monolithic set of policies responsive to risk management imperatives and insurance or other

liability. Employers do report practices designed to protect customers and other employees,

most often from theft. These are not directed specifically toward at-risk youth, but at anyone

who might—based on prior personal history—steal or sabotage. If at-risk youth fall into that

category, say the employers, it is up to them to prove themselves worthy of another chance, and

they believe that their employment practices allow for that to happen.

B. Youth Intentions and Expectations

Many employers spoke to us of “generational entitlement,” using that term to refer to a

relatively new feature of the first time workforce, including at-risk youth. The new generation

of worker comes to the workplace with high expectations of rank, privileges, and position that

they haven’t earned. In addition, they are reported to be most concerned with “what the

employer can do for me.”

Although the at-risk youth we surveyed have little to which they can compare their labor market

experiences, we did not hear the entitlement sentiment. Like first time workers, they are still in

the process of decoding the job acquisition and job retention conventions they encounter.

Nearly all (69%) got their first job or the job they have through a friend, family member or

personal connection, reinforcing the importance of social capital in the employment process,

even at this level and especially among these youth. Despite their awareness that personal

qualities are most associated with job acquisition, job retention, and job performance, most

employed youth (61%) would like employers to provide more on-the-job training, above all


other choices of supportive offerings. This is quite different from the employer perception that

youth of today are most concerned about “what the employer can do for me” in the worst sense

of that phrase. This is also important for two reasons:

It reveals a desire to learn and to keep the job, an attitude prized by employers, and

It follows the logic that the best work preparation programs are built on a model that

simulates the workplace.

It makes us wonder, also, about the extent to which employers are aware that some of the

personal qualities they seek very likely emerge from the confidence of knowing that one has the

capacity for job mastery, that one is in possession of the ingredients, if not the recipe.

Youth don’t know what they don’t have; potential is hard to quantify and express. It was

apparent from their responses that they are concentrating—on the advice of advisors—on very

fundamental elements of work. This does not align well with employer expectations of behavior

that expresses work ethic, dependability, enthusiasm, initiative, good attitude and a “fit” with

the company culture. It is unfortunately true that many of these youth along with foster youth,

disabled youth, and other at-risk youth have never fit anywhere, and that may render them

unable to think realistically about or plan to realize potential, personal qualities, or “fit,” much

less display them on demand.

Employed at-risk youth, looking retrospectively at learning opportunities their teachers might

have provided them in preparation for work, offered scattered and superficial priorities that fall

into categories like career development, job skills, and interpersonal skills. These range from

assistance in filling out applications and tax forms, telephone manners and computer skills, all

the way to vocational training in a specific craft. Many (19%) say they simply don’t know, or

that there isn’t anything that would have changed their situation.

Youth in the population we surveyed report that they know what is important to employers;

they provided a list of personal qualities that is fully consistent with employer responses. Sixty-

nine percent of all youth responses to this question fell into the category of personal qualities.

C. Youth Case Worker Intentions and Expectations

Their case workers and counselors saw things similarly. In every respect, personal qualities

topped the list of predictors of success in the realm of job acquisition, job retention, and job

performance. Interestingly, however, when it came to the reasons why eligible youth are not


working, the frequency of responses associated with personal qualities shrank, and external

factors, such as transportation, family issues, lack of jobs, lack of skills, and factors beyond

youth control entered the equation with a frequency not seen in other surveyed populations.

Most of these factors are not present at all in discussions with employers, others are of minimal

importance, and almost none are mentioned by youth who are working. Among youth who are

not working, transportation and school or sports conflicts top the list of reasons why they are

not working. No personal qualities are listed by this group as reasons for not working, though

many report they are seeking employment.

Furthermore, youth case workers and counselors most frequently report that the main reason

employers won’t hire the youth on their caseload is the presence of a criminal background. The

personal-quality-related reasons for rejection that they say employers provide them are less

prevalent than other factors. This may mean that employers in their area are not acknowledging

the deficit of important personal qualities, youth are being referred to employers who are bound

by policy or practice to disqualify them based on adjudication, youth case workers are drawing

inferences from youth reports of job search events, or estimates of the frequency of one type of

rejection or another are misstated. It is also possible that all of the participants in the

preparatory process—youth case workers, youth, teachers or workforce readiness professionals--

are not adequately equipped to address deficits in personal qualities that will inevitably lead to

rejection of an application, and so do not acknowledge the deficit.

Youth case workers offer absenteeism, failure to report to the job, and tardiness as the main

reasons why youth are fired by employers. This is consistent with employer reports and is very

likely consistent with the main reasons for termination of employment for all other groups,

including adult experienced workers and youth who are not at risk. Since transportation is

noted as a significant employment variable for at-risk youth, the assumption that youth can

control absenteeism or tardiness may be erroneous. Employers assign reliability, dependability,

and work ethic to a realm of personal qualities, but do not assess reasons for absenteeism or

tardiness. At-risk youth may depend on friends, parents, public systems, or other fragile

supports to get them to a newly acquired job. If the support system fails, it is the youth who

earns the strikeout.

On many subjects, case workers and youth appeared to be out of touch with employer

expectations, employer resources, and the importance of specific matters to the employer.

There is a reason for this.


A significant majority of youth case workers, generally charged with a myriad of tasks designed

to help youth, and who function within the juvenile justice or child welfare system, not the

workforce system, report that they do not meet with youth employers for any reason. This

includes reasons such as preparation of the employer for employment of the youth and

obtaining information that would help prepare the youth or that would establish the likelihood

of placing other youth with the same employer. One of the most significant aspects of the very

loose connection between the youth case workers and the employer community is the advice the

counselor may provide to youth in the area of disclosure.

D. Disclosure—The Pivotal Issue of Trust

We think disclosure of a youth’s past court involvement or substance abuse, or other related

experience is an important and pivotal issue. When we discussed the issue with employers, we

found that some employers will sometimes use disclosure for the purpose of eliminating the

candidate, others advise disclosure in order to achieve alignment between a background check

and self-report, and still others advise no disclosure. Those who advise no disclosure typically

are not inclined to ask any candidate for this kind of information; their organizational policies

would not require them to take the information into account when making an employment

decision.

Program design information shows us that counselors in residential rehabilitation programs are

expected to teach honesty, regardless of the outcome, since accountability is the most important

concept taught in that setting and a central benchmark defining the success of the

rehabilitation. Youth case workers report that they treat the disclosure variously, knowing that

for some of the youth, disclosure will result in disqualification. Our roundtable employers

advocated disclosure with explanation and a request on the part of the candidate for an audience

to explain the issue further, although one roundtable participant acknowledged that

adjudication is a nearly certain disqualifier, and that it would be noted in a background check

despite it being part of a youthful offense. It was acknowledged by participants in the employer

survey and the survey of caseworkers that employer initiated background checks routinely

expose the records of youthful offenders, which have long been thought to be closed to

employer inquiry. In fact, discovery of a youth’s criminal record after the youth’s hire was listed

by youth case workers as one of the top five reasons youth on their caseload were terminated

from employment.


Particularly disconcerting is that while employers report that alignment between applicant

claims and background check results is more important than adjudication, many youth case

workers (39%) report that they discourage youth from reporting adjudication to prospective

employers. Given the likelihood that a youth who is discovered to have lied about criminal

history will be fired (for the lie or for the history), it seems that a policy intervention is called

for.

This raises three issues:

If organizations that serve youth are willing to counsel youth to misrepresent themselves

instead of to represent themselves well, businesses cannot trust them, and

If youth counselors are willing to tell youth to lie in order to get a job, but to be honest in

all other things, youth cannot trust them.

There must be an absolute standard for honesty on employment applications and in the

employment process for the public and business customers and shareholders to be served.

E. Job Preparation, Job Search, and Job Performance Services

We noted the vocational and other services that youth case workers use in order to improve the

job seeking, job acquisition, and job retention performance of youth. By and large, these are

practical services designed to affect youth performance in specific segments of the application

process, prevocational process, such as interviewing, and job search activities. While these are

information-based and provided in many cases by well regarded agencies or service providers,

they are focused on practical elements and not on a longer range transformation that altering

personal qualities for the better would entail. Throughout the study, we looked for references—

from employers, from youth, from youth case workers —to an institutional source of programs

that facilitate improvement in personal qualities, but found none. This does not mean there are

none--we located and report on best practices in Appendix D. However, it may mean that they

have not been funded or made available, may not be suitably formatted or meet the needs of

youth in our study, or may not have been endorsed by employers in the location of the youth.

It is extremely important to note that although employers clearly indicate that youth

completion of work readiness training is a factor that increases employer consideration of an at-

risk youth, workforce readiness training is not cited by youth case workers as either a predictor

of the ability of an at-risk youth to obtain employment or a predictor of retention of

employment, nor is workforce readiness training as limited in scope or simple as the types of

services youth case workers were seeking or providing for the youth.


Very few youth identified the case worker as a source of job preparation information, a source of

job leads, or a source of work performance coaching. In each instance, the frequency of this

response was among the lowest. It appears that this is a function of job design—the case worker

spends most of his or her time on the road, in the car, meeting with the youth and assessing

youth progress from the youth’s report. If that is the case, however, simply based on logic it

should follow that the counselor would then be:

The source of a referral to the workforce system or other funded social service resources, or

Would assist the youth with the development of a detailed plan for obtaining work.

To the first point, no youth employed for the first time responded that he or she obtained the

job through the workforce system. Of youth who are not employed, 2% indicated they were

using a workforce service—the One-Stop—to locate employment. No other service provider

was noted by this group, who for the most part appeared to be using random methods in the

job search.

To the second point, if planning were a feature of the services provided to job seeking youth, we

believe we would have seen a more uniform set of responses on the subject, heard about it

formally in the course of the survey of case workers, or seen a different and more cohesive

pattern and language among youth respondents and their counselors. “Plan” was not a word

that came up in the lexicon of either the youth or the caseworker group in reference to job

preparation, job search, or job performance.

F. Communication Gap

This is not the only evidence of a gap between the employer community and the social or

organizational system that surrounds youth services. Few, if any, of our participating employers

and none of the employers in our roundtable group expressed familiarity with either the system

of foster care in place in their communities or the support system that surrounds at risk or

adjudicated youth. Privatization, when applied to youth services, is not a familiar term.

Employers do not have a sense of the manner in which social services workers would obtain

knowledge of the business world, or apply that knowledge if they were able to obtain it. When

we met with them, they had not heard of aftercare or reentry counselors. They do not know

what kind of offenses might involve a child in the court system, or the substantial impediments

to foster children obtaining drivers licenses. In Appendix E, we relate impressions and

recommendations from the roundtable event we facilitated in order to validate many of our

preliminary findings about the disconnection among the groups we surveyed.


Employers accept referrals from various sources of job candidates: temporary agencies,

workforce organizations, advocacy groups, employees, placement firms, and other sources. The

representatives of organizations seeking to place candidates in a company are hired and trained

for their proven skill in sales, advocacy, customer service, and other attributes that allow them to

increase the number of successful placements they make. They are in the business of building

relationships, facilitating relationships, and forging partnerships among companies and people

seeking jobs. We think this model can be adapted to youth employment services.

Youth case workers seem to have developed the tendency to see the youth they serve through

the eyes of the youth themselves, deficient in personal qualities they need, hampered by

seemingly insurmountable day to day problems like transportation, the need for clean clothes,

and looming court dates. If youth are deficient and see themselves as deficient, this is what they

communicate, to the case worker, to the prospective employer, to friends and family, all of

whom might otherwise represent a platform for future workplace success.

The case worker we envision must see the youth from the vantage point of the employer seeking

raw material and be able to generate resources and energy around the youth in order to make

the match and make the difference in youth preparation for work that benefits both employer

and youth. The employer we envision is able to see the at-risk youth in light of potential, and

is prepared to participate in the development of adequate preparatory programs and on the job

training that facilitate youthful transformation and establish the needed personal qualities that

ensure success. The youth we envision is served best when the two communities of interest have

a better understanding of each other’s needs.

G. Program Content

Lynn Ellsworth, in Better Aftercare for Delinquent Youth, stated “Re-entry programs would do well

to experiment with job training programs to find a formula that works well. While Job Corps has

done well in evaluations, it would be useful to leverage workforce development funds and to build

partnerships with the private sector to provide sustained work experience for youth returning from

residential custody. Youth who have experienced residential custody suffer a stigma that makes

getting work extremely difficult, so the need for such programming is high. Experience has shown that

such programs need to be married with strong support services.”18

We haven’t found much that is useful in the way of specialized curriculum for at-risk youth or

transition youth who are in either a conditional release or youth who are transitioning from


foster care. Delivery external to the classroom and deliverability in short time frames top the list

of concerns. One additional concern is that teachers and social workers, who have the least

experience with business and company employment systems and entrepreneurial workplaces, are

instructing youth on these topics. We did hear from employers that they had little faith in the

government or education systems capacity to ready workers in general, not just youth.

Another point that needs to be made is that quite a number of job and work preparatory

programs focus on shallow variables. The employers we met with and surveyed would not likely

be supplied with what they need through a broader application of resume writing, mock

interview, and dress for success curricula. They would be better served with increased depth

that begins in a rehabilitative model based on work, and extends into the reentry period

uninterrupted. If personal qualities as a condition of employment are not negotiable for

employers as it appears they are not, and if they are already understood by youth and youth case

workers, it makes sense to begin reentry and establish work as an objective from the outset of

residential therapeutic intervention.

For other at-risk youth, including transition youth, other promising and innovative models

might include social enterprise, a more elaborate adaptation of Junior Achievement, or other

integrated training and business models. We think this approach has promise in both urban

and rural settings and has the greatest capacity for intergenerational content and business

support. Any functional enterprise models have the distinct advantage of having objective

metrics associated with them such that participating youth can calculate the actual costs of

tardiness and nonattendance, or the financial and organizational effects of poor employee

performance.


V. RECOMMENDATIONS

Standardization of basic job readiness, job preparatory, job search, and job performance

fundamentals for at-risk and other transition youth must be driven by all stakeholders,

including employers.

While SCANS and other models began the process of standardization, the adoption of these

is largely within the workforce systems administered by various state governments. If the

juvenile justice, child welfare, and other social service systems are not connecting at risk

youth to workforce services and offerings, the youth we are describing in this project have

no way of benefiting from these standards.

Privatization of youth services may be inhibiting youth access to standardized job/work

fundamental services. A strategy for linking youth to services despite complicated custodial

arrangements must be found, and despite the complexities of overlapping regions, zones,

and catchment areas.

Employers must drive content and educators and youth service professionals are in the best

position to guide curriculum structure, pace, and level. They must get in the process

together for the benefit of both as well as the best outcome for youth.

Further exploration of workforce preparation, job search, and job performance curriculum

models (existing and new) must be conducted to ensure responsiveness to employer needs and

successful integration of youth learning styles.

Content is not enough, although responsive curriculum models must include affective skills

and character development activities that are so valued by employers. Models must also

include evidence-based practices such as the integration of hands-on activities conducted in

simulated “real world” work environments and including typical workplace scenarios.19

Curriculum models must also be packaged and delivered in a way that engages today’s

generation of youth. Today’s youth interact through technology. They instant message

their friends, use the Internet to link up and play online video games, download music,

order their food at drive-through boxes, and prepare term papers by “Googling” more often

than by visiting a library. Classroom-based activities and curriculum models that are not

responsive to this new language and approach will not be as successful as those that reach

out to kids where they live and learn.


Rigorous testing of any resulting standardized curricula should be undertaken and

development of a recognized youth-specific workforce preparation certification should be

considered and marketed.

Youth needs are specific, and at-risk and transition youth needs even more specific.

Employers indicated that a youth’s participation in a recognized pre-vocational program

delivered by a proven youth-serving organization would increase their hiring consideration

of the youth—regardless of the risk factor.

Once curriculum models are produced, they should be tested to show their responsiveness

to employer needs and appeal to youth learning styles, and tracked for outcomes. Proven

models should be expanded to include opportunities for youth to become certified.

Marketing of this certification should target potential employers, beginning with the

development process.

Standardization and certification of competencies for a position that interfaces with

employers on behalf of at-risk youth and interfaces with youth, youth advocates, and ensures

the extension of transformational activities, should be adopted by juvenile justice and child

welfare providers.

Youth must be provided with accurate and useful advisory services regarding employer

needs, and employers tell us they will work with professionals who understand their needs

If Reentry counselors and other youth case workers are limited in their capacity to work

with employers, by volume of other work, training and business competencies, or by will or

values, additional community based positions or structures should be developed that ensure

that youth on the caseloads are nonetheless provided with adequately representative counsel

about work.

A compelling business case must be developed for employer consideration when hiring at risk

youth. Once they have integrated the business case into their selection practices, efforts to

help employers develop the internal capacity to recognize, recruit, motivate, train and

support this untapped labor market are critical.

In her recent book, The New Workforce: Five Sweeping Trends That Will Shape Your

Company’s Future, Harriet Hankins predicts that “overcoming this lack of skilled workers

will increasingly become the responsibility of companies themselves.”20


Employers are recognizing the increasing need to tap previously unrecognized applicant

pools as forecasted labor shortages loom. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that as

early as 2010, there will be more jobs than employees to fill them, which will create a labor

shortage crisis in the United States.21

Events should be planned and implemented that involve the employer community in the

process of developing workforce preparation, job search, and job performance curriculum

models based on the realities that face at-risk youth and employers.

Employers cannot assist if they do not know anything about members of this potential labor

force and the problems they face. The employer community alone has the capacity to

deliver sufficient information about jobs, the future of work, and the personal qualities,

culture, and skills they must have when considering candidates for employment.

The researchers and partners in this project utilized our social capital to gather useful

information from the business/employer participants in our survey. A plan for expanding

the survey and the survey content should be considered. A component that expands the

employer base and the relationships established should be added for the best effect.

A study of successful formerly-at-risk youth in the workplace should be performed, using as

large a statewide, regional, or national database as possible. Itemization of what turned the

tide for the youth should be included.

Adult workforce members and workplace mentors are the most likely determining

influences on youth workplace success. Data on their effective behavior, ineffective

behavior, morale, performance, teachings, and other qualities would be useful in establishing

workplace based job success practices.

A strategic plan for connecting the employer community, youth services community, and

youth in the interest of connecting youth to social capital should be developed.

We included only a limited number of stakeholders in our project in order to establish basic

assumptions and a working model. There are other participants and other sources of

information that should be included.

However, based on our research, we see very limited evidence of inclusive planning models

that take into account—with equal weight—business and youth development priorities.

We believe that it can be done and suggest we should all strive for no less.


VI. ENDNOTES

1 See, Barriers and Promising Approaches to Workforce and Youth Development for Young Offenders, A collaborative publication of the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the National Youth Employment Coalition which provides findings of reductions of adolescent crime through workforce development programs that help youth prepare for a lifetime of meaningful employment. David E. Brown, Author. Also see the National Youth Employment Coalition (NYEC) and the Promising and Effective Practices Network through www.nyec.org.

2 See Kathleen Cotton, Developing Employability Skills, School Improvement Research Series, Close-Up #15, NW Regional Educational Laboratory, 2001.

3 See S.M. Byrne, A. Constant and G. Moore, “Making Transitions from School to Work” Educational Leadership. Volume 49, Number 6 (1992): 23-26. See L. Charner, “Employability Credentials: A Key to Successful Youth Transition to Work.” Journal of Career Development, Volume 15, Number 1 (1988): 30-40.

4 See Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, 1991, p. XV. As cited in School Improvement Research Series (SIRS), NW Regional Educational Library, Developing Employability Skills by Kathleen Cotton. URL: www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/8/c015.html

5 See Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce: America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages, Executive Summary, Rochester, NY, National Center on Education and the Economy, June 1990.

Also see J. L. Young, “What Competencies Do Employees Really Need?-A Review of Three Studies.” Journal of Career Development 12/3 (1986): 240-249, and:

G. Natrillo, “What Do Employers Want in Entry-Level Workers? An Assessment of the Evidence. National Center for Education and Employment Occasional Paper No. 7, New York: Columbia University, 1989.

6 Committee for Economic Development, Research and Policy Committee. Investing in our Children: Business and the Public Schools. New York: Committee for Economic Development 1985, p.17

7 One noted exception is the National Youth Employment Coalition and the Promising and Effective Practices Network that has highlighted national youth job readiness and employment programs; including profiles of programs that specifically that include reduced recidivism as an outcome. NYEC and PEPNET can be reached through www.nyec.org.

8 Youth Fostercare Work Group—a subgroup of the Youth Transition Funders Group and in partnership with the Finance Project.

9 See for example, “Promising Practices for Helping Low-income youth obtain and retain jobs: A guide for practitioners: Produced for the National Association of Service and Conservation Corps by ABT Associates with funding from the U.S. Department of Labor, Catherine Dun Rappaport, JoAnn Jastrzab, 2003).

10 See, Mendel, Richard A. American Youth Policy Forum: Less Cost, More Safety: Guiding Lights for Reform in Juvenile Justice, Washington, D.C. 2001, page 46.


11 See O.D. Coffey & R.G. Gemignani, “Effective practices in Juvenile Correctional Education: A Study of Literature and Research (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1994, page 6 as cited by Mendel (see footnote iii).

12 See note 1.

13 See note 10.

14 Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. is the largest private provider of aftercare services in the State of Florida. They were also the first private provider of aftercare services in the state.

15 The Term “ReEntry Counselor” is used synonymously with the terms “aftercare counselor,” “aftercare worker,’ and “conditional release counselor.” These alternative terms are all used to describe youth case workers who are responsible for helping youth make the transition from a secured setting (e.g., a residential correctional or treatment facility) or from substitute care back to their family, a step-down program or prepare for independent living.

16 In instances where we intended to reference only those youth who were currently involved in the juvenile justice system, we used the terms “delinquent youth” or “youthful offenders” as a subset of the larger at-risk youth population. In instances where we specifically wanted to refer to youth who were in Fostercare, we used the term “Foster Youth” to define this subset of at-risk youth. When the researchers wanted to focus on youth in a specific event period, we used the term “Transition Youth.” regardless of their involvement with the Juvenile Justice, Foster Care or Mental Health systems.

17 Cotton (2001) noted that “While a number of employers identified the ‘3 R’s’ and various higher-cognitive abilities as critical employability skills, virtually of them named affective characteristics—particularly ‘dependability,’ ‘responsibility,’ and ‘positive attitude toward work’ as vital.” (See note 2 for full reference).

Similarly, Natriello (1989) (Full reference listed under note 5), in a review of research regarding employer desires for candidates noted that: “The results of these studies suggest that: 1) employers place greatest importance on employee attitudes; 2) employers emphasize basic skills over job-specific skills, and 3) employers deem it important for workers to have an understanding of the work environment (p. 1).”

Further, in a review of three studies created to identify competencies needed by employers, Young (1986) (Full reference listed in note 5) noted that: “The three studies…yielded remarkably consistent results on the question of those competencies most needed by employees. The three studies…emphasized the need for employees to have social skills, positive attitudes about work, and basic skills of communication…Specialized or highly technical skills were not stressed in the three studies but were, in fact, usually de-emphasized (p. 246).”

18 See Lynn Ellsworth, Better Aftercare for Delinquent Youth, unpublished report commissioned by the Eckerd Family Foundation, 2003.

19 See S. E. Berryman, “Economic Change: The Implications for Student Learning>” NASSP Bulletin 73/514 (1989); 59-70.

20 See Harriet Hankin, AMACOM, 2005.

21 See Assistant Secretary of Labor, http://www.doleta.gov/whatsnew/Derocco_speeches/DeRoccocollege.cfm

Y-Works Project Employee Survey Report: Appendix A Page A- 1

APPENDIX A EMPLOYER SURVEY SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Methodology............................................................................................................................ 2

A. Instrument.............................................................................................................................. 2 B. Interview Protocol .................................................................................................................. 2 C. Data Collection and Analysis.................................................................................................. 3 D. Survey Size and Participant Selection ...................................................................................... 3

1. Composition of Employer Pool by Business Type ................................................................ 3 2. Composition of Employer Pool by Job Title ........................................................................ 4

II. Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 5 A. Factors Influencing the Hiring of Employees .......................................................................... 5

1. Foundational Skills Influencing Hiring Managers ................................................................ 6 2. Workplace Competencies Influencing Hiring Managers ...................................................... 7 3. Other Factors Influencing Hiring Managers......................................................................... 7

B. Characteristics of Successful Employees ................................................................................... 8 1. Foundational Skills as Characteristics of Successful Employees............................................. 8 2. Workplace Competencies as Characteristics of Successful Employees ................................... 9 3. Other Characteristics of Successful Employees ..................................................................... 9

C. Perceived Skill and Knowledge Gaps ...................................................................................... 9 1. Skills and Knowledge Gaps Perceived in the General Population ....................................... 10 2. Skills and Knowledge Gaps Perceived in the First Time Worker and At-Risk Youth .......... 12

D. Programs and Activities to Increase Success........................................................................... 15 E. Policy on Hiring At-Risk Youth............................................................................................. 17

1. Delinquency History Not an Automatic Disqualifier for Employment............................... 17 2. Type and Recency of Delinquency as a Disqualifier for Employment................................. 17

F. Factors Influencing Hiring of At-Risk Youth ......................................................................... 18 2. Employer Concerns by Risk Type ...................................................................................... 20 3. Change in Consideration Based on Accommodations Provided ......................................... 21

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure A-1: Composition of Participating Employers by Business Type ....................................... 3 Figure A-2: Composition of Participating Employers by Job Title ............................................... 4 Figure A-3: Factors Influencing Hiring Managers in Selecting Candidates ................................... 6 Figure A-4: Characteristics of Successful Employees..................................................................... 8 Figure A-5: Skills and Knowledge Gaps of General Applicant Pool ............................................ 10 Figure A-6: Close Up: Skills and Knowledge Gaps of General Applicant Pool........................... 11 Figure A-7: Skills and Knowledge Gaps for First Time Workers and At-Risk Youth .................. 13 Figure A-8: Skill and Knowledge Gap Breakdown for First Time Workers and At-Risk Youth .. 14 Figure A-9: Workplace Programs Available to New Employees .................................................. 16 Figure A-10: Concerns With Hiring At Risk Youth: Multiple Response Choice ......................... 18 Figure A-11: Concerns with Hiring At-Risk Youth: Open Response ............................................ 19 Figure A-12: Decrease in Consideration Based on Shared Risk Issue ............................................ 20 Figure A-13: Change in Consideration Based on Accommodation............................................... 22


APPENDIX A

EMPLOYER SURVEY SUMMARY

I. METHODOLOGY

A. Instrument

The employer interview was based on a 30-item survey instrument comprised of both open-ended

and structured responses. Structured response items include multiple response and rank lists; the

latter ranked using a Likert Differential Scale. Random probe items were interspersed throughout

the survey instrument to clarify meaning, confirm responses, or to obtain examples of key concepts

for clarification. To address potential problems with non-exhaustive response sets within the

structured response items, each included an option for the respondent to identify an unlisted choice.

The survey process and content were field tested by two of the principal researchers and revised prior

to full implementation.

Questions were designed to identify:

Factors that influenced hiring managers.

Qualities associated with successful employees in their companies.

Skills and knowledge gaps observed in the overall candidate pool in general and first time workers and at risk youth in particular.

Issues that may prohibit hiring of at-risk youth.

Formal programs or informal activity designed to increase the success of first time employees.

Prior experiences in hiring at-risk youth.

Factors and programming that might influence their decision to hire an at-risk youth.

B. Interview Protocol

Each employer interview was conducted face-to-face by one of the four principal researchers. All

four researchers were trained in the protocol for conducting the interviews recording the responses to

ensure the collection of the most accurate data. The protocol included specific training to avoid

leading questions and interviewer bias. Definitions for key terms were provided to reduce ambiguity

and to facilitate consistent interpretation of survey elements across respondents. The average length

of the interview was 50 minutes with a range of interviews from 25 minutes to 90 minutes.

Interviews were conducted in the offices or work settings of the employers.


C. Data Collection and Analysis

Each of the individual survey questions were entered into a database and at least two principal

researchers independently categorized the findings for responses to all open-ended questions to

ensure inter-rater reliability. Descriptive statistics were exclusively used to describe survey results.

D. Survey Size and Participant Selection

Forty (40) employers representing fourteen industry segments including manufacturing,

government, restaurant services, hotel services, entertainment, retail, publishing, social services,

health care, distribution, research & development, insurance, utilities, and general services comprised

the survey sample. Participants included business owners and CEO’s, human resources and

recruitment leaders, and divisional and operational leaders. Potential participants were compiled

from lists published by various business publications and popular press and edited according to

availability, willingness to participate, and represented industry.

1. Composition of Employer Pool by Business Type

The business types represented by participating employers are summarized in Figure A-1.

Composition of Participating Employers by Business Type

Restaurants3%

Government3%

Research & Development

5%

Health Care5%

Social Services5%

Distribution5%

General Services3%

Manufacturing19%

Insurance3%

Utilities5%

Publishing10%

Retail17%

Entertainment8%

Hotels9%

Figure A-1: Composition of Participating Employers by Business Type


Manufacturing companies represented the majority of employers surveyed, comprising 19% of the

employer interview sample, followed by retail companies (17%). Publishing companies were the

third most represented in the sample (10%) and included newspapers, advertising agencies and code

publishing and registry companies. Hotels and entertainment companies (including cinemas,

family recreation centers, and theme parks) represented a combined total of 17% of the interview

pool. In cases where more than one service was provided by the company (e.g., a hotel providing

restaurant services and entertainment), the primary business was used to define the category in which

the business was placed.

2. Composition of Employer Pool by Job Title

Each person interviewed had full authority or significant influence in the hiring process. In cases

where there were multiple employer representatives in the interview, the interviewer listed the most

senior as the official interview subject. The specific breakdown of participants by job title is

summarized in Figure 2.

Composition of Participating Employers by Job Title

22%

16%

62%

Business Owner/CEO

HR/Recruitment Leadership

Divisional/Operational Leadership

Figure A-2: Composition of Participating Employers by Job Title

Figure A-2 illustrates that the majority of employers interviewed were Human Resources or

Recruitment Managers, Directors or Vice-Presidents; representing 62% of the employer sample.


Business owners and CEO’s of companies represented a combined total of 22% with divisional or

operational leadership representing 16% of the total.

II. FINDINGS

A. Factors Influencing the Hiring of Employees

Employers were asked to identify factors that influenced their hiring managers when selecting or

deciding not to select an applicant for hire. This open-ended question solicited a variety of responses

from participants. Participants were not

limited to the number of factors that could be

listed in their response. Similar factors were

grouped together into categories based on the

list of competencies and skills identified by

the U.S. Department of Labor Secretary’s

Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills

(SCANS)1 required for workplace success.

Two of the principal researchers

independently rated and categorized the

responses to ensure accurate classification of

the factors and to increase inter-rater

reliability.

In considering the factors that most

influenced hiring managers, the employers

listed a range of foundational skills and

workplace competencies along with additional

factors that could not be classified into one of

the two SCANS categories. The following

three sections detail the employer responses as

organized by the two SCANS categories and

eight subcategories along with a description of other responses that influence the hiring managers.

1 Please see the U.S. Department of Labor, Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills publications including “Teaching Scans Competencies,” (1993) accessed through the following link: http://wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/teaching/

SCANS Workplace Skills and Competencies

SCANS provides a model to define and categorize skills published by the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) required for workplace success. 1. Foundational Skills

Basic Skills: Reading, writing, math, speaking, listening, dexterity.

Thinking Skills: learning, reasoning, creative thinking, decision-making and problem-solving.

Personal Qualities: Individual responsibility, self-esteem, self-management, sociability, integrity, attitude, personal appearance, willingness to work, work ethic, flexibility, punctuality, attendance, conscientiousness.

2. Workplace Competencies

Resources: Ability to allocate time, money, materials, space and staff.

Information: Ability to acquire and evaluate data, organize and maintain files, interpret and communicate, and process information.

Interpersonal Skills: Ability to work on teams, to teach others, to serve customers, to lead, to negotiate, and to work well with people from culturally diverse backgrounds.

Systems: Ability to understand social, organizational and technological systems, monitor and correct performance, and design or improve systems.

Technology: Ability to select equipment and tools, apply technology to specific tasks, and maintain and trouble-shoot equipment.


1. Foundational Skills Influencing Hiring Managers

As illustrated in Figure A-3, Foundational Skills comprised the majority of employer responses. In

fact, Basic Skills, Thinking Skills and Personal Qualities represented 70% of all the factors

identified by the employers as influencing hiring managers when decided to hire or not to hire a

candidate. Further, Personal Qualities was the largest sub-category of foundational skills and

comprised 54% of the total responses.

Factors Influencing Hiring Managers in Selecting Candidates

Personal Qualities,

54%

Technological Skills, 7%

Interpersonal Skills, 9%

Basic Skills, 10%

Thinking Skills, 6%

Resources, 2%

Other, 12%

Figure A-3: Factors Influencing Hiring Managers in Selecting Candidates

Within the category of personal qualities, work ethic and/or attitude were identified by 45% of

employers as being the most influential factors and personal appearance (e.g., cleanliness, clean-cut,

tattoos and piercings not visible) was cited by 25% of the employers. Additional factors such as

reliability, dependability, enthusiasm, adaptability, flexibility and willingness to learn were listed as

personal qualities that influenced hiring managers in selecting candidates for hire.


Other foundational skills identified by the employers included Basic Skills which represented 10%

of all employer responses and included such skills as listening, speaking, writing, math, literacy and

manual dexterity. Similarly, Thinking Skills comprising 6% of the employer responses and included

problem-solving, decision-making and creative thinking as factors that most influenced hiring

managers.

2. Workplace Competencies Influencing Hiring Managers

As illustrated in Figure A-3, Workplace Competencies collectively represented 18% of employer

responses. Interpersonal Skills comprised 9% of all the employer responses with the competencies

of team work, ability to relate and respond to customers, and ability to relate to others of different

backgrounds most frequently referenced. Technology Competencies comprised 7% of the total and

included references to specific technological skills that varied by business type and effective use of

equipment. Resource Competencies represented only 2% of the employer responses and included

references to managing time and organizing resources.

3. Other Factors Influencing Hiring Managers

In addition to these factors linked to the SCANS model, 12% of the employer responses included

the following as additional factors influencing hiring managers:

Background (including criminal background, driving record): Representing 6% of the

responses and referenced by 23% of the employer pool as a factor.

Education (including prior educational achievement and educational experiences):

Representing 3% of the responses and referenced by 15% of the participating

employers as a factor.

Age (specifically identifying the legal age of 18 as factor): Representing 3% of the

responses and referenced by 10% of the employers, the specific factor influencing the

hiring decision was whether the candidate was of the legal age of 18.

These findings are consistent with other research that found personal qualities such as attitude, work

ethic, enthusiasm, self-management, and good listening and speaking skills are more important factors in

considering a candidate for hire than the more complex workplace competencies. (See the research

section in the main body of this report for specific research citations).


B. Characteristics of Successful Employees

Employers were asked to identify the qualities of employees who were successful in their

organization. Again, this open-ended question prompted a variety of responses. (See Figure A-4).

79%

6%

6%

6%

1%

0%

0%

0%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of Total Responses

Personal Qualities

Interpersonal Skills

Technological Skills

Basic Skills

Thinking Skills

Resources

Systems

Information

Other

Characteristics of Successful Employees

Figure A-4: Characteristics of Successful Employees

1. Foundational Skills as Characteristics of Successful Employees

Similar to employer responses identifying factors that most influenced hiring managers in the

selection process; Foundational Skills comprised 86% of the total responses. Within this category,

Personal Qualities represented 79% of the total responses and included such attributes as a positive

attitude, a good work ethic, accountability, resiliency, honesty, motivation, alertness, flexibility, initiative,

diplomacy and personal presentation. Basic Skills comprised 6% of the total responses and primarily

included employer responses describing effective communication skills. Thinking Skills represented

1% of the total responses and included creative thinking.


2. Workplace Competencies as Characteristics of Successful Employees

Workplace Competencies as a characteristic of successful employees represented 12% of the total

employer responses as outlined in Figure A-4. Interpersonal Skills including teamwork and effective

workplace communication skills represented 6% of the responses followed by Technology

Competencies which also represented 6% of the total employer responses. The employer responses

did not list Resource Competencies (allocation of resources, time, money and people), System

Competencies (understand, design and improve systems), or Information Competencies (including

acquiring, interpreting, evaluating, organizing and managing data) as characteristics of successful

employees.

3. Other Characteristics of Successful Employees

The remaining characteristics identified by the employers that did not clearly fit into one of the

seven SCANS categories and representing 2% of the total responses as illustrated in Figure A-4

included:

Quality performance and outcomes

Prior educational achievement

Job history

Location of employee relative to the workplace. In this case, successful candidates for

some jobs (e.g., hotel and hospitality) were those that lived close to the work site.

It is interesting to note that even in workplace settings where a high degree of task complexity and

technology are required, employers generally identified personal qualities as being most associated

with workplace success. Reliability, positive attitude, motivation, “culture fit” and dependability vastly

outpaced technology, information, resources and systems competencies as success characteristics.

C. Perceived Skill and Knowledge Gaps

Employees were asked to describe the overall difficulty in finding qualified staff followed by a series

of questions to identify their perceptions of the most significant skill and knowledge gaps they are

experiencing in each of three categories of candidates: 1). the general applicant population; 2). first

time workers in general; and 3). at-risk youth.

When asked whether it is harder or easier to find employees who can be successful in their

workplaces, 75% of employers reported that it is harder while only 15% said it is easier. Ten

percent indicated that there is no perceived change in difficulty.


1. Skills and Knowledge Gaps Perceived in the General Population

Employers were first asked to comment on their perceptions of skill and knowledge gaps for

candidates represented in their “typical” employment pool. Figure A-5 summarizes their responses.

Skills and Knowledge Gaps of General Applicant Pool

Thinking Skills, 14%

Interpersonal Skills,

9%

Technology Competencies,

35%

Personal Qualities,

17%

Basic Skills, 23%

Systems Competencies,

2%

Figure A-5: Skills and Knowledge Gaps of General Applicant Pool

Foundational Skills including Personal Qualities, Basic Skills and Thinking Skills collectively

represented 54% of the employer responses identifying knowledge and skill gaps observed in the

general applicant pool while 46% of all responses were classified as Workplace Competencies.

Note that the largest category of responses related to gaps in Technology Competencies (35% of the

total responses), followed by Basic Skills (23%). Personal Qualities, previously the top ranked

response category for employers when describing factors that most influence hiring managers and

characteristics most associated with successful employees, was third and represented 17% of all

responses. To explore the specific gaps identified by employers in the general applicant pool the data

presented in Figure A-5 was expanded to reflect the specific sub-categories of knowledge and skills

gaps most referenced in employer responses (Please see Figure A-6).


Workplace Competency

Category:

Technology

Foundational Skills

Category:

Basic Skills

Foundational Skills

Category:

Personal Qualities

FoundationalSkills

Category:

Thinking Skills


Category:



Category:

Systems

Close-Up: Skills and Knowledge Gaps of General Applicant Pool

Customer Service,

5%

Systems Improvement,

2%

Problem Solving, 5%

Decision-making, 4%

Creative Thinking, 5%

Professionalism, 4%

Motivated, 4%

Self-Directed, 4% Work Ethic,

4% Dexterity, 1%

Writing Skills, 11%

Math Skills, 7%

Communication Skills,

4%

Trade/Technical Skills,

35%

Teamwork, 4%

Adapt/Change, 1%

Figure A-6: Close Up: Skills and Knowledge Gaps of General Applicant Pool

a. Regarding Foundational Skills and Knowledge Gaps

Observe in Figure A-6 that writing skills was the subcategory most referenced by employers as lacking

in the general population under the category of Basic Skills. Respondents specifically described a

deficit in business writing that included problems with grammar, punctuation and effectiveness.

This finding is consistent with the executive roundtable discussion held with senior HR leadership to

help explore the findings of the Y-Works project. Participants in the roundtable noted that the

overall writing quality in both candidates and actual employees has noticeably diminished. It was


noted that a possible contributing factor is the increased reliance on e-mail as a method of written

communication; where style, form, content, grammar and punctuation have given way to

expediency and convenience. Math skills (7%) was the next largest subcategory of Basic Skills,

followed by basic communication skills such as listening and speaking (4%), and dexterity (1%).

The category of Personal Qualities included professionalism (4%), motivation (4%), self-direction

(4%) work ethic (4%), and adaptability and response to change (1%). Skills and knowledge gaps

identified for the general population under the category of Thinking Skills included creative thinking

(5%), problem solving (5%) and decision-making (4%).

b. Regarding Workplace Competency Skills and Knowledge Gaps:

Figure A-6 illustrates that the Technology Competency of trade and technical skills representing 35%

of the responses. Responses in this category were very diverse and tied to the specific nature of the

industries represented in the sample. This made segmenting this specific category into more detailed

skills and knowledge gap subcategories impractical. The more frequent technical skills listed that

were not tied to a specific business included keyboarding and mechanical skills.

Employer responses identifying gaps in Interpersonal Competencies most frequently included

references to customer responsiveness (5%) and teamwork (4%). Finally, responses identifying skills

gaps observed in the category of Systems Competencies included systems improvement skills (2%).

2. Skills and Knowledge Gaps Perceived in the First Time Worker and At-Risk Youth

Employers were asked to identify skills and

knowledge gaps that they observed in the first

time worker followed by skills and knowledge

gaps perceived in the at-risk youth

population.

Only 31 of the employers identified that they had prior experience with hiring at-risk youth. Nine

of the employers (23%) were either uncertain about whether or not youth that they employed were

at-risk or they worked in environments where the targeted candidate pool did not include youth.

Further, each of these employers made no distinction between the observed skills and knowledge

Employers with prior experience in hiring at-risk youth made no distinction between this applicant and the first time worker. They perceived skill and knowledge gaps to be the same.


gaps of at-risk youth and first time workers.2 Therefore, the principal researchers used the 31

employers for the following data analysis and combined the categories of at-risk youth and first time

workers since no distinction was made by the employer group in their responses. Figure A- 7

illustrates the employer responses.

Skills and Knowledge Gaps of First Time Workers and At-Risk Youth

Thinking Skills, 10%

Technology Competencies

7%

Basic Skills, 26%

Personal Qualities,

51%

Interpersonal Skills,

6%

Figure A-7: Skills and Knowledge Gaps for First Time Workers and At-Risk Youth

Employer responses most often identified foundational skills gaps in the first time worker and at-risk

youth populations. Specifically, responses describing Personal Qualities (51%), Basic Skills (26%)

and Thinking Skills (10%) combine to represent 87% of all of the responses. Only 13% of the

responses described workplace competency-related skills or knowledge gaps and included

Interpersonal Skills (6%) and Technology Competencies (7%).

To explore the specific gaps identified by employers, the data presented in Figure A- 7 was expanded

to reflect the specific sub-categories of knowledge and skills gaps most referenced in employer

responses (Please see Figure A-8).

2 It is important to note that employers tended to quate the term “first time worker” to be synonymous with a young, naïve and/or inexperienced worker. Older adults entering the workforce for the first time (such as the case with a homemaker and mother who returns to work after her children have left the home) did not seem to be considered in the responses of the employers.


Close Up: Skills and Knowledge Gaps in the First Time Worker and At-Risk Youth Populations

Teamwork3%

Problem-Solving10%

General Academic

4%

Communication Skills

9%Math Skills

10%

Technical Skills7%

Writing Skills3%

Reliability6%

Accountability4%

Personal Goals3%

Change/Adapt3%

Respect3%

Personal Values3%

Maturity4%

Attitude4%

Work Ethic8%

Attendance and Punctuality

10%

Self-Directed3%

Customer Service3%

Figure A-8: Skill and Knowledge Gap Breakdown for First Time Workers and At-Risk Youth

a. Regarding Foundational Skills and Knowledge Gaps

Personal Qualities was the most frequently listed foundational skills category with over 51% of the

employer responses. This finding differs from the employer responses regarding skills and

knowledge gaps observed in the general applicant pool where Personal Qualities represented only

17% of the responses. Specific qualities listed included attendance and punctuality (10%) work ethic

(8%), reliability (6%), positive attitude (4%), maturity (4%), accountability (4%), personal values

(3%), respect (3%), adaptability and responsiveness to change (3%), clear personal goals (3%), and being

self-directed (3%).


Category:

Technology

Foundational Skills

Category:

Basic Skills

Foundational Skills

Category:

Personal Qualities

FoundationalSkills

Category:

Thinking Skills


Category:



Category:

Systems


Note that most employer responses in this category were attendance related. A problem with

attendance and punctuality was a theme that ran through the employer interviews and confirmed in

both the youth and case worker interview results. For example, the youth survey results noted that

attendance problems were most often associated with their termination from employment.

Other responses categorized as foundational skills and knowledge gaps included the Basic Skills of

math (10%), communication (9%), other general academic skills (4%) and defined by employers as

being able to compare, cross-reference, look up terms, and read and understand basic documents

such as an inventory list) and writing (3%). Finally, responses describing gaps in Thinking Skills

included the category of problem solving (10%).

b. Regarding Workplace Competency Skills and Knowledge Gaps:

Employer responses describing a workplace competency skills or knowledge gap represented only

13% of the total responses. As illustrated in Figure A-8, Interpersonal Skills included teamwork

(3%) and customer service (3%). The second smallest response category of gaps for first time

workers and at-risk youth was Technical Skills (7%) which was the largest category of skills and

knowledge gaps for the general applicant pool (35%).

Many of the employers shared additional comments about the perceived increase in skill and

knowledge gaps for first time workers. Some noted an increasingly transient society and a high rate

of turnover as contributing factors. Others, particularly those recruiting first time employees,

described generational issues including an exaggerated sense of entitlement, unrealistic expectations

of workplace rewards, opportunities, processes, and an inadequate level of motivation and

enthusiasm.

D. Programs and Activities to Increase Success

The interviewers asked the employer participants to respond to a multiple response list by selecting

any formal programs or formal activity currently available in their workplace to increase the success

of the first time employee. The multiple response list included 12 programs and the employers were

given an opportunity to identify additional items that were not listed. Figure A-9 summarizes the

responses.


55%

50%

55%

55%

80%

68%

25%

30%

35%

10%

58%

48%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percentage of Employer Sample

Computer Related Classes

Internships

Job Coaching

Mentoring Programs

New Employee Orientation

New Hire Training other than Orientation

Remedial Classes (External)

Remedial Classes (Inernal)

Shadow Programs

Supported Employment

Tuition Reimbursement

Other Employment Training

Workplace Programs Available to New Employees

Figure A-9: Workplace Programs Available to New Employees

Note that the majority of employers (80%) provided some form of new employee orientation and

additional new hire training (68%). Tuition reimbursement was a program provided by 58% of the

employers, followed by computer courses, job coaching, and mentoring programs offered by 55% of

the employers. Note that mentoring programs were most often defined as targeting upper level

leadership positions and not necessarily the first time employee.

Half of the employers provided other employment training (55%-typically job specific training) and

some type of internship program followed by job shadowing (35%), internal remedial classes (30%)

and external remedial classes (25%). Only 10% of the employers surveyed indicated the availability


of supported employment (meaning that an employee –internal or external to the organization—

provided on-site training and assistance to the worker while they were learning the job). In none of

these four cases was the supported employment a long term intervention as is often found in services

for disabled populations.

E. Policy on Hiring At-Risk Youth

Although most employers reported no

formal policy prohibiting the hiring of a

youth with a history of risk behaviors or

current problems from being hired, most

did require that they be 18 years of age or

older. In addition, 20% required a background screening as a requirement for employment.

1. Delinquency History Not an Automatic Disqualifier for Employment

It is important to note that during the employer interviews and also during the Executive

Roundtable to discuss these findings with senior HR executives, employers were in agreement that

the presence of a criminal background was not necessarily a disqualifying event for employment.

The majority of employers indicated that consideration would be given if the candidate:

Fully disclosed the event during the interview process;

Indicated what they did to change or correct the behavior and that it is no longer an issue;

Was able to demonstrate that the behavior was isolated or in the past.

2. Type and Recency of Delinquency as a Disqualifier for Employment

Exceptions to this position that delinquency is not an automatic disqualifier included:

Legal restrictions that were outside of the employers’ control: Examples include social services

and health care agencies who cannot legally hire candidates with prior offenses listed as

disqualifying events list provided by their funding agencies or in cases where they must adhere to

Homeland Security Standards.

The nature of the offense. The majority of employers would not hire persons with a history of

violence (including, but not limited to, domestic violence and assault). Other offenses would

eliminate or restrict positions at some companies. For example, a youth with a history of theft

would not be placed in a cash handling situation, but could work in the company’s maintenance

department.

The majority of employers (78%) had no specific policy prohibiting a youth who may be at risk from being hired. Most also reported that a prior criminal record was not necessarily a disqualifying event for employment.


F. Factors Influencing Hiring of At-Risk Youth

The employers were asked to identify factors that might influence their decision not to hire an at-

risk or delinquent youth. Figure A-10 summarizes these responses.

30%

30%

43%

18%

38%

10%

30%

30%

5%

15%

33%

23%

70%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Anticipate a disrespect for authority

Anticipate Inappropriate Attitude

Anticipate Attendance Problems

Anticipate Injuries

Premature Turnover

Unemployment Costs

Workplace Disruption

Lack of Self-Discipline

Lack of Growth Potential

Lack of Required Skills

Lack of Workplace Behaviors

Legal Risk Exposure

Other

Concerns With Hiring At Risk Youth: Multiple Response Choice

Figure A-10: Concerns With Hiring At Risk Youth: Multiple Response Choice


Employers were asked to choose from a list of 13 issues and were also given an opportunity to

identify additional factors not covered by the list. The list of issues was generated from concerns

shared by employers during the interview design phase and culled from actual experiences of youth

case workers responsible for placing youth in employment.

As illustrated in Figure A-10, the primary concern for employers is that an at-risk youth may exhibit

attendance problems (43% of the employers). Other concerns include anticipating that the youth

will prematurely leave the job (38%), fail to display required workplace behavior (33%), disrespect

authority (30%), display an inappropriate attitude (30%), create workplace disruption (30%), and

demonstrate a lack of self-discipline (30%). Other concerns include exposure to a law suit or

insurance liability (23%), anticipation of workplace injuries (18%), perceived lack of skills required

for the job (15%), the youth’s lack of education (10%), anticipation of unemployment costs (10%)

and concerns about the youth’s lack of growth potential (5%).

Concerns With Hiring At Risk Youth: Open Response

Lack of Focus, 4%

Stress, 4%

Appearance, 4%

Aggression, 26%

Customer Conflict,

7%Trustworthiness, 26%

Repeat Behavior,

22%

Emotional Maturity,

7%

Figure A-11: Concerns with Hiring At-Risk Youth: Open Response


Figure A-11 provides a close-up of the concerns that comprised the “Other” category in Figure 10.

These concerns were shared by employers in considering the hiring of an at-risk youth and not

included in the choice list.

The majority of other concerns were related to trustworthiness (identified by 26% of the employer

group); particularly in relation to the employer’s concerns with placing the youth in cash handling

positions and positions providing access to company assets; and in anticipation of aggressive or

violent workplace behaviors (26% of respondents). Other concerns included the potential of prior

bad behavior being repeated (22%), effectively handling customers (7%), concerns about appearance

(4%), emotional maturity (7%), handling stress (4%), and staying focused (4%).

2. Employer Concerns by Risk Type

Employers were asked to rate how their consideration of hiring a candidate would change if the

candidate displayed or shared a history of risk behaviors in the interview.

33%

60%

60%

75%

85%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


History of Substance Abuse

History of Emotional Problems

History of Delinquency (Property)

Exhibits Social Difficultues

Shares History of Delinquency(Person)

Decrease in Consideration Based on Shared Risk Issue

Figure A-12: Decrease in Consideration Based on Shared Risk Issue


These questions provided an additional way to help identify any preconceived fears or assumptions

that employers may have regarding the hiring of at-risk youth. Responses of “less than average

consideration” or “no consideration” by applicant type were combined and charted in Figure A-12.

The majority of employers (85%) would give less consideration to a candidate who shares a history

of juvenile delinquency that involves person related crimes such as assault. Seventy-five percent of

employers reported they would give less consideration to a youth who exhibited social difficulties in

the interview. This includes youth who displayed difficulties in maintaining eye contact, shaking

hands, speaking clearly, demonstrating active listening or other expressed discomfort during the

interview process.

Sixty percent of employers would give less consideration to a candidate who shares a history of

juvenile delinquency (property crimes only-such as vandalism and petty theft). Sixty percent of

employers would also give less consideration to a candidate who shares a history of emotional

problems during the interview while 33% employers would give less consideration to a candidate

who shares a history of substance abuse during the interview.

Noteworthy in employers’ responses was the comparatively small concern for a history of substance

abuse as a disqualifying factor. Most employers indicated it would not be a factor if the substance

abuse was in the past and many employers included drug testing as a routine activity.

3. Change in Consideration Based on Accommodations Provided

Employers were given a list of accommodations and asked to evaluate whether or not their

consideration for hiring at-risk youth would increase if these accommodations were provided. To

address the relationship between the accommodations themselves and the type of issue presented by

the youth in the interview (i.e., social problems exhibited, history of emotional problems, history of

substance abuse, history of property crimes or history of person-related crimes shared in the

interview), the employer was asked to respond to the question for each of the five candidate types.

Figure A-13 summarizes these findings. Note that workforce readiness programs completed by

candidates before their hire was the most frequently cited factor to increase consideration of the

candidate; regardless of the candidate’s issues. In fact, 75% of the employers indicated they would

increase consideration for youth who exhibited social problems or shared a history of emotional

problems if they had participated in a job readiness program provided by a social services agency

such as the YMCA or EYA prior to their hire.


18%18%18%10%3%

40%40%

30%15%0%50%

48%38%23%15%38%38%

35%30%13%

68%68%58%

30%13%75%75%65%45%20%

60%35%33%

30%25%33%33%

30%20%15%35%35%

28%20%15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Tax Incentive

Wage Incentive

Job Coach

Fund Coach

Workforce Program DuringProbation

Workforce Program BeforeHire

Indemnification

Public Relations Benefit

Third Party Employer for first90 days

Change in Consideration of Employing At Risk Youth Based on Accommodation

Social Problems Emotional Problems Substance Abuse

Property Crimes Person Crimes

Figure A-13: Change in Consideration Based on Accommodation


This accommodation was also associated with the largest percentage of employers who would

increase their consideration in hiring a youth with a delinquency history of crimes against persons.

Workforce readiness programming would also increase consideration of youth with crimes against

persons (20%)—second only to an indemnification from all legal liability as the accommodation

most likely to increase consideration for this category of youth.

The provision of a workforce program during the probationary period was the factor that would

create the next highest level of consideration from the employers with 68% of employers indicating

increased consideration for youth who share histories of social or emotional problems in the

interview. Fifty-eight percent of employers would give more consideration to youth with substance

abuse issues while 30% would increase consideration of youth with a history of property crimes and

13% would give more consideration to youth with a history of crimes against persons.

Indemnification from any liability created by hiring the youth was the next category most associated

with increased consideration although employers typically responded that there was “no such

coverage” that could completely exempt an employer from the acts of his/her employees. Sixty

percent of employers would increase consideration of youth with social problems if this

accommodation were made followed by increased consideration for youth with a history of

emotional problems (35%), youth with a history of substance abuse (33%), youth with a history of

property crimes (30%) and youth with a history of crimes against persons (25%).

Wage Incentives for hiring the youth increased consideration of employers in hiring youth with a

history of emotional problems or social difficulties (40%), a history of substance abuse (30%), but

only increased consideration for 15% of employers in hiring youth with a history of crimes against

property. Wage incentives did not increase the consideration in hiring youth with a history of

crimes against persons.

Funding for Job Coach increased consideration of employers in hiring youth with a history of

emotional problems or social difficulties (38%), a history of substance abuse (35%), and a history of

crimes against property 30%. Only 13% of employers would increase their consideration of a youth

with a history of crimes against persons if a job coach were made available.

A Third Party Employer of Record during the youth’s first 90 days of employment increased

consideration of employers in hiring youth with a history of emotional problems or social difficulties

(35%), a history of substance abuse (28%), and a history of crimes against property 20%. Only 15%


of employers would increase their consideration of a youth with a history of crimes against persons if

hired by a third party.

The accommodations with the least impact on consideration included Public Relations Benefits and

Tax Incentives created from hiring an at-risk youth.

Youth with a history of crimes against persons received the least amount of consideration—regardless

of the accommodation. The most promising factor to increase consideration for these youth was a

specific workforce readiness program developed and delivered by an agency with prior experience

with at-risk youth (with Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. and the YMCA of the Suncoast given as

examples).

Y-Works Project Youth Case Worker Survey Report: Appendix B Page B-1

APPENDIX B YOUTH CASE WORKER SURVEY SUMMARY


A. Instrument............................................................................................................................... 2 B. Survey Protocol........................................................................................................................ 2 C. Data Collection and Analysis................................................................................................... 3 D. Survey Size and Participant Selection ...................................................................................... 3

II. Findings ................................................................................................................................... 4 A. Youth Case Worker Experience ............................................................................................... 4 B. Caseload Size ........................................................................................................................... 4 C. Employment of ReEntry Youth age 16 and Older ................................................................... 4 D. Perceived Reasons Why Youth Are Not Working ................................................................... 5 E. Predictors of Youth Ability to Obtain Employment................................................................ 7 F. Predictors of Youth Ability to Maintain Employment............................................................. 8 G. Job Preparation and Readiness Services Used by ReEntry........................................................ 9 H. Direct ReEntry Services to Help Youth Obtain Employment ............................................... 10 I. Direct ReEntry Services to Help Youth Maintain Employment ............................................ 12 J. ReEntry Reports of Primary Reasons Employers Do Not Hire Youth................................... 13 K. ReEntry Reports of Primary Reasons Employers Fire Youth .................................................. 14 L. ReEntry Efforts to Prepare Employers to Work with Youth .................................................. 15 M. Instructions to Disclose or Not Disclose Delinquency History ............................................. 16

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure B-1: Employment Status of Youth Served by ReEntry, Ages 16 or Older ........................... 4 Figure B-2: ReEntry Perceptions of Why Youth Are Not Employed ............................................. 6 Figure B-3: ReEntry Predictors of Youth Obtaining Employment ................................................ 7 Figure B-4: ReEntry Predictors of Youth Maintaining Employment ............................................. 9 Figure B-5: Vocational Resources Used by ReEntry .................................................................... 10 Figure B-6: ReEntry Services to Help Youth Obtain Employment .............................................. 11 Figure B-7: ReEntry Services to Help Youth Maintain Employment........................................... 12 Figure B-8: ReEntry Reasons Why Employers Won’t Hire Youth............................................... 13 Figure B-9: ReEntry Reasons Why Employers Fire Youth........................................................... 14 Figure B-10: ReEntry Efforts to Prepare Employers to Work with Youth...................................... 15 Figure B-11: ReEntry Instructions Regarding Disclosure of Criminal Record ............................... 16


APPENDIX B YOUTH CASE WORKER SURVEY SUMMARY

I. METHODOLOGY

A. Instrument

The case worker survey is a 21-item questionnaire comprised of open-ended response items. Youth

Case Workers were asked to share experiences and perceptions about:

Why youth on their caseload are unemployed.

Primary predictors of obtaining and maintaining successful employment.

Vocational services and resources available to youth on their caseload for employment.

Direct services provided by the Youth Case Worker to help youth obtain and maintain

employment.

Experiences with employers while assisting youth obtain employment including “typical”

employer responses, most cited reasons for decisions not to hire and decisions to terminate.

Activity that the Youth Case Worker has engaged in to help prepare employers to hire youth on

their caseload.

Current policy and practice regarding how they advise youth on their caseload to disclose a

delinquency history in the job interview.

B. Survey Protocol

The Youth Case Worker surveys were administered face-to-face by two of the four principal

researchers. A group of 32 Youth Case Workers1 (including one Director and three Managers) were

provided with an overview of the Y-Works Project and the purpose of the study and questions were

clarified. Each worker was provided with a consent form required by Eckerd Youth Alternatives,

Inc. that included a written purpose statement of the inquiry, the contact person names and phone

numbers of researchers and provider personnel who could answer questions, and clarification that

the staff member was not required to participate in the study. All participants provided their

consent to participate in the project. The surveys were then distributed to the group. The average

1 All of the participants represented in the sample were employed by Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. and providing ReEntry Services. A supervisor and case worker from the YMCA of the Suncoast were interviewed but were not included in the sample because their services were prevention focused, the youth on their caseloads were an average of 14 years of age and their job descriptions did not require a range of prevocational, job readiness and job placement functions.


time for completion of the survey was 35 minutes with a range from 20 minutes to 62 minutes.

Surveys were administered in a large multi-purpose room at one of EYA’s residential treatment

facilities. The survey process and survey content were field tested by two of the principal researchers

and revised prior to full implementation.


Each of the individual responses to the survey questions were entered into a database and at least two

principal researchers independently categorized the findings for responses to all open-ended

questions to ensure inter-rater reliability. Descriptive statistics were exclusively used to describe

survey results.


Thirty-two (32) ReEntry Counselors, Supervisors and Managers from Eckerd Youth Alternatives,

Inc. (EYA) comprised the survey sample. The ReEntry staff members were responsible for aftercare

services for 588 youth2 residing in nine South Florida counties including, Broward, Dade, Monroe,

Brevard, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, Indian River, Okeechobee and Martin counties. ReEntry

Counselors are responsible for assisting youth who are placed on conditional release status for a

variety of juvenile offenses. ReEntry Counselors assist the youth in preparing to leave a variety of

secure juvenile justice treatment settings and provide service coordination, supervision and support

for up to a year following the youth’s release. As part of the range of services, EYA ReEntry

Counselors assist youth with prevocational and job readiness activities. For youth over age 16, they

assist with identifying, securing and maintaining employment.

Participants were identified by EYA leadership in consultation with the principal researchers who

requested Youth Case Workers who provided services in a wide diversity of environments; both

urban and rural and in areas where there was also a diversity of available resources. The principal

researchers also requested Youth Case Workers with at least three years of average experience in the

field. The EYA South Florida ReEntry programs provide services in both urban (e.g., Miami and

Dade County) and more rural areas (e.g., Okeechobee County) and represented the area employing

ReEntry staff with the longest length of service to the organization.

2 Note: This number includes youth considered “active”—meaning youth who are under active supervision by the ReEntry Counselor and who require direct services. Periodically, ReEntry Counselors are the case worker of record for youth who have become inactive because of changes in placement status, re-incarceration, or other factors. The number of youth, both inactive and active, served by South Florida ReEntry is approximately 750.


II. FINDINGS

A. Youth Case Worker Experience

The average years of experience in Youth Case Workers (EYA ReEntry Counselors—used

synonymously throughout this appendix) in their current ReEntry position was 7.35 years.

Experience ranged from 1 to 23 years with both the median length of service and mode value was

five years.

B. Caseload Size

The average caseload size was 21 youth. The median caseload size was 17 and the mode value was

19.

C. Employment of ReEntry Youth age 16 and Older

Of the 588 active youth collectively served by the ReEntry Counselors, the Counselors reported the

percentage of youth ages 16 and older was 77% (or 450). Figure B-1 illustrates that, of those youth

450 youth ages 16 or older, 66% were not working while 34% were employed either full-time or

part-time.

Employment Status of Youth Served by ReEntry, Ages 16 or Older

Working34% Not Working

66%

Figure B-1: Employment Status of Youth Served by ReEntry, Ages 16 or Older

This age bracket of 16 or older is of particular interest to the Y-Works researchers because it

represents the age range when youth are typically expected to begin some form of part-time or


seasonal employment. The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, for example, requires all

conditional release (ReEntry or aftercare) providers to ensure that youth under the age of 16 attend

an educational program and that youth over the age of 16 either maintain full-time employment or

be enrolled in a needs appropriate educational program. In fact, youth on conditional release status

in Florida are required by statute to work and/or attend school based on specific age requirements:

“Participation in the educational program by students of compulsory school attendance

age is mandatory for juvenile justice youth on conditional release or post-commitment

probation status. A student of noncompulsory school attendance age who has not

received a high school diploma or its equivalent must participate in the educational

program. A youth who has received a high school diploma or its equivalent and is not

employed must participate in workforce development or other vocation or technical

education or attend a community college or a university while in the program, subject to

available funding.” (FS 232.01).

D. Perceived Reasons Why Youth Are Not Working

The ReEntry Counselors were asked to identify the top three reasons why they believed youth

eligible on their caseloads to work were not working. Figure B-2 summarizes their responses. Note

that most of the reasons given (27%) were in the category of Personal Qualities including lack of

motivation, poor work ethic, low self-esteem, disinterest, poor time management and poor personal

appearance and dress. Twelve percent of the reasons provided were related to family issues.

Specifically, the ReEntry Counselors perceived family members as not encouraging activities such as

looking for work or maintenance of employment. Counselors also included in this category a lack of

family modeling of a work ethic and work behaviors in the home and family methods of obtaining

funds that were not productive and/or law-abiding. Twelve percent of responses identified

transportation as a key reason for why youth were not working. This finding tracks with the Youth

Survey Section (Appendix C) where a lack of transportation, particularly in rural areas, is a

significant barrier to employment.


27%12%

12%

10%

7%

8%

4%

6%

5%

2%

2%

4%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30%

Percentage of Responses

Personal Qualities Lacking

Family Issues

Lack of Transportation/Other resources

Lack of Available Jobs

Lack of Job Related Skills

Lack of Work Experience

Lack of Social Skills

Competing Methods for Income

Other Commitment - School

Fail to Search Consistenly

Under Age 18

Lack of Understanding of Job Process

Intellectual Functioning

ReEntry Perceptions of Why Youth Are Not Employed

Figure B-2: ReEntry Perceptions of Why Youth Are Not Employed ReEntry Counselors identified a lack of available jobs (10%) as the next most frequent response for

why youth eligible for employment are not currently working followed by a lack of work experience

(8%) and a lack of job-related skills (7%). Competing methods of income represented 6% of the

total responses and included comments about youth who find it easier and more profitable to engage

in illegal activity (e.g., selling drugs) or receiving public assistance than to be gainfully employed.

The remaining categories of responses included other commitments that prohibited time to work

such as school (5%), lack of required social skills (4%), lack of any understanding of the process of

employment and work (5%), restrictions on employment for youth under the age of 18 (2%), and

limitations with basic intellectual functioning (2%).


E. Predictors of Youth Ability to Obtain Employment

ReEntry Counselors were asked to consider current and former youth on their caseload who were

successful in obtaining employment and to identify the factors associated with their ability to secure

a job. The 47 factors were organized into 11 categories as illustrated in Figure B- 3.

51%

11%

6%

6%

6%

4%

4%

4%

2%

2%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


Personal Qualities

Basic Skills

Education

Transportation

Job Search Knowledge

Application Completion

Support of Family

Family/Children Responsibilities

Experience

Employer Contact

No Background Check

Predictors of Youth Obtaining Employment

Figure B-3: ReEntry Predictors of Youth Obtaining Employment Personal qualities represented 51% of the responses provided and included such individual factors as

youth motivation, focus, determination, personality, drive, confidence, attitude, character, and respect for

others. Basic Skills (11%) including listening, speaking effectively, and reading, Education (6%),

specifically the attainment of a High School Diploma, GED or other educational certification; and

Transportation to seek out job opportunities (6%) represented the categories receiving the next


highest number of responses. Other responses included access to the ability to write legibly and

accurately complete an application (4%), support of family (4%), knowledge of how the job search process

works including how to identify leads (6%), prior experience (2%), and financial obligations to care for

a family member or child (4%). The final categories listed included an inside contact with the

employer (2%) and jobs that did not require a criminal background check (2%).

F. Predictors of Youth Ability to Maintain Employment

Similarly, ReEntry staff members were asked to identify factors that they believed best predicted the

successful maintenance of employment for those youth on their caseloads. The 54 predictors were

organized into 14 categories and are summarized in Figure B-4. As with factors predicting the

successful attainment of employment, ReEntry Counselors identified a range of Personal Qualities

as the best predictors of successful maintenance of employment. Forty-three percent of the

responses described a personal quality evidenced by youth on their caseload who had successfully

maintained employment and included motivation, a strong work ethic, responsibility, reliability (both

in following through with tasks but also reliable attendance and punctuality), working independently,

good attitude, displaying a positive self-worth, and being open to receiving (and then following)

instructions and directions.

ReEntry Counselors also identified the value of the paycheck (described as an understanding of how

consistent pay would allow them to purchase desired items, attend desired events, to date) as a

predictor of successful employment maintenance (11% of the factors listed), followed by job

enjoyment (7%), the desire to pay off mandated court fees and restitution required from prior

sentencing (7%), family support (7%) and family obligations (6%) such as taking care of a child.

Other predictors listed included youth with gainfully employed friends (4%), youth with a desire to

be removed from ReEntry or court supervision (4%), youth with other financial obligations (e.g., car

payments, rent--2%), followed by reliable transportation to and from work (2%), responsiveness to

the ReEntry Counselor’s support and direction (2%), the presence of a supportive employer (2%),

active use of other community resources (2%) and the age of the worker (2%).


43%11%

7%

7%

7%

6%

4%

2%

4%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%


Personal Qualities

Value of Paycheck

Enjoy Job

Court Fees/Restitution

Supportive Family

Family Obligations

Working Peers

Age

End Supervision

Other Financial Obligations

Reliable Transportation

ReEntry Responsiveness

Supportive Employer

Community Services

ReEntry Predictors of Youth Maintaining Employment

Figure B-4: ReEntry Predictors of Youth Maintaining Employment

G. Job Preparation and Readiness Services Used by ReEntry

ReEntry Counselors were then asked to identify vocational services and resources that were available

to youth in their catchment areas to help prepare them for employment. The 48 resource types

identified were organized into 12 categories as illustrated in Figure B-5.

Listed resources included One Stop Centers (25%), area vocational schools (17%), and ACS

administered programs (Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.), a Texas-based organization that operates

13 workforce readiness and mentoring programs in the state of Florida targeting out-of-school youth

(passport program) and in-school youth (power program) and referenced in 15% of the responses.

Charter Schools (13%) were the third most listed resource (with specific reference to the Florida-

based Survivors Charter School and the Ed-Ventures Charter School) followed by Job Corps (6%),


On-the-Job-Training (6%), the Urban League (4%), High School Vocational Personnel (4%) and

youth trade groups (4%)—particularly automotive youth associations. Job Fairs, Vocational

Rehabilitation resources and the classified ads collectively represented 6% of the remaining resources

identified by the counselors.

Vocational Resources Used by ReEntry

Vocational School17%

ACS15%

Classifieds2%

Youth Trade Groups4%

High School Staff4%

One Stop Centers25%

Voc. Rehab2%

Job Fairs2%

Urban League4%

OJT6%

Job Corps6%

Charter Schools13%

Figure B-5: Vocational Resources Used by ReEntry

H. Direct ReEntry Services to Help Youth Obtain Employment

ReEntry Counselors were then asked to identify services that they directly provide to help youth

obtain employment. The 94 services identified in the responses fell into three broader categories of

obtaining employment including: 1. Pre-vocational preparation and job readiness; 2. Job searching;

and 3. Preparing for an interview or other selection activity. Figure B-6 summarizes these broad

categories of services and their corresponding sub-categories.


ReEntry Counselors reported that the primary pre-vocational activities included conducting mock

interviews and discussing the interview process with the youth (7%), identifying job placement

resources (3%), the administration of a skills and interest assessment (2%), and transportation to job

readiness and vocational preparation providers (1%). Job search activities included direct assistance

with the job search (e.g., teaching how to search for a job via job banks, online search engines,

classified ads) and comprised 27% of the responses, followed by linking the youth to job

opportunities identified by, or created by, the ReEntry Counselor (9%), connecting the youth with

transportation options (e.g., bus routes, free transportation resources) to get to the job opportunity

(5%), and assisting the youth with purchasing appropriate interview clothing (1%).

1%7%

2%

3%

27%

1%

9%

5%

23%

17%5%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%


Transportation Related

Prepare for Interview

Interests and Skills Assessment

Link to Job Placement

Job Search Assistance

Interview Attire

Link to Potential Employment Sources

Link to Transportation

Transport to Interview

Assist with Application

Orient to Job Specifics and Expectations

Serve As reference

ReEntry Services to Help Youth Obtain Employment

Selection ActivitiesJob Search ActivitiesPrevocational Activities

Figure B-6: ReEntry Services to Help Youth Obtain Employment


Selection Activities included those supports provided by the ReEntry Counselor once the job lead

had been identified including transporting the youth to the interview (23%), assisting the youth

with the completion of the application (17%), coaching the youth on clarifying employer

expectations and job functions during the interview (5%) and serving as a reference (1%).

I. Direct ReEntry Services to Help Youth Maintain Employment

When asked to identify key activities directed to helping the youth maintain employment, ReEntry

Counselors most often listed “providing performance feedback and coaching” as the primary service

they provided to help youth on their caseloads maintain employment. (See Figure B-7 for a summary

of the 10 ten categories used to organize the 53 responses.).

23%

19%

17%

13%

8%

8%

6%

4%

2%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%


Performance Feedback & Coaching

Address Transportation

Support and Encouragement

Problem-Solving

Monitor Attendance

Monitor Compliance

Contact with Employer

Encourage Family Support

Monitor Appearance

Money Management

ReEntry Services to Help Youth Maintain Employment

Figure B-7: ReEntry Services to Help Youth Maintain Employment

The next focus of ReEntry included addressing transportation issues (19%). A lack of transportation

options was frequently cited in all three survey chapters as a barrier to gainful youth employment.


ReEntry Counselors identified additional direct services including providing support and

encouragement (17%), assisting with problem solving workplace problems with the youth (13%),

monitoring compliance with service contract and court ordered sanctions (8%), monitoring

attendance and punctuality (8%), maintaining contact with the employer (6%), encouraging family

support (4%), monitoring appearance (2%) and teaching money management (2%).

J. ReEntry Reports of Primary Reasons Employers Do Not Hire Youth

ReEntry Counselors were asked to share responses received from employers who would not hire a

youth on their caseload. The 49 reasons were organized into eleven categories as illustrated in Figure

B-8.

29%

14%

14%

10%

8%

8%

6%

4%

2%

2%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%


Criminal Background

Appearance

Experience

Attitude

Age

Anticipate Poor Work Habits

Academic Skills

Social Skills

Incomplete Application

Lack of Self Confidence

Not Hiring

ReEntry Reasons Why Employers Won't Hire Youth

Figure B-8: ReEntry Reasons Why Employers Won’t Hire Youth When asked to identify responses received from employers who chose not to hire a youth on their

caseload, ReEntry Counselors noted that employers most frequently cited the criminal arrest record

(29%) as the reason for not hiring a youth on their caseload followed by a lack of relevant experience


(14%), poor appearance and presentation (14%), poor attitude (10%), age (8%), anticipation of

poor work habits (8%), concern for poor work habits (8%-and including problems with attendance,

production, attention to the job), lack of basic academic skills (6%), and a lack of social skills (4 %).

Other factors cited by employers for not hiring a youth on ReEntry included providing an

incomplete application (2%), lack of self-confidence in the interview (2%), or that the employer is

not currently hiring (2%).

K. ReEntry Reports of Primary Reasons Employers Fire Youth

ReEntry staff members were asked to share primary reasons why youth on their caseload have been

fired from employment. The 56 responses were organized into 13 categories illustrated in Figure B-9.

20%18%

14%

9%

7%

7%

5%

4%

4%

4%

3%

3%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%


Absenteeism

Failure to Report

Tardiness

Irresponsible

Discovery of Background

Poor Attitude

Stealing

Failure to Complete Tasks

Failure to Follow Directions

Workplace Disruption

Lack of Social Skills

Lack of Transportation

Socializing

ReEntry Reasons Why Employers Fire Youth

Figure B-9: ReEntry Reasons Why Employers Fire Youth


The primary reason for termination was excessive absences (20%), followed by a failure to report to

work (18%), tardiness (14%), lack of responsibility and initiative (9%), and learning of the criminal

background after the hiring decision (7%). Additional reasons for termination included lack of

motivation or poor attitude (7%), stealing (5%), failing to complete tasks (4%) failing to follow

instructions (4%), and behaviors that disrupted the workplace (4%). A lack of social skills (3%),

lack of transportation to get to work (3%), and too much socializing during the workday (1%) were

also cited as reasons.

L. ReEntry Efforts to Prepare Employers to Work with Youth

The ReEntry Counselors were asked to identify how they prepared employers to work with the

youth on their caseload. Figure B-10 summarizes their responses.

47%

15%

12%

6%

6%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%


Nothing

Explain Services

Advocate for Hire

Monitor Youth and Meet with Employer

Assist with Job Training

Encourage Parent Involvement

Assist in Employer/Employee Communications

Partner with Workforce Board

Provide References

Partner to Build Employer Relationships

ReEntry Efforts to Prepare Employers to Work With Youth

Figure B-10: ReEntry Efforts to Prepare Employers to Work with Youth


Note that a large majority of ReEnty Counselors (47%) reported that they did nothing to prepare

the employer. Approximately 15% of the ReEntry Counselors reported that they met with the

employers to explain the specific services of the program. Twelve percent of the Counselors reported

advocating for the hiring of the youth with the employer and 6% of counselors agreed to monitor

youth progress and regularly meet with the employer. Other efforts included assisting the employer

with job training (6%), getting parents to support the employment effort (3%), assist the youth and

employer with communication problems or conflicts (3%), partner with the workforce board (3%),

provide references (3%), and work with other resources to build employer relationships (3%).

M. Instructions to Disclose or Not Disclose Delinquency History

Figure B-11 summarizes ReEntry Counselors’ responses to the question “ How do you advise youth

to handle their previous delinquency history in the job interview?” When asked how ReEntry

Counselors instruct youth on their caseloads with delinquency histories, 61% indicated that they

instructed the client to openly share their backgrounds. They further instructed the clients to be

open and honest and to stress what has changed in their lives and behaviors since their arrest.

ReEntry Instructions Regarding Disclosure of Criminal Record

Instructed to Deny Background,

3%

Don't Disclose, 39%

Disclose Only If Asked,

6%

Instructed Not to Disclose, 18%

Disclose, 61%

Remind It is Not Required,

12%

Figure B-11: ReEntry Instructions Regarding Disclosure of Criminal Record


In contrast, 39% of the ReEntry Counselors reported that they instructed youth on their caseload

not to disclose. Of those instructing non-disclosure, 18% instruct their clients not to disclose under

any circumstances, 6% instructed the youth to disclose only if directly asked about their history and

3% instructed their clients to deny the background if asked. Twelve percent remind the youth that

since they are juveniles (and if they don’t have adult charges), their records are sealed and, therefore,

they are not required to disclose or, when asked if they have been convicted, ReEntry Counselors

instructed them “to answer ‘no’ as “they have not been convicted—they have been adjudicated.”

Note, however, that discovery of a criminal background after the hire was a reason ReEnty

Counselors reported youth on their caseload were terminated.

This has significant policy implications for agencies working with youthful offenders in transition.

In the employer interviews (see Appendix A), employers indicated an increased willingness to

consider a youth with a delinquency background for a position if they “were open and honest about

their past offenses.” Most of the employers reported in both the survey and the Executive

Roundtable that the concept of “sealed juvenile records” is a false one. Most employers are able to

obtain criminal records of applicants—regardless of whether or not the charge was for a juvenile

offense. Employers recommended that Youth Case Workers assist the youth in obtaining a copy of

their own background check and to be prepared with a plan to address the issues openly and

honestly. One of the employer survey participants noted that “A criminal record is not an

automatic disqualification—but a failure to disclose it is.”

Y-Works Project Youth Survey Report: Appendix C Page C-1

APPENDIX C YOUTH SURVEY SUMMARY


A. Instrument ........................................................................................................................... 3 B. Survey Protocol .................................................................................................................... 3 C. Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................... 4 D. Survey Size and Participant Selection ................................................................................... 4

1. Age of Youth Participants.................................................................................................... 4 2. Ethnicity of Youth Participants ........................................................................................... 5 3. Gender of Participants.......................................................................................................... 5 4. City of Residence of Participants.......................................................................................... 5

II. FINDINGS................................................................................................................................. 6 A. Youth Employment Status ................................................................................................... 6 B. Youth in First Jobs ............................................................................................................... 7

II. Responses of Employed Youth ................................................................................................. 7 A. Finding Employment ........................................................................................................... 7 B. Type of Employment ........................................................................................................... 8

1. Description of Job Type...................................................................................................... 8 2. Description of Full-Time or Part-Time Status..................................................................... 9 3. Time in Job......................................................................................................................... 9 4. Requested Workplace Assistance ....................................................................................... 10 5. Job Preparation ................................................................................................................. 11 6. Youth Activities to Help Job Performance......................................................................... 12 7. Youth Enjoyment of Current Job...................................................................................... 12

III. Responses of Unemployed Youth ....................................................................................... 13 A. Youth Reasons for Unemployment .................................................................................... 13 B. Previous Employment Status.............................................................................................. 14 C. Activities to Prepare for Employment................................................................................. 14

1. Classes, Programs and Experiences ..................................................................................... 14 2. Current Job Search Status and Activities ............................................................................ 15

IV. Combined Youth Responses............................................................................................... 16 A. Youth Perceptions of What Employers Are Looking For in Job Applicants ........................ 16 B. Youth Suggestions to Improve Workplace Success ............................................................. 17

1. Suggestions for Employers................................................................................................. 17 2. Suggestions for Teachers and Schools................................................................................ 18


TABLE OF FIGURES Figure C-1: Ethnicity of Youth Participants .................................................................................... 5 Figure C-2: Youth Primary City of Residence ................................................................................ 6 Figure C-3: Employment Status of Youth Participants .................................................................... 6 Figure C-4: Percentage of Youth in First Jobs .................................................................................. 7 Figure C-5: Youth Reports of How They Found Current Job ......................................................... 7 Figure C-6: Youth Description of Job Type ..................................................................................... 8 Figure C-7: Youth Description of Job Type: Hours Worked.......................................................... 9 Figure C-8: Youth Requested Workplace Assistance...................................................................... 10 Figure C-9: Youth Job Preparation Activities ................................................................................ 11 Figure C-10: Youth Activities to Help Work Performance ............................................................. 12 Figure C-11: Youth Reasons for Not Working............................................................................... 13 Figure C-12: Previous Employment Status of Youth Not Currently Working............................... 14 Figure C-13: Activities to Help Youth Success upon Employment ................................................. 15 Figure C-14: Youth Steps to Obtain Employment ........................................................................ 16 Figure C-15: Youth Perceptions of What Employers are Seeking in Applicants............................. 17 Figure C-16: Youth Recommendations to Employers: to Increase Youth Workplace Success ........ 18 Figure C-17: Youth Recommendations for Teachers to Increase Workplace Success ..................... 19


APPENDIX C

YOUTH SURVEY SUMMARY

I. METHODOLOGY

A. Instrument

Youth interviews used a 27-item survey instrument comprised of open-ended response items

administered to youth receiving services from the YMCA of the Suncoast (YMCA) or Eckerd Youth

Alternatives (EYA). Youth were asked by their Case Worker to share experiences and perceptions

about:

Current and prior work experience.

What information or skills they wished they knew in order to help them at their current job.

Classes, experiences or other events that they believe helped them with their work performance

or will help them be successful once they obtain employment.

How they prepared themselves for employment.

The processing of finding a job.

Perceptions of what employers are looking for in an applicant for a position and the employer’s

expectations of the employee once hired.

What employers could do to help youth be more successful in their first few weeks on the job.

What teachers or schools could have done to help them be more prepared for the job.

B. Survey Protocol

The Youth surveys were administered face-to-face by Youth Case Workers and Supervisory staff

from the YMCA and EYA. Case Workers from both agencies were trained on the protocol for

interviewing the youth in two separate one-hour sessions. The protocol included a description of

the survey, why it was being performed, the goals of the project, and clarification that no

confidential or identifying information would be recorded or shared. Each youth was provided a

document that included a written purpose statement of the inquiry, the contact person names and

phone numbers of researchers and provider personnel who could answer questions, and clarification


that the youth was not required to participate in the study. All informed consent and participation

procedures required by the two partner agencies were followed.

The average time for completion of the survey was 16 minutes with a range from 6 minutes to 30

minutes (note that approximately 45% of the Youth Case Workers did not record the duration of

the interview). Youth Case Workers were instructed to conduct the interviews at the program, in

the youth’s home, at a community center (e.g., library meeting room) or other location with

minimal distractions and allowed for privacy.


Each of the individual responses to the survey questions were entered into a database and at least two

principal researchers independently categorized the findings for responses to all open-ended

questions to ensure inter-rater reliability. Descriptive statistics were used to describe survey results.


The sample was comprised of 151 youth receiving services from Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. or

the YMCA of the Suncoast. Youth resided in one of ten Florida Counties including Broward, Dade,

Monroe, Brevard, Palm Beach, Pinellas, St. Lucie, Indian River, Okeechobee or Martin counties.

Participants were identified by YMCA and EYA leadership in consultation with the principal

researchers who requested youth representing a wide diversity of living environments and risk issues.

YMCA youth were involved in services at the Highpoint branch including a structured after-

school prevention program to help students increase self-confidence, develop group interaction,

gain a sense of responsibility, improve academic and personal achievement and build character.

EYA youth were adjudicated for delinquency and sentenced to the EYA conditional release

(ReEntry) program as a condition of their court order. The ReEntry program is designed to

assist the youth in preparing to leave a variety of secure juvenile justice treatment settings and

provide service coordination, supervision and support for up to a year following their release.

1. Age of Youth Participants

The average age of the youth was 16.5 years with a range of 13 years to 19 years. The median and

mode value was 17.


2. Ethnicity of Youth Participants

Figure C-1 illustrates the ethnicity of the youth survey sample. Fifty-four percent of the participants

were Black, 26% Caucasian, 14% Hispanic, 5% multi-racial and 1% Native American.

Ethnicity of Youth Participants (N=150)

Caucasian, 26%

Hispanic, 14%

Multi-Racial, 5%

Native American,

1%

Black, 54%

Figure C-1: Ethnicity of Youth Participants

3. Gender of Participants

The gender breakdown of youth participants was 80% male and 20% female.

4. City of Residence of Participants

Participants lived in one of 32 Florida cities. Figure C-2 illustrates cities with at least five represented

participants. West Palm Beach was the most frequently cited city of residence (15%), followed by

Clearwater (13%), Stuart (7%), Ft. Lauderdale (6%), Lake Worth (6%), Lauderhill (6%), Riveria

Beach (5%), Ft. Pierce (5%), and Sunrise (5%). Cities comprising the “other category” of 32%

included Bonita, Boynton, Broward, Cape Coral, Ft. Myers, Gifford, Greenacres, Inberrany, Jenson

Beach, Lehigh Acres, Margate, Martin, Naples, Oakland Park, Pahokee, Plantation, Pompano, Port

St. Lucie, Sebastian, South Bay, Tamarac, Vero and Winter Beach.


Youth Primary City of Residence

Clearwater13%

Stuart7%

Other32%

Sunrise5%

Ft. Pierce4%

West Palm Beach15%

Riviera Beach5%

Lauderhill6%

Lake Worth6%

Ft.Lauderdale6%

Figure C-2: Youth Primary City of Residence

II. FINDINGS

A. Youth Employment Status

Thirty-three percent of the youth sample reported to their Youth Case Worker that they were

currently employed (See Figure C-3).

Employment Status of Youth Participants

Working, 33%

Not Working, 67%

Figure C-3: Employment Status of Youth Participants


B. Youth in First Jobs

Of the 50 youth who reported that they are currently employed, 53% identified that this was their

first job (See Figure C-4).

Percentage of Employed Youth in First Jobs

First Job, 53%

Not First Job, 47%

Figure C-4: Percentage of Youth in First Jobs

II. RESPONSES OF EMPLOYED YOUTH

A. Finding Employment

Youth were asked by their Youth Case Worker to describe how they found out about their current

job. Results are summarized in Figure C-5.

Youth Reports of How They Found Current Job

ReEntry Counselor

7%

Word of Mouth7%

Relative31%

Walk In14%

Friend38%

Paper3%

Figure C-5: Youth Reports of How They Found Current Job


Note that the majority of youth found out about the job opportunity through a friend (38%) or a

relative (31%). Walking into a business to inquire about employment comprised 14% of the

responses followed by word of mouth (7%), the ReEntry Counselor (7%), and responding to an

advertisement in the paper (3%).

B. Type of Employment

1. Description of Job Type

When asked to describe their current job, youth responses fell into one of fifteen job types. Figure

C-6 summarizes these responses. The majority of youth were employed in the restaurant industry as

waiters, waitresses, cooks or crew members. The majority of restaurant related jobs were in fast food

establishments (cashiers in food service establishments were placed into a separate job category).

The next most represented job type was the cleaning industry (15%) which was comprised of various

job titles including housekeeper, custodial worker, janitor, and dry cleaning and laundry worker.

Youth Description of Job Type

Ticket Collector2%

Counselor2%

Landscaper2%

Handyman8%

Telemarketing2%

Clerical4%

Maintenance4%

Professional2%

Construction10%

Retail4%

Restaurant20%Cashier

13%Cleaning15%

Bagging/Grocery8%

Dish Washing/Bus4%

Figure C-6: Youth Description of Job Type

Youth reported a job as a cashier (13%) as the next most represented job type in the sample, with the

majority of positions as restaurant cashiers. Construction jobs (10%) included a variety of positions


in the building trades such as electrical apprentices, plumbing assistants, plasterers, masonry

assistants and framers. Grocery jobs, particularly baggers, and handyman positions each comprised

8% of total job types reported by the youth. Other job types listed by the youth included

maintenance (4%-primarily general and automotive maintenance positions), clerical (4%), dish

washing and table bussing (4%), retail sales and inventory positions (4%-typically referencing

positions with Wal-Mart), telemarketers (2%), landscapers (2%), counselor (2%--PAL Peer

Counselor), ticket collector (2%), and professional (2%-training account executive).

2. Description of Full-Time or Part-Time Status

Of those youth reporting that they were currently employed, 55% were working part-time while

45% were working full-time as illustrated in Figure C-7.

Youth Description of Job Type: Hours Worked

Part Time, 55%

Full Time, 45%

Figure C-7: Youth Description of Job Type: Hours Worked

3. Time in Job

The length of time in job reported by the employed youth in the sample ranged from one day to two

years. The average time in job was 114 days. The median time in job was 60 days and the mode

value was 90 days.


4. Requested Workplace Assistance

Youth who reported that they were currently employed were asked to identify what subjects they

wished they knew more about, or tasks they knew how to do, in order to help them in their current

job. The responses of the 51 employed youth are summarized in Figure C-8.

Youth Requested Workplace Assistance

More Experience6%

Unsure3%

Everything6%

Job Specific Information

24%


6%

Basic Skills

9%

Other Technical

6%

Personal Qualities

3%

Nothing28%

Computers9%

Figure C-8: Youth Requested Workplace Assistance Note that the largest number of responses were that the youth needed no additional information to

help them in their current job (28%), followed by 24% of the youth requesting a range of job-

specific information, including mixing chemicals, more advanced electrical wiring, and other aspects

of house construction. Nine percent of the youth requested assistance with Basic Skills1 and

specifically responses requesting more math assistance. For example, youth indicated needing more

math knowledge to be able to calculate carpentry cuts and angles, calculating areas, lengths and

widths, and basic money management. Six percent of the youth requested assistance and

information with Interpersonal Skills, including dealing with customers. Nine percent of the youth

requested additional training with computers, followed by other technical training (6%) which

1 Titles in Bold represent a category of Foundational Skills and Workplace Competencies identified in the SCANS model described in the main body of the report.


included training in the use of types of workplace machinery and equipment. Six percent of youth

indicated that they needed “more experience” and 6% of youth described that they wish they knew

more about “everything” in order to do their current job. Other responses included information or

assistance with Personal Qualities (3%) including patience, and 3% were unsure about what they

needed.

5. Job Preparation

When asked how they prepared for their job, 22% of youth reported that their friends helped them

prepare for their first day on the job while 22% reported that they did “nothing” to prepare. Nine

percent reported that they prepared for their jobs through participation in on-the-job training, 9%

reported that their family helped them to prepare, 9% prepared by reading the employee manual and

9% prepared by reading other job specific books. Four percent prepared by taking job-specific

classes at vocational/technical schools, 4% prepared by observing others, 4% prepared by purchasing

or preparing clothing required for the position and 9% prepared in other ways (e.g. “I practiced

getting up on time,” “I prepared by getting a good night’s sleep.”) See Figure C-9 for an illustration

of responses by activity type.

Youth Job Preparation Activities

Classes, 4%

Friend Assisted,

22%Purchased Clothing,

4%

OJT, 9%Other,

9%

Nothing, 22%

Observing Others,

4%

Reading Employee

Manual, 9%

Family Instruction,

9%

Reading Job Specific Books,

9%

Figure C-9: Youth Job Preparation Activities


6. Youth Activities to Help Job Performance

Currently employed youth were asked to identify what classes, experiences or other events they

believe helped them with their work performance. Responses are summarized in Figure C-10.

Youth Activities to Help Work Performance

Self-Taught2%

Residential Program

2%ReEntry training

2%Watching Others

5%

Prior Experience

7%

Other2%

Nothing32%

Family Instruction

12%Employer

5%

School Instruction

31%

Figure C-10: Youth Activities to Help Work Performance As illustrated in Figure C-10, the majority of youth responded by saying “nothing” helped them with

their work performance (32%) while 31% credited school vocational or academic instruction as

helping them with their work performance. Twelve percent of participants credited family

instruction, 7% credited their own prior experience, 5% identified their employer, and 5% noted

that watching others helped their performance. Other responses included self taught (2%),

residential program instruction (2%), ReEntry training (2%), and other activities (2%-including

weight training).

7. Youth Enjoyment of Current Job

Of those youth currently employed, 69% said they enjoyed their current job while 31% said that

they did not. Youth who responded that they enjoyed their jobs identified the people at work and

the pay as the primary reasons for their enjoyment while others reported that it was the specific job


tasks, workplace fun, learning or keeping busy. Youth who did not enjoy their current jobs typically

cited the pay or the task as the reason for their lack of enjoyment.

III. RESPONSES OF UNEMPLOYED YOUTH

A. Youth Reasons for Unemployment

Youth who were currently not working (identified earlier as 67% of the youth sample) were asked to

identify the primary reasons why they were not working. Their responses are summarized in Figure

C-11.

Unemployed Youth Reasons for Not Working

School/Sports Conflict

22%

Transportation Issues

21%No license/ID

9%Recently Fired7%

Family issues7%

Inexperience7%

Age7%

Looking4%

Under House Arrest4%

Have Not Applied4%

Residential Status4%

Disability2%

Don't Know2%

Figure C-11: Youth Reasons for Not Working The largest category of responses from unemployed youth involved conflicts with other school and

sports activities (22%) or transportation issues (21%) as the reason they are currently not working.

The absence of a license or I.D. required by companies to qualify for employment was cited by 9%

of the sample followed by responses that included being recently fired (7%), family issues (7%),

inexperience (7%), age (7%), currently looking (4%), under house arrest (4%), not having recently


applied (4%), residential status not formalized (4%-citizenship related) and having a disability (2%).

Finally, two percent of the sample did not know why they were unemployed.

B. Previous Employment Status

Previous Employment Status of Youth Not Currently Working

Previously Employed,

38%Not Previously

Employed, 62%

Figure C-12: Previous Employment Status of Youth Not Currently Working

Figure C-12 illustrates that 38% of the currently unemployed youth have previously been employed.

Of those youth who had previous employment, 29% reported that the jobs were full-time and 71%

reported that the jobs were part-time.

C. Activities to Prepare for Employment

1. Classes, Programs and Experiences

Unemployed youth were asked to identify the classes, experiences or programs that they believed

would help them to be successful once they obtained employment. Twenty-seven percent of youth

reported that specific job skills training would help them be successful while 19% reported that

remedial basic education (particularly in the areas of math and writing) would help them be

successful. Other responses included career education (12%), ReEntry Program (8%), displaying

appropriate job behaviors at the workplace (5%), sports (5%), other youth programs (3%), and

anger management training (2%). Two percent indicated other events and experiences that would


help them be successful (including “working out and lifting weights,” “taking a diving class”). See

Figure C-13.

Activities to Help Youth Success Upon Employment

Other2%

Other Youth Programs

3%

Career Education

4%

OJT 17%

Sports5%Job Skills Training

27%

Appropriate Job Behaviors

5%

Basic Educational Skills19%

Anger Management

2%ReEntry Program

8%

Figure C-13: Activities to Help Youth Success upon Employment

2. Current Job Search Status and Activities

Seventy-seven percent of the youth sample that are unemployed indicated that they are actively

searching for work. Twenty-one percent are not currently looking. Of those unemployed youth

currently looking for jobs, most (31%) reported that they were looking for work by researching

newspaper want ads (See Figure C-14). Other activities for finding employment included obtaining

a social security card, driver’s license or other form of legal identification (29%), cold calling or

visiting businesses (11%), calling employers back after making the initial contact (7%), researching

job possibilities on the Internet (7%), ensuring proper grooming and attire when job hunting (4%),

completing and submitting applications (4%), visiting the One-Stop Center (2%), asking family and

friends for assistance in the job search (2%), and attending a job fair (1%). The category of “other”

comprised 2% of the youth responses and appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the question.

One youth responded that “laziness” would help him obtain work; another responded that he would

obtain work by “quitting.”


Youth Steps to Obtain Employment

Get SS Card or ID29%

Look on Internet7%

Grooming4%

Asking Family & Friends

2%

Call Them Back7%Other

2%

One Stop Center2%

Job Fair1%Read Ads

31%

Calling & Going to Businesses

11%

Put in Applications

4%

Figure C-14: Youth Steps to Obtain Employment

IV. COMBINED YOUTH RESPONSES

A. Youth Perceptions of What Employers Are Looking For in Job Applicants

The full youth sample (N=151) were asked to identify what they believed employers were looking

for in an applicant. Youth generated 270 responses that were organized into eight primary categories

and illustrated in Figure C-15. Sixty-nine percent of the total responses included a reference to a

Personal Quality including being on time, respectful, motivated, friendly, responsible, self-directed,

reliable, trustworthy, clean, accountable, helpful, having a good attitude and a strong work ethic.

The next category of most listed responses was personal appearance (12%). (Note that in the other

appendices and in the main body of this report—appearance was included as a personal quality under the

SCANS model—the principal researchers have separated appearance into its own category given the

number of individual responses). Prior Experience (9%) was third followed by Basic Skills (6%-and

including social skills, grammar, basic communication and language, legible handwriting), Technical

Skills (4%), Thinking Skills (2 %), Interpersonal Competencies (.6%-including teamwork and

customer concern). The applicant’s availability (.4%) was the least cited factor identified by the

youth sample.


Youth Perceptions of What Employers are Seeking in Applicants

Prior Experience,

9.0%

Thinking Skills, 2.0%

Technical Skills, 4.0%

Appearance, 12.0%

Basic Skills, 6.0%

Availability, 0.4%

Interpersonal Skills, 0.6%

Personal Qualities, 69.0%

Figure C-15: Youth Perceptions of What Employers are Seeking in Applicants

B. Youth Suggestions to Improve Workplace Success

1. Suggestions for Employers

Youth were asked how employers could help a youth become more successful in their first few weeks

on the job. Youth identified 143 responses that were categorized into six primary categories. These

categories and the corresponding response percentage are summarized in Figure C-16.

The majority of youth responses identified on-the-job training (61%) as a way employers could help

youth be more successful during their first few weeks on the job. Fifteen percent of the responses

identified being more welcoming and encouraging, followed by the employer providing job

shadowing (9%), Other (8%-\including a range of responses including “pay me right,” and “be

patient with me”), followed by teaching team work and other interpersonal skills (4%), doing

nothing (2%), and offering more flexible work hours (1%).


Youth Recommendations to Employers to Increase Youth Workplace Success

Nothing2%

Welcome & Encourage

15%

Flexible Work Hours

1%

Other8%

Teach Teamwork & Interpersonal

Skills4%

Shadow & Explain

9%

OJT61%

Figure C-16: Youth Recommendations to Employers: to Increase Youth Workplace Success

2. Suggestions for Teachers and Schools

Youth were asked to identify what they believe their teachers or other school personnel could have

done to assist them in being more prepared for work. Youth provided 140 responses that were

organized into nine categories as illustrated in Figure C-17.

The largest category of responses was for more hands-on career development support (28%). This

category of responses included a range of career exploration activities including assessment of youth

interests and aptitudes, and exploration of career paths and options. Specific job skills training

(19%) was the second highest category of responses and comprised job seeking and readiness

activities including a theme for more hands-on and “real world” workplace activities in the

classroom. Other response categories included more training on interpersonal skills such as

teamwork and working with customers (10%), better teaching methods (6%), individualized


instruction (6%), basic education instruction (5%-including specific reference to more math and

writing assistance), training on independent living skills (4%), and other (3%) including responses

that were vague or unclear such as “help them,” and “train them.” Finally, 19% of the youth

responded that they did not know of any ways that teachers and the school could have helped them

prepare for work.

Youth Recommendations For Teachers To Increase Youth Workplace Success

Other3%

Better Teaching Methods

6%

Nothing/Don't Know

19%

Basic Education

5%

Independent Living4%

Career Development

28%

Interpersonal Skills 10%

Job Skills19%

Individualized Instruction

6%

Figure C-17: Youth Recommendations for Teachers to Increase Workplace Success

Y-Works Project Best Practices Summary: Appendix D Page 1

APPENDIX D BEST PRACTICES SUMMARY

The National Youth Employment Coalition has researched and published a list of promising and effective practices (PEP) through its PEPNet project, a system and an information base for identifying and promoting what works in youth employment and development. Other organizations have published their own lists of promising practices and best practice programs.

The Y-Works Project has reviewed the PEPNet list and other such lists and has selected from among those lists projects which appear to embody the principles and components that the project research indicates are critical to helping youth, the agencies that work with them and employers find employment that is a successful pathway from delinquency and other at-risk behaviors.

The Y-Works Project references programs that are provided by nonprofit agencies, school systems, government agencies and trade/business associations. The Y-Works Project references programs that place expectations on youth, their staff and their employer partners.

Further the Y-Works Project has elected to reference programs which:

1. Focus on the short term goal of securing livable wage employment and long term goals for sustained employment as well as advancement at work.

2. Reach these goals through:

a. A continuum of services and support including job preparation, job placement and job follow-up.

b. Support of educational success.

c. Involve the youth in the creation of an individual work readiness and work success plan.

d. Partnership with and recognition of the education, soft skills, entry level hard skills and workplace literacy expectations of, trade associations and/or employers.

e. Preparation that is experiential or which mimics the real work environment of living wage employment.

f. Development of, and placement in, jobs:

• with employer partners where job expectations are clear;

• where the employer is committed to successful employment of youth;

• where personal motivations and needs of the youth can be met; and

• in geographic area where transportation, child care or other support needs can be successfully addressed.

g. Post placement workforce readiness activities and assistance resolving barriers to success.

3. Secure and/or train staff well versed in youth development and job development, and with an ability to build relationships not only with youth but also with employer and community service partners.

BEST PRACTICES

Program and Website Target Population

Program Goals Program Components Program Outcomes


Career Exploration Project (part of the Court Employment Project) An intensive employment internship program for young offenders. www.cases.org A program of the State of New York’s Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services.

First time felony offenders ages 13 to 20 living in low income neighborhoods of New York City.

To help young people identify and build on their strengths, so that they have the skills and self-confidence they need to exit the justice system as responsible, productive members of their communities.

• Employment readiness training • Conflict resolution workshops • Three month internship • On-going classes during internship • Transition planning • Linkage to vocational training and community

based programs • Alumni activities

Worked since graduating from program Pursued education Obtained high school diploma or GED

57% 81% 24%

Casa Verde Builders Program A service program that integrates youth employment/ development with innovative environmentally sensitive building practices. http://www.americanyouthworks.org/cvb.html A Youth Build program - See also: www.youthbuild.org

At risk (at promise) youth ages 17 -25 in Austin and Travis Counties of Texas. All have dropped out of school, been involved with the criminal justice system or come from low-income families.

To raise the quality of life in economically disadvantaged communities and to promote the citizenship, education and employment skills development of participants.

• Onsite construction training activities (50%) a. Basic masonry b. Roofing c. Drywall hanging and finishing d. Painting e. Concrete flatwork f. Foundations g. Sustainable building techniques

• Crew team a. Self identity – team building – problem

solving • Gender based support groups • Home Depot partnership – attend new employee

orientation • Educational activities at Charter High School

(50%) a. Academic b. Foundation skills c. Career preparation d. Project based community learning

• Career resource center • Peer trainer – opportunity to advance and learn

leadership

Percentage completing program Percentage completing program who were enrolled in school or working at $7.00+ per hour

60% 80%

BEST PRACTICES




Community Youth Corps A work-based learning environment that promotes self development. www.selaco.com A program of the Southeast Los Angeles County Workforce Investment Board.

Ages 16 – 21 who live near poverty line and/or in an area of high unemployment.

To provide ongoing education, motivational support and workplace and life skills instruction to at risk, out of school youth so that they may eventually obtain gainful employment and become productive citizens within the community.

• Five integrated components: a. Assessment b. Education c. Personal and leadership development d. Work experience and e. Placement services

• Formal week long orientation to communicate expectations and assess job readiness

• Collaboration with colleges and vocational institutions

• Collaboration with service agencies to engage youth and families

• Job Fair and job shadowing programs • Four career tracks

a. Construction b. Education c. General office d. Health care

Fresh Start A project-based skills training program helps young offenders learn by doing. www.livingclassrooms.org A program of the Living Classrooms Foundation – Baltimore, MD.

Youth offenders and other high-risk out-of-school youth ages 16-19.

To empower and motivate youth to learn by doing so they will succeed academically, in the workplace and in their lives.

• Non-residential – 40 week skills training program • Intensive job readiness program • Academic remediation • Life skills development • Job placement • Maritime work projects • Five modules

a. Toolbox b. Production c. Boat Building d. Work-Study e. Internship-to-Employment

• Long term follow up a. Uses maritime setting to provide hands on

education and training. • Partnerships with local colleges and tuition

assistance based on grades earned

Recidivism three years Percentage of participants in other Maryland DJJ programs rearrested Percentage of graduates employed or continuing education upon program graduation Percentage of graduates employed or continuing education three years after program Average rate of pay for employed Fresh Start graduates

23% 75% 100% 80% $7.67

BEST PRACTICES




Gulf Coast Trades Center Successful youth corrections model addresses personal, social, educational and employment issues. www.gctcw.org Private non-profit program started in 1971 as a collaboration with City of Houston- Model Cities, the AFL-CIO and private individuals.

Adjudicated youth ages 16-19.

To promote the social and economic independence of disadvantaged youth.

• Residential academic and vocational training program

• Trades training – Marketable skills a. Automotive Technology b. Building Maintenance c. Building Trades d. Culinary Arts e. Horticulture f. Masonry/ Bricklaying g. Milling and Cabinet Making h. Painting and Decorating i. Technical Introduction j. Desktop Publishing

• Charter school education program • Job placement

a. Master 11 DOL workplace competencies • Life skills training

a. Driver’s education b. Independent living c. Leadership development

• Comprehensive counseling • Aftercare job development • Aftercare transitional services

Percentage of youth re-arrested Percentage completing program Percentage of program completers employed upon completion Average wage

16% 84% 70% $6.25

Jobs for America’s Graduates (Model delivered through state affiliates.) www.jag.org Services designed to help youth graduate from high school and secure a job leading to career advancement opportunities.

Youth ages 15 through 21 at risk of not completing high school.

To help young people graduate from high school and secure a job leading to career advancement opportunities and/or pursue postsecondary education.

• Classroom instruction • Employability skills training • Adult mentoring • Guidance and counseling • Summer employment training • Leadership development • Jobs and post secondary education placement • Linkages to school and community based services • 12 month follow up services

Program Graduation Rate (# Graduates e # of Participants) Positive Outcome (# Employed + # FT Military + # FT Enrolled in post secondary e # of Graduates) Full Time Placement Rate (# FT Employed + # FT Military + PT Work combined with School e # of Employed Grads)

85% 72% 88%

BEST PRACTICES




YouthBuild U.S.A. (Services delivered by 200+ local Youth Build programs) Unleashing the positive energy of low-income young people to rebuild their communities and their lives. www.youthbuild.org National nonprofit agency supporting a network of local providers delivering the program model.

Youth from low income families Average age 19.2.

• Six to twelve months • Work Experience

a. Qualified construction instructors b. Construct or rehabilitate homes

• Education a. High School, Vocational, College, GED prep. b. Small class size / one-on-one attention c. Integrates academics and life skills

• Job Training a. Work habits b. Decision making and time management skills c. Career planning and interviewing skills

• Leadership Development a. Learn to advocate for issues b. Responsibility for self and family c. Participate in program governance

• Counseling – Regularly scheduled sessions a. Child care issues b. Transportation issues c. Substance abuse issues

• Post graduate support

Percentage graduating from program Percentage placed in jobs or school Average wage after program

59% 82% $7.99

Los Angeles Youth Opportunity Movement A collaboration of community organizations and agencies to help at-risk youth. http://layo.org/ A program of the City of Los Angeles, California

Youth ages 14 to 21 residing in designated empowerment zones or other designated Los Angeles neighborhoods.

To promote youth achievement by working with families and community partners to create opportunities for youth to reach their education, employment and personal development goals.

• Individual development plan and goal setting • Pre-placement

a. Job readiness training b. GED, College/SAT preparation c. Internships d. Subsidized employment e. Short-term occupational skills training f. Reading/math remediation.

• Youth development a. Community service b. Sports/recreation c. Support groups d. Peer to peer mentoring e. Life skills training f. Secondary school extracurricular activities

• Business mentorship council

Remained in secondary or post-secondary school Enrolled in two or four year college programs Earned their high school diploma or GED Were placed in unsubsidized employment for first time

70% 12% 15% 18%

BEST PRACTICES




Our Piece of the Pie A youth business incubator sprouts new opportunities and new skills for youth. www.Scservices.com

Youth, ages 14-21 in Hartford, CT. including in school, foster care and juvenile justice youth.

To inspire, mentor, and teach young people about the world of work and the many options available to them for economic self-sufficiency.

• Work/business experiences - Youth business incubator in various fields for example: a. Graphic arts b. Boat building c. Youth newspaper company d. Nail design e. Sound recording

• Job placement and job support • Employment readiness training • Entrepreneurship training

Percent in school or working after graduating from program

96%

Project Craft (Community Restitution Apprenticeship-Focused Training) A national trade organization addresses a shortage of skilled labor by helping court appointed youth prepare for careers in the residential construction industry. www.hbi.org A program model of the Home Builders Institute the nonprofit, workforce development division of the National Association of Home Builders. Services delivered through contract with state agencies.

Adjudicated youth at least 16 years old.

To improve educational levels, teach vocational skills and reduce recidivism among adjudicated youth, while addressing the home building industry’s need for entry level workers.

• Integrates a. Youth development strategies b. Vocational training c. Employability skills development d. Job placement assistance e. Follow-up

• 840 hours of training – six months a. 25% in classroom-related instruction b. 75% in community service/work-based

learning environment • Partnership building and linkages • Community involvement • Leadership development • Follow up support services • Comprehensive service delivery • Industry driven training • Job placement

Average wage upon placement Placement upon program graduation Recidivism rate

$8.58/hour 85% 10% to 15% depending upon location

BEST PRACTICES




Youth Career Program Intensive individual services for youth designed to help them be self-reliant and make positive life choices. www.workopportunities.net A youth program of Work Opportunities Unlimited a for profit human services organization contracting with state youth and human service agencies and school boards for delivery of services.

Youth, ages 13-21, either involved with or exhibit characteristics consistent with youth involved with the court system.

To help young people make positive decisions. Individualized approach to career exploration and work experience assists with personal development and success in life.

• Job is a modality for changing negative behaviors in youth.

• Support youth both on and off the job. Focus on an individualized, strength-based, client-centered approach to service delivery.

• Program activities include: a. Career exploration and assessment b. Volunteer/community service c. Daily contact with each youth d. Weekly consultations with the "family" e. Recreational activities f. Connections to positive adult role models g. Substance abuse awareness/anger management

Job placement Academic improvement Recidivism rate

57% 54% 15%

Y-Works Project Executive Roundtable Summary: Appendix E Page E- 1

APPENDIX E EXECUTIVE ROUNDTABLE SUMMARY

Strategy and Policy Implications of At-Risk Youth Employment

May 20, 2005

As the Y-Works project progressed, preliminary findings emerged that caused the researchers to seek

the collective strategic thinking of high level human resources executives from influential companies.

The Y-Works study was constructed in a way that would allow us to observe and consider the

apparent attitudes, ad hoc suggestions, and spontaneous and extemporaneous thoughts and ideas

that might be prompted by our face to face interview questions. We wanted to at least think about

what wasn’t said, while analyzing what was. The point of the project, after all, had to do with

raising consciousness and locating a starting point to make youth employment a better option and

better understood situation for the largest number of stakeholders.

We had assumed that the labor market of at-risk youth, like other labor markets, would be identified

by employers in the study as an important source of new employees. With labor shortages in the

U.S. and in Florida reaching critical levels, we thought that there would be strategic interest in

mining underutilized markets. However, many of the HR employer representatives that we spoke

with did not seem to consider the at-risk population as a market, either for jobs or, presumably then,

as customers for goods and services in the future.

We encountered some confusion when we asked executives who they thought was responsible for

preparing at-risk youth to become successful employees. It was apparent that almost no one thought

the government should be responsible. However, upon learning that many—if not most—of the

children we referenced in the study are actually in government custody, some respondents did not

seem to know how to react. The education system was not readily held accountable by executive

respondents, either, and was described as already overburdened and oriented to purposes other than

job preparation.

We did not get definitive responses about workforce preparation, or clear accountability. We then

sought to identify the stakeholders who should inform the process of job preparation. HR and

business owner respondents described themselves easily as sorters and organizers of the applicants

they receive, and as active in recruiting and other outreach functions that garner them qualified


candidates, but were less specific and less definitive about how applicants should be prepared.

Although personal qualities play a significant role in the selection and retention processes, for many

people and companies, character education is simply an unfamiliar curriculum. Similarly, definitive

work preparatory curriculum that takes place in a work-like setting and illustrates for participants the

manner in which selection and performance criteria are applied is extremely rare—and would require

the input of business partners to achieve a useful level of authenticity.

Last, we noted the absence of the ideal from the formal and informal responses of all the

participants. There was a general mood of low expectations and overall frustration at the condition

of youth and other first-time workers of today. Although we noted exceptions, overall there was

little excitement and there was little optimism in the language used to describe even the most

successful of any employer’s entry level workers.

With the help of Tech Data Corporation as host, we invited executives from some of the largest and

most influential area employers to participate in a two hour roundtable discussion along with project

researchers and our YMCA sponsors. We asked roundtable participants the following questions:

Why are at-risk youth important as a prospective future labor market?

Who is responsible for the process of preparing at-risk youth to become successful employees?

Who should inform the process of preparing at-risk youth to become successful employees?

If funding was not an issue, what would be the best process of preparing at-risk youth to be

successful in your workplace?

Why are at-risk youth important as a prospective future labor market?

Most importantly, the participants acknowledged at-risk youth as a labor market, confirming our

original assumption that employers who are strategic in their approach to the market would not

disregard this sizable and potentially valuable source of talent.

Participants cited the following major reasons why they are interested in this population:

Their companies are facing the loss of institutional knowledge as workers age and retire. Many

of these workers are crafts, trades, and technical workers who did not attend college, and must be

replaced with similarly trained vocational program completers.


There is a sizable need—just the sheer number of future jobs compared to the numbers or people

who will be available to fill them displays a gap. For large service employers, the numbers won’t

add up without the inclusion of every possible labor market.

Rehabilitated delinquent youth may actually have more potential than their risk-averse peers

because they understand consequences better. The learning allows them to approach work

differently and those differences are valuable.

Rehabilitated delinquent youth may have greater potential for honesty and loyalty than their

peers who have gotten away with petty crime or who have been spoiled by doting adults and

mentors.

Incrementally, any kids “saved” via the employment process will improve the workforce numbers

such that the case is made that each person counts.

The youth in this population are very important because they represent a demographic. Any

demographic that can be understood can be a marketing target. And, they are, perhaps, more

likely to be bilingual, having parents who speak a foreign language. Diversity is important to

companies that have multiple and diverse constituencies with whom they must communicate.

The youth in this population have important skill sets. They are creative. They are

entrepreneurial. They manage complex enterprises. They manage complex variables. If they

could learn to do that in an appropriate social context. . . . .

Participants in the discussion moved among three separate contexts: the compelling case for social

responsibility for children and youth, the strategic view of the youth as an economic asset, and the

drawing power of the corporate culture with which they interact as both strategist and service

provider. There was, despite the valuable strategic view of labor market realities, a keen awareness of

the specific reality and business risk of recruiting, selecting, and hiring unproven, uncertain, and

untamed young people.

In other words, yes, it makes strategic sense, and no, my company isn’t sure it wants to do this

because we have customers and shareholders who hold us accountable for the best business decisions.

In the short range, most of these individuals also express that the hiring manager will most often

make the selection call, not the HR strategist. Often, it is simply the decision that is most likely to

produce the best immediate results.


For us, this raises the importance of building the compelling short range business case that dovetails

with a company’s marketed image and that does not conflict with customer or shareholder

expectations. In short, youth have to be taught—by someone—to show they can get results, and

then they have to get results. Youth need a marketing plan that makes sense to business.

Who is responsible for the process of preparing at-risk youth to become successful employees?

It was quickly noted by one HR executive participant that obviously, the perception is that

“someone else” is helping these kids. There was no agreement, and there was no specific candidate

for who that “someone else” is. Interestingly, the Workforce Development system, the funded

public-private partnership intended to serve this population, did not spring to the forefront as the

logical candidate, although mentions of various services performed by that organization or one of the

regional affiliates entered the conversation from time to time. Similarly, schools and school districts

did not emerge as a clear choice for the provision of work preparatory education. One alternative

school’s program was acknowledged as a new and unproven model, but school as a work prep

provider was not an idea that gathered any support.

Philosophically, most everyone wanted to redefine the question, that is, “Who should be

responsible?” It should be parents, it should be the juvenile justice authorities, it should be the social

services system. The HR strategists echoed the business owner and executive survey respondents by

not saying, “Here’s who it is and here is who we hold accountable as businesses that need these

people.” They did say the following:

As businesses it is very hard for them to hire unprepared workers. In the workplace they apply

consequences when workers don’t show up or show up late, without asking why they didn’t

know to be where they were supposed to be at the right time.

It is always the same people trying to sell them involvement with youth issues or other welfare

issues, and always with a specific manner of involvement to sell. Social services leaders do not

understand how companies work. The picture they present is too overwhelming in scale and

scope, and that’s not how corporate America works. This has to be marketed and

compartmentalized so that a corporation can wrap their arms around it and make an impact.

There is a growing communication problem in that adults don’t know how to talk to and reach

kids with the right information in a language they understand and can react to. Youth and their


advisors and teachers don’t understand our business lexicon. Although employers have to find a

way to become part of the solution, they have not been well-guided by social service professionals

and teachers who have difficulties themselves with explaining business and corporate practices to

youth.

Responsibility for funding is a separate layer of this issue, however it is an important one.

Offering to help pay for the solution is a legitimate role, but a solution still has to be found

before it can be funded.

The discussion around this question revealed enormous opportunities and significant challenges.

On one hand, no one was blamed for an obvious shortfall, other than nameless faceless parents, but

on the other hand it is clear that these participants are not inclined to hold anyone or anything

accountable for workforce preparation, except in the end, perhaps the youth themselves. It was also

apparent that we, the researchers, might have fallen into the category of social service people who,

having presented the scope of the problem could not now get corporate arms to wrap around it. It is

clear that the best advice we got was to repackage and make the packaged problem and sought after

solution relevant and familiar to the employer. In short, we need a marketing plan.

We revised the question slightly in hope of getting a better and more definitive response, or at least a

volunteer for the role of informing the solution set.

Who, then, should inform the process of workforce or job preparation, and who are the shareholders

in this process?

Again, we heard frustration. These executives do not have a view of the youth as accessible neatly or

systematically, nor an understanding of the process by which youth in need receive services. They

are not familiar with privatization. This is social service and behavioral abstract or concept, presented

to black and white bottom line business leaders.

Companies need to get involved in the process, by getting involved in schools or agencies that

work with at-risk kids and helping to manage expectations, including dress, communication,

conflict resolution, and business practices as simple as sick pay or unpaid leave.

Junior Achievement was offered as a good basic model for workforce preparation, with the

further concrete suggestion that businesses and schools should set up a similar system.

Companies have had really bad experiences with volunteer business coaches, career day

instructors, and discussion leaders for “How to” sessions in school based forums.


The issue of who should do what is a fragmented issue with little relevance to business purpose

and some risk to the business/HR person who raises it in the context of business. It doesn’t seem

relevant to the employer. If a business goal is to be the best in the country and Ivy League

graduates are often turned away because they are not good enough, why would a company invest

in the less qualified?

The “movement” needs an influential leader, a vision of the transformed landscape, and a

process to deal with the change. Right now, it has a far-away feel to it, not a sense of urgency.

The issue is far more relevant to businesses with call centers and entry level workforces.

Planning along realistic time frames, in terms of budget and resources is a concern for most

businesses. When an issue like this one comes up, most businesses have to consider budget and

timeline. Whatever you want from a particular business has to be planned for.

There is evidence of disconnects between the way companies would advise a youth and the way

the case worker or counselor is advising youth.

The issues of alignment of expectations, language or lexicon, planning timelines and budgets,

realistic models, and a process by which leadership of a relevant movement might emerge began

to take shape.

Still not hearing either enthusiasm or a particularly hopeful view of how employers might get

involved in preparing at-risk youth for the workplace (any workplace), we took away any obstacles

and asked flat-out for the ideal:

If funding was not an issue, what would be the best process for preparing at-risk youth to be

successful in your workplace?

From this frame, we obtained ten useful strategic and operational suggestions that stem directly from

both workplace and volunteer leadership experience.

The best program would:

Mirror the workplace as closely as possible. Inroads—an intensive long term mentoring program for

high performing minority youth—is a good model. Although the target Inroads intern is a college-

bound minority student with good grades and proven potential, the intensiveness of the model is

one that, in the opinion of those roundtable participants, might have promise for the at-risk

population.


Act consistently and systematically to provide access the right people, records, contacts, and

communication. Design solutions should be systemic, not programmatic or ad hoc, regardless of

funding constraints.

Focus on factors that will motivate employer involvement. Figure out what is in it for the

corporation. Look at this from the perspective of the employer.

Seek best practice from lobbyists and lobby groups; they know how to get the attention of the right

people and they know what makes an effort successful.

Create an intergenerational learning model. Employers have to learn more about what makes this

generation motivated, not just motivated to work. We need to understand this generation and

this issue from the perspective of how the understanding makes us more profitable and builds

value for shareholders. This is a diversity issue.

Create something manageable. If companies and business leaders can be organized by someone or

something, drawing on individual organizational strengths, and involvement opportunities that

are simple and time bound can be produced, companies will respond.

Ensure that social services leaders act with business awareness. Show us that you understand and

respect our businesses, cultures, priorities, and needs.

Encourage employers to have strong training and development programs that focus on the perceived

values of corporate executives and professionals, spanning the range of specific skills, behaviors,

and competencies

Respect corporate workforce performance metrics.. Punctuality was the number one reason for

dismissals at 90 call centers in Tampa. The turnover was 100% and now it is down to 33%.

Promote youth understanding of the nature of transactions that take place at work—“if I do this,

then you pay me and if I do that, you may promote me.” It is the most important concept.

We got a valuable review of the environment from these Human Resources leaders and they

ultimately presented themselves to us as willing to help. However, their willingness is qualified.

They would rather not waste their time on abstract social services problems; they are business leaders

who represent businesses and they want to be understood in that context. They want time bound

involvement, not open ended involvement. They want specific leadership and clear objectives. They

want relevance, focus, and a plan.


Host: Tech Data Corporation

Sponsor: Suncoast Human Resources Management Association

Employer Participants:

Sebastian Dortch, St. Petersburg Times

Janet Guyler, Cox Target Media

Lawrence Hamilton, Tech Data Corporation

Cindy Jameson, Bright House Networks

Lisa Letizio, Home Shopping Network

Tracey McKinzie, Spherion

Betsy Williams, Nielsen Media Research

Project Partners

Kathy Davanzo, Pelorus Leadership Group

Scott Goyer, YMCA of the Suncoast

Ed Hart, Availability Inc.

Cathy Martin, Work With Kids, Inc.

James Sartain, JSA, Inc.

Stephanie Zaragoza, YMCA of the Suncoast

Jim Zufall, Suncoast Human Resources Management Association

Y-Works Project About the Y-Works Project: Appendix F Page 1

APPENDIX F: ABOUT THE Y-WORKS PROJECT

The Y-Works Project was established in the spring of 2004 to explore issues surrounding the employment of at-risk youth and the role of meaningful employment as a successful pathway from delinquency and other at-risk behaviors. Sponsored by the YMCA of the Suncoast and funded by the Eckerd Family Foundation, the Y-Works Project was created to explore emerging evidence that meaningful employment has a positive and direct impact on youth development and risk reduction and to identify issues, barriers and challenges with connecting at-risk youth to jobs. The Y-Works project represents the first broad-based inquiry about the access to and impact of work on delinquent and at-risk youth from the perspectives of three primary stakeholders in the at-risk youth employment process: the youth, the youth case worker, and the employer. The Y-Works Project Team: The Y-Works project team represents a partnership among the YMCA of the Suncoast, Eckerd Youth Alternatives, the Eckerd Family Foundation and four principal researchers who came together to utilize their unique professional experience in Human Resources leadership, recruitment, employment, and selection; workforce development and readiness, and youth services and education programming. A description of key participating agencies and individuals follows:

The Eckerd Family Foundation: The Eckerd Family Foundation served as the primary funder for the Y-Works project. The Foundation was established by Jack and Ruth Eckerd and their family with the mission to provide leadership and support for innovative educational, preventive, therapeutic and rehabilitative programs for children, youth and their families. The Foundation seeks to support the most promising and innovative ideas that support vulnerable youth transformational opportunities, helping them to reconnect with their futures. Just as importantly, all of the Foundation's investments are evaluated against clear goals and measured by results and performance outcomes.

The YMCA of the Suncoast: The YMCA of the Suncoast is the Y-Works project sponsor. The YMCA of the Suncoast has been in existence for nearly 50 years, and was originally chartered by the YMCA of the USA in 1957. Headquartered in Clearwater, Florida, The YMCA of the Suncoast serves over 5,500 children daily in over 40 locations with before and after school care, holiday camps and summer camps. The ten branch locations serve more than 77,000 members each year. Local YMCA’s, collectively, are the country's largest community service organization, providing values-based experiences that nurture the healthy development of children and teens, support families, and strengthen communities. All YMCA programs are tools YMCA’s use to accomplish their mission, achieve their vision of building strong kids, strong families, and strong communities, and reinforce the YMCA core values of caring, honesty, respect and responsibility. G. Scott Goyer, YMCA President and CEO, and Stephanie Zaragoza, Associate Vice-President of Community and Program Development, served as primary contacts for the project.

Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc.: Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. (EYA) assisted with data collection. Headquartered in Clearwater, Florida, EYA operates 43 programs serving troubled, at-risk and delinquent youth in eight states. Philanthropist and businessman Jack Eckerd and his wife, Ruth, founded the organization in 1968 in response to an absence of effective alternative treatment programs for troubled and delinquent youth. Their vision was to develop and operate programs that promoted emotional and social competence, academic success, personal responsibility, and self-esteem. Over the last 37 years, EYA has grown to be come one of the largest private providers of therapeutic services for children and youth. The EYA service continuum includes prevention and early intervention services, residential treatment, day treatment, alternative education and aftercare programs. EYA employs approximately 1,200 staff members who have joined the Eckerds in their vision which has touched the lives of over 60,000 youth and their families. Carol Hickman, Area Director over ReEntry Programs, and Pat Fried, Director of Measurement and Evaluation, served as the primary contacts for the project.


Principal Researchers:: The Y-Works project was conceived, designed and conducted by four principal researchers with professional experience in Human Resources leadership and organizational development, recruitment and employment, workforce development and youth services, development, and programming. Members include:

• Kathryn W. Davanzo, President, Pelorus Leadership Group, an organizational development company in Gulfport, Florida. Kathryn is a former practitioner and V.P. of Human Resources, and has access to an extensive network of employers through her client base and her volunteer leadership as the 2005 Workforce Readiness Chair of the Suncoast Human Resource Management Association, Volunteer Coordinator of the 2003 Society for Human Resources Management National Conference, the 2004 Leadership Conference Chair for HR Florida State Council and as the 2002 Suncoast Human Resources Management Association President.

• C. Edgar Hart, owner of Availability, Inc., a full service Permanent, Contract and Temporary Staffing firm, has extensive experience in recruitment, selection, and human resources practices, policies, and priorities, as well as the realities of workforce development through his staffing firm and through a variety of leadership positions and network affiliations in the Tampa Bay area. A former pastor and counselor, former government official, and a long-time Eckerd Youth Alternatives volunteer, Ed brought unique policy perspectives to the project. In Florida, a significant but unknown volume of initial job placement of new workforce entrants are provided by staffing agencies who obtain referrals of potential candidates from various sources. Through the inclusion of staffing agency clients, the project was able to incorporate this important employer perspective.

• Catherine B. Martin, President, Work With Kids, Inc., has extensive corporate human resources, recruitment and selection, and organizational development background in both the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors, in Fortune 500 as well as small entrepreneurial companies. Her organization is devoted to building the capacity of small or large organizations, agencies, companies, and communities that serve children and youth, and specializes in strategic business models and innovations surrounding youth employment. She is a former Senior Vice President of HR, Measurement and Evaluation, and Information Technology and a gubernatorial appointee to the Board of Directors of Workforce Florida, Inc. by Governor Jeb Bush, serving as state youth council chair, as chair of the inaugural First Jobs/First Wages council from 2000 to 2002.

• James P. Sartain, President, JSA, Inc., a research, evaluation, strategic planning, and organizational development company serving national and international for-profit and nonprofit organizations, agencies, and companies from offices in the Tampa Bay Area. Specializing in effective integrated business and program models, Jim is a former Vice-President of Professional Services for Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. and has experience in contemporary program design, research and treatment programming, as well as funding strategies and outcomes-oriented development. Jim has had a full range of operational and field experience with youth at-risk including leadership of moderate- and high-risk residential juvenile delinquency programs, mental health agencies, aftercare programs and early intervention and prevention programs. He has also conducted numerous research and evaluation projects in the social services field.

Publication Reference The Y-Works Project: Exploring Youth Employment as a Successful Pathway from Delinquency and Other At-Risk Behaviors by James P. Sartain, Kathryn W. Davanzo, Catherine B. Martin & Ed Hart. A youth-at-promise research initiative of the YMCA of the Suncoast funded and published by the Eckerd Family Foundation, Clearwater, FL., ©2005. Reproduction of any portion of this report for commercial sale is prohibited.

For copies of this report, please contact: The YMCA of the Suncoast

2469 Enterprise Road, Clearwater, Florida, 33763 727-467-9622

www.suncoastymca.org


SPECIAL THANKS

PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS

ACME SPONGE ALLIED SPECIALTY INSURANCE

AOC RESINS, LLC BPB-AMERICA

BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS BUSCH GARDENS OF TAMPA BAY

CARLISLE MOTORS CITY OF CLEARWATER

CONSTELLATION TECHNOLOGIES COPELAND STEEL

COX TARGET MEDIA DIMMIT CHEVROLET DON CESAR HOTEL DUPONT REGISTRY

FINE ART LAMPS FLORIDA SHEET METAL STAMPING

GREAT BAY DISTRIBUTORS HARD ROCK HOTEL-HOLLY WOOD

HELEN ELLIS HEALTHCARE HOME SHOPPING NETWORK HOPE HOSPICE-FORT MYERS

J.T. WALKER INDUSTRIES MUNICIPAL CODE AND PRINTING COMPANY

MUVICO NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH OUTBACK STEAK HOUSE

PINCH-A-PENNY AND FLORIDA POOL PODS

QUALITY BOATS OF CLEARWATER, INC. ROOMS TO GO

SAND KEY RESORTS SARASOTA YMCA

SCHUMACKER COMPANY SENSIDYNE

SHERATON SAND KEY ST. PETERSBURG TIMES

TAMPA ARMATURE WORKS TECH DATA CORP

TECO ENERGY, INC. W.C. BADCOCK, INC.

YMCA OF THE SUNCOAST

THE EMPLOYER EXECUTIVE ROUNDTABLE SPONSOR: SUNCOAST HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

JIM ZUFALL, PRESIDENT, SHRMA SEBASTIAN DORTCH, ST. PETERSBURG TIMES

JANET GUYLER, COX TARGET MEDIA LAWRENCE HAMILTON, TECH DATA CORPORATION

CINDY JAMESON, BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS LISA LETIZIO, HOME SHOPPING NETWORK

TRACEY MCKENZIE, SPHERION BETSY WILLIAMS, NIELSEN MEDIA RESEARCH

The Y-Works Project - University of South...

Documents

Transcript of The Y-Works Project - University of South...