Assisting Newcomers through 

Employment and Support 

Services: 

An Evaluation of the New 

Americans Centers 

Demonstration Project in 

Arkansas and Iowa 

Draft Karin Martinson 

Final Report 

ROBIN KORALEK

HEIDI JOHNSON

CAROLINE RATCLIFFE

TRACY VERICKER

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor under contract number DOLJ061A20348/19-

061A. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to DOL or to the Urban 

Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

The Urban Institute March 2010 

Center on Labor, Human 

Services, and Population
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor under contract number DOLJ061A20348/19-

061A. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to DOL or to the Urban 

Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Assisting Newcomers through Employment and Support Services: 

An Evaluation of the New Americans Centers 

Demonstration Project in Arkansas and Iowa 

Final Report 

Prepared for 

The U.S. Department of Labor 

Employment and Training Administration 

Prepared by 

The Urban Institute 

2100 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

www.urban.org

March 25, 2010 
Acknowledgments 

The authors are especially grateful to the many people involved with the New Arkansan 

Resource Networks and the New Iowan Centers who took the time to meet with us and help us 

learn about their programs. In particular, the authors would like to thank Mike Kennedy from 

the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services and Barbara Bobb and Venus Vendoures Walsh 

from the Iowa Workforce Development for their assistance in all aspects of data collection. The 

Urban Institute would also like to thank Michelle R. Ennis, Jonathan Simonetta, and Heidi M. 

Casta from the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration for their 

guidance, and John Trutko and Karin Martinson for their thoughtful review and helpful 

comments. Joanna Parnes’ contributions to this study’s data collection and analysis were 

invaluable. 
Contents 

Page 

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... i 

I. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 

II. Design of the New Americans Centers.................................................................................. 6 

The New Arkansan Resource Network............................................................................... 7 

New Iowan Centers........................................................................................................... 15 

III. Services and Other Assistance Provided by the New Arkansan Resource Network........... 21 

IV. Services and Other Assistance Provided by New Iowan Centers........................................ 30 

V. Trends in New Iowan Centers Participants’ Employment and Earnings............................. 39 

VI. Future Plans and Sustainability............................................................................................ 50 

VII. Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Future Research ............................................ 52 

Appendix A. New Americans Centers Site Summaries 

Appendix B. Type and Number of Services Received by New Americans Centers Participants, 

Employers, and the Community 

Appendix C. Demographic and Service Receipt Data for New Americans Centers Participants 

Appendix D. Combinations of Services and Pathways of Service Receipt for New Iowan 

Centers Participants 

Appendix E. New Iowan Centers Participant Employment and Earnings Regression 

Coefficients 

FIGURES AND TABLES 

Figure 1.1 New Arkansan Resource Network Locations 4 

Figure 1.2 New Iowan Centers Locations 5 

Table 2.1 Organizational Structure of New Arkansan Resource Network 7 

Table 2.2 Economic and Demographic Profile of Communities Served by New Arkansan 

Resource Network 8 

Table 2.3 Demographic Characteristics of New Arkansan Resource Network 

Participants, by Site 13 

Table 2.4 Organizational Structure of New Iowans Centers 15 
Table 2.5 Economic and Demographic Profile of Communities Served by New Iowan 

Centers 16 

Table 2.6 Demographic Characteristics of New Iowan Centers Participants, by Site 20 

Table 3.1 Share of Services Provided to Participants, Employers, and the Community 

 in Arkansas 22 

Figure 3.1 Types of Services Received by NARN Participants, April–June 2008 

 24 

Figure 3.2 Distribution of Services Provided to New Arkansan Resource 

 Network Participants 25 

Table 3.2 Types of Services Provided to New Arkansan Resource 

Network Participants, by Site 26 

Table 4.1 Share of Services Provided to Participants, Employers, and the Community 

 in Iowa 30 

Figure 4.1 Types of Services Received by NIC Participants, April 1, 2007–March 31, 

 2008 32 

Figure 4.2 Distribution of Services Provided to New Iowan Centers Participants 34 

Table 4.2 Types of Services Provided to New Iowan Centers Participants, by Site 35 

Figure 5.1 Average Quarterly Employment Rate and Earnings of NIC Participants 

Before and After First Observed NIC Service Receipt 42 

Table 5.1 Average Quarterly Employment and Earnings of NIC Participants 

Before and After First Observed Service Receipt, by Site 43 

Table 5.2 Estimated Relationships between NIC Service Receipt and NIC Participants’ 

Employment and Earnings, by Site 47 

Table 5.3 Estimated Relationships between NIC Service Receipt and NIC Participants’ 

Employment and Earnings, by Service Receipt and Gender 49 
Executive Summary 

This report presents the final results for the evaluation of the New Americans Centers (NACs) 

demonstration project in Arkansas and Iowa. This demonstration was funded by the U.S. 

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA). Through the project, 

ETA provided a three-year grant to Arkansas and Iowa to develop NACs within One-Stop Career 

Centers in high immigrant population areas. The purposes of the grant were to promote stability 

and rapid employment with living wages for individuals or family members who were without 

work or were in need of new work, speed the transition of new immigrants into their 

communities, assist employers, and enhance the economic development opportunities of these 

communities. 

Immigrants make up a large and increasing share of all workers in the United States, especially 

those with lower skills and earnings. While immigrants’ educational attainment and ability to 

speak English vary widely, immigrants are overrepresented among the lowest skilled workers. 

Limited English-speaking immigrants have fewer options in the workplace, and limited English 

skills are the single factor most closely associated with low wages and poverty in immigrant 

families. 

Arkansas and Iowa are among the 22 “new growth” states that historically were not major 

immigrant destinations but whose foreign-born populations grew quickly during the 1990s. Like 

other new growth states, Arkansas and Iowa are only beginning to grow accustomed to the rapid 

flow of new immigrants. Both states continue to work on how best to integrate these newcomers 

into the community and ensure their self-sufficiency. 

In Arkansas, the grant was used to establish four New Arkansan Resource Network (NARN) 

sites in Little Rock, Malvern, Rogers, and Russellville. While the Arkansas Department of 

Workforce Services oversaw all four sites, local workforce investment boards provided fiscal 

and programmatic oversight. Local entities, such as community-based organizations and OneStop Career Center operators, provided direct program operations and services. Arkansas’ goal 

was to develop the network statewide. 

Iowa’s New Americans Centers were called New Iowan Centers (NICs) and were based on 

similar centers in Ottumwa, Muscatine, and Sioux City that had been established in 2000. The 

new NICs funded under the demonstration grants were housed in One-Stop Career Centers in 

Council Bluffs, Des Moines, Marshalltown, and Mount Pleasant. Over the course of the 

demonstration, Iowa implemented additional state-funded NICs. Only those NICS funded under 

the demonstration were included in this evaluation. 

ETA contracted with the Urban Institute to evaluate the NACs in Arkansas and Iowa. This 

report is the final of two reports summarizing findings from an evaluation of the NACs. It 

focuses on program operations and plans for program sustainability, while highlighting services 

provided through the demonstration projects in Arkansas and Iowa. It also documents outcomes 

for NIC participants based on analysis of service data and wage records. An earlier report 

i 
focused on the initial implementation of the demonstration projects, including start-up and early 

operation.1

 

This report is based on in-person interviews with key partners in the NACs in May 2007 and 

April–May 2008, focus groups with NARN and NIC participants, service receipt data collected 

through the Annual Services and Referrals Provided (ASRP) report, individual-level service data 

collection, employment and earnings data, and quarterly progress reports. Problems acquiring 

service receipt data from Iowa’s data management system, IWORKS, delayed the report. The 

Urban Institute also conducted follow-up calls to both NARN and NIC project directors for 

status updates on sites one year after the conclusion of the ETA grant in June 2008. 

The New Americans Centers 

NACs were designed to help newcomers—immigrants and others new to the area—establish 

themselves in the community while simultaneously enhancing the workforce, furthering local 

economic development, and raising awareness of diversity issues. Key to the design of the 

NACs was a three-pronged service delivery approach that focused on participants, employers, 

and the community. First, NACs aimed to ensure that participants were able to find employment 

and were educated about and had access to needed services. Overarching goals for participants 

included obtaining and retaining jobs, increasing income, achieving self-sufficiency, building 

awareness of civic laws and institutions, promoting civic participation, gaining English 

proficiency, and taking advantage of services—both public and within the community—for 

which they were eligible. Second, NACs aimed to meet employers’ staffing needs and help them 

adapt to an increasingly diverse workforce by providing education on cultural awareness and 

diversity, offering language skills training, and advising on immigration and legal issues. Third, 

NACs attempted to educate the community on diversity issues and conduct extensive outreach in 

surrounding areas to facilitate cultural awareness for both those new to the community and those 

established in the community. 

A key component of the NACs was development of partnerships with local leaders and other 

service providers and community organizations. NACs established extensive partner networks 

that included both public and private organizations such as health care providers, adult education 

providers, banks, colleges and schools, employers, and local government agencies.

Service Provision 

The services provided by NACs were meant to reflect and address the specific needs of the 

community. While the general goals of NACs were consistent across sites, the mix of services 

varied between Iowa and Arkansas as well as among local sites within each state. In addition, 

NACs varied considerably in the level of service provided. In Arkansas, the NARN sites tended 

to focus on connecting new Arkansans to a wide range of supportive services and organizations 

in the community through referrals and information sharing. In Iowa, the NICs emphasized 

 

1

 Robin Koralek and Joanna Parnes, “Assisting Newcomers through Employment and Support Services: An 

Evaluation of the New Americans Centers Demonstration Project in Arkansas and Iowa Interim Report” 

(Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2008). The Marshalltown NIC was not operational at the time of the 2007 

visit to Iowa and was not included in the initial report. 

ii 
employment and job placement—typically through referrals to employment-related services—

and often worked directly with participants seeking work. These emphases were not mutually 

exclusive; all sites helped participants both find employment and access supportive services. 

Services to individuals and families made up the vast majority of the total services provided. 

Nearly all (95 percent) reported services in Arkansas were provided to individuals and families 

(other reported services were provided to employers and the community). Similarly, in Iowa, 86 

percent of reported services went to individuals and families. Across all sites in both Arkansas 

and Iowa, participants received direct assistance or referrals to appropriate service providers in a 

wide range of areas. These included supportive services such as child care, clothing, food, 

housing, health care, translation and interpretation, employment, education and training 

(including English as a Second Language (ESL) and civic education classes), legal and civil 

rights issues, immigration services, tax preparation, and banking and financial services. 

To a lesser extent, NAC staff also provided services to employers and the community. NACs 

helped area employers and businesses meet their staffing needs and connected them with 

relevant training and resources. Services to employers included guidance and training to 

promote cultural awareness as well as targeted training and seminars on a range of immigration 

and diversity issues. Further, NACs aimed to increase awareness of diversity and immigration in 

the community at large. To this end, NAC staff fostered relationships with local community 

leaders and police departments, conducted diversity training at community organizations and 

businesses, hosted networking events, and conducted outreach in the community to ensure 

people were aware of their services. 

Trends in Employment and Earnings 

A pre/post analysis of participants’ employment and earnings in Iowa using unemployment 

insurance data indicated a slight rise in employment and earnings after initial service receipt. 

Employment was measured highest in the quarter of first receipt of NIC services, and earnings 

increased after service receipt from earnings in the period before service receipt. However, 

unmeasured factors aside from NIC services may have been responsible for some of the 

estimated relationships. Participants may have received other services influencing their 

outcomes, such as through the One-Stop Career Centers. Also, employment and earnings from 

states other than Iowa were not measured, which could have influenced the findings. In addition, 

small sample sizes made it difficult to detect statistically significant relationships, particularly for 

small gains. Thus, the results should be interpreted cautiously. Participants’ employment and 

earnings data were not available in Arkansas. 

Sustainability 

From the outset, both states focused attention on outreach, promoting program awareness, and 

sustainability. ETA provided three years of funding for the NACs demonstrations in Arkansas 

and Iowa, and it was incumbent upon the states to find other sources of funding and support to 

sustain the NACs. Staff in Arkansas and Iowa engaged in various strategies that fit the 

circumstances of their state and local areas. 

iii 
Central to Arkansas’ sustainability strategy was developing a network of service providers to 

assist newcomers. By naming its NAC system the “New Arkansan Resource Network,” the state 

set the tone to sustain the partnerships created through the demonstration regardless of future 

funding availability and the ability to support dedicated staff. To varying degrees, staff from the 

local NARN sites networked and collaborated with partner agencies to create awareness of their 

efforts, cooperated in service provision, and discussed support to supplement ETA funding and 

to sustain operations after the ETA funding ended in June 2008. Efforts to engage employers 

and community groups and sustain and expand the project included writing grants, participating 

in local community events and activities, and seeking corporate sponsorship. Ultimately, 

fundraising efforts in Arkansas did not secure the long-term funding needed for the NARN to 

continue as a stand-alone entity with dedicated staff. However, one demonstration provider, the 

Latin Community Organization, continued to support Hispanic immigrants through similar 

services after the demonstration ended. 

In Iowa, the NIC was state funded before the demonstration project and grants awarded by ETA; 

therefore, discussions about the sustainability of the NICs following the demonstration took 

place once again at the state level. Local NIC staff is largely uninvolved in securing funding for 

the NICs. Throughout the ETA demonstration, state appropriations supported operations of the 

non-ETA-funded NICs. The state legislature increased the level of funding to continue 

operations and sustain the additional sites through annual appropriations. Local communities 

were also encouraged to support NIC activities through in-kind donations and public-private 

partnerships. 

Conclusions 

From the perspectives of staff, community partners, and employers, the New Americans Centers 

generally had a positive influence on the economic and social well-being of newcomers in both 

Arkansas and Iowa. Local NACs established themselves as trusted and reliable resources for 

newcomers in their respective communities and beyond. Although it was not possible to 

determine whether receipt of NAC services caused an increase in participants’ employment and 

earnings, demand for NAC services from participants, employers, and the community at large 

reflected the need and appreciation for such services in both states. 

NAC staff and local community members noted several ways in which the NACs were 

successful, including integrating newcomers into the community by enhancing their civic 

participation and understanding, and increasing newcomers’ knowledge of and access to 

available resources and basic services, such as ESL instruction, banking, utilities, immigration 

and legal assistance, and health care. NAC staff also noted the increased availability of 

translation and interpretation assistance, which helped improve access to many services, 

including those offered through the One-Stop Career Centers. 

It is not possible to determine the effect of NAC services on local communities, particularly on 

their receptiveness to newcomers. NACs did, however, successfully build networks of 

community leaders, service providers, and businesses. The NACs became valuable resources for 

other service providers, which sought interpretation and translation assistance as well as 

information on cultural diversity. In addition, NACs disseminated information about available 

iv 
v 

community resources. Often, advisory committee meetings served as forums for information 

sharing among partners. 

Although less developed than other services, NAC staff worked with local employers, who came 

to see the NACs as a resource available to them and their employees. Some employers used the 

NACs as a source of new hires. Others used the NACs for interpretation and translation 

assistance or help with cultural and diversity issues in the workplace. Employers also referred 

employees to the NAC for assistance, such as ESL instruction. 

Analysis of participants’ employment and earnings in Iowa indicated a slight rise in employment 

and earnings after initial service receipt. However, it is not possible to attribute changes in 

employment and earnings directly to receipt of NIC services. This demonstration project was 

about other, unquantifiable factors, including an improved quality of life for newcomers, better 

reception of newcomers in the community, improved civic participation and community 

engagement on the part of newcomers, development of an enhanced workforce, and 

establishment of an integrated network of services for new arrivals. 

Many lessons can be shared with other states or localities looking to implement similar services. 

The NACs’ experiences underscore the importance of developing strong community 

relationships and an integrated network of service providers. NACs require a solid commitment 

from staff and the community as well as support from community leaders and other local service 

providers, businesses, and employers. Above all else, it is critical to define the NAC’s purpose 

and role, which can vary depending on community resources and participants’ identified needs. 

The strength of the NACs rested in their flexibility to meet local needs through a mix of services 

and in their ability to respond to the changing needs of their constituencies. 
I. Introduction 

Immigrants make up a large and increasing share of U.S. workers, especially those with lower 

skills and earnings. In 2007, immigrants composed 16 percent of all workers in the United 

States, 24 percent of workers earning below twice the minimum wage, and 44 percent of workers 

with less than high school educations.2

 In 2007, 9.1 percent of the civilian U.S. workforce had 

limited English proficiency.3

 While immigrants’ educational attainment and ability to speak 

English vary greatly, immigrants are overrepresented among the lowest skilled workers. In 

particular, limited-English-speaking immigrants have fewer options in the workplace; research 

shows limited English skills are the single factor most closely associated with low wages and 

poverty in immigrant families.4

This population of immigrants is growing rapidly, especially in smaller cities and rural 

communities unaccustomed to large immigrant flows. Among the country’s 2007 foreign-born 

population, nearly 30 percent entered the United States during the 1990s, and an additional 28 

percent entered in 2000 or later.5

 Arkansas and Iowa are among 22 “new growth” states that 

historically were not major immigrant destinations but whose foreign-born populations grew 

quickly during the 1990s.6 Between 1990 and 2000, the immigrant population in Arkansas 

increased 196 percent; it was the fourth-fastest growing immigrant population in the country.7

Iowa experienced a similarly rapid growth of immigrants during this period, with a 110 percent 

growth rate.8

 This pattern has continued in both states. Between 2000 and 2007, Arkansas 

experienced a 61 percent increase in its foreign-born population, and Iowa saw a 29 percent 

increase.9 

Like other new growth states, Arkansas and Iowa are only beginning to grow accustomed to the 

rapid flow of new immigrants, and both areas continue to work on how best to integrate 

newcomers into the community and ensure their self-sufficiency. As new growth states, 

Arkansas and Iowa also have a higher share of undocumented, recently arrived, and limitedEnglish-speaking immigrants than is the case nationally, further complicating integration efforts. 

Yet, the labor force in these states is increasingly dependent on immigrant workers. Arkansas’ 

 

2

 Migration Policy Institute, “The United States: Workforce Characteristics,” 

http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/state3.cfm?ID=US. 3

 Ibid. 

4

 Michael Fix and Randy Capps, “Immigrant Well-Being in New York and Los Angeles,” Immigrant Families and 

Workers Brief 1 (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2002). 5

 Migration Policy Institute, “The United States: Social & Demographic Characteristics,” 

http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/state2.cfm?ID=US. 6

 Randy Capps, “U.S. Immigration Policy and the Children of Immigrants,” presentation at the Urban Institute 

semiannual board meeting, Washington, DC, May 2006. 

7

 Randy Capps, Everett Henderson, John D. Kasarda, James H. Johnson, Jr., Stephen J. Appold, Derrek L. Croney, 

Donald J. Hernandez, and Michael Fix, A Profile of Immigrants in Arkansas (Little Rock, AR: The Winthrop 

Rockefeller Foundation, 2007). 

8

 Randy Capps, Michael E. Fix, and Jeffrey S. Passel, “The Dispersal of Immigrants in the 1990s,” Immigrant 

Families and Workers Brief 2 (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2002). 9

 Migration Policy Institute, “Arkansas,” http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/state.cfm?ID=AR; and 

Migration Policy Institute, “Iowa,” http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/state.cfm?ID=IA. Over the same 

period, the United State’s foreign-born population grew by 22.3 percent (Migration Policy Institute, “The United 

States: Social & Demographic Characteristics”). 

1
manufacturing workforce would have shrunk between 1990 and 2000 without immigration. 

During this time, the number of native-born Americans working in manufacturing fell by 9,000 

(4 percent) while the number of immigrant workers working in manufacturing grew by 12,000 

(294 percent).10 

The New Americans Centers (NACs) demonstration was a three-year project funded by the U.S. 

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA). Through the project, 

ETA provided both Arkansas and Iowa three-year, $850,000 grants to develop NACs within 

One-Stop Career Centers in high immigrant population areas.11 The NACs were implemented as 

a significant part of Arkansas’ and Iowa’s efforts to help immigrants and other newcomers 

integrate into these states’ economies and communities. The grants were intended to: 1) promote 

stability and rapid employment with living wages for immigrants and/or newcomers or their 

family members that were without work or that needed new work; 2) speed the transition of new 

immigrants into their communities; 3) assist employers with employee/employer relational issues 

and/or adjustment and assimilation of employees; and 4) enhance the economic development 

opportunities of these communities. How well the NACs achieved these goals is addressed in 

the body of this report. 

NACs offered services to assist immigrants and others who were new to the community, 

including job placement, job training, language classes, community service referrals, 

resettlement assistance, and legal assistance. Customers were not solely immigrant families but 

also members of the community and area businesses. To ensure the speedy transition of new 

immigrants into the community, the centers worked closely with employers that needed skilled 

workers, educational institutions that provided language and occupational training, economic 

development agencies that facilitated employer connections, and local community groups that 

encouraged civic participation and understanding in neighborhoods and communities. 

In Arkansas, the grant was used to establish four New Arkansan Resource Network (NARN) 

centers in Little Rock, Malvern, Rogers, and Russellville, with the goal of expanding the network 

statewide. Iowa’s NACs were called New Iowan Centers (NICs) and were based on pilot 

programs in Ottumwa, Muscatine, and Sioux City that had begun in 2000 and that continued to 

operate throughout this demonstration. The demonstration project created new NICs in Council 

Bluffs, Des Moines, Marshalltown, and Mount Pleasant. This is in addition to other NICs that 

began and continue to operate with state funding. NACs were generally housed in local OneStop Career Centers, but in some cases, due to space restrictions, NACs were instead located 

close to a One-Stop Career Center. The maps on pages 4 and 5 display the location of each NAC 

and the primary area it served. 

 

10 Capps, Henderson, et al., A Profile of Immigrants in Arkansas. 11 Under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (PL 105-220), One-Stop Career Centers, or Workforce Centers, are 

the primary access point for employment and training services. Services available through the centers typically 

include adult, dislocated worker, and youth activities (funded under the Workforce Investment Act); employment 

services; vocational rehabilitation; veterans employment and training; and trade adjustment assistance. 

2
3

 

Evaluation of the New Americans Centers Demonstration Project 

The evaluation of the NACs demonstration project had two components: a process analysis of 

program implementation and an examination of project participant outcomes, primarily 

employment and earnings. This final evaluation report examines and assesses program 

operations, services provided, participant employment outcomes, and plans for program 

sustainability. More detailed information about the initial implementation phase of the 

demonstration projects in Arkansas and Iowa, including start-up and early operations, can be 

found in an interim report.12 

Chapter II of this report provides an overview of the demonstration programs in Arkansas and 

Iowa. A detailed description of services and other assistance provided by the New Arkansan 

Resource Network is presented in Chapter III, drawn primarily from aggregated service data that 

each site reported quarterly to DOL. Chapter IV describes the services provided by the New 

Iowan Centers, also based on quarterly service data. An analysis of employment and earnings 

trends for Iowa participants, using unemployment insurance records, is provided in Chapter V. 

Chapter VI discusses sustainability of operations in Arkansas and Iowa. Chapter VII provides 

conclusions and lessons learned. 

Several data sources were used for this report. Information on program operations was primarily 

collected during site visits conducted in May 2007 and April–May 2008. During each visit, 

researchers held discussions with representatives from each local site, including staff, partners, 

employers, and community representatives. Focus groups with participants were conducted in 

two sites in each state during the second visits. Data on service receipt collected through a data 

collection instrument used at all sites—the Annual Services and Referrals Provided (ASRP) 

report—were also analyzed. As the ASRP report collected aggregate information on service 

provision, additional analyses of individual-level service receipt data were also conducted using 

data obtained from both states. In Arkansas, where individual service receipt data were not 

available, a tracking form developed specifically for this evaluation collected individual service 

receipt data. In Iowa, the state provided individual service receipt data. Evaluators further 

analyzed New Iowan Centers participants’ employment and earnings using unemployment 

insurance wage record data provided by the state.13 Finally, quarterly progress reports submitted 

to ETA and other documentation provided by the local projects were also reviewed. 

12 Robin Koralek and Joanna Parnes, “Assisting Newcomers through Employment and Support Services: An 

Evaluation of the New Americans Centers Demonstration Project in Arkansas and Iowa Interim Report” 

(Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2008). 

13 Arkansas was not able to provide Social Security Numbers for NARN participants. Therefore, we were unable to 

analyze employment and earnings in Arkansas. 
Figure 1.1 

New Arkansan Resource Network Locations 

4
Figure 1.2 

New Iowan Centers Locations 
II. Design of the New Americans Centers 

The New Americans Centers (NACs)—known as the New Arkansan Resource Network (NARN) 

in Arkansas and New Iowan Centers (NICs) in Iowa—operated in diverse localities and involved 

a broad range of organizations and services in their efforts to help newcomers integrate into local 

communities. This section briefly describes the NARN and NICs, including project goals, 

sponsoring organizations, key partners, community context, program size, and staffing. Statespecific overviews of the NARN in Arkansas and NICs in Iowa are provided in Appendix A of 

this report. More detailed information about design and early planning and implementation 

experiences can be found in the evaluation’s interim report. 

The NAC demonstration was designed to help newcomers—immigrants and others new to the 

area—establish themselves in the community while simultaneously enhancing the workforce, 

furthering local economic development, and raising awareness of diversity issues. Key to the 

design of NACs was a three-pronged service delivery approach that focused on participants, 

employers, and the community.14 First, NACs aimed to ensure that participants were able to find 

employment and were educated about and had access to needed services. Overarching goals for 

participants included increasing income, achieving self-sufficiency, gaining English proficiency, 

building awareness of civic laws and institutions, promoting civic participation, and availing 

themselves of services for which they were eligible. Second, NACs aimed to meet employers’ 

staffing needs and help them adapt to an increasingly diverse workforce by providing cultural 

diversity and awareness education, offering language skills training, and advising on 

immigration and legal issues. Third, NACs attempted to educate the community on diversity 

issues and perform extensive outreach in surrounding areas to ensure that potential participants, 

potential employers, and the larger community were aware of NAC services as well as to 

familiarize NAC staff with available community resources. The extent to which they achieved 

these goals is addressed in the body of this report. 

While the general goals of NACs were consistent across sites, the mix of services provided 

varied in Arkansas and Iowa as well as among local sites within each state. Sites in Arkansas 

generally focused on connecting newcomers to a wide range of supportive services and 

organizations in the community through referrals and information sharing. Sites in Iowa 

emphasized employment and job placement—typically through referrals to employment-related 

services—and they often worked directly with participants seeking work. Staff in Iowa is part of 

Iowa Workforce Development, which may have contributed to their focus on employment 

services. However, these emphases were not mutually exclusive; all sites assisted participants 

with both finding employment and accessing supportive services. 

 

14 Arkansas refers to participants as “registrants.” For consistency, they are referred to as participants throughout 

this report. 

6
THE NEW ARKANSAN RESOURCE NETWORK

The NARN operated out of four primary sites in central, west central, and northwest Arkansas: 

Little Rock, Malvern, Russellville, and Rogers, respectively. Over time, NARN staff expanded 

their service delivery area to encompass many outlying communities, some as far as one or two 

hours away from their offices. This decentralized approach aimed to widen the network of 

services in the state by initiating services in these communities. Additional locations launched 

over the course of the demonstration included an office in Fayetteville opened by Rogers staff in 

2007, a satellite office in Fort Smith opened by Russellville staff in November 2007, and a 

satellite office in El Dorado set up by the Malvern site in 2007. 

Project Goals 

The primary goal of the NARN was to speed the transition of new Arkansans into communities, 

promote stability and rapid employment with good wages, and enhance economic development. 

As evidenced by their name, NARN sites worked to build a network of service providers that 

met the needs of new Arkansans. Local sites therefore served primarily as resource and referral 

agencies rather than as direct service providers. 

Sponsoring Organizations 

The Arkansas Department of Workforce Services (DWS) received the ETA grant and provided 

general oversight and guidance to the NARN sites. DWS had sub-grants with three local 

workforce investment boards to provide fiscal and programmatic oversight to the four local sites. 

These local workforce investment boards further subcontracted direct program operation and 

staffing to a local entity. In Malvern, Rogers, and Russellville, the local workforce investment 

boards subcontracted with their local One-Stop Career Center operators. In Little Rock, program 

operation was sub-granted to the Latin Community Organization (LCO), a nonprofit organization 

that helped Latino individuals and families achieve self-sufficiency through resources and 

referrals (Table 2.1). 

Table 2.1 

Organizational Structure of New Arkansan Resource Network 

Site Oversight 

Fiscal and programmatic 

agent Local program operation 

Little Rock 

Department of 

Workforce Services 

(DWS) 

Little Rock Workforce 

Investment Board 

Latin Community 

Organization (LCO) 

Malvern DWS 

West Central Arkansas 

Planning and Development 

District (WCAPDD) 

West Central Arkansas 

Career Development 

Center System 

(WCACDCS) 

Rogers DWS 

Northwest Arkansas 

Economic Development 

District (NWAEDD) 

Northwest Arkansas 

Certified Development 

Company (NWACDC) 

Russellville DWS WCAPDD WCACDCS 

7
Community Context 

NARN sites were located in a range of localities that varied on several dimensions, including 

local economy, community socio-demographics, and existing provider networks. The Little 

Rock site served a primarily urban community, while Malvern and Russellville served more rural 

communities. Rogers was in an area with high economic growth and a rapidly increasing 

population at the time of this study. These contextual factors shaped the needs of new arrivals, 

employers, and the community, and subsequently the services offered by local NARN staff. 

Table 2.2 provides an overview of the economic and demographic profiles of the broader 

communities in which the NARN operated. 

Race and Ethnicity

Hispanic 5.3 % 4.1 % 2.2 % 14.0 % 4.6 %

White (Not of Hispanic Origin) 75.9 % 58.3 % 84.7 % 79.0 % 89.3 %

Black (Not of Hispanic Origin) 15.4 % 33.9 % 10.3 % 1.3 % 3.0 %

Asian or Pacific Islander 1.2 % 1.8 % 0.2 % 2.1 % 0.8 %

Native American or Alaskan Native 0.6 % 0.4 % 0.2 % 1.4 % 0.4 %

Multiracial 1.5 % 1.5 % 2.4 % 1.9 % 1.7 %

Foreign Born 4.0 % 4.6 % 0.8 % 9.0 % 2.9 %

Education Level 

(for persons 25 or older)

No diploma 18.8 % 11.3 % 19.2 % 16.6 % 18.4 %

High school graduate 35.8 % 28.5 % 38.9 % 31.9 % 36.5 %

Some college 21.0 % 23.1 % 18.9 % 20.9 % 21.2 %

College graduate 18.8 % 31.3 % 12.9 % 24.7 % 19.8 %

Median Income (2008 dollars)

Household income

Family income

Unemployment Rate, April 20081 4.3 % 3.8 % 5.4 % 3.2 % 4.0 %

Table 2.2

Economic and Demographic Profile of Communities Served by New Arkansan Resource Network

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community Survey (ACS); Bureau of Labor Statisics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics.

1

Unemployment rate not seasonally adjusted.

$48,098 $59,032 $49,005 $58,206 $47,239

$39,127 $45,836 $38,408 $49,690 $39,941

Arkansas

Little Rock 

(Pulaski County)

Malvern 

(Hot Spring 

County)

Rogers

(Benton County)

Russellville

(Pope County)

 

In Little Rock, the demand occupations at the time of the study were in health care, aerospace, 

government, education, and nonprofits. In surrounding areas of Polk County and much of the 

rest of Arkansas, agriculture and warehousing were key industries, where poultry farms and food 

processing plants employed many newcomers. Northwest Arkansas, where Rogers is located, 

stood apart from the rest of the state. At the time of the initial site visit in 2007, this area had one 

of the fastest growing economies in the nation. Walmart, Tyson Foods, and J. B. Hunt Transport 

Services were headquartered in Northwest Arkansas, and many other corporations were 

establishing a presence. The subsequent building boom resulted in growth in construction and 

other industries, and many newcomers began arriving seeking work. In July 2007, Benton 

8
County (where Rogers is located) had a 4.1 percent unemployment rate,15 significantly lower 

than the state’s average unemployment rate of 5.6 percent. By the time of the second site visit in 

spring 2008, the construction industry had slowed down considerably, and many companies had 

closed or downsized. Although the unemployment rate in Rogers remained low (3.2 percent), 

staff noted that NARN participants were increasingly in need of employment. 

For the most part, the communities where NARN sites were located were particularly receptive 

to immigrants. Many of these communities were already actively involved in diversity work 

before the NAC was implemented. For example, the LCO had been active in Malvern and Little 

Rock since 2004, and the Rogers Chamber of Commerce’s Minority Committee and the 

Community Support Center had been addressing diversity issues and serving newcomers before 

the NARN was established. For the most part, this high level of involvement and receptiveness 

helped NACs flourish in the community. In some instances, however, the existence of 

organizations with similar missions resulted in “turf” issues and required paying careful attention 

to avoid duplicative services. 

In September 2007, the police departments of Rogers and Springdale and the sheriff’s offices in 

Washington and Benton counties entered into 287(g) agreements with the United States 

Department of Homeland Security. Through these agreements, Northwest Arkansas law 

enforcement officers were trained to enforce federal immigration laws.16 Local respondents felt 

this sent an inhospitable message to immigrants and affected the community’s receptiveness 

toward immigrants. This feeling is consistent with other studies that have found that 

implementing 287(g) agreements and other legislation or policies restricting the activities of 

immigrants can create a “culture of fear” and perceptions of anti-immigrant sentiment within the 

community.17 NARN staff and partners noted declining support for the NARN, including 

decreased advisory committee attendance, which they attributed to the resulting changes in the 

political climate. 

Demand for services led NARN staff to spread their service delivery into communities well 

beyond their initial boundaries. For example, staff in Malvern expanded their operations to El 

Dorado, Arkadelphia, and Hot Springs. NARN staff also worked with the City of Fort Smith to 

establish a regular presence in their community. An expansion of services in Northwest 

Arkansas to include an office in Fayetteville allowed staff to meet increased demand for services. 

In contrast, the community in Little Rock appeared more resistant to the presence of the NARN, 

and services never truly flourished in that community. Some have suggested this resistance 

reflected the local political climate, while others attributed it to the more reserved nature of a 

bigger community. 

Most NARN sites were physically housed within or adjacent to local One-Stop Career Centers, 

known as Workforce Centers in Arkansas. In Fort Smith, a local law firm provided satellite 

 

15 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor). 

Unemployment rates are not seasonally adjusted. 16 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, “Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration 

and Nationality Act,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/section287_g.htm. 17 Robin Koralek, Juan Pedroza, and Randy Capps, Untangling the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act: 

Consequences for Children and Families (Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza, 2009). 

9
office space; in El Dorado, the town provided office space. Despite the NARN’s separate 

funding stream and dedicated staff, provided as part of the demonstration project, co-location of 

local sites in the One-Stop Career Centers meant they were essentially integrated into the menu 

of services and perceived as “part of the package” of One-Stop Career Center Programs. 

While affiliation with a local One-Stop Career Center facilitated integration of NARN services 

into the greater workforce system, this close affiliation had some disadvantages, primarily 

around the hours of operation. Typically, One-Stop Career Centers operated during standard 

business hours, which may have prohibited some working families from seeking services. As a 

result, NARN staff identified alternative locations for after-hours activities to accommodate 

working families. In addition, some immigrants were resistant to coming to a “government 

office” or seeking services in an unfamiliar location. NARN staff identified alternate locations, 

such as the LCO offices in Malvern and a local bank in El Dorado, that were more accessible or 

familiar to the Latino community, and staff frequently met with participants in these locations. 

Key Partners 

Development of partnerships with local leaders and other service providers and organizations in 

the community was a key component of the NAC demonstration. NARN staff dedicated 

considerable effort toward building these relationships. These partnerships were evident in the 

establishment of advisory committees that guided the development and implementation of 

NARN activities as well as the creation of extensive networks of local nonprofits, government 

agencies, and private businesses that provided both services for newcomers and referrals for the 

NARN. 

Advisory Committees 

Three of the four primary NARN sites (Malvern, Rogers, and Russellville) established working 

advisory boards made up of local leaders, business owners, and other community members. 

While advisory committees in Arkansas were particularly active in local NARN operations, the 

level of involvement varied somewhat from community to community. In Russellville, for 

example, the advisory committee was viewed as the NARN’s governing body, and it reviewed 

many decisions regarding service delivery. The advisory committee in Rogers also contributed 

actively to NARN operations and had two committees: one tasked with grant writing and 

sustainability, and the other with media and outreach. The Malvern board met quarterly and was 

not as involved in local operations as in other sites. Little Rock staff struggled to convene 

meetings with potential advisory committee members and never successfully formed a board. 

Community members expressed less interest in participating, perhaps influenced by the local 

political climate. 

Partner Agencies and Organizations 

Locally, NARN sites established extensive partner networks made up of both public and private 

organizations, including banks, health care providers, colleges and schools, employers, and local 

government agencies. These organizations referred participants and collaborated with NARN 

staff on special projects and initiatives. These partners also saw the NARN as a resource for 

their customers or employees. Partner agencies referred individuals to the NARN for assistance, 

10
such as for orientation to the basic services of their new community, and employers tapped into 

the services for assistance addressing cultural and language barriers within their workforce.

NARN staff viewed other programs housed in the One-Stop Career Center—including 

employment and training programs, adult education services, economic development 

organizations, AARP, and Job Corps—as partners. NARN staff received and made referrals to 

other One-Stop Career Center programs, such as for assistance with job searches and training. 

NARN staff also provided translation and interpretation assistance, which in many cases allowed 

One-Stop Career Center staff to offer services to previously unserved populations. 

Staff in Arkansas fostered relationships with a wide variety of other local service providers, 

including community- and faith-based organizations such as Catholic Immigration Services, 

literacy councils, area agencies on aging, and migrant education programs. A particularly close 

partnership existed with the LCO. The NARN objectives were a natural fit with the goals of the 

LCO, which enabled LCO to systematize the services it had been providing ad hoc. The LCO 

was closely intertwined with the Malvern site; the local NARN coordinator was the president and 

a founding member of the LCO, and several of its board members were also members of the 

NARN advisory committee. In fact, many participants reportedly were more familiar and 

comfortable with the LCO than the NARN and sought out services at this office rather than 

going to the One-Stop Career Center. The LCO responded to the request for quotation for 

organizations to operate the Little Rock NARN based on its experiences in Malvern. LCOissued membership cards, which were accepted as a second form of identification in many 

places, were available through the NARN in Malvern, Little Rock, and Russellville. Participants 

found the LCO membership card crucial in opening bank accounts, starting utilities, and proving 

identity during interactions with local law enforcement. 

Many local NARN staff also developed relationships with local community colleges. For 

example, staff in Rogers worked closely with Northwest Arkansas Community College’s 

Department of Adult Education, which provided English as a second language (ESL) and 

citizenship classes, among other services. Under an innovative partnership, staff in Malvern 

worked with Ouachita Technical College, the Arkansas Economic Development Commission 

(AEDC), and a local welding company to provide welding training and certification to NARN 

participants. In focus groups with NARN participants, one participant noted that this training led 

him to the best job he had ever had. Another noted that the training provided him with the 

opportunity to become a licensed welder, which allowed him to contract work on his own. In 

another community college partnership in Malvern, the Henderson State University Small 

Business and Technology Development Center contacted NARN staff and asked them to help 

develop training for local businesses on reaching the Spanish-speaking community. 

Partnerships were also developed with private businesses. The Little Rock site established a 

partnership with Bank of America that resulted in the bank accepting the LCO-issued 

membership card as a second form of identification. Simmons First Bank of El Dorado provided 

space for NARN staff to meet with the community and to host civics education sessions. Arvest 

Bank in Northwest Arkansas also partnered with the NARN to increase services to the bank’s 

Latino clientele and promote financial literacy. Another partnership with a private roofing 

business led to internships for at least two individuals referred by the NARN. 

11
Project Staffing 

Each of the four primary NARN sites had two staff. All NARN staff were bilingual (Spanish 

and English), and most were foreign-born. The Little Rock, Malvern, and Russellville sites were 

staffed by a coordinator and an intake specialist. The coordinators generally devoted much of 

their time to community outreach and establishing contacts among local leaders, employers, and 

businesses. They also developed partnerships with other service providers and worked toward 

project sustainability through grants and other sponsorships. Intake specialists typically 

supported the coordinators in their outreach activities and worked more directly with individuals 

in need of services, referring them to appropriate providers and providing translation and 

interpretation services when necessary. Intake specialists were also responsible for entering 

information into the NARN data system. All staff helped organize and facilitate the civics 

education classes. The configuration differed slightly in Rogers, however. Because of 

challenges in attracting staff with the skills needed to foster new community collaborations and 

conduct outreach, Rogers chose to reclassify both staff as NARN specialists, with a focus on 

intake or information referrals and service provision, rather than having one intake specialist and 

a coordinator who was more outreach focused. A part-time intake specialist in nearby 

Fayetteville also provided referrals and translation and interpretation assistance to participants in 

the community. 

Supervision in Arkansas, except Little Rock, was provided by staff from the entity responsible 

for program operations (described on page 7). In Little Rock, staff were supervised by the LCO 

board to avoid conflicts of interest because the LCO president was related to the Little Rock 

NARN staff. 

Program Enrollment Levels and Demographic Characteristics of Participants 

Analysis of program enrollment levels and the demographic characteristics of participants in 

each local NARN site was based on data reported by staff using a standardized reporting system 

and is summarized in Table 2.3. This spreadsheet, called the Annual Services and Referrals 

Provided (ASRP) report, was developed specifically for this demonstration project and modeled 

after data collected by the original New Iowan Centers (see Appendix C for further discussion of 

the development of the ASRP report). While all sites used the same data reporting system, there 

were significant inconsistencies in how sites counted participants. Some sites’ demographic data 

included a discrete (unduplicated) count of the total number of individuals served (regardless of 

the number of services they may have received), while other sites counted individuals every time 

they received services through the NARN. In addition, in some sites, demographic data were not 

collected for all individuals who received assistance through the NARN. Specifically, Little 

Rock and Russellville included participants in their demographic data every time they sought 

services at the NARN, while Malvern and Rogers counted each person once, regardless of the 

number of times he or she sought services (see Appendix C for a further discussion of data 

issues). Due to these constraints, these data only offer a general sense of the scale of the NARN 

and the characteristics of the participants served, and thus should be interpreted cautiously. 

From the outset of the program (the first quarter of 2006) through the second quarter of 2008, 

NARN staff served 6,529 participants cumulatively across their four sites. Local NARN sites’ 

cumulative participant counts range from 1,199 in Little Rock to 2,085 in Rogers. Nearly two12
thirds (62 percent) of all NARN participants for whom demographic data were available were 

male, and 98 percent were Hispanic (see Table 2.3). Individuals between 25 and 35 years old 

made up the largest share of recorded participants in Arkansas (39 percent). Approximately onefifth of participants included in the demographic data were between the ages of 19 and 24 and 

one-fifth were between the ages of 36 and 45, while 8 percent were between 46 and 54 years old. 

Nearly one-tenth of recorded participants were teenagers (14 to 18 years old). Only a very small 

percentage of participants were over age 55. 

Gender

Male 62.2% 69.3% 63.8% 58.7% 59.4

Female 37.8% 30.7% 36.2% 41.3% 40.6

Race and Ethnicity2

Hispanic 97.8 % 99.9 % 100.0 % 94.7 % 98.0 %

White (Not of Hispanic Origin) 0.7 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 2.2 % 0.1 %

Black (Not of Hispanic Origin) 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.0 % 0.2 % 0.1 %

Asian or Pacific Islander 1.2 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 2.5 % 1.7 %

Native American or Alaskan Native 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 %

Multiracial 0.2 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.4 % 0.2 %

missing 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 %

Age Group3

14 - 18 8.2 % 6.3 % 19.0 % 1.4 % 6.5 %

19 - 24 20.4 % 32.2 % 29.1 % 8.4 % 17.6 %

25 - 35 39.1 % 40.5 % 40.3 % 31.1 % 46.6 %

36 - 45 21.0 % 13.8 % 9.6 % 33.7 % 20.6 %

46 - 54 8.3 % 4.9 % 1.5 % 17.9 % 4.6 %

55 and Over 3.0 % 1.4 % 0.5 % 7.6 % 0.6 %

missing 0.0 % 0.8 % 0.1 % 0.0 % 3.4 %

Number of Observations 6,529 1,199 1,746 2,085 1,499

Source: New Americans Centers Annual Services and Referrals Provided Report

2

For examples of countries of origin, see discussion on page 14.

3

Data on participants' ages were reported for a higher number of people in Arkansas (total) and Rogers than the total number of 

%

%

participants that were reported. In Arkansas, data were reported on ages for 6,559 participants while 6,529 total participants were reported; 

in Rogers, ages were reported for 2,177 participants while 2,085 total participants were reported.

1

Based on data reported quarterly to DOL/ETA by NAC demonstration projects. In Arkansas, data was reported in Little Rock beginning 

in the fourth quarter of 2006, in Malvern from the first quarter of 2006, in Rogers from the third quarter in 2006, and in Russellville from 

the first quarter of 2006. All four sites reported data through the second quarter of 2008. Data does not represent all participants served 

and may not be based on unique individuals. See Appendix C, Study Limitations for further discussion.

Table 2.31

Demographic Characteristics of New Arkansan Resource Network Participants, by Site

All Sites Little Rock Malvern Rogers Russellville

Based on a 15-week data collection period from mid-April through the end of June 2008 (see 

Appendix C for more details), more detailed demographic information was collected for a subset 

of NARN participants who sought services during this time (see Appendix Table B.4). Of those 

who sought services during the tracking period, more than two-thirds of the participants were 

male (69 percent), which ranged to as high as 79 percent of the participants in Malvern. Most 

13
participants were under the age of 45. The youngest participants were in Malvern, where half 

were under 25 years old. Rogers served a slightly older population; 43 percent of participants in 

this site were 45 years old or older. The employment status of participants varied within the 

state; a little more than 50 percent of participants overall were employed, ranging from almost 90 

percent of Malvern participants to only 31 percent of Rogers participants in the tracking period. 

In educational attainment, 15 percent of participants had high school diplomas or General 

Equivalency Diplomas (GED), while 57 percent of participants were recorded as holding an 

“other” level of educational attainment. Anecdotal information from program staff indicates that 

this may refer to education received in another country (see Appendix C for greater detail on data 

issues). Postsecondary education, however, was rare, with less than 3 percent reporting a 

bachelor’s or advanced degree. 

Consistent with the demographic information reported through the ASRP report (see Table 2.3), 

virtually all the tracked participants were Hispanic, with Spanish as their primary language and 

low levels of English proficiency. Across all NARN sites, only 5 percent of participants were 

fluent in English, while 62 percent had limited English proficiency. Participants in Rogers had 

the lowest levels of English proficiency; less than 1 percent of participants were fluent. 

According to the data collected between April and June 2008, most participants were from 

Spanish-speaking countries including Mexico and Central American nations such as El Salvador, 

Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. This was confirmed by NARN staff, who also noted an 

increase in Asian students among its participants in Northwest Arkansas in 2008 as a result of 

outreach to Arkansas Tech University’s international students. 

 

14
NEW IOWAN CENTERS

Four ETA-funded New Iowan Centers were established in Council Bluffs, Des Moines, 

Marshalltown, and Mount Pleasant.18 The four NICs funded by ETA were modeled after three 

preexisting centers established under the Iowa Workforce Development (IWD) agency. Over the 

course of the demonstration, additional state-funded NICs were implemented in four additional 

locations. 

Project Goals 

NICs were designed to help newcomers to Iowa establish themselves in the community by 

providing services to new Iowans, area employers, and the community at large. In general, NICs 

aimed to “grow Iowa” by ensuring new Iowans were educated about and had access to necessary 

services, helping newcomers adapt to the community, connecting employers and job seekers, and 

educating the community on issues of immigration and cultural diversity. 

Sponsoring Organization 

In Iowa, IWD received the ETA grant and maintained direct oversight of NICs (Table 2.4).19 All 

services were provided by IWD staff. However, local communities were strongly encouraged by 

the state to secure local support—both financial and in-kind. In Mount Pleasant, for example, 

the Iowa State University Extension Office and Healthy Henry County Communities, along with 

other local entities, provided office space and utilities for the NIC. 

Table 2.4: Organizational Structure of New Iowans Centers 

Site Oversight 

Fiscal and programmatic 

agent Local program operation 

Council Bluffs 

Des Moines 

Marshalltown 

Mount Pleasant 

Iowa Workforce Development (IWD) 

 

18 The original demonstration sites were Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Des Moines, and Waterloo. With permission 

from ETA, NIC operations in Cedar Rapids and Waterloo were disbanded and new sites were created in Mount 

Pleasant and Marshalltown in fall 2006. 

19 Initially, the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium (CIETC) administered the NICs for IWD. 

Because of alleged improprieties unrelated to the NAC demonstration project, IWD removed CIETC as the fiscal 

agent and moved all NIC activities, including staffing, under IWD. 

15
Community Context 

The ETA-funded NICs were established in a range of communities that varied in many ways, 

including local economic climate, sociodemographics, and existing provider networks. In Iowa, 

as in Arkansas, the communities where NICs were established were already receptive to 

immigrants. For example, Mount Pleasant’s Diversity Action Team was responsible for 

advocating for the inception of the NIC as a way to expand and complement its existing efforts. 

NIC staff also was sensitive to the need to avoid duplication of services and to working with 

organizations already providing services to the immigrant population in their community. As in 

Arkansas, NICs were located in both urban and rural areas. The Council Bluffs and Des Moines 

sites served primarily urban communities while Marshalltown and Mount Pleasant were located 

in smaller, more rural communities. Table 2.5 provides an overview of the economic and 

demographic profiles of the broader communities in which the NICs operated. 

Race and Ethnicity1

Hispanic 4.0 % 4.3 % 6.4 % 13.9 % 2.0 %

White (Not of Hispanic Origin) 90.5 % 92.4 % 83.6 % 82.6 % 92.8 %

Black (Not of Hispanic Origin) 2.4 % 1.0 % 5.1 % 1.4 % 1.3 %

Asian or Pacific Islander 1.6 % 0.7 % 3.1 % 0.9 % 1.9 %

Native American or Alaskan Native 0.2 % 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.2 %

Multiracial 1.1 % 1.1 % 1.5 % 1.0 % 1.9 %

Foreign Born 3.9 % 3.1 % 7.1 % 8.1 % 4.9 %

Education Level 

(for persons 25 or older)

No diploma 10.4 % 11.8 % 9.1 % 15.4 % 10.7 %

High school graduate 35.0 % 38.0 % 28.0 % 37.1 % 37.8 %

Some college 21.1 % 24.0 % 21.0 % 20.0 % 23.3 %

College graduate 24.2 % 17.2 % 32.8 % 18.0 % 19.2 %

Median Income (2008 dollars)

Household income

Family income

Unemployment Rate, April 20082 3.6 % 4.0 % 3.5 % 4.5 % 4.4 %

$59,198

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community Survey (ACS); Bureau of Labor Statisics, Local Area Unemployment 

2

Unemployment rate not seasonally adjusted.

$43,796

$61,245 $60,166 $70,771 $54,947

Mount Pleasant

(Henry County)

$48,585 $49,718 $56,111 $45,382

Iowa

Council Bluffs

(Pottawattamie 

County)

Des Moines

(Polk County)

Marshalltown 

(Marshall 

County)

1 Race and ethnicity data for Mount Pleasant (Henry County) is from U.S. Census Bureau 2005-2007 American Community Survey.

Table 2.5

Economic and Demographic Profile of Communities Served by New Iowans Centers

The unemployment rate in Iowa, which hovered between 3 and 4 percent at the time of the site 

visits, was below the national average, and demand for workers was high. Iowa was 

experiencing an exodus of its most educated residents; many native Iowans were leaving the 

state for better opportunities and higher salaries in other states. This left many entry-level jobs in 

16
such industries as fast food, manufacturing, and farming open to newcomers. Despite a decline 

in recent years, manufacturing was still a strong presence throughout the state; agriculture was 

also a dominant industry in much of the state. 

As in Arkansas, most NICs were located within or adjacent to local One-Stop Career Centers, 

known as workforce development centers in Iowa. Their colocation meant they were essentially 

integrated into the menu of services and conceived as part of the package of One-Stop Career 

Center programs. In Mount Pleasant, however, the One-Stop Career Center was unable to house 

the NIC because of space restrictions. Originally located on the enclosed front porch of the 

Fellowship Cup, a local Christian ministry, the Mount Pleasant NIC later relocated to the Iowa 

State University Extension Office. Although the Mount Pleasant NIC was still overseen by IWD 

and staffed by an IWD employee, this NIC was less connected to the local One-Stop Career 

Center than in other locations. 

Key Partners 

As in Arkansas, staff in Iowa dedicated considerable effort to building relationships with other 

agencies and partners in the community. These partnerships were critical to establishing 

advisory committees and, more important, to developing networks of local nonprofits, 

government agencies, and private businesses as resources to the NICs. 

Advisory Committees 

In Iowa, all four sites established working advisory committees of local leaders, businesses 

owners, service providers, and other community members. While advisory committees were still 

in development at the time of the initial visit—and, in some cases, struggling to define their 

mission—by the second visit, they were more established and meeting quarterly. Rather than 

directing NIC activities, advisory committees in Iowa appeared to serve more as vehicles for 

networking and resource sharing among community members who were invested in working 

with newcomers. 

Partner Agencies and Organizations 

NIC staff established extensive partner networks that included both public and private 

organizations such as health care providers, adult education providers, colleges and schools, 

employers, and local government agencies. NICs co-located in One-Stop Career Centers 

(Council Bluffs, Des Moines, and Marshalltown) included many other One-Stop Career Center 

programs in their list of partners. This included Promise Jobs, Iowa’s employment requirement 

assistance program; vocational rehabilitation; economic development organizations; AARP; and 

Job Corps, among others. Staff received referrals from and made referrals to other One-Stop 

Career Center programs and provided translation and interpretation assistance as needed. 

Staff in Iowa fostered relationships with a wide variety of other local service providers, including 

community- and faith-based organizations. The Des Moines NIC worked closely with Refugee 

Cooperative Services (a partnership between Lutheran Services in Iowa and Refugee 

Resettlement Services of Catholic Charities), and the NIC frequently referred participants to the 

American Friends Services Committee for immigration assistance. In addition, the Des Moines 

NIC partnered with Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, a grassroots social, economic, 

and environmental justice organization, to offer a financial literacy class in Spanish. The 

17
Council Bluffs site partnered with the local library, which allowed the use of its computer lab for 

computer classes, and the site worked with the consulate of Mexico in Omaha to implement 

Plazas Comunitarias, an online educational program sponsored by the Mexican government that 

allowed participants to complete their elementary, middle, or high school educations. In Mount 

Pleasant, the NIC worked closely with the diversity action team, described earlier, and Healthy 

Henry County Communities, a local coalition of health care professionals, educators, business 

representatives, advocates, and residents working together to improve residents’ quality of life. 

Other local partners included the Fellowship Cup, which initially housed the NIC, and the 

Chamber of Commerce. 

NIC staff also developed relationships with local community colleges. For example, the Council 

Bluffs and Mount Pleasant sites held citizenship classes in community college classrooms. 

Further, participants were often referred to classes and training programs, such as ESL or general 

educational development (GED) test preparation. Partnerships were also developed with private 

businesses. For example, the Council Bluffs staff developed a relationship with a local bank to 

ensure Spanish-speaking customers could be served. 

Project Staffing 

All NIC staff was employed by IWD. Three of the four sites had two-full time staff providing 

services to the community; Mount Pleasant had one full-time staff member. All NIC staff were 

bilingual (Spanish and English), and most were foreign born. The newest coordinator in 

Marshalltown was Native American and hoped to work with the nearby Native American 

communities while also addressing the needs of the foreign-born population. 

NIC staffing arrangements in Council Bluffs, Des Moines, and Marshalltown were similar. In 

these sites, there was a coordinator and an outreach specialist (known as a workforce associate), 

whose role was analogous to that of the intake specialist in Arkansas. The Des Moines 

workforce associate was primarily responsible for the Rosetta Stone language program. A single 

coordinator was responsible for all NIC activities in Mount Pleasant. 

All NIC staff worked with participants directly, conducting intake, providing referrals, 

performing translation and interpretation services, and assisting with job search. As in Arkansas, 

staff did not work with participants on an ongoing basis or carry caseloads. Rather, they 

provided assistance to anyone who came to the NIC. As one participant noted, the NIC staff “are 

very available and willing to help people out with whatever issues they have.” Coordinators 

were expected to devote much of their energy to conducting outreach in the community and 

establishing networks of community advocates, service providers, and employers. Outreach 

specialists/workforce associates supported the coordinator and were responsible for direct 

services, providing referral information and resources, collecting and entering data into the data 

system, and running monthly data reports. 

Volunteers played an important role in service provision in Council Bluffs and Des Moines. For 

example, an AARP volunteer ran ESL and citizenship classes for participants in Des Moines, and 

the AmeriCorps VISTA program provided volunteers to work with Hurricane Katrina evacuees 

receiving NIC services. AmeriCorps VISTA volunteers also worked at the NIC in Council 

Bluffs, along with volunteers from the consulate of Mexico and the Red Cross, and interns from 

18
Iowa Western Community College. The Mount Pleasant NIC worked with an intern from Iowa 

Wesleyan College who helped update a local bilingual directory and worked on other NICrelated outreach. 

Two regional NIC supervisors shared management of local sites within each half of Iowa. These 

supervisors directly supervised local staff, organized quarterly regional meetings, approved most 

major decisions, collected monthly data reports (which were then passed on to IWD), and 

produced quarterly reports for ETA. 

Program Enrollment Levels and Demographic Characteristics of Participants 

As in Arkansas, data on NIC program enrollment levels and participant demographic 

characteristics of participants were reported using a standardized reporting system developed for 

this project (the ASRP report) and are summarized in Table 2.6. In Iowa, all participants seeking 

services were only counted once per month regardless of how many times they sought services 

throughout the month, until the first quarter of 2007, when NICs began including only new 

participants in their data (see Appendix C for a further discussion of data issues). Therefore, the 

data cannot offer precise information on participants served by the NICs; instead, they provide a 

general sense of the relative scale of the NICs and participant characteristics.

From the outset of the program through the second quarter of 2008, Iowa served 5,561 

participants across four sites. The cumulative participant count at sites in Iowa ranged from 326 

in Marshalltown to 2,454 in Des Moines.20 Fifty-one percent were male. Iowa served a more 

diverse population than did Arkansas. Hispanics were the largest ethnic group served, at 55 

percent, while 20 percent of participants were white, non-Hispanic and 6 percent were black. 

However, Des Moines reported a higher percentage of black participants at 11 percent. An 

additional 6 percent of participants across all NIC sites were multiracial. According to anecdotal 

accounts from program staff in Iowa, most NIC participants were recent immigrants from a wide 

array of countries. Most participants were from Spanish-speaking countries, such as El Salvador, 

Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and Nicaragua. Other countries of origin, particularly in Des 

Moines, included Bolivia, Bosnia, Canada, Colombia, Iraq, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Somalia, 

Sudan, and Thailand. Data on the age of participants in Iowa were reported for only 45 percent 

of participants. When examining the limited data reported, most participants were between the 

ages of 25 and 45. For instance, in Marshalltown, where age was reported more consistently, 37 

percent of participants were between the ages of 25 and 35, and 23 percent were 36 to 45 years 

old. 

The statewide data management tool in Iowa, IWORKS, provided information about individual 

participants (in contrast to the aggregated data available in the ASRP report). IWORKS data 

examined for the period of April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2008, showed that the NIC participants 

during this period were predominantly male, Hispanic, and between the ages of 25 and 35 (see 

Appendix Table B.5 for details). Most participants had less than high school educations, and 

only 7 percent had greater than high school educations. Further, very few NIC participants were 

 

20 Services in Marshalltown did not commence until late 2006, or two quarters after the other sites. Services were 

then interrupted owing to staff turnover and did not recommence until late 2007, creating a year-long gap in 

services. 

19
in school when they obtained services. Between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008, Mount 

Pleasant served a higher proportion of participants age 25 to 35 than the other sites, while Des 

Moines and Marshalltown served a higher proportion of those age 55 and older. The share of 

participants with less than high school educations was higher in Mount Pleasant than in other 

sites, and the highest share of participants enrolled in school was in Marshalltown. Participants 

in Mount Pleasant had the highest rate of employment, at 83 percent, while 39 percent of 

participants in Council Bluffs were employed when they first received NIC services during this 

period. 

Gender

Male 51.4 % 53.7 % 52.3 % 58.3 % 44.1 %

Female 48.6 % 46.3 % 47.7 % 41.7 % 55.9 %

Race and Ethnicity2,3

Hispanic 54.8 % 44.0 % 57.8 % 69.4 % 57.7 %

White (Not of Hispanic Origin) 19.5 % 35.5 % 14.8 % 18.1 % 5.6 %

Black (Not of Hispanic Origin) 5.8 % 1.6 % 11.2 % 5.0 % 0.1 %

Asian or Pacific Islander 2.6 % 1.2 % 2.6 % 1.9 % 4.6 %

Native American or Alaskan Native 1.6 % 2.4 % 0.0 % 5.3 % 2.5 %

Multiracial 6.1 % 2.7 % 0.0 % 0.3 % 25.9 %

missing 9.8 % 12.6 % 13.5 % 0.0 % 3.6 %

Age Group

14 - 18 0.8 % 1.7 % 0.3 % 2.1 % 0.1 %

19 - 24 5.8 % 8.1 % 4.2 % 13.2 % 3.5 %

25 - 35 15.2 % 15.6 % 11.5 % 36.8 % 16.5 %

36 - 45 12.9 % 11.2 % 14.6 % 23.3 % 8.9 %

46 - 54 7.2 % 6.5 % 8.1 % 16.0 % 3.8 %

55 and Over 3.1 % 1.7 % 3.7 % 7.4 % 2.5 %

missing 55.0 % 55.2 % 57.6 % 1.2 % 64.8 %

Number of Observations 5,561 1,663 2,454 326 1,118

3

Data on participants' race and ethnicity were reported for a higher number of people in Marshalltown than the total number of participants 

that were reported. In Marshalltown, data were reported on race and ethnicity for 360 participants while 326 total participants were 

reported.

2

For examples of countries of origin, see discussion on page 19.

All Sites Council Bluffs Des Moines Marshalltown Mt. Pleasant

Table 2.61

Demographic Characteristics of New Iowans Centers Participants, by Site

Source: New Americans Centers Annual Services and Referrals Provided Report

1

Based on data reported quarterly to DOL/ETA by NAC demonstration projects. In Iowa, Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Mount 

Pleasant reported data beginning in the second quarter of 2006 through the second quarter of 2008. Marshalltown reported data in the 

fourth quarter of 2006 and then again in the fourth quarter of 2007 through the second quarter of 2008. Data does not represent all 

Iowa

 

20
III. Services and Other Assistance Provided by the New Arkansan 

 Resource Network 

This section reports on the types and level of services provided to immigrants and other 

newcomers through the New Arkansan Resource Network. Services were generally available to 

any individual or family, community organization, or employer who sought them out. There 

were no eligibility requirements, no formal assessment processes, and no formal program entry 

or exit activities. Services and referrals were provided case by case according to individual 

needs and requests. As there were no participation requirements, staff did not typically follow 

up on referrals. They did, however, maintain case files on most individuals and families.21

Services were provided directly by NAC staff or through referrals to other agencies and 

organizations in the community. The most common services provided to participants, 

employers, and the community in Arkansas are discussed below. Services provided to these 

three groups in Iowa are discussed in Chapter IV. 

Information on the services provided in Arkansas was drawn from two sources. The first was the 

ASRP report used by each site for quarterly reporting of service receipt data through the end of 

the demonstration grant in June 2008. Malvern and Russellville began reporting data in the first 

quarter of 2006, while Rogers began in the third quarter of 2006 and Little Rock in the fourth 

quarter of 2006. Sites collected information on the number of services provided to participants, 

employers, and the community. These three service categories (participant services, employer 

services, and community services) were further broken down into areas of assistance, such as 

interpretation and translation, supportive services, and employment assistance. 

As the case files maintained by NARN staff were confidential and unavailable for analysis, 

further information on NARN participant characteristics and service receipt was provided by 

analyzing data collected on individual participants using a NARN service tracking form in each 

site. The data collection period using this tracking form ran from April through June 2008. 

NARN staff recorded demographic information about each participant they served over the 

course of the data collection period. They also noted the services they provided to each 

participant in categories that aligned with the services recorded in the ASRP report. The NARN 

service tracking form allowed for more standardized collection of service receipt data, as 

recorded services were connected to individual participants. However, missing data in addition 

to a limited sample makes the information insufficient for statistical comparisons (see Appendix 

C for further discussion of data issues). Care must be taken in interpreting service levels and in 

making cross-site comparisons when analyzing both the individual-level data and the aggregate 

data from the ASRP report. 

Even taking into account the differences in how services are counted, the level of service 

provided across sites still varied considerably. In Arkansas, the total number of services reported 

through the ASRP report (including services for participants, employers, and the community) 

ranged from 2,646 in Little Rock to 35,939 in Russellville (see Table 3.1 below and Appendix B 

for detailed tables of specific services provided by site). This may reflect the delay in 

implementation in Little Rock, where services did not begin until the fourth quarter of 2006. 

 

21 Information in the case files was confidential and was not available for this evaluation. 

21
Site

Services provided 

to participants

Services provided 

to employers

Services provided 

to the community

Total services 

provided

Arkansas Total 95% 1% 4% 63,937

Little Rock 94% 6% 0% 2,646

Malvern 100% 0% 0% 5,650

Rogers 94% 2% 4% 19,702

Russellville 94% 0% 6% 35,939

Table 3.1

Share of Services Provided to Participants, Employers, and the Community in 

Arkansas

 

While the NACs were designed to provide services to participants, employers, and the 

community, services for participants made up the vast majority of the total services provided in 

Arkansas. Nearly all (95 percent) reported services were provided to individuals and families. 

This is partly because participant services were a primary focus of NAC staff during early phases 

of implementation, while services for employers and the community were initiated later. 

Services to NARN Participants 

The majority of participant services were provided through referrals to other organizations. 

Referrals were often made for the following services: employment assistance (including job 

services, job training, and unemployment insurance); education (e.g., ESL and adult education, 

scholarships, etc.); legal services and immigration assistance; and supportive services (such as 

child care, clothing, food, housing, and health care). Staff in all four NARN sites routinely 

provided translation and interpretation assistance to participants, both in the offices and out in 

the community. Staff in the Russellville NARN also provided notarization services. Little Rock, 

Malvern, and Russellville offered a civics education class, which addressed issues related to 

becoming productive citizens within the respective communities and provided information about 

using community services such as banking accounts and health care resources. In Rogers, 

individuals were referred to civics and citizenship classes provided by the Northwest Arkansas 

Community College Adult Education Center. Staff in Little Rock, Malvern, and Russellville 

also issued LCO membership identification cards, which came to be accepted as a second form 

of identification by many local organizations and businesses. The Rogers site did not issue the 

LCO membership identification cards because local government leaders did not endorse the 

cards. While this chapter describes each area in which participants received assistance, detailed 

statistics are provided in Appendix B, Table B.1. 

The services provided in the NARN sites were either provided directly to participants by NARN 

staff (called direct services in this analysis) or were referrals to other organizations for services 

(indirect services). Tapping into their network of community partners and resources, NARN 

staff referred participants to organizations and community service providers for assistance with 

food, child care, shelter, clothing, health care, tax preparation, employment, classes, training 

programs, and legal and immigration counseling. Direct services provided by staff included ESL 

and civics education classes, assistance with job search or resume development, and 

22
interpretation and translation. Across all sites in Arkansas, 81 percent of services provided to 

participants were indirect services. Although the majority of services in Little Rock and Malvern 

initially were direct services, by the close of ETA funding, the distribution of services among 

indirect and direct services mirrored those of the other sites. As these sites progressed, they 

increased referrals to other organizations, perhaps as their network and connections within the 

community grew. 

Analysis of individual-level data collected during the tracking period, which spanned 

approximately 15 weeks from mid-April 2008 through the end of June 2008, provided a snapshot 

of the services NARN participants received (see Appendix C for more information on data 

collection and issues). Participants received an average of 5.5 services during the tracking period 

and received services an average of 1.8 times. Although NARN staff provided many of these 

services directly during a participant’s visit to a NARN office, staff also provided services during 

telephone calls with participants and by referring participants to other service providers. 

Participants were therefore receiving multiple services during one visit to or contact with a 

NARN, as well as in some cases making multiple visits. However, this was not the case for 

participants in Malvern, where participants received services once and received less than two 

services, on average. Participants in Russellville received the highest intensity of services, with 

an average of eight services over the course of more than two contacts. There is little variation 

in either the number of services received or the number of contacts across differences in gender, 

education level, English proficiency, or employment status (see Appendix C for further 

discussion of data issues). 

As shown in Figure 3.1, the most common services recorded during the tracking period were 

interpretation (64%), civics education (59%), and employment assistance (56%). ESL classes, 

supportive services, and other services were each provided to more than 40 percent of 

participants. The services most frequently provided in each site varied, and most significantly in 

Malvern where civics education and other services were the only service categories reported (see 

Appendix C for further discussion of potential data limitations). The services that most 

participants in Little Rock received were legal services, interpretation, and immigration 

assistance; in Rogers, the most common services were employment assistance and interpretation; 

and in Russellville, employment assistance, interpretation, basic needs services, or ESL classes 

were provided to over 60 percent of its participants during the service tracking period. Figures 

B.1–B.4 in Appendix B chart the services received by participants at each local NARN site. 

23
Figure 3.1 

Types of Services Received by NARN Participants, April–June 2008 

Services to All NARN Participants

64.4

58.7 55.9

48.6 45.9

42.0

32.2

21.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Interpretation Civics

education

Employment

assistance

ESL classes Other

services

Supportive

services

Immigration

assistance

Legal

services

Service Types

Percentage of Participants

Source: New Arkansan Resource Network service tracking data. 

During the tracking period, men and women in Arkansas received services at roughly similar 

rates, with a few exceptions: 63 percent of male participants received civics education compared 

with 46 percent of women, while 56 percent of women compared with 46 percent of male 

participants received ESL or language classes, and 28 percent of women compared with 19 

percent of men received legal services. Patterns of service receipt among participants with 

different levels of English proficiency varied as expected; more participants with limited to no 

English proficiency received interpretation and employment assistance than those fluent in 

English. Similarly, unemployed participants received employment assistance at twice the rate of 

those who were employed. However, the rates of service receipt in these areas remained 

moderately high for all participants; 41 percent of those reported as fluent in English still 

received interpretation assistance, and 41 percent of employed participants received employment 

services. 

An analysis of the ASRP report data provided a broader overview of the types of services most 

commonly provided.22 Similar to what was found through the service tracking data, the ASRP 

report demonstrated that interpretation and translation services, ESL classes, and supportive 

services were among the most common services to participants. Figure 3.2 and Table 3.2 below 

display the distribution of services provided to NARN participants, and each type of service is 

described below. 

 

22 Malvern and Russellville began reporting data in the first quarter of 2006, while Rogers began in the third quarter 

of 2006 and Little Rock in the fourth quarter of 2006. 

24
Figure 3.21 

Distribution of Services Provided to New Arkansan Resource Network Participants 

Supportive Services

10%

Employment 

Services

7%

Civics Education 

Classes

ESL/Language 5%

Classes

12%

Other Classes

15%

Legal Issues

9%

Immigration Services

12%

Tax/SSN

4%

Financial

3%

Other

1%

General Information

1% Computer Access

3%

Interpretation/

Translation

17%

Source: New Americans Centers Annual Services and Referrals Provided report. 1

 Figure 3.2 represents all services provided across all four NARN sites. 

25
All Sites Little Rock Malvern Rogers Russellville

Supportive Services 10% 13% 2% 9% 12%

Interpretation/Translation 17% 7% 3% 25% 16%

Employment Services 7% 3% 1% 12% 6%

Civics Education Classes 5% 10% 0% 7% 5%

ESL/Language Classes 12% 5% 32% 10% 10%

Other Classes 14% 15% 31% 16% 11%

Legal Issues 9% 9% 0% 3% 14%

Immigration Services 12% 18% 31% 1% 14%

Tax/SSN 4% 9% 0% 1% 7%

Financial 3% 6% 0% 0% 5%

Computer Access 3% 3% 0% 9% 0%

General Information 1% 0% 0% 4% 0%

Other 1% 1% 0% 2% 0%

Total 60,546 2,485 5,650 18,612 33,799

Source : New Americans Centers Annual Services and Referrals Provided report.

Table 3.21

Types of Services Provided to New Arkansan Resource Network Participants, by 

Site

1

 Table 3.2 displays the percentage of all services that each individual service represents, across all sites collectively and 

within each site.

Supportive Services 

NARN staff in each site assisted participants with basic and supportive services, including child 

care, clothing, food, housing, and health care, among other needs. The vast majority of 

supportive services provided were referrals made by NARN staff to other local agencies, most of 

which were community- and faith-based organizations. At the end of ETA funding, supportive 

services made up 10 percent of the services provided to participants across the state (see Figure 

3.2). A similar portion of the services provided in Little Rock, Rogers, and Russellville was 

supportive services, while in Malvern, only 2 percent of the total services provided to 

participants were supportive services. 

Translation and Interpretation Services 

Staff in all sites described translation and interpretation assistance as a primary need of 

participants. They provided this service in the offices as well as in the community. For example, 

staff attended parent-teacher conferences at local schools to interpret for parents who do not 

speak English; staff also interpreted meetings between participants and their employers. Across 

the four sites, interpretation and translation services made up a greater share of participant 

services than any other type of assistance, representing 17 percent of the total services provided 

to participants. In Rogers, interpretations and translations made up a quarter of the total services 

provided to participants. 

26
Employment Assistance 

NARN staff made employment-related referrals for participants looking for work and helped 

unemployed participants apply for unemployment insurance compensation. Staff referred 

participants to partner agencies in the One-Stop Career Centers in which they were located as 

well as job placement agencies and employers. Although employment assistance was primarily 

provided through referrals, at times a NARN staff member directly assisted participants with 

their job search activities, including helping them complete employment applications and 

accompanying them during visits to employers to submit applications and for interviews. 

Employment-related assistance represented only 7 percent of the total services provided to 

participants. Employment assistance was most common in Rogers, where it constituted 12 

percent of all services, but it was as little as 3 percent of services in Little Rock and 1 percent of 

services in Malvern. This likely reflects the NARN’s overall focus on establishing networks of 

service providers rather than providing direct services itself. Further, it may reflect the needs of 

the participants served. According to program staff, participants were likely to already be 

employed when they sought services from the NARN. 

Civics Education 

Civics education classes were available to participants in three of the four NARN sites. Little 

Rock and Russellville offered these classes, expanding their service area into nearby 

communities. Participants in Rogers were often referred to similar classes in the community. 

During these classes, NARN staff and representatives from various partner agencies addressed 

issues related to becoming productive citizens within the communities. Topics included the local 

school system, immigration, law enforcement, applying for Individual Taxpayer Identification 

Numbers, cultural issues, taxes, local services, and connecting utilities. 

In Little Rock, 10 percent of all services provided to participants were civics education classes 

(in this case, a two-session civics education class was counted as one service). The proportion of 

services that were civics education classes in the other sites was slightly less: 7 percent of 

services provided to participants in Rogers were civics education classes and close to 5 percent 

in Russellville. Staff in Little Rock and Russellville also issued LCO membership cards after 

completion of the class, which are accepted as a second form of identification by many local 

organizations and businesses. 

ESL Classes 

All four NARN locations directly provided or made referrals to ESL classes by the end of the 

ETA grant. Malvern staff provided ESL classes themselves, while the other sites referred to 

local organizations such as adult education centers. These classes became an increasing focus of 

the Malvern NARN, where ESL classes and referrals were the most commonly provided service 

(representing 32 percent of all services provided). Staff considered ESL classes increasingly 

important for NARN participants as they saw a growing need among employers for English 

proficiency in their workforce. 

Other Education and Training Services 

Local NARN sites hosted other classes and workshops as well. For example, Malvern and 

Russellville sponsored financial literacy classes. In addition to the classes run directly through 

the NARN sites, staff referred participants to classes in the community. These classes included 

27
language classes, classes that covered such topics as financial education or computer skills, and a 

welding certification program. For example, Rogers developed a close partnership with 

Northwest Arkansas Community College’s Department of Adult Education, whose director 

served on the NARN advisory committee, and frequently referred participants to ESL and 

citizenship classes. Likewise, staff in Russellville often referred participants to the Russellville 

Adult Education Center for ESL and GED classes, and Arkansas Tech University for Spanish 

writing courses. As noted earlier, staff in Malvern worked with Ouachita Technical College, the 

Arkansas Economic Development Commission, and a local employer to deliver customized 

welding training and certification to NARN participants. 

Legal and Immigration Assistance 

Staff also referred participants to organizations and services in the community that addressed 

legal and civil rights issues. This service was particularly common in Russellville, where it 

made up 14 percent of all services provided to participants. Staff in Rogers and Little Rock also 

occasionally referred participants for assistance with legal or civil rights. 

Staff also referred participants to organizations that specifically addressed immigration-related 

issues. They made referrals to organizations such as Catholic Charities and the satellite 

consulate of Mexico in Arkansas. All immigration-related services in the NARN were indirect 

services; although staff in Malvern attended training for certification in immigration issues, no 

staff had been certified to represent individuals seeking to adjust their immigration status by the 

end of ETA funding. Referrals on immigration-related issues became more common through the 

course of the demonstration grant, ultimately making up 12 percent of total services throughout 

the state and 31 percent of services in Malvern. 

Other Services 

Among the other services provided for NARN participants was access to computers with Internet 

connectivity and word processing. Computers were primarily used for employment-related 

activities, such as searching online for jobs or creating a resume. Several NARN sites formed 

relationships with local banks, such as with Arvest Bank in Rogers and Russellville, and would 

refer participants to the banks to establish accounts and for other banking services. Staff also 

referred participants to a range of other organizations to help them with tax preparation or to 

meet other needs, such as activities for families with children. 

Employer Services 

NACs were also designed as resources to area employers and businesses by helping them meet 

their staffing needs and connecting them with relevant training and resources. In Arkansas, 

because staff focused on building services for participants and the community during the early 

phases of NARN implementation, the level of services provided to employers was lower than the 

level of services provided to participants or the community. Across all four NARN sites, less 

than 1 percent of total services were provided to employers. Ninety-three percent of these 

services to employers were provided through referrals to other organizations or service 

providers, such as agencies located within the One-Stop Career Centers. 

Employers also requested training for their employees from NARN staff, such as an on-site 

civics class in Russellville and cultural training to employees at a bank seeking to increase its 

28
Hispanic clientele in Rogers. In Malvern, the NARN worked with employers to develop training 

programs for potential employees in conjunction with a local technical college. Through this 

partnership, NARN staff in Malvern provided interpretation services for several welding training 

sessions as well as a training session on a computer-based tool to cut furniture pieces. To 

increase relationships with employers, the Rogers NARN brought on a part-time staff member 

specifically tasked with conducting outreach to employers. His goals included assessing the 

service needs of employers as well as forming partnerships and securing financial support from 

them. 

Community Services 

Lastly, NACs aimed to increase awareness of diversity issues and immigration in the community 

at large. NARN staff regularly participated in local community events, including Chambers of 

Commerce events, job fairs, and local service provider committees. While less developed than 

services to participants, about 4 percent of all services provided by NARN staff were services 

provided to the community. As with services provided to participants and employers, virtually 

all these services were indirect in the form of referrals to other community resources. To build 

the resource network fundamental to the strategy of the NARN, though, staff worked to generally 

foster relationships with local community leaders and ensure people were aware of their services. 

For example, two NARN sites hosted family-oriented community events. NARN staff also 

extended their outreach beyond the immediate communities in which they were located to other 

towns that could benefit from their services. Two NARN sites collaborated with a nearby city to 

produce a video documentary encouraging relocation to and reinvestment in the city. 

NARN staff also conducted diversity training at community organizations and businesses, hosted 

networking events, and participated in local community events such as Chambers of Commerce 

events and job fairs. They participated in local service provider committees and provided 

assistance to them, such as in Rogers where NARN staff provided interpretation for the Hispanic 

Service Providers community group. Several NARN sites also worked with various community 

organizations and companies, including pharmacies, banks, and utility companies, to have the 

LCO membership card accepted as a form of identification. 

29
IV. Services and Other Assistance Provided by New Iowan Centers 

NICs were designed to provide services to participants, employers, and the communities in 

which they were located. Similarly to the NARN, there were no eligibility or participation 

requirements for assistance. Services were provided both directly by NIC staff as well as 

through referrals to other organizations. The primary areas of service provided to individuals, 

employers, and the community are discussed below. As in Arkansas, the ASRP report was the 

primary source of information on the services provided to each of these three groups. Data in the 

ASRP report from Iowa were generated from IWORKS, the Iowa Workforce Development data 

management system. Because of inconsistencies in the reports drawn from IWORKS, the ASRP 

report was adjusted as necessary by staff based on hand tallies (see Appendix C for further 

discussion of data issues). Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Mount Pleasant reported data using 

the ASRP report from the second quarter of 2006 through the second quarter of 2008. In 

Marshalltown, data were reported in the fourth quarter of 2006 and then from the fourth quarter 

of 2007 through the second quarter of 2008. 

In addition, individual-level service receipt data obtained through the state’s IWORKS system 

were analyzed to gain more insight into service receipt and employment outcomes. The 

IWORKS data was examined for the period from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2008, and included 

information on individual participant characteristics and the types of services received. The data 

also included dates of service receipt, which enabled analysis of the number and combinations of 

services provided to participants both throughout the tracking period as well as during individual 

visits to the NIC. While most services recorded by IWORKS aligned with the categories of 

services collected by the ASRP report, several services were unique to IWORKS. Appendix C 

describes these differences and other data limitations in greater detail. 

The NICs faced several implementation challenges that influenced the level of services they 

could provide; for instance, a staff vacancy in the Marshalltown office put services on hold for 

close to a year (see the evaluation’s interim report for further discussion of implementation). 

Therefore, levels of service provision ranged widely in Iowa, from 1,363 services in 

Marshalltown to 18,173 in Council Bluffs (see Table 4.1, below, and Appendix B for detailed 

tables of specific services provided by site). As Table 4.1 shows, most services in Iowa were 

provided to individuals and families (86 percent of all reported services). The remaining 

reported services were divided among services to employers (4 percent) and to each NIC’s local 

community (10 percent). 

Site

Services provided 

to participants

Services provided 

to employers

Services provided 

to the community

Total services 

provided

Iowa Total 86% 4% 10% 34,177

Council Bluffs 98% 1% 1% 18,173

Des Moines 91% 3% 6% 7,767

Marshalltown 90% 3% 7% 1,363

Mount Pleasant 51% 10% 39% 6,874

Table 4.1

Share of Services Provided to Participants, Employers, and the Community in Iowa

30
Services to NIC Participants 

Although each site varied somewhat in the services it emphasized, the patterns of service receipt 

were largely similar across the state. According to the ASRP report, the most commonly 

provided services were employment-related services, interpretation and translation, computer 

access, ESL or language classes, and general information assistance with forms and paperwork 

for other services. Other available services provided to NIC participants included supportive 

services such as child care or housing, civics education classes, assistance with legal and civil 

rights issues, and tax-related or financial assistance. 

About three-quarters of the services provided to participants in NICs were directly provided by 

NIC staff, while the remainder constituted referrals to other organizations. In three of the four 

NIC sites, services were predominantly direct, and many were employment-related services such 

as assistance developing a resume or searching for a job. In Mount Pleasant, however, close to 

half the services (45 percent) were provided through referrals to other service providers or 

organizations. This is partially driven by a higher level of referrals for legal issues and 

immigration services in Mount Pleasant. The services provided to participants in each NIC are 

shown in Appendix B, Table B.1. 

While the ASRP report provided aggregate information on participant demographics and service 

receipt, an analysis of individual-level data yielded greater detail about the typical experience of 

NIC participants and patterns of service receipt. Data from the statewide IWORKS system were 

examined to analyze NIC participants’ service use between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

(see Appendix C for more information on data sources and issues). Appendix D analyzes the 

combination of services received by NIC participants as well as their pathways for service 

receipt. 

Based on analysis of IWORKS data, participants received an average of eight services through 

an average of three contacts with NIC staff (either in person or by telephone) between April 1, 

2007, and March 31, 2008. Although 62 percent of participants received services only once, a 

smaller number of participants received services on multiple occasions, with 15 percent of 

participants receiving services four or more times during the period in which IWORKS data were 

examined. The Mount Pleasant NIC provided services the highest number of times on average 

(more than three times on average, compared with less than three times in Council Bluffs and 

Des Moines). 

The average number of services varied among the NIC offices, ranging from 10 services per 

participant in Council Bluffs to 4 services per participant in Marshalltown, where services were 

not offered until halfway through the observation period. Across the sites, the services received 

varied by gender; women received 9 services on average while men received 6 services, and 

women received approximately one more instance of service receipt than men. Those with less 

than high school educations also received slightly more services than those with at least high 

school educations (8 and 6 services, respectively). 

Employment services were the most commonly received services by NIC participants between 

April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008, with 72 percent of NIC participants receiving employment 

services in this period (Figure 4.1). General information and miscellaneous services such as 

31
public notary services were also common, with over half of participants receiving these services. 

Other commonly received services were interpretation/translation and computer access. Fewer 

participants received ESL/language classes, other classes, supportive services assistance, legal 

issues assistance, immigration services, civics education classes, joint events,23 tax/Social 

Security Number assistance, and financial assistance. 

Figure 4.1 

Types of Services Received by NIC Participants, April 1, 2007–March 31, 2008 

71.8%

59.0% 57.2%

44.8%

30.8%

13.7% 11.4%

6.5% 5.2% 4.9% 3.7% 3.7% 2.2% 0.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Employment Services

General Information

Miscellaneous Services

Interpretation/Translation

Computer Access

ESL/Language Classes

Other Classes

Supportive Services Assistance

Legal Issues Assistance

Immigration Services

Civics Education Classes

Joint Events

Tax/SSN Assistance

Financial Assistance

Service Types

Parcentage of Participants

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

Note: Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public 

notary services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were 

“other services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category 

may have included services misclassified by local staff. Consequently, some percentages of other types of services 

provided may have been marginally higher. 

The types of services received during the data observation period differed across NIC sites. 

Council Bluffs provided more types of services more often to its participants than other sites (see 

Appendix Figures D.1–D.4). Employment services, general information, miscellaneous services, 

interpretation/translation, or computer access were each provided to over half the participants in 

Council Bluffs. The most common services provided to participants in Des Moines were 

employment services and interpretation/translation; in Marshalltown, employment services, 

general information, and miscellaneous services were the most common. The services provided 

in Mount Pleasant, in contrast, varied more widely. Unlike the other sites, few participants in 

 

23 It was not possible to determine what types of services were included as joint events. 

32
Mount Pleasant received employment services. This could be because the Mount Pleasant NIC 

was not colocated in a Workforce Center as was the case in Council Bluffs, Des Moines, and 

Marshalltown (see Chapter II for a discussion of location and partner agencies). 

There were few large differences by gender and education level in the types of services received 

by NIC participants between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008; however, some smaller-scale 

differences were evident. For example, 18 percent of women received ESL/language classes 

compared with 10 percent of men, while 75 percent of men received employment services 

compared with 68 percent of women. Those with less than high school educations received 

interpretation/translation services at more than twice the rate of those with at least high school 

educations (54 and 22 percent, respectively). Those with at least high school educations received 

employment services more often than those with less than high school degrees (81 percent 

compared with 68 percent). 

From April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008, 1,718 participants obtained services from the four 

NICs. Together, Council Bluffs and Des Moines served over 80 percent of all NIC participants 

(43 and 40 percent, respectively) while Mount Pleasant served 12 percent and Marshalltown, 5 

percent. The relatively lower number of participants in Marshalltown is influenced by the timing 

of services there; while the period of IWORKS data analysis begins in the second quarter of 

2007, Marshalltown was not offering services until the fourth quarter of that year. 

Analysis of the ASRP report data, which was collected from the beginning of services in 2006 

through the end of the demonstration grant in June 2008,24 provided a broader overview of the 

types of services most commonly provided. As found through analysis of the IWORKS data, 

employment services, general information, interpretation and translation services, and computer 

access were among the most commonly provided services to participants. Figure 4.2 and Table 

4.2 depict the distribution of services provided to participants in Iowa, and the section below 

briefly highlights each service.25

 

24 Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Mount Pleasant reported data using the ASRP report from the second quarter of 

2006 through the second quarter of 2008. In Marshalltown, data were reported in the fourth quarter of 2006 and 

then from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the second quarter of 2008. 

25 Figure 4.2 displays each service as a percentage of the total services provided in Iowa. Services as a percentage of 

total services in each site are presented in Table 4.2. 

33
Figure 4.21

Distribution of Services Provided to New Iowan Centers Participants 

Supportive Services

4%

Interpretation/Transl

ation

16%

Employment 

Services

22%

Civics Education 

Classes

2%

ESL/Language 

Classes

11%

Computer Access

12%

General Information

16%

Other

9%

Immigration 

Services

2%

Financial

0%

Tax/SSN

1%

Other Classes

4%

Legal Issues

1%

Source: New Americans Centers Annual Services and Referrals Provided report. 1

 Figure 4.2 represents all services provided across all four NIC sites. 

34
All Sites

Council 

Bluffs Des Moines

MarshalltownMount 

Pleasant

Supportive Services 4% 2% 3% 4% 13%

Interpretation/Translation 16% 19% 11% 15% 9%

Employment Services 23% 20% 35% 28% 9%

Civics Education Classes 2% 1% 4% 0% 2%

ESL/Language Classes 11% 11% 15% 1% 7%

Other Classes 4% 3% 4% 5% 3%

Legal Issues 1% 1% 1% 1% 4%

Immigration Services 2% 1% 1% 2% 10%

Tax/SSN 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Financial 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Computer Access 12% 18% 1% 8% 3%

General Information 16% 15% 13% 12% 27%

Other 9% 7% 10% 21% 12%

Total 29,545 17,762 7,067 1,225 3,491

Source : New Americans Centers Annual Services and Referrals Provided report.

1

 Table 4.2 displays the percentage of all services that each individual service represents, across all sites collectively and 

within each site.

Table 4.21

Types of Services Provided to New Iowan Centers Participants, by Site

Supportive Services 

NIC participants in Iowa received help with child care, clothing, food, health care, housing, and 

referrals to other supportive services. Although this type of assistance represented only 4 percent 

of all services throughout the state, it was more prevalent in Mount Pleasant, where 13 percent of 

all services were supportive services. The NIC coordinator often referred participants to the 

Fellowship Cup’s clothing ministry and food pantry, or to a local organization that helped 

immigrants with housing deposits when they relocate. 

Interpretation and Translation Services 

NIC staff frequently translated or interpreted for participants. Items translated ranged from 

participants’ mail to documents such as paperwork sent home from their children’s school, 

leases, and other contracts. Participants also frequently received translation assistance with 

forms for social services such as unemployment claims, and staff interpreted conversations over 

the phone between supervisors and their employees. Interpretation and translation was the 

second most common type of service provided in Iowa and was prevalent in each site. Council 

Bluffs provided the highest percentage of interpretations and translations, at 19 percent of total 

services for this site. Interpretation and translation composed roughly an average of 10 percent 

of total services across the remaining sites. 

Employment Services 

NIC staff also provided employment-related assistance, which included referrals to other 

programs in the One-Stop Career Center and job placement agencies as well as direct assistance 

35
with job search, resume development, and interviewing skills. Employment-related services 

included helping participants search for job leads on the computer, referring job seekers to 

specific employers, assisting with resume preparation, and verifying job applications to make 

sure they were completed fully and correctly. 

Employment-related assistance was particularly common in Iowa, reflecting the NICs’ strong 

focus on employment. Totaled across all four sites in Iowa, employment-related assistance was 

more common than any other service provided to participants and constituted 22 percent of the 

total services provided to participants. It was the most recorded participant service in Des 

Moines, Council Bluffs, and Marshalltown, where it represented 35 percent, 20 percent, and 28 

percent, respectively, of total services. Employment assistance was less common in Mount 

Pleasant, where it made up 9 percent of total services. The differing patterns of service provision 

in this area may be attributed partly to the location of each NIC. Mount Pleasant was the only 

NIC not colocated with a One-Stop Career Center, and this may have influenced both the clients 

and the partnerships in the office. 

ESL/Language Classes 

ESL classes or other forms of language learning were available in all four NICs. All sites were 

equipped with computers offering Rosetta Stone (a language learning software), available for 

participants’ self-directed use. Participants used Rosetta Stone to advance at their own pace in 

learning English; Spanish and French were also available to interested members of the 

community. Across Iowa, 11 percent of all services were ESL or language classes. This 

proportion of services was highest in Des Moines, where 15 percent of all services were ESL or 

language classes, and it was a primary service in Council Bluffs as well. Although the Mount 

Pleasant NIC’s initial location limited the computer-based services available, the NIC was able 

to establish Rosetta Stone services after the office’s move in November 2006. 

Computer Access 

Each NIC provided on-site access to computers for participants. For some participants, the 

computers at the NIC afforded them their first exposure to computer use. Many participants 

using the NIC computers did so for employment purposes; they created resumes and searched for 

jobs online or through the Iowa Workforce job banks. In addition, several sites made agreements 

with community organizations to grant participants access to their computer labs. For example, 

participants at the Mount Pleasant NIC could use the computer room at the Mount Pleasant 

branch of Southeastern Community College across the street. In Council Bluffs, the coordinator 

arranged with the local library for participants to use its computers one evening each week. 

Computer access was particularly common in Council Bluffs, representing 18 percent of all 

services provided to participants. In a focus group with NIC participants, one participant in 

Council Bluffs noted that NIC staff taught him/her how to apply for jobs online, saying, “I 

applied for my last job on the computer, and I knew how to apply because they taught me. I can 

do that now—fill out applications on the computer. When I first came, I didn’t know what the 

mouse was! And they told me.” 

Legal and Immigration Assistance 

Eighty-six percent of services related to legal or immigration assistance were provided indirectly 

through referrals to other organizations. NIC staff directly served participants in this area by 

guiding them through relevant applications and forms. In addition, one regional supervisor of 

36
the NIC was certified to represent individuals in their immigration-related queries, and NIC staff 

referred participants to him. Although these services made up only 3 percent of services 

statewide, they formed a larger component of the services available in Mount Pleasant, where 

immigration services were 10 percent and legal services 4 percent of the total services provided.

Other Services 

In addition to the primary services discussed above, lower levels of many other services were 

provided to participants throughout Iowa. Included among these are civics education classes, 

referrals to other classes in the community, assistance with taxes, and financial assistance. 

Civics education classes were available in three of the four NIC sites and covered topics ranging 

from cultural issues to local services. In Council Bluffs, the coordinator offered weekly basic 

computer skills classes at the neighboring community college in addition to one-on-one 

computer skills training during the day at the NIC. Des Moines also offered computer classes for 

participants and partnered with a local organization to provide bimonthly GED testing as well as 

pre-GED preparation using computer software. 

Employer Services 

The NICs served employers by providing them with training or potential employees, as needed. 

Although the introduction of new NIC staff may have slowed the process of relationshipbuilding with employers in some sites, close to 4 percent of the total services reported were 

services provided to employers. As with participant services in Iowa, 79 percent of these 

services were provided directly by NIC staff. 

Staff in Council Bluffs, Mount Pleasant, and Des Moines referred employers to special targeted 

training in the community on issues relevant to managing a diverse workforce. Staff also 

provided assistance with staffing needs by connecting employers to potential workers. This 

happened in various contexts, including NIC-sponsored workshops, job fairs, one-on-one 

consultations, and onsite visits to workplaces and businesses. 

In Council Bluffs, the NIC hosted training sessions on cultural awareness and diversity and 

special targeted training sessions for employers. The NIC frequently hosted jobs fairs and 

employer panels and developed a strong relationship with several large employers in the area that 

regularly hired new Iowans through the NIC. In focus groups with NIC participants and local 

employers, one employer noted the NIC coordinator “is my liaison for folks looking for jobs. 

She refers folks to me, I refer folks to her. I’ve hired about 15 [people referred by the NIC] over 

the past couple of months... It’s been a very fruitful relationship.” The Des Moines NIC also 

sponsored cultural awareness and diversity training workshops for employers and special 

targeted training events, including an employer workshop on H-1B visas. In Marshalltown, the 

new coordinator had begun to assist some employers at job fairs in partnership with the local 

community college and through referrals to cultural competency training. In Mount Pleasant, the 

coordinator developed strong relationships with several large employers in the area and set up 

cultural competency trainings. Personnel from the human resources departments of several area 

employers also used the Mount Pleasant NIC to learn Spanish and better communicate with their 

Hispanic employees. In addition, all NICs directly assisted employers with their staffing needs 

by referring participants when employers had job openings. 

37
Community Services 

NIC staff worked within their communities as well to promote cultural awareness and provide 

services to community members and organizations. Services to their communities represented 

10 percent of the services NICs provided. Although 68 percent of community services were 

provided directly by NIC staff, a greater proportion of services to the community were provided 

through referrals to other organizations and service providers than services to employers or 

participants. 

Each NIC sponsored public workshops on cultural awareness and diversity and other relevant 

issues. For example, Des Moines sponsored public workshops on cultural sensitivity in the 

workplace, obtaining citizenship, wage and labor law, and discrimination. The Council Bluffs 

NIC hosted a poverty awareness workshop with the Iowa State Extension office and service 

providers. Mount Pleasant hosted various workshops in conjunction with Southeastern 

Community College on such topics as community services and financial aid. NICs also made 

presentations to community organizations interested in diversity issues, such as to a women’s 

group in Marshalltown and a visiting nurse’s group that often served refugees in Des Moines. 

Other services to the community included networking or information-sharing events. Both Des 

Moines and Council Bluffs hosted nonprofit networking events as an opportunity for local 

organizations to share information. In Mount Pleasant, the NIC collaborated closely with the 

county health organization, Healthy Henry County Communities, and assisted them with 

implementing a community health survey as well as a hybrid health and cultural fair for the 

community. 

38
V. Trends in New Iowan Centers Participants' Employment and 

 Earnings 

Beyond providing and connecting Iowans with program services, NICs may have helped 

participants find employment and increase their earnings. These improved employment 

outcomes emerged as a goal of many participants, as analyses of service receipt show that over 

70 percent of NIC participants received employment-related services. This chapter examines 

NIC participants’ employment and earnings before and after they received NIC services, 

providing information on whether individuals had better employment outcomes after 

participation. 

Findings from both descriptive and multivariate regression analyses are presented. The 

descriptive analyses showed patterns and changes in employment and earnings over time. The 

multivariate regression analysis estimated the relationship between NIC participation and 

participants’ employment outcomes, controlling for economic conditions and participant 

characteristics. The economic and participant characteristics incorporated into the analysis are 

the unemployment rate and participants’ gender, age, race, and educational attainment measured 

at enrollment. The results from the regression analysis do not provide information on whether 

NIC services led to or caused changes in participants’ employment outcomes; they simply 

provide information on changes in employment outcomes controlling for economic and 

demographic characteristics. The regressions cannot rule out that unmeasured factors aside from 

the program services (e.g., work ethic, ability, English proficiency) may be responsible for some 

of the estimated relationships. 

All NIC participants were examined together and then separately for the four sites: Council 

Bluffs, Des Moines, Marshalltown, and Mount Pleasant. Separate analyses were conducted for 

individuals who did and did not receive NIC employment services, as the employment goals of 

these two groups of individuals likely differed. Finally, men and women were separately 

examined, as analyses of service receipt showed that men and women, on average, received 

notably different services (see Chapter IV). 

The data used for this study, along with limitations, are discussed below. Next, descriptive 

patterns of participants' employment and earnings are presented, followed by a description of the 

regression equation and the findings from these analyses. 

Data and Limitations 

Both IWORKS and Iowa unemployment insurance (UI) data were incorporated into this 

analysis. The IWORKS data provided information on NIC participants’ demographic 

characteristics and service receipt, while the UI data provided information on participants’ 

39
employment and earnings.26 Participant data from these two sources were linked by state staff 

using participants’ Social Security Numbers (SSNs), if one was provided. Since this analysis 

centered on NIC participants’ employment and earnings, only those participants who provided 

NIC staff with their SSNs were included in this analysis. Of the 1,718 people who received NIC 

services between April 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008, 1,435 (or 84 percent) provided their SSNs. 

The majority of NIC participants who did not provide their SSNs were from Mount Pleasant. In 

fact, 80 percent of Mount Pleasant NIC participants did not provide their SSNs. The 

corresponding percentages for the other three sites were substantially lower: 5 percent in 

Council Bluffs, 10 percent in Des Moines, and 13 percent in Marshalltown.27 The high 

percentage of unreported SSNs in Mount Pleasant could have resulted from the fact that the 

Mount Pleasant NIC was not colocated with a One-Stop Career Center, where Iowa Workforce 

staff more typically required participants’ SSN as part of the application process. This large 

fraction of unreported SSNs in Mount Pleasant and the resulting small number of Mount Pleasant 

NIC participants for whom employment and earnings data were available (43 persons) 

substantially limited what could be learned about the employment outcomes of Mount Pleasant 

participants. Nonetheless, findings for Mount Pleasant are presented based on the available data. 

Sensitivity tests that excluded Mount Pleasant participants were conducted in analyses that 

combined participants across sites. These tests showed that the results were not sensitive to the 

inclusion or exclusion of these participants. 

UI data do not include earnings for individuals who work outside the state, which is a potentially 

important limitation for the analysis.28 NIC services are geared toward newcomers to Iowa, so 

the UI data will not capture the pre-receipt earnings for individuals who became NIC participants 

soon after coming to Iowa. If NIC participants had earnings in the pre-receipt period that are not 

captured in the UI data, the results from the analysis will overstate the increase in employment 

and earnings after NIC participation. The earnings difference between the pre- and post-receipt 

will be overstated because the measured pre-service receipt earnings will be lower than true preservice receipt earnings. However, there is no requirement that NIC participants be new to Iowa, 

so program participants may have lived in the state for years before participation (i.e., the 

analysis captures their earnings). 

Timing of Receipt: Participants’ employment and earnings two years before NIC service receipt 

(i.e., the pre-receipt period) and up to one year after service receipt (i.e., the post-receipt period) 

were examined. Ideally, the pre-receipt period would be defined to include the period before the 

 

26 The UI system provides employment and earnings records on most workers quarterly. The UI records consist of 

employer reports to the state UI agency (Iowa Workforce Development); all employers subject to the state UI tax are 

required to report employee earnings quarterly. Although these data cover most civilian employees, earnings reports 

are not required, for example, for the self-employed, most independent contractors, and military and federal 

employees. In addition, UI records do not include earnings for individuals who work “off the books” for cash and 

for those who work out of state (since records are collected at the state level). 27 NIC participants in Mount Pleasant who did not provide SSNs were more likely to be Hispanic and have no high 

school education than those who provided SSNs. In the other three sites combined, those who did not provide SSNs 

were substantially more likely to have no high school education and slightly more likely to be female than those who 

provided SSNs. There were no statistically significant differences by race or ethnicity. 28 Mount Pleasant is located in close proximity to the Illinois and Missouri borders. Council Bluffs and Omaha, 

Nebraska are separated by the Missouri River and, along with eight surrounding counties, make up the OmahaCouncil Bluffs metropolitan area. 

40
first receipt of NIC services. However, individual-level data on service receipt were not 

available before April 1, 2007, which was after the start of NIC services.29 As a result, the prereceipt period is defined before the first observed receipt of NIC services, which occurred 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008. This caveat is important for interpreting the results, 

as some individuals may have received NIC services in the period defined as pre-receipt. If NIC 

participants in the sample received NIC services before April 2007 and NIC services improved 

participants’ employment outcomes, then the results from the analysis will understate the 

increase in employment and earnings after NIC participation. This potential underestimate 

counterbalances the potential overestimate that could result from the fact that Iowa's UI data do 

not include earnings for individuals who work outside the state. The extent of these trade-offs is 

unclear. 

Availability of Post-Receipt Data: While the goal of the evaluation was to examine a one-year 

follow-up period, a full year of post-receipt data was not available for all NIC participants. The 

number of quarters NIC participants’ earnings was observed in the post-receipt period depended 

on when they were first observed to receive a NIC service. The analysis used UI data through 

June 2008, so persons who received NIC services in April–June 2007 had four quarters of 

follow-up data, while persons whose first observed receipt was in January–March 2008 had only 

one quarter of follow-up data. Of the 1,435 NIC participants, follow-up data were available for 

four quarters for 409 participants (29 percent), three quarters for 359 participants (25 percent), 

two quarters for 329 participants (23 percent), and one quarter for 338 participants (24 percent). 

As described in earlier sections of this report, the Marshalltown NIC was not operational 

between the last quarter of 2006 and the last quarter of 2007. Therefore, no Marshalltown NIC 

recipients in the data received services in the first six months of the tracking period, and, 

subsequently, no Marshalltown participants had more than two quarters of follow-up data. 

Descriptive Patterns of Employment and Earnings 

Figure 5.1 shows patterns of employment and earnings before and after participants’ first 

observed NIC service receipt. Employment rates rose from roughly 40 percent in the quarters 

leading up to the first observed service receipt to hit 58 percent in the quarter of receipt and then 

fell slightly after receipt. The steady rise in employment before NIC participation could occur if 

NIC participants moved to Iowa during the pre-receipt period. The employment rate of the 

sample would then appear to increase because the UI data would capture their employment as 

they moved into Iowa. How often this happened is unknown. The employment rate of NIC 

participants was lower than the employment rate of Iowa’s civilian (and non-institutionalized) 

population, which averaged 69 percent over this same period.30 

 

29 As a result of transitioning to new software systems, Iowa staff did not feel IWORKS data was reliable before 

April 2007. 

30 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor). 

Unemployment rates are not seasonally adjusted. 

41
42
The average employment rate among NIC participants was 47 percent in the year before the first 

observed service receipt, 58 percent in the quarter of receipt, and 53 percent in the year after 

receipt (Table 5.1, top panel). This trend in employment for all sites combined generally held for 

each of the four sites, although the levels differed. Across the tracking period, Council Bluffs 

had the lowest employment rate—between 30 and 44 percent. Council Bluffs is near Omaha, 

Nebraska, so some NIC participants served by the Council Bluffs office could have been 

employed in Nebraska. In those cases, the participants’ employment would not be observed 

because the Iowa UI data only provide information on in-state employment. The implication for 

the analysis of NIC participants working outside Iowa is discussed further below. The 

employment rates were highest in Mount Pleasant, although this rate was calculated based on 

only the 20 percent of Mount Pleasant NIC participants who provided SSNs.

Employment Rate

Two years before receipt 0.43 0.30 0.54 0.56 0.72

One year before receipt 0.47 0.32 0.62 0.62 0.70

Quarter of receipt 0.58 0.44 0.72 0.63 0.84

One year after receipt 0.53 0.39 0.67 0.64 0.73

Quarterly Earnings (All participants)

Two years before receipt $2,165 $1,665 $2,549 $2,899 $3,579

One year before receipt $2,376 $1,760 $2,909 $3,051 $3,673

Quarter of receipt $2,111 $1,560 $2,541 $2,352 $4,546

One year after receipt $2,523 $2,031 $2,931 $3,107 $4,160

Quarterly Earnings (Employed participants)

Two years before receipt $5,093 $5,626 $4,754 $5,177 $5,004

One year before receipt $5,022 $5,516 $4,728 $4,895 $5,221

Quarter of receipt $3,654 $3,585 $3,546 $3,754 $5,430

One year after receipt $4,731 $5,154 $4,359 $4,890 $5,738

Number of participants 1,435 703 614 75 43

2

 Marshalltown did not offer NIC services in the first two quarters of the observation period, so the maximum follow-up 

period for Marshalltown participants is six months.

1

 Two years before receipt includes the fifth through eighth quarter before first observed service receipt; one year before 

receipt includes the first through fourth quarter before first observed service receipt; one year after receipt includes the first 

through fourth quarter after first observed service receipt.

Source: Authors' tabulations of UI data for NIC participants who received a NIC service between April 1, 2007 and March 

31, 2008.

Table 5.1

Average Quarterly Employment and Earnings of NIC Participants Before 

and After First Observed Service Receipt, by Site1

All Sites

Council 

Bluffs Des Moines

Marshalltown2

Mount 

Pleasant 

The pattern of participant quarterly earnings differed somewhat from the participant employment 

pattern (Figure 5.1, bottom chart). Consistent with the employment rate pattern, average 

earnings trended upward slightly before NIC participation. However, average earnings fell in the 

quarter of receipt, then generally rose in the quarters after receipt. This trend in earnings 

43
generally held across the four sites. Again, the upward trend in earnings before NIC 

participation could result from NIC participants moving into Iowa. The average quarterly 

earnings of NIC participants were $2,165 two years before receipt, $2,376 in the year before 

receipt, $2,111 in the quarter of receipt, and $2,523 in the year after receipt (Table 5.1, middle 

panel). Among employed NIC participants, average earnings were $5,093, $5,022, $3,654, and 

$4,731, respectively (Table 5.1, bottom panel).31 These quarterly earnings translate into 

annualized earnings of between roughly $15,000 and $20,000, less than the poverty threshold for 

a family of four in 2008 ($22,025). Thus, individuals who received NIC services were generally 

low earners and had low levels of earnings both before and after service receipt. 

The drop in earnings coinciding with NIC participation is consistent with patterns for 

participants of job training and other social programs.32 Individuals often enroll in these 

programs soon after encountering particularly difficult circumstances or crises. This decline in 

average earnings among NIC participants occurred, however, despite an increase in the 

percentage of participants employed. A closer examination of the data showed that two factors 

contributed to this seemingly contradictory pattern. First, more than half the participants who 

were employed in both quarters (the quarter before first observed receipt and the next quarter) 

experienced a decline in earnings across the two quarters. Thus, quarterly earnings declined 

among most participants who were working when they received services. A decline in earnings 

may have motivated people to seek NIC services. Second, changes in who was employed in the 

different quarters played a role. Specifically, the quarterly earnings of "newly employed" 

participants (persons not working in the quarter before first observed service receipt but working 

in the next quarter) and "newly nonemployed" participants (persons working in the quarter 

before first observed receipt but not working in the next quarter) differed. The average quarterly 

earnings of newly employed participants were only half the average quarterly earnings of the 

newly nonemployed participants. That is, earnings among those who gained employment were 

substantially lower than earnings among those who stopped working. One possible explanation 

for this difference could be entry into relatively lower-paying positions than those that were 

vacated. In addition, the relatively low quarterly earnings among those who gained employment 

could also result from them obtaining employment towards the end of the quarter (so they did not 

have much time to accumulate earnings). 

To understand whether the employment and earnings patterns resulted from seasonal work or 

changes in economic conditions over time, the employment and earnings of NIC participants by 

their quarter of first observed service receipt were examined. The patterns by quarter of receipt 

followed those observed for the full NIC sample, suggesting neither seasonal fluctuations nor 

changing economic conditions were the source. In addition, the employment and earnings 

 

31 The variation in average earnings over time could result from changes in the people included in this calculation 

from period to period. People are included in the calculation as long as they have non-zero earnings in the specific 

quarter. For example, everyone employed in the quarter of first observed receipt is included in the calculation of 

earnings for that quarter, regardless of whether they are employed in prior or subsequent quarters. 

32 Orly Ashenfelter, “Estimating the Effect of Training Programs on Earnings,” The Review of Economics and 

Statistics 60(1): 47–57, 1978; Karin Martinson, Caroline Ratcliffe, Katie Vinopal, and Joanna Parnes, Minnesota 

Integrated Services Project: Employment and Welfare-Related Outcomes among Program Participants

(Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2009); and Peter Mueser, Kenneth Troske, and Alexey Gorislavsky, “Using 

States Administrative Data to Measure Program Performance,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 89(4): 761–

83, 2007. 

44
patterns described above were evident among individuals who did and did not receive NIC 

employment services, as well as among men and women. 

Regression Analysis of Employment and Earnings 

Regression Approach: The regression analysis used information on NIC participants’ 

employment and earnings over time to estimate the relationship between NIC participation and 

participants’ employment outcomes, controlling for economic conditions and participant 

characteristics. Estimates were based on differences in participants’ outcomes before and after 

NIC participation; they were not based on a comparison group analysis that compared 

individuals who were similar along dimensions other than their NIC participation.33 With this 

approach, the results from the regression analysis do not provide information on whether NIC 

services led to (i.e., caused) changes in participants’ employment outcomes; they provide 

information on changes in employment outcomes over time controlling for economic and 

demographic characteristics. 

The regression model used earnings before and after first observed NIC service receipt to obtain 

the estimated relationship between NIC participation and participants’ employment and earnings. 

An important element in specifying the model is identifying the pre- and post- receipt periods. 

Recent studies have defined the pre-receipt period as the fifth through eighth quarter before 

receipt and the post-receipt period as the fifth through eighth quarter after receipt.34 While Iowa 

had data for the eight quarters before NIC service receipt, the state had data for only four 

quarters after service receipt. For this reason, the post-receipt period was defined as the four 

quarters after first observed service receipt. Since NIC services were targeted at persons new to 

Iowa and the UI data only captured the employment and earnings of persons working in Iowa, 

defining the pre-receipt period back too far would have missed employment by NIC participants 

(and overstated the findings). Descriptive statistics in Table 5.1 showed that employment and 

earnings were slightly lower two years before receipt (the fifth through eighth quarter before 

receipt) than in the year before receipt (the first through fourth quarter before receipt). This 

analysis took the more conservative approach and defines the pre-receipt period as the year (first 

through fourth quarter) before NIC participation. With this setup, the estimated relationship 

between NIC participation and participants’ employment and earnings was based on a 

comparison of NIC participants’ employment and earnings in the year before and the year after 

first observed service receipt, controlling for economic conditions and participant characteristics. 

 

33 Demographic or employment information was not available for Iowans who did not receive NIC services. 

34 Mueser, Troske, and Gorislavsky, “Using States Administrative Data to Measure Program Performance”; 

Martinson et al., Minnesota Integrated Services Project. 

45
In the regression models, employment is measured as a binary outcome, where the dependent 

variable equals 1 if the participant is employed and 0 if the participant is not employed. 

Quarterly earnings are measured in dollar amounts, set equal to 0 for those with no earnings. 

This analysis estimates ordinary least squares (OLS) models.35 The basic model can be written 

as: 

it Y α += TimePeriod ittt it +++ εγδβ it . XC 

If the outcome examined is employment, for example, then the dependent variable Yit represents 

the employment status of participant i in quarter t. The explanatory variables in the models are 

TimePeriodt, Cit, and Xit. The TimePeriodt variable represents a series of indicator variables that 

identify the timing of participants’ employment (and earnings) relative to the quarter of first 

observed service receipt: (1) fifth through eighth quarter before receipt, (2) first through fourth 

quarter before receipt [omitted], (3) quarter of receipt, and (4) first through fourth quarter after 

receipt. The variable Cit indicates the county in which person i received services (Council Bluffs 

[omitted], Des Moines, Marshalltown, and Mount Pleasant)36 and the state quarterly 

unemployment rate.37 Xit is a vector of participant characteristics consisting of participants’ 

gender, age (24 and under, 25–54 [omitted], 55 and older),38 race/ethnicity (white non-Hispanic 

[omitted], Hispanic, black, other), and educational attainment measured at enrollment (less than 

high school [omitted], high school education or more). Finally, it ε represents the error term, 

which is assumed to be uncorrelated with the explanatory variables. 

The analysis estimates the employment and earnings regression models for all sites combined 

and for each of the four sites separately. It also estimates separate models for participants who 

did and did not receive an employment service, as well as for men and women. 

Regression Findings: The regression model results suggested that, on average, NIC 

participation was associated with higher levels of both employment and earnings. In the year 

after service receipt, the estimated likelihood of being employed was 7.5 percentage points 

higher than in the year before service receipt (Table 5.2, column 1).39 This increase is large 

relative to the employment rate of 47 percent in the year before receipt. Participant earnings are 

also estimated to be higher after service receipt. On average, estimated quarterly earnings were 

higher by $257 in the year after NIC service receipt, compared with the year before service 

 

35 Employment outcomes were also estimated using logit models. Results from the two models are very similar; the 

OLS model result is presented because its interpretation is more straightforward. 36 The analysis requires that one site indicator variable be the reference site and be omitted as an explanatory 

variable in the model. With the Council Bluff indicator variable omitted, the other site indicator variables are 

interpreted relative to Council Bluff. In models that examine each site separately, the indicator variables for sites 

are excluded. 

37 The quarterly unemployment rate is calculated by averaging the monthly unemployment rate across the three 

months of each calendar quarter. In preliminary analyses, models were estimated with the county unemployment 

rate rather than the state unemployment rate. Fluctuations in the county unemployment rate over time produced 

unreasonably large estimates, so the primary specification includes the state unemployment rate. 38 Preliminary models were estimated with more refined age breakdowns, and the estimated coefficients in the 25–

54 age range were not statistically significantly different from one another. The sample size is relatively small, so 

age categories were combined to improve precision of the estimates. 39 The full set of regression coefficients that correspond to table 5.2 is presented in appendix tables E.1 and E.2. 

46
receipt. This quarterly amount translates into just over $1,000 annually and is roughly 10 

percent more than earnings in the year before receipt. 

Employment Rate

Difference between pre- and 0.075 *** 0.081 *** 0.077 *** 0.028 0.033

post- receipt employment [0.013] [0.018] [0.020] [0.054] [0.050]

Quarterly Earnings

Difference between pre- and 257.02 *** 279.16 ** 235.25 * 313.041 586.541

post- receipt earnings [90.94] [133.12] [133.65] [394.08] [361.85]

Number of observations 16,624 8,190 7,156 771 507

Number of participants 1,435 703 614 75 43

Estimated Relationships between NIC Service Receipt and NIC 

Participants' Employment and Earnings, by Site1

Table 5.2

Source: UI and IWORKS data for NIC participants who received a NIC service between April 1, 2007 and 

March 31, 2008. 

Notes: The full set of estimated coefficients from the regression equations are presented in Appendix Tables E.1 

and E.2. * = p<.1; ** = p<.05; *** = p<.01

All sites Des Moines

1

 The pre-receipt period is defined as the first through fourth quarter before first observed service receipt, and the 

post-receipt period is defined as the first through fourth quarter after first observed service receipt. 

Mount 

Pleasant 

Marshalltown2

Council 

Bluffs

2

 Marshalltown did not offer NIC services in the first two quarters of the observation period, so the maximum 

follow-up for Marshalltown participants is six months.

The regression results showed a positive relationship between NIC participation and both 

employment and earnings in all four sites, although the relationships were statistically 

significantly different from zero in only two sites—Council Bluffs and Des Moines. The 

estimated likelihood of being employed was 8.1 percentage points higher in Council Bluffs and 

7.7 percentage points higher in Des Moines in the post-receipt period (Table 5.2, columns 2 and 

3). These higher rates of employment corresponded with quarterly earnings increases in the two 

sites of $279 and $235, respectively. As the capital of Iowa, Des Moines is a relatively larger 

city and may present greater employment opportunities because of its size and business 

development opportunities. Moreover, the size of the city is reflected in the number of 

participants served; with several hundred participants observed in this analysis in Des Moines 

and Council Bluffs, changes in earnings and employment are statistically easier to detect. 

Council Bluffs is located near Omaha, Nebraska—a large city with employment opportunities—

so some NIC participants in Council Bluffs may have been employed in Nebraska (before and/or 

after participation), which was not observed in the analysis. If NIC participants in Council 

Bluffs received more help finding employment in Iowa than Nebraska, then the higher 

employment levels in the post-receipt period could, in part, be due to participants 

disproportionately working in Iowa (where employment is observed) versus Nebraska (where 

employment is not observed) in the post-receipt period. However, it is unclear whether this 

47
happened. For example, based on interviews conducted as part of the study, staff in Council 

Bluffs reported that they worked with employers in Omaha to identify job openings. An analysis 

that incorporates UI data from Nebraska would provide a better understanding of the overall 

employment and earnings picture of NIC participants in Council Bluffs. 

There were no statistically significant relationships between NIC participation and employment 

or earnings for participants in either Marshalltown or Mount Pleasant (Table 5.2, columns 4 and 

5). The small number of participants with SSNs in these two sites (75 and 43 participants, 

respectively) made it difficult to obtain precise estimates for the sites. 

Improved employment and earnings outcomes were not necessarily the goal of all NIC 

participants, so the analysis examined separately the employment and earnings outcomes for NIC 

participants who did and did not receive an employment-related service. Individuals who 

received employment-related services were expected to have larger increases in employment and 

earnings than those who did not receive these services. Consistent with this hypothesis, 

significant differences across these two groups were found. Among NIC participants who 

received an employment-related service, NIC participation was associated with higher 

employment and earnings. The estimated likelihood of being employed was 9.6 percentage 

points higher in the post-receipt period, and quarterly earnings were higher by $349 (Table 5.3, 

column 2).40 These values were higher than the estimated values for the full NIC population of 

7.5 percentage points and $257, respectively (Table 5.3, column 1).41 These outcomes were also 

examined among participants who received an employment-related service, for each of the four 

sites separately. Consistent with the findings above, the regression results showed a positive 

relationship between NIC participation and both employment and earnings in each site, but the 

relationships were statistically significantly different from zero in only Council Bluffs and Des 

Moines. Among participants who did not receive an employment-related service, no statistically 

significant relationship between NIC participation and their employment or earnings was found 

(Table 5.3, column 3). It is possible that NIC participants who received other services, such as 

ESL classes, could improve their employment outcomes at some future point. 

Outcomes were examined separately for men and women. NIC participation was related to 

higher levels of employment for both men and women. The estimated likelihood of employment 

was 6.9 percentage points higher for men and 8.4 percentage points higher for women in the 

post-receipt period (Table 5.3, columns 4 and 5). However, NIC participation was statistically 

significantly related to higher levels of quarterly earnings for men only ($327). The coefficient 

for women was positive, but was not statistically significantly different from zero. Women were 

more likely than men to participate in ESL classes (and less likely to receive employment-related 

services) and the earnings benefit of these classes may have taken time to develop. 

 

40 The full set of regression coefficients that correspond to table 5.3 is presented in appendix tables E.3 and E.4. 

41 Note that the first column of Table 5.2 is repeated in Table 5.3. 

48
Employment Rate

Difference between pre- and 0.075 *** 0.096 *** -0.043 0.069 *** 0.084 ***

post-receipt employment [0.013] [0.014] [0.031] [0.017] [0.020]

Quarterly Earnings

Difference between pre- and 257.02 *** 348.61 *** -220.452 326.22 ** 156.081

post-receipt earnings [90.94] [100.53] [207.23] [129.66] [120.70]

Number of observations 16,624 13,868 2,756 9,753 6,871

Number of participants 1,435 1,193 242 844 591

Source: UI and IWORKS data for NIC participants who received a NIC service between April 1, 2007 and March 

31, 2008. 

Notes: The full set of estimated coefficients from the regression equations are presented in Appendix Tables E.3 

and E.4. * = p<.1; ** = p<.05; *** = p<.01

Ever Received an

Employment Services Gender

1

 The pre-receipt period is defined as the first through fourth quarter before first observed service receipt, and the 

post-receipt period is defined as the first through fourth quarter after first observed service receipt. 

All Sites

Table 5.3

Estimated Relationships between NIC Service Receipt and NIC Participants' 

Employment and Earnings, by Service Receipt and Gender1

Yes No Male Female

The regression model results suggest that NIC participation is associated with higher levels of 

both employment and earnings. Examining each of the four sites separately, however, a 

statistically significant relationship is found in only the two larger sites—Council Bluffs and Des 

Moines. In addition, the estimated relationship between NIC participation and employment and 

earnings is larger among NIC participants who received an employment-related service than 

among those who did not receive this type of service. The small number of participants with 

SSNs in Marshalltown and Mount Pleasant made it difficult to estimate precisely the relationship 

between NIC participation and employment and earnings for these sites. Also, a lesser focus on 

employment-related services and weaker connections with employment programs in the OneStop Career Center may contribute to the findings in Mount Pleasant. 

The results from this analysis, however, have some important caveats. As described above, 

specific data limitations could lead to overestimating the relationship between NIC participation 

and participants’ employment and earnings, while other data limitations could lead to 

underestimating the relationship. Also, while the regression analysis estimates the relationship 

between NIC participation and participants’ employment outcomes, controlling for economic 

conditions and participant characteristics, the results do not inform whether NIC services led to 

changes in participants’ employment outcomes because the regressions cannot rule out that 

unmeasured factors aside from NIC services may be responsible for some of the estimated 

relationships. 

49
VI. Future Plans and Sustainability 

The demonstration grant from ETA provided seed funding to establish NACs in Arkansas and 

Iowa and support their initial development. Therefore, states were responsible for long-term 

sustainability when grant funds ended in June 2008. To garner longer-term sources of funding 

and support, both states focused on outreach, promoting program awareness, and sustainability 

from the inception of the NACs by incorporating these topics in the early stages of program 

design and planning. 

From the onset, the goal in Arkansas was to build a network of service providers to assist 

newcomers. By naming its NAC system the New Arkansan Resource Network, Arkansas set the 

tone to sustain the partnerships created through the demonstration regardless of funding and its 

ability to support dedicated staff. Each NARN site created a network of service providers and 

partner agencies in its community and focused on local sustainability by exploring various 

opportunities for funding and support. Several local offices successfully applied for grants; 

Russellville received funding from Bank of America, Entergy, and CenturyTel, while Rogers 

also received an Entergy grant for outreach to Carroll County for a Cinco de Mayo festival. 

Other fundraising efforts across the state focused on securing local business sponsors. The 

Rogers NARN hired a staff person specifically tasked with outreach to local businesses, for 

fundraising as well as to provide services. Russellville procured several business sponsors for a 

dance fundraiser. In Little Rock and Malvern, a close connection between the LCO and NARN 

provided support for many activities. 

Although much of the sustainability activities in Arkansas were focused at the local level, statelevel staff were involved in discussions about private-sector support for NARN activities and 

worked with a local communications company to brand the network by designing a new logo. 

State-level staff also brought together local efforts at grant writing and established a statewide 

grant writing committee composed of a staff member from each of the Little Rock, Malvern, 

Russellville, and Fayetteville sites. This committee applied for grants to the Rockefeller 

Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and CenturyTel. However, the committee 

was challenged by not having professional grant writers or grant writing training (only one staff 

person had previous experience in procuring local grants), and it was unable to obtain funding 

from these sources. 

Despite some successful fundraising and business partnerships, these efforts were unable to 

secure the long-term funding necessary for the NARN to continue as a stand-alone entity with 

dedicated staff beyond the end of the ETA grant funding in June 2008. While donations in 

Russellville kept the office open longer than the others, all the other NARN offices had shut 

down within several months of the end of the grant. NARN-related activities, however, 

continued in some sites. The LCO, which had been active in both Little Rock and Malvern, 

received equipment from the NARN through a memorandum of agreement. Although the 

services to participants were scaled back at the end of the demonstration grant in June 2008, the 

LCO continued to support Hispanic immigrants in the area. 

In Iowa, discussions about the sustainability of the NICs occurred at the state level, while local 

staff was largely uninvolved in securing future funds. The 11 NICs in operation at the end of the 

50
ETA grant continued to be funded through state appropriations under the budget for Iowa 

Workforce Development. State staff encouraged the state legislature to increase the funding 

provided during the ETA grant to make up for its loss, pointing to the NICs’ strong presence 

throughout the state. NIC staff believed the support of the governor also helped to ensure that 

they secured state funding. In addition, state-level staff encouraged local communities to sustain 

operations through in-kind support. In Mount Pleasant, for example, community partners 

provided office space and utilities for the NIC office. Local communities were also encouraged 

to develop public-private partnerships with local businesses to support NIC programming. 

Staff in Iowa anticipated that the NICs would continue to be funded annually through state 

appropriations. The NICs would continue to request the same funding until they developed 

further plans for expansion. Although staff did not have firm plans for expansion, their ideas for 

future steps for the NICs included creating four new offices with one staff member in each. 

These new offices would cover underserved areas, particularly the northeastern part of the state. 

Outreach to other areas in need of services had already begun during the demonstration. For 

example, the coordinator in Mount Pleasant spent one day each week serving another nearby 

community and was in contact with other communities as well. 

51
VII. Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Future Research 

Many states and localities share an interest in finding strategies to more effectively assist 

immigrants and other newcomers seek employment with living wages and to speed their 

transition into the communities in which they live. The NACs were established as demonstration 

projects to facilitate this effort. Given the relative newness of the NACs, most sites focused 

much of their early efforts on establishing local partner networks and reaching out to newcomer 

communities. From the perspective of staff, community partners, employers, and participants, 

NACs generally improved the economic and social well-being of newcomers in both Arkansas 

and Iowa. NACs established themselves as trusted and reliable resources for newcomers in their 

respective communities and beyond. Community and employer demand for NAC services was 

evident as well. Several communities in Arkansas and Iowa expressed an interest in establishing 

NACs in their local areas. One NIC staff member stated NACs provide newcomers “a safe 

place...to ask for help or let [somebody] know their needs. Employers and organizations feel 

safe that we’re going to provide them with accurate information...They feel there finally is a 

place [to ask] questions.” 

To some extent, local socioeconomic conditions drove the design of the NACs and their mix of 

services. For example, the strong demand for workers in Iowa dictated the stronger focus on 

employment services. In Arkansas, newcomers visiting the NAC tended to be employed but in 

need of supportive services and improved civic participation and understanding, thus influencing 

the strong focus on services such as citizenship instruction, ESL instruction, and translation and 

interpretation services in these sites. 

The level of service provided varied considerably across NACs, ranging from 1,363 reported 

services in Marshalltown, Iowa, to 35,939 in Russellville, Arkansas. Staff focused primarily on 

providing services to individuals and families with less attention placed on services to 

communities and employers. In Arkansas, 95 percent of all reported services were provided to 

participants. Similarly, 86 percent of services reported in Iowa were provided to individuals and 

families. In all sites, participants received multiple services and often received services on 

several occasions. 

In Arkansas, staff and local community members noted several ways in which the NARN was 

successful, including integrating newcomers into the community by enhancing their civic 

participation and increasing their knowledge of and access to available resources, including 

banking, utilities, immigration and legal assistance, and health care. NARN staff also noted 

during interviews the increased availability of translation and interpretation assistance that 

contributed to improved access to a multitude of services including those offered through the 

One-Stop Career Centers. 

In Arkansas and Iowa, NACs facilitated access to English language instruction. In Iowa, staff 

encouraged limited English proficient individuals to make use of interactive Rosetta Stone 

software. Staff in both states made referrals to ESL classes offered by other community agencies 

or offered ESL tutoring and/or classes in house. In Arkansas, staff and partners in Malvern, 

Rogers, and Russellville also stressed the value of the LCO membership card as a much-needed 

second form of identification that was accepted by many businesses in the community. 

52
NACs successfully built local networks made up of community leaders, service providers, 

and businesses. Staff worked to gain support from the community, particularly from mayors, 

police departments, and business leaders, educating them about services they offered. Further, 

many NACs worked to foster improved relations between the newcomers and the broader 

community, particularly local police. For example, staff provided cultural diversity training to 

police officers and to school staff. In addition, staff worked with newcomers to ensure they had 

a better understanding of what was expected of them in terms of civil laws and social norms. 

NACs were also seen as a resource for other service providers. Providers sought interpretation 

and translation assistance as well as information on cultural diversity. In addition, NACs served 

as a mechanism to disseminate information about available community resources. Often 

advisory committee meetings served as a forum for information sharing among partners. In 

Iowa, the NICs were seen by some as having helped bring newcomers to their community, and 

many attributed the ability of communities to attract newcomers to the education and cultural 

awareness provided by staff. 

Although it was probably the least developed area, NAC staff worked with local employers who 

saw the NACs as a resource available to them and their employees. Some employers used the 

NACs as a source of new hires. Others used them for interpretation and translation assistance or 

help with cultural and diversity issues in the workplace. Employers also referred employees to 

the NAC for assistance, such as ESL instruction. In Arkansas, Malvern’s welding certification 

showed great promise. This model of service delivery is replicable but requires considerable 

commitment from employers and other community partners who play a major role in planning 

and delivering the training. 

The mix of services provided varied from state to state as well as within each state, 

reflecting the unique needs of each community. Employment-related assistance was 

particularly common in Iowa, reflecting the state’s strong focus on employment. In Arkansas, 

interpretation and translation services, supportive services, and referrals to classes were much 

more prevalent. In both states, while NACs were designed to provide services to participants, 

employers, and the community, services for participants made up the vast majority of all services 

provided. While the types of resources and services available varied somewhat across sites in 

Arkansas, uniformly, the NARN served primarily as a resource and referral agency rather than as 

a direct service provider. In contrast, a large share of services, approximately three-quarters, 

provided in Iowa were provided directly by NIC staff. 

The strength of the NACs lay in their flexibility to meet local needs through a mix of 

services and in their ability to respond to the changing needs of their constituencies—

individuals and families, the community, and employers. It was essential to define the 

NAC’s purpose and role and to tailor it to the needs of the individual community. Staff were in 

touch with the community and responsive to their changing needs. The Arkansas and Iowa 

NACs consciously avoided duplicating existing services, choosing instead to complement other 

service providers and in many cases serving primarily as a resource and referral entity. Advisory 

committees made up of community members were uniquely positioned to help NAC staff find 

their niche in the community. 

53
Continual network building and community support were critical. While NACs made 

available an array of services for newcomers, many services were provided through referral to 

community providers. Successful NAC implementation and operations required community 

buy-in from the outset. Support from local officials, other service providers, and the business 

community was critical to the success of the NACs, and staff worked diligently to foster the trust 

of both newcomers and the broader community. Gaining this trust required developing personal 

relationships. It was equally important to have buy-in from community leaders. The lack of 

outward support from both the city and the local Workforce Investment Board perhaps stymied 

the development of the advisory committee and community services in Little Rock. 

Dynamic, committed staff is essential. Much of the success of NACs rode on the personalities 

and strengths of local staff who reached out to individuals and families, community members, 

and employers. Staff were often the only interface between the NAC and community leaders and 

other service providers. They were also responsible for ensuring the continuity of services 

through local support, outreach, and promoting program awareness. For the most part, staff had 

personal connections to the community and were dedicated to serving the newcomer 

communities and making the NACs succeed. Staff who were initially less familiar with local 

resources and service providers found it particularly challenging at first to work with the 

community and connect to local employers. Staff already familiar with the area or staff 

specifically dedicated to outreach, such as the staff person hired in Rogers, were perhaps best 

equipped to engage with their communities. Administrators passionate about serving the 

newcomer populations and without political agendas also contributed to the success of the 

NACs. 

Location was a factor in service delivery. While housing NACs within One-Stop Career 

Centers facilitated referrals and coordination with other work-related services, it provided some 

obstacles to service delivery. Staff had to identify alternative locations to offer services, such as 

civics education classes and ESL instruction, during nonstandard work hours to accommodate 

the schedules of working families. Additionally, noncitizens may have been resistant to seeking 

out services in unfamiliar locations, which may have been perceived as unfriendly toward 

immigrants. Through trusting relationships and word of mouth, NAC staff generally were able to 

overcome any resistance on the part of newcomers to seeking out services within a One-Stop 

Career Center. 

Project sustainability was challenging and required high-level support. The integration of 

the NICs into Iowa’s governmental and fiscal structure lent a sense of permanency to the 

services they provided. In addition, local communities were encouraged to support their 

operation through in-kind contributions and public-private partnerships. In Arkansas, staff with 

little fundraising experience were charged with sustaining the future of the NAC. While staff 

secured smaller grants and contributions, acquiring finances to support full-time staff and office 

space required more substantial funding than they were able to secure. 

Analysis of participants’ employment and earnings in Iowa indicated a slight rise in 

employment and earnings after initial service receipt, but unmeasured factors aside from 

the program services may be responsible for some of the estimated relationships.

Employment was measured as highest in the quarter of first receipt of NIC services, and earnings 

increased after service receipt from earnings in the period before service receipt. These 

54
outcomes were somewhat greater for participants who had received employment-related services 

from the NIC. However, it is not possible to attribute these changes directly to receipt of NIC 

services; for instance, many participants also received employment assistance in One-Stop 

Career Centers concurrently with NIC services. The analyses also did not detect earnings in 

states other than Iowa, which may have resulted in an under-estimation of employment and 

earnings in the pre-receipt period, or an under-estimation of employment and earnings in the 

post-receipt period for participants in sites bordering other states. Also, small sample sizes made 

it difficult to detect statistically significant relationships, particularly gains that are small in 

magnitude. Thus, the results should be interpreted cautiously. 

While improving economic success was a key goal of the NACs, many of this demonstration’s 

desired impacts are not quantifiable, including an improved quality of life for newcomer 

families; better reception of newcomers in the community; improved civic participation, 

understanding, and engagement on the part of newcomers; development of an enhanced 

workforce; and establishment of an integrated network of services for new arrivals. 

The New Americans Centers demonstration project provides a promising strategy for others 

seeking to address the needs of newcomers in their communities. The experiences of the NACs 

in Arkansas and Iowa underscore the importance of developing strong community relationships 

and an integrated network of service providers. Establishing and building these networks 

requires a strong staff and community commitment as well as support from community leaders 

and other local service providers, businesses, and employers, while high-level government 

support appears to be instrumental in institutionalizing these services over the long term. 

As DOL, states and localities work to address the needs of immigrants and newcomers, including 

those that may be limited English speakers, several questions arise that could be addressed 

through future research. These questions include: 

• At what levels are immigrants and newcomers, including those in need of ESL, accessing 

the public workforce system? How has access to the public workforce system changed 

over the past decade? 

• What are the access points for immigrants and newcomers into the public workforce 

system in their communities? How do these access points address the specific needs of 

these populations? 

• How do immigrants and newcomers fare after participating in programs offered by the 

public workforce system compared to all participants? Are they finding employment 

that offers a living wage? 

• How are immigrants and newcomers benefiting from the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) workforce and unemployment insurance provisions 

compared with the general population? How have they accessed ARRA-funded 

employment and training programs and services during the recession? 

• What state and local initiatives have been implemented to assist immigrants and 

newcomers in accessing the public workforce system? What can be learned from these 

initiatives, and what promising practices have emerged? 

55
56

To answer these questions, case studies and mapping of local communities, coupled with 

analysis of administrative data, would be useful and beneficial to better understanding the access 

points that attract and help to serve immigrants and newcomers, the barriers these populations 

face, and the successes and challenges of providers in serving them. Finally, a "promising 

practices" study of state and local efforts to assist immigrants and newcomers in accessing and 

participating in the public workforce system would shed light on successful strategies. 
APPENDIX A 

New Americans Centers Site Summaries 

New Arkansan Resource Network 

New Iowan Centers
New Arkansan Resource Network 

Site Summary

Project Locations: 

Overview: 

Target Population: 

Organizational 

Information/Lead Agency: 

The New Arkansan Resource Network (NARN) operated out of 

four sites in central, northwest, and west central Arkansas: Little 

Rock, Malvern, Rogers, and Russellville. In addition, satellite 

locations were opened in El Dorado, Fayetteville, and Fort 

Smith.

The NARN was established in July 2005 under a demonstration 

grant from the U.S. Department of Labor. The primary goal of 

the NARN was to speed the transition of new Arkansans into 

communities, promote stability and rapid employment with 

good wages, and enhance economic development. This goal 

was met through information dissemination, outreach to the 

community, and employer services with the assistance of a 

network of partner agencies. 

“New Arkansan” was defined as any person new to the State of 

Arkansas. Services were provided to anybody who needed 

them regardless of country of origin or current residence. Most 

participants (referred to as registrants in Arkansas) were recent 

immigrants, with the majority coming from Spanish-speaking 

countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, 

Nicaragua, and Peru. Other countries of origin included China, 

the Marshall Islands, and Vietnam. 

The NARN was locally operated under the guidance of the 

Arkansas Department of Workforce Services (DWS). Local 

workforce investment boards provided fiscal and programmatic 

oversight, while direct operation, staffing, and service delivery 

were subcontracted to the local One-Stop Career Center 

operators in three sites and a community nonprofit organization 

in the fourth. All four sites were physically housed within local 

One-Stop Career Centers, or Workforce Centers.

- Malvern: West Central Arkansas Career Development 

Center System operated the NARN with fiscal and 

programmatic oversight from the West Central Arkansas 

Planning and Development District (WCAPDD), the fiscal 

agent and administrative agency for the West Central 

Arkansas Workforce Investment Board. 

A–1 
Staffing:

Key Partners:

- Little Rock: The Little Rock site was operated by the Latin 

Community Organization (LCO), a nonprofit organization 

that helps Latino individuals and families achieve selfsufficiency through education and referrals, under contract 

with the Little Rock Workforce Investment Board. 

- Rogers: The Northwest Arkansas Certified Development 

Company (NWACDC) operated the NARN under contract 

with the Northwest Arkansas Economic Development 

District (NWAEDD), the fiscal agent and administrative 

agency for the Northwest Arkansas Workforce Investment 

Board 

- Russellville: West Central Arkansas Career Development 

Center System operated the NARN with fiscal and 

programmatic oversight from WCAPDD. 

Each local NARN site had two staff providing services to the 

community, although one staff member provided services in an 

extension office in Fayetteville. All NARN staff were bilingual 

(Spanish and English) and most were non-native born. NARN 

sites were staffed by a coordinator and an intake specialist. In 

general, coordinators devoted more effort to outreach in the 

community and were also responsible for developing strategies 

to sustain the NARN. Intake specialists typically worked more 

directly with individuals in need of services and were also 

responsible for entering data in the NARN data system. 

Three of the four local NARN sites (Malvern, Rogers, and 

Russellville) had established working advisory boards made up 

of local leaders, business owners, and other community 

members. Staff in Little Rock struggled to form a local 

advisory board, finding it difficult to convene meetings with 

potential advisory board members. 

Locally, the NARN established extensive partner networks. 

These networks included both public and private organizations 

such as banks, health care providers, colleges and schools, 

employers, and local government agencies. In addition to 

operating the Little Rock site, the LCO was a key partner in 

both Malvern and Russellville. 

A–2 
Primary Services and 

Activities: 

The types of resources and services available varied somewhat 

across the NARN. Uniformly, the NARN served primarily as a 

resource and referral agency rather than as a direct service 

provider. 

Participant Services 

The majority of participant services were provided through 

referrals to other organizations. Referrals were often made for 

the following services: employment assistance (including job 

services, job training, and unemployment insurance); education 

(e.g., ESL and adult education, scholarships, etc.); and 

community services (such as legal services, immigration 

assistance, health care, banking needs, money management, and 

food and shelter). Staff in all four NARN sites routinely 

provided translation and interpretation assistance to 

participants—both in the offices and in the community. Other 

direct services provided through the Russellville NARN 

included notarization and driver’s education. Little Rock, 

Malvern, and Russellville offered civics education classes, 

which addressed issues related to becoming productive citizens 

within the respective communities. In Rogers, individuals were 

referred to civics and citizenship classes provided by the 

Northwest Arkansas Community College Adult Education 

Center. Staff in Little Rock, Malvern, and Russellville also 

issued LCO membership identification cards, which came to be 

accepted as a second form of identification by many local 

organizations and businesses. The Rogers site did not issue the 

LCO membership identification cards because local government 

leaders did not endorse the cards. 

Community Services 

NARN staff regularly participated in local community events, 

including Chambers of Commerce events, job fairs, and local 

service provider committees. They performed outreach to local 

communities by assisting with cultural events such as Cinco de 

Mayo festivals. They also worked with various community 

organizations and companies, including pharmacies, banks, and 

utility companies, to have the LCO membership card accepted 

as a second form of identification. NARN staff fostered 

relationships with local community leaders and police 

departments, enabling them to educate both newcomers and the 

broader community about cultural differences. 

Employer Services 

While NARN staff primarily focused on providing services for 

participants, they also connected with employers to provide 

A–3 
A–4 

Sustainability:

translation and interpretation services. Staff in Malvern 

collaborated with employers to interpret welding trainings, and 

provided conversational Spanish and cultural awareness to 

employers in Rogers and Malvern. In addition, NARN staff 

were able to assist employers with their workforce needs by 

referring newcomers for open jobs. 

Locally, NARN staff were responsible for securing funding to 

sustain their operations. Sustainability efforts undertaken by 

NARN staff included hosting fundraisers, submitting grant 

applications to a wide variety of foundations and other funders, 

and developing partnerships with local businesses. In Rogers, a 

coordinator was hired specifically to conduct outreach to local 

employers that could provide funding for the NARN. In 

addition, a statewide grant writing committee was convened of 

NARN staff. Staff were unsuccessful in their attempts to secure 

long-term funding needed to continue stand-alone NARN 

operations. NARN-related activities continued in both Little 

Rock and Malvern under the umbrella of the LCO. 
New Iowan Centers 

Site Summary

Project Locations: 

Overview: 

Target Population: 

Organizational 

Information/Lead Agency: 

There were four ETA-funded New Iowan Centers (NICs) in 

Iowa, located in Council Bluffs, Des Moines, Marshalltown, 

and Mount Pleasant. 

The four NICs funded by ETA were modeled after three 

preexisting centers established under the Iowa Workforce 

Development agency (IWD), an agency focused on Iowa’s 

workforce issues. 

NICs were designed to help newcomers to Iowa establish 

themselves in the community by providing services to new 

Iowans, area employers, and the community at large. In 

general, NICs intended to “grow Iowa” by ensuring new Iowans 

were educated about and had access to necessary services, 

helping new Iowans adapt to the community, connecting 

employers and job seekers, and educating the community on 

issues of immigration and cultural diversity. 

NIC staff defined “new Iowans” as anyone new to Iowa, 

regardless of geographic origin. Many participants were recent 

immigrants from a wide array of countries, with the majority 

from Spanish-speaking ones, such as El Salvador, Honduras, 

Mexico, and Nicaragua. Other countries of origin include 

Bolivia, Bosnia, Canada, Colombia, Iraq, Morocco, Pakistan, 

Peru, Somalia, and Sudan. 

NIC services were generally available to anyone who walked 

through the door, though efforts were focused within loosely 

defined geographic areas, which varied by site. The Des 

Moines NIC operated mainly in Polk County. The Council 

Bluffs NIC served the greater metropolitan area, including 

employers from neighboring Omaha, Nebraska, that hired 

Iowans. The Mount Pleasant NIC focused its work in the first 

12 months on building relationships in the city of Mount 

Pleasant and expanded its outreach to neighboring communities. 

After initial implementation delays, the Marshalltown NIC 

focused on serving neighboring communities. 

 

Iowa Workforce Development, the state workforce agency, 

provided fiscal and programmatic oversight for the NICs. The 

Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Marshalltown NICs were

located within local One-Stop Career Centers, or Workforce 

A–5 
Staffing:

Key Partners:

Centers. The Mount Pleasant NIC was colocated at the Iowa 

State University Extension office because the local One-Stop 

Career Center did not have adequate space for it.

NICs were overseen by a targeted services bureau chief from 

Iowa Workforce Development. The state was divided into two 

regions, eastern and western, each with a regional supervisor 

who managed the NICs within that half of the state. The NICs 

in Des Moines and Council Bluffs were each staffed by two 

people, a coordinator and an outreach specialist in Des Moines 

and a coordinator and a workforce associate in Council Bluffs. 

Des Moines had an additional workforce associate in charge of 

the Rosetta Stone language program. A coordinator responsible 

for all NIC activities staffed the Mount Pleasant NIC. All staff 

worked with new Iowans directly, conducting intake, providing 

referrals, translating and interpreting, and assisting with job 

search. Coordinators focused their energy on community 

outreach and establishing networks, including state and county 

agencies, community advocates, service providers, and 

employers. The workforce associates in Des Moines and 

Council Bluffs supported the coordinators and were responsible 

for collecting and entering NIC participation data into 

IWORKS, IWD’s data system. The coordinator was 

responsible for these tasks as well as running monthly data 

reports. All staff were bilingual in English and Spanish, a 

requirement of the job. 

All three operational sites established advisory councils made 

up of representatives from local businesses, nonprofit 

organizations, and government agencies. The advisory 

councils, which generally met quarterly, were a chance for 

members to network, share information and resources, and 

brainstorm future NIC activities. While in some cases 

individual members of the local advisory council were involved 

in the planning stages, the advisory councils did not convene 

until after the NICs were operational.

Local NICs developed reciprocal partnerships with numerous 

community service agencies, businesses, community colleges 

and schools, health care providers, and government agencies. 

These organizations referred participants to the NICs, 

collaborated with NIC staff on special projects and initiatives, 

shared information and resources, and provided services to NIC 

participants. In Des Moines and Council Bluffs, where the NIC 

was located within the local One-Stop Career Center, NIC staff 

viewed all other programs housed in the One-Stop Career 

A–6 
Primary Services and 

Activities:

Center as partners. In addition, the NICs developed 

relationships with local community colleges. NIC participants 

were often referred to classes and training programs, and in 

Council Bluffs and Mount Pleasant, NIC citizenship classes 

were held in community college classrooms. 

NICs statewide provided services to participants, the 

community, and employers. Designed to be responsive to 

community needs, site-specific services vary based on 

contextual factors, available resources, and resident needs. 

Participant Services 

Employment assistance made up the bulk of services provided 

to new Iowans. NIC staff helped participants search for job 

leads on the computer, referred job seekers to specific 

employers, prepared resumes, and checked over job applications 

to ensure they were completed fully and correctly, among other 

employment-related services. Interpretation and translation 

services were also commonly provided by NIC staff. The NIC 

coordinator in Council Bluffs also ran a basic computer class. 

NIC participants in Des Moines and Mount Pleasant were 

regularly referred to ESL classes at the local community 

college, churches and other local organizations. All sites also 

offered onsite computers with Rosetta Stone, a language 

learning software, for NIC participants’ self-directed use. In 

addition, local NICs commonly hosted other classes and 

workshops on a range of topics, including financial literacy and 

basic computer skills. 

Referrals to other organizations and programs were also 

common. Tapping into their network of community partners 

and resources, NIC staff referred participants to community 

service providers (for assistance with food, child care, shelter, 

clothing, health care, tax preparation, etc.), educational and 

training programs, and legal and immigration assistance. 

Community Services 

NICs attempted to increase awareness of diversity issues and 

immigration in the community at large. To this end, NICs 

conducted diversity trainings at community organizations and 

businesses, hosted networking events, and conducted outreach 

in the community to ensure people were aware of their services. 

Des Moines and Council Bluffs brought together community 

service providers for networking and information-sharing 

events. 

A–7 
A–8 

Sustainability:

Employer Services 

NICs served as a resource to area employers and businesses. In 

addition to connecting employers with job seekers, NICs 

offered translation and interpretation services and educated 

employers on a range of immigration and diversity issues. This 

happened in a variety of contexts, including NIC-sponsored 

workshops, job fairs, one-on-one consultations, and onsite visits 

to workplaces and businesses. 

The NICs were operated by Iowa Workforce Development with 

several additional non-demonstration-funded sites supported by 

the state. NIC administrators encouraged the state to sustain 

their financial support for New Iowan services. In addition, the 

state-level program administrator encouraged local communities 

to contribute resources towards local NICs as well as the 

formation of public-private partnerships to support 

programming. 
APPENDIX B 

Type and Number of Services Received by New Americans Centers 

Participants, Employers, and the Community
Russellville

Indirect Participant Services

Supportive Services Referral 6,273 312 125 1,698 4,138 1,022 338 

Interpretation/Translation Referral 30 30 0 0 0 212 189 

Employment Services Referral 4,338 52 47 2,277 1,962 1,581 909 

Referral to Civics Education Classes 2,974 222 0 1,283 1,469 123 50 

Referral to ESL/Language Classes 7,214 131 1,746 1,848 3,489 967 733 

Referral to Other Classes 8,740 375 1,746 3,028 3,591 811 454 Legal Issues Referral 5,654 223 0 618 4,813 331 125 

Immigration Counseling and Referral Services 7,115 446 1,746 222 4,701 537 184 

Tax/SSN Referral 2,723 223 18 145 2,337 236 144 Financial Referral 1,972 143 0 25 1,804 43 23 

Referral for Computer Access 738 73 0 665 0 122 102 

Referral for General Information 772 0 0 772 0 558 241 

Other Referral 366 5 0 361 0 265 212 

Total Units of Indirect Participant Services 48,909 2,235 5,428 12,942 28,304 6,808 3,704 

Direct Participant Services

Supportive Services Assistance 31 22 9 0 0 34 0 

Interpretation/Translation 10,411 153 152 4,740 5,366 4,541 3,253 

Employment Services 27 25 0 0 2 5,179 2,700 

Civics Education Classes 100 38 0 0 62 465 205 

ESL/Language Classes 58 0 56 0 2 2261 1146 

Other Classes 21 0 5 0 16 233 164 

Legal Issues Assistance 0 0 0 00 33 0

Immigration Services 0 0 0 0 0 108 5 

Tax/SSN Assistance 0 0 0 00 19 12

Financial Assistance 0 0 0 00 2 0 Computer Access 967 0 0 930 37 3,449 3,182 

General Information 0 0 0 0 0 4,052 2,379 

Other 22 12 0 0 10 2,361 1,012 

Total Units of Direct Participant Services 11,637 250 222 5,670 5,495 22,737 14,058 

Total Units of Participant Services 60,546 2,485 5,650 18,612 33,799 29,545 17,762 Source: New Americans Centers Annual Services and Referrals Provided Report

1Based on data reported quarterly to DOL/ETA by NAC demonstration projects. In Arkansas, all sites reported data through the second quarter of 2008. Data was reported in Little Rock beginning in the fourth 

Malvern from the first quarter of 2006, in Rogers from the third quarter in 2006, and in Russellville from the first quarter of 2006. In Iowa, Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Mount Pleasant reported data begin

quarter of 2006 through the second quarter of 2008. Marshalltown reported data in the fourth quarter of 2006, then again from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the second quarter of 2008. Data does not represerved and may not be based on unique individuals. See Appendix C, Study Limitations for further discussion.

Arkansas

Little Rock Malvern Des M

Table B.1

Services Provided to Participants by New Americans Centers, by Site1

Arkansas Total Rogers 

Io

Iowa Total Council Bluffs
Russellville

Indirect Employer Services

Referral for Assistance with Staffing Needs 157 0 0105 52 81 64 

Referral to ESL/Language Classes 146 89 0 57 0 3 3 Referral to Cultural Competency Training 1 0 0 1 0 18 13 

Referral for Special Targeted Training 7 0 0 7 0 9 5 

Other Referrals 217 35 0 182 0 148 1 

Total Units of Indrect Employer Services 528 124 0 352 52 259 86 Direct Employer Services

Assistance with Staffing Needs 1 0 0 0 1 160 95 

ESL/Language Classes 7 7 0 00 9 0 

Cultural Competency Training 0 0 0 0 0 13 9 

Special Targeted Training 0 0 0 0 0 27 11 

Other Direct Assistance 31 30 0 0 1 777 42 

Total Units of Direct Employer Services 39 37 0 0 2 986 157 

Total Units of Employer Services 567 161 0 352 54 1,245 243 

Source: New Americans Centers Annual Services and Referrals Provided Report

Table B.2

Services Provided to Employers by New Americans Centers, by Site1

Arkansas

Arkansas Total Little Rock Malvern Rogers Iowa Total Des M

Io

Council Bluffs

1Based on data reported quarterly to DOL/ETA by NAC demonstration projects. In Arkansas, all sites reported data through the second quarter of 2008. Data was reported in Little Rock beginning in the fourth 

from the first quarter of 2006, in Rogers from the third quarter in 2006, and in Russellville from the first quarter of 2006. In Iowa, Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Mount Pleasant reported data beginning in t

through the second quarter of 2008. Marshalltown reported data in the fourth quarter of 2006, then again from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the second quarter of 2008. Data does not represent all participbased on unique individuals. See Appendix C, Study Limitations for further discussion.
Russellville

Indirect Community Services

Referral to Cultural Competency Training 133 0 0 133 0 6 6 

Referral for Special Targeted Training 0 0 0 0 0 22 21 

Other Referrals 2,690 0 0 605 2,085 1,041 61 

Total Units of Indirect Community Services 2,823 0 0 738 2,085 1,069 88 

Direct Community Services

Cultural Competency Training 0 0 0 0 0 19 12 

Special Targeted Training 0 0 0 0 0 63 13 

Other Direct Assistance 1 0 0 0 1 2,236 55 Total Units of Direct Community Services 1 0 0 0 1 2,318 80 Total Units of Community Services 2,824 0 0 738 2,086 3,387 168 

Source: New Americans Centers Annual Services and Referrals Provided Report

Table B.3

Services Provided to the Community by New Americans Centers, by Site1

Arkansas

Arkansas Total Little Rock Malvern Rogers Iowa Total Des M

1Based on data reported quarterly to DOL/ETA by NAC demonstration projects. In Arkansas, all sites reported data through the second quarter of 2008. Data was reported in Little Rock beginning in the fourth 

from the first quarter of 2006, in Rogers from the third quarter in 2006, and in Russellville from the first quarter of 2006. In Iowa, Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Mount Pleasant reported data beginning in tthrough the second quarter of 2008. Marshalltown reported data in the fourth quarter of 2006, then again from the fourth quarter of 2007 through the second quarter of 2008. Data does not represent all participbased on unique individuals. See Appendix C, Study Limitations for further discussion.

Council Bluffs 

Io
Gender

Male 69.0 % 65.7 % 78.6 % 77.4 % 58.9 %

Female 29.5 % 34.3 % 10.7 % 22.6 % 39.3 %

missing 1.5 % 0.0 % 10.7 % 0.0 % 1.9 %

Race and Ethnicity

Hispanic 96.7 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 96.8 % 93.5 %

White (Not of Hispanic Origin) 0.3 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.8 % 0.0 %

Black (Not of Hispanic Origin) 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 %

Asian or Pacific Islander 2.1 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 1.6 % 4.7 %

Native American or Alaskan Native 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 %

Multiracial 0.3 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.8 % 0.0 %

missing 0.6 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 1.9 %

Age Group1

14 - 18 4.6 % 4.3 % 3.6 % 0.0 % 10.3 %

19 - 24 18.5 % 30.0 % 46.4 % 4.8 % 19.6 %

25 - 35 31.9 % 40.0 % 21.4 % 21.8 % 41.1 %

36 - 45 22.5 % 20.0 % 10.7 % 33.9 % 14.0 %

46 - 54 11.6 % 0.0 % 7.1 % 25.0 % 4.7 %

55 and Over 6.4 % 1.4 % 3.6 % 13.7 % 1.9 %

missing 4.0 % 2.9 % 7.1 % 0.8 % 7.5 %

Country of Origin

USA 0.9 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 1.6 % 0.9 %

Mexico 59.0 % 71.4 % 60.7 % 52.4 % 57.9 %

El Slavador 21.9 % 7.1 % 7.1 % 35.5 % 19.6 %

Guatemala 4.9 % 8.6 % 0.0 % 3.2 % 5.6 %

Other 7.9 % 12.9 % 0.0 % 9.1 % 11.2 %

missing 5.5 % 0.0 % 32.1 % 3.2 % 4.7 %

Primary Language

English 0.9 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.8 % 1.9 %

Spanish 96.1 % 100.0 % 96.4 % 97.6 % 91.6 %

other 2.1 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 1.6 % 4.7 %

missing 0.9 % 0.0 % 3.6 % 0.0 % 1.9 %

English proficiency

fluent 5.2 % 7.1 % 3.6 % 0.8 % 9.4 %

limited 61.7 % 85.7 % 42.9 % 79.8 % 29.9 %

none 23.7 % 7.1 % 53.6 % 19.4 % 31.8 %

don't know 9.1 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 28.0 %

missing 0.3 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.9 %

Education level

HS diploma/GED 15.2 % 12.9 % 39.3 % 7.3 % 19.6 %

BA/BS 1.8 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.8 % 4.7 %

advanced degree 0.6 % 1.4 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.9 %

none of the above2 57.1 % 75.7 % 53.6 % 75.8 % 24.3 %

don't know 23.7 % 10.0 % 0.0 % 14.5 % 49.5 %

missing 1.5 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 1.6 % 0.9 %

Employment status

employed 53.5 % 65.7 % 89.3 % 30.7 % 62.6 %

not employed 35.6 % 25.7 % 0.0 % 63.7 % 18.7 %

don't know 5.2 % 7.1 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 11.2 %

missing 5.8 % 1.4 % 10.7 % 5.7 % 7.5 %

Number of Observations 329 70 28 55 107

Source: Service tracking data collected by NARN staff

2

 Responses categorized as "none of the above" likely reflect low levels of educational attainment (i.e., less than a high 

school diploma or GED).

1

 Totals do not sum to 100 percent, as two participants younger than 14 are not reported (0.61 percent of the total 

sample).

Table B.4

Demographic Characteristics of Arkansas NAC Participants, by Site

All Sites Little Rock Malvern Rogers Russellville

B–4 
Figure B.1 

Services to Little Rock NARN Participants

85.7

41.4

18.6

44.3 42.9

24.3

61.4

98.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Interpretation

Civics education

Employment assistance

ESL classes

Other services

Supportive services

Immigration assistance

Legal services

Service Types

Percentage of Participants

Figure B.2 

Services to Malvern NARN Participants

0.0

100. 0

0.0 0. 0

78.6

0.0 0.0 0.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

I nt erpretatio n

Civics education

Employm ent assistance

ESL classes

Other services

Support ive se rvices

Immigration assistance

Le gal service s

Se rvice Types

Percentage of Parti cipants

B–5 
Figure B.3 

Services to Rogers NARN Participants

96.8

42.7

97.6

50.8

2.4

41.9

6.5 9.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Interpretation

Civics education

Employment assistance

ESL classes

Other services

Supportive services

Immigration assistance

Legal services

Service Types

Percentage of Participants

B–6 

Figure B.4 

Services to Russellville NARN Participants

76.6 77.6

46.7

61.7

89.7

64.5

51.4 54.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Interpretation

Civics education

Employment assistance

ESL classes

Other services

Supportive services

Immigration assistance

Legal services

Service Types

Percentage of Participants
All Sites

Council 

Bluffs

Des 

Moines

Marshalltown1

Mount 

Pleasant

Gender

Male 57.8% 57.9% 57.3% 67.4% 55.4%

Female 42.1% 42.0% 42.7% 32.6% 44.6%

missing 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0

Race and Ethnicity

Hispanic 76.3% 87.1% 62.1% 68.6% 86.9%

White (Not of Hispanic Origin) 10.8% 8.1% 15.3% 14.0% 4.7%

Black (Not of Hispanic Origin) 6.3% 1.4% 14.0% 3.5% 0.0%

Asian or Pacific Islander 2.7% 1.1% 3.1% 3.5% 7.0%

Native American or Alaskan Native 0.6% 0.1% 0.3% 8.1% 0.0%

Multiracial 0.6% 0.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0

missing 2.7% 2.0% 4.1% 1.2% 1.4

Age

14 - 18 1.5% 2.0% 0.7% 1.2% 1.9%

19 - 24 13.4% 14.6% 11.6% 16.3% 14.1%

25 - 35 33.6% 35.8% 28.0% 32.6% 44.1%

36 - 45 28.4% 27.4% 31.4% 27.9% 22.5%

46 - 54 15.0% 13.8% 17.8% 11.6% 11.7%

55 and Over 8.1% 6.4% 10.4% 10.5% 5.6%

Education

Less than high school 70.6% 76.7% 58.0% 57.0% 95.3%

High school 22.9% 20.2% 30.7% 34.9% 2.3%

Certificate/associates degree 3.0% 1.8% 5.0% 3.5% 0.9%

College degree or higher 3.5% 1.4% 6.3% 4.7% 1.4%

100.0%

Currently in School

Yes 2.6% 1.6% 3.8% 7.0% 0.0

No 97.4% 98.4% 96.2% 93.0% 100.0%

Number of Observations 1,718 738 681 86 213

Table B.5

Demographic Characteristics of Iowa NAC Participants, by Site

Source : Analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008 by the Urban Institute.

1

Marshalltown did not begin offering services until the fourth quarter of 2007.

%

%

%

%

B–7 
APPENDIX C 

Demographic and Service Receipt Data for New Americans Centers Participants 
Several data sources were used to describe NAC participants and the services they received. 

Both Arkansas and Iowa NACs reported participant demographics and services to participants, 

employers, and the community in the Annual Services and Referrals Provided (ASRP) Report. 

For greater detail and accuracy, additional data sources were added from each site to supplement 

the information from the ASRP report. In Arkansas, this additional information came from 

tracking the services received by individual participants over the course of several months. In 

Iowa, data on individual participants were collected from the statewide data management system, 

IWORKS, to examine services received by individuals over the course of a year. This appendix 

describes these data sources in detail and the issues that arise within each. 

Annual Services and Referrals Provided Report 

The primary source of data on the types of services participants received at the NACs was drawn 

from a reporting system developed specifically for this demonstration project. The ASRP report 

is an Excel spreadsheet developed by McNeil Technologies, the demonstration’s technical 

assistance contractor, based on Iowa’s original data reporting system. It was revised to identify 

and define common data elements based on input from NARN and NIC program staff, Arkansas 

and Iowa project managers, McNeil Technologies, and ETA. The reporting system was refined 

throughout the first year of the demonstration. Because NAC staff had different perceptions on 

how to use the reporting system, staff in Arkansas and Iowa reported they were able to use the 

spreadsheet to accurately record information starting in the first quarter of 2007 (January–

March). This matter is explained further below. 

Using the ASRP report, local NAC staff documented basic demographic information as well as 

information on services provided to participants, employers, and the community quarterly. 

Participant data included basic demographics: gender, ethnicity/race, and age. Service categories 

were divided into three categories: participant services, employer services, and community 

services. Within each category, services were broken into several subcategories, including 

immigration assistance, legal assistance, child care, banking, basic needs, employment search, 

translation, targeted training, staffing needs, and cultural awareness and diversity training. These 

subcategories were more narrowly divided into specific types of services. For example, “legal 

services” included legal assistance access, human/civil rights issues, taxes/ITIN, and Social 

Security issues. Each service category was further defined as a direct service (i.e., service 

provided directly by NAC staff to an individual, employer, or the community) or an indirect 

(counseling/referral) service. There was no direct correlation between the demographic data and 

the participant service data reported in any given quarter. For example, an individual who 

visited the NAC to receive assistance finding a job may not have been captured in the 

demographic data for that particular quarter because he or she had already registered with the 

NAC for services in a prior quarter. However, the individual’s referral to a local employer or 

ESL classes would have been recorded in the service data. 

In Arkansas, staff from each local NARN site entered their own data into a site-specific 

spreadsheet, which was then rolled up into the statewide ASRP report each quarter. 

Demographic information was compiled from registration forms completed by NARN 

participants when they sought out services for the first time. Local staff developed their own 

C–1
systems for daily and/or monthly recordkeeping, with most relying on hand tallies for 

reporting.42 

In Iowa, staff initially used a Lotus Notes spreadsheet to track service receipt and participant 

demographics. From June through December 2006, NIC staff relied on hand tallies to generate 

aggregate data entered into the NAC reporting system. As of December 2006, NIC staff began 

entering all their participant data directly into the state’s IWORKS data management system. 

Each quarter, regional supervisors generated reports from IWORKS and then entered counts 

generated from these reports onto the NAC spreadsheet to meet quarterly reporting requirements. 

Given problems associated with the development and use of IWORKS, NIC staff continued to 

use their own recordkeeping systems to cross-check the IWORKS reports. As in Arkansas, 

many staff kept hand tallies rather than relying on data from the IWORKS system.43 

Another limitation is that the ASRP report was not used to accurately count individuals served 

through the NACs. In both states, individuals who received services but did not complete a 

registration may not have been included in the participant count. For example, if an individual 

received translation assistance at a school fair, his or her demographic data would not have been 

included (but he or she would have been included in the count of services provided). If the 

person came into the office and registered for assistance and then had documents translated, he 

or she would have been counted in the demographic data. Before 2007, individuals in Iowa 

seeking assistance through the NICs were counted once a month, for a maximum of three times a 

quarter, regardless of the number of times they received services. As of the first quarter in 2007, 

however, NICs began reporting demographic information for new participants only. In 

Arkansas, how participants were counted ranged greatly. Two NARN locations recorded 

participant data the first time an individual sought out services; their demographic data were 

based on an unduplicated participant count and represented unique individuals. Demographic 

data as recorded in the other two sites did not represent unique individuals. In one location, 

demographic data were reported each time an individual received services. The other site 

counted participants each time they came in for services, but no more than once a month or 12 

times each year. 

There were also inconsistencies in the data reported for participants, employers, and community 

services. Based on discussions with staff and review of the quarterly reports, participant services 

were undercounted in some locations. While staff in Iowa, for the most part, counted a service 

each time it was provided to an individual, the story was more complicated in Arkansas. Staff in 

two locations recorded services each time they were provided to an individual. In the other two 

NARN locations, however, multiple deliveries of the same service for a single individual were 

counted as a single service. Rather than reporting the total number of times a specific service 

was provided, they tallied the number of people who received a specific service. For example, if 

a person came to the NARN seeking notary assistance three times over the course of one month, 

 

42 In Little Rock, for example, staff used a Word document to track services provided that was then tallied by hand 

and entered into the NAC reporting system. In Russellville, although staff entered information into an Access 

database developed specifically for this project, they relied on hand counts to develop a monthly tally of services 

provided. Similarly, staff in Rogers entered information into an Access database but kept a weekly tally of services 

provided from which they compiled monthly and quarterly service counts. 

43 Staff in Des Moines and Council Bluffs sites kept a log of services provided, and staff in Mount Pleasant used a 

client services history record form from which they generated a service count. 

C–2
it would have been recorded as one instance of notary services. In addition, staff in Arkansas 

varied in how they recorded participation in the civics classes, which were made up of two 

sessions. In some locations, attendance at both sessions counted as participation at two sessions, 

and in others it was counted as one. 

Arkansas Service Tracking Data 

For a more detailed examination of program participant characteristics and to counter some of 

the data issues described above for the ASRP report, each NAC in Arkansas undertook 

additional service data collection. Staff at the Urban Institute developed a paper form for this 

data collection that could be used to track the demographic characteristics and services received 

by each NARN participant. After being trained on the use of the service tracking forms by 

Urban Institute staff, NARN staff began data collection in late April 2008 and continued through 

the end of June 2008, for a data collection period of about nine weeks. During this period, Urban 

Institute staff were in regular contact with NARN staff to answer any questions that arose. 

However, Urban Institute staff were unable to personally observe and monitor how data were 

recorded. At the end of the service tracking period, all forms were collected from each site and 

entered into an Excel spreadsheet by Urban Institute staff for analysis. The validity and 

reliability of the data provided by NARN could not be verified or fully determined by the Urban 

Institute. 

NARN staff were instructed to maintain records on each participant that came to the NARN for 

services during the data collection period by keeping one form per participant and noting the date 

and services provided to participants each time they were served. The system of connecting 

services to participants provided a more standardized recording system to reduce variation 

among the NARN sites, and the service categories on this form were designed to be similar to 

those of the ASRP report. They represented the major categories of services provided by the 

NARN sites, but the categories were not as detailed as the ASRP report in that they aggregated 

specific services into service types (e.g., assistance with clothing and food needs were both 

recorded as a “basic needs service” instead of separately) and did not require staff to distinguish 

between direct and indirect services. The demographic characteristics, in contrast, were more 

detailed than in the ASRP report and required additional information such as educational 

attainment and country of origin. 

However, the additional service data collection should be interpreted in conjunction with other 

data sources, as it cannot be representative of all NARN participants. Owing to the limited 

window of data collection, the information gained from the service tracking data cannot be 

extended to the experiences of all participants throughout the course of the demonstration grant. 

Although most participant characteristics are likely very similar, NARN staff remarked that 

several sites had lower demands for their services by the end of the demonstration grant and may 

have therefore been providing fewer services during this period than earlier in the grant. 

The number of services and contacts an average participant received could have also been 

undercounted if the relatively short period of data collection did not capture all of a participant’s 

interactions with the NARN. For example, if a new participant went to a NARN in May 2008 

and returned for a second time in August 2008, the service tracking data would have only 

C–3
counted that participant’s first visit and the services he or she received at that time. Participants 

that received intensive services from the NARN earlier in the demonstration grant but did not 

return during the period of data collection were also not part of the information collected; thus, 

different patterns of service receipt may not have been captured in the service tracking data. 

The relatively short period of data collection also influenced the number of participants for 

whom information was collected, making comparisons difficult. With information on fewer than 

100 participants in each NARN site, it is impossible to determine whether any variation in 

service receipt can be attributed to known characteristics (such as site, education level, or 

gender) instead of unobserved characteristics. Missing data also contribute to the difficulty of 

comparison; while some data collection items had low rates of non-response, including 

race/ethnicity, primary language spoken, and English proficiency, others have high rates of 

nonresponse. In one site, over one in ten participants’ information was missing an individual’s 

gender and almost one in three did not have an individual’s country of origin recorded. More 

than 5 percent of participants in at least one site were also missing information for age or 

employment status. While the information available is used to note several differences in service 

receipt by participant characteristics, conclusions cannot be drawn as to the cause of these 

differences. 

Lastly, the service tracking data collection did not entirely eliminate cross-site variation in 

recording of services, and comparisons should be made with caution. In particular, the dates of 

service provision for one site were identical for most participants, who also received identical 

services. The NARN likely served participants on dates other than those recorded on the service 

tracking forms, and the information from this site may therefore distort the picture of services 

that were actually received by participants. 

IWORKS Participant Data 

Iowa’s state data management system, IWORKS, provided data for analysis of individual 

participant receipt of services. Although similar to the data collected within the ASRP report, 

the data collected in IWORKS are not automatically aggregated but recorded individually. NIC 

staff report such participant characteristics as age, gender, and race and ethnicity into this 

computer-based system along with information about the services provided during each visit. 

Thus, it is possible to connect service receipt to participant characteristics over time. 

The services reported in the IWORKS system largely mirrored those reported in the ASRP 

report. Services were broken down into direct and indirect services and included assistance such 

as employment-related services, computer access, and child care assistance. However, several 

service categories appeared in the IWORKS data that were not present in the ASRP report. 

These services included federal bonding services, public notary services, referrals to other 

agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” These services were grouped as “miscellaneous 

services” for analysis. An additional service, “joint events,” could not be correlated with the 

services provided in the ASRP report and is reported separately. It could not be determined what 

type of service is denoted by joint events. 

As noted above, the data drawn from IWORKS may not fully represent NIC participants over the 

course of the demonstration grant. The analyses were based on services provided between April 

C–4
C–5

1, 2007, and March 31, 2008; therefore, the analyses of individual service receipt presented in 

Chapter IV are limited to participants at the NIC sites during this time period. Participants who 

first received NIC services before April 1, 2007, and who did not return for services during this 

period did not contribute to analyses of participant characteristics and service receipt, which may 

have influenced the types of services and number of services provided that analyses revealed. In 

addition, NIC staff found that reports generated by the IWORKS system represent inaccurate 

counts of the participants they served. The system underwent several revisions over the course 

of the ETA grant, but it isn’t possible to assess the degree of accuracy that it was able to achieve. 
APPENDIX D 

Combinations of Services and Pathways of Service Receipt for New Iowan Centers 

Participants
The statewide data reporting system, IWORKS, was used to examine the patterns of individual 

service receipt by participants at the NIC sites. IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through 

March 31, 2008, were collected and analyzed for participants at each NIC during this time. 

While some of these results were presented in Chapter IV, more detailed descriptions of service 

receipt are below. 

Combinations of services ever received. Many participants received more than one service 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008. Table D.1 exhibits service combinations received 

by NIC participants. The table displays the percentage of participants receiving each type of 

service listed in the columns who also received the service in the corresponding row. As noted 

in Chapter IV, employment services were most often received by NIC participants, with 72 

percent ever receiving employment services. Nearly half of those who received employment 

services also received general information, 40 percent received miscellaneous services, 37 

percent received interpretation/translation, and 26 percent received computer access. General 

information was also received by over half (59 percent) of NIC participants. These participants 

also commonly received miscellaneous services (33 percent), interpretation/translation (34 

percent), and computer access (28 percent). Few participants combined any services with 

ESL/language classes, other classes, supportive service assistance, and legal issues. Differences 

by NIC location, gender, and education level are shown in Appendix Tables D.4–D.11.

Pathways of service receipt. The types of services provided to NIC participants followed some 

patterns concerning service combinations and timing of services. Two-thirds of NIC participants 

received employment services on their first visit to an NIC center between April 1, 2007 and 

March 31, 2008, and nearly one-quarter of these participants returned for a second visit (Table 

D.2). In contrast, among participants who did not receive employment services at their first visit, 

fewer (14 percent) came into the NIC for a second service. 

Most NIC participants who had received employment services and made a second visit were 

provided with employment services again during their second visit (80 percent), as is shown in 

Table D.2. A sizable share also received general information (48 percent), miscellaneous 

services (41 percent), interpretation/translation (36 percent), and computer access (25 percent). 

In contrast, ESL/language classes were the most common service provided to participants during 

a second visit who had not received employment services at the first visit (36 percent of these 

participants received ESL/language classes at their second visit). During the second visit, these 

participants also frequently received miscellaneous services (31 percent), general information 

(28 percent), interpretation/translation (24 percent), computer access (22 percent), or 

employment services (21 percent). The remaining types of services were each offered to less 

than 20 percent of participants at their second visit. This suggests that participants who received 

employment services at their first visit received a greater mix of services during their second 

visit than those who did not. 

Patterns of service receipt were similar when looking at any visit subsequent to the first visit 

(Table D.3). One notable difference was for those who did not receive employment services on 

the first visit. Thirty-seven percent of those who had a subsequent visit received employment 

services at some point, reflecting the NICs’ focus on employment. This suggests that 

employment services are central to the supports the NICs provide, as many who come to the NIC 

centers receive employment services at some point, even if they do not seek employment 

D–1 
D–2 

services at the first or second visit. This is further supported by the high level of receipt of 

employment services by all participants between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 (over 70 

percent). Patterns of service receipt by NIC location, gender and highest education status 

achieved can be found below in Appendix Tables D.12–D.27. 
Table D.1 

Combinations of Services Ever Received 

Employment 

Services 

General 

Information 

Miscellaneous 

Services1

Interpretation/ 

Translation 

Computer 

Access 

ESL/ 

Language 

Classes 

Other 

Classes 

Supp

Ser

Assi

Employment Services 71.8 48.7 40.1 37.2 25.9 6.2 7.4 4General Information 48.7 59.0 33.3 33.9 28.1 7.1 8.6 4Miscellaneous Services 40.1 33.3 57.2 25.4 19.1 7.5 8.0 4Interpretation/Translation 37.2 33.9 25.4 44.8 18.7 5.1 5.5 Computer Access 25.9 28.1 19.1 18.7 30.9 5.5 6.0 2ESL/Language Classes 6.2 7.1 7.5 5.1 5.5 13.7 4.0 Other Classes 7.4 8.6 8.0 5.5 6.0 4.0 11.4 2Supportive Services Assistance 4.1 4.2 4.8 3.1 2.4 1.7 2.3 Legal Issues Assistance 3.1 3.3 3.9 2.7 1.6 1.2 1.6 Other Services 5.9 8.2 8.7 4.8 4.4 2.8 4.2 Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary services, referrals to other 

mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services fallin

been misclassified by the sites. 

2. Other services include immigration services, civics education classes, joint events, tax/SSN assistance, and financial assistance. 
Table D.2 

Pathways of Service Receipt at Second Visit 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 66.6% 33.4% 

Second Visit 23.8% 14.1% 

Types of Services Received at Second Visit 

Employment Services 80.4% 20.7% 

General Information 47.9% 28.1% 

Miscellaneous Services1 40.6% 31.0% 

Interpretation/Translation 35.9% 24.4% 

Computer Access 24.9% 21.9% 

ESL/Language Classes 4.9% 36.0% 

Other Classes 4.9% 8.3% 

Supportive Services Assistance 2.4% 6.2% 

Legal Issues Assistance 1.2% 3.3% 

Immigration Services 0.7% 7.4% 

Civics Education Classes 1.0% 12.4% 

Joint Events 2.4% 3.3% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 1.2% 1.7% 

Financial Assistance 0.2% 0.4% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–4 
Table D.3 

Pathways of Service Receipt at Any Visit after First Visit 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 66.6% 33.4% 

Any Visit after First Visit 23.8% 14.1% 

Types of Services Received at Any Visit after First Visit 

Employment Services 87% 37% 

General Information 62% 48% 

Miscellaneous Services1 56% 51% 

Interpretation/Translation 48% 39% 

Computer Access 31% 34% 

ESL/Language Classes 10% 44% 

Other Classes 11% 18% 

Supportive Services Assistance 4% 13% 

Legal Issues Assistance 5% 10% 

Immigration Services 3% 18% 

Civics Education Classes 2% 17% 

Joint Events 5% 7% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 2% 5% 

Financial Assistance 1% 2% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–5 
Figure D.1 

Types of Services Ever Received by Council Bluffs NIC Participants, 

April 1, 2007–March 31, 2008 

88.2%

94.2%

53.8%

65.6%

61.5%

10.2%

13.4%

3.3%

16.7%

1.5% 3.5%

7.2%

0.3% 0.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Employment Services

General Information

Miscellaneous Services

Interpretation/Translation

Computer Access

ESL/Language Classes

Other Classes

Supportive Services Assistance

Legal Issues Assistance

Immigration Services

Civics Education Classes

Joint Events

Tax/SSN Assistance

Financial Assistance

Service Types

Parcentage of Participants

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

Note: Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public 

notary services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were 

“other services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category 

may have been misclassified by the sites. 

D–6 
Figure D.2 

Types of Services Ever Received by Des Moines NIC Participants 

April 1, 2007–March 31, 2008

73.0%

31.4%

50.7%

31.6%

4.3%

18.1%

9.7%

7.2% 8.7%

3.2% 2.2% 1.6% 2.6% 0.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Employment Services

General Information

Miscellaneous Services

Interpretation/Translation

Computer Access

ESL/Language Classes

Other Classes

Supportive Services Assistance

Legal Issues Assistance

Immigration Services

Civics Education Classes

Joint Events

Tax/SSN Assistance

Financial Assistance

Service Types

Parcentage of Participants

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

Note: Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public 

notary services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were 

“other services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category 

may have been misclassified by the sites. 

D–7 
Figure D.3 

Types of Services Ever Received by Marshalltown NIC Participants 

April 1, 2007–March 31, 2008

67.4%

54.7%

59.3%

37.2%

22.1%

7.0%

18.6%

7.0%

16.3%

4.7%

1.2% 0.0%

8.1%

1.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Employment Services

General Information

Miscellaneous Services

Interpretation/Translation

Computer Access

ESL/Language Classes

Other Classes

Supportive Services Assistance

Legal Issues Assistance

Immigration Services

Civics Education Classes

Joint Events

Tax/SSN Assistance

Financial Assistance

Service Types

Parcentage of Participants

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

Note: Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public 

notary services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were 

“other services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category 

may have been misclassified by the sites. 

D–8 
Figure D.4 

Types of Services Ever Received by Mount Pleasant NIC Participants 

April 1, 2007–March 31, 2008

13.1%

26.8%

89.2%

17.8%

13.1% 15.0%

7.0%

15.0%

4.7%

22.5%

10.3%

0.0%

4.7%

0.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Employment Services

General Information

Miscellaneous Services

Interpretation/Translation

Computer Access

ESL/Language Classes

Other Classes

Supportive Services Assistance

Legal Issues Assistance

Immigration Services

Civics Education Classes

Joint Events

Tax/SSN Assistance

Financial Assistance

Service Types

Parcentage of Participants

 Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

Note: Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public 

notary services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were 

“other services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category 

may have been misclassified by the sites. 

D–9 
Table D.4 

Combinations of Services Ever Received: Council Bluffs 

Employment 

Services 

General 

Information 

Miscellaneous 

Services1

Interpretation/ 

Translation 

Computer 

Access 

ESL/ 

Language 

Classes 

Other 

Classes 

Supp

Ser

Assi

Employment Services 88.2 85.5 47.7 60.4 53.0 4.1 8.5 General Information 85.5 94.2 51.4 63.3 57.7 7.1 11.8 Miscellaneous Services 47.7 51.4 53.8 33.5 35.9 5.4 10.2 Interpretation/Translation 60.4 63.3 33.5 65.6 39.8 6.0 9.4 Computer Access 53.0 57.7 35.9 39.8 61.5 9.8 11.0 ESL/Language Classes 4.1 7.1 5.4 9.8 9.8 10.2 6.0 Other Classes 8.5 11.8 10.2 11.0 11.0 6.0 13.4 Supportive Services Assistance 2.4 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.5 3.1 Legal Issues Assistance 1.4 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.1 1.8 Other Services 5.4 7.7 7.6 6.6 6.6 2.6 6.4 Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary services, referrals to other 

mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services fallin

been misclassified by the sites. 

2. Other services include immigration services, civics education classes, joint events, tax/SSN assistance, and financial assistance. 
Table D.5 

Combinations of Services Ever Received: Des Moines 

Employment 

Services 

General 

Information 

Miscellaneous 

Services1

Interpretation/ 

Translation 

Computer 

Access 

ESL/ 

Language 

Classes 

Other 

Classes 

Supp

Ser

Assi

Employment Services 73.0 23.4 40.7 23.4 4.0 10.0 7.3 General Information 23.4 31.4 17.3 11.5 2.8 6.6 5.4 4Miscellaneous Services 40.7 17.3 50.7 18.9 3.4 9.7 5.6 4Interpretation/Translation 23.4 11.5 18.9 31.6 0.4 4.4 2.1 2Computer Access 4.0 2.8 3.4 0.4 4.3 1.6 1.0 ESL/Language Classes 10.0 6.6 9.7 4.4 1.6 18.1 2.5 Other Classes 7.3 5.4 5.6 2.1 1.0 2.5 9.7 Supportive Services Assistance 6.0 4.0 4.6 2.1 0.7 1.8 1.5 Legal Issues Assistance 5.1 4.3 4.6 3.2 0.9 1.5 1.5 Other Services 6.3 5.6 5.1 3.4 0.7 2.2 2.1 2Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary services, referrals to other 

mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services fallin

been misclassified by the sites. 

2. Other services include immigration services, civics education classes, joint events, tax/SSN assistance, and financial assistance. 
Table D.6 

Combinations of Services Ever Received: Marshalltown 

Employment 

Services 

General 

Information 

Miscellaneous 

Services1

Interpretation/ 

Translation 

Computer 

Access 

ESL/ 

Language 

Classes 

Other 

Classes 

Supp

Ser

Assi

Employment Services 67.4 33.7 41.9 26.7 19.8 3.5 12.8 General Information 33.7 54.7 32.6 16.3 19.8 4.7 16.3 Miscellaneous Services 41.9 32.6 59.3 33.7 16.3 2.3 11.6 Interpretation/Translation 26.7 16.3 33.7 37.2 8.1 2.3 5.8 2Computer Access 19.8 19.8 16.3 8.1 22.1 3.5 9.3 ESL/Language Classes 3.5 4.7 2.3 2.3 3.5 7.0 4.7 Other Classes 12.8 16.3 11.6 5.8 9.3 4.7 18.6 Supportive Services Assistance 1.2 3.5 3.5 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Legal Issues Assistance 2.3 2.3 3.5 3.5 1.2 0.0 1.2 Other Services 4.7 11.6 7.0 4.7 2.3 1.2 2.3 Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary services, referrals to other 

mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services fallin

been misclassified by the sites. 

2. Other services include immigration services, civics education classes, joint events, tax/SSN assistance, and financial assistance. 
Table D.7 

Combinations of Services Ever Received: Mount Pleasant 

Employment 

Services 

General 

Information 

Miscellaneous 

Services1

Interpretation/ 

Translation 

Computer 

Access 

ESL/ 

Language 

Classes 

Other 

Classes 

Supp

Ser

Assi

Employment Services 13.2 8.0 10.8 5.2 4.7 2.4 1.4 General Information 8.0 26.8 22.1 11.3 9.9 9.9 4.7 Miscellaneous Services 10.8 22.1 89.2 15.0 12.2 9.9 6.6 1Interpretation/Translation 5.2 11.3 15.0 17.8 8.0 5.2 3.3 1Computer Access 4.7 9.9 12.2 8.0 13.2 4.2 3.3 ESL/Language Classes 2.4 9.9 9.9 5.2 4.2 15.0 1.4 2Other Classes 1.4 4.7 6.6 3.3 3.3 1.4 7.0 2Supportive Services Assistance 5.2 8.5 12.2 11.3 6.6 2.8 2.8 1Legal Issues Assistance 2.8 5.6 8.9 4.2 3.3 1.4 1.4 Other Services 7.0 16.4 24.9 8.5 9.4 6.1 4.2 Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary services, referrals to other 

mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services fallin

been misclassified by the sites. 

2. Other services include immigration services, civics education classes, joint events, tax/SSN assistance, and financial assistance. 
Table D.8 

Combinations of Services Ever Received: Male 

Employment 

Services 

General 

Information 

Miscellaneous 

Services1

Interpretation/ 

Translation 

Computer 

Access 

ESL/ 

Language 

Classes 

Other 

Classes 

Supp

Ser

Assi

Employment Services 74.6 49.8 40.6 39.9 25.8 5.4 6.6 General Information 49.8 58.7 32.4 34.0 27.5 6.2 7.4 Miscellaneous Services 40.6 32.4 56.9 26.3 17.8 5.9 6.9 Interpretation/Translation 39.9 34.0 26.3 47.0 18.0 5.0 4.7 2Computer Access 25.8 27.5 17.8 18.0 29.7 4.2 4.3 ESL/Language Classes 5.4 6.2 5.9 5.0 4.2 10.5 3.5 Other Classes 6.6 7.4 6.9 4.7 4.3 3.5 10.1 Supportive Services Assistance 3.7 3.0 3.9 2.4 1.7 1.2 1.9 Legal Issues Assistance 2.9 2.6 3.1 2.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 Other Services 5.5 7.3 8.0 3.7 3.3 2.4 3.8 2Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary services, referrals to other 

mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services fallin

been misclassified by the sites. 

2. Other services include immigration services, civics education classes, joint events, tax/SSN assistance, and financial assistance. 
Table D.9 

Combinations of Services Ever Received: Female 

Employment 

Services 

General 

Information 

Miscellaneous 

Services1

Interpretation/ 

Translation 

Computer 

Access 

ESL/ 

Language 

Classes 

Other 

Classes 

Supp

Ser

Assi

Employment Services 68.0 47.1 39.2 33.4 26.0 7.2 8.4 4General Information 47.1 59.3 34.4 33.7 28.9 8.3 10.2 Miscellaneous Services 39.2 34.4 57.6 24.2 20.7 9.7 9.4 Interpretation/Translation 33.4 33.7 24.2 41.6 19.5 5.1 6.5 4Computer Access 26.0 28.9 20.7 19.5 32.3 7.3 8.2 ESL/Language Classes 7.2 8.3 9.7 5.1 7.3 18.2 4.6 2Other Classes 8.4 10.2 9.4 6.5 8.2 4.6 13.1 2Supportive Services Assistance 4.7 5.8 6.1 4.1 3.5 2.4 2.8 Legal Issues Assistance 3.3 4.3 5.0 2.9 2.1 1.2 2.1 Other Services 6.4 9.3 9.7 6.1 5.8 3.3 4.6 4Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary services, referrals to other 

mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services fallin

been misclassified by the sites. 

2. Other services include immigration services, civics education classes, joint events, tax/SSN assistance, and financial assistance. 
Table D.10 

Combinations of Services Ever Received: Less Than a High School Degree 

Employment 

Services 

General 

Information 

Miscellaneous 

Services1

Interpretation/ 

Translation 

Computer 

Access 

ESL/ 

Language 

Classes 

Other 

Classes 

Supp

Ser

Assi

Employment Services 67.9 48.6 37.7 44.4 26.3 6.5 5.7 General Information 48.6 59.4 32.8 41.5 29.2 8.2 7.8 Miscellaneous Services 37.7 32.8 58.9 29.8 19.0 8.5 7.2 4Interpretation/Translation 44.4 41.5 29.8 54.1 22.9 6.2 6.1 4Computer Access 26.3 29.2 19.0 22.9 31.9 6.5 5.9 2ESL/Language Classes 6.5 8.2 8.5 6.2 6.5 15.1 4.2 Other Classes 5.7 7.8 7.2 6.1 5.9 4.2 10.4 Supportive Services Assistance 3.0 3.6 4.7 4.0 2.1 1.8 1.7 Legal Issues Assistance 2.1 2.6 3.6 2.6 1.3 1.2 1.2 Other Services 5.2 8.2 9.3 5.4 4.6 3.4 4.0 Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary services, referrals to other 

mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services fallin

been misclassified by the sites. 

2. Other services include immigration services, civics education classes, joint events, tax/SSN assistance, and financial assistance. 
Table D.11 

Combinations of Services Ever Received: At Least a High School Degree 

Employment 

Services 

General 

Information 

Miscellaneous 

Services1

Interpretation/ 

Translation 

Computer 

Access 

ESL/ 

Language 

Classes 

Other 

Classes 

Supp

Ser

Assi

Employment Services 81.4 48.7 45.7 20.0 25.0 5.4 11.5 General Information 48.7 57.8 34.5 15.8 25.5 4.4 10.7 Miscellaneous Services 45.7 34.5 53.3 15.1 19.4 5.2 9.9 Interpretation/Translation 20.0 15.8 15.1 22.4 8.5 2.4 4.2 Computer Access 25.0 25.5 19.4 8.5 28.3 3.2 6.3 ESL/Language Classes 5.4 4.4 5.2 2.4 3.2 10.5 3.4 Other Classes 11.5 10.7 9.9 4.2 6.3 3.4 13.9 Supportive Services Assistance 6.9 5.5 5.2 1.2 3.2 1.4 3.6 Legal Issues Assistance 5.5 5.0 4.6 2.8 2.2 1.4 2.6 Other Services 7.7 8.1 7.3 3.2 4.0 1.4 4.6 Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008. 1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary services, referrals to other 

mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling been misclassified by the sites. 

2. Other services include immigration services, civics education classes, joint events, tax/SSN assistance, and financial assistance. 
Table D.12 

Pathways of Service Receipt: Council Bluffs 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 84.6% 15.4% 

Second Visit 22.6% 8.9% 

Types of Services Received at Second Visit 

Employment Services 88.0% 24.2% 

General Information 90.4% 40.9% 

Miscellaneous Services1 43.7% 25.8% 

Interpretation/Translation 59.9% 24.2% 

Computer Access 53.9% 68.2% 

ESL/Language Classes 5.4% 62.1% 

Other Classes 7.2% 16.7% 

Supportive Services Assistance 1.2% 4.5% 

Legal Issues Assistance 0.6% 0.0% 

Immigration Services 0.6% 1.5% 

Civics Education Classes 1.2% 10.6% 

Joint Events 5.4% 12.1% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 0.0% 1.5% 

Financial Assistance 0.0% 1.5% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–18 
Table D.13 

Pathways of Service Receipt: Council Bluffs 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 84.6% 15.4% 

Any Visit after First Visit 22.6% 8.9% 

Types of Services Received at Any Visit after First Visit 

Employment Services 90.4% 40.9% 

General Information 94.6% 60.6% 

Miscellaneous Services1 49.7% 40.9% 

Interpretation/Translation 70.7% 42.4% 

Computer Access 62.3% 84.8% 

ESL/Language Classes 7.2% 65.2% 

Other Classes 10.2% 28.8% 

Supportive Services Assistance 2.4% 13.6% 

Legal Issues Assistance 1.8% 7.6% 

Immigration Services 1.8% 10.6% 

Civics Education Classes 3.6% 16.7% 

Joint Events 9.6% 24.2% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 0.0% 3.0% 

Financial Assistance 0.6% 3.0% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–19 
Table D.14 

Pathways of Service Receipt: Des Moines 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 66.4% 33.6% 

Second Visit 32.0% 14.5% 

Types of Services Received at Second Visit 

Employment Services 75.7% 27.3% 

General Information 16.1% 17.2% 

Miscellaneous Services1 38.5% 31.3% 

Interpretation/Translation 18.8% 30.3% 

Computer Access 2.8% 1.0% 

ESL/Language Classes 5.0% 32.3% 

Other Classes 2.3% 5.1% 

Supportive Services Assistance 3.2% 4.0% 

Legal Issues Assistance 1.4% 6.1% 

Immigration Services 0.9% 1.0% 

Civics Education Classes 0.9% 9.1% 

Joint Events 0.5% 0.0% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 1.8% 0.0% 

Financial Assistance 0.5% 0.0% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–20 
Table D.15 

Pathways of Service Receipt: Des Moines 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 66.4% 33.6% 

Any Visit after First Visit 32.0% 14.5% 

Types of Services Received at Any Visit after First Visit 

Employment Services 84.9% 45.5% 

General Information 38.1% 32.3% 

Miscellaneous Services1 59.6% 46.5% 

Interpretation/Translation 31.2% 37.4% 

Computer Access 5.0% 4.0% 

ESL/Language Classes 12.8% 39.4% 

Other Classes 10.1% 13.1% 

Supportive Services Assistance 4.6% 8.1% 

Legal Issues Assistance 6.4% 11.1% 

Immigration Services 2.8% 3.0% 

Civics Education Classes 1.4% 10.1% 

Joint Events 2.8% 1.0% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 3.7% 2.0% 

Financial Assistance 1.8% 0.0% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–21 
Table D.16 

Pathways of Service Receipt: Marshalltown 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 59.3% 40.7% 

Second Visit 19.8% 18.6% 

Types of Services Received at Second Visit 

Employment Services 88.2% 31.3% 

General Information 35.3% 37.5% 

Miscellaneous Services1 35.3% 31.3% 

Interpretation/Translation 29.4% 37.5% 

Computer Access 29.4% 18.8% 

ESL/Language Classes 0.0% 25.0% 

Other Classes 17.6% 6.3% 

Supportive Services Assistance 0.0% 6.3% 

Legal Issues Assistance 0.0% 0.0% 

Immigration Services 0.0% 0.0% 

Civics Education Classes 0.0% 0.0% 

Joint Events 0.0% 0.0% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 0.0% 6.3% 

Financial Assistance 0.0% 0.0% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–22 
Table D.17 

Pathways of Service Receipt: Marshalltown 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 59.3% 40.7% 

Any Visit after First Visit 19.8% 18.6% 

Types of Services Received at Any Visit after First Visit 

Employment Services 94.1% 43.8% 

General Information 47.1% 50.0% 

Miscellaneous Services1 64.7% 50.0% 

Interpretation/Translation 35.3% 43.8% 

Computer Access 47.1% 31.3% 

ESL/Language Classes 0.0% 25.0% 

Other Classes 17.6% 12.5% 

Supportive Services Assistance 0.0% 6.3% 

Legal Issues Assistance 5.9% 0.0% 

Immigration Services 0.0% 6.3% 

Civics Education Classes 0.0% 0.0% 

Joint Events 0.0% 0.0% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 0.0% 6.3% 

Financial Assistance 0.0% 6.3% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–23 
Table D.18 

Pathways of Service Receipt: Mount Pleasant 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 8.0% 92.0% 

Second Visit 3.3% 28.6% 

Types of Services Received at Second Visit 

Employment Services 28.6% 3.3% 

General Information 57.1% 29.5% 

Miscellaneous Services1 42.9% 36.1% 

Interpretation/Translation 14.3% 11.5% 

Computer Access 14.3% 6.6% 

ESL/Language Classes 0.0% 16.4% 

Other Classes 0.0% 4.9% 

Supportive Services Assistance 14.3% 11.5% 

Legal Issues Assistance 14.3% 3.3% 

Immigration Services 0.0% 26.2% 

Civics Education Classes 0.0% 23.0% 

Joint Events 0.0% 0.0% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 14.3% 3.3% 

Financial Assistance 0.0% 0.0% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–24 
Table D.19 

Pathways of Service Receipt: Mount Pleasant 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 8.0% 92.0% 

Any Visit after First Visit 3.3% 28.6% 

Types of Services Received at Any Visit after First Visit 

Employment Services 57.1% 18.0% 

General Information 85.7% 60.7% 

Miscellaneous Services1 71.4% 70.5% 

Interpretation/Translation 42.9% 36.1% 

Computer Access 57.1% 29.5% 

ESL/Language Classes 28.6% 32.8% 

Other Classes 28.6% 14.8% 

Supportive Services Assistance 42.9% 23.0% 

Legal Issues Assistance 42.9% 13.1% 

Immigration Services 28.6% 54.1% 

Civics Education Classes 0.0% 31.1% 

Joint Events 0.0% 0.0% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 14.3% 13.1% 

Financial Assistance 0.0% 3.3% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–25 
Table D.20 

Pathways of Service Receipt: Male 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 69.4% 30.6% 

Second Visit 24.5% 12.0% 

Types of Services Received at Second Visit 

Employment Services 84.4% 26.9% 

General Information 48.6% 28.6% 

Miscellaneous Services1 38.3% 36.1% 

Interpretation/Translation 37.4% 27.7% 

Computer Access 23.9% 21.0% 

ESL/Language Classes 3.7% 29.4% 

Other Classes 3.3% 10.1% 

Supportive Services Assistance 2.5% 5.9% 

Legal Issues Assistance 0.4% 3.4% 

Immigration Services 0.0% 8.4% 

Civics Education Classes 0.8% 11.8% 

Joint Events 2.1% 5.9% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 0.4% 1.7% 

Financial Assistance 0.0% 0.8% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–26 
Table D.21 

Pathways of Service Receipt: Male 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 69.4% 30.6% 

Any Visit after First Visit 24.5% 12.0% 

Types of Services Received at Any Visit after First Visit 

Employment Services 89.7% 43.7% 

General Information 64.6% 49.6% 

Miscellaneous Services1 54.3% 52.1% 

Interpretation/Translation 50.6% 42.9% 

Computer Access 29.6% 32.8% 

ESL/Language Classes 9.5% 36.1% 

Other Classes 8.6% 16.0% 

Supportive Services Assistance 3.3% 11.8% 

Legal Issues Assistance 4.1% 10.9% 

Immigration Services 2.1% 18.5% 

Civics Education Classes 1.6% 16.0% 

Joint Events 4.1% 9.2% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 2.1% 5.0% 

Financial Assistance 0.8% 2.5% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–27 
Table D.22 

Pathways of Service Receipt: Female 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 62.7% 37.3% 

Second Visit 22.8% 17.0% 

Types of Services Received at Second Visit 

Employment Services 75.2% 14.6% 

General Information 46.7% 27.6% 

Miscellaneous Services1 43.6% 26.0% 

Interpretation/Translation 33.3% 21.1% 

Computer Access 26.1% 22.8% 

ESL/Language Classes 6.7% 42.3% 

Other Classes 6.7% 6.5% 

Supportive Services Assistance 2.4% 6.5% 

Legal Issues Assistance 2.4% 3.3% 

Immigration Services 1.8% 6.5% 

Civics Education Classes 1.2% 13.0% 

Joint Events 2.4% 0.8% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 2.4% 1.6% 

Financial Assistance 0.6% 0.0% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–28 
Table D.23 

Pathways of Service Receipt: Female 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 62.7% 37.3% 

Any Visit after First Visit 22.8% 17.0% 

Types of Services Received at Any Visit after First Visit 

Employment Services 83.6% 30.9% 

General Information 58.8% 47.2% 

Miscellaneous Services1 58.2% 50.4% 

Interpretation/Translation 43.0% 35.0% 

Computer Access 32.7% 35.8% 

ESL/Language Classes 11.5% 51.2% 

Other Classes 13.3% 19.5% 

Supportive Services Assistance 5.5% 14.6% 

Legal Issues Assistance 6.7% 8.9% 

Immigration Services 3.6% 17.9% 

Civics Education Classes 2.4% 17.1% 

Joint Events 6.7% 4.9% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 2.4% 5.7% 

Financial Assistance 1.8% 1.6% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–29 
Table D.24 

Pathways of Service Receipt: Less than a High School Degree 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 62.4% 37.6% 

Second Visit 21.1% 15.7% 

Types of Services Received at Second Visit 

Employment Services 79.7% 18.8% 

General Information 52.7% 25.1% 

Miscellaneous Services1 40.2% 31.9% 

Interpretation/Translation 48.0% 26.7% 

Computer Access 27.0% 22.5% 

ESL/Language Classes 7.4% 36.6% 

Other Classes 3.9% 8.4% 

Supportive Services Assistance 2.7% 6.8% 

Legal Issues Assistance 0.4% 2.6% 

Immigration Services 0.4% 8.9% 

Civics Education Classes 1.6% 14.7% 

Joint Events 2.3% 4.2% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 0.8% 2.1% 

Financial Assistance 0.0% 0.5% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–30 
Table D.25 

Pathways of Service Receipt: Less than a High School Degree 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 62.4% 37.6% 

Any Visit after First Visit 21.1% 15.7% 

Types of Services Received at Any Visit after First Visit 

Employment Services 85.9% 34.6% 

General Information 66.8% 47.1% 

Miscellaneous Services1 54.7% 53.9% 

Interpretation/Translation 60.9% 43.5% 

Computer Access 34.4% 36.1% 

ESL/Language Classes 13.7% 46.6% 

Other Classes 9.0% 16.8% 

Supportive Services Assistance 4.3% 14.1% 

Legal Issues Assistance 3.9% 9.9% 

Immigration Services 2.7% 20.9% 

Civics Education Classes 2.7% 19.4% 

Joint Events 5.1% 7.9% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 2.0% 5.8% 

Financial Assistance 0.4% 1.6% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–31 
Table D.26 

Pathways of Service Receipt: At Least a High School Degree 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 76.6% 23.4% 

Second Visit 30.3% 10.1% 

Types of Services Received at Second Visit 

Employment Services 81.7% 27.5% 

General Information 39.9% 39.2% 

Miscellaneous Services1 41.2% 27.5% 

Interpretation/Translation 15.7% 15.7% 

Computer Access 21.6% 19.6% 

ESL/Language Classes 0.7% 33.3% 

Other Classes 6.5% 7.8% 

Supportive Services Assistance 2.0% 3.9% 

Legal Issues Assistance 2.6% 5.9% 

Immigration Services 1.3% 2.0% 

Civics Education Classes 0.0% 3.9% 

Joint Events 2.6% 0.0% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 2.0% 0.0% 

Financial Assistance 0.7% 0.0% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned.” Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–32 
Table D.27 

Pathways of Service Receipt: At Least a High School Degree 

Type of Service Received during First Visit 

between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008 

 

Employment 

Services 

No Employment 

Services 

First Visit 76.6% 23.4% 

Any Visit after First Visit 30.3% 10.1% 

Types of Services Received at Any Visit after First Visit 

Employment Services 88.9% 47.1% 

General Information 54.9% 52.9% 

Miscellaneous Services1 58.2% 41.2% 

Interpretation/Translation 25.5% 21.6% 

Computer Access 25.5% 27.5% 

ESL/Language Classes 4.6% 33.3% 

Other Classes 13.7% 21.6% 

Supportive Services Assistance 3.9% 9.8% 

Legal Issues Assistance 7.2% 9.8% 

Immigration Services 2.6% 7.8% 

Civics Education Classes 1.3% 5.9% 

Joint Events 5.9% 3.9% 

Tax/SSN Assistance 2.6% 3.9% 

Financial Assistance 2.6% 3.9% 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of IWORKS data from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008. 

1. Miscellaneous Services include the following services as described in IWORKS: federal bonding, public notary 

services, referrals to other agencies, and “other services not mentioned. Most miscellaneous services were “other 

services not mentioned.” Based on conversations with Iowa staff, some services falling into this category may have 

been misclassified by the sites. 

D–33 
APPENDIX E 

New Iowan Centers Participant Employment and Earnings Regression Coefficients 
Period2 (omitted: one year before receipt) 

Two years before receipt -0.035*** -0.022** -0.051*** -0.070** 0.024

[0.008] [0.011] [0.013] [0.035] [0.043]

Quarter of receipt 0.101*** 0.110*** 0.096*** 0.064 0.104*

[0.012] [0.016] [0.018] [0.059] [0.056]

One year after receipt3 0.075*** 0.081*** 0.077*** 0.028 0.033

[0.013] [0.018] [0.020] [0.054] [0.050]

Unemployment Rate -0.054*** -0.020** -0.085*** -0.111*** -0.099***

[0.007] [0.008] [0.011] [0.040] [0.027]

Site Location (omitted: Council Bluffs)

Des Moines 0.270***

[0.019]

Mount Pleasant 0.230***

[0.048]

Marshalltown 0.199***

[0.038]

Participant Characteristics

Male -0.001 -0.031 0.028 0.073 0.023

[0.017] [0.025] [0.026] [0.079] [0.095]

Age (omitted: 25 to 54)

24 and younger -0.045** -0.016 -0.109*** 0.085 0.004

[0.022] [0.030] [0.037] [0.089] [0.181]

55 and older -0.013 -0.001 -0.026 0.000 -0.050

[0.031] [0.054] [0.041] [0.138] [0.156]

Race and Ethnicity (omitted: white non-Hispanic)

Hispanic 0.051* 0.018 0.049 0.116 0.019

[0.026] [0.047] [0.036] [0.099] [0.090]

Black -0.053 -0.082 -0.072 0.256 0.000

[0.039] [0.086] [0.046] [0.247] [0.000]

Other 0.513*** 0.683*** 0.404*** 0.512*** 0.435***

[0.016] [0.015] [0.018] [0.055] [0.081]

Educational Attainment (omitted: no high school)

High school degree or more 0.013 0.040 -0.008 0.026 -0.098

[0.020] [0.032] [0.027] [0.089] [0.105]

Currently in school 0.021 -0.011 0.070 -0.031 0.000

[0.048] [0.102] [0.058] [0.139] [0.000]

Constant 0.466*** 0.354*** 0.880*** 0.775*** 0.919***

[0.040] [0.059] [0.059] [0.212] [0.131]

Number of observations 16,624 8,190 7,156 771 507

Number of participants 1,435 703 614 75 43

Notes : The model includes a variable that captures those cases with missing responses for race and gender. * = p<.1; ** = p<.05; *** = p<.01

Source : UI and IWORKS data for NIC participants who received a NIC service between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008. 

Table E.1

Estimated Relationships between NIC Service Receipt and NIC Participants' Employment, by 

Site, Full Set of Coefficients

Council Bluffs Des Moines Marshall-town1 All Sites Mount Pleasant 

1

Marshalltown did not offer NIC services in the first two quarters of the observation period, so the maximum follow-up for Marshalltown 

participants is six months.

2 Two years before receipt includes the fifth through eighth quarter before first observed service receipt; one year before receipt includes the first 

through fourth quarter before first observed service receipt; one year after receipt includes the first through fourth quarter after first observed 

service receipt.

3

The coefficients reported in this row match those reported in figure 5.3 "Difference between pre- and post-receipt employment."

E–1
Period2 (omitted: one year before receipt) 

Two years before receipt -85.426* -101.828 -84.076 -155.332 -103.203

[51.063] [70.428] [78.521] [259.219] [302.004]

Quarter of receipt -283.062*** -246.862*** -386.176*** -177.800 659.298**

[64.281] [85.103] [105.693] [321.146] [264.308]

One year after receipt3 257.016*** 279.157** 235.247* 313.041 586.541

[90.944] [133.197] [133.654] [394.076] [361.853]

Unemployment Rate -454.867*** -53.900 -861.700*** -970.582*** -622.633***

[49.423] [50.221] [87.586] [333.008] [163.555]

Site Location (omitted: Council Bluffs)

1,119.994***

Des Moines [138.581]

1,195.404***

Mount Pleasant [372.494]

911.044***

Marshalltown [285.721]

Participant Characteristics

Male 537.886*** 159.809 846.849*** 1,636.784*** 1,658.945**

[121.212] [170.321] [184.060] [515.738] [661.558]

Age (omitted: 25 to 54)

24 and younger -665.062*** -454.087** -1,135.815*** 317.822 1,069.269

[132.246] [177.562] [192.742] [592.391] [1,888.886]

55 and older -389.842* -161.950 -514.642 -706.467 -1,926.348**

[221.899] [352.210] [315.639] [698.361] [799.392]

Race and Ethnicity (omitted: white non-Hispanic)

Hispanic 450.679** 557.812** 169.554 1,686.091*** -606.898

[192.954] [257.823] [299.312] [612.151] [663.705]

Black -629.970*** -406.022 -1,013.047*** 870.519 0.000

[235.860] [495.382] [311.452] [1,300.760] [0.000]

Other 2,785.959*** 4,175.172*** 1,568.920*** 2,528.668*** 3,447.116***

[234.912] [438.678] [275.834] [573.338] [575.450]

Educational Attainment (omitted: no high school)

High school degree or more -123.852 164.725 -238.784 -467.660 -1,441.582*

[146.395] [224.631] [201.571] [626.781] [787.412]

Currently in school -324.077 -517.814 -112.611 312.154 0.000

[277.979] [420.184] [359.955] [1,070.062] [0.000]

Constant 2,841.534*** 1,207.593*** 5,853.557*** 4,158.136*** 4,625.834***

[278.418] [328.555] [493.246] [1,505.842] [924.362]

Number of observations 16,624 8,190 7,156 771 507

Number of participants 1,435 703 614 75 43

Notes : The model includes a variable that captures those cases with missing responses for race and gender. * = p<.1; ** = p<.05; *** = p<.01

Source : UI and IWORKS data for NIC participants who received a NIC service between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008. 

Mount Pleasant 

Table E.2

Estimated Relationships between NIC Service Receipt and NIC Participants' Earnings, by Site, 

Full Set of Coefficients

All Sites Council Bluffs Des Moines Marshalltown1

1 Marshalltown did not offer NIC services in the first two quarters of the observation period, so the maximum follow-up for Marshalltown 

participants is six months.

2 Two years before receipt includes the fifth through eighth quarter before first observed service receipt; one year before receipt includes the first 

through fourth quarter before first observed service receipt; one year after receipt includes the first through fourth quarter after first observed service 

receipt.

3 The coefficients reported in this row match those reported in figure 5.3 "Difference between pre- and post-receipt earnings."

E–2
Male Female

Period1 (omitted: one year before receipt) 

Two years before receipt -0.035*** -0.038*** -0.020 -0.038*** -0.029**

[0.008] [0.009] [0.020] [0.010] [0.012]

Quarter of receipt 0.101*** 0.106*** 0.072*** 0.125*** 0.067***

[0.012] [0.013] [0.025] [0.015] [0.017]

One year after receipt2 0.075*** 0.096*** -0.043 0.069*** 0.084***

[0.013] [0.014] [0.031] [0.017] [0.020]

Unemployment Rate -0.054*** -0.049*** -0.071*** -0.065*** -0.037***

[0.007] [0.007] [0.016] [0.009] [0.009]

Site Location (omitted: Council Bluffs)

Des Moines 0.270*** 0.288*** 0.053 0.300*** 0.229***

[0.019] [0.020] [0.060] [0.024] [0.030]

Mount Pleasant 0.230*** 0.168* 0.047 0.241*** 0.214***

[0.048] [0.099] [0.080] [0.064] [0.074]

Marshalltown 0.199*** 0.261*** -0.091 0.247*** 0.117

[0.038] [0.043] [0.087] [0.042] [0.074]

Participant Characteristics

Male -0.001 -0.009 -0.003

[0.017] [0.019] [0.045]

Age (omitted: 25 to 54)

24 and younger -0.045** -0.040* -0.089 -0.051* -0.039

[0.022] [0.024] [0.060] [0.028] [0.036]

55 and older -0.013 -0.001 -0.052 -0.015 -0.015

[0.031] [0.036] [0.071] [0.038] [0.055]

Race and Ethnicity (omitted: white non-Hispanic)

Hispanic 0.051* 0.060* 0.041 0.033 0.072*

[0.026] [0.031] [0.053] [0.035] [0.041]

Black -0.053 -0.045 -0.042 -0.082* -0.012

[0.039] [0.044] [0.085] [0.047] [0.070]

Other 0.513*** 0.532*** 0.470*** 0.496*** 0.542***

[0.016] [0.017] [0.043] [0.021] [0.024]

Educational Attainment (omitted: no high school)

High school degree or more 0.013 0.018 -0.040 -0.012 0.047

[0.020] [0.022] [0.048] [0.025] [0.032]

Currently in school 0.021 0.064 -0.177*** -0.013 0.036

[0.048] [0.054] [0.062] [0.074] [0.063]

Constant 0.466*** 0.421*** 0.808*** 0.523*** 0.390***

[0.040] [0.045] [0.097] [0.053] [0.058]

Number of observations 16,624 13,868 2,756 9,753 6,871

Number of participants 1,435 1,193 242 844 591

Table E.3

Estimated Relationships between NIC Service Receipt and NIC Participants' Employment, by 

Service Receipt and Gender, Full Set of Coefficients

Gender

Notes : The model includes a variable that captures those cases with missing responses for race and gender. * = p<.1; ** = p<.05; *** = p<.01

All Sites Yes No

Ever Received an

Employment Service

1 Two years before receipt includes the fifth through eighth quarter before first observed service receipt; one year before receipt includes the first 

through fourth quarter before first observed service receipt; one year after receipt includes the first through fourth quarter after first observed service 

receipt.

Source : UI and IWORKS data for NIC participants who received a NIC service between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008. 

2 The coefficients reported in this row match those reported in figure 5.4 "Difference between pre- and post-receipt employment."

E–3
Male Female

Period1 (omitted: one year before receipt) 

Two years before receipt -85.426* -60.512 -201.657 -83.045 -93.856

[51.063] [54.321] [141.743] [73.936] [64.996]

Quarter of receipt -283.062*** -333.247*** -27.032 -212.963** -375.378***

[64.281] [69.752] [164.740] [91.492] [85.519]

One year after receipt2 257.016*** 348.614*** -220.452 326.222** 156.081

[90.944] [100.529] [207.231] [129.658] [120.696]

Unemployment Rate -454.867*** -439.910*** -534.916*** -694.391*** -116.264**

[49.423] [55.714] [103.992] [75.487] [48.817]

Site Location (omitted: Council Bluffs)

Des Moines 1,119.994*** 1,265.851*** -644.422 1,503.165*** 566.581***

[138.581] [150.002] [457.846] [201.808] [174.399]

Mount Pleasant 1,195.404*** 441.808 -505.513 1,611.465*** 672.027

[372.494] [755.192] [621.455] [495.930] [532.010]

Marshalltown 911.044*** 1,332.670*** -1,435.922*** 1,459.087*** -121.897

[285.721] [351.159] [539.141] [375.392] [380.400]

Participant Characteristics

Male 537.886*** 458.382*** 557.984*

[121.212] [128.367] [336.527]

Age (omitted: 25 to 54)

24 and younger -665.062*** -610.919*** -1,015.847** -735.748*** -529.406***

[132.246] [136.575] [421.296] [170.367] [199.272]

55 and older -389.842* -281.870 -655.098 -700.787** -88.944

[221.899] [256.170] [507.105] [304.684] [329.179]

Race and Ethnicity (omitted: white non-Hispanic)

Hispanic 450.679** 559.106*** 255.548 568.582** 166.808

[192.954] [210.411] [469.829] [262.002] [283.794]

Black -629.970*** -685.307*** -70.360 -693.473** -568.857

[235.860] [254.020] [569.831] [299.496] [382.068]

Other 2,785.959*** 2,730.132*** 3,224.614*** 3,128.168*** 2,172.490***

[234.912] [274.581] [436.443] [335.833] [277.196]

Educational Attainment (omitted: no high school)

High school degree or more -123.852 -32.231 -802.884** -404.856** 232.473

[146.395] [157.244] [393.333] [200.404] [205.706]

Currently in school -324.077 -77.715 -1,431.621*** -768.159* -72.404

[277.979] [312.869] [374.559] [434.572] [347.603]

Constant 2,841.534*** 2,540.826*** 5,383.170*** 4,110.238*** 1,941.192***

[278.418] [301.655] [775.351] [401.290] [357.382]

Number of observations 16624 13868 2756 9753 6871

Number of participants 1435 1193 242 844 591

Table E.4

Estimated Relationships between NIC Service Receipt and NIC Participants' Earnings, by Service 

Receipt and Gender, Full Set of Coefficients

Source : UI and IWORKS data for NIC participants who received a NIC service between April 1, 2007, and March 31, 2008. 

All Sites Yes No

Notes : The model includes a variable that captures those cases with missing responses for race and gender. * = p<.1; ** = p<.05; *** = p<.01

Ever Received an

Employment Service Gender

2 The coefficients reported in this row match those reported in figure 5.4 "Difference between pre- and post-receipt earnings."

1 Two years before receipt includes the fifth through eighth quarter before first observed service receipt; one year before receipt includes the first 

through fourth quarter before first observed service receipt; one year after receipt includes the first through fourth quarter after first observed service 

receipt.

E–4