Reinvesting in America’s Youth: 

Lessons from the 2009 Recovery 

Act Summer Youth Employment 

Initiative 

February 26, 2010 

Jeanne Bellotti 

Linda Rosenberg 

Samina Sattar 

Andrea Mraz Esposito 

Jessica Ziegler 

 

Contract Number: 

DOLU091A20968 

Mathematica Reference Number: 

06630.610 

Submitted to: 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Employment and Training Administration 

Office of Program Development and 

Research 

Rm. N5641 

200 Constitution Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20210 

Project Officer: Janet Javar 

Submitted by: 

Mathematica Policy Research 

P.O. Box 2393 

Princeton, NJ 08543-2393 

Telephone: (609) 799-3535 

Facsimile: (609) 799-0005 

Project Director: Jeanne Bellotti

Reinvesting in America’s Youth: 

Lessons from the 2009 Recovery 

Act Summer Youth Employment 

Initiative 

February 26, 2010 

Jeanne Bellotti 

Linda Rosenberg 

Samina Sattar 

Andrea Mraz Esposito 

Jessica Ziegler 

Mathematica Policy Research 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The study team would like to thank the many individuals who contributed to the development 

of this evaluation report. We truly appreciate all of their efforts. 

Most importantly, this study would not have been possible without the patience and generosity 

of the administrators, staff members, employers, and youth who participated in the study’s 20 site 

visits. They took the time to share their experiences and respond to our requests for information 

during a period of intense activity and demands from many stakeholders in the workforce 

investment community. We appreciate the help offered by program staff in coordinating the visits, 

and the willingness of local employers and youth to share their personal stories with us. 

A number of staff at the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration 

provided valuable input and guidance throughout the duration of this study. We especially 

appreciate the support and advice offered by Janet Javar, the evaluation project officer, Wayne 

Gordon, and Heidi M. Casta from the Division of Research and Evaluation. Gregg Weltz, Evan 

Rosenberg, Sara Hastings, and Charles Modiano from the Division of Youth Services provided 

valuable input and support from the very start of the study through the review of evaluation 

findings. Evan and Sara also assisted the team in obtaining state performance and draw down data 

to provide the national context for the study. 

At Mathematica, Karen Needels and Sheena McConnell served invaluable roles as Quality 

Assurance Reviewer and Senior Advisor, respectively. Liz Clary, Robin Dion, Virginia Knechtel, 

Nora Paxton, Premini Sabaratnam, and Timothy Silman conducted site visits and took meticulous 

notes for the analysis. Cindy George, John Kennedy, and their staff provided editorial assistance, 

and Linda Heath contributed secretarial support to the study. 

Mathematica Policy Research 

ABSTRACT 

On February 17, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act into law. Passed in response to the 2008 recession, the Act’s purpose was to 

create jobs, pump money into the economy, and encourage spending. Through the Act, states 

received $1.2 billion in funding for the workforce investment system to provide employment and 

training activities targeted to disadvantaged youth. Congress and the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL) encouraged states and local workforce investment areas charged with implementing these 

youth activities to use the funds to create employment opportunities for these youth in the summer 

of 2009. 

To gain insights into these summer initiatives, DOL’s Employment and Training 

Administration contracted with Mathematica Policy Research to conduct an implementation 

evaluation of the summer youth employment activities funded by the Recovery Act. As part of the 

evaluation, Mathematica analyzed (1) monthly performance data submitted to ETA by the states, 

and (2) qualitative data collected through in-depth site visits to 20 local areas. This report describes 

the national context for implementation, provides an in-depth description of the experience of 

selected local areas, and presents lessons on implementation practices that may inform future 

summer youth employment efforts. 

Mathematica Policy Research 

DISCLAIMER 

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training 

Administration, Office of Policy Development and Research by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 

under contract number DOLU091A20968. The views expressed are those of the authors and 

should not be attributed to DOL, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or 

organizations imply endorsement of same by the U.S. Government. 

Mathematica Policy Research 

xi 

CONTENTS

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... xix

I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1

A. Policy and Economic Context ................................................................... 1

B. The History of Summer Youth Programs .................................................. 2

C. The Recovery Act Allocation for the WIA Youth Program .......................... 3

D. Overview of the Evaluation ....................................................................... 5

1. Research Questions .......................................................................... 5

2. Selection of Study Sites ..................................................................... 6

3. Data Sources .................................................................................... 6

4. Analytical Approach and Limitations ................................................. 7

E. Organization of the Rest of the Report .................................................... 8

II. THE NATIONAL CONTEXT ............................................................................ 9

A. National Patterns of Enrollment and Draw Downs .................................. 10

B. Characteristics of Youth Participants ..................................................... 11

C. Patterns of Service Receipt Among Participating Youth .......................... 13

D. Short-term Outcome Measures............................................................... 15

III. THE SYEI CONTEXT AND ORGANIZATION ................................................. 17

A. Characteristics of Selected Local Areas .................................................. 17

B. Planning for Recovery Act SYEIs ............................................................. 18

1. Goals for the Summer of 2009 ........................................................ 19

2. Previous Summer Experiences ........................................................ 20

3. Planning for the SYEI ....................................................................... 22

4. Planning Challenges ....................................................................... 23

C. The Organization of the Recovery Act SYEI ............................................. 23

1. Organizational Models .................................................................... 23

2. Identification of Summer Providers ................................................. 25

3. Characteristics of Summer Providers ............................................... 27

4. Relationships Between Lead Agencies and Providers ....................... 27

5. Summer Staffing Arrangements ...................................................... 28

IV. YOUTH RECRUITMENT AND INTAKE ACTIVITIES....................................... 29
Mathematica Policy Research 

xii 

A. The Flow of Youth into the SYEI ............................................................. 29

B. Recruitment of Eligible Youth ................................................................ 31

1. Targeted Youth Populations ............................................................ 31

2. Youth Recruitment Efforts ............................................................... 32

3. Hard to Reach Populations .............................................................. 34

C. Youth Intake and Enrollment Process ..................................................... 35

1. Enrollment Numbers and Priorities .................................................. 35

2. Staffing Strategies for Youth Intake ................................................. 36

3. The Eligibility Determination Process .............................................. 36

4. Intake and Enrollment Challenges ................................................... 37

5. Youth with No Documented Barriers ............................................... 38

D. Youth Characteristics ............................................................................ 38

1. Employment Barriers ....................................................................... 38

2. Youth’s Reasons for Participating ................................................... 39

3. Summer Alternatives to the SYEI ..................................................... 40

 V. YOUTH PREPARATION AND SUPPORT ....................................................... 41

A. Initial Preparation Activities for Youth .................................................... 41

1. Youth Orientation Activities ............................................................ 41

2. Academic and Career Assessments ................................................. 42

3. Individual Service Strategies ............................................................ 42

B. Work Readiness Training ....................................................................... 43

1. Site Requirements for Youth Attendance at Training ....................... 43

2. The Use of Standardized Work Readiness Curricula ......................... 43

3. Work Readiness Tracks Based on Youth Characteristics ................... 44

4. Common Work Readiness Training Topics ...................................... 45

5. Incentives to Encourage Attendance ................................................ 47

6. Youth Impressions of Work Readiness Training ............................... 49

C. Supportive Services ............................................................................... 49

1. Transportation and Work Supplies .................................................. 49

2. Local Emphasis on Supportive Services ........................................... 50

VI. THE RECRUITMENT AND INVOLVEMENT OF EMPLOYERS .......................... 51

A. Employer Recruitment ........................................................................... 51

1. Timing of Employer Recruitment ..................................................... 51

2. Employer Recruitment Strategies .................................................... 52

3. Efforts to Engage Particular Economic Sectors ................................. 53

4. Challenges to Employer Recruitment ............................................... 54

B. Screening and Orienting Recruited Employers ........................................ 55
Mathematica Policy Research 

xiii 

1. Employer Screening Strategies ........................................................ 55

2. Employer Orientation and On-going Support ................................... 56

C. Employer Motivation .............................................................................. 57

1. Employers’ Reasons for Participating .............................................. 58

2. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit ................................................... 58

VII. YOUTH’S SUMMER EXPERIENCES................................................................ 61

A. Local Strategies for Serving Youth ......................................................... 61

1. The Focus on Employment .............................................................. 62

2. Provision of Academics and Other Services ..................................... 62

B. The Content of Summer Experiences ..................................................... 63

1. Types and Content of Academic Offerings ...................................... 63

2. Industries and Tasks of Youth’s Summer Jobs ................................. 65

3. Pre-apprenticeship Programs .......................................................... 68

4. Green Jobs ...................................................................................... 69

5. Community Service Activities .......................................................... 71

6. Youth Impressions of Summer Employment .................................... 72

C. Matching Youth To Summer Experiences ............................................... 73

1. Strategies to Match Youth to Academic Programs ........................... 73

2. Strategies to Match Youth to Summer Jobs ...................................... 74

3. Factors Influencing the Job Matching Process .................................. 75

4. Challenges to Placing Youth in Jobs ................................................ 76

D. Hours, Wages, and Process for Compensating Youth ............................. 76

1. Hours and Weeks Worked in Summer Jobs ...................................... 76

2. Youth’s Wages and Potential Earnings ............................................. 77

3. Challenges to Payroll Processing ..................................................... 79

VIII. ASSESSING YOUTH PROGRESS.................................................................... 81

A. Monitoring Worksite Experiences ........................................................... 81

1. Adult Mentoring at Youth Worksites ................................................ 82

2. Formal and Informal Monitoring of Worksites ................................. 82

3. Importance of In-Person Monitoring Visits ....................................... 84

4. Strategies to Handle Discipline and Poor Performance ..................... 85

B. Assessment of Youth Experiences ......................................................... 86

1. Use of Standard Methods for Measuring Work Readiness Skill 

Increases ........................................................................................ 87

2. Timing of Work Readiness Skill Measurement ................................. 87

3. Sources of Data for Work Readiness Skill Measurement ................... 88

4. Sites’ Additional Data Collection Activities ...................................... 89

5. Strategies to Gather Feedback from Youth ...................................... 91
Mathematica Policy Research 

xiv 

C. Youth Progress Beyond Summer 2009 ................................................... 91

1. Transitioning Youth to Post-summer Activities ................................ 91

2. Challenges to Permanent Job Placements ........................................ 93

3. Plans to Conduct 12-Month Follow-Ups of Summer Youth ............... 94

IX. REFLECTIONS ON THE 2009 SYEI AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS........... 95

A. Overall Impressions of the Summer Experience ...................................... 95

1. Effects of the Size of the Initiative and Timeframe for 

Implementation .............................................................................. 95

2. Overall Success Despite Inevitable Challenges ................................. 96

3. Youth Appreciation for Summer Experiences .................................. 96

4. Positive Employer Feedback ............................................................ 96

B. Implementation Challenges and Lessons ............................................... 97

1. Enrollment and Eligibility Determination ......................................... 97

2. Recruitment of Veterans and Older Youth ....................................... 97

3. Recruitment of Private Sector Employers ......................................... 97

4. Green Jobs ...................................................................................... 98

5. Job Matching .................................................................................. 98

6. Measurement of Work Readiness Increases ..................................... 98

7. Innovation ...................................................................................... 98

C. Looking Beyond the Summer of 2009 .................................................... 99

1. New Opportunities for Youth in the Fall .......................................... 99

2. The Need for Future Evaluations ..................................................... 99

3. Site Readiness for Summer Initiatives in 2010 ................................. 99

REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 101

APPENDIX A. DETAILED LIST OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................A.1

APPENDIX B. CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUTH FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS.......... B.1

APPENDIX C. RECOVERY ACT ALLOCATIONS AND DRAW DOWNS BY STATE ....... C.1

APPENDIX D. KEY PERFORMANCE STATISTICS BY STATE ..................................... D.1
Mathematica Policy Research 

xv 

TABLES 

I.1 Sites Selected for In-depth Visits .................................................................................... 6

II.1 Characteristics of Youth Served Under the Recovery Act Through November 2009 ....... 12

II.2 Performance Outcomes of Youth Served Under the Recovery Act Through November 

2009 ........................................................................................................................... 15

III.1. Selected Characteristics of Study Sites ......................................................................... 18

III.2. Study Sites’ Plans for their Recovery Act Youth Allocations ........................................... 19

III.3. SYEI Goals Cited by Site Administrators ........................................................................ 20

III.4 Number of Contractors ................................................................................................ 25

III.5. Sites’ Processes for Identifying Summer Providers ........................................................ 26

IV.1 Target Populations Identified by Sites .......................................................................... 32

IV.2 Sites’ Interpretations of the Sixth Barrier to Employment or Education .......................... 32

V.1 Work Readiness Training ............................................................................................. 43

V.2 Common Topics Addressed in Work Readiness Training ............................................... 46

V.3 Incentives Offered for Work Readiness Training ........................................................... 47

V.4 Supportive Services Offered ......................................................................................... 50

VI.1 Employer Recruitment Strategies ................................................................................. 52

VI.2 Targeting Employer Recruitment on Particular Sectors .................................................. 54

VII.1 Local Strategies for Serving Youth through the SYEI ..................................................... 62

VII.2 Industries for Occupational Skills Training ................................................................... 64

VII.3 Common Tasks Performed by Participating Youth at Worksites .................................... 67

VII.4 Summer Work Experiences of Focus Group Participants ................................................ 68

VII.5 Characteristics of Pre-Apprenticeship Programs ........................................................... 69

VII.6 Work Hours and Wages of Focus Group Participants ..................................................... 78

VIII.1 Types and Frequency of Monitoring Visits .................................................................... 84

VIII.2 Types of Methods Used to Assess Youth Progress ........................................................ 88

VIII.3 Skills Assessed in Work Readiness Indicators ............................................................... 90

xvii 

FIGURES 

II.1 WIA Youth Enrollment in 2009 Under the Recovery Act ............................................... 10

II.2 National Draw Downs of WIA Youth Recovery Act Funds in 2009 ................................ 11

II.3 Youth Services Received Under the Recovery Act Through November 2009 ................ 14

III.1 Study Sites’ Organizational Models ............................................................................ 24

IV.1 Possible Routes of Entry into the SYEI ........................................................................ 30

VII.1 Common Industries for Summer Work Experiences .................................................... 66

VII.2 Job Matching Strategies ............................................................................................. 74

BOXES ON SITE PRACTICES 

III.1 Summer Youth Programs with Non-WIA Funding Sources ........................................... 21

III.2 The Memphis Summer Youth Program ....................................................................... 22

III.3 Sites with Multiple Providers ...................................................................................... 25

IV.1 Innovative Strategies to Recruit Youth ........................................................................ 33

IV.2 Streamlining Eligibility ............................................................................................... 37

V.1 Work Readiness Training Served as the Work Experience for Younger Youth ............... 45

V.2 Examples of Work Readiness Training ........................................................................ 46

VI.1 Combining Multiple Strategies to Recruit Employers ................................................... 53

VI.2 Screening Employers for the SYEI ............................................................................... 56

VI.3 Providing Additional Support to Employers Working with Disabled Youth ................... 57

VII.1 Occupational Skills Training in the Health Care Industry ............................................. 64

VII.2 One Site Offered Strong Incentives for Participation in Summer Education .................. 65

VII.3 Examples of Green Job Placements ............................................................................ 71 

VII.4 The Use of Job Fairs to Match Youth to Employers ...................................................... 75

VIII.1 Example of Formal Worksite Monitoring Activities ...................................................... 83

VIII.2 Employers That Hoped to Hire Youth Permanently ..................................................... 93 
xviii 

YOUTH PERSPECTIVES 

Chapter IV

 Reasons for Participating in the SYEI .......................................................................... 39

 Past Experiences Looking for Work ............................................................................ 40

Chapter V 

 Experiences in Work Readiness Training .................................................................... 48

Chapter VII 

 Certification from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ........................ 65

 Perceived Benefits of Work Experience Include Connections to Career Goals ............... 72

 Perceived Benefits of Work Experience Such as Increases in Professionalism, 

Interpersonal Skills, and Leadership ........................................................................... 73

Chapter VIII 

 Mentoring by Worksite Supervisors ............................................................................ 82

 The Benefits of Staff Monitoring Activities .................................................................. 85

 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xix 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The American economy lost an estimated 7.9 million jobs between the end of 2007 and the fall 

of 2009 (U.S. Department of Labor 2009b). Joblessness was high for many groups, but for young 

adults, unemployment was particularly high and could have lasting effects. In May 2009, the jobless 

rate for teenagers was 22.7 percent, more than double the national unemployment rate of 9.4 

percent (U.S. Department of Labor 2009b). This joblessness could have lasting effects on the young 

adults’ future careers. Funding for youth activities through the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) was designed as one part of the solution and aimed to 

reverse the steep decline in youth employment. 

Through the Recovery Act, states received $1.2 billion in funding for employment and training 

activities targeted to the country’s disadvantaged youth. Congress and the U.S. Department of 

Labor (DOL) encouraged states and local workforce investment areas to use the funds to create 

employment opportunities for these youth in the summer of 2009. Although summer employment 

is made available as a component of youth activities under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), 

many local areas did not provide summer jobs for significant numbers of youth after the transition 

to WIA in 2000 (Social Policy Research Associates 2004). Local areas had from mid-February 2009, 

when the Recovery Act was signed into law, to the beginning of May 2009 to design their summer 

youth employment activities and prepare for implementation. 

To gain insights into the design and implementation of these initiatives, DOL’s Employment 

and Training Administration (ETA) contracted with Mathematica Policy Research to conduct an 

evaluation of summer youth activities funded by the Recovery Act. Although summer employment 

is only one component of WIA youth activities and is not funded as a separate program, the 

opportunities offered by local areas with Recovery Act funding in the summer of 2009 are referred 

to as the Summer Youth Employment Initiative (SYEI) throughout this report. The 

implementation study draws upon state performance data and in-depth site visits to 20 selected local 

areas (hereafter referred to as the study “sites”). The report aims to describe the national context for 

SYEI implementation, provide an in-depth description of the experiences of selected sites, and 

present lessons on implementation practices that may inform future SYEIs. 

The Recovery Act Allocation for WIA Youth Activities 

Although Recovery Act funds could be spent on youth activities up to June 30, 2011, Congress 

expressed a strong interest in the funds being used to create employment opportunities for youth in 

the summer of 2009. Youth would be placed in summer work experiences with local public, 

nonprofit, and private employers and their wages would be paid with Recovery Act funds. The Act 

also contained two key provisions for the WIA youth activities funded under it. First, it extended 

eligibility from youth ages 14 to 21 years to include those from 22 to 24 years. Second, it stated that 

only one key indicator—achievement of work readiness goals—would be used to measure program 

performance. Local areas were also required by ETA to report another performance indicator—the 

number of youth completing summer employment experiences. Provisions for specific aspects of 

initiative design included: 

• Work experience should be “meaningful” and age appropriate. Work experiences 

should be age appropriate and lead to youth meeting work readiness goals. ETA 

encouraged local areas to expose youth to “green” (environmentally friendly) educational 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xx 

and career pathways. Local areas were also encouraged to match worksites with 

participants’ goals and interests. 

• Local areas had flexibility in using classroom-based learning activities. Local 

areas could decide whether to link classroom-based learning, such as occupational 

training, with youth’s work experiences. Such a linkage was recommended for younger 

youth in need of basic skills and career exploration. 

• Registered apprenticeships were encouraged. ETA suggested that local areas take 

advantage of local apprenticeship programs to create pre-apprenticeship opportunities. 

• Performance would be measured by one work readiness indicator. Local areas 

could determine how to define the indicator but were provided with a definition for 

achieving work readiness goals. To encourage continued services for older youth, states 

could request a waiver to use only this indicator for youth who were 18 to 24 years old 

and who, after the summer months, participated only in work experiences. 

• WIA youth program elements were not required. Local areas could determine which 

of the 10 WIA elements of youth programs to offer to participants funded by the 

Recovery Act. For example, this permitted local areas to determine whether or not to 

provide supportive services or follow up with participants for at least 12 months after 

receipt of services 

• Certain groups should receive priority. The priority service groups for WIA 

programs—including veterans and eligible spouses of veterans—were also priority 

groups for youth activities funded by the Recovery Act. As for the regular WIA youth 

programs, at least 30 percent of Recovery Act funding for WIA youth activities had to 

be spent on out-of-school youth. 

• Local areas could request waivers for contractor procurement. States were 

permitted to request a waiver from the WIA requirement for service providers to be 

selected through a competitive procurement process, but were still required to follow 

state or local laws that could not be relieved by federal regulations. 

Overview of the Evaluation 

Six major research questions guided the evaluation. By addressing each of the following 

questions, the study provides policymakers, administrators, and stakeholders a better understanding 

of how the SYEI unfolded in 2009: 

1. How did the selected sites plan for and organize summer youth initiatives with funding 

from the Recovery Act? 

2. How did selected sites identify, recruit, and enroll at-risk youth? 

3. What were the characteristics of participants nationwide? 

4. What services were offered during the summer months in selected sites? 

5. What types of work experiences were offered to participating youth in selected sites? 

6. What lessons can be drawn about the implementation of summer youth initiatives? 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xxi 

To answer these questions, the evaluation draws upon two key data sources: (1) state 

performance data submitted monthly to ETA through December 31, 2009 that covers all youth 

participating in services funded by the Recovery Act from May through November 2009, and (2) indepth site visits to 20 selected sites during July and August 2009. The state performance data 

describe the national scope of the initiative and provide context for the implementation experiences 

of the 20 selected sites. The data collected during site visits include qualitative interviews with a 

total of 601 individuals across the 20 sites, including 373 administrators and staff, 79 employers, and 

149 youth. 

The 20 local areas listed in Table 1 were selected for the study from a list of 40 local areas 

nominated by ETA national and regional staff as offering innovative or potentially promising 

approaches. ETA and the evaluation team selected the final 20 local areas using three key criteria: 

(1) having at least three local areas from each region; (2) choosing areas that planned to spend at 

least 50 percent of Recovery Act funds during the summer of 2009; and (3) including rural, urban, 

and suburban sites. 

Table I. Sites Selected for In-depth Visits 

Region Local Workforce Investment Board City, State 

1 Regional Employment Board of Hampden County Springfield, MA 

1 The Workplace, Inc. Bridgeport, CT 

1 Workforce Partnership of Greater Rhode Island Cranston, RI 

2 Lehigh Valley Workforce Investment Board, Inc. Lehigh Valley, PA 

2 Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board Pittsburgh, PA 

2 Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Roanoke, VA 

3 Eastern Kentucky Concentrated Employment Program Hazard, KY 

3 Northeast Georgia Regional Commission Athens, GA 

3 Workforce Investment Network Memphis, TN 

4 Denver Office of Economic Development Denver, CO 

4 Montana State WIB, District XI Human Resource Council Missoula, MT 

4 Workforce Connection of Central New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 

5 Minneapolis Employment and Training Program Minneapolis, MN 

5 Workforce Development, Inc. Rochester, MN 

5 Workforce Resource, Inc. Menomonie, WI 

6 Community Development Department of the City of LA Los Angeles, CA 

6 Madera County Office of Education Madera, CA 

6 Oregon Consortium and Oregon Workforce Alliance Albany, OR 

6 Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County Seattle, WA 

6 Worksystems, Inc. Portland, OR 

Note: The city and state reflect the location of the local area’s central office. 

The National Context 

Enrolling more than 355,000 youth nationwide, states and local areas drew down more than 

$717 million through November 2009, or almost 61 percent of the national allocation of $1.2 billion 

in Recovery Act funds for WIA youth services. Of these participants, over 345,000 enrolled during 

the summer months of May through September, and 314,000 were placed in summer jobs. By 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xxii 

comparison, local areas served a total of slightly more than 250,000 youth through comprehensive 

services offered by the regular WIA formula-funded youth program during the entire 2008 program 

year, at a cost of $966 million (U.S. Department of Labor 2009a). The higher cost for the regular 

WIA youth program likely results from the fact that youth receive comprehensive services for 

significantly longer periods of time. 

States heeded the guidance provided by Congress and the ETA to focus efforts on summer 

employment. Large numbers of youth began enrolling in the spring, with 164,000 participants—46 

percent of all youth enrolled through November—enrolling in May and June. Enrollment 

continued heavily through July and fell sharply in August and September, as initiatives focused on 

providing services to those already enrolled. Local areas also drew down funds heavily during the 

summer (see Figure 1). National draw downs averaged $128 million per month during the summer, 

peaking in August at $173 million for the month. 

Figure I. National Draw Downs of WIA Youth Recovery Act Funds in 2009 

Source: Monthly draw-downs of WIA Youth Recovery Act Funds. 

Notes: Draw downs reflect the actual cash drawn daily by grantees from the financial system. By comparison, 

expenditures are the costs reported quarterly on an accrual basis, and therefore include all services and 

goods received by the end of the quarter, whether or not they have been invoiced or paid. As a result, 

draw downs may not account for all expenditures during the reporting period. 

Data from March through June were only available in aggregate and are reported under the month of June. 

The 2009 summer employment initiative enrolled a diverse array of youth (see Table 2). The 

majority of participants were in-school youth, a group largely composed of those ages 18 or younger. 

States also succeeded in enrolling a large number of out-of-school youth, a population that WIA has 

struggled to reach in the past but has made significant progress enrolling in recent years (U.S. 

Government Accountability Office 2004; U.S. Department of Labor 2009). A total of almost 9 

percent of all those enrolled through November, or nearly 31,000 participants, fell within the newly 

added 22- to 24-year-old age range. It was challenging to enroll veterans—only 671 veterans were 

enrolled nationwide, or less than 0.2 percent of all enrollees through November 2009. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

June July August September October November

Total Draw Downs (in millions)
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xxiii 

Employment was the main focus of local areas’ efforts to expend their Recovery Act 

allocations. As mentioned earlier, nearly 314,000 youth, or slightly more than 88 percent of all 

participants enrolled through November, were placed in a summer job (see Table 2). In addition, 

almost 13 percent of all enrollees were placed in work experiences outside the summer months. 

This percentage could include participants who were also placed in summer employment, who were 

enrolled in services during the summer but did not work during the summer months, or who only 

enrolled in the WIA youth activities funded by the Recovery Act in the fall. 

Table 2. Selected Characteristics of Youth Served and Services Received Under the 

Recovery Act Through November 2009 

Number of 

Participants 

Percentage of All 

Participants 

Total Number of Participants 355,320 100.0 

Characteristics of Youth 

 School Status 

 In-school 224,798 63.3 

 Out-of-school 127,869 36.0 

 Not reported 2,653 0.7 

 Age at Enrollment 

 14–18 years 228,921 64.4 

 19–21 years 84,539 23.8 

 22–24 years 30,594 8.6 

 Not reported 11,266 3.2 

 Eligible Veterans 671 0.2 

Services Received 

Placed in summer employment 313,812 88.3 

Placed in work experiences outside the summer 

months 45,407 12.8 

Source: State performance reports for WIA youth initiatives supported by the Recovery Act submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Labor as of December 31, 2009. 

Notes: Data on age could not be broken into smaller subgroups. 

 ETA defines the summer months as May through September. 

 These figures do not include the 3,763 youth served by Indian and Native American grantees as a result 

of reporting procedures. 

To streamline implementation, Congress only required states and local areas to report on one 

performance measure. States had to report on the percentage of participants in summer 

employment who attained a work readiness skill goal. Nationwide, local areas reported that just 

under 75 percent of youth achieved a measureable increase in their work readiness skills while 

participating (see Table 3). Beyond work readiness, states and local areas were also required by ETA 

to report on the proportion of youth who completed their summer work experience. State reports 

indicated a completion rate of more than 82 percent among those for whom data were available. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xxiv 

Table 3. Performance Outcomes of Youth Served Under the Recovery Act Through 

November 2009 

 Number Reported 

as Achieving 

Outcome 

Number for 

Whom Data 

Are Available 

Percentage 

Achieving 

Outcome 

Increase in work readiness skills 235,043 314,132 74.8 

Completion of summer work experience 242,827 294,842 82.4 

Source: State performance reports for WIA youth initiatives supported by the Recovery Act submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Labor as of December 31, 2009. 

 Note: These figures do not include the 3,763 youth served by Indian and Native American grantees as a result 

of reporting procedures. 

 Data were not available for youth who were still participating in services at the time of data reporting. 

In addition, data were not available for some participants due to delays in state reporting. 

Experiences of the 20 Study Sites 

The experiences of the study’s 20 selected local areas provide a rich description of the activities 

that underlie these national figures. The sites covered each of the ETA regions and encompassed 

populations of different types and sizes. Although more than half of the sites included a city, the 

majority had areawide populations of less than 750,000. All experienced the effects of the recession, 

with more than half reporting unemployment rates above 8 percent in July and August 2009. 

Although not representative of local areas nationwide, the sites include a diverse array of local areas 

and provide a picture of the SYEI in sites that ETA staff believed might offer innovative and 

promising approaches to disadvantaged youth. 

The SYEI Goals, Context, and Organization 

Selected sites reported that their primary goals for the SYEI included (1) serving as many youth 

as possible, (2) spending the Recovery Act funds quickly, and (3) providing meaningful summer 

experiences to participating youth. More than three-quarters of sites planned to spend 75 percent or 

more of their Recovery Act funds on the SYEI. Using those funds, they expected to enroll between 

120 and 5,500 youth during the summer, with more than half of the sites planning to serve 500 or 

more youth. 

To plan their SYEIs, the selected sites drew on their experiences providing summer work 

opportunities through recent programs funded by regular WIA formula funds and other resources, 

as well as programs under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA, the predecessor to WIA). 

Administrators in 17 sites reported that their local area had continued to provide summer work 

experience to youth using WIA formula funds after WIA replaced JTPA. At least nine communities 

also had programs that had placed more than 200 youth in summer jobs using non-WIA funds from 

state or local government or private sources. Most sites took the opportunity provided by the 

Recovery Act to expand their existing programs and make modest modifications. 

Planning for the SYEI was challenging given the short timeframe and gaps in key information. 

More than half the sites mentioned that planning such a sizable initiative in only a few months 

affected their initiative designs. One-third reported that, as they started to plan for the summer, they 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xxv 

did not know the amount of their Recovery Act allocation for WIA youth activities or were still 

unclear about the requirements for identifying providers. 

All 20 sites, however, did successfully identify local providers and implement the SYEI. Almost 

half used a competitive process to identify providers. In the sites that held open procurements, 

some organizations that were new to WIA services received contracts. The remaining 11 sites relied 

on longtime providers of WIA services, either exercising waivers for the provider competition, 

extending existing contracts, or offering services directly through the lead agency. 

Youth Recruitment and Intake Activities 

An expanded SYEI required sites to quickly scale up their youth recruitment and intake 

activities. Sites used both media campaigns and targeted recruitment with help from local 

organizations to successfully reach large numbers of eligible youth. Most sites also leveraged the 

workforce investment system by encouraging youth already engaged with WIA to enroll in SYEI 

and urging adults who used One-Stop Career Centers to tell family and friends about the initiative. 

Sites also sought partnerships with a wide range of agencies and social service organizations that 

served at-risk youth, including welfare agencies, the juvenile justice system, foster care agencies, local 

homeless shelters, and the agencies that oversee programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program. 

All but one site reported receiving applications from more eligible youth than they could 

accommodate. Sites reported that between 40 and 80 percent of applicants ultimately enrolled. 

Among those who did not enroll, 10 to 30 percent were clearly ineligible because their incomes 

exceeded the eligibility cutoff. Another 10 to 30 percent were potentially eligible but did not 

complete all paperwork. A majority of sites maintained waiting lists of eligible youth who could not 

be served, enrolling youth from the list only when an existing participant dropped out or was 

removed from the initiative. Two sites with excess demand did not maintain waiting lists but instead 

referred youth who could not be enrolled to other agencies or service providers in the area. 

Although recruitment efforts were successful overall, sites had difficulty reaching some targeted 

populations, including veterans and their spouses, older youth, homeless and runaway youth, foster 

youth, and juvenile offenders. Nine sites reported a lack of success recruiting veterans and their 

spouses despite targeted recruitment efforts. Six sites also experienced challenges recruiting older 

youth because they were often no longer in school and thus were difficult to locate. Three sites said 

homeless and runaway youth were difficult to enroll due to lack of documentation and difficult to 

keep engaged in services due to their mobility. Two specifically mentioned troubles recruiting 

juvenile offenders and foster youth. 

Nearly all sites had difficulty processing the large volume of applicants. Common challenges 

included the tight timeframe, the amount of paperwork involved, and difficulty collecting 

documentation from youth and parents. Nearly three-quarters of sites hired temporary staff to help 

with the intake process. Sites also used prescreening of youth and links with partners to streamline 

eligibility determination. At least 11 sites prescreened applications before scheduling youth for an 

intake appointment to weed out those likely to be ineligible. In addition, seven sites asked schools 

and state and local social service agencies to help verify youth’s eligibility. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xxvi 

Youth Preparation and Support 

Given the diverse array of youth enrolled in the SYEI, sites had to determine how to best 

prepare them for a successful work experience. Many participants had never held a job for pay and 

therefore did not fully understand the attitudes and skills necessary to succeed in the workplace. 

Even among those who had worked before, many had not explored potential career paths. 

ETA required sites to conduct assessments and develop an individualized service strategy (ISS) 

for each SYEI participant, but gave the sites flexibility to determine what type of assessment and ISS 

was appropriate for each youth. Fourteen of the 20 sites used academic and career-related 

assessments to learn about youth’s skills, interests, and needs. The six remaining sites reported not 

using assessments either because of the limited time available to work with youth or the lack of need 

since youth would not receive any services other than work placement. Across the 20 sites, a 

different set of 14 sites completed an ISS with every participant to get to know youth and identify 

their needs. In four more sites, at least one provider completed an ISS with each participant. The 

remaining two sites reported that the length of the summer initiative was too short to necessitate an 

ISS. 

Although not a federal requirement for the SYEI, 16 of the 20 sites required youth to attend 

work readiness training. These training sessions were intended to equip youth with basic workplace 

skills, expose them to diverse career interests, and prepare them for the responsibilities that lay 

ahead. Training time in sites that used standardized curricula ranged from eight hours to two weeks. 

In some sites, training occurred prior to worksite placement but at others it took place throughout 

the summer. Some youth were assigned to work readiness tracks based on their characteristics, such 

as age, experience, offender status, or disabilities. Youth in almost all sites reported that this training 

was one of the most useful aspects of the initiative. 

Nearly all sites also offered supportive services to participants once they were placed on a job. 

Transportation to worksites and help paying for work supplies were the most common supports. 

Help paying for child care was less commonly offered because sites reported that few youth required 

child care assistance and, if they did, other funds were available to meet this need. 

Recruitment and Involvement of Employers 

Employers were important partners in sites’ efforts to provide youth with successful summer 

experiences. Though employers were receiving a summer employee whose wages were paid with 

Recovery Act funds, they were voluntary partners with their own interests that sites needed to 

address. Site staff had to recruit enough employers to place a large number of youth with wideranging interests and still be mindful of ETA guidance on ensuring appropriate and meaningful 

experiences. 

Sites identified many interested employers in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Half of 

the sites focused their recruitment on a specific sector. Of particular interest, four sites heavily 

targeted private sector employers largely because they felt that private firms were more likely to offer 

participants regular positions after the summer. Almost half reported that they recruited more 

employers than they needed. Employer recruitment began early, often before sites began enrolling 

youth. Sites contacted employers they knew from previous summer programs and the regular WIA 

youth program, conducted media campaigns, and made direct contact with employers new to the 

workforce investment system. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xxvii 

Sites focused on carefully screening employers and orienting them to the initiative. Formal 

screening processes could involve a review of an employer’s application (conducted at 10 sites), a 

visit to the worksite (conducted by at least 11 sites), or signing a worksite agreement (developed by 9 

sites). Three sites chose to use all three of these techniques. More than three-quarters of sites also 

held formal or informal orientations with worksite supervisors to inform them of their SYEI roles 

and responsibilities. 

Employers were eager to participate to advance their businesses but also to make a difference 

for youth and their communities. Respondents in nine sites reported that employers perceived the 

SYEI as free training of potentially permanent employees. In addition, many employers were either 

facing hiring freezes during the summer or could not afford to hire the extra staff they needed and 

thus appreciated the contributions that SYEI participants could provide. Finally, nearly all 

employers and staff also reported that employers felt that summer employment could improve the 

chances that youth would be engaged in productive work and stay out of trouble. 

Youth’s Summer Experiences 

The heart of the summer experience did not begin until after the tremendous effort to recruit 

youth and employers, determine their suitability for the SYEI, and prepare them for the workplace. 

Although some youth were placed in academic services in the classroom, most were placed in 

employment. About one-third of sites emphasized work, offering few other services beyond work 

readiness training. The remaining two-thirds offered academics to at least some youth. Few sites 

offered any of the other 10 program elements required by the regular WIA youth program but 

optional for the SYEI funded by the Recovery Act. 

Academic offerings ranged from occupational skills training to recovery of school credits. 

Occupational skills training was offered by 10 sites, with the training most commonly targeted to the 

health care, manufacturing, culinary, and construction industries as well as entrepreneurship. Less 

common academic programs included recovery of school credits, GED preparation programs, and 

remediation. Most youth were placed in jobs either after or while participating in academic 

offerings. However, some youth—often younger participants between 14 and 16 years of age—in 

five sites spent the entire summer in the classroom. 

Youth worked in a wide range of industries. The most common reported by sites in the study 

included health care, public service, parks and recreation, and education or child care (see Figure 2). 

Seventeen sites placed youth in the health industry with jobs in hospitals, nursing homes, mental 

health centers, dental offices, and other medical facilities. Another 13 had youth working in public 

services with county and municipal government agencies such as the town hall, the Chamber of 

Commerce, the public housing department, the fire department, Veterans Affairs, or public works. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xxviii 

Figure 2. Common Industries for Summer Work Experiences 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Notes: This table includes only industries mentioned by five or more sites. Industries cited by fewer than five sites 

include agriculture, legal services, retail, workforce development, automotive, computer services, media, 

hospitality, and finance. Green jobs were not categorized as a separate industry but were included in the 

most closely related industry listed above. These jobs are discussed in detail later in this document. 

N = 20 sites. 

Within this wide range of industries, youth typically held entry-level jobs often involving 

administrative or clerical work, landscaping and outdoor maintenance, janitorial and indoor 

maintenance, and construction (see Table 4). Sixteen sites involved youth in administrative or 

clerical tasks, such as answering phones, filing, completing paperwork, and word processing. This 

was common within the top two industries, namely health care and public services. Another 14 sites 

reported that at least some youth were conducting park reclamation, green space protection, and 

urban forestry. Day-to-day tasks in these areas often included weeding; raising plant beds; planting 

flowers, bushes and trees; digging and laying recreation trails; raking; trimming bushes; and cleaning 

and restoring playgrounds. 

Notably, youth and staff both reported that, although the daily tasks performed by participants 

may have been entry-level, youth were nevertheless exposed to the world of work, the work process, 

and careers within the industry in which they were placed. For example, a youth filing paperwork at 

a doctor’s office learned about HIPAA regulations, observed health care workers interacting with 

patients, and experienced the general operations of a health care facility. Two sites also reported 

that some older and more experienced youth were placed in higher-level positions or supervisory 

roles in a range of different industries. 

17

13

12 12

9

555

0

5

10

15

20

Medical or 

health

Public 

services

Parks and 

recreation

Education or 

child care

Social 

services 

(nonprofit)

Library 

services

Culinary or 

food service

Construction

Number of Sites Reporting at Least Some Youth Jobs
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xxix 

Table 4. Common Tasks Performed by Participating Youth at Worksites 

Task 

Number of Sites Reporting at 

Least Some Youth Performing 

This as Primary Task 

Administrative or clerical duties 16 

Park reclamation, landscaping, and outdoor maintenance 14 

Janitorial or indoor maintenance 12 

Construction 11 

Recycling computers, paper and other materials 10 

Child care, senior care, counseling at summer camps or 

playgrounds 

10 

Weatherization and energy efficiency 8 

Agriculture, community gardening, and urban gardening 8 

Food service 7 

Service, sales, or hospitality 7 

Computer repair or maintenance 6 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: This table includes only tasks mentioned by five or more sites. Additional tasks cited by fewer than five 

sites include health care tasks, automotive repair and maintenance, and pet grooming or care. 

N = 20 sites. 

More than half the sites reported at least some success placing youth in green industries and 

jobs. The most common green jobs were in park reclamation, recycling, weatherization, and 

agriculture. A lack of guidance about what constituted a green job, however, created confusion 

within and across the sites, with respondents using varied definitions. For example, some referred 

to green jobs as those directly related to occupations in renewable energy, environmental consulting, 

and energy-efficient construction. Others included non-green jobs—such as administrative or 

maintenance tasks—within green industries or organizations. Still others talked about green 

exposure within non-green jobs, such as the use of recycling and environmentally friendly products 

in day-to-day business. 

Matching Youth to Worksites 

Ensuring a solid match between youth and employer was critical to both satisfying the 

employer’s needs and maximizing the likelihood that the youth had a meaningful experience. Site 

staff reported four key considerations when matching youth to worksites: (1) the youth’s personal 

interests expressed through their application, orientation, or meetings with staff; (2) direct employer 

feedback after a formal interview; (3) the youth’s age, experience, and skills; and (4) transportation 

needs or other logistical issues. 

Twelve sites had all or some youth formally interview with employers to simulate a real 

interview experience, ensure the employer was comfortable with the match, and allow the youth to 

become familiar with the potential work environment. Once staff members determined a potentially 

good employer match, most interviewing involved one-on-one personal interactions between the 

employer and the interested youth. Respondents in the eight sites that chose not to conduct 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xxx 

interviews said either that the timeframe was too short or that it would have been logistically too 

challenging to have all youth interview. 

Youth’s Hours and Wages 

Across the 20 sites, summer work experiences lasted an average of seven weeks at an average of 

28 hours per week. Hourly wages averaged $7.75, with half the sites offering the federal minimum 

wage of $7.25 per hour, allowing youth to earn an average of about $1,500 if they completed 

summer services from start to finish. Summer experiences ranged from 3 to 20 weeks in length, 

with youth working 16 to 40 hours per week. 

More than three-quarters of sites experienced payroll challenges due to the increased volume of 

workers. Logistical problems in the flow and functioning of the payroll process occurred during 

timesheet collection, processing of paychecks, and distribution of paychecks. Although most sites 

had already begun to remedy these problems by the time of the site visits, some were still 

considering alternative strategies to help stem the problems in future summer initiatives. 

Assessing Youth Progress 

Sites developed procedures to assist youth both during and after their job placements and to

track their progress over time. Youth at all but one site were connected with an adult mentor—

typically the worksite supervisor, a colleague, or a frontline SYEI staff member—at the start of their 

summer experience. 

Once youth were placed in jobs, sites monitored worksites both formally and informally 

through in-person visits by staff. Formal visits, conducted by 11 sites, generally involved a standard 

protocol or monitoring checklist. Staff spoke with supervisors, spoke with youth, and observed 

working conditions. Informal visits, conducted by 17 sites, were more casual and typically occurred 

as staff picked up youth timesheets or dropped off paychecks. Staff unanimously agreed that 

ongoing monitoring through in-person visits was essential to ensuring high-quality experiences and 

heading off problems between worksite supervisors and youth before they became serious. 

Every site dealt with at least some youth who performed poorly on the job. When problems 

could not be resolved through mentoring or guidance, youth were typically moved to a new worksite 

or other program activities. Despite staff efforts to mediate performance issues, all sites reported 

that a small portion of youth were terminated by the program, quit their jobs, or dropped out of the 

program. 

Sites were also responsible for formally measuring growth in youth’s work readiness skills for 

federal performance reporting requirements. Administrators and frontline staff were 

overwhelmingly appreciative of the limited requirements in this area for the SYEI. The flexibility 

given to the states and local areas, however, created inconsistency across and sometimes within sites. 

Most, but not all, sites measured work readiness skills before and after youth participated in 

activities, thereby capturing some assessment of growth or increase in skills. However, sites varied 

substantially in the timing of these assessments, the methods of capturing data (such as through staff 

observations, employer feedback, and tests of youth), and the types of skills assessed. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xxxi 

Overall Impressions of the 2009 Summer Experience 

This evaluation documents the experiences of selected sites, paints a detailed picture of SYEI 

implementation, and gives a voice to the youth and employers who were at the core of this effort. 

Drawing from the detailed data collected, it identifies overall impressions of implementation from 

the perspective of local implementers, youth, and employers. 

It took enormous effort to get this large initiative up and running in a short period of time. 

Parties at all levels of the workforce investment system—including Federal, state, and local levels—

had to act quickly to ensure that the SYEI could get off the ground in time. The size of the initiative 

and the quick timeframe affected every aspect of planning and implementation. As a result, some 

sites reported having to make compromises along the way, including curbing the extent of 

innovation and implementing practices without exploring all possible options. Despite these 

limitations, administrators and staff reported pride in their accomplishments in the summer of 2009. 

Although there were inevitable challenges, the SYEI was implemented successfully without any 

major problems. Sites were able to recruit sufficient numbers of youth to fill the program slots, to 

place them in employment, and to provide additional services. 

Administrators and staff in the study sites reported that the SYEI had a threefold effect. First, 

they got money into the hands of needy families. Second, youth and their families spent the 

disposable income earned through SYEI jobs in their depressed local economies. Third, youth 

gained valuable work experience, increasing their human capital and long-term job prospects. 

Youth valued the opportunity to hold a job, gain work skills, and build their résumés. They also 

valued the exposure to professional environments and mentoring adults. Many were enthusiastic 

about having money and being able to help their families in these tough economic times. In the 

absence of the initiative, many reported they would be competing for jobs with more experienced 

adult workers or doing nothing productive over their summer break. Although youth had some 

important feedback on key ways to improve the summer initiative, their most common complaint 

was that the initiative was too short and offered too few work hours. 

Employers were overwhelmingly positive about the initiative. They felt that the experience of 

mentoring a new employee was worth the effort and almost unanimously agreed that they would 

participate again if given the opportunity. 

Challenges and Lessons Learned 

Despite the positive feedback from staff, youth, and employers, implementation of the SYEI 

was not without its challenges. Based on discussions with local staff, employers, and participants, as 

well as observation of program practices across all 20 sites, the study identifies challenges and 

lessons in seven key areas from implementation of the 2009 SYEI. 

1. Enrollment and Eligibility Determination 

Staff across all sites struggled to handle the increased volume of youth, particularly the process 

of determining their eligibility. For future summer initiatives, local areas should consider providing 

more training to less experienced staff members to prepare them for summer tasks. As did some 

sites in 2009, local areas should also consider relying more heavily on experienced staff to perform 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xxxii 

more complex tasks, such as eligibility determination. Local areas should also examine other 

possible strategies to reduce workloads and maximize staff resources such as streamlining intake 

procedures through prescreening applications and coordinating with schools and social service 

agencies to determine youth eligibility. 

2. Recruitment of Veterans and Older Youth 

Although overall youth recruitment efforts proved very successful, sites had difficulty reaching 

older youth between the ages of 22 and 24 as well as veterans and their spouses. Sites should think 

beyond “youth” when designing and promoting youth activities, given that many veterans and young 

adults have children, household responsibilities, and significant work experience. Sites reported that 

it was important to avoid alienating older youth by characterizing the SYEI as a youth program. 

Local areas should also consider developing new partnerships or reframing old partnerships with 

organizations that already serve these young adults. Finally, they should consider implementing 

strategies to differentiate services based on the unique needs of these older participants.

3. Recruitment of Private Sector Employers 

Although federal guidance encouraged the involvement of private employers, some sites were 

hesitant about including them. Sites raised three concerns: (1) the advisability of choosing one 

private employer over another for a government-subsidized job, (2) the lack of sufficient 

information on the quality of private sector jobs, and (3) the age and background restrictions 

imposed by private employers. While not necessarily appropriate for all youth, the private sector can 

be a good source of high quality jobs for many participants, particularly older, more experienced 

youth. Most sites did successfully engage at least some private employers, and the private employers 

involved in the study appreciated the opportunity to participate and support local youth. About 

one-third of sites felt that private employers were more likely to hire participants permanently and 

were a better fit based on youth interests. In addition, sites did not report any problems or conflicts 

related to equity among local businesses. With sufficient planning time, local areas can address 

concerns about the quality of private sector jobs by sufficiently vetting potential employers and 

training worksite supervisors to ensure that they can provide quality tasks and professional 

mentoring. 

4. Green Jobs 

While more than half of sites reported at least some success placing youth in green industries 

and jobs, administrators and staff across sites and even within sites often did not use a common 

definition for green jobs. Respondents in three sites explicitly expressed confusion over the 

definition. To further expand youth opportunities in this emerging field, sites require additional 

guidance from ETA on what constitutes a green job. The Bureau of Labor Statistics as well as 

several states, foundations, and private organizations have already begun efforts to define the 

concept of green jobs more clearly and conduct inventories of these jobs across the country. 

5. Job Matching 

Some sites felt—and youth agreed—that job matching of youth to employers could have been 

improved by either aligning employer recruitment to the interests of youth or more closely 

considering data from youth intake and assessments when determining the most appropriate 

employer. To the extent possible, local areas should match youth to employers based on their 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xxxiii 

interests and career goals to help maximize the potential for a valuable summer experience that may 

lead to better employment opportunities. To help achieve this goal, sites should consider using 

information on the types of jobs that best suited the interests of youth enrolled in the summer of 

2009 to help focus initial employer recruitment efforts in future summers. In addition, if sites chose 

to recruit employers before enrolling youth, they should consider continuing employer recruitment 

as needed once youth are enrolled to accommodate the interests of as many participants as possible. 

Given that all matches may not be ideal, staff should also work to ensure that both employers and 

youth have reasonable expectations for the summer experience. In particular, staff should stress to 

youth that, no matter what their work assignment, they will be able to build their résumés and can 

learn important work skills. 

6. Measurement of Work Readiness Increases 

Sites varied dramatically in their measurement of work readiness increases among youth and 

sometimes used different approaches within a site. These inconsistencies make it difficult to assess 

the true meaning of the national performance measure. To ensure the use of a valid measure across 

all local areas, sites require additional guidance from ETA on standards and best practices in 

measuring increases in work readiness skills. This includes guidance on the timing and frequency of 

youth assessments, the most appropriate sources of data on youth performance, and the types of 

skills that should be assessed. 

7. Innovation 

Variations in the local infrastructure and economy of study sites clearly affected their 

implementation of the SYEI. For instance, one site reported denying services to some youth who 

did not live near a participating employer because the youth’s community lacked a good public 

transportation system. However, other sites with youth in similar situations either developed their 

own van routes or recruited businesses within the communities where youth lived to allow them to 

participate. As another example, administrators in some areas said they could not place significant 

numbers of youth into green jobs given the lack of green industry in their local economies. Other 

sites in similar situations, however, developed their own green projects or tapped into the public 

sector for green opportunities. Addressing local circumstances may require innovation. When 

encountering an implementation challenge, administrators should consider new or innovative 

models, including looking to other sites with similar local circumstances for potential solutions. 

Looking Beyond Summer 2009 

Although the SYEI of 2009 was a monumental effort, it was not the end of the road for 

participating youth. Many participants came out of the summer initiative looking for new 

opportunities to expand on their experiences. How they fared beyond the summer and what effect 

the SYEI had on their employment prospects can only be determined through long-term follow up 

or better efforts to track future participants. However, some sites had already begun reflecting on 

what worked and what could be improved for future summers. 

Many youth who participated in the SYEI hoped to transition to new opportunities in the fall. 

The largest proportion of participants planned to return to school. Some youth could receive 

additional services from the workforce investment system, including the regular WIA youth and 

adult formula-funded programs, and from other organizations within the community. Still other 

youth sought to move into permanent jobs. Respondents, however, mentioned several issues that 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 xxxiv 

might have limited these opportunities. Although the regular WIA programs for youth and adults 

could serve some youth, some of these programs already had waiting lists due to excess demand. In 

addition, while every site expected at least some youth to enter permanent jobs, the state of the 

economy may have limited the number of permanent placements for youth. 

Sites appeared prepared to offer summer opportunities to significant numbers of youth in 2010. 

During the summer of 2009, sites worked through many challenges inherent in the implementation 

of a new initiative and learned lessons that can be used to inform future efforts. Sites looked 

forward to offering summer work opportunities to youth in 2010 if funding is available. Even if 

dedicated funding is not available, a few sites felt the success of the SYEI in helping youth gain a 

better understanding of the world of work would prompt them to consider dedicating a larger 

portion of their regular WIA formula funds to develop summer opportunities for youth. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The American economy lost an estimated 7.9 million jobs from the end of 2007 to the fall of 

2009 (U.S. Department of Labor 2009b). Joblessness was high for many groups during this period, 

but for young adults, unemployment was particularly high and could have lasting effects. In May 

2009, the jobless rate for teenagers was 22.7 percent, more than double the national rate of 9.4 

percent (U.S. Department of Labor 2009b). The funding for youth activities through the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) was designed as one part of the solution 

to address this situation and reverse the steep decline in youth employment. 

Through the Recovery Act, states received an additional $1.2 billion in WIA Youth funding for 

employment and training activities targeted to disadvantaged youth. Congress and the U.S. 

Department of Labor (DOL) encouraged states and local workforce investment areas charged with 

implementing youth activities to use the funds to create employment opportunities for these youth 

in the summer of 2009. Although summer employment is a component of youth activities under the 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), many local areas did not provide summer jobs for 

significant numbers of youth after the transition to WIA in 2000 (Social Policy Research Associates 

2004). Local areas had from mid-February 2009, when the Recovery Act was signed into law, to the 

beginning of May 2009 to design their summer youth activities and prepare for implementation. 

To gain insights into the design and implementation of these initiatives, DOL’s Employment 

and Training Administration (ETA) contracted with Mathematica Policy Research to conduct an 

evaluation of the summer youth employment activities funded by the Recovery Act. Although 

summer employment is only one component of WIA youth activities and is not funded as a separate 

program, the opportunities offered by local areas with Recovery Act funding in the summer of 2009 

are referred to as the Summer Youth Employment Initiative (SYEI) throughout this report. As part 

of this evaluation, Mathematica® analyzed state performance data and qualitative data collected 

through in-depth site visits to 20 local areas. This report describes the national context for SYEI 

implementation, provides an in-depth description of the experiences of selected sites, and presents 

lessons on implementation practices that may inform SYEIs. 

A. Policy and Economic Context 

On February 17, 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Recovery Act into law. The Act 

was passed in response to the economic crisis that began in December of 2007 with a housing crisis, 

a credit crunch, and rising unemployment across the country (U.S. Department of Labor 2009b). 

From December 2007 to November 2009, the number of unemployed persons in the nation rose 

from 7.5 million to 15.4 million, and the national unemployment rate rose from 4.5 percent to 10.0 

percent (U.S. Department of Labor 2009b). With a total value of $787 billion, the Act’s purpose was 

to create jobs, pump money into the economy, and encourage spending (U.S. Congress 2009). A 

key aspect of the Act was its urgency, as reflected by its enactment shortly after the start of the new 

Congress and administration. 

In this weakened economy, youth employment rates have been at historic lows (Center for 

Labor Market Studies 2009). Although these rates appeared to be due to the recent economic crisis, 

youth employment had been decreasing steadily since 2000 (McLaughlin et al. 2009). Between 2000 

and 2009, the summer employment rate for teens between the ages of 16 and 19 fell from 45 

percent to 29 percent. Employment rates decreased for all gender and ethnic groups in this period, 

though some groups were harder hit. Although employment rates were similar for male and female 
Mathematica Policy Research 

2 

youth in 2000, male employment fell by more than female employment. By 2009, the female youth 

employment rate was 31 percent compared with the male rate of 28 percent. African American 

males have historically had the lowest employment rates, and in summer 2009, African American 

male youth had an employment rate of 17 percent. 

The dual purposes of the Recovery Act provisions targeting youth were to spur local economies 

and to provide employment experiences to disadvantaged youth. These employment opportunities 

were meant to put money directly into the hands of youth, who could both help support their 

families during the recession and help stimulate demand in local economies through their spending. 

Providing young adults with employment opportunities through the Recovery Act could also help 

make up for the loss of employment opportunities during the economic downturn. Without these 

experiences, young adults may be unable to explore future career opportunities and will be less 

familiar with the expectations of the world of work (Oates 2009). 

B. The History of Summer Youth Programs 

Starting in 1983, before the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), the Job Training 

Partnership Act (JTPA) provided federal funding for employment programs aimed at disadvantaged 

youth. Title II-B, the Summer Youth Employment and Training Program (SYETP), was the larger 

of the two programs. In program year 1990, Title II-B received an allocation of $871 million and 

Title II-C, providing for year-round programs, received $130 million. Eligibility was restricted to 

low-income youth ages 14 to 21 for summer services and ages 16 to 21 for year-round services. 

SYETP reflected a long-standing federal commitment to providing summer work experiences 

to youth (Social Policy Research Associates 1998).1 SYETP services included basic and remedial 

education, on-the-job training, paid work experience, employment counseling, occupational training, 

preparation for work, and assistance in searching for jobs. The early 1990s witnessed a change in 

the program’s focus from exposing youth to the world of work to linking work experiences to the 

youth’s academic achievement. This translated into a requirement to assess the basic skills of each 

youth and plan a service strategy based on those assessments (Social Policy Research Associates 

1998). The Title II-C year-round program provided services similar to the summer program but also 

provided help with transition to the working world, preventing students from dropping out of 

school, and mentoring. 

Recognizing JTPA’s lack of demonstrated success in improving youth’s post-service outcomes 

(Social Policy Research Associates 2004; Bloom et al. 1993), WIA mandated a major refocus of 

youth programs. WIA required more comprehensive services focused on long-term outcomes and 

better aligned with youth development theory and practices. Most notably, rather than treating 

summer employment as a stand-alone intervention, WIA integrated it into a comprehensive 

program. Thus, summer work experiences became only one of 10 required elements for youth 

participating in programs funded under the WIA. Following the transition to WIA, a 2004 study 

found that youth enrollment in summer programs dropped 50 to 90 percent in most local areas 

(Social Policy Research Associates 2004). 

 1 JTPA’s predecessor, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), also provided for summer 

youth employment through block grants to state and local governments. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

3 

Under WIA, local areas must make each of these 10 elements available to eligible youth: 

1. Summer employment opportunities linked to academic and occupational learning 

2. Tutoring, study skills training, and instruction leading to secondary school completion 

3. Alternative secondary school offerings 

4. Paid and unpaid work experiences 

5. Occupational skill training 

6. Leadership development opportunities 

7. Supportive services 

8. Adult mentoring for at least 12 months, either during or after participation 

9. Comprehensive guidance and counseling 

10. Follow-up activities for at least 12 months 

To participate in WIA programs, youth must meet three eligibility criteria. They must be 

between 14 and 21 years old, qualify as low income according to WIA Section 101 (25) (U.S. 

Congress 1998), and meet one of six barriers to employment: being (1) a school dropout; (2) 

deficient in basic literacy; (3) a homeless, runaway, or foster child; (4) a parenting or pregnant teen; 

(5) an offender; or (6) someone who needs help completing an education program or securing and 

maintaining employment. In addition, WIA requires that at least 30 percent of the youth funds be 

spent on out-of-school youth.2

 As performance indicators, WIA enacted seven statutory measures, 

and DOL also added and implemented three common measures that were developed by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB)—including youth’s placement in work or education, attainment 

of diplomas or credentials, and improvement in basic skills. 

C. The Recovery Act Allocation for the WIA Youth Program 

The congressional explanatory statement for the Recovery Act and ETA’s Training and 

Employment Guidance Letter No. 14-08 (U.S. Department of Labor 2009d) laid out the key 

provisions for the Recovery Act’s allocation of WIA youth funds. The Act indicated that the $1.2 

billion be used toward youth activities. Although the use of funds was not restricted and funds 

could be spent through June 30, 2011, the congressional guidance for the Act expressed a strong 

interest in the funds being used to fund summer employment opportunities for youth. Similar to the 

SYETP, youth would be placed in summer employment experiences with local public, nonprofit, 

and private employers and their wages would be paid with Recovery Act funds. 

The Act contained two other key provisions for the WIA youth activities funded under it. First, 

it extended eligibility to youth up to 24 years of age. Second, the Act specified that only one 

indicator—achievement of work readiness goals—would be used to measure the performance of 

 2 An out-of-school youth is an eligible youth who has either dropped out of school or received a high school 

diploma or General Educational Development (GED) credential but is deficient in basic skills, underemployed, or 

unemployed (U.S. Congress 1998). 
Mathematica Policy Research 

4 

youth activities funded by the Recovery Act. Local areas were also required by ETA to report 

another performance indicator—the number of youth completing summer employment experiences. 

ETA provided further guidance to states and local areas on the use of the Recovery Act youth 

funds during the summer months, defined as May 1, 2009 through September 30, 2009 (U.S. 

Department of Labor 2009d). These provisions included the following features: 

Work experiences should be “meaningful” and age appropriate. Work experiences 

should be age appropriate and lead to youth meeting work readiness goals. ETA encouraged local 

areas to incorporate experiences in “green” (or environmentally friendly) work and skills and to 

introduce youth to green educational and career pathways. Local areas were also encouraged to 

match worksites with participants’ goals and interests as much as possible. 

Local areas had flexibility in using classroom-based learning activities. Local areas could 

decide whether or not to link classroom-based learning, such as occupational training, with youth’s 

work experiences. Such a linkage was recommended for younger youth in need of instruction in 

basic skills and career exploration. Local areas could decide if the linkage was beneficial based on 

the circumstances of each youth, but were asked to consider academic linkages for youth without a 

high school diploma. 

Registered apprenticeships were encouraged. Given the growing trend in registered 

apprenticeships, local areas were encouraged to take advantage of local apprenticeship programs to 

create pre-apprenticeship opportunities. These programs link out-of-school youth to technical skills 

training that can be translated to experience at a worksite, thus preparing the youth for formal 

apprenticeship programs upon completion of the summer work experience. 

Performance would be measured by one work readiness indicator. Local areas could 

determine how to define indicators of work readiness and measure changes in the indicator but were 

provided with a definition for work readiness skill goals. States could request a waiver to use this 

indicator also for youth aged 18 to 24 years who participated in only work experiences during 

October 2009 through March 2010. If youth in that group received additional services during the 

post-summer period, they would be included in the regular WIA performance measures. 

WIA youth program elements were not required. Local areas could determine which of the 

10 WIA youth program elements to offer to participants funded by the Recovery Act. For example, 

this provision permitted local areas to determine whether or not to provide supportive services or 

follow up with participants for 12 months after receipt of services. ETA also provided some 

flexibility regarding other design elements. While WIA requires a comprehensive assessment and 

individualized service strategy (ISS) for each youth participant, the Recovery Act allowed local areas 

to determine what type of assessment and ISS to complete for each youth that participated in the 

summer months only. 

Certain groups should receive priority. The priority groups for WIA programs—including 

veterans and eligible spouses of veterans—were also priority groups for youth activities funded by 

the Recovery Act. ETA also noted that the extension of eligibility to 24 year olds could make more 

veterans eligible for summer employment. As with regular WIA youth programs, at least 30 percent 

of Recovery Act funding for WIA youth activities had to be spent on out-of-school youth. ETA 

also encouraged local areas to focus their services on groups of the neediest youth. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

5 

Local areas could request waivers for contractor procurement. States were permitted to 

request a waiver from the WIA requirement for service providers to be selected through a 

competitive procurement process, but were still required to follow state or local laws that could not 

be relieved by federal regulations (U.S. Congress 1999). If granted, the waiver would permit local 

areas to extend existing contracts for WIA services or to conduct a competition among a limited 

number of providers for the summer youth initiative. 

D. Overview of the Evaluation 

In conjunction with ETA, Mathematica designed the evaluation of the Recovery Act SYEI to 

provide rich information about its implementation and potential for improving the work readiness 

of disadvantaged youth. ETA expressed interest in learning about local areas’ efforts to quickly 

implement a large initiative and the resulting experiences for youth, employers, and communities. 

However, compiling data on these experiences for all local areas was not possible within the study’s 

scope. Thus, the study team worked with ETA national and regional staff to identify 20 areas for indepth study (herafter referred to as the study “sites”). These sites were selected based on early 

indications that they could offer potentially promising approaches to delivering summer 

employment experiences to youth. 

Although this approach limits the study’s ability to draw conclusions about SYEI 

implementation across the country, it does provide important insights into the issues and challenges 

involved in providing summer work experiences to a large number of youth. In addition, the study 

provides information based on state-reported performance and draw down data to give some 

national context for the experiences of the 20 selected sites. 

Furthermore, this study focused on sites’ experiences preparing for and providing the work 

opportunities to youth during the summer of 2009. It was not designed to capture the overall 

quality of youth’s experiences or to assess youth’s outcomes as a result of their participation. Still, 

the information captured about the selected sites’ experiences provides valuable lessons for 

policymakers and administrators considering implementing summer youth initiatives in the future. 

1. Research Questions 

Six major research questions guided the evaluation. By addressing these questions, the study 

gives policymakers, administrators, and stakeholders a better understanding of how the SYEI 

unfolded in the summer of 2009: 

1. How did the selected sites plan for and organize their summer youth initiatives? 

2. How did selected sites identify, recruit, and enroll at-risk youth? 

3. What were the characteristics of participants nationwide? 

4. What services were offered during the summer months in selected sites? 

5. What types of work experiences were offered to participating youth in selected sites? 

6. What lessons can be drawn about the implementation of summer youth programs? 

Appendix A lists the comprehensive set of sub-questions for each major research question. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

6 

2. Selection of Study Sites 

To learn about SYEI implementation, 20 local areas were selected for data collection and 

analysis. Based on their knowledge of local areas that offered innovative or potentially promising 

approaches, ETA national and regional staff nominated a total of 40 local areas for inclusion in the 

study. The evaluation team and ETA narrowed the list to 27 local areas using three key criteria: (1) 

including at least three sites from each region; (2) choosing only those sites that planned to spend at 

least 50 percent of Recovery Act funds during the summer of 2009; and (3) including rural, urban, 

and suburban sites. 

In July 2009, the evaluation team conducted telephone calls with administrators in these 27 

local areas to collect more information about their initiatives and discuss the feasibility of an inperson site visit. Based on these discussions and consideration of the selection criteria, Mathematica 

and ETA determined the final set of 20 study sites (see Table I.1). 

Table I.1 Sites Selected for Visits 

Region Local Workforce Investment Agent City, State 

1 Regional Employment Board of Hampden County Springfield, MA 

1 The Workplace, Inc. Bridgeport, CT 

1 Workforce Partnership of Greater Rhode Island Cranston, RI 

2 Lehigh Valley Workforce Investment Board, Inc. Lehigh Valley, PA 

2 Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board Pittsburgh, PA 

2 Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Roanoke, VA 

3 Eastern Kentucky Concentrated Employment Program Hazard, KY 

3 Northeast Georgia Regional Commission Athens, GA 

3 Workforce Investment Network Memphis, TN 

4 Denver Office of Economic Development Denver, CO 

4 Montana State WIB, District XI Human Resource Council Missoula, MT 

4 Workforce Connection of Central New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 

5 Minneapolis Employment and Training Program Minneapolis, MN 

5 Workforce Development, Inc. Rochester, MN 

5 Workforce Resource, Inc. Menomonie, WI 

6 Community Development Department of the City of LA Los Angeles, CA 

6 Madera County Office of Education Madera, CA 

6 Oregon Consortium and Oregon Workforce Alliance Albany, OR 

6 Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County Seattle, WA 

6 Worksystems, Inc. Portland, OR 

Note: The city and state reflect the location of the local area’s central office. 

3. Data Sources 

To provide a complete picture of SYEIs in the summer of 2009, the evaluation draws upon two 

key data sources: state performance data and in-depth site visits. The state performance data 

provides the national scope of the initiative and additional context for the experiences of the 20 

selected sites. During site visits, the study team collected detailed information on how the sites 

implemented their initiatives. Data collection for each source focused on the summer months. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

7 

State performance and draw down data. States delivered monthly performance reports to 

ETA for all youth participating in Recovery Act services at all local areas across the nation. The 

study obtained performance data submitted to ETA as of December 31, 2009 that covers 

implementation from May through November 2009. The data include statistics on the number of 

youth enrolled, their demographic characteristics, the services they received, and key performance 

outcomes. ETA also provided the study with data on monthly draw downs from state funding 

allocations for the same period of May through November 2009.

In-depth site visits. The study team completed visits to the 20 selected sites during July and 

August 2009, while youth were being served. Each visit, conducted by one member of the study 

team, lasted an average of 2.5 days. Site visitors spoke to a total of 601 individuals across the 20 

sites, including 373 administrators and staff, 79 employers, and 149 youth. Appendix B provides the 

demographic characteristics of the youth who participated in focus groups. The interviews and 

focus groups conducted during these site visits were the main source of information for this study. 

4. Analytical Approach and Limitations 

The two data sources required different analytical approaches. For the state performance and 

draw down data, the analysis was intended to provide a larger picture of SYEI implementation 

across the country. The analysis was purely descriptive. State-specific statistics were aggregated to 

produce national frequencies. The team also analyzed enrollment patterns over time. Given that 

states provided only aggregate data, analyzing subgroups was not feasible. 

For the in-depth site visits, the analysis focused on the study’s key research questions as the 

evaluation team searched for themes, patterns, and relationships that emerged both within individual 

sites and across sites. The analysis considered models of program organization, outreach, and 

recruitment; similarities and differences in service offerings; approaches to work readiness; and the 

range of summer work experiences. The study also looked across sites at the common lessons 

learned, challenges faced, and suggestions for structuring an improved SYEI. 

The analysis of qualitative data went beyond the national data and explored, in great detail, the 

experiences of a subset of local areas. Throughout the analysis, the site served as the unit of 

analysis, even when multiple providers or employers at a site reported different approaches or 

opinions. We account for these differences by reporting when a particular practice occurred sitewide and when it varied from provider to provider within a site. Given that the evaluation team was 

not always able to meet with representatives from all local providers, the analysis does not include 

the full range of site experiences. In addition, employers and participants were purposefully selected 

by the principal contact in each site and are not representative of all those involved in the initiative. 

Despite these limitations, the study gathered the perspectives of a large number of diverse 

respondents. 

Throughout the report, local practices and youth perspectives are highlighted in text boxes. 

The practices described in these boxes are not intended to represent promising or high quality 

strategies. Instead, they provide concrete examples of the general trends across sites or unique 

practices adopted by one or more local initiatives. Sites are referenced by the city and state where 

the central office is located although practices are generally implemented in the wider service area. 

Similarly, the quotes provided by youth from focus groups are not intended to be representative of 

all youth, but rather to enable the reader to hear the voices and perspectives of some youth 

participating in the initiatives. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

8 

E. Organization of the Rest of the Report 

The purpose of this report is to provide a rich description of the implementation of SYEIs 

funded by the Recovery Act in the summer of 2009. The report continues in Chapter II with a 

snapshot of the initiative nationwide, using state performance and draw down data. The remainder 

of the report focuses on the implementation experiences of the 20 selected sites. Chapter III 

describes the selected sites and their strategies for organizing and planning the summer initiative 

Chapter IV describes the sites’ effort to reach out to prospective youth participants and their 

processes for enrolling participants. Chapter V examines the strategies used to prepare eligible 

youth for the worksite placements. Chapter VI discusses the recruitment of employers to provide 

summer jobs. Chapters VII and VIII explore the range of summer experiences and how local areas 

monitored youth progress. Finally, Chapter IX provides lessons about the successes and challenges 

that local areas experienced in implementing the summer youth initiative. 
 9 

II. THE NATIONAL CONTEXT 

Nationwide, local areas served more than 355,000 youth through November 2009 using 

Recovery Act funding. To document the use of these funds in a timely fashion, ETA required that 

each state and outlying area3 submit monthly performance reports on their youth initiatives. 

Although the overall number of data elements was kept to a minimum to reduce the burden 

imposed on state and local areas, the data provide an overview of how the summer youth initiative 

unfolded nationally. The evaluation gathered youth performance data submitted to ETA by the 

states on youth activities from May through November 2009. 

Although the rest of the report discusses qualitative findings from 20 sites, this chapter uses 

national data to look at the SYEI across all local areas. It examines the use of Recovery Act funds, 

how many and what types of youth were served, what services they were provided, and what 

outcomes the youth experienced. Section A begins by examining the monthly trends in national 

funding draw downs and enrollment in youth employment initiatives. Section B examines who was 

served in these initiatives during the summer of 20094

 and the extent to which key target 

populations, such as veterans, were reached. Section C looks at the types of services youth received 

that summer, including summer employment, education services, and other supports. Section D 

concludes with outcomes experienced by the youth served by these initiatives. 

 3 Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico are counted among the states. Outlying areas include American Samoa, 

Guam, Northern Marianas, Palau, and the Virgin Islands. Indian and Native American grantees were also required to 

report on program performance. 4 ETA defined “summer” as May 1 through September 30 (U.S. Department of Labor 2009d). 

Key Findings: The National Context 

• States and local areas enrolled more than 355,000 youth nationwide from May to November 

2009 using Recovery Act funding. Enrollment was heaviest in May, June, and July, reflecting the 

fact that states and local areas heeded federal guidance to focus efforts on summer employment 

opportunities. By comparison, the regular WIA youth program served slightly more than 250,000 

youth during the entire 2008 program year.

• National draw downs totaled more than $717 million through November 2009, accounting 

for almost 61 percent of the nearly $1.2 billion in Recovery Act funds. The proportion of 

funds drawn down by each state within this timeframe varied from 33 to almost 93 percent.

• Out-of-school youth accounted for 36 percent of participants nationwide. The economy as 

well as the decision to expand eligibility by allowing enrollment of young adults up to age 24 may 

have contributed to this success. 

• More than 88 percent of participants were placed in summer jobs. Of those in summer jobs, 

states reported that over 82 percent completed their summer job experience. States also reported 

that 75 percent of all youth achieved a measureable increase in their work readiness skills. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

10 

A. National Patterns of Enrollment and Draw Downs 

Enrolling more than 355,000 youth nationwide, states and local areas drew down more than 

$717 million through November 2009, or 61 percent of the $1.2 billion in Recovery Act funds 

targeted for WIA youth services. The proportion of funds drawn down by states varied dramatically 

from a high of 93 percent in Idaho to a low of 33 percent in Hawaii (see Appendix C). By 

comparison, local areas served a total of slightly more than 250,000 youth through the regular WIA 

program during the entire 2008 program year with a budget of $966 million (U.S. Department of 

Labor 2009a).5 

As shown in Figure II.1, states heeded the guidance provided by Congress and ETA to focus 

efforts on summer employment initiatives rather than comprehensive services. Large numbers of 

youth began enrolling in the spring, with 164,000 youth enrolling in May and June.6 This initial 

enrollment accounted for 46 percent of all youth enrolled through November. Enrollment 

continued heavily through July with another 133,000 youth entering the initiatives. New enrollments 

fell sharply in August and September as initiatives focused on providing services to those already 

enrolled; in many cases, initiatives only enrolled new participants in these months by taking youth 

Figure II.1 WIA Youth Enrollment in 2009 Under the Recovery Act 

Source: State performance reports for WIA youth initiatives supported by the Recovery Act submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Labor as of December 31, 2009. 

Note: States submitted their first performance reports in June with aggregate data for youth enrolled in May and 

June. 

 5 Dividing total expenditure by the number of enrolled youth results in a higher cost per participant for the regular 

WIA youth compared to Recovery Act youth. This may result from the fact that most of the youth served by the 

Recovery Act participated only during the summer months, whereas the regular WIA youth program serves youth 

for significantly longer periods of time. Note that some youth enrolled through the Recovery Act may continue to be 

served beyond November 2009, increasing the actual cost per participant. 

6 States submitted their first performance reports in June with aggregate information for May and June. 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

June July August September October November

Number of New Enrollments

Total Number of Youth In-School Youth Out-of-School Youth
Mathematica Policy Research 

11 

from waiting lists when participating youth dropped out. As discussed in Chapter IV, administrators 

from selected local workforce investment areas reported beginning recruitment of youth as early as 

March and April, often before local funding allocations were made by states, although official 

enrollment often did not begin until May and June. 

National draw downs averaged $128 million per month during the summer period and peaked 

in August at $173 million per month (see Figure II.2). The peak in draw downs trailed enrollment 

slightly. This likely reflects the fact that local areas incurred significant costs in youth wages only 

after youth were officially enrolled, took part in early preparation activities, and were placed at 

worksites. 

Figure II.2 National Draw Downs of WIA Youth Recovery Act Funds in 2009 

Source: Monthly draw downs of WIA Youth Recovery Act Funds. 

Notes: Draw downs reflect the actual cash drawn daily by grantees from the financial system. By comparison, 

expenditures are the costs reported quarterly on an accrual basis, and therefore include all services and 

goods received by the end of the quarter, whether or not they have been invoiced or paid. As a result, 

draw downs may not account for all expenditures during the reporting period. 

Data from March through June were only available in aggregate and are reported under the month of June. 

B. Characteristics of Youth Participants 

The 2009 summer employment initiative enrolled a diverse array of youth, in terms of gender, 

race, education level, and age (see Table II.1). Females and males participated at similar rates. 

African Americans made up 45 percent of all participants through November 2009. Whites were 

the second largest racial group, comprising 38 percent. Other ethnic groups made up less than 5 

percent of participants. The racial background of more than 12 percent of participating youth is 

unknown. States also reported that nearly 25 percent of participants were of Latino or Hispanic 

origin. The majority of participants were in-school youth, a group largely comprised of those ages 

18 or younger (see Table II.1). 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

June July August September October November

Total Draw Downs (in millions)
Mathematica Policy Research 

12 

Table II.1 Characteristics of Youth Served Under the Recovery Act Through November 2009 

Number of 

Participants 

Percentage of All 

Participants 

Total Number of Participants 355,320 100.0 

Gender 

 Male 175,239 49.3 

 Female 179,496 50.5 

 Not reported 585 0.2 

Race 

 Black or African American 158,914 44.7 

 White 136,563 38.4 

 American Indian or Alaska Native 7,145 2.0 

 Asian 6,329 1.8 

 Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander 2,149 0.6 

 Not reported 44,220 12.4 

Latino or Hispanic Origin 86,859 24.4 

School Status 

 In-school 224,798 63.3 

 Out-of-school 127,869 36.0 

 Not reported 2,653 0.7 

Age at Enrollment 

 14–18 years 228,921 64.4 

 19–21 years 84,539 23.8 

 22–24 years 30,594 8.6 

 Not reported 11,266 3.2 

Education Level at Enrollment 

8th grade or under 45,302 12.7 

9th to 12th grade 204,378 57.5 

High school graduate or equivalent 81,372 22.9 

1–3 years of college or full-time technical or 

vocational school 20,506 5.8 

4 years college or more 1,366 0.4 

Not reported 2,396 0.7 

Individuals with Disabilities 45,125 12.7 

Eligible Veterans 671 0.2 

Source: State performance reports for WIA youth initiatives supported by the Recovery Act submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Labor as of December 31, 2009. 

Notes: Data on age could not be broken into smaller subgroups. 

 These figures do not include the 3,763 youth served by Indian and Native American grantees as a 

result of reporting procedures. 

Analysis of data on those served during the summer months of May to September 2009 result in 

differences of less than one percentage point in all categories when compared with November statistics 

presented in the table. 
 13 

States also succeeded in enrolling a large number of out-of-school and older youth. Out-ofschool youth included dropouts as well as youth who had received a high school diploma or its 

equivalent but were not enrolled in postsecondary education and needed assistance securing or 

holding employment. ETA placed particular emphasis on this population by requiring that states 

expend a minimum of 30 percent of their funds, both Recovery Act funds and WIA-formula funds, 

on this group. The WIA program has struggled to reach this critical high-risk population in the past 

(U.S. Government Accountability Office 2004). However, the program has made significant 

progress enrolling out-of-school youth in recent years, with this group accounting for 42 percent of 

youth served during program year 2008 (U.S. Department of Labor 2009). 

Using Recovery Act funds, out-of-school youth accounted for 36 percent of those enrolled 

through November. Although this proportion remained relatively steady through the early summer 

months, it began to rise to nearly 50 percent in September (not shown). This suggests that out-ofschool youth received additional priority as in-school youth returned to the classroom. Success with 

out-of-school youth recruitment may have resulted from the increase in unemployment among 

youth due to the recession. The Recovery Act also expanded eligibility to allow young adults 

between the ages of 22 and 24 to enroll. In fact, nine percent of all those enrolled through 

November—nearly 31,000 participants—fell within this age range. Site visits to selected areas 

suggest that most of these older participants were not attending educational programs at enrollment. 

As expected given the high proportion of in-school youth, 70 percent of enrolled youth had less 

than a high school diploma (Table II.1). Another 23 percent had received their high school degree 

or equivalent. Local areas were also able enroll a portion of more highly educated participants: the 

remaining seven percent of participants had at least some postsecondary education at enrollment. 

Youth with disabilities accounted for about 13 percent of participants. As defined for 

performance reporting, a disability is “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one 

or more of the person’s major life activities.” These activities can include a wide range of functions 

such as “caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, 

learning, working, and receiving education or vocational training” (U.S. Congress 2000). 

Veterans and their spouses were given priority of service as a result of the high incidence of 

unemployment immediately upon discharge from the military. Evaluation site visits revealed that 

this was one of the most challenging populations to reach. State data reflects this pattern, with only 

671 veterans, or less than 0.2 percent of all participants, enrolled nationwide. ETA did not require 

states to report on the number of participants who were spouses of veterans, so such data are not 

available. 

C. Patterns of Service Receipt Among Participating Youth 

Youth employment clearly served as the focus of local efforts to expend Recovery Act 

allocations. Nearly 314,000 youth—88 percent of participants—were placed in a summer job (see 

Figure II.3). In addition, 13 percent of all participants were placed in work experiences outside the 

summer months. This percentage could include participants who also were placed in summer 

employment, those who participated in WIA youth activities funded under the Recovery Act but did 

not work during the summer, and those who did not enroll until the fall. Although the data does 

not allow for subgroup analyses, patterns of enrollment suggest a surge in fall work experience 

placements among out-of-school youth as in-school youth returned to school. Appendix D 

provides employment rates and other key statistics by state. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

14 

88.3

12.8

7.3

18.9

9.2

3.4

12.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Placed in 

summer 

employment 

between May 

and September

Placed in 

employment 

outside the 

summer 

months

Received 

education 

services

Received 

additional 

support 

services 

Received 

leadership 

services

Received 

follow-up 

services

Receiving 

services 

beyond 

summer if a 

summer 

participant 

Percentage of All Participants

Figure II.3 Youth Services Received Under the Recovery Act Through November 2009 

Source: State performance reports for WIA youth initiatives supported by the Recovery Act submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Labor as of December 31, 2009. 

Notes: ETA defines the summer months as May through September. 

 Data on those “placed in employment outside the summer months” can include participants who were also 

placed in summer employment. 

N = 355,320;.data on those “receiving services beyond the summer if a summer participant” pertain only 

to 345,394 youth who participated during May through September. 

These figures do not include the 3,763 youth served by Indian and Native American grantees as a result 

of reporting procedures. 

 

Smaller proportions of youth were exposed to a range of other services. As mentioned in 

Chapter I, of the 10 youth service elements associated with the regular WIA youth program, ETA 

only required work experience for these summer initiatives. However, many local areas chose to 

provide at least some other services—including education services, support services, leadership 

development, and follow-up services—to a proportion of youth. 

Educational services were provided to a small proportion of youth. Slightly more than 7 

percent of youth received education services, including but not limited to “tutoring, study skills 

training, and instruction leading to secondary school completion” (U.S. Department of Labor 

2009e). As discussed in Chapter VII, evaluation site visits suggest that the some of the most 

common educational activities included occupational skills training, GED preparation, recovery of 

school credits, and remediation. 

Additional service offerings included support services and leadership development activities. 

Almost 19 percent of youth received some sort of support service. ETA guidance allows for a 

broad interpretation of support services but provides examples such as adult mentoring and 

comprehensive guidance and counseling. As discussed in Chapter V, local areas involved in the 
Mathematica Policy Research 

15 

study appeared to use this category mostly to capture transportation assistance, clothing and tools, 

and child care. Slightly more than 9 percent of youth also participated in leadership development 

activities. These types of services aim to “encourage responsibility, employability, and other positive 

social behaviors.” (U.S. Department of Labor 2009e) Leadership development activities also include 

service learning projects, peer-centered activities, and teamwork activities. 

Local areas continued to track very few summer participants into the fall. Chapter VIII 

suggests that few local areas chose to exercise the option to follow summer participants for 12 

months after enrollment to assess their progress over time. Nationally, local areas report formally 

following only 3.4 percent of youth served under the Recovery Act as of November 2009. 

A larger fraction of summer participants, however, continued to receive at least some services 

beyond September. Specifically, 12.2 percent of participants enrolled during the summer months 

received services in the fall through either Recovery Act initiatives or regular WIA programs. This 

could include WIA youth services for those aged 14 to 17, WIA adult services for those aged 22 to 

24, or either youth or adult services for youth falling in the middle range of 18 to 21.7

 As a way of 

encouraging states to continue providing services to older youth, states were allowed to apply for 

waivers on performance reporting requirements through March 2010 for summer participants 

between the ages of 18 and 24 who participated in work experience from October 2009 through 

March 2010. 

D. Short-term Outcome Measures 

To streamline implementation, Congress only required states and local areas to report on one 

performance measure for youth served with Recovery Act funds. States had to report on the 

percentage of participants in summer employment who attained a “work readiness skill goal.” 

Nationwide, local areas reported that almost 75 percent of youth achieved a measureable increase in 

their work readiness skills through summer employment (see Table II.2). 

Table II.2 Performance Outcomes of Youth Served Under the Recovery Act Through 

November 2009 

Number Reported 

as Achieving 

Outcome 

Number for 

Whom Data 

Were 

Available 

Percentage 

Achieving 

Outcome 

Increase in work readiness skills 235,043 314,132 74.8 

Completion of summer work experience 242,827 294,842 82.4 

Source: State performance reports for WIA youth initiatives supported by the Recovery Act submitted to the U.S. 

Department of Labor as of December 31, 2009. 

 Notes: These figures do not include the 3,763 youth served by Indian and Native American grantees as a result 

of reporting procedures. 

Data were not available for youth who were still participating in services at the time of data reporting. 

In addition, data were not available for some participants due to delays in state reporting. 

 7 Although older youth can also be considered for the WIA dislocated worker program, few are likely to be eligible 

to be classified as dislocated workers, given the criteria used for each program. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

16 

To provide context for this statistic, ETA guidance specifies the following: 

“A measurable increase in work readiness skills includ[es] world-of-work awareness, 

labor market knowledge, occupational information, values clarification and personal 

understanding, career planning and decision making, and job search techniques (resumes, 

interviews, applications, and follow-up letters). The[se skills] also encompass survival/daily 

living skills such as using the phone, telling time, shopping, renting an apartment, opening a 

bank account, and using public transportation. They also include positive work habits, 

attitudes, and behaviors such as punctuality, regular attendance, presenting a neat 

appearance, getting along and working well with others, exhibiting good conduct, following 

instructions and completing tasks, accepting constructive criticism from supervisors and coworkers, showing initiative and reliability, and assuming the responsibilities involved in 

maintaining a job. This category also entails developing motivation and adaptability, 

obtaining effective coping and problem-solving skills, and acquiring an improved self 

image.” (U.S. Department of Labor 2006) 

ETA gave local areas discretion over how and when to measure this outcome. A report on the 

use of Recovery Act funding by the Government Accountability Office (U.S. Government 

Accountability Office 2009) suggests that this flexibility may limit the usefulness of the data as it 

impairs the comparability and rigor of the data. Chapter VIII discusses the issue further and 

provides details on how the 20 selected local areas chose to measure increases in work readiness. 

Beyond the Congressional requirement, ETA also required states to report the proportion of 

youth who completed their summer work experience. Although data were not available for all 

314,000 youth who participated in summer employment, state reports indicate that more than 82 

percent of those for whom data were available completed their summer job. Site visits suggest that 

the remainder of summer work participants either dropped out or were terminated for worksite 

performance issues. 
 17 

III. THE SYEI CONTEXT AND ORGANIZATION 

The previous chapter presented the national picture for the SYEI; this chapter begins the focus 

on the 20 selected sites through information collected during in-depth site visits. Similar to local 

workforce investment areas across the country, the selected study sites brought their particular 

characteristics and past experiences to bear in developing their Recovery Act SYEIs. Reflecting the 

study’s selection criteria, the sites represented all regions of the country as well as different service 

delivery models. For example, local areas’ Workforce Investment Boards (LWIBs) could choose to 

deliver SYEI services directly to youth or contract out the services to youth providers. In part, these 

decisions reflected areas’ existing organizational structures for the WIA youth program. 

Before turning to key aspects of the sites’ SYEIs, this chapter provides the background for the 

selected study areas. Section A presents a few select characteristics, such as the population size and 

economic situations, of the selected sites. Section B discusses the planning phase, including when 

the initiatives were designed and by whom, the influence of sites’ previous experiences on program 

design, and the challenges the sites faced. Finally, Section C presents four models of how the SYEI 

was organized across the sites and how sites worked with providers and staffed the initiative. 

A. Characteristics of Selected Local Areas 

Reflecting the evaluation’s site selection criteria, the study’s local sites were diverse on several 

dimensions. In addition to representing each ETA region, the sites encompassed populations of 

different types and sizes. As Table III.1 indicates, more than half of the sites encompassed a city, 

although most of these also provided services to youth in neighboring counties. Respondents in 

sites with a city and surrounding counties often reported that the counties had very different 

characteristics from their major central city. For example, the Central New Mexico workforce 

investment area includes the city of Albuquerque but also three rural counties. These differences 

could have implications for the worksites that are available and accessible to youth. A majority of 

sites had area-wide populations of less than 750,000. 

Key Findings: Context and Organization of Study Sites 

• Planning for the SYEI was challenging given the short-time frame. Sites dealt with this 

challenge by leveraging existing relationships and ensuring open communication with new 

implementation partners. 

• The LWIB or its administrative agent led the planning efforts. Youth Councils provided the 

most input into local sites’ plans; youth providers and employers were rarely involved. 

• SYEI providers included a mix of new and experienced WIA youth providers. Three sites 

chose to administer the program solely through the LWIB or its administrative agent. The remaining 

17 sites contracted SYEI services to local providers, including 9 that contracted with at least some 

providers that were new to WIA. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

18 

Table III.1 Selected Characteristics of Study Sites 

Characteristic Number of Sites 

Type of Area 

City 3 

City and surrounding county(counties) 8 

Suburban towns / communities 3 

Rural counties / communities 6 

Population of Area (estimate) 

Less than 500,000 8 

500,000-749,999 3 

750,000-999,999 5 

1,000,000 or more 4 

Source: The primary source of data for “area type” is local respondents. “Population size” data are from the U.S. 

Census Bureau 2009. 

Note: N = 20 sites. 

All of the sites reported experiencing the effects of the current recession. Most sites described 

large businesses failing and the resultant toll on the community. However, respondents in about a 

third of the sites reported that the consequences for their areas were not as severe as elsewhere 

either because a diverse economy helped them weather the current downturn or because the local 

economy was already suffering when the recession started. While respondents in almost half of sites 

reported local unemployment rates of 8 to 10 percent, about a third reported unemployment rates of 

over 10 percent. By comparison, the national unemployment rate reached 9.4 and 9.7 percent in 

July and August 2009, respectively.8

Echoing recent research on the effects of the recession on youth employment (Center for 

Labor Market Studies 2009), respondents in over half the sites volunteered that youth employment 

opportunities had become more limited due to the recession. In particular, the jobs that would 

traditionally be offered to youth were being offered to underemployed or unemployed adults. 

Employers were not willing to hire inexperienced youth when experienced adult workers were also 

looking for work. 

B. Planning for Recovery Act SYEIs 

Following enactment of the Recovery Act in February 2009, sites began an intensive planning 

period. They had only a few months to gear up to provide work experiences to many more youth 

than had been served in recent summers. The short planning time and federal guidance affected 

sites’ goals for the summer initiative, their plans to scale up existing programs or to create new ones, 

and the level of involvement of stakeholders. 

 8 The study used respondents’ reports on their sites’ area types and unemployment rates because many of the local 

workforce investment areas do not directly correspond to census areas for which systemically collected information is 

available. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

19 

Table III.2 Study Sites’ Plans for their Recovery Act Youth Allocations 

Characteristic Number of Sites 

Number of Youth Planned to Serve 

Fewer than 250 3 

250-499 6 

500-999 5 

1,000-2,499 3 

2,500 or more 3 

Proportion of Allocation Planned to be Spent on SYEI 

Less than 75 4 

75-89 4 

90-99 4 

100 8 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: N = 20 sites. 

1. Goals for the Summer of 2009 

The goals of the 20 selected sites for their Recovery Act–funded SYEI tended to mirror the 

goals set in the congressional explanatory statement and ETA’s guidance for the use of the funds. 

First, the pressure on sites to spend their allocations in the summer of 2009 was linked to the 

number of youth they targeted to serve. Several sites reported that they did not know their 

allocation until late spring. However, prior to learning their allocations, sites projected how many 

youth they could serve, given the basic parameters of their summer youth initiatives, such as length 

of summer work experience and average wages. The 20 selected sites planned to enroll a total of 

22,600 youth, with the smallest targeted enrollment of 120 and the largest of 5,550. Nine areas 

planned to serve fewer than 500 participants, while six planned to serve more than 1,000 (see Table 

III.2). According to estimates obtained during site visits, the sites were well on their way to reaching 

their goals by July and August 2009. All 11 sites with actual enrollment statistics at the time of the 

site visits had surpassed their enrollment targets. 

Second, as discussed in Chapter II, states and local areas nationwide responded to the federal 

guidance by spending a majority of their allocation by November 2009. Study sites’ commitment to 

spending a majority of their Recovery Act youth allocation in the summer of 2009 is shown in Table 

III.2. Indeed, they were initially selected, in part based on their plans to spend at least 50 percent of 

their allocation during that summer. In addition to complying with federal guidance, administrators 

were intent on helping their local youth, families, and economy by injecting Recovery Act funds into 

their communities. For these reasons, 12 sites indicated that they planned to spend 90 percent or 

more of their youth allocation in the summer of 2009. 

Administrators’ other goals for their SYEIs also drew on the federal guidance they received. 

One goal mentioned by administrators in 11 sites was to provide the youth with a meaningful 

summer work experience in which they could either explore career interests or become able to put 

actual work experience on their résumés or both (see Table III.3). An administrator in one of these 

11 sites stated that one of the site’s major goals was to provide youth with a “life-changing 

opportunity.” Similarly, in citing goals for their SYEIs, site administrators acknowledged the 

Recovery Act’s one required indicator, achieving work readiness. WIA administrators in 7 sites 
Mathematica Policy Research 

20 

Table III.3. SYEI Goals Cited by Site Administrators 

Goal Number of Sites 

Serve as many youth as possible 12 

Spend Recovery Act money quickly 12 

Provide a meaningful summer work experience 11 

Improve participants’ work readiness 7 

Transition older youth to additional opportunities 7 

Involve private employers 3 

Provide employers with positive experiences 2 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Notes: N= 20 sites. 

In each site, several administrators responded to an open-ended question about their goals for the SYEI, 

and each administrator often cited multiple goals. The analysis categorized these responses into the 

seven different goals identified in the table and, if any administrator in a site mentioned the goal, the site 

was counted as having that goal. 

identified improving participants’ work readiness skills through training or work experience as an 

important goal or emphasis. Other goals mentioned by administrators in a smaller number of sites 

included involving the private sector in work experience opportunities, transitioning older youth into 

permanent work or other meaningful activities after the summer, and providing employers with 

positive experiences with the area’s youth. 

2. Previous Summer Experiences 

To plan their SYEIs, the sites drew on their experiences providing summer work opportunities 

through recent programs funded by regular WIA formula funds and other resources, as well as 

programs under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). As discussed in Chapter 1, until the 

summer of 2000, when WIA was implemented across the country, JTPA had funded a stand-alone 

summer youth employment and training program. Under WIA, summer work experiences became 

one of the 10 components that local areas were required to make available as part of youth 

programs. Administrators in 17 study sites reported that their local area continued to provide 

summer work experiences to youth using WIA formula funds after the transition from JTPA. These 

experiences were not generally offered as part of a separate program, but were opportunities 

extended to youth served through the regular WIA program. By and large, these programs were 

small. Although data were not available from all sites, 11 of the 17 sites with data reported an 

average of 184 youth served in summer work experiences through WIA-formula funds. 

Summer work opportunities were also available to youth in the study areas from other sources. 

At least 9 communities had programs that placed more than 200 youth in summer jobs using funds 

from state or local government or private sources. In about half of these communities, the same 

agency that led implementation of the Recovery Act SYEI was involved in these programs. In the 

remaining communities, a different entity, such as a separate city agency, had responsibility for the 

summer initiative. For example, Los Angeles and Seattle both offered sizable programs to help 

youth find jobs (see Box III.1). Respondents in other communities mentioned other smaller 

programs, most often offered by local providers. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

21 

 

Most sites with existing programs took the opportunity provided by the Recovery Act to 

expand those programs. For example, the 11 sites that reported serving an average of 184 WIAfunded youth in prior summers planned to provide summer work experiences to an average of 1,033 

participants in the summer of 2009 with their Recovery Act youth allocations alone. About half of 

these 11 sites also continued to fund the summer work experiences for youth enrolled in the regular 

WIA program using WIA formula funds. This included one site that continued to provide jobs to 

about 250 youth enrolled in the regular WIA youth program services and planned to offer work 

experiences to 850 additional youth through the Recovery Act. In other sites, administrators 

reported that the Recovery Act paid for all summer work experiences, as WIA-formula funds were 

reserved for providing other services to youth enrolled in regular comprehensive services. For 

example, administrators in one site reported that they shifted the WIA-formula funds to hire staff to 

implement the SYEI. 

In addition to increasing the number of youth served by existing summer youth programs, sites 

took the opportunity provided by Recovery Act funding to modify existing programs. For many 

sites, program changes were modest. For example, one site added a pre-apprenticeship program 

that it could not afford previously (discussed in more detail in Chapter VII), and another offered 

office-based experiences in addition to the conservation-related experiences that had been part of 

the program in previous summers. Another site reported offering the same basic opportunities as in 

previous summers but stated that Recovery Act funding allowed it to increase the number of weeks 

that youth could participate and to add academic courses to the curriculum. Four sites changed their 

employer focus: one site focused more on opportunities for youth in high-demand industries and 

three sites focused more on private, for-profit employers than they had before. 

Two sites took unique approaches to developing their SYEIs in light of their own past 

experiences. One site used the Recovery Act funds to invigorate its summer program and 

encouraged providers responding to a request for proposals to be innovative. As a result, youth in 

this site had the opportunity to participate in diverse activities such as indoor and outdoor 

maintenance work, high-tech digital arts, and entrepreneurship. Administrators in the second site 

decided to leverage the existing city-funded summer program instead of scaling up the WIAformula funded summer program (see Box III.2). As a result, the joint program funded through the 

city and the Recovery Act was able to fund approximately 3,300 youth, extend the weeks of a 

youth’s experience from 6 to 10, and extend eligibility to counties beyond the city limit. 

Box III.1: Summer Youth Programs with Non-WIA Funding Sources 

Los Angeles, CA. The Summer Youth Employment Program, which is one component of a city initiative 

called HIRE LA to help youth find jobs, had historically received city and county funding. The program 

was run by the city’s WIA administrative agency and placed 10,000 youth in subsidized and unsubsidized 

employment in the summer of 2008. The mayor began the initiative in 2005 to combat high rates of youth 

unemployment in the city. 

Seattle, WA. For at least 12 years prior to passage of the Recovery Act, the city of Seattle, a 2009 SYEI 

contractor, funded a summer youth program that provided approximately 300 jobs each year. The program 

was targeted to in-school youth, and focused more on academics than on employment, including dropout 

prevention and preparing youth for entering college to gain job-related skills.
Mathematica Policy Research 

22 

Box III.2: The Memphis Summer Youth Program 

Prior to the Recovery Act summer youth program, the LWIB fiscal agency and the city of Memphis had 

separate summer youth programs. The LWIB provided a four- to six-week summer work experience to 

about 250 regular WIA youth participants. The city summer youth program, begun in 1993, annually 

served 500 to 600 youth who were selected by lottery. In the city program, following an orientation, older 

youth received a work placement while younger youth were placed in a school-based program. 

The LWIB and city joined together to administer the 2009 SYEI using a combination of city and 

Recovery Act funds. The city took responsibility for the younger youth in the school-based experiences 

and the LWIB for the older youth in work experiences. However, the LWIB funded both older and 

younger youth meeting the WIA eligibility requirements, while the city funded youth who were not eligible 

for WIA. As a result of this joint effort, about 2,700 youth were supported through Recovery Act funds 

and 600 through the city funds. 

3. Planning for the SYEI 

The SYEI planning process started for a majority of sites as they witnessed passage of the 

Recovery Act in February 2009. More than half the sites reported that they began planning in 

February or March, shortly after the bill was signed into law. Several other sites started planning 

even earlier, either in response to the expectation of a federally funded program or because they 

intended to revamp an existing program. One site reported starting planning as late as April. 

Generally, the LWIB or its designated administrative agency (hereafter referred to as the “lead 

agency”) led the planning process with help from other stakeholders.9

 Administrators in all sites but 

one said the Youth Council had some role in the Recovery Act–funded SYEI. In more than half 

these sites, the Youth Council’s role was largely advisory. For example, administrators in one site 

described the role of the Youth Council as providing some feedback and advice as the WIA 

administrative agency moved forward with its plans. In other sites, the Youth Council had a larger 

role. Administrators in these sites reported that their Youth Council was involved in the process of 

procuring contractors for the SYEI by reviewing proposals and recommending which providers 

should be awarded contracts. For example, the lead agency in one site worked directly with the 

Youth Council to procure youth providers for the SYEI. A subcommittee of the council reviewed 

and commented on a request for proposals developed by the lead agency. The subcommittee also 

reviewed and ranked all proposals before presenting the top proposals to the full council for 

approval. 

The SYEI timeline did not appear to provide much opportunity for states to provide additional 

guidance to local areas. Although sites mentioned taking part in conference calls and webinars with 

state officials, only five reported that their state required or strongly recommended any specific 

program components. One reason for the lack of state input, as mentioned by one administrator, 

was that the lead agency had to move quickly in order to implement the initiative and could not wait 

to receive formal guidance from the state. 

 9 Within a local area, the Workforce Investment Board (WIB) can hire professional staff and be the administrative 

and fiscal agent for WIA funds. Alternatively, the LWIB can designate one or more contractors to operate the WIA 

program. For simplicity, unless otherwise specified, the remainder of this report uses the term “lead agency” to refer to 

either the LWIB or the administrative agency operating the SYEI. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

23 

Youth providers tended to have a minor role in planning the SYEI, if they played any role at all. 

Youth providers had an early role or say in the design of the SYEI in only five sites, according to 

administrators and provider staff. Three of these sites were those with one main provider, and the 

LWIB appeared to rely on that provider for its expertise. In the other two sites, the providers’ role 

was smaller, giving the lead agency feedback on its plans through provider focus groups. 

Employers were also not an integral part of the planning process. In eight sites, respondents 

mentioned that employers were involved only in their capacity as LWIB or Youth Council members. 

Administrators in two other sites reported that they did a quick survey of employers to learn about 

job availability before the summer began. Respondents in other sites did not report any employer 

involvement during the planning phase. 

4. Planning Challenges 

Administrators identified two key planning challenges. The first involved the pressures of 

planning a sizable initiative in only a few months. More than half the sites mentioned that the tight 

time line affected the initiative’s design phase and its implementation. However, all sites did 

successfully implement the SYEI. Administrators in one site said that they were still able to 

implement the initiative because they enjoyed a positive relationship with the existing provider of 

youth programs. Respondents in another reported that the short time frame prevented them from 

developing as strong a classroom training component as they would have liked, and those in a third 

did not involve the Youth Council as fully as they would have done had more time been available. 

A second challenge affecting initiative design was gaps in information. About one-third of sites 

reported that they lacked information needed to effectively design their initiatives. Of these sites, 

four mentioned that they did not know how much money they would receive until after planning 

had begun, with one receiving substantially less than expected and another receiving twice the 

expected amount. Another three sites reported being unclear during the planning phase about the 

requirements for identifying providers through a competitive procurement process and how the 

funds were to be used. 

C. The Organization of the Recovery Act SYEI 

Although most sites had some experience providing summer work experiences to youth, they 

still needed to determine how to organize the much larger summer 2009 initiative. Their decisions 

largely followed their existing structure for providing services to regular WIA youth. However, even 

though ETA’s guidance permitted states and local areas to apply for waivers to dispense with normal 

competitive bidding processes, many local areas chose to hold open competitions, often engaging 

organizations that were new to the workforce investment system. All sites also hired new temporary 

staff to scale-up implementation of their initiative. 

1. Organizational Models 

Local sites had flexibility in organizing their SYEIs. Administrators of the lead agency could 

decide to directly provide all or most services to youth or to contract with one or more providers to 

deliver the services. Based on these decisions, the 20 study sites fell into one of four organizational 

models in which the lead agency: (1) provided direct services with no contractors, (2) provided some 

direct services and used contractors to deliver specific services, (3) contracted with a single provider 

to deliver services, and (4) contracted with multiple providers (see Figure III.1). 
Mathematica Policy Research 

24 

Figure III.1 Study Sites’ Organizational Models 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: N= 20 sites. 

Each of the four models is described in the following list: 

1. No contractors. The lead agency in three areas did not contract with providers, opting 

instead to deliver the services directly. For all three sites, this is the same model used 

for their regular WIA youth program. 

2. Specialized contractors. The lead agency in two sites delivered most services directly 

but contracted with providers for specific functions. In one site, three providers ran 

two-week health and manufacturing academies to a subset of participants before those 

youth were placed at their worksites. The lead agency, however, was responsible for 

placing the participants at the worksites and monitoring their work there. In the second 

site, five outside providers offered a one week 15-hour work readiness training to 

participants while the lead agency directly provided all other services. 

3. One contractor. Four areas elected to contract with one provider to administer the 

SYEI. In all of these sites, this contractor was also the main contractor for the 

provision of regular WIA youth services. One of these contractors used subcontractors 

to administer a subset of services. 

4. Multiple contractors. More than half the sites (11 out of 20) contracted with multiple 

providers to deliver most SYEI-related services. The number of providers ranged from 

2 to 23, with an average of 11. Box III.3 describes two sites with multiple contractors. 

The 17 sites that contracted out some services used an average of eight contractors. Nine sites 

had six or more contractors (Table III.4). There did not appear to be a direct relationship between 

the planned number of SYEI participants and the number of contractors. Of the three largest sites, 

one had 15 contractors, another had 9 contractors, and the third provided services directly. 

3

2

4

11

No contractors

Specialized contractors

One contractor

Multiple contractors
Mathematica Policy Research 

25 

Box III.3: Sites with Multiple Providers 

Minneapolis, MN. Minneapolis Employment and Training Program (METP) is the fiscal and 

administrative entity for the Minneapolis LWIB, known as the Minneapolis Workforce Council. Through an 

open procurement process, METP contracted with 11 nonprofit organizations to provide SYEI services. All 

providers were on METP’s preexisting master contract list and had executed METP contracts in the past. 

Some had served as regular WIA youth providers; others had contracted with METP to provide other youth 

or adult services. All providers had implemented similar programs in the past and knew what to expect 

during the summer. In addition, they all had existing networks of youth and employers. The providers had 

sole responsibility for recruiting youth and worksites. Each of these 11 providers focused on recruiting 

youth and employers from a certain neighborhood or section of the city in order to maintain METP’s 

commitment to community-based service delivery. Two of the providers were contracted to provide 

services to Somali and Hmong youth. 

Portland, OR. Worksystems, Inc. (WSI), is the operating agency for the Portland LWIB. Under an ETA 

procurement waiver for the Recovery Act SYEI, WSI contracted with the 12 providers that had been 

operating their regular WIA youth program. Many of these local providers were alternative high schools or 

organizations with GED programs, and all but one offered comprehensive education components as part of 

their SYEI. Though WSI gave overall guidance about the program, local providers had relative autonomy in 

terms of program design. Providers were largely responsible for youth and worksite recruitment, although 

WSI did conduct some site-wide recruitment activities. 

Table III.4 Number of Contractors 

Number of Sites 

Number of Contractors 

0 3 

1 - 5 8 

6 - 10 3 

11 - 23 6 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: N= 20 sites. 

2. Identification of Summer Providers 

Acknowledging the pressures on local areas to implement a summer initiative in a few short 

months, ETA encouraged states and local areas to explore emergency procurement processes or to 

apply for a waiver allowing local areas to extend existing contracts or to hold a competition with a 

limited number of providers (U.S. Department of Labor 2009d). Alternatively, local areas could 

move ahead with a competitive selection process or directly provide services, as did the three sites 

that followed the first model described previously. 

Almost half of the study sites completed a competitive request for proposal (RFP) process to 

identify providers for the SYEI (see Table III.5). Of these nine sites, three held a competition for 

SYEI providers even though their states applied for a procurement waiver. An administrator in one 

of these sites explained that they moved forward with the RFP out of concern that they would not 
Mathematica Policy Research 

26 

Table III.5 Sites’ Processes for Identifying Summer Providers 

Process Number of Sites 

Competitive procurement process 9 

Waiver 5 

Extended contracts with existing provider(s) 3 

None (provides services directly) 3 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: N= 20 sites. 

hear in time to conduct the process if the waiver was denied. In the end, this site awarded the 

contract to its regular WIA youth contractor, which was the only provider that submitted an 

application. From discussions during site visits, it appears that the other two sites went ahead with a 

procurement process because they were not certain of the federal requirements for procuring 

providers for the SYEI. 

Sites that conducted a procurement competition often completed the process shortly before the 

summer months, leaving little time for selected providers to start their initiatives. Seven of the nine 

released their RFPs between March 13 and April 15, and one released its RFP in May. Most awards 

were made in May. However, in at least one site, a contractor reported not receiving the signed 

contract until July 14. The ninth site released its RFP in October 2008 in anticipation of its regular 

summer youth program. Because of delays in approval of its annual WIA plan, however, contracts 

at this site were not awarded until the beginning of July 2009. 

About half the sites that used a competitive procurement effort reported that the RFPs 

generated a lot of interest among local organizations. For example, in Rhode Island, 200 

organizations attended a bidders’ conference jointly run by the state’s two LWIBs. According to 

administrators, the Greater Rhode Island LWIB received 18 high-quality RFPs and funded them all. 

Two sites were able to fund less than half of the submitted proposals. In Lehigh Valley, 130 

organizations attended the bidders’ conference, and 15 of 70 applications were funded. 

Administrators reported that the response was “unprecedented.” Minneapolis funded 11 of 36 

applications. The other half of sites with procurement processes had fewer than 10 applicants and 

funded all or most of them. 

Sites that exercised a waiver in place of issuing RFPs stated that they had recently held a 

competition or knew that there were no providers other than those with which they had active 

contracts. For example, one site had just completed the competition for its five-year procurement 

cycle in 2008. An administrator of the LWIB administrative agency in another site reported that, 

through the two-year procurement cycle, the agency had developed a strong set of youth providers 

that were knowledgeable about the WIA program. To allow other organizations the opportunity to 

compete for an SYEI contract, the administration said the RFP process would have had to begin in 

January to allow sufficient time for new providers to prepare a credible bid. 

Administrators in three remaining sites neither exercised a waiver nor used a competitive 

procurement process. Administrators in these sites reported that they had recently held a 
Mathematica Policy Research 

27 

competitive procurement process or that their service areas did not have viable providers other than 

those with which they already contracted.10 All three of these sites were in largely rural areas. 

3. Characteristics of Summer Providers 

The 17 study sites with at least one contractor engaged a total of 130 providers. Eight of these 

sites continued to contract exclusively with their regular providers of WIA youth programs. Not 

surprisingly, these sites included seven that exercised a waiver or claimed they did not need one. 

Also among these eight sites was the site described above that conducted an RFP process for a 

subset of services but contracted with its main WIA youth provider for the bulk of SYEI services. 

Contracted providers in these eight sites accounted for 31 percent of the total of 130 providers. 

The remaining nine sites contracted with a combination of existing WIA providers and some 

new to the WIA system.11 For example, the Pittsburgh site funded 12 organizations that had 

provided WIA services before and 5 that were new to WIA. In Denver, two of the three providers 

had previous contracts for regular WIA youth programming; the third was a new contractor. Eight 

of the 15 providers in Los Angeles were also regular WIA youth providers, but all 15 had experience 

contracting with the city. 

Providers across the sites included nonprofit organizations, schools and school districts, and 

government agencies. Five sites had contracts only with nonprofit organizations, such as 

community action agencies, and one only contracted with government agencies. The other 11 sites 

contracted with a combination of providers. For example, the 14 providers used by one site 

included a government agency, a hospital, a community college, three technical schools, five 

community-based organizations, a union, and two public school systems. 

4. Relationships Between Lead Agencies and Providers 

Regardless of the site’s organization model, the LWIB or its administrative agency supervised 

the SYEI. From discussions with site administrators, it appeared that the LWIB in seven sites was 

active in the ongoing administration of the SYEIs. In five of these sites, the LWIB was the 

administrative agency for the WIA program and directly provided services or supervised the SYEI 

providers; in the other two, the LWIB set policies for the administrative agency to carry out. In the 

remaining 13 sites, the administrative agency appeared to be the driving force of the SYEI, although 

recommendations and advice were provided by the LWIB and Youth Council. 

Typically, the relationship between the lead agency and the providers was smooth. As described 

above, many of the sites had existing relationships with all or some of their contractors prior to 

creation of the SYEI. In addition, most areas employed a youth services coordinator (or a staff 

member in an equivalent position) who was in regular contact with providers to discuss the ongoing 

operations of the SYEI and address any issues that arose. Respondents in four sites reported that a 

 10 Although administrators in these study sites stated that they had not exercised a waiver, two of the three sites 

were located in states that had been granted procurement waivers. 

11 These included one site that exercised a waiver. In this site, the WIA administrative agency operated the summer 

youth program and also contracted with three providers—one of which was new to the WIA procurement system—to 

run two-week academies. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

28 

key to their success was strong collaboration between the lead agency and providers and between 

the providers themselves. In one of these areas, the youth services coordinator called each provider 

weekly for updates and met monthly with providers to discuss their progress. The coordinator 

reported that these regular interactions were invaluable. 

In three sites, however, at least one provider felt that more collaboration would have improved 

the initiative. Providers in two of these sites reported that they had never met before the site visit’s 

provider focus group and had missed opportunities to benefit from each other’s experiences. As a 

result, problems were not uncovered and handled promptly or consistently for all providers. In the 

third site, one provider felt that better communications would improve the quality and consistency 

of service provision in the future. 

5. Summer Staffing Arrangements 

The increased scope of the 2009 SYEI, compared with past summer programs, required 

organizations in every study site to hire temporary staff. This included as few as a single hire in one 

area to as many as 63 in another. In the former site, the administrative agency hired the summer 

youth program coordinator to oversee day-to-day operations and manage the lead agency’s 

relationship with the providers. The site’s local providers did not hire temporary staff but borrowed 

staff members from other programs. In the latter site, the administrative agency hired one 

temporary staff person to oversee the SYEI and the local providers hired 62 temporary staff, 

including clerical staff and worksite supervisors and monitors. 

Two types of individuals were commonly hired as temporary SYEI staff. At least four sites 

hired teachers or school district staff to work during their summer recess. One of these sites hired 

staff that were laid off from the Head Start program for the summer. Another common source of 

temporary staff was college students or recent graduates. Seven sites mentioned recruiting these 

individuals, in part as an extension of their mission to provide work experiences to young entrants 

into the workforce. Only one site reported targeting dislocated workers for the temporary SYEI 

positions. 

Sites hired temporary staff to fill a variety of roles, including oversight and clerical positions. 

Nine sites hired temporary staff to be involved in the worksite experiences by working as monitors, 

job coaches, or crew leaders. A different set of nine sites also recruited temporary staff to assist in 

the upfront tasks of the SYEI, including assisting with youth recruitment, intake, assessment, and 

orientation. Additional information about staff roles in upfront and work experience tasks can be 

found in Chapters IV and VII, respectively. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

29 

IV. YOUTH RECRUITMENT AND INTAKE ACTIVITIES 

An expanded SYEI required sites to quickly scale up their youth recruitment and intake 

activities. With only a few months of preparation, sites had to recruit the youth and determine the 

eligibility of each youth under WIA rules and regulations. They also had to reach out to key 

populations they had targeted for services as well as those identified in the ETA guidance. To 

ensure that these populations were served, they had to establish procedures for providing priority to 

members of these groups. 

This chapter discusses how the study sites approached these tasks, the challenges they faced, 

and the characteristics of participants they recruited. Section A describes the flow of youth into the 

SYEI, from first finding out about the initiative to the point of being enrolled. Section B describes 

how sites recruited youth for the SYEI, and Section C describes how they determined youth’s 

eligibility. Section D discusses some of the barriers youth in the study sites faced and their reasons 

for participating in the SYEI. Post-enrollment activities are discussed in Chapters V and VII. 

A. The Flow of Youth into the SYEI 

The entry of youth into the SYEI followed a similar pattern across the sites. Although no two 

sites implemented the exact same intake process, the processes shared many common elements. 

The types and number of local staff members that the prospective participant could meet along the 

way, however, varied with the site’s organizational structure. For example, a prospective participant 

for a SYEI run by the LWIB or its administrative agency might only be able to apply for the 

initiative through one central access point. By contrast, an applicant for a SYEI contracted out to 

many local providers might apply through the lead agency or directly through a local provider. 

Figure IV.1 depicts the flow of youth into the SYEI. The process began when a youth became 

aware of the SYEI and expressed interest in participating. In many cases, the youth’s name and 

contact information were shared with a participating agency by a referring party such as a school 

counselor or case worker. At this point, an intake staff member at the lead agency or a local 

provider might prescreen the youth to determine his or her eligibility for the initiative based on 

Key Findings: Youth Recruitment and Intake Activities 

• Except for some targeted populations, sites successfully recruited youth. Staff used media 

campaigns and targeted recruitment with help from local organizations to successfully reach large 

numbers of eligible youth. However, some target populations, such as veterans and older youth, 

were difficult to recruit. 

• Nearly all sites found it difficult to process large volumes of applicants. Strategies to deal 

with the number of applicants and the paperwork included hiring temporary staff, prescreening 

youth, and linking with partners to streamline eligibility determination. 

• SYEI participants expressed a need for financial support and work experiences. Youth 

expressed appreciation for the SYEI, given their employment barriers and the tight labor market. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

30 

Figure IV.1 Possible Routes of Entry into the SYEIa

initial information, such as income and barriers to employment. If the youth passed this 

prescreening, then his or her application and required documents were reviewed more closely as a 

formal application. 

Formal applications were processed either by a provider or non-provider agency. As discussed 

in Chapter III, the LWIB or its administrative agency served as the main provider in 5 of the 20 

sites. The remaining 15 sites contracted with local organizations to serve as providers. These 

provider agencies often conducted intake directly. Those youth determined eligible were either 

enrolled or placed on a waiting list. 

In cases in which the lead agency contracted out administration of the initiative to local 

providers, the lead agency (a non-provider) might also receive and process applications. These 
Mathematica Policy Research 

31 

agencies would either refer eligible youth to a provider for enrollment or place that youth on a 

waiting list. 

B. Recruitment of Eligible Youth 

All study sites focused largely on youth recruitment during the early months of the initiative. 

Indeed, almost three-quarters of sites began recruitment by April. As discussed in Chapter III, 

regardless of whether sites already had administered a summer program, they had to recruit many 

more youth to fill the increased number of slots made available by the funding through the Recovery 

Act. Hence, they needed to start early. Local staff used multiple strategies to reach out to eligible 

youth, including particular target groups. Although these efforts were largely successful, sites found 

the time line and recruitment of particular populations to be challenging. 

1. Targeted Youth Populations 

Youth eligibility for SYEI generally followed the eligibility requirements for regular WIA youth 

programs. Eligible youth had to have low household incomes and demonstrate at least one of six

barriers to employment. The six barriers included being (1) a school dropout, (2) deficient in basic 

literacy, (3) a homeless, runaway, or foster child; (4) a parenting or pregnant teen; (5) an offender; 

and (6) one who needs help completing an education program or securing and maintain 

employment. Sites had flexibility to define the sixth barrier to meet the needs of youth in their 

communities. In addition, 30 percent of regular WIA and Recovery Act youth funds was to be 

spent on out-of-school youth and both gave priority to eligible veterans and their spouses. 

However, the Recovery Act expanded eligibility from past WIA definitions of youth (ages 14-21) to 

allow the SYEI to serve young adults ages 22 to 24.

Within these eligibility parameters, local areas had flexibility to identify priority youth 

populations. In over half the sites, LWIBs, Youth Councils, or fiscal agents were involved in 

selecting key target populations. States were only cited as providing guidance by a quarter of sites. 

In addition, local providers often had some flexibility in determining which youth to target. In a few 

cases, the selection of specific providers helped the site target key populations. For example, 

providers in at least two sites were selected because of their history serving particular high-need 

populations, such as foster children or out-of-school youth. 

Specific target populations were defined by youth’s demographics, age, and socioeconomic 

characteristics. Sites did not limit their enrollment to the populations they targeted, but they did 

make special efforts to increase the participation of those populations. Table IV.1 lists populations 

that sites or providers mentioned as targeted groups. 

About a quarter of sites also limited their recruitment and enrollment to certain age groups. 

Three sites excluded the youngest youth—those between 14 and 15 years old. Two of these sites 

had already moved away from serving the youngest youth in their regular WIA program. Another 

site chose not to serve youth older than 21 years of age. A fourth site excluded both 14–15 year olds 

and those older than 21 years of age. One administrator at this site reported that the site did not 

want to serve older youth who would normally receive services through the WIA adult program. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

32 

Table IV.1 Target Populations Identified by Sites 

Abused children 

Children of incarcerated parents 

Children of veterans 

Gang-affiliated youth 

Indians/Native Americans 

Latinos 

Migrant and refugee 

Persons with an individualized education program (IEP) or a disability 

Sex workers 

Specific age groups (e.g., 14-18 years, 16-21 years) 

Substance abusers 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients 

Veterans and their spouses 

Youth running out of unemployment insurance (UI) 

Youth with limited English proficiency (LEP) 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: Populations are listed alphabetically and not in order of prevalence. 

Defining the sixth eligibility barrier was another strategy for identifying the types of youth that 

would be targeted for the SYEI. A majority of sites defined this barrier to include more than one 

category of youth, ranging from very specific descriptions to more broad categories. Common 

interpretations of the sixth barrier included youth with a disability, those behind grade level in 

school, or those with a lack of work history or skills (see Table IV.2). 

Table IV.2 Sites’ Interpretations of the Sixth Barrier to Employment or Education 

Barrier Number of Sites 

Youth with a disability or IEP through the public school system 11 

Behind one or more grade levels 7 

Lack of work history/work maturity 7 

Limited English proficiency 6 

Failed high school graduation exam 4 

Receiving public assistance 3 

History of substance abuse 3 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: N = 20 sites. 

2. Youth Recruitment Efforts 

Outreach methods were diverse and relied on multiple organizations to reach targeted youth. 

Provider and agency staff recruited youth through formal advertising as well as by partnering with 

organizations such as the workforce investment system, other governmental agencies, and 
Mathematica Policy Research 

33 

community-based organizations. Initial outreach activities were apparently successful in generating a 

critical volume of interest given that 15 of the 20 sites reported that word-of-mouth became a 

significant source of referrals over time. Box IV.1 provides examples of specific recruitment 

strategies. 

Responsibility for youth outreach depended on whether the initiative was contracted out to 

providers or administered through the lead agency. Of the 15 sites in our sample that contracted 

out operation of the program to providers, 6 sites mentioned that both the providers and the lead 

agency shared responsibility for reaching out to youth. In another seven of these sites, providers 

were solely responsible for recruiting youth, sometimes with help from city officials in developing 

media campaigns. The remaining two sites contracted with local organizations that had a sufficient 

volume of existing youth clients to fill Recovery Act slots. The lead agency was solely responsible 

for recruiting youth only in the five sites that had no major providers directly serving youth. 

Three distinct approaches to outreach emerged across the sites. First, a total of 14 sites 

mounted publicity campaigns. These sites used the media to reach out to the public. Specific 

strategies included placing advertisements on local television and radio stations and in local 

newspapers; using social networking sites; staffing booths at music events or local malls; and 

distributing fliers or conducting mailings. Six of these sites also mentioned news coverage or press 

conferences that were designed to generate general community awareness. 

Second, many sites leveraged the workforce investment system to recruit youth. As described 

in Chapter III, the lead agency for the WIA youth program was the main provider of SYEI services 

in five sites and the main contractors were also regular WIA youth providers in another eight sites. 

In other sites, a mix of new and experienced youth providers was involved. These organizational 

structures clearly gave many local SYEI recruitment staff access to youth already participating in the 

regular WIA program and to the families of potentially eligible youth. Adults who used a One-Stop 

Career Center were encouraged to tell their family and friends about the SYEI. 

Box IV.1: Innovative Strategies to Recruit Youth 

Use of mass media 

 Hazard, KY. The site designed a media blitz to cover the large geographic area they served. They 

produced six television commercials using youth volunteers and aired them during primetime programs, 

The Tonight Show, and televised coverage of the NCAA basketball tournament. The site also ran 60-

second spots on local radio stations, and posted information on the internet sites MySpace and 

YouTube. 

Lehigh Valley, PA. The LWIB designed a marketing strategy that would appeal to youth and create 

a fresh image for the program. They placed advertisements at bus stops and on buses and sponsored 

booths at local malls and popular music events. An electronic application was placed on the agency’s 

website for the first time, making it easier for net-savvy youth to apply. 

Partnerships with community organizations 

Pittsburgh, PA. Administrative staff worked with local city officials to arrange for the city’s welfare 

office to send letters to their clients notifying them about the SYEI. Letters were sent to all households 

on the welfare rosters that included youth of the eligible ages. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

34 

Finally, partners and organizations in the surrounding community were a significant source of 

potential participants in all sites. Local staff reported that promoting the initiative in schools was 

often the most effective method. Some public school districts, alternative schools, and colleges 

served directly as SYEI providers and were able to recruit from their own in-house programs. In 

areas where schools did not act as providers, lead agencies and WIA youth providers typically had 

strong relationships with K-12 and postsecondary schools. Local staff used their contacts with 

teachers, guidance and career counselors, principals, and other school officials to advertise the 

initiative. Staff also attended job fairs, set up information tables, or made presentations at schools 

and colleges to recruit youth to the initiative. For example, outreach staff at one provider set up 

information stations in schools before the second semester ended and handed out intake paperwork 

for students to complete while SYEI staff members were present. 

Sites also sought partnerships with a wide range of social service organizations that served atrisk youth. Sites that targeted juvenile offenders worked to establish partnerships and referrals 

through the juvenile justice system. For example, they contacted truant and probation officers and 

sought out judges and case workers in juvenile and family courts. Sites that targeted homeless, 

runaway, and foster care youth contacted case workers at foster care agencies and local shelters. 

Sites also contacted local government agencies such as those providing rehabilitative services and 

benefits under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Local staff from various 

sites reported distributing fliers to these agencies and requesting referrals from staff and counselors. 

Staff also contacted nongovernmental organizations that provide social services to youth to obtain 

referrals and to spread the word about the initiative to eligible youth. 

3. Hard to Reach Populations 

Sites found certain key target populations—including veterans; older youth; homeless, runaway, 

and foster youth; and youth offenders—to be the most difficult to identify and recruit. Given the 

high unemployment rate among veterans returning to the civilian workforce, ETA designated 

veterans and their eligible spouses as a priority group for the SYEI (U.S. Department of Labor 

2009c). The expansion in the maximum participant age to 24 years also increased the proportion of 

veterans who could be potentially eligible. Only one site, however, reported success enrolling a few 

veterans through its connection with the local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

Another nine sites reported a lack of success despite targeted recruitment. Staff in one of these sites 

reported reaching out to the local VA office but found that most veterans were not ready for or 

interested in employment services soon after discharge from the military. 

Older youth were also challenging to reach. Six sites reported that older youth were often no 

longer in school and, thus, difficult to locate. Another reason may be that staff administering the 

initiative did not typically serve youth aged 22 to 24 years and therefore had fewer local recruitment 

contacts for this group. One site reported that, although older youth expressed interest in the 

initiative, many did not follow through with the application process. Several sites that reported 

some success with older youth found that it was important to avoid characterizing the SYEI as a 

“youth” initiative. Many older participants had children, household responsibilities, and significant 

work experience. The message that was given to these groups was critical in affecting their 

perception of the initiative and their willingness to participate. To specifically target this population, 

one site developed a special poster and displayed copies in tattoo parlors, bars, grocery stores, 

laundry mats, temporary housing, clothing stores, garages, pool halls, and anywhere they thought 
Mathematica Policy Research 

35 

older youth would congregate. Another reported that “walking the neighborhoods” and marketing 

through television and radio spots were more likely to attract older youth. 

Smaller numbers of sites also mentioned difficulties recruiting homeless, runaway, and foster 

youth; and youth offenders. Three sites said that homeless and runaway youth were difficult to 

enroll due to lack of proper documentation to verify eligibility for services and keep engaged due to 

their mobility. Two sites mentioned difficulty recruiting youth offenders and foster youth. 

C. Youth Intake and Enrollment Process 

The early part of the summer was an active time for all sites as they rushed to implement new 

or modified eligibility determination systems, establish eligibility of recruited youth, and reach their 

target enrollment numbers. These activities often occurred at the same time that sites were training 

new employees. Sites needed to find ways to efficiently handle the intense demand for services and 

the complex eligibility process. Key strategies that emerged from site visits included prioritizing 

certain youth, maximizing staff resources, and streamlining determination of applicants’ eligibility. 

1. Enrollment Numbers and Priorities 

All but one site in our sample reported receiving applications from more eligible youth than 

they could accommodate. Sites reported that between 40 and 80 percent of applicants ultimately 

enrolled in the initiative. Among those who did not enroll, 10 to 30 percent were clearly ineligible 

because their incomes exceeded the eligibility cutoff. Another 10 to 30 percent were potentially 

eligible but did not complete all paperwork. At the time of the site visits, 10 sites stated that they 

had enrolled more youth than originally planned, and 4 additional sites were still enrolling youth.12 

The total number of enrolled youth varied tremendously across the 20 selected sites, from a low of 

80 to a high of more than 5,500. 

A majority of sites also had waiting lists of eligible youth. Sites generally enrolled a youth from 

the waiting list only when an existing participant dropped out or was removed from the initiative. 

Two sites with excess demand did not maintain waiting lists. Instead, these sites referred youth they 

could not enroll to other agencies or service providers in the area. 

In choosing youth for enrollment, almost half the sites gave priority to certain populations 

during the intake process. Nine sites prioritized populations such as homeless and foster youth, 

youth offenders, youth with disabilities, or out-of-school youth. These groups generally reflected 

the sites’ recruitment priorities. Nine other sites reported that they did not give priority to any 

groups and described their intake process as first-come, first-served. One additional site with 

multiple providers allowed those providers to set their own policies regarding priorities. The last site 

had a unique process. Eligible youth who applied before a certain date were sorted by zip code. 

Within each zip code, youth were assigned by lottery to the provider in that zip code or to a waitlist. 

After the initial lottery, youth were enrolled from the waiting list if a slot became available. 

 12 It is important to note that higher enrollment numbers could indicate more demand than anticipated or higher 

drop-off rates of youth during the program. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

36 

Even though most sites reached their target enrollment numbers, providers in four sites 

reported that the income eligibility guidelines prevented them from meeting their enrollment targets. 

One site was able to fill only 75 percent of its available slots by July due to the high number of 

applicants ineligible on the basis of income. Another three sites met overall enrollment targets but 

individual providers reported having difficulty enrolling enough youth because of the income 

eligibility guidelines. In one of these sites, the slots that could not be filled by one provider were 

reallocated to providers that had youth waiting to be served. 

2. Staffing Strategies for Youth Intake 

In anticipation of much larger caseloads than they had experienced in prior summers, site 

administrators adopted one of three staffing approaches to handle intake and eligibility 

determination. First, nine sites hired temporary staff members to help existing staff conduct upfront 

activities such as meeting with youth and parents, documenting eligibility, and completing 

paperwork and data entry. At one site, two existing staff members worked part-time on SYEI, while 

four temporary hires conducted intake activities full-time. At a second site, most eligibility staff 

members were temporary hires. 

Second, five sites hired temporary staff to conduct nonintake activities, freeing up existing 

experienced staff to focus on determining eligibility. For example, at one site, existing WIA 

specialists determined eligibility while the temporary hires handled logistics and dealt more directly 

with youth and employers during the summer. In explaining this staffing decision, administrators 

often cited the resources that would have been required to train new hires on WIA’s complex 

eligibility rules. 

Finally, six sites relied on existing WIA or other experienced staff to conduct SYEI intake. One 

site contracted with neighborhood centers that already served eligible SYEI youth to process 

paperwork and determine eligibility. Once determined eligible, the youth were assigned to a 

provider. Initiatives in the other sites relied exclusively on staff at existing WIA youth programs or 

One-Stop Career Centers to conduct intake and eligibility, calling on these workers either part- or 

full-time during the summer. 

In addition to these three basic models, three sites added a second level of eligibility 

determination for quality-control purposes. In these sites, frontline staff processed paperwork and 

conducted initial eligibility determinations. However, the final determination of a youth’s eligibility 

was done by a specialist at the lead agency who was experienced in WIA eligibility decisions. This 

approach served as a safety precaution given the high volume of applications being processed 

quickly and sometimes by inexperienced workers. 

3. The Eligibility Determination Process 

The eligibility determination process involved considerable paperwork and many types of 

documentation from youth participants and their families. As a result, sites and providers developed 

ways to facilitate the intake process. Most importantly, the initiatives sought to limit the amount of 

resources that had to be spent tracking down youth’s paperwork. They often did so by relying on 

other government agencies and school staff instead of youth and their parents. Sites also used 

prescreening to winnow the number of applicants scheduled for intake appointments. Finally, sites 

offered evening and weekend hours to accommodate the school and work schedules of youth and 

their parents. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

37 

Seven sites reported using partnerships with other social service agencies to help streamline 

eligibility determination for youth (see Box IV.2 for discussion of two examples). At least one 

provider or the lead agency in six of these sites mentioned that SYEI staff sent lists of applicants to 

state and local agencies or schools to solicit help verifying eligibility. For example, one provider sent 

a list of SYEI applicants to the local Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program office to determine 

that the families were receiving assistance, automatically verifying the youth’s income eligibility. 

Three of the six sites also mentioned working with schools to gather documentation, such as an 

IEP, which provided evidence of a disability. In the seventh site, the state welfare office provided 

SYEI staff with a list of individuals aged 14 to 24 whose families were receiving public assistance 

and might be eligible for the initiative. Staff could check an applicant against this list to verify that 

they were receiving assistance. 

Prescreening also helped streamline the process of determining eligibility. At least 11 sites 

mentioned prescreening youth by making phone calls, using a preapplication, or reviewing an 

application before scheduling the youth for an intake appointment. The pre-application gathered 

basic information without documentation, such as the youth’s date of birth, household income, 

educational background, work history, and job interests. Screening out youth likely to be ineligible 

reduced the number of youth that frontline staff would have to meet with and assess for eligibility. 

It also prevented the possibility of some youth and their families taking the time to assemble the 

necessary paperwork only to be found ineligible. 

Beyond partnerships with other public agencies, six study sites added evenings or weekend 

hours to manage the increased workload and to provide more convenient times for youth or their 

parents to meet with staff. Extended hours allowed parents of minors to complete paperwork 

during non-work hours and youth to complete paperwork after school. 

4. Intake and Enrollment Challenges 

Administrators and frontline staff reported that it was often challenging to process paperwork 

for large numbers of youth given the short period and amount of paperwork required. Local staff 

described difficulties establishing eligibility for applicants and accessing key documentation from 

parents. Thirteen sites mentioned having at least one challenge related to income determination. 

In seven sites, staff reported that the time frame was too short for the eligibility process, which 

was time-consuming and often plagued by many delays. Even if local staff were familiar with the 

WIA eligibility process, staff members were often using new forms created especially for SYEI and 

Box IV.2: Streamlining Eligibility 

Bridgeport, CT. The LWIB worked with the local Department of Children and Families (DCF) to verify 

eligibility for SYEI applicants. LWIB staff provided DCF with a list of applicants who had indicated they 

were receiving services from DCF, and DCF provided a verification letter for each youth that indicated if 

he or she was receiving cash payments. DCF case managers regularly accompanied youth to their first 

SYEI intake appointments. 

Cranston, RI. Youth center staff reached out to local schools to recruit youth and assist with documenting 

eligibility for applicants. Schools regularly had parents sign releases allowing the school to share 

information from a student’s file, and the school could copy these documents for the youth center to 

prove a student’s eligibility. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

38 

dealing with a slightly different set of requirements than those for the regular WIA program. Staff in 

these sites felt the eligibility and enrollment process involved too much documentation for an 

initiative that provided participants with only a few weeks or months of services. In at least four 

sites, youth under the age of 18 also had to obtain a work permit before being assigned to a 

worksite. 

Staff in 11 sites reported difficulty collecting documentation from youth and parents. Five of 

these 11 sites reported problems gathering financial information from parents or involving parents 

in the eligibility determination process at all. Income eligibility determination required public 

assistance documents, Social Security numbers, pay stubs, or other forms of documentation. These 

documents sometimes had to be produced for every adult member of the youth’s household. This 

requirement often made the process time consuming for both staff and the families of applicants. 

Similarly, five sites reported challenges getting youth or parents to produce documents to show 

evidence of one of the qualifying barriers. This was particularly difficult when the documentation 

had to come from a local government agency, such as a welfare or foster care agency, as those 

agencies needed time to supply the needed documents. Sites in our sample estimated that between 

10 and 30 percent of potentially eligible applicants dropped off without completing their paperwork. 

5. Youth with No Documented Barriers 

If a youth met the income requirements for the initiative, local staff members in some sites 

were likely to try to identify a qualifying barrier. Frontline staff in one site shared that youth were 

often unwilling to talk about their background or history, especially about situations that would 

normally be considered a disadvantage for a job, such as being homeless or a youth offender, but are 

eligibility criteria for the SYEI. As a result, staff would have to find other ways to identify barriers 

for those youth. 

At least six sites had some applicants take academic aptitude tests in math or English or both 

that could document a basic literacy deficiency. These tests were often the only assessment done for 

youth. In most cases, this testing was reserved for income-eligible youth with no documented 

barriers. However, one site tested all youth prior to eligibility determination in case the scores could 

be used for eligibility. The tests commonly used were the CASAS, TABE, and WRAT tests 

(Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems 2010; CTB McGraw-Hill 2010; Psychological 

Assessment Resources, Inc. 2010). More information on assessments can be found in Chapter V. 

D. Youth Characteristics 

Based on discussions with staff in 20 sites and participating youth in 19 sites, many of the youth 

served by the study sites were disadvantaged and faced multiple obstacles to employment. On top 

of their personal challenges, these youth faced a market in which jobs were scarce and youth were 

competing for jobs against older, more experienced workers. Youth appeared to greatly appreciate 

the opportunities offered by the SYEI and welcomed the help finding summer employment or other 

opportunities. 

1. Employment Barriers 

The most common barriers for youth cited by site administrators and frontline staff included 

lack of education and basic literacy skills, criminal involvement, teen pregnancy, and lack of 

transportation. These barriers were cited by staff in at least half the sites studied. Other barriers 
Mathematica Policy Research 

39 

Youth Perspectives: Reasons for Participating in the SYEI 

“I am in it for money, and also I heard they help you, they support you in all your dreams and goals, to reach your goals.” 

“Just having a job, trying to be responsible, to have my own money.” 

“It was a good way to make money over the summer, and it was just for the summer, so if we’re still going to school, it kind 

of ends and gives a little break to get ready for school.” 

“Mainly the experience. . . . Because, I mean, the money is all right, but it’s not gonna last that long . . . but if we get the 

experience and we can put that on a résumé and get a better job for more money, then that’s fine, too.” 

“I joined the program to see what’s out there, like different jobs, and seeing what I was capable of doing, and like my best 

ability.” 

“[To] find yourself. Like say if you didn’t know what you wanted to do and you come to the program and you’re like wow, 

I really like culinary arts or something, it gives you kind of a heads up of what you’re good at and what maybe you should 

do in the future.”

mentioned often but by less than half the sites included gang involvement, substance abuse, lack of 

work skills or work maturity, lack of work experience, being in foster care, and homelessness. 

Smaller numbers of sites also mentioned that youth with disabilities, youth in single parent homes, 

youth with limited English proficiency, and refugees and immigrants faced unique challenges. Most 

sites mentioned 5 or 6 different barriers, but two sites cited up to 10. 

Information gathered from focus groups with youth reinforced several of these barriers.13 

Thirty-eight percent of youth in these groups reported never holding a job for pay before 

participating in SYEI. This was the case for 15 percent of the out-of-school youth and 45 percent 

of the in-school youth. Nine percent of the youth reported experiencing mental, physical, or 

emotional health problems that limited the kind or amount of work or training they could perform. 

Youth also said that their personal histories, such as a juvenile record, elicited negative responses 

from employers, creating a major challenge to being offered a job. 

2. Youth’s Reasons for Participating 

Although focus group participants reported many reasons for enrolling in the SYEI, two 

primary reasons emerged. First, the wages earned from a summer job meant immediate cash in their 

pockets, often for the first time. The majority of youth in one-third of sites and at least several 

youth in all but one of the remaining sites mentioned that earning money was a primary motivation 

for participating. Second, many youth felt that exposure to a professional environment and 

mentoring adults could help them develop a résumé and lead them to a career.

Wages were especially important given the toll that the bad economy was taking on their 

households. Many youth reported having parents out of work or in risk of losing work and that 

summer employment was difficult to find. Youth in five sites specifically mentioned needing to earn 

money to help support family. In-school youth also reported needing to help their families pay for 

books, school supplies, and transportation when they returned to school in the fall. 

 13 It is important to remember that counts from youth focus groups are not representative of all youth within the 

site. In addition, although moderators encouraged all focus group members to participate, time limitations and group 

dynamics may have prevented some participants from expressing their views. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

40 

Youth Perspectives: Past Experiences Looking for Work 

“I’d still be looking for a job, trying to figure out a way how to get a job and get around the felonies that I’ve got, and trying 

to go crazy to find a job and not knowing what to do to get one. . . .” 

“There are older people, too, that lost their jobs and are now working at a lot of places where we used to work at. So, that’s

a big problem too.” 

“There’s very little jobs for people who don’t have high school diplomas. . . . I’m 17 and I’ve got to graduate still. So there’s 

no jobs for me. And places I’ve applied, they want experience, but I can’t have experience until they hire me, and they 

won’t hire me because I don’t. It’s a vicious cycle.” 

“A lot of the reason why I couldn’t get a job was I had a good job working with mentally disabled, taking care of them, but 

made a mistake, got a DUI, lost my job. Then because of that, it was hard for me to find jobs within my career path I 

wanted. . . .”

Focus group participants also indicated that they applied for the initiative to build their résumés, 

explore careers, obtain references, network, and help them get a better job later in life. At least one 

youth in most sites reported that they were interested in gaining experience. As mentioned above, 

the SYEI work experience was a first job for many participants and, as a result, the start of their 

résumés. Youth in at least three sites reported their interest in obtaining permanent placement. 

Beyond money and work experience, the youth mentioned other reasons for participating. One 

common reason was that it was a way to keep busy and stay out of trouble. Youth also mentioned 

the desire to develop soft skills, such as having a sense of responsibility, developing a strong work 

ethic, and learning to manage their time and money. In addition, youth mentioned that the initiative 

would help support their life goals and their desire to grow mentally and professionally. 

3. Summer Alternatives to the SYEI 

Although the study cannot know for sure what SYEI participants would have been doing 

without the initiative, it was able to collect focus group participants’ impressions about their 

alternatives. Many youth did not think they would have been working had they not participated in 

the initiative. They mentioned looking for work prior to enrolling in the SYEI but were largely 

unsuccessful. Without SYEI, those same youth may have given up looking or continued to look for 

a job throughout the summer months without ever finding one. At least one youth from most of 

the sites reported that they would not be doing anything productive during the summer in the 

absence of SYEI. Youth commonly said they would be sleeping, watching TV, or hanging out. In 

more than half the sites, youth commented that they would still be looking for work but were not 

optimistic that they would have found a job. This latter appears to be a widespread sentiment. As 

one youth commented, “That’s all everybody talks about: looking for a job.” Youth in six sites 

indicated that they would probably have been taking classes if they were not participating in the 

initiative. 

Focus group participants who thought they might have found work on their own believed these 

work experiences would have been less rewarding than the SYEI experience. Youth in eight sites 

speculated that they would have found jobs as retail cashiers, fast-food cashiers or food handlers, 

landscapers, lifeguards, babysitters, or manual laborers. Three youth reported that they would be 

working at previously held jobs, although their hours in these jobs would have been reduced and the 

work would not have been related to their career interests. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

41 

V. YOUTH PREPARATION AND SUPPORT 

Given the diverse array of youth enrolled in the SYEI, sites had to determine how to best 

prepare participants for successful participation in summer work experiences. Many participants had 

never held a job for pay and therefore did not fully understand the attitudes and skills necessary to 

succeed in the workplace. Even among those who had worked before, many had never explored 

potential career paths. As a result of these gaps of experience, sites found it important to prepare 

youth before sending them to worksites and then support them while they were on the job. 

This chapter describes the sites’ activities aimed at preparing and supporting youth in summer 

activities. Section A begins with the first activities that youth completed after they were recruited, as 

staff provided information and assessed their skills, interests, and needs. Section B turns to the 

training given to the youth to prepare them for work. Section C discusses the support services that 

initiatives provided the youth once they were placed in jobs. 

A. Initial Preparation Activities for Youth 

Although the SYEI was a new experience for most lead agencies and providers, it was also a 

new experience for many participants. Many had not previously been enrolled in WIA programs 

and had little or no work experience. As a result, staff found that they needed to prepare many 

participants for the initiative and what would be expected of them at worksites. At the same time, 

staff often felt that they had to learn more about each individual participant to help make the 

summer rewarding for all, including youth, employers, and staff. 

1. Youth Orientation Activities 

Sites commonly held an orientation for new participants at the beginning of the initiative. The 

main goals of the orientation were to introduce the participants to staff, inform them of the 

initiative’s requirements and expectations, and review a participant handbook. Half the sites met 

these goals through a stand-alone orientation, while six other sites integrated the goals into other 

activities, such as work readiness training (discussed later in this chapter). Although the practice was 

not standardized within the four remaining sites, at least one provider in each of these sites also 

reported offering a stand-alone orientation session. 

Key Findings: Youth Preparation and Support 

• In most sites, staff conducted assessments and developed an ISS for each youth. Fourteen 

sites used academic and career-related tools to identify each youth’s skills, interests, and needs. 

Across the 20 sites, a different set of 14 sites completed an ISS for each participant. 

• Although readiness training was not a federal requirement, most sites required youth to 

attend work readiness training sessions. Youth focus group participants reported this training to 

be one of the most useful aspects of the program. 

• More than three-quarters of sites offered participants transportation services and access to 

work supplies. Although providers tried to match youth to jobs in accessible locations, providers in 

17 sites found that youth often needed help getting to work. Sixteen sites also helped youth purchase 

needed works supplies, such as clothes and tools. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

42 

In the sites with stand-alone sessions, orientation was structured as either a group or one-onone activity. Sessions were typically held just before or after participants’ eligibility was determined. 

The length of orientations varied widely, ranging from 15 minutes to 4 days. 

Six sites chose not to set aside a specific time for orientation. Four of these sites indicated that 

their work readiness training served the purpose of an orientation. Two of the six sites made an 

effort to orient youth to the initiative during the intake session. 

2. Academic and Career Assessments 

Although ETA instructed sites to provide some form of assessment for all youth, some sites did 

not conduct any assessments. ETA’s guidance stated that “although some level of assessment...is 

required, a full objective assessment...as specified in the WIA regulations is not required for youth 

served only during the summer months” (U.S. Department of Labor 2009d). Administrators in 14 

sites reported that staff formally assessed youth at some point during SYEI enrollment. Six sites 

reported that they did not provide assessments to all of their participants, citing either the limited 

amount of time available to work with youth or the lack of need for formal assessments since youth 

would not be receiving any services other than work placement.

Of the 14 that conducted assessments, 12 sites assessed youth with tools that measured their 

need for services as well as their preparedness for and interest in work. These needs assessments 

included career and academic interest inventories, needs assessments, skills assessments, and goal 

planning tools. Site staff often used the results of these tests to place youth in appropriate work 

experiences or job readiness classes and to identify support services that might be needed by the 

youth or the youth’s family. 

Six of the 14 sites, including 2 of those sites that administered work- or service-related 

assessments, carried out academic assessments. Academic assessments could include tests such the 

Test for Adult Basic Education, the Wide Range Achievement Test, and tests developed by 

Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems. As discussed in Chapter IV, some sites used 

testing results to qualify youth for the initiative under the eligibility criterion of basic skills 

deficiency. Others used assessments to determine the participant’s need for education services 

offered through the SYEI. 

3. Individual Service Strategies 

As with assessments, not all sites reported completing an individual service strategy (ISS) for 

every participant, despite federal requirements. ETA specified that an ISS must include results from 

youth assessments and age-appropriate goals. However, local areas had the flexibility to design their 

own ISS for the SYEI. Respondents from 14 sites reported that all participants completed an ISS, 

and in 4 other sites at least one provider completed the ISS with its participants. The ISS often 

recorded youth’s career and educational goals, academic and career interests, skill levels, and 

transportation or other support needs. Staff in these sites reported that preparing the ISS was useful 

both for getting to know the youth and for determining an appropriate work placement. Sites 

completed the ISS at various times—during intake, after eligibility was determined, during 

orientation, or during work readiness training. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

43 

In the two sites where no providers completed an ISS for participating youth, administrators 

reported that the timeframe of the SYEI was too short to necessitate an ISS. They felt that the 

enrollment process was already too time intensive to add another lengthy procedure. These two 

sites both enrolled large numbers of participants compared to most other sites; however, staff in 

sites that completed an ISS for participants reported spending only 5 to 30 minutes on each ISS. 

B. Work Readiness Training 

Because the SYEI focused on placing participants in meaningful summer work, ETA suggested 

that sites consider strategies to help participants prepare for these experiences. Federal guidance 

acknowledged that many participants may need assistance “refining [their] attitudes, values, and 

work habits which will contribute to their success in the workplace” (U.S. Department of Labor 

2009d). In addition, the Recovery Act specified that the work readiness indicator would be the only 

measure used to assess performance. For these reasons, sites worked to improve youth’s work 

readiness skills during the summer months through formal workreadiness training provided in 

classroom settings. 

1. Site Requirements for Youth Attendance at Training 

In 16 of the 20 sites, all participants attended work readiness training. The lead agency of the 

four remaining sites did not require providers to offer work readiness training, although at least one 

provider in each site did so. Administrators in two of the sites that did not require training reported 

that, in light of the short timeframe, they chose to focus exclusively on providing high quality work 

experiences. A respondent from one of these sites stated that a key to the successful 

implementation of their initiative within the abbreviated timeframe was their focus on work 

experience. One provider in a third site chose not to offer any formal training because SYEI 

participants, many of whom were also participants of an in-house program, had already been 

adequately prepared for work through other services. Staff from two additional providers that did 

not offer work readiness training commented that preparing the youth too much for their work 

experiences “may take away from the experience itself.” They also felt that youth would develop 

work readiness skills on the job. 

2. The Use of Standardized Work Readiness Curricula 

In half of the 16 sites that required training, providers used a common curriculum for all youth 

within the site (see Table V.1). In each of the eight sites with a standard curriculum, participants 

Table V.1 Work Readiness Training 

Training Number of Sites 

Required 16 

Type of Curriculum (across providers within site) 

Standard 8 

Varied 8 

Not required 4 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: N = 20 sites. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

44 

were exposed to the same content and hours of training, although sometimes at different stages in 

the initiative. Three sites used an off-the-shelf curriculum that the lead agency purchased, while the 

remaining sites used locally developed training materials. Training time in these eight sites ranged 

from eight hours to two weeks. In five of the eight sites with required training, all youth received 

the training at the beginning of the summer. One site offered training weekly throughout the 

summer. Youth in two other sites received training at different times. For example, in one site, staff 

at different locations had discretion to offer the two-day training before the youth started work, later 

in the summer, or over the course of the summer. 

The curriculum varied across providers within the remaining eight sites. In these cases, the lead 

agency gave flexibility to providers regarding training design and administration. In three of these 

eight sites, the lead agency did, however, dictate the amount of work readiness training required. 

Providers in the remaining five sites had the flexibility to also determine the timing, duration, and 

intensity of the training. As a result, the training varied widely within some sites. For example, at 

one site, training ranged from informal one-on-one meetings with youth at one provider to a 16-

hour training session at another. Work readiness training offered by providers at another site ranged 

from 6 to 48 hours. Five of these eight sites tended to hold the training at the beginning of the 

summer; and one conducted training throughout the summer. Timing in the remaining two sites 

varied by provider. 

3. Work Readiness Tracks Based on Youth Characteristics 

Participants came to the SYEI with different experiences. Some had previous work experience, 

but others did not. In addition, participants fell within an 11-year range, from young teenagers to 

adults. This resulted in mixed levels of maturity and life experience. At least one provider in nine 

sites accommodated this diversity by tailoring work readiness offerings based on participants’ age, 

previous work experience, criminal history, or disability status.14 

Across all 20 study sites, at least one provider in seven sites grouped youth for work readiness 

by age. In three of these seven sites, the training largely served as all or most of the younger youth’s 

summer experience. In addition to classroom training, these youth participated in community 

service activities as their work experience (see Box V.1). The older youth in these sites participated 

in less formal training and spent most of their time at worksites. In two of the seven sites, all or 

some of the providers exposed all youth to the same curriculum, but focused the training differently 

depending upon the age of the youth. For example, in one site, the lead agency did not feel it was 

appropriate for 24-year-olds to attend the same training session as 14-year-olds, so they held two 

different training sessions using a modified curriculum. Since many of the older youth had some 

prior work experience, their training was more fast-paced than in the younger group and 

incorporated role-playing activities. Finally, in three of the seven sites, all or some providers 

reported grouping youth by age, although it was unclear how the youth’s experiences in the training 

differed. 

 14 Providers in three of these sites grouped youth by more than one characteristic. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

45 

Although age was the most common characteristic by which youth were grouped for training, 

some youth in four sites were assigned based on other characteristics. In one site, different 

providers offered separate training sessions based on previous work history, offender status, and 

disabilities. For example, a modified work readiness training for youth with disabilities was taught 

by a certified teacher funded by the school district. One provider in the second site grouped youth 

with criminal histories to tailor the work readiness training to that population and to avoid mixing 

the youth offenders with other youth. In the two other sites, older youth with previous work 

experience could be exempted from training altogether. 

4. Common Work Readiness Training Topics 

Work readiness training covered a wide range of topics from basic interviewing tips to teen

fitness. At least one provider in the majority of the 20 study sites addressed soft skills, job 

preparation, career exploration, and financial literacy during work readiness training (see Table V.2). 

Other less common topics included work orientation, basic skills, and green jobs. Box V.2 provides 

descriptions of training structure and content in two sites. 

To capture the attention of youth, providers tried some unique approaches to delivering their 

main training messages. For example, one provider showed a 20-minute work readiness video made 

by youth participants from a previous summer program. The video discussed interviewing, dress, 

attitude, program expectations, timesheets, grievance policies, and payroll. In another site, a 

provider gave each youth a flash drive containing the résumé and cover letter that the youth 

developed during training as well as additional materials. 

Box V.1: Work Readiness Training Served as the Work Experience for Younger Youth 

Albany, OR. Many 14- and 15-year-olds participated in camps designed to develop work readiness skills and 

provide career exploration activities. One provider offered a three-week program during which youth could 

chose three career clusters to explore. Youth also participated in field trips and community service projects 

such as landscaping at a community college and removing graffiti. The youth were paid a stipend of $150 

per week. One provider noted that they chose this program model because they anticipated that it would be 

difficult to place younger youth with employers. 

Memphis, TN. All youth aged 14 to 15 attended a career exploration program run by the city and participated 

in weekly community service projects such as volunteering at the food bank and working at a nursing home. 

The training, based on an off-the-shelf curriculum, ran 10 weeks, and youth were paid $7.25 per hour for 

participating. 

Menomonie, WI. Many youth aged 14 to 16 participated in career academies operated by technical colleges and 

the Red Cross. The academies provided career exploration activities, job search training, and work readiness 

instruction focused on developing youth’s self-confidence, teamwork, and interpersonal skills. Youth also 

volunteered at the humane society, a food pantry program, and Habitat for Humanity. The program ran 8 

to 10 weeks, and youth were paid $7.25 per hour. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

46 

Table V.2 Common Topics Addressed in Work Readiness Training 

Topic Areas Covered Number of Sitesa

Soft Skills Communication, teamwork, decision making, problem 

solving, conflict resolution, business etiquette, work habits, 

responsibility, integrity, leadership, customer service, selfesteem, time management 

18 

Job Preparation Résumés, job search, references, applications, cover letters, 

interviewing, entrepreneurship, how to dress, networking, 

goals, attendance, punctuality 

16 

Career Exploration Interest inventories and career assessments, options after 

high school, further education, field trips, guest speakers 

13 

Financial Literacy Budgeting, use of credit, opening a bank account 11 

Work Orientation Sexual harassment, employment law, payroll, expectations, 

schedules, taxes, cashing paychecks 

6 

Basic Skills Computer literacy, math and reading skills 4 

Green Jobs Green industries, green aspects of jobs, environmentalism 4 

Miscellaneous Substance abuse/mental health education, community 

awareness, nonviolent social change, teen food and fitness, 

communication with police, advocacy 

4 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: N = 20 sites. 

a

At least one provider in the site reported addressing the topic in the work readiness training. 

Box V.2: Examples of Work Readiness Training 

Albuquerque, NM. The Basic Skills Employability Training (BEST) curriculum for work readiness has 

been used and updated by the SYEI provider for the past 15 years. Each 10-hour class had 12–15 youth 

participants and was held during the first five weeks of the summer, mostly before work experiences 

began. Every youth was required to attend this training, but training time was unpaid. The classes 

included a mix of reading, interactive exercises, and hands-on experiences. Staff administered pre- and 

posttests to participants. The BEST curriculum includes the following modules: employer expectations, 

substance abuse and mental health education, career strategies, identification of occupations of interest, 

preparing a résumé, the job search, the interview process, basic computer skills, and sexual harassment. 

Rochester, MN. Youth participants were required to attend the Blueprint for Success work readiness 

training program, held for two weeks at the beginning of the summer and administered by staff at a OneStop Career Center. Youth were paid $200 for completing the training but were penalized for lateness or 

absences. Training took place in groups of 15 to 25 participants, separated by age groups or background. 

The curriculum for Blueprint for Success was designed to meet ETA’s definition of work readiness, and 

includes a pre- and postassessment. The curriculum covered the following topics: self-discovery; 

managing your time effectively; realities of the job market; workplace skills for today’s employee; 

effective communication; contacting employers; preparing for the job interview; getting hired: workplace 

issues, paperwork, and finances; and keeping your job. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

47 

5. Incentives to Encourage Attendance 

Given the importance that sites placed on preparing youth for the workplace, sites devised 

strategies to encourage attendance at work readiness training. Site staff felt this was particularly 

important given that many in-school youth did not want to be in the classroom during their summer 

break. Although respondents in most sites reported little drop-off during work readiness training, 

staff in two sites reported that some youth attempted to skip these sessions. 

Providers in 16 sites used incentives, such as hourly wages, stipends, gift cards, and certificates 

of completion to encourage youth to participate (see Table V.3). Providers in 14 of these sites 

offered an hourly wage or a stipend. In six of these sites, at least one provider paid youth a standard 

wage ranging from the minimum wage of $7.25 to $10 per hour for their participation. In six other 

sites, one or more providers gave youth a stipend—ranging from $25 to $200 and averaging $110—

for participation in training. One provider offered a stipend of $450 to those youth for whom the 

training encompassed the majority of their summer experience. Two sites offered an hourly stipend 

of $7.25 per hour for training rather than paying regular wages so the earnings would not be taxed. 

Table V.3 Incentives Offered for Work Readiness Training 

Type of Incentive 

Number of Sites Offering 

Incentivea

Any Incentiveb 16 

Monetary Incentive 14 

Type of Monetary Incentiveb

 

Wages 6 

Stipends 6 

Gift Cards 3 

Nonmonetary Incentive 8 

Type of Nonmonetary Incentiveb

 

Certificate of completion 7 

Timed training to encourage participation 3

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: N = 20 sites. 

a At least one provider in the site offered the incentive. 

b

 In some sites, providers used more than one form of incentive. 

In three sites, at least one provider gave youth gift cards for attending work readiness training. 

In one of these sites, the gift cards were used to encourage the youth to complete the homework 

assignments. In another site, one provider surprised the youth with gift cards following the training, 

so the cards served as a reward rather than an incentive. The $10 to $25 gift cards were often for 

local retail chains and restaurants and in one case for movie theaters. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

48 

Eight sites also used other nonmonetary forms of encouragement. From at least one provider 

in seven of the eight sites, youth received a certificate specifically created for the initiative. One 

provider noted that the certificate was designed to serve as a signal to potential employers that the 

youth was a good employment investment as a result of having work readiness training. As another 

form of encouragement, at least one provider in three sites scheduled training sessions so that youth 

would be obligated to attend. For example, several providers in one site held work readiness 

trainings on Mondays and Fridays. Since the youth picked up their timesheets on Monday and 

dropped them off on Fridays, this schedule motivated them to attend the training sessions to ensure 

timely payment of their wages. In another site, at least one provider distributed paychecks during 

work readiness workshops. According to youth from a third site, if they missed a work readiness 

workshop, they were not allowed to work the following week, although the provider manager 

reported that they gave the youth some leniency with regard to this rule. 

Youth Perspectives: Experiences in Work Readiness Training 

Résumé Building 

“I never knew what a résumé was until I actually did one, and I used to hear about it so much, and I’m a senior now and 

I’m like, “What is a résumé?” . . . There were some jobs I tried to apply for online and it says, “Please post your résumé.” 

I’m like, “Résumé? What résumé?” . . . I actually learned it and I actually have one now.” 

Financial Literacy Training 

“[In this economy]. . . you have to think about how you’re going to manage your money and where it’s going to go, and if you 

really need to spend it on something that you don’t really need and stuff, so that helps.” 

“[I really liked] the two budgets. The first one was a large amount. The second was a lower amount, and the first one was for 

somebody who graduated college, and the other one was for somebody who didn’t go to college. So that was real good because it 

really gave us a perspective.” 

Guest Speakers 

“We had city officials. We had managers, owners of private businesses and entrepreneurs. Different people with different 

career paths who came in and told us about their stories, the choices they made and just basically told us the basic foundations 

for creating your own business or even just doing, you know, making correct choices, if you will.” 

“ [My] supervisor tries to get people to come in and talk to us about . . . their majors and their jobs and what they’re doing,

what they’re going to school for, and that gives us a little clue of what we might want to do. And we can ask questions to 

them too and we’ll get answers. And it kind of like opens your eyes to other opportunities that way.” 

Other Activities 

“We had the opportunity to rate yourself, like if you were a social person, artistic and things like that. So then you could look 

at the occupation and things like that and see what you worked best with, so that you could basically understand that it’s 

important to get a job that you are interested in and not something that you’re not, so that you have a good time as well.” 

 

“They taught us stuff like what type of communication person that you are. Like they had it separated up into several color 

groups, and depending on what color you were, what communication you were. And that’s helpful to find out how your 

supervisor communicates, so that we know how to communicate better with that person. So that was interesting. “ 
Mathematica Policy Research 

49 

6. Youth Impressions of Work Readiness Training 

Participants in the youth focus groups had mostly positive reactions to work readiness training. 

In almost all sites, youth reported that the training was one of the most useful parts of the summer 

initiative. Participants in about one third of the sites discussed the value of the specific soft skills 

they developed, citing enhanced communication, time management, and teamwork skills.15 In five 

of the 11 sites that offered financial literacy as part of the training, the youth expressed appreciation 

for that part of the instruction. Participants of five focus groups also commented that they 

appreciated the opportunity to draft their résumé and cover letter and found interview tips and 

mock interviews helpful. 

Even though they found the work readiness experience useful, participants from half the sites 

that discussed the training felt that improvements could be made. In particular, some participants 

reported that the training was boring, reflected simple common sense, or presented material they 

already knew through school or their participation in WIA programs. To address these issues, they 

suggested tailoring the training based on youth’s previous work experiences (as some sites did) and 

grouping youth for the training by their work assignment. 

C. Supportive Services 

Although sites were not required to offer supportive services to participants, many SYEI 

providers had extensive experience working with disadvantaged youth and recognized the need for 

additional support for youth to overcome their employment barriers. In the 20 study sites, staff 

most often reported helping youth to resolve transportation issues, to acquire appropriate work 

clothing and tools, and to gain access to child care. Providers from all but one site reported 

supplying youth with needed support services either in-house or through referrals to community 

partners. Administrators in the remaining site that did not connect youth with other services felt the 

summer focus on work left no time for other services or referrals. 

1. Transportation and Work Supplies 

Sites reported giving participants help getting to and from their worksites, purchasing needed 

work supplies, and gaining access to child care (see Table V.4). Transportation services were most 

common, with 17 sites reporting that they help youth get to and from their summer worksites. In 

most cases, these services were offered after an initial assessment of the participant’s needs. Staff 

often reported trying to find worksites that were within walking distance of youth’s homes, yet 

transportation was still either a common or major barrier for many youth. Youth in rural areas often 

did not have a driver’s license, access to a car, money for gas, or available public transportation. 

Youth in cities often did not have disposable income to purchase bus passes or tokens, and public 

transportation was simply not accessible to some. A provider at one site even noted that the site 

considered the location of a youth’s residence and his or her access to transportation as a factor for 

enrollment, denying enrollment to some youth who could not access available worksites. 

 15 Work readiness training was not discussed in focus groups in two sites. However, these sites were two of the 

four that did not require work readiness training. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

50 

Table V.4 Supportive Services Offered 

Service Number of Sites 

Offered Services Directly or by Referral 19 

Offered Transportation Support 17 

Bus passes/tokens 8 

In-house vans/gas money 7 

Type of support unspecified 2 

Offered Money for Work Supplies 16 

Offered Help Obtaining Child Care 10 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: N = 20 sites. 

Transportation assistance took several forms. Providers in eight sites issued bus passes and 

tokens. Since public transportation was not readily available in other areas, providers from at least 

seven sites provided youth with gas money or shuttled them to and from their worksites in vans. As 

discussed in Chapter III, some sites included both urban and rural areas. For that reason, providers 

in at least five sites offered both types of assistance, providing shuttle rides or gas money to some 

youth while giving bus passes to others. The remaining two sites that provided youth with 

transportation help did not specify the form this assistance took. 

Other common supports included assistance purchasing work supplies and obtaining child care. 

Providers from 16 sites helped youth purchase needed supplies for work such as clothing, tools, 

boots, and safety goggles. These providers either directly purchased the materials for youth or 

referred them to partners, such as Dress for Success and Gentlemen’s Closet. Providers from 10 

sites stated that, when necessary, they helped youth obtain child care. However, most noted that, 

given the age of the participants, this was not often necessary. For example, staff in one site 

indicated that they could use other funds to help youth pay for child care but few needed it. 

2. Local Emphasis on Supportive Services 

Sites differed in their focus on supportive service. Several sites appeared to highlight them. For 

example, three sites included line items in providers’ budgets for these services. In one of these 

sites, the providers’ budgets included three line items for supportive services: one for a $100 worksupport payment that each participant received upon completion of the work readiness training, one 

for transportation-related costs, and one for supplies. Providers at the other two sites could use the 

funds to help youth obtain any service need to be able to work successfully. 

Providers from six other sites indicated that, if they had had more time, they would have placed 

a greater emphasis on connecting youth with supportive services. The youth services coordinator at 

one site thought that the workload was so high they did not have time to take a proactive approach 

to identifying and meeting supportive service needs. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

51 

VI. THE RECRUITMENT AND INVOLVEMENT OF EMPLOYERS 

Employers were important partners in sites’ efforts to provide youth with successful summer 

experiences. Though employers were receiving a summer employee whose wages were paid with 

Recovery Act funds, they were voluntary partners with interests that could diverge from those of the 

sites. Thus, sites’ recruitment efforts needed to address employers’ reasons for participating. At the 

same time, site staff had to recruit enough employers, with sufficient jobs, to satisfy the large 

number of youth with wide-ranging interests while also being mindful of ETA guidance on ensuring 

appropriate and meaningful experiences. 

This chapter discusses how sites succeeded in recruiting employers. Section A describes 

employer recruitment strategies, including when sites began this process, what employers and 

economic sectors they targeted, and some of the challenges they faced in this aspect of their 

initiatives. Section B reviews sites’ processes for screening and orienting employers after recruiting 

them. Finally, Section C describes sites’ understanding of employers’ motivations for participating. 

A. Employer Recruitment 

Although many sites had existing relationships with local employers, all sites had to conduct 

some recruitment activities to generate the number of worksites needed for the expected volume of 

participants. In addition to determining when to conduct this recruitment, sites made decisions 

about how to reach out to the business community and whether to target specific sectors of the 

economy. Most sites reported that they recruited sufficient numbers of employers to accommodate 

participating youth. 

1. Timing of Employer Recruitment 

Staff of the participating organizations—often the lead agency along with their providers—

began recruiting employers even before they approached youth about participating. In 15 sites, staff 

began their efforts early to have enough employer worksites to meet the expected demand for work 

placements. In 1 of these 15 sites, the lead agency required prospective providers to include a list of 

confirmed employer worksites in their bids to become a SYEI provider. In 5 of the 20 study sites, 

Key Findings: Employer Recruitment and Involvement 

• Sites successfully recruited interested employers. Sites contacted and recruited employers 

they knew and those new to the workforce investment system through direct contacts and broad 

media campaigns. More than half the sites focused their recruitment on particular sectors of the 

economy, and almost half reported that they recruited more worksites than they needed. 

• To ensure appropriate work experiences for youth, sites screened and oriented employers. 

Formal screening processes involved such steps as reviewing an employer’s application, visiting the 

worksite, and signing a worksite agreement. Most sites also provided worksite supervisors with an 

orientation to their SYEI roles and responsibilities. 

• Employers were eager to participate to benefit their businesses and their communities. 

Employers reported appreciating the free summer help during lean times and the opportunity to 

mentor the youth. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

52 

one or more providers reported waiting to recruit employers until after they had begun recruiting 

youth. 

At least eight of the study sites continued to recruit employers once they had started recruiting 

youth. Site administrators reported using this strategy because they had insufficient time to recruit 

enough employers before the initiative started or because they wanted the interests of enrolled youth 

to drive at least some of the employer options. For example, in one site, several participants 

indicated an interest in the law, which was not represented in the set of employers initially recruited. 

To meet this interest, staff successfully recruited local law firms. 

2. Employer Recruitment Strategies 

To recruit employers, sites relied on two main strategies: (1) reaching out to employers who had 

existing relationships with the workforce investment system, and (2) promoting the SYEI more 

broadly to the employer community. Sixteen sites reported capitalizing on their existing 

relationships with employers (see Table VI.1). They contacted employers that had previously 

worked with the LWIB or its providers, either as a youth employer or in some other capacity. To 

advertise the initiative to a wider range of potential employers, sites also reported asking members of 

the LWIB to reach out to their own employer networks and using employer listservs maintained by 

their own business services units. 

Table VI.1 Employer Recruitment Strategies 

Strategya Number of Sites 

Outreach to Existing Employer Contacts 16 

Outreach to Broader Employer Community 14 

Direct phone or in-person contacts 14 

Broad media/other campaigns 6 

Chamber of Commerce resource 6 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: N = 20 sites. 

a

Sites used multiple outreach strategies. 

The lead agencies and providers also served as a potential source of worksites. In five sites, at 

least one provider served as the primary worksite for SYEI participants. These arrangements for 

youth job placements at the providers were agreed upon with the lead agency before the provider 

was awarded the SYEI contract. For example, a provider in one site was a nonprofit community 

action agency with its own organic farm that supplied meals and produce to families in need. The 

provider was able to employ all of its youth participants at the farm and farm stand and did not need 

to recruit any worksites. In another site, a local public university that was a long-time provider of 

summer youth placements assigned a majority of its participants to work within its own 

departments. To place the remaining youth, the provider recruited worksites from the surrounding 

community. In addition, many other providers from across the sites hired small numbers of youth 

to work in their own organizations doing clerical work or documenting the summer through 

marketing materials, while referring most youth to outside employers. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

53 

Most sites also reached out to the broader employer community. Fourteen sites reported 

directly contacting employers that they did not know to gauge their interest in participating in the 

initiative. One common approach was “cold calling” employers by phone, but, according to staff in 

one site, this was the least effective recruitment strategy. Another common strategy was to 

personally visit local businesses. At least one site felt that this was their most effective recruitment 

method. Six sites sought to recruit employers through marketing campaigns. They reported a range 

of promotional activities, including issuing press releases, placing newspaper and television 

advertisements, sending mass mailings and emails, maintaining a website, and distributing fliers. In 

addition, six sites reported that the local Chamber of Commerce was a helpful resource, and one site 

used a directory of social service organizations that serve youth to find potential employers. Box 

VI.1 provides an example of multiple employer recruitment strategies used in a single site. 

Beyond broader outreach campaigns, city officials and union leaders provided support. 

According to administrators, unions rarely opposed offering youth summer employment 

experiences. Five sites reported that SYEI administrators had regular contact with union leaders and 

either kept them informed of initiative activities or received input from them on summer 

programming. Three sites reported successfully negotiating agreements with union representatives 

or members that allowed the site to place youth at particular worksites. In addition, 7 of the 20 sites 

reported that they received positive support from city mayors or other local politicians, and that 

such support was often instrumental in encouraging employers to participate in the initiative and the 

community to back it. One site made efforts to keep local officials informed about the progress of 

the initiative. 

3. Efforts to Engage Particular Economic Sectors 

Although all sites successfully recruited employers from the public, nonprofit, and private 

sectors, more than half of sites or their providers focused recruitment on one sector or another. 

Staff in eight sites reported a focus on creating meaningful experiences for the youth regardless of 

the employer’s sector (see Table VI.2). (Note that some of these sites might have included targeting 

efforts that were not revealed during site visits because those individuals or providers who carried 

them out were not among those interviewed.) Thus, neither the lead agency nor the providers 

targeted any particular sector. Across the three economic sectors, youth could participate in jobs at 

employers ranging from city government to community action agencies to local construction 

companies. (Chapter VII discusses participants’ work experiences in more detail.) 

Box VI.1: Combining Multiple Strategies to Recruit Employers 

Bridgeport, CT. The recruitment of employers at the Bridgeport, CT, site was a joint effort between LWIB 

leadership, the youth coordinator at the LWIB, and the LWIB’s marketing division. Information was sent 

to 5,000 employers that had had previous contact with the LWIB. Fliers were also distributed through the 

local Chamber of Commerce, and a PowerPoint presentation, along with a handout responding to 

frequently asked questions, was developed to be used in presentations to potential employers. The 

marketing materials presented the program as career exploration opportunities for youth and an 

opportunity for employers to train and vet possible employees. Staff highlighted that employers would 

bear no costs for the program. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

54 

Table VI.2 Targeting Employer Recruitment on Particular Sectors 

Targeting Number of Sites 

No Targeting 8 

Targeting Private Sector 6 

Sitewide 4 

By particular providers 2 

Targeting Public and Non-profit Sectors 6 

Sitewide 5 

By particular providers 1 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: The data presented is based on interviews with staff of lead agencies and specific providers. Since all 

providers across the 20 sites were not interviewed, it is possible that particular providers in additional 

sites targeted sectors that were not accounted for in this table. 

N = 20 sites. 

By contrast, particular providers or the lead agency focused recruitment efforts on the private 

sector in at least six sites. Within these, the emphasis was sitewide in four sites and provider-specific 

in two others. One common reason given for this emphasis was that, in the current economy, staff 

considered private sector firms more likely to offer participants regular positions after the summer. 

Another reason given was that private sector worksites might also be more relevant to the long-term 

career interests of participating youth. For example, based on their conversations with youth, staff 

in two sites reported that most youth were not interested in working for nonprofits. The sites that 

targeted the private sector did not appear to have any particular characteristics that distinguished 

them from other sites, and, in fact, all sites had at least some private sector employers participate. 

All recruitment efforts in at least five sites and efforts of specific providers in least one other site 

targeted the public and nonprofit sectors. The reported reasons for focusing on these sectors 

ranged from general unease about choosing one private employer over another for a governmentsubsidized job, lack of sufficient information on the quality of private sector jobs, and restrictions 

placed by private sector employers on the age and background of the youth they were willing to hire. 

Sites also felt that public and nonprofit organizations were more familiar with occupational safety 

and child labor laws, had a better understanding of disadvantaged youth, and tended to be in more 

accessible locations. Staff in one site also felt that public and nonprofit employers had 

organizational missions that aligned more closely with the SYEI, making them easier to work with 

and more likely to offer youth placements. 

4. Challenges to Employer Recruitment 

Sites generally reported success recruiting a sufficient number of employers for the SYEI, 

although they faced challenges along the way. At least 7 of the 20 study sites reported recruiting 

more potential employers than actually needed. Only four sites reported not being able to match all 

youth to a worksite. As discussed in Chapter VII, three of these sites reported that some youth 

interviewed poorly with prospective employers and were unable to secure jobs despite the 

availability of positions, and the fourth site reported an insufficient number of employers given the 

volume of youth they ultimately enrolled. 

Despite their success, at least some staff in 16 sites reported challenges due to employer 

expectations, the timing of the recruitment, and the economy. In nine sites, at least some staff 
Mathematica Policy Research 

55 

reported that employers had unrealistic or incompatible requirements for the youth they would be 

willing to hire. In particular, sites found it challenging to identify employers willing to hire youth 

under the age of 18. As a result, one site placed younger youth in camps where they were provided 

with work readiness training. (These camps are discussed in Chapter V.) Staff in four sites also 

discussed the difficulty of finding appropriate employers for certain types of youth. Three reported 

that it was hard to find employers to work with youth who had criminal records or could not pass a 

drug test. Another site found it difficult to recruit employers that would hire youth with a disability, 

such as autism. 

Staff across the study sites also indicated that the initiative’s short timeline affected their ability 

to recruit placements that were appropriate for youth. Because most employer recruitment occurred 

before youth enrolled, the staff did not know their eventual participants’ abilities or interests. Three 

sites specifically mentioned this as a challenge, and interviews in other sites indicated that youth were 

sometimes placed at worksites that did not match their interests because of a lack of suitable 

choices. 

Six sites mentioned that recent layoffs by employers in their areas hampered their ability to 

recruit employers. Because of the weak economy in many local areas, companies were either 

reducing hours for employees or laying off workers completely. Either of these situations made an 

employer ineligible for participation as an SYEI worksite, as discussed in the ETA guidance and the 

Workforce Investment Act (U.S. Department of Labor 2009d; U.S. Congress 1999). A seventh site 

also mentioned not being able to place youth at an employer that had recently laid off workers, but 

stated that single instance did not affect their recruiting strategy or the number of available 

worksites. Another site also reported some community concerns that SYEI youth were taking jobs 

away from workers, so staff asked employers to certify that this was not the case before accepting 

them into the initiative. 

B. Screening and Orienting Recruited Employers 

Most participating employers, whether or not they had prior involvement with the workforce 

investment system, were new to the SYEI. As a result, site staff had to screen employers and their 

proposed work placements to ensure that they would be appropriate opportunities for participants. 

In addition, employers required guidance on what their responsibilities would be as part of the 

initiative. Holding an orientation session was the most common method for informing employers 

about these responsibilities. 

1. Employer Screening Strategies 

Most sites formally screened employers before accepting them into their initiative. However,

sites appeared to be less stringent about screening employers who had hired youth in the past 

through other youth employment programs. In these instances, staff felt they had sufficient 

knowledge about the worksite and supervisors. 

The employer screening process included from one to three different steps, including an 

application describing the potential work experience and work environment, an in-person visit to the 

employer, and the signing of a worksite agreement. 

• Application. At least 10 of the 20 sites had an application or registration form for 

employers to use to express their interest in the SYEI. These applications typically asked 
Mathematica Policy Research 

56 

for a description of the worksite environment, the jobs to be given to youth, and the 

employer’s requirements for those positions. At least three sites maintained the form on 

their website for electronic submission; staff in one of these site reported that online 

applications likely increased the number of employers that applied to the initiative. 

Other sites mailed applications to interested employers. 

• In-person visits. In-person visits were part of the screening process for at least 11 sites. 

At least one provider or the key administrator mentioned vetting employers through 

these visits. This allowed staff to develop a personal relationship with the worksite 

supervisor and get a first-hand look at the work environment. Staff did not visit all 

employers; as mentioned earlier, staff often felt they were sufficiently familiar with 

employers that had hired youth in previous summers. 

• Worksite agreements. Nine sites reported asking employers that passed the screening 

process to sign worksite agreements. The worksite agreement normally did not 

guarantee that any participants would be placed with the employer but described the 

employer and worksite supervisor’s responsibilities should they receive any participants. 

The worksite agreement was either signed during an in-person visit or mailed to the 

employer for signature. 

Through each of these steps, site staff used a range of criteria to assess the appropriateness of a 

worksite (see Box VI.2). Staff reported looking for meaningful experiences where youth could learn 

skills, have an effective mentor and attentive supervisor, and work in a safe and protected 

environment. Staff also considered whether there were recent layoffs at the site, the accessibility of 

the location, and the reasonableness of the employers’ preferences for and expectations of the 

youth. Six sites had more specific criteria that employers needed to meet, such as a supervisor-toyouth ratio of one to five, compliance with labor laws, and assurances that assigned youth would not 

have family members employed at the same site. 

Although site staff generally appeared satisfied with their sites’ screening process, some staff at 

two sites raised some concerns. These staff members reported that, in the SYEI’s initial phase, they 

were more focused on recruiting sufficient numbers of employers than on the quality of worksites. 

Given more time, they said they could have been more selective and weeded out employers that 

were less likely to provide youth with meaningful experiences. 

2. Employer Orientation and On-going Support 

Relationships between local staff and employers were critical to the success of youth’s summer 

experiences. Most sites felt it was important to discuss with employers their SYEI responsibilities 

Box VI.2: Screening Employers for the SYEI 

Madera, CA. The provider at this site reported receiving about 225 responses to a mass mailing sent to 

approximately 3,200 local employers. All employer applications to the program were screened by staff to 

ensure that worksites were suitable for youth. Screening criteria included the worksite’s location, required 

work hours, availability of adequate supervision, job description, layoff history, accessibility for individuals 

with disabilities, and previous experience as a youth employer. Staff called employers that passed the 

screening to discuss their participation and the nature of the job to ensure that the work would be 

meaningful to participants and help them develop marketable skills. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

57 

Box VI.3: Providing Additional Support to Employers Working with Disabled Youth 

In Bridgeport, CT, staff worked closely with employers at which disabled youth were placed to provide clear 

instructions on how best to work and support youth with disabilities. For example, staff asked an employer 

who hired a youth with a memory disability due to an accident to write down instructions rather than 

provide verbal instructions. As needed, these youth were also assigned a job coach to help support both the 

employer and the youth at the worksite. In one case, a job coach spent one hour each work day helping the 

employer acclimate and mentor two blind youth at their worksite location. 

when youth were placed at their worksites. After youth began working, local staff typically 

maintained regular communication with worksite supervisors throughout the summer. 

Employer orientation was commonly used to ensure that employers understood their roles and 

responsibilities. These orientations typically consisted of reviewing a supervisor handbook, 

timesheets, labor laws, wages, workers’ compensation laws, supervision policies, and workplace 

safety, among other topics. More than three-quarters of the study sites held group or one-on-one 

orientations for employers who were assigned a participant. Ten sites oriented employers primarily 

through one-on-one sessions or during worksite visits, and five held larger group orientations. 

These five sites also held one-on-one orientations with those employers that were unable to attend 

the group sessions or were recruited after those sessions had been held. Only one site reported that 

the group orientation was mandatory for employers. 

Four sites did not hold employer orientations. Of these sites, three provided printed 

orientation packets or a supervisor handbook. In a fourth site, at least one provider reported that 

they knew their employers through previous experiences so an orientation was not necessary. 

Beyond orientation, employers in all 20 sites reported positive ongoing relationships with staff. 

Staff in most sites maintained regular contact with employers through regular monitoring visits to 

the worksites (see Chapter VIII for more details on such monitoring). Through these visits and 

phone availability, staff learned about problems, such as issues with participants’ attendance or 

behavior, and could try to resolve them. One site also reported providing ongoing training and 

guidance to worksite supervisors given variation in their experiences working with youth. Another 

site made special efforts to maintain contact with employers at which disabled youth were placed 

(see Box VI.3). 

Despite an overall positive experience, discussions with selected employers indicated that 

communication processes could have been improved at some sites. For example, one employer 

thought that having input into the job-matching process would have improved the placements and 

helped supervisors become more familiar with their youth. 

C. Employer Motivation 

Sites’ efforts to engage employers in the SYEI benefited from an understanding of why 

employers would be willing to participate. Across the sites, employers were interested in the 

opportunity to help their communities and to support their own businesses. Employers felt that the 

experience was worth the effort of mentoring a new employee and almost unanimously agreed that 

they would participate again given the opportunity. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

58 

1. Employers’ Reasons for Participating 

Based on focus groups conducted with small groups of employers in each site and interviews 

with site staff, employers appeared to have been motivated largely by a desire to give back to the 

community and also by the wish to receive extra help in a tight economy. Of course, employers had 

varied reasons for participating, but employers from all sectors across all sites believed it would 

benefit the youth, their businesses, and the community as a whole. 

The three most frequently mentioned reasons given for participation, according to staff and 

employers, were to help youth succeed, take advantage of subsidized summer help, and vet future 

employees without any commitment or cost. Staff reports echoed these same sentiments. First, 

respondents in 19 sites reported that employers wanted to mentor the youth and give them an 

opportunity to build their résumés and work skills. They felt that the disadvantaged youth served by 

SYEI might not otherwise have these opportunities to be engaged in productive work and stay out 

of trouble. 

Second, although companies that recently experienced layoffs were generally not a part of the 

SYEI, many public, nonprofit, and private firms that were involved either faced hiring freezes 

during the summer or could not afford to hire the extra staff they needed. Administrators or 

employers in 17 sites reported that employers often needed the help that SYEI participants could 

provide. That extra help was a “life-saver,” according to one employer. This sentiment prevailed 

even though employers recognized that hosting the youth meant closely supervising them and 

working with them to develop professionally. Staff in these sites also reported that having additional 

help at no cost was a strong motivator, though not the primary motivator for all. Employers also 

appreciated that the SYEI providers typically bore the responsibility for worker’s compensation and 

general liability claims. 

Finally, hiring a SYEI participant was ideal for the employers that planned on adding to their 

workforce and could afford to do so. Respondents in nine sites reported free training of potentially 

permanent employees was a motivation for employer participation. During the summer, the 

employer could evaluate and train the potential employee with no obligation to hire the worker and 

without incurring the costs usually associated with on-the-job training. Though detailed numbers 

were not available from most of the 20 sites studied, anecdotal reports suggest that some employers 

took advantage of this opportunity and hired their SYEI participants on a permanent basis after the 

summer. (See Chapter VIII for more information on permanent placements.) 

To reinforce this last benefit to employers, 16 sites reported discussing the potential for 

permanent placements with employers during the recruitment process. For example, frontline staff 

at four of these sites encouraged employers to think of the youth initiative as free employee training. 

At the remaining four sites, permanent placements were either not an initiative goal or were not a 

salient issue given that the site primarily served younger youth still in school. 

2. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit 

In hopes of translating youth’s summer experience into a permanent job placement, staff in 

four sites reported that they discussed the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) with employers. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

59 

The WOTC is a federal tax credit that private businesses can claim if they hire employees from 12 

designated groups that experience barriers to employment. A WOTC can be for as much as $2,400 

for each eligible employee’s first year of employment.16 Employers would not be eligible for the 

WOTC while wages were subsidized by Recovery Act funds, but rather could claim the credit if they 

hired youth permanently. Two of the 12 eligible groups were covered under the SYEI funded by 

the Recovery Act: unemployed veterans and disconnected youth. ETA encouraged sites to recruit 

youth from these groups and to discuss the WOTC with employers as a benefit to hiring youth in 

these targeted groups as permanent employees. 

Among the sites that promoted the WOTC, three mentioned discussing the credit with all 

employers. In the fourth, only one of providers mentioned discussing the WOTC. The provider 

that did discuss the WOTC, however, was unaware of the recent changes in the policy that applied 

to the SYEI. Despite holding these discussions, administrators in one of these sites thought that 

employers were unlikely to take advantage of the WOTC given the amount of paperwork involved. 

By contrast, an administrator in another site believed that the hiring of participants on a permanent 

basis would be significant—possibly 90 percent of for-profit worksites. 

Staff in most other sites reported that they did not discuss the WOTC with employers either 

because they did not feel the WOTC was relevant to the SYEI employers or they lacked enough 

knowledge about the WOTC to present it to employers. Many staff said that the WOTC was not 

relevant for their public or nonprofit agencies or that the participating youth were not technically 

employed by their summer worksites. Staff in two sites acknowledged that the WOTC might 

become relevant if youth were hired after the summer but still did not feel it was necessary to 

discuss the credit with employers. In addition, staff said they did not discuss the WOTC with 

employers because they felt uninformed and unclear about the conditions or requirements. The 

SYEI coordinator in one of these sites felt that the WOTC was too difficult to understand and that 

there was a general negative perception that it involved too much paperwork. 

 16 According to instructions on the Internal Revenue Service Forms 5884 and 8850, employers can claim up to 

$1,200 for a summer youth employee living in an empowerment or renewal zone and performing services between May 

1 and September 15. However, employers participating in the SYEI would not qualify for this credit while Recovery Act 

funds were used to pay youth wages. 

Mathematica Policy Research 

61 

Key Findings: The Range of Summer Experiences 

• About one-third of sites emphasized work, offering few other services. The remaining twothirds offered academics to at least some youth. Few sites offered any of the other 10 program 

elements required by the regular WIA youth program but optional for Recovery Act programs. 

• Half of sites offered occupational skills training. The most common industry covered by 

training was health care, followed by manufacturing, culinary, construction, and entrepreneurship. 

Other academic offerings included GED preparation, remediation, and recovery of school credits. 

• Health care, public services, parks and recreation, and education and child care were the 

most commonly reported industries for summer jobs. Youth most often performed 

administrative or clerical tasks, landscaping and outdoor maintenance, janitorial and indoor 

maintenance, and construction work. Although youth’s daily tasks may have been at entry level, 

participants were nevertheless exposed to careers within the industry where they were placed in a 

summer job. 

• Youth could work an average of 200 potential hours over seven weeks at $7.75 per hour.

This resulted in average potential earnings of $1,500 per youth over the course of the summer.

• More than three-quarters of sites experienced at least some payroll problems. The most 

common problems involved timesheet collection, paycheck processing, and paycheck distribution. 

VII. YOUTH’S SUMMER EXPERIENCES 

The true heart of the summer experience did not begin until after the tremendous local effort to 

recruit youth and employers, determine their suitability for the SYEI, and prepare them for the 

workplace. Although some youth were placed in academic services in the classroom, most were 

placed in employment. These jobs were usually at entry level, but they had the potential to 

accomplish two important goals. One was to influence youth’s views about the world of work, the 

work process, career development, and the need for further education. The other was to stimulate 

the economy by getting cash into youth’s pockets. 

This chapter explores the common patterns and unique variations in how sites developed and 

structured youth’s summer experiences. Section A begins by discussing local strategies for serving 

youth through worksites, the classroom, or a combination of both. Section B describes the types of 

activities and tasks that youth were doing on a daily basis through the SYEI. Section C analyzes the 

strategies and factors that influenced how youth were matched to academic programs and 

employers. Finally, Section D discusses the hours that youth worked and the wages they received 

through Recovery Act funds. 

A. Local Strategies for Serving Youth 

The focus of summer initiatives administered through the workforce investment system has 

shifted over time. As discussed in Chapter I, the JTPA Summer Employment and Training Program 

focused initially on employment. However, the early 1990s saw a shift to ensure linkage between 

youth’s work experience and their academic achievements. With the passage of WIA, summer 

employment became only one of 10 required program elements. In contrast, the Congressional 
Mathematica Policy Research 

62 

explanatory statement for the Recovery Act stated that “the conferees are particularly interested in 

these funds being used to create summer employment opportunities for youth.” At the same time, 

ETA allowed “the flexibility to determine whether it is appropriate that academic learning be directly 

linked to summer employment for each youth” (U.S. Department of Labor 2009d). 

1. The Focus on Employment 

In identifying their service delivery strategies beyond work readiness training, sites took one of 

two approaches. About one-third focused largely on work experience, offering few other services

beyond work readiness training. The remaining two-thirds offered work experience as well as 

academic experience to at least a subset of youth. Very few sites offered any of the remaining 10 

service elements that are required through regular WIA youth programs but made optional for the 

SYEI funded by the Recovery Act (see Chapter I for a list of the 10 elements). 

About one-third of sites chose to emphasize on-the-job experience through work site 

placements (see Table VII.1). Six of these seven sites offered jobs to all youth; one focused on work 

for older youth and required academic activities for all younger youth. Site administrators in these 

sites gave two common reasons for their choice of service model. First, they believed that the 

model complied with the true intent of the Recovery Act to stimulate the economy and put money 

directly in the hands of youth. Second, they felt the implementation time frame was too tight either 

to logistically coordinate an academic component with local partners or to ensure a reasonable 

impact on youth who participate for less than two months. 

Table VII.1 Local Strategies for Serving Youth through the SYEI 

Strategy Number of Sites 

Employment with Few Other Services 7 

Employment plus Academics 13 

Extent of Academic Offeringsa

 

Offered site-wide to interested youth 6 

Offered only to a subset of youth 7 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: N = 20 sites. 

a

Pertains only to those sites that offered employment plus academics. 

2. Provision of Academics and Other Services 

Thirteen sites offered some form of academics to at least a subset of youth. Six of these 

offered area-wide programs to all interested youth before they were placed in a job. Although 

available to all, sites typically reported that less than 10 percent of youth in these sites expressed 

interest and enrolled in academics. For those youth who did enroll in academics, either the summer 

began with occupational skills training before placement in a related employment opportunity or the 

skills training occurred simultaneously with a relevant job. Some sites also allowed youth to 

participate in remediation, recovery of school credits, or GED preparation while working in their 

summer jobs. Those youth who were not interested in academics were matched immediately to 

employment. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

63 

The academic offerings in the seven remaining sites varied by youth providers within sites and 

were not necessarily available to all youth enrolled across the site. In some cases, an emphasis on 

innovation resulted in service offerings that were dramatically different from one provider to the 

next. For example, a single site had one provider that offered entrepreneurship training, another 

that offered occupational skills training in computer technology, another that offered remediation, 

and yet another that offered high-tech digital arts education. Another site offered leadership skills 

training in one service location, CPR and first aid training in another, and fire suppression 

certification in another. The content, duration, and intensity of academic programs are discussed in 

detail below. 

Beyond academics and work experience, the 20 sites offered few of the remaining 10 elements 

of the regular WIA program. Supportive services, discussed in Chapter V, served as the only other 

major service offering. Two sites offered summer components that involved leadership 

development opportunities. One site reported offering a behavioral adjustment program. Another 

offered dropout prevention, violence prevention, and fatherhood services. The evaluation revealed 

no sites offering mentoring beyond the worksite or counseling such as for drug and alcohol abuse. 

Parent involvement was also limited, with 16 sites reporting that it was not encouraged beyond 

providing intake paperwork. Six of these sites, however, stated that some parents either contacted 

the site about youth paychecks or to check on their child’s progress. Three of these sites also 

involved parents if youth had behavior issues or became involved in worksite conflicts. Of the 

remaining four sites, two invited parents to attend orientation and/or work readiness training. One 

of these plus another two sites also invited parents to a summer graduation, recognition, or 

culmination ceremony at the end of the initiative. 

B. The Content of Summer Experiences 

To the extent possible, most sites tried to tailor these experiences to the needs and interests of 

each individual youth. Given this customization, it is important to understand not only the types of 

activities to which youth were exposed but also the day-to-day tasks they accomplished and their 

perceptions of the overall experience. 

1. Types and Content of Academic Offerings 

In those sites that offered classroom activities beyond work readiness training, academics 

ranged in both content and intensity. Some youth spent very few hours in academics before moving 

to a worksite; others spent the entire summer in the classroom and did not participate in summer 

employment. The content varied from occupational skills training to GED preparation and 

recovery of school credits. 

At least some youth in five sites spent the entire summer in academic activities. As discussed in 

Chapter V, three sites reported that younger youth (aged 14, 15, and sometimes 16) spent the 

summer in work readiness training. A fourth site offered arts education to 12 youth as their summer 

work experience. This involved training in high-tech digital arts, including digital imaging, software 

programs, journalism, and desktop publishing. They worked on developing portfolios and 

documented a local music festival. Finally, a fourth site worked with a professor at a local four-year 

college to develop a college-level leadership development course for 21 youth. The program was 

based largely on team work activities and included work site field trips and community service 

projects. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

64 

Box VII.1: Occupational Skills Training in the Health Care Industry 

One provider in the Denver, CO, site developed a “pre-professional occupations” program, which staff called 

“the health care academy.” Nearly 50 students participated in the program, which was “designed to provide 

youth exposure to health occupations and the opportunity to become certified in various industryrecognized certifications that will attempt to facilitate future success within the health care sector.” Youth 

spent time at two hospitals in the region over six weeks and completed the following components: (1) 

industry-recognized training and certification (including training in the Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA), cardiopulmonary resuscitation—health provider, first aid, and blood-borne 

pathogens), (2) SafeServ certification, (3) wheelchair transport, (4) oxygen safety, (5) hospital/medical 

terminology, (6) scope of practice, (7) careers within health care, and (8) “other related work skills.” The 

program also included job-shadowing opportunities, exposure within health settings (including emergency 

rooms, supportive programs, front desk ambassadors, environmental services, cardiology, pulmonary 

physiology, minimally invasive diagnostic center, nursing, rehabilitation, imaging and food services), and 

networking and career mentorship. 

Ten sites offered occupational skills training to a portion of participating youth. The most 

common industry covered by training was health care, followed by manufacturing, culinary, 

construction, and entrepreneurship (see Table VII.2). Box VII.1 provides an example of training in 

the healthcare industry. Training programs lasted between one and six weeks and were typically 

administered by community colleges or local nonprofit organizations that served as summer 

providers or subcontractors. Three of the sites administered their occupational skills training 

programs as a component of pre-apprenticeship activities, discussed later in this chapter. Although 

figures were not available from all sites, most sites reported that between 5 and 10 percent of youth 

attended occupational skills training. To encourage participation in academics, one site used strong 

financial incentives (see Box VII.2). 

Table VII.2 Industries for Occupational Skills Training 

Industry 

Number of Sites 

 Offering Training 

Health 4 

Manufacturing 2 

Culinary 2 

Construction 2 

Entrepreneurship 2 

Renewable energy 1 

Keyboarding, computer system building 1 

Retail 1 

Green career paths 1 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: Total number of sites offering training = 10. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

65 

Youth Perspectives: Certifications from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

“. . . OSHA helped a lot of people realize . . . they were like, ‘I didn’t know that could happen.’ So now I got my goggles on,

my facemask and my gloves on, ’cause I’m not playing no games with chemicals and stuff.” 

“We got that certificate for doing OSHA. Like it makes you feel good, like you actually accomplished something, like you’re 

not doing this for no reason.” 

Box VII.2: One Site Offered Strong Incentives for Participation in Summer Education 

The site in Albuquerque, NM, placed a strong emphasis on the importance of education. It accomplished this 

in two ways. First, all youth who were assessed below a 12th-grade level on the Test of Adult Basic 

Education were encouraged to participate in a Key Train remediation course throughout the summer 

experience. Second, the site encouraged participation in other academic programs through a monetary 

incentive. Youth were given an additional $1 per hour in summer wages if they enrolled in a GED 

preparation course, postsecondary education, or an academic program that would result in a credential from 

an acceptable institution. In addition, youth received a $100 bonus upon completing one of these programs 

and receiving the related certification. As of the evaluation site visit in August 2009, the site reported that 85 

percent of youth enrolled in the educational incentive program. 

Other academic offerings were less common. Two sites offered recovery of school credits, two 

offered GED preparation, and one offered remediation. At least one provider in three sites offered 

participating youth the opportunity to complete a 10-hour training certification from the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). One site offered other certifications as 

part of the summer experience, including training in CPR, first aid, and babysitting. 

2. Industries and Tasks of Youth’s Summer Jobs 

Youth were placed in a wide range of industries and occupations during their summer work 

experiences. As mentioned in Chapter VI, sites targeted the public, private, and nonprofit sectors 

when recruiting employers. The most common industries reported by site visit respondents—

including LWIB and provider administrators, case managers, worksite recruiters, worksite 

supervisors, and employers—involved health care, public services, parks and recreation, and 

education/child care (see Figure VII.1). Seventeen sites placed youth in the health industry, with 

jobs in hospitals, nursing homes, mental health centers, dental offices, and other medical facilities. 

Another 13 had youth working in public services with county and municipal government agencies 

such as town hall, the chamber of commerce, the public housing department, the fire department, 

Veterans Affairs, or public works. Twelve developed programs in parks and recreation, which are 

discussed below in the section on green jobs. A comparable number of sites placed youth in 

educational institutions such as the superintendent or board of education offices, high schools, 

alternative schools, middle and elementary schools, and child care centers. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

66 

17

13

12 12

9

555

0

5

10

15

20

Medical or 

health

Public 

services

Parks and 

recreation

Education or 

child care

Social 

services 

(nonprofit)

Library 

services

Culinary or 

food service

Construction

Number of Sites Reporting at Least Some Youth Jobs

Figure VII.1 Common Industries for Summer Work Experiences 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Notes: This table includes only industries mentioned by five or more sites. Industries cited by fewer than five 

include agriculture, legal services, retail, workforce development, automotive, computer services, media, 

hospitality, and finance. Green jobs were not categorized as a separate industry but were included in the 

most closely related industry above. These jobs are discussed in detail later in this chapter. 

N = 20 sites. 

Within this wide range of industries, the most common duties that youth performed included 

administrative or clerical tasks, landscaping and outdoor maintenance, janitorial and indoor 

maintenance, and construction (see Table VII.3). Sixteen sites involved youth in administrative or 

clerical tasks, such as answering phones, filing, completing paperwork, and word processing. This 

appeared to be common within the top two industries: medical/health and public services. Another 

14 sites reported that at least some youth were conducting park reclamation, green space protection, 

and urban forestry. Day-to-day tasks in this area often included weeding; raising plant beds; planting 

flowers, bushes, and trees; digging and laying recreation trails; raking; trimming bushes; and cleaning 

and restoring playgrounds. Two sites also reported that some older youth or youth with more work 

experience were placed in higher-level positions or supervisory roles in a range of different 

industries. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

67 

Table VII.3 Common Tasks Performed by Participating Youth at Worksites 

Task 

Number of Sites 

Reporting at Least Some 

Youth Performing This 

as Primary Task 

Administrative or clerical duties 16 

Park reclamation, landscaping, outdoor maintenance 14 

Janitorial or indoor maintenance 12 

Construction 11 

Recycling computers, paper and other materials 10 

Child care, senior care, counseling at summer camps or playgrounds 10 

Weatherization and energy efficiency 8 

Agriculture, community gardening, urban gardening 8 

Food service 7 

Service, sales, or hospitality 7 

Computer repair or maintenance 6 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: This table includes only tasks mentioned by five or more sites. Additional tasks cited by fewer than five 

sites include health care tasks, automotive repair and maintenance, and pet grooming or care. 

N = 20 sites. 

Information gathered from the youth who participated in focus groups mirrors these patterns 

quite closely. Among these youth, over 87 percent reported working as part of the summer initiative 

(see Table VII.4).17 The most common industries included health care and social assistance, 

education services, and public administration. The most common job descriptions were office and 

administrative support; education, training, and library; and building and grounds cleaning and 

maintenance. 

Notably, both youth and staff reported that although youth’s daily tasks may have been at entry 

level, participants were nevertheless exposed to careers within the industry where they were placed 

in a summer job. For example, a youth filing paperwork at a doctor’s office learned about HIPAA 

regulations, observed health care workers interacting with patients, and experienced the general 

operations of a health care facility. A youth answering telephones at a nonprofit agency learned 

about the needs of the agency’s clients, the array of services available to meet those needs, and 

strategies that case managers used to match clients to the most appropriate services. These 

experiences were reported as valuable in exploring career options and considering future jobs. 

 17 Focus group information forms did not capture the non-employment activities that the remaining 13 percent of 

respondents were engaged in. However, focus group discussions revealed that most of these youth were in education 

programs. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

68 

Table VII.4 Summer Work Experiences of Focus Group Participants 

All Participants 

(Percentages) 

Working as part of the Recovery Act SYEI 87.9 

Industrya 

Healthcare, social assistance 30.7 

Education services 28.2 

Public administration 9.7 

Arts, entertainment, recreation 6.5 

Retail trade 4.0 

Administration and support, waste management, remediation 

services 2.4 

Accommodations and food service 2.4 

Other 4.8 

Not specified 11.3 

Occupationa 

Office and Administrative Support 27.4 

Education, Training, and Library 24.2 

Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance 19.4 

Personal Care and Service 5.7 

Health Care Practitioners and Technical and Health Care Support 4.0 

Food Preparation and Serving Related 3.2 

Sales and Related 3.2 

Community and Social Service 2.4 

Arts Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media 0.8 

Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 0.8 

Transportation and Material Moving 0.8 

Not Specified 8.1 

Sample Size 124 

Source: Information forms completed by youth who participated in site visit focus groups. 

Notes: Those who did not report working may have been enrolled in an academic program or may not have been 

assigned to an employer by the time of the site visit. 

Data on industry were coded according to the North American Industry Classification System and 

occupations were coded based on the Standard Occupational Classification System. 

a

 Data pertain only to those youth who reported working as a part of the Recovery Act SYEI at the time of the site visit. 

3. Pre-apprenticeship Programs 

Across the 20 sites, only three sites developed pre-apprenticeship programs to support youth 

development in the trades (see Table VII.5). The Seattle program built upon an existing 

relationship; Lehigh Valley and Roanoke developed new programs from the ground up. In 

describing the motivation for developing a new pre-apprenticeship program, one site administrator 

explained that the region expects widespread retirement among baby boomers to create more 

demand for skilled workers in the building and construction industry. 

Each pre-apprenticeship program lasted seven to eight weeks and covered a range of building 

and construction trades (see Table VII.5). All three targeted older youth: one enrolled only 17- and 

18-year-olds, and two enrolled only those 18 or older. The two new programs enrolled small 

numbers; the existing program in Seattle enrolled 100 summer youth. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

69 

Table VII.5 Characteristics of Pre-Apprenticeship Programs 

Site 

Local 

Partner 

Number 

Enrolled 

Trades Covered During 

Training 

Type of Work 

Experience 

Seattle South Seattle 

Community College 

and Manufacturing 

Industrial Council 

100 Cement masonry, carpentry, 

drywall, energy auditing, 

weatherization, power 

utility work, heating and 

cooling, energy-efficient 

window-glazing 

Private sector 

employers 

Lehigh Valley United Community 

Services 

12 Building and construction 

trades 

Visitors and 

field trips to 

worksites 

Roanoke Labor Local #980 10 Electrical, brick laying, 

sheet metal, carpentry and 

concrete 

Habitat for 

Humanity 

All three programs balanced classroom activities with practical hands-on experience. The 

Roanoke program consisted of four weeks in training followed by three weeks of on-site job training 

at a Habitat for Humanity construction site. The Seattle program involved three weeks of classroom 

training followed by worksite placements at private sector employers. Finally, the Lehigh Valley 

program involved two days per week in the classroom, one day per week with visitors who work in 

the field, and one day per week of hands-on activities during field trips. 

Participants who completed two of these programs received an industry-recognized 

certification. In particular, one program included the 10-hour OSHA training that resulted in 

certification. The other site’s program involved certifications in CPR and flagging for construction 

sites. 

4. Green Jobs 

Given the focus of the Obama administration on training workers for green jobs, the guidance 

provided by ETA placed a strong emphasis on “incorporating green work experiences” in SYEIs. 

This included both conservation and sustainable practices. Suggested areas included “retrofitting of 

public buildings, the construction of energy-efficient affordable public housing, solar panel 

installation, reclaiming of public park areas, or recycling of computers” (U.S. Department of Labor 

2009d). Local areas were also encouraged to partner with community colleges to identify training 

opportunities or coursework that could be infused with green components. 

Despite this guidance, study respondents across sites and even within sites often did not use a 

common definition for green jobs. What one person considered green, another did not. 

Administrators and staff in three sites explicitly expressed confusion over the definition. Many 

other sites categorized a range of different activities as green. For example, some sites considered 

green jobs to be those directly related to occupations in renewable energy, environmental consulting, 

and energy-efficient construction. Others discussed non-green jobs, such as administrative or 

maintenance functions, within green industries or organizations. Still others talked about green 

exposure within non-green jobs, such as the use of recycling and environmentally friendly products 
Mathematica Policy Research 

70 

through day-to-day business practices. This mimics the findings presented by the GAO suggesting 

that local areas were unclear about what constitutes a green job (U.S. Government Accountability 

Office 2009). As a first step in defining the concept of green jobs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

developed new O*Net occupational classifications, released in summer 2009, to define green jobs.18 

Keeping in mind local variation in the definition of green jobs, nine sites reported little success 

in placing summer youth in the green sector. Four of these reported that because the local area 

contained very little green industry, they were unable to tap into an existing market. Three felt that 

the time frame for implementation was too tight to develop jobs in new industries, including the 

green industry. One site also said that 80 percent of job placements were made in the nonprofit and 

public sectors; most local green jobs were found in the private sector. The remaining two sites had 

planned to identify green jobs but could not report why it was not happening. Despite their 

reported lack of success, all these sites were able to engage at least a small number of youth in green 

jobs. 

By contrast, 11 sites reported success in developing green jobs for the summer. Some were not 

able to identify as many as they had planned but were still pleased with the proportion of youth who 

were exposed to a green work experience. Specific reports were not available from all sites, but five 

reported placing between 10 and 48 percent of youth in green jobs. The site reporting 48 percent 

involved youth in a large conservation effort. 

Green jobs across all 20 sites were identified within the private, nonprofit, and public sectors. 

For example, youth were placed at for-profit organizations such as environmental consulting firms, a 

manufacturing facility that makes products to aid in oil cleanup, retailers selling organic and recycled 

products, and a company selling energy-efficient two-wheeled vehicles. Nonprofit worksites that 

involved green concepts included urban gardens, an agency focused on the fair production and 

distribution of food, and community development organizations doing graffiti removal and 

neighborhood beautification. Other sites partnered with government agencies—such as Parks and 

Recreation, the Forestry Department, and the Bureau of Land Management—to develop green jobs. 

Three sites developed their own conservation corps to do community cleanup without the assistance 

of other agencies, and one site partnered with the public housing authority to do energy audits. 

Across all 20 sites, the most common green jobs included park reclamation, recycling, 

weatherization and energy efficiency, and community gardening (see Table VII.3). Less-common 

jobs were in industries such as construction, manufacturing of green building materials, and the 

energy sector, including solar and wind energy. As discussed above, some of these jobs involved 

administrative or maintenance tasks within a green industry, but youth were nevertheless exposed to 

the field. Park reclamation and related jobs appeared to involve the largest number of youth across 

sites. Box VII.3 provides some examples of green jobs reported across the sites. 

 18 Recognizing the growing emphasis on green jobs, recent public, nonprofit, and private sector efforts are under 

way to define the concept of green jobs more clearly. In addition to efforts by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, several 

states have conducted surveys and analytic studies of green jobs (Graybill 2009; Hardcastle 2009; Jolly 2008; Michigan 

Department of Energy 2009; New York State Department of Labor 2009; Oregon Employment Department 2009). 

Additional studies have been conducted by the Pew Charitable Foundation, Statistics Canada, and Eurostat (Pew 

Charitable Trusts 2009; Statistics Canada 2007; Eurostat 2009). 
Mathematica Policy Research 

71 

Box VII.3: Examples of Green Job Placements 

The site in Bridgeport, CT, partnered with the mayor’s office on a green initiative. Several youth accompanied 

city staff as they visited local residents from door to door. The team talked to residents about energy 

efficiency strategies and made simple conservation efforts such as changing light bulbs. 

In Springfield, MA, 30 youth helped to turn a dump site into an outdoor amphitheater for local concerts and 

events. On the worksite, they performed cleanup, made art out of recycled junk, and helped with community 

gardening. 

The site in Albuquerque, NM, partnered with a local housing authority that received Recovery Act funds to 

support weatherization of homes. Several youth were placed at this site to answer telephone inquiries from 

residents and help them complete applications to receive weatherization services. 

In Pittsburgh, PA, 140 youth who were served by the Student Conservation Association spent the summer 

building a playground for a new green development that serves homeless mothers and their children, 

building new recreation trails through low-income neighborhoods, building rock steps and tinder bridges, 

removing invasive plant species, and using global positioning systems to plot different tree species. 

Two youth in Lehigh Valley, PA, performed administrative duties at an environmental consulting group 

aimed at “building stewardship” by helping academic, nonprofit, and professional clients develop 

environmentally sustainable practices and facilities. 

Seven sites also tried to reinforce green concepts during classroom activities. As discussed in 

Chapter V, four sites discussed green concepts such as recycling and energy conservation in the 

work readiness training provided to all participating youth. Another site offered an occupational 

skills training in construction that discussed green technology, materials, and building techniques. 

Another site worked with the local community college to offer a two-week training course on green 

career paths. Finally, one site developed a program where students could receive college credits for 

the exploration of water quality jobs. 

5. Community Service Activities 

Many participating youth contributed to community service projects through their worksite 

placements and training activities. For example, occupational skills training in one site and a preapprenticeship program in another culminated in a community service project. Youth in career 

academies in two sites also participated routinely in these projects throughout the summer. Two 

other sites reported that, as part of their paid work experience, some youth volunteered at the local 

senior center, humane society, food pantry, community arts center, and Habitat for Humanity. Most 

of the parks reclamation and community cleanup activities were also considered service learning 

opportunities. 

Only two sites, however, actively encouraged service learning beyond the worksite and 

classroom. In particular, one site offered a wage incentive of an extra $1 per hour to those youth 

who committed to completing 20 hours of community service over the course of the summer. 

Front-line staff developed lists of potential community service sites by contacting local nonprofit 

organizations. They also encouraged youth to identify their own opportunities through local 

churches and schools. Youth were required to have the community service supervisor sign a log 

tracking the hours completed. A provider in the second site encouraged volunteering through its 

health care program. Youth were taught the importance of volunteering, and staff helped them fill 
Mathematica Policy Research 

72 

Youth Perspectives: Perceived Benefits of Work Experience Include Connections to Career Goals 

“I want to be a writer, and this documentary, or the things that they have me doing, gives me the opportunity to get comfortable 

with using my voice and putting my ideas and my views out there. So, just a great experience on so many levels.” 

“My major is pre-social work, and I want to work for an adoption agency or foster care. And at the children’s home [where I 

work], they have an adoption program and foster care, and I have had the opportunity to learn about the adoption process 

there.” 

“Hopefully I will be like an anesthesiologist. So that’s why I’m majoring in chemistry. It’s pre-med. [This summer] is like a 

shadowing experience, because I actually do go in during different surgeries, and I get to like see firsthand if I could see myself 

doing this.” 

“I work in the resource room, and I’ll help customers do job search, if they need to make résumés. I really love it because I get 

to help people who don’t have jobs who are looking for jobs and who really need help. . . . It’s not what I wanted to do, [but] 

I kind of think I can make a career out of this, ’cause I really do enjoy it.” 

“There are the people that study the immune system and find the vaccinations. So I’ve been working with CMV—that’s 

herpes—and cancer. Just trying to like basically connect all the dots so that they can find the vaccinations for herpes right now. 

I’m interested in immunology, so that was neat that I got that job, because that’s like specifically what I am interested in.” 

“I don’t ever want to be a landscaper. . . . The way it did help me was, because of this experience, now I know I would never 

want to do that. . . . I don’t think there are negative parts about the job. I mean, the work is hard, but we learned, like, this 

is not what we want to do in the future.” 

out a volunteer application at the local hospital so they could begin unpaid volunteer work outside 

their summer experience. 

6. Youth Impressions of Summer Employment 

Although the study is not designed to rigorously assess whether the tasks performed by youth 

provided “meaningful” work, youth in 19 of the 20 sites provided their perspectives during focus 

groups on the usefulness to them of their summer work experiences. Youth were largely positive, 

citing noticeable improvements in their soft skills, work performance, and resumes. They also 

expressed appreciation for the income. However, a smaller number of youth were unhappy with 

aspects of their summer jobs and suggested improvements to the summer initiative. 

When asked what was most useful about their summer experience, at least some youth in 11 

sites mentioned that it helped build their résumé and prepare them to find better jobs in the future. 

Youth in seven focus groups mentioned developing networking skills, contacts within the 

professional community, and solid references. Youth in six groups reported that their jobs were 

directly related to their long-term career goals. Finally, at least some youth in five sites were placed 

in jobs that were not related to their interests but felt that they still learned valuable lessons and 

skills. 

Despite the largely positive response, at least one youth in seven sites expressed dissatisfaction 

with the work experience. Some complained that the work was boring, they did not like the work, 

or they did not have enough work to keep busy. Others said their jobs did not match their interests, 

and they were not learning useful skills. Two youth in one focus group also reported that they were 

paid less and worked fewer hours than they were promised during the application process. These 
Mathematica Policy Research 

73 

Youth Perspectives: Perceived Benefits of Work Experience Such as Increases in 

Professionalism, Interpersonal Skills, and Leadership 

“This is like a perfect first job because like you learn like your responsibilities, you learn how to work with other people, 

your communication skills. . . .I’m like all excited about it. My first check came. It was exciting. . . .And I feel like after

this I will find another job, since I have a reference.” 

“It didn’t help me exactly with the career field I want to do, ’cause I want to do something in the medical field. The 

OSHA helped a little bit with like the medical stuff, but like I think it’s more of the experience. Like you learn to adapt 

to different situations and how to deal with different people and how to be professional, and that helps you in any career.” 

“Usually I talk to people that I have something in common with. And so, like, now I work with people that I don’t know, 

that I don’t have anything in common with, that I normally wouldn’t even talk to. . . . So I kind of learned to interact 

with people I don’t know and how to work well with them.” 

“I want to be a social worker, and working at the science center helps me interact with a lot of different people and learn a 

lot of different stuff. So when I work at the information desk, I get a good chance to interact and like see how I can handle 

different problems.” 

“I got some leadership skills since [my worksite supervisor] said that I was going to be the supervisor for my group. . . . I’m

not really such a good leader type, and I was really surprised, and it’s been good. Like, people actually listened to me. . . .

I’m good at following directions but wasn’t used to giving them.” 

youth suggested that to help improve the summer experience, sites should work harder to find the 

right employer match given youth interests and ensure that there is enough interesting work at each 

employer to justify a summer job. 

C. Matching Youth To Summer Experiences 

To ensure a high-quality summer experience, local staff had to identify the most appropriate 

mix of services for each youth and match him or her to an academic program, an employer worksite, 

or both. This process was not trivial, given the volume of youth and the range of local experiences 

that were available. Many factors drove local decisions, including the personal interests of youth, the 

availability of worksites, and employer preferences. 

1. Strategies to Match Youth to Academic Programs 

Among the two-thirds of sites that offered academic programs either in addition to or instead 

of work experiences, youth were generally enrolled in academics based on an expressed interest or 

need. To match youth with occupational skills training, GED preparation, or postsecondary 

education, staff often identified appropriate academics based on interest inventories completed 

during the intake or orientation process. For example, a youth who expressed interest in becoming 

a nurse or doctor might be referred to a health care academy or training opportunity. In some cases, 

staff reviewed IEPs submitted by the local school district as part of eligibility determination to 

decide whether a youth was in need of school credit recovery or remediation. As mentioned earlier, 

three sites also placed younger youth in classroom activities based on their age and skill level. 

Aside from age-based programs that engaged large numbers of younger participants in 

academics, most sites offered academics to only a limited number of summer participants. Even so, 
Mathematica Policy Research 

74 

some sites had difficulty filling all of their academic slots. For example, one site offered up to 16 

slots in each occupational skills training class but only enrolled 13 to 14 youth per class. Analysis of 

youth focus group transcripts suggest that some youth may not have been interested in attending 

school-based activities in a classroom setting during the summer months. Others appeared unaware 

of the availability of occupational skills training or other academic offerings. 

2. Strategies to Match Youth to Summer Jobs 

Ensuring a solid match between youth and employer was critical for both satisfying the 

employer’s needs and maximizing the likelihood that the youth had a “meaningful” work experience. 

Sites reported that many employers had, for their new summer hires, specific requirements that had 

to be considered as sites determined their matching strategies. At least some providers in 10 sites 

reported that many worksites wanted older youth or youth with high school diplomas. As a result, it 

was more difficult to find placements for younger youth. Other employers had very specific 

requirements, such as hiring only youth residing in their municipality; youth with specific job skills 

such as computer literacy; youth with at least a 10th-grade reading level; or youth with a driver’s 

license. 

Given these factors and the volume of youth recruited for the SYEI, sites developed jobmatching approaches that fell into four categories (see Figure VII.2). First, five sites required all or 

most youth to formally interview with prospective employers. Second, seven sites used matching 

processes that were driven largely by staff decisions but involved some interviewing based on 

employer requests. Third, another five sites empowered staff to match youth based on available 

information without any employer interviews. Finally, three sites had staff work directly with youth 

to select the most appropriate employer from the ones available. 

Figure VII.2 Job Matching Strategies 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: N= 20 sites. 

5

7

5

3 Formal Interviews

Staff Decisions with 

Some Interviews

Staff Decisions Only

Staff Consulted Directly 

With Youth
Mathematica Policy Research 

75 

Site administrators and staff in the 12 sites that conducted interviewing reported several reasons 

for using formal job interviews. The primary goals were (1) to simulate a real interview experience 

when applying for a job, (2) to ensure that the employer was comfortable with the match and was 

given the opportunity to choose the best candidate, and (3) to allow the youth to become familiar 

with the potential work environment. 

Most interviewing involved one-on-one personal interactions between the employer and each 

interested youth. Site staff typically determined one or more potentially good employer matches for 

a given youth and then sent the youth on an interview with the worksite supervisor. The supervisor 

either hired the youth or asked to interview another candidate. One of these sites had staff 

accompany youth on their interviews to provide support, and two sites gave feedback to the youth 

based either on staff observation or the employer’s feedback. In addition, two sites chose to hold 

site-wide job fairs for participating youth where employers interviewed multiple youth in the same 

day (see Box VII.4). 

Respondents in the eight sites that chose not to conduct interviews said either that the time 

frame was too short or that it would have been logistically too difficult to interview all youth. 

Instead, these sites relied on staff either to review each youth’s information or to talk directly with 

the youth before matching him or her to the most appropriate employer. Factors contributing to 

this matching process are discussed in detail below. 

3. Factors Influencing the Job Matching Process 

When asked what factors influenced their decisions to match youth with worksites, site staff 

reported four key considerations. First, 14 sites reported that youth interests expressed during 

application, orientation, or meetings with site staff drove the choice of employer. Second, 12 sites 

reported that the matching process was influenced by the job requirements based on age, 

experience, or skills or the types of employers available at the time of the matching. Third, 11 sites 

reported that direct employer feedback on candidates through the formal interviewing process was a 

major factor. Finally, 10 sites considered transportation needs and limitations when placing youth. 

Six sites were not able to match youth with employers based on youth’s expressed interests. 

Interviews with site staff and administrators revealed five main reasons. 

Box VII.4: The Use of Job Fairs to Match Youth to Employers 

Athens, GA – At the start of the program, participating youth and employers attended a brief orientation 

session that ended with formal interviews. Youth were responsible for approaching worksite supervisors to 

initiate at least three interviews. Some interviews were held in small groups, while others were one on one. 

At the end of the job fair, each employer ranked his or her top three candidates. Staff then determined 

which youth would be placed with each employer. 

Denver, CO – The site held three job fairs with the goal of having 95 percent of youth experience an 

interview. Youth were divided into groups by age and sent to a job fair with employers looking to hire 

from that age range. Employers were also color-coded by geographic region so the youth would interview 

with those close to their homes. During the job fairs, employers could either offer the job to a youth 

immediately or interview another youth. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

76 

1. Timing of Employer Recruitment. As discussed in Chapter VI, recruitment of 

employers typically began before youth recruitment, so available employers were not 

always the best fit based on youth interests. 

2. First-come, First-served Structure. Most sites recruited enough employers given the 

total volume of enrolled youth. However, job matching was treated as first-come, firstserved which may have limited the types of employers available to youth enrolled later in 

the summer. 

3. Need for Quick Placements. Some local providers felt pressure to place youth 

quickly, which limited their time to make the best possible match. 

4. Employer Age Restrictions. There were more limited opportunities for younger youth 

due to employer requirements. 

5. Lack of Communication. Three sites reported that lack of communication resulted in 

difficulties matching youth to appropriate employers. In two of these sites, local 

providers were not given youth’s intake paperwork and therefore did not know their 

interests before they arrived for service. The third site reported that youth recruitment 

and employer recruitment were conducted by completely separate staff, who did not 

coordinate efforts. As a result, there was a significant mismatch between the types of 

jobs that youth wanted and the employers that participated. 

4. Challenges to Placing Youth in Jobs 

Once youth were determined eligible and enrolled in the initiative, at least some in four sites 

were, after receiving orientation and work readiness training, not placed in jobs. In three of these 

sites, these youth interviewed poorly and were not selected or hired by any prospective employers. 

The fourth site reported that they enrolled more youth than could be matched given the number of 

appropriate employers that were available. None of these sites were able to provide solid estimates 

for the number of youth who were not placed. 

Most of these youth were not provided with additional services and were not referred to other 

services within the community. One site notified the youth by mail that they would not receive 

further services from the initiative. Another site, however, reported that a small number of youth 

who interviewed poorly were hired directly by local service providers. This helped ensure that the 

youth were given the extra mentoring and guidance needed to have a successful experience and 

prevented the site from turning the youth away altogether. 

D. Hours, Wages, and Process for Compensating Youth 

The Recovery Act SYEI focused on putting money into the hands of youth. To balance their 

budgets, sites had to make trade-offs when identifying the number of youth to be served, the length 

of the summer initiative, the number of hours that each youth could participate, and the pay rate. 

Although generally successful when distributing their Recovery Act funds, most sites experienced at 

least some challenges in compensating youth. 

1. Hours and Weeks Worked in Summer Jobs 

The summer initiative ran from May through September 2009, for a total of 22 weeks. Most 

sites, however, did not begin serving youth until late June or early July. In determining the length of 
Mathematica Policy Research 

77 

their initiatives, sites ultimately needed to weigh the pros and cons of providing more youth with less 

intensive experiences that lasted for fewer weeks or fewer youth with more intensive experiences 

that lasted more weeks. 

Two sites discussed the challenges of determining the right initiative length. The LWIB in one 

site had to negotiate with a local provider as a result of differences in their service philosophies and 

developed a compromise on the number of youth that would be served and the number of weeks 

they could participate. The provider was accustomed to working intensively with at-risk youth over 

long periods of time. However, given the guidance provided by ETA to focus resources on summer 

2009, the LWIB wanted the provider to enroll more youth for fewer weeks than what the provider 

wanted. In the second site, a LWIB administrator reported that the primary goal was to serve as 

many youth as possible in summer 2009, limiting the total number of work hours available to each 

youth. If the site were to implement the initiative again, the LWIB expected to serve fewer youth 

who could work more hours to maximize the benefit of their experience. 

On average, summer experiences lasted seven weeks if a youth participated from start to finish. 

All but one initiative ranged from a minimum of 3 weeks to a maximum of 20. The one exception 

involved a provider that planned to continue serving its summer youth with Recovery Act funds 

through February 2010 even though it was not a regular WIA provider. Another site allowed a 

subset of youth who successfully completed their six-week work experience to work for additional 

weeks so the site could spend the rest of their Recovery Act allocation before the end of the 

summer. 

On average, youth could work about 28 hours a week at their job placements, accumulating an 

average of just under 200 potential work hours if they completed the full initiative. One site paid 

youth for only 16 hours per week; seven sites paid youth full-time for 40 hours per week. Total 

hours ranged from 66 to 400 across the 20 sites. In three sites, the available work hours varied 

based on the age of the youth, with younger youth working fewer hours. Another site commented 

that older youth who were not governed by as many employer regulations were also able to work 

evening and overnight shifts. 

Information gathered during youth focus groups reflects these same patterns. Focus group 

participants had been working for an average of just over five weeks by the time of our site visits in 

late July and August (see Table VII.6). On average, they worked 27 hours per week. Forty-five 

percent were working between 20 and 29 hours per week, with another 44 percent working 30 hours 

or more. 

At least some youth in nine focus groups discussed the desire to work more hours for more 

weeks. The two primary reasons were (1) to continue participating in productive activities through 

the rest of the summer, and (2) to gain more work experience. A less-common reason was to earn 

more income. 

2. Youth’s Wages and Potential Earnings 

On average, youth received $7.75 per hour for their summer work experience. Half the sites 

paid most or all youth the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour; two sites paid the state 

minimum wage of $7.40 and $7.75 per hour. Youth in another seven sites typically earned between 

$8.00 and $8.55 per hour. One site paid all youth $10 per hour. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

78 

Table VII.6 Work Hours and Wages of Focus Group Participants 

All Participants 

(Percentages 

 Unless Specified) 

Weeks Worked to Date 

1-2 7.3 

3-4 25.0 

5-6 27.4 

≥7 31.5 

Not Specified 8.9 

Average (weeks) 5.4 

Hours Worked/Week 

<20 11.3 

20-29 45.2 

30-34 25.0 

≥35 18.6 

Average (hours) 26.5 

Hourly Wage 

$7.25 26.6 

$7.26-$7.99 11.3 

$8.00-$9.99 22.6 

≥$10.00 10.5 

Not Specified 29.0 

Average (wage) $8.33 

Sample Size 124 

Source: Information forms completed by youth who participated in site visit focus groups. 

Note: Data pertain only to those youth focus group participants who reported working during the SYEI. 

Subsets of youth in some sites, however, could earn more than their peers. For example, older 

youth sometimes earned more than younger youth. Two sites paid youth in supervisory roles 

additional wages, one offering an extra $1 per hour and the other offering between $9 and $12 for 

supervisors. Another paid some youth additional wages because one employer in the financial 

industry required a minimum of $12 per hour for entry-level positions. As discussed earlier, one site 

also paid an extra $1 per hour to those enrolled in a GED program or postsecondary education or 

agreed to conduct 20 hours of civic involvement. 

Considering the average potential of 200 work hours, youth could earn total potential wages of 

about $1,526 over the summer.19 Looking across sites, potential earnings ranged from a low of $986 

to a high of $4,000 per youth. Seven sites had maximum earnings between $2,000 and $3,000. In 16 

sites, however, the maximum earning potential varied across youth as a result of differences in the 

hours worked per week, the number of paid weeks, and the actual wage paid to each youth. 

 19 These figures include hourly wages for both work and academic experiences but do not include additional 

supportive service payments or one-time stipends or incentives for the completion of academic activities. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

79 

Members of our focus groups reported earning slightly more than the typical youth enrolled 

across all 20 sites. As shown in Table VII.6, focus group participants earned an average of $8.33 per 

hour. Just over one quarter earned the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, and over 10 

percent earned $10 or more. This may result from the fact that focus group participants were 

recruited by site staff and are not representative of any larger group. 

3. Challenges to Payroll Processing 

Responsible for paying wages to a large group of youth who served as new “summer 

employees,” sites had to identify the best strategy to organize their payroll processing. Three 

organizational models emerged. First, half the sites chose to have local youth providers collect 

timesheets and issue paychecks to participating youth. Second, eight sites had the LWIB or its fiscal 

agent maintain responsibility for the process payroll. Finally, the LWIB’s fiscal agent and the 

providers shared responsibility for payroll in the remaining two sites.20 

Within these three basic payroll models, one LWIB and three local providers across four 

different sites contracted with an outside vendor to process payroll. In addition, at least one 

provider in two sites required that employers pay youth wages directly. Employers supplied 

documentation to the provider and were subsequently reimbursed with Recovery Act funds. 

Challenges in the payroll process emerged quickly. Three sites reported that at least one 

provider had difficulty with cash flow. Under cost reimbursement contracts, providers in these sites 

were required to pay youth with their own funds, document the payments, and submit an invoice for 

reimbursement by the LWIB. This proved challenging for some small community-based providers. 

Providers in one of these sites also reported that they would not be reimbursed until the end of the 

initiative and therefore had to spend the bulk of their operating budgets to continue paying youth 

throughout the summer. To help prevent this problem, a different site gave providers the option of 

a 20 percent advance to cover initial wages before reimbursements began. 

Scaling up local payroll systems to accommodate the volume of youth caused difficulties in 

seven sites. Providers were responsible for payroll in three of these sites, and the LWIB or its fiscal 

agent was responsible in the other four. A doubling of payroll in some locations created large 

workloads and significant stress among payroll staff. A small number of sites also experienced 

software or systems problems as they began processing the large increase in the payroll. These 

problems were generally resolved quickly. 

Logistical problems in the flow and functioning of the payroll process arose in nearly threequarters of local sites. Among these, eight reported issues with timesheet collection. In particular, 

four had difficulty collecting timesheets from some youth and employers in a timely manner, which 

resulted in delays in the processing of some paychecks. Another four sites reported errors or lack of 

signatures on some timesheets. Thinking forward to future summer initiatives, respondents from 

two of these sites reported that they would provide a more detailed timesheet orientation for both 

 20 In one of these two sites, the fiscal agent was an education agency and processed the majority of payroll. 

However, the agency could not assume payroll responsibility for those youth who did not clear a background check, so 

the providers were responsible for paying this subset. In the other site, most providers handled payroll, but the LWIB’s 

fiscal agent processed payroll for two providers who did not have the internal capacity. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

80 

youth and employers. Respondents from another three sites also planned to consider electronic 

payroll systems or contracts with outside payroll vendors in the future. 

Among those sites reporting logistical challenges, eight also experienced issues with paychecks. 

Three reported paycheck errors in the hours worked or amount paid to youth. Six of the eight also 

had problems distributing checks to youth. Among these, two reported that it was time-consuming 

and logistically challenging for provider staff to pick up paychecks from the LWIB’s fiscal agent 

after payroll was processed and subsequently distribute checks to youth. Another reported that each 

youth had to sign a form documenting that he or she received the check. Two more sites reported 

that checks were often distributed late. Finally, one site said that youth did not receive their first 

paycheck until a month after the pay period ended. Most sites had already begun to remedy these 

problems by the time of the site visits; others were considering alternative strategies to help stem the 

problems in future summer initiatives. 

When asked how they were able to process payroll without problems, the sites that did not 

experience challenges with payroll logistics simply reported that they had the existing infrastructure 

to handle the influx of youth or had efficient processes in place through previous WIA summer 

programming efforts. All of these sites required that employers sign youth timesheets. However, 

their processes for collecting timesheets varied with staff picking up timesheets from worksites, 

youth dropping off timesheets at the provider office, or employers sending or faxing timesheets to 

the provider. Paychecks were generally either distributed by staff through visits to the worksites or 

youth picked up their paychecks at the provider office. 

Beyond payroll processing, 3 of the 20 sites reported that youth had to pay significant 

surcharges to cash their checks. In one of these sites, staff tried to educate youth about how to 

open a bank account to avoid these charges. However, staff reported that many youth were hesitant 

to do so either because of distrust of the banking system or concerns that their parents would access 

their wages through the account. Although many youth reported that their summer salaries helped 

support their household, staff members in another three sites also mentioned that youth expressed 

concern over the possibility that their parents would confiscate their wages. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

81 

Key Findings: Assessing Youth Progress 

• Staff felt that in-person visits were critical to youth’s retention and success in the workplace.

Sites used a combination of formal and informal monitoring techniques to assess youth progress at 

their jobs and proactively prevent major problems that could result in termination or drop-off.

• Flexibility in the measurement of increases in work readiness resulted in inconsistency 

across sites and sometimes within sites. To assess growth, most, but not all, sites measured 

work readiness skills before and after youth participated in activities. However, sites varied 

substantially in the timing of these assessments, the methods of capturing data (such as through 

staff observation, employer feedback, and testing of youth knowledge), and the types of skills 

assessed.

• Sites planned to use established linkages with schools, regular WIA services, and other 

community partners to transition youth to post-summer activities. However, respondents 

reported that budget constraints and other factors may have limited the number of youth who could 

be transitioned to the regular WIA youth and adult programs.

• Local administrators, staff, and employers feared that the weak economy would diminish 

the number of participants placed in permanent jobs. However, because site visits were 

conducted during the summer, the study was unable to assess the actual rates of permanent 

placement among SYEI participants. 

VIII. ASSESSING YOUTH PROGRESS 

Because the SYEI represented a significant investment of public resources, it was incumbent 

upon local sites to assess their progress and the progress of participating youth. Since most youth 

had little or no work experience, they naturally had to work on developing the attributes of good 

workers. Recognizing this, sites established procedures to provide assistance to youth both during 

and after their job placements and to track their progress over time. Furthermore, they needed to 

ensure that employers were meeting the expectations set for them based on their agreement to 

participate in the initiative. 

This chapter discusses sites’ efforts to track and document the progress of youth who 

participated in the SYEI. Section A discusses strategies sites used to monitor youth activities and 

employer compliance while youth were at their summer jobs. Section B then turns to data collection 

efforts to assess increases in the work readiness skills of participating youth and to gather feedback 

on program performance. Finally, Section C discusses the efforts sites made to ensure a smooth 

transition of youth to new opportunities after the SYEI came to an end. 

A. Monitoring Worksite Experiences 

Throughout the summer, staff spent significant time and energy following the progress of 

participating youth once they were placed at jobs. They sought to ensure that youth were receiving 

the mentorship they needed to learn and grow and were safe and productive in their workplaces. 

Although the study is not designed to measure their success in these efforts, site visit interviews 

examined the range of monitoring strategies that emerged across the sites. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

82 

1. Adult Mentoring at Youth Worksites 

Youth at all but one site were connected with an adult mentor at the start of their summer 

experience. At 12 sites, the worksite supervisor or a coworker at the job served as the youth mentor. 

At the other seven, worksite personnel and front-line staff shared responsibility for mentoring. As 

discussed in Chapter VI, sites discussed mentorship expectations with employers at the beginning of 

the summer, emphasizing that participants required more attention than regular employees. Many 

employers who were interviewed explained that their organizations had a vested interest in the 

success of these youth, and therefore they took their roles as mentors very seriously. Though the 

intensity of mentorship varied across sites, most youth were reported to interact with their worksite 

mentors daily and their program mentors less frequently. 

Local staff and employers reported that mentoring relationships focused heavily on soft skills 

such as punctuality, work ethic, communication, and professionalism. Respondents felt that hard 

skills that were directly relevant for the job were easier to teach and, in some ways, less critical to the 

success of a youth’s summer experience. Despite ETA guidance that participants should not be 

treated as “regular employees,” respondents in seven sites stated that treating youth like “regular 

employees” was a valuable mentorship tool that taught them the importance of worksite 

performance and expectations. 

2. Formal and Informal Monitoring of Worksites 

To ensure that youth were having “meaningful” work experiences and receiving sufficient 

mentoring and oversight, sites expended significant staff resources monitoring youth activities once 

they were placed on a job. Although all 20 sites made in-person visits to worksites, two different 

approaches to monitoring emerged: (1) 11 sites used formal monitoring that involved site visits 

using a strict protocol, and (2) 17 sites used informal monitoring where staff informally dropped by 

employers to check in with youth and supervisors and to observe conditions at the site. Nine of 

these 17 used only informal monitoring; the remaining 8 used a combination of formal and informal.

Formal monitoring generally consisted of in-person visits to a worksite, during which a staff 

member used a standard protocol or monitoring checklist to assess quality (see Box VIII.1). 

Monitors followed three primary activities (1) speaking with the supervisor; (2) speaking with the 

youth, and (3) observing working conditions, safety, and compliance with child labor laws. The goal 

Youth Perspectives: Mentoring by Worksite Supervisors 

“I’m thinking about being a teacher when I’m older, so right now like interacting with kids, and even the teachers there, they 

help me. They give me lessons on how I should, like, talk to the kids and stuff, so that’s helping me out a lot.” 

“There’s a bunch of psychologists that are already there. They invite us to lunch, and we just talk, and I go over what steps 

they took to get to the position that they’re in. And, you know, what I can do.” 

“I’ll be like a step ahead of the game. [My supervisors] want to, like, sit down with me and like show me what classes I 

should be taking and what colleges I should be going to. . . . I’ll actually be, like, ready to just go straight to [the local 

university].” 
Mathematica Policy Research 

83 

Box VIII.1: Example of Formal Worksite Monitoring Activities 

In Hazard, KY, youth providers across the site hired a total of 21 temporary summer employees as site 

monitors. The site monitors were responsible for visiting the worksites weekly. The providers were asked 

to target college students for the site monitor positions to further the mission of providing employment 

opportunities to young adults. Though some college students were hired, the monitors were mostly older 

adults, including school teachers and retirees. Site monitors were trained as a group by the lead agency 

using a manual that described the rules governing worksites. Monitors have three main responsibilities. 

Worksite Checklists. Monitors completed a visual checklist containing 16 questions about the 

type of work youth were performing, the availability of adequate equipment, the number of youth 

assigned to the worksite, the number of youth present during the visit, safety concerns at the 

worksite, and whether youth were on-task. 

Supervisor Interviews. Monitors conducted a supervisor interview using a list of 32 questions 

developed by the lead agency. The interview covered safety, child labor laws, the work activities for 

SYEI youth, procedures in case of an accident, employers’ benefits from the SYEI, and any 

performance issues and resolutions. The supervisor was interviewed once over the course of the 

SYEI, and the interview took 10 to 15 minutes. 

Youth Interviews. The lead agency randomly selected about 10 percent of each provider’s 

participants to interview. Monitors reported trying to schedule these interviews near the end of a 

youth’s work experience. Questions included the type of work performed, how the youth heard 

about the program, whether their supervisor was always on location while they were working, 

transportation issues, and any problems experienced. 

of these activities was to identify any workplace safety or compliance issues that needed to be 

resolved, as well as issues with the employer (such as inadequate supervision of youth activities), or 

the youth (such as chronic tardiness or poor attitude). One site also reported providing technical 

assistance to employers as needed. For example, one worksite lacked a sexual harassment policy, so 

the monitor helped the site develop one. At all but one of the sites that used this formal strategy, 

monitoring visits were the responsibility of the lead agency. In the last site, provider staff was 

responsible for monitoring activities. 

Across the 11 sites that did at least some formal visits, only 3 sites visited worksites more than 

twice during the summer (see Table VIII.1). In these sites, visits occurred either weekly or every 

two to three weeks. In the other sites, visits occurred either once or twice over the course of the 

summer. In fact, four of these visited only 10 to 50 percent of participants’ worksites. The 

remaining two sites did not specify frequency. 

Informal monitoring was more casual and typically occurred as staff picked up youth timesheets 

or dropped off paychecks. While at the employer, monitors would ask both the employer and the 

youth if there were any issues or problems. They would also informally observe working conditions. 

Front-line staff from local providers in 15 sites and from the lead agency in 2 sites were responsible 

for these visits. Most monitoring visits took 30 minutes but took as little as 5 or as many as 90 

minutes if there were issues at the worksite. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

84 

Table VIII.1 Types and Frequency of Monitoring Visits 

 Number of Sites 

Type of Monitoring 

Formal Monitoring Only 3 

Informal Monitoring Only 9 

Both Formal and Informal Monitoring 8 

Frequency of Formal Visits 

None 

Weekly to each worksite 

9 

1 

Every 2-3 weeks to each worksite 2 

Twice to each worksite 1 

Once to each worksite 1 

Once to only a subset of worksites 4 

Unknown 2 

Frequency of Informal Visits 

None 

Daily 

3 

1 

Weekly 4 

Biweekly 5 

As needed 5 

Unknown 2 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: N = 20 sites. 

Though the frequency of informal visits varied across sites, most sites reported visiting 

worksites on either a weekly or a biweekly basis. One site did not visit all worksites; instead, staff 

visited employers with whom they had not worked in the past. Monitors from four sites reported 

that they would have liked either to visit more worksites or visit them more often. In two of these 

four sites, the sheer volume of youth and worksites prevented the intensity of monitoring that staff 

would have preferred. In the other two, monitors lamented that the rural nature of the local sites 

resulted in distances between employer locations that required up to three hours of driving, which 

made it difficult to visit worksites as often as desired. 

Given the intensity of monitoring efforts, three sites hired new staff with the sole purpose of 

visiting and monitoring worksites. The monitors from at least two of these sites attended site 

monitor training and were furnished with a handbook. As discussed in Chapter III, another six sites 

hired staff members to serve as job coaches or case managers who also conducted informal 

monitoring visits as part of their responsibilities. 

3. Importance of In-Person Monitoring Visits 

Almost unanimously, respondents agreed that in-person visits to worksites were crucial to the 

success of the SYEI. Many sites described the visits as a way to proactively prevent major problems 

from occurring. Instead of waiting for a youth or an employer to contact staff with a large issue, 

staff were able to identify problems early and mediate to prevent youth from quitting or being 

removed or fired from a summer job. In addition to visiting worksites, many sites stayed on top of 

issues by maintaining regular phone or email contact with both employers and youth. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

85 

Regular monitoring was also an effective way to build rapport with youth and employers. Staff 

reported, and employers confirmed, that most employers welcomed the help that worksite monitors 

could provide, including assistance with monitoring youth performance, tracking youth attendance, 

and addressing attitude issues. At one site, for example, provider front-line staff used the 

monitoring visits to discuss the potential for permanent placements for participating youth or 

additional training that youth might need. 

None of the sites reported issues gaining access to worksites, with the exception of one instance 

in which a worksite was terminated for refusing to cooperate with the site’s visitation policy. (This 

occurred before a youth was placed with the employer.) At most sites, providers told employers, 

either during employer recruitment and orientation or via the worksite agreement, that staff would 

be visiting throughout the summer. As a result, many sites reported being able to drop by worksites 

unannounced. 

Only one site reported finding a major violation of an employer worksite agreement. A youth 

was being left unsupervised for long periods of time and had to be removed from the worksite. 

One site also encountered more minor violations that were quickly remedied, such as employer 

failure to post required child labor law posters or emergency evacuation routes. All other sites 

indicated that they did not encounter any violations. 

To help prevent such violations, three sites also trained youth to identify worksite issues so they 

could serve as their own site monitors. These sites spent time explaining workplace safety and child 

labor laws to participating youth during orientation. They then instructed youth to contact staff if 

violations occurred. 

4. Strategies to Handle Discipline and Poor Performance 

Every site dealt with at least some youth who performed poorly on the job. However, these 

situations rarely resulted in youth being terminated from the initiative. As described above, sites 

made frequent visits to worksites and maintained regular communication with supervisors to help 

identify problems early and remediate them quickly. The most common worksite issues reported by 

staff were chronic tardiness, unexcused absences, poor work ethic, and poor attitude. 

Sites addressed issues quickly, used conflicts as learning experiences, and gave youth second 

chances. When they encountered a workplace issue, staff worked with both the youth and the 

Youth Perspectives: The Benefits of Staff Monitoring Activities 

“It’s been nice that [the worksite monitor] comes by about every two weeks, just to say hi and see how everything is 

going. So, I mean, if we had a problem, whatever that may be, then we would be able to say, ‘Hey, let’s talk,’ and not 

have to go find her.”

“When [our supervisors] try to boss us around and we don’t go for that, then they look at [the worksite monitor]. . . . I 

mean, like, with the job we just finished up today, putting the tar down, the guy, he was rude, disrespectful, had an 

attitude, but today he was cool, after him and [the worksite monitor] talked, and [the monitor] let him know, ‘They’re 

kids,’ you know. ‘Some of them are kids. Some are young adults. You have to treat them with respect. They see things 

differently than you see things.’” 
Mathematica Policy Research 

86 

employer to formulate a solution. Often talking with the youth about the issue and the importance 

of proper worksite behavior was enough to solve the problem. One provider used a “three strikes, 

you’re out” policy for minor offenses to allow youth an opportunity to correct inappropriate 

behaviors such as lateness or talking back to superiors. Other sites used more intense measures to 

deal with problematic behavior. For example, one provider used a one-day suspension policy to 

help youth “cool off” and reflect on their mistake before returning to work. 

If a performance situation did not improve, or if the issue could not be resolved with mentoring 

and guidance, or if a youth was fired by an employer, youth were typically moved to another 

worksite or program activity. Two sites had specific plans for youth who were not successful at 

their first or second employers. One provider placed youth in a job at their own organization so 

staff could watch them closely and provide more intensive mentorship. At the other site, youth with 

chronic work behavior issues were placed in a training program aimed at helping to make behavioral 

adjustments that would aid in employment success. 

Despite these staff efforts to mediate performance issues, all sites reported that a small portion 

of youth were terminated by the initiative, quit their jobs, or dropped out. Half the sites reported 

terminating at least some youth. This typically happened only after they attempted mediation 

between staff, the youth, and the employer; a change in worksite; and other avenues. At least two of 

these sites, however, reported that certain offenses, such as stealing and use of drugs, resulted in 

immediate termination. A small proportion of youth in all 20 sites also chose to drop out or quit 

their jobs during the course of the summer. Although data were not available on the proportion of 

terminations and dropouts in the study sites, anecdotal reports appear consistent with the national 

data presented in Chapter II that 82 percent of youth completed their summer work experience. 

Three sites credited their emphasis on quality job-matching for youth’s generally good worksite 

performance. Though overwhelmed by the number of youth and quick initiative start-up, these sites 

indicated that taking the time to match youth with the appropriate worksites was crucial to the 

success of placements. At one of the sites, staff also arranged a meeting with the youth and the 

employer prior to the start of the summer work experience. At this meeting, youth disclosed 

physical challenges and skills deficiencies so that the employer was aware of his or her strengths and 

weaknesses on the first day of work. Another site reported working closely with employers during 

the recruitment phase so “they knew what they were getting into” and were prepared for behavior 

challenges resulting from youthfulness and inexperience. 

B. Assessment of Youth Experiences 

To document their success in serving youth with Recovery Act funds, sites assessed the 

experiences of participants through a number of methods, including formal performance measures, 

additional data collection activities, and feedback from participants themselves. As discussed in 

Chapter II, ETA streamlined performance-reporting requirements so that sites were responsible for 

collecting only one outcome measure, namely the attainment of a work readiness goal. Sites were 

also required to report on the rate of completion of summer work experiences. Almost half the 

sites, however, chose to collect additional data beyond these two measures. More than threequarters also solicited feedback from participants to promote continuous quality improvement.
Mathematica Policy Research 

87 

1. Use of Standard Methods for Measuring Work Readiness Skill Increases 

Administrators and front-line staff were overwhelmingly appreciative of the limited 

performance-reporting requirements for the SYEI. They often noted that the removal of other 

outcome measures made implementing the summer activities much more feasible. Given the 

tremendous effort required to ramp up efforts, engage youth and employers, and monitor youth 

activities, LWIB administrators reported that it would have been too difficult to track additional 

performance outcomes for such a large group of youth in such a short time. They also commented 

that the brevity of the summer initiative limited their ability to affect multiple dimensions of a 

youth’s long-term success. 

The measurement of success achieving work readiness goals was complicated and variable 

across sites.21 The flexibility given to sites in the development of their work readiness measures 

resulted in inconsistency across and sometimes within sites. This was reported as an area for 

improvement in the GAO report, which suggested that “while many program officials, employers, 

and participants we spoke with believe the summer youth activities have been successful, measuring 

actual outcomes has proved challenging and may reveal little about what the summer activities 

achieved” (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2009). This study found similar results in the 20 

selected sites.22 

To maintain consistency, 15 sites established a standard measurement procedure for 

achievement of work readiness goals within their sites. Two additional sites individualized the work 

readiness measurement by youth based on needs for performance improvements. The final three 

sites allowed providers to decide on their measurement tool. Interestingly, these three sites involved 

a total of 25 providers, and thus potentially 25 variations in measurement. In describing the reasons 

for choosing this strategy, an administrator from one of these sites reported that it would be unfair 

to require providers serving special populations, such as English-language learners, to be judged on 

the same measure as other programs. 

Among the 15 sites that used a standard measure, three administered the initiative through the 

lead agency with no subcontractors, two involved only a single subcontractor, and the remaining 10 

contracted with multiple service providers. In those sites that involved multiple organizations, the 

lead agency typically defined the measurement tool and trained local staff either formally or 

informally on how to gather the appropriate information. 

2. Timing of Work Readiness Skill Measurement 

The work readiness outcome measure is intended to capture “a measurable increase in work 

readiness skills.” To capture this increase, three-quarters of all sites performed pre-post tests of 

youth, where youth’s work readiness skills were assessed initially as a baseline near the start of their 

participation and reassessed at a later stage to measure increases. Four sites used a post-only test, 

 21 The ETA definition of this measure is presented in Chapter II. 

22 Given findings from the GAO and Mathematica studies, ETA began to gather input from local areas on 

potential improvements in performance measurement. ETA solicited feedback from local practitioners through two 

Recovering America’s Youth Summits in fall 2009 and plans to provide further written guidance on performance 

measurement for future summer programs in spring 2010. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

88 

measuring work readiness skills at a single point in time near the end of the initiative. The final site 

conducted ongoing evaluations of youth performance throughout their summer experience to 

formally measure progress in work readiness skills. The obvious advantage of the pre-post design is 

the ability of sites to measure the difference in scores between two points in time using the same 

standard tool. Post-only tests do not include a consistent measurement of the youth’s skills before 

participation in the initiative. 

Despite the advantages of pre-post assessments, the timing of these assessments also played an 

important part in the quality of measurement. Five of the 15 sites that used pre-post tests 

conducted them at the beginning and end of the work readiness training component, generating 

results before youth were placed in a work experience. This could serve as an indicator of whether 

the youth was prepared for a worksite placement, serving as a “selling point” to potential summer 

employers. However, as a formal performance measure for federal reporting, this strategy could 

provide a reasonable assessment of whether youth learned the training material, but did not assess 

the youth’s ability to implement that knowledge on the job. In addition, such testing practices could 

also measure learning from only a limited number of classroom hours, in some sites as little as 16 

hours of work readiness training. 

The remaining 10 sites that conducted pre-post tests assessed work readiness skills during the 

first or second week of the youth’s participation and again toward the end of their work experience. 

Three of these sites also assessed skills at a midpoint in the initiative. The timing of tests in these 

sites potentially allowed sites to measure the gains in work readiness skills from both classroom 

activities, such as work readiness training and other academic experiences, and practical work 

experience at an employer. 

3. Sources of Data for Work Readiness Skill Measurement 

Staff, employers, and youth could each bring a unique perspective to the assessment of a 

participant’s growth through the course of the SYEI. Administrators and staff across all 20 sites 

reported using different combinations of these three perspectives to assess youth progress (see Table 

VIII.2). First, 13 sites had local staff formally document observations or assessments of youth 

Table VIII.2 Types of Methods Used to Assess Youth Progress 

Assessment Method 

Number of Sites Using 

This Method to Assess 

Youth Progress 

Number of Sites Using 

This Method in Formal 

Measurement of Work 

Readiness Increases 

Observation or assessment by staff 13 11 

Feedback from worksite supervisors 17 9 

Direct testing of youth knowledge 9 9 

All three methods 4 0 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Note: N = 20 sites. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

89 

knowledge and performance. Second, 17 areas gathered written feedback from worksite 

supervisors. Third, nine sites conducted formal written tests of youth’s work readiness knowledge. 

As shown in the table, however, not all of these assessments from the different perspectives were 

used in the formal calculation of work readiness sent to states for federal performance reporting. 

Although four sites collected data from all three sources, none used all three in their formal 

measurement tool. 

A review of local measurement tools revealed eight key skill sets that were assessed among 

youth: (1) work habits, (2) attitude and interpersonal skills, (3) knowledge relevant for future 

employment, (4) communication, (5) portfolio development, (6) motivation and self-image, (7) jobspecific skills, and (8) daily-living skills. More than three-quarters of sites measured youth progress 

in developing solid work habits (see Table VIII.3). More than half assessed work habits, attitudes, 

and interpersonal skills. The remaining skill sets were reported by smaller subsets of sites. One site 

gathered data about six of these eight categories in their assessment tool; the others measured four 

or fewer. 

One-third of sites reported that they formally discuss the results of the work readiness 

assessment with each participating youth. These sites reported that this strategy allows staff to 

provide feedback to youth early in the initiative, based on the pre-test, on the areas where they need 

to continue improving. It also highlights youth’s improvement when they were reassessed at the end 

of their experience. All these require youth to sign off on the assessment, indicating that they were 

informed of their progress. 

4. Sites’ Additional Data Collection Activities 

Beyond the work readiness measure and completion rate for summer work experiences, states 

were required to report monthly on a small number of data items, including the number and 

characteristics of youth served under the Recovery Act and the services they received (discussed 

further in Chapter II). States and local sites, however, used data systems that could gather much 

richer information on youth experiences. These systems were used for regular WIA reporting 

requirements as well as state and local planning and management. Many sites chose to collect this 

additional information to support their local management of the SYEI, coordinate participant 

services effectively, and track overall progress of youth. This data could potentially be used in future 

evaluations to glean further insights into youth experiences and outcomes. 

Administrators in 9 of the 20 sites reported collecting additional data on youth that were not 

required as part of federal performance reporting. Four sites chose not to collect additional data. In 

the remaining seven sites, it was unclear whether local staff consistently collected additional data that 

was required under the regular WIA program but were optional for the SYEI. 

Sites most commonly collected additional data on services, participant outcomes, or both. 

Among the nine that collected additional data, seven chose to collect richer information on services, 

such as participation in each of the 10 service elements required under the regular WIA program or 

specialized services offered by the site. Six sites collected additional outcome measures; these could 

include return to school, permanent job placement, and receipt of educational certificates. Four 

sites also gathered additional data on youth’s summer work experiences. The most common 

elements in this category included codes for employer, industry and occupation codes, hours 

worked, and wages. One of these four sites collected the additional worksite data through its 
Mathematica Policy Research 

90 

Table VIII.3 Skills Assessed in Work Readiness Indicators 

Skill Set Specific Areas Covered in Assessmenta

Number of Sites 

Measuring This 

Skill Set 

Work habits Exhibits appropriate dress and hygiene 

Attendance 

Punctuality 

Follows instructions/rules/procedures 

Works to best of ability 

Adheres to quality standards 

Organizational skills 

Initiative 

Time management and task completion 

Ability to work independently 

Works without distracting others 

16 

Attitude and interpersonal 

skills 

Positive attitude toward supervisor, coworkers, and customers 

Accepts feedback constructively 

Contributes to team effort 

11 

Knowledge relevant for 

future employment 

Career exploration 

Labor market information 

Job searching strategies 

Expectations of employer 

Interviewing skills 

Budgeting and finances 

7 

Communication Reading 

Writing 

Verbal 

6 

Portfolio development Resume 

Cover letter 

Job applications 

List of references 

6 

Specific job skills <As appropriate> 4 

Motivation and self-image Motivation 

Adaptability 

Effective coping skills 

Problem-solving skills 

Acquiring an improved self-image 

3 

Daily living skills Using the phone 

Telling time 

Shopping 

Renting an apartment 

Opening a bank account 

Using public transportation 

1 

Source: Site visit interviews in 20 selected sites. 

Notes: Skill sets shown in this table were developed from a review of local measurement tools. 

N = 20 sites. 

a Assessments used by sites may not include all topics listed under a specific skill group. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

91 

accounting system rather than its WIA reporting system. Although many of these sites gathered 

data on common topics, their variable definitions and methods of measurement varied substantially, 

potentially limiting the feasibility of cross-site analysis if data were gathered for future evaluations. 

5. Strategies to Gather Feedback from Youth 

Seventeen sites implemented processes to gather feedback from all or some summer 

participants. In particular, 14 chose to conduct satisfaction or exit surveys with all or some of their 

participating youth. Of these sites, 10 conducted surveys with all participating youth. In the 

remaining four sites, some providers chose not to administer surveys or only a sample of youth was 

chosen to participate. 

Three sites chose different methods of collecting feedback. One conducted focus groups with 

a subset of youth to get their verbal feedback on the summer experience. Another required site 

monitors to conduct one-on-one exit interviews with all youth. The last conducted in-person 

interviews with a randomly selected sample of 10 percent of youth. 

Local administrators in the 17 sites that gathered feedback reported that the primary goal was to 

foster continuous program improvement for both summer initiatives and the regular WIA program. 

Some areas also used these instruments to assess employer performance to determine whether they 

were suitable for future youth placements. The remaining three sites that chose not to collect 

feedback from youth, reported they did not do so because of a lack of budget and a lack of time. 

C. Youth Progress Beyond Summer 2009 

Once the summer initiative was over, youth moved to new phases and looked for new 

opportunities. The largest proportion of participants planned to return to school. Some youth 

could receive additional services from the workforce investment system and other organizations 

within the community. Still other youth sought to move into permanent jobs. As summer came to 

a close, sites had to decide how to transition participants into these various paths, as well as whether 

and how to track their progress throughout the school year. The timing of evaluation site visits 

prevented observations of what happened after the summer initiative ended; nonetheless, 

respondents were able to discuss their plans and expectations for the fall. 

1. Transitioning Youth to Post-summer Activities 

The goals and next steps of summer participants could differ substantially based on their age 

and education status. For most younger, in-school youth, the summer initiative served as an 

opportunity to use their summer break to earn money and gain work experience. A new semester at 

school began when the summer ended. For many older and out-of-school youth, there was no clear 

opportunity waiting at the end of the summer. As a result, sites had to tailor their strategies to help 

these different populations make meaningful transitions into the fall. 

To facilitate transitions to post-summer activities for in-school youth, sites planned to use their 

established relationships with the public and private school systems and local WIA youth program. 

About half the sites reported plans to leverage their relationships with schools to assure that inschool youth returned to the classroom at the end of the summer. They also planned to use these 

connections to encourage out-of-school youth to seek educational services as needed. The local 

school district was a summer provider at four sites, and providers from six other sites reported 
Mathematica Policy Research 

92 

having strong relationships with area schools. In two of these sites, for example, summer providers 

had front-line staff stationed in either a local public school or an alternative school building. This 

reportedly allowed frequent contact with youth and helped school officials coordinate services more 

effectively. 

Budget constraints, however, may have influenced sites’ ability to serve summer youth through 

regular WIA programs beyond September. As mentioned in Chapter III, many sites planned to 

spend all or most of their Recovery Act allocations during the summer. Most sites also reported that 

their regular WIA programs typically had waiting lists due to excess demand. As a result, six sites 

reported at the time of the study’s site visits that financial constraints would limit referrals of 

summer youth to regular WIA youth and adult programs. Providers from all six of these sites 

indicated that staff would attempt to link youth with other, non-WIA programs when possible. 

Sites also reported other reasons that would limit their ability to transition out-of-school youth 

18 or older to the WIA adult program in the fall of 2009. Staff from five sites felt the youth 

program was more appropriate for most participants. They believed the adult program could be 

intimidating and placed less emphasis on critical services, such as mentoring, counseling, and 

intensive case management, that are vital to youth success. Administrators in one site added that coenrollment in both the adult and the youth programs could be confusing and cause youth to be 

unsure of which front-line staff to contact when issues arise. Because of these various factors, 

administrators and staff in 14 sites expected that few or no participants would be enrolled in the 

adult program. 

To encourage continued services for older youth, 12 sites reported that their states applied for 

and received waivers to use the work readiness indicator as the only performance measure for youth 

aged 18 to 24 who participate in only work experience beyond the summer months. Given the 

timing of our site visits during summer 2009, it is unclear whether these waivers had any influence 

on staff decisions to continue serving older youth into the fall. 

Despite budget constraints and other inhibiting factors, connections to the WIA youth program 

were nevertheless expected to yield opportunities for at least some youth, both in and out of school, 

between the ages of 14 and 21. As noted in Chapter III, all or some summer providers in most sites 

administered the regular WIA youth program. As a result, summer staff were knowledgeable about 

WIA program eligibility requirements and services, familiar with regular WIA youth staff, and 

acquainted with enrollment procedures. They expected to be able to transition, to the WIA youth 

program, youth between the ages of 14 and 21 who needed assistance beyond the summer months. 

Staff from nine of these sites planned to meet with each youth toward the end of the summer 

experience to determine which, if any, WIA program was appropriate. Staff reported that the 

primary considerations in this decision were age, need, interest, and academic achievement. 

Importantly, nearly all sites also reported that a small portion of SYEI participants were already 

enrolled in regular WIA services before the summer months. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

93 

2. Challenges to Permanent Job Placements 

Beyond services provided through WIA and other local programs, many youth, particularly 

those out of school, hoped to use their summer experience to transition into a permanent job. 

Statistics on the number of youth able to transition into permanent placements were unavailable 

during site visits. However, at least 17 sites reported that at least a small portion of youth would 

find steady jobs as a result of their summer experience (see Box VIII.2 for examples). As discussed 

in Chapter II, about 13 percent of all SYEI participants nationwide were reported to have been 

placed in work experience outside the summer months. 

To facilitate permanent placements, almost half the sites reported that they relied on private 

for-profit companies to hire youth. As mentioned in Chapter VI, providers at four of these sites 

targeted private employers for recruitment as summer worksites because they were more likely to 

hire youth permanently. At least two of these sites also focused on matching older youth with 

private employers that were more likely to offer permanent jobs. 

Respondents in seven sites did not expect public and nonprofit organizations to hire youth after 

the SYEI stopped subsidizing their wages. During focus groups, nonprofit and public employers at 

five of these sites stated that tight budgets and limited capacity typically precluded them from hiring 

youth permanently. At a sixth site, one provider did not speak with employers about permanent 

placements at all because most were nonprofits or public agencies that probably could not hire 

youth. At another site, where many providers directly employed youth, at least six nonprofit and 

public providers indicated that they would not be able to hire their youth permanently once the 

Recovery Act funds were gone. 

Nine sites also expressed concern that the current recession would limit the number of 

permanent placements. For example, one private employer stated that they typically hire 25 percent 

of the youth they employ over the summer. This summer, however, they could not be able to hire 

nearly as many, a result of recession-related cutbacks. Front-line staff from these sites also stated 

that job opportunities in their local sites were limited, and that youth would probably not get hired 

over the more experienced out-of-work adults with whom they had to compete. 

Box VIII.2: Employers That Hoped to Hire Youth Permanently 

The supervisor of a day care center hoped, funds permitting, to offer jobs to two young men who worked 

at her center through the SYEI. She reported that these youth had worked hard all summer and were now 

trained for the position. She added that the youth might opt to pursue education instead, but that she 

hoped they would eventually return to work at the center. She explained that it is important for the 

children at the center to have more male role models and felt the SYEI was one way to encourage males to 

enter the childcare profession. 

A local hospital hired 15 youth as part of the SYEI to serve as ward clerks (data entry), nutritional aides 

(food service, preparation, and cashiering), file clerks, admissions clerks, and maintenance workers. An 

administrator reported that because of the high cost of training youth just for the summer, the hospital 

would not have been able to offer summer employment without the Recovery Act. She strongly believed in 

the importance of summer employment because it offers the youth opportunities to explore career paths. 

She also felt the SYEI staff helped manage an otherwise burdensome application process, including 

performing background checks on behalf of the hospital. The hospital planned to hire one of the youth 

permanently as an admissions clerk, a position that is above entry level. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

94 

3. Plans to Conduct 12-Month Follow-Ups of Summer Youth 

To assess youth’s progress over time, local sites are required as part of the regular WIA 

program to follow youth for a full year after they exit the program. Under the Recovery Act, 

however, ETA gave local sites the flexibility to decide whether they would conduct a 12-month 

follow-up with summer participants. At least one provider in three sites planned to follow up with 

all or a portion of summer youth after the initiative concluded. The LWIB in one rural site required 

that the local provider track 20 percent of summer youth from each county through quarterly 

follow-ups. Individual providers in two other sites intended to formally follow youth, though they 

were not obligated through their contracts with the LWIB to do so. 

The remaining 17 sites chose not to conduct the 12-month follow-up. While data were not 

available from all sites, six of these sites reported financial constraints, a lack of staff capacity, and 

the volume of youth as barriers to following youth over time. However, providers in at least four 

sites planned to informally check in with some or all participants. In addition, those that are 

enrolled in the regular WIA youth or adult programs will continue to receive services from many of 

these same SYEI providers. Staff also reported that many youth are likely to seek their assistance 

with referrals to other programs and services. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

95 

IX. REFLECTIONS ON THE 2009 SYEI AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) posed a new and 

exciting opportunity for local workforce investment areas to develop or reinvigorate their summer 

youth employment initiatives (SYEIs). Once a large component of the workforce investment 

strategy for youth, these programs received reduced emphasis within the previous decade. During 

their monumental efforts in the summer of 2009 in response to the Recovery Act, local areas 

reported tremendous successes as well as some significant hurdles. This evaluation report has 

documented their experiences, painted an in-depth picture of implementation, and given a voice to 

the youth and employers who were at the core of this effort. 

Drawing information from across the report, this final chapter distills the main lessons learned 

by the 20 sites studied during the summer of 2009 as well as the challenges they faced along the way. 

Section A provides overall impressions of implementation and how the initiative unfolded over time. 

Section B summarizes the key factors that contributed to both the successes and challenges of the 

summer experience. Finally, Section C looks to the future, discussing considerations for the future 

of participating youth and the initiative as a whole. 

A. Overall Impressions of the Summer Experience 

The evaluation captured the perspectives of more than 600 administrators, staff members, 

youth, and employers who took part in the SYEI. Respondents discussed the successes and 

challenges of the 2009 effort. Based on this feedback, the study distilled several key impressions of 

the summer experience. 

1. Effects of the Size of the Initiative and Timeframe for Implementation 

Given the state of the United States economy early in 2009, Congress emphasized urgency 

when it passed the Recovery Act. Federal guidance encouraged the workforce investment system to 

focus on spending Recovery Act youth funds on summer employment in 2009. As a result, parties 

at all levels of the workforce investment system—Federal, state, and local—had to act quickly to 

ensure that the SYEI could get off the ground in time. Once the Act was signed into law in midFebruary, the Department of Labor (DOL) quickly developed guidance and distributed it to states 

and local areas in mid-March. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) also followed 

the guidance with a series of technical assistance webinars on the Recovery Act vision and 

expectations, effective program models, and tips on measuring work readiness. During this same 

timeframe, funding was being distributed to states, which then had to determine local allocations. 

Local areas often began planning before they received final guidance or their funding allocations, 

adjusting their plans as necessary over time. 

The size of the initiative and the quick timeframe affected every aspect of planning and 

implementation. Many local areas were starting from scratch, having to build the SYEI from smaller 

scale summer programs or no existing program. All sites hired at least some temporary workers to 

help recruit, enroll, and serve the high volume of youth. To implement the initiative by May, 

planning had to begin early and quickly. As a result, some sites reported having to make 

compromises along the way, including curbing the extent of innovation and choosing to implement 

some practices without exploring all possible options. For example, some sites chose not to develop 

procurement procedures that would allow new and diverse local organizations to compete for SYEI 
Mathematica Policy Research 

96 

contracts, and others felt they did not have sufficient time to properly vet worksite opportunities. 

Despite these limitations, administrators and staff reported pride in what they were able to 

accomplish in the summer of 2009. 

2. Overall Success Despite Inevitable Challenges 

Despite the tremendous pressure, sites succeeded in implementing the SYEI without any major 

problems. They were able to recruit sufficient numbers of youth, place them in employment, and 

provide additional services. There were aspects of the initiative that could inevitably be improved, 

but sites reported accomplishing their major goals and quickly spent a significant portion of their 

Recovery Act funds. 

Across the nation, the workforce investment system served more than 355,000 youth between 

the ages of 14 and 24 from May through November 2009. Of these, more than 88 percent were 

placed in summer jobs. Many received additional services, including academic help, support 

services, and leadership development opportunities. More than 82 percent of participating youth 

successfully completed their work experiences, and nearly 75 percent achieved a measurable increase 

in work readiness during the summer. 

Administrators and staff at the 20 study sites reported a perceived threefold effect from the 

SYEI. First, they got money into the hands of needy families. Second, youth and their families 

spent this new disposable income in a depressed economy. Third, youth gained valuable work 

experience, increasing their human capital and long-term job prospects. Although the study was 

unable to assess how meaningful youth experiences were or how their experiences could affect them 

and their communities over time, site visits revealed many interesting, creative, and innovative 

activities. 

3. Youth Appreciation for Summer Experiences 

The study gathered data from only a small, nonrandom subset of participants, but the 149 youth 

who participated in the study through focus groups were overwhelmingly positive about their 

summer experiences. They appreciated the opportunity to hold a job, gain work skills, and build 

their résumés. Many were enthusiastic about having money in their pockets for the first time and 

about being able to help their families in tough economic times. Many reported that, in the absence 

of the initiative, they would have been competing for jobs with more experienced adult workers or 

doing nothing productive over the summer. Although youth had some important feedback on key 

ways to improve the initiative, their most common complaint was that the initiative was too short 

and offered few work hours. 

4. Positive Employer Feedback 

Most sites were able to recruit enough worksite opportunities for participating youth. 

Employers appeared motivated by a sense of altruism and a desire to give back to their communities. 

Some employers also saw the SYEI as an opportunity to take advantage of cost-free summer 

assistance during lean times or to train and vet potential future employees. Employers interviewed 

for this study felt that the experience was worth the effort of mentoring youthful employees and 

almost unanimously agreed that they would participate again if given the opportunity. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

97 

B. Implementation Challenges and Lessons 

Despite the positive feedback from staff, youth, and employers, implementation of the SYEI 

was not without its challenges. Every new initiative evolves over time as local implementers gain a 

better understanding of what works best. At the time of the site visits, SYEI sites and providers had 

just begun to reflect on how stumbling blocks could have been avoided or traversed more smoothly. 

Based on those reflections, as well as observation of initiative practices across all 20 sites, the study 

identified seven key lessons from SYEI implementation. 

1. Enrollment and Eligibility Determination 

Staff across all sites struggled to handle the increased volume of youth, particularly the process 

of determining their eligibility. The volume strained local capacity, created large workloads for staff, 

and, in some sites, created delays in youth enrollment. For future summer initiatives, local areas 

should consider providing more training to less experienced staff members to prepare them for 

summer tasks. As did some sites in 2009, local areas should also consider relying more heavily on 

experienced staff to perform more complex tasks, such as eligibility determination. Local areas 

should also examine other possible strategies to reduce workloads and maximize staff resources such 

as streamlining intake procedures through prescreening applications and coordinating with schools 

and social service agencies to determine youth eligibility. 

2. Recruitment of Veterans and Older Youth 

Although overall youth recruitment efforts proved very successful, sites had difficulty reaching 

older youth between the ages of 22 and 24 as well as veterans and their spouses. Given that these 

target populations were new for local youth programs, they had to modify their recruitment 

strategies to reach them. For future summers, sites should think beyond “youth” when designing 

and promoting youth activities, given that many veterans and young adults have children, household 

responsibilities, and significant work experience. Sites that had success with these groups reported 

that it was important to avoid alienating older youth by characterizing the SYEI as a youth program. 

Local areas should also consider developing new partnerships or reframing old partnerships with 

organizations that already serve these young adults. Finally, they should consider implementing 

strategies to differentiate services based on the unique needs of these older participants.

3. Recruitment of Private Sector Employers 

Although federal guidance encouraged the involvement of private employers, some sites were 

hesitant about including them. Sites raised three concerns: (1) the advisability of choosing one 

private employer over another for a government-subsidized job, (2) the lack of sufficient 

information on the quality of private sector jobs, and (3) the age and background restrictions 

imposed by private employers. While not necessarily appropriate for all youth, the private sector can 

be a good source of high quality jobs for many participants, particularly older, more experienced 

youth. Most sites did successfully engage at least some private employers, and the private employers 

involved in the study appreciated the opportunity to participate and support local youth. About 

one-third of sites felt that private employers were more likely to hire participants permanently and 

were a better fit based on youth interests. In addition, sites did not report any problems or conflicts 

related to equity among local businesses. With sufficient planning time, local areas can address 

concerns about the quality of private sector jobs by sufficiently vetting potential employers and 
Mathematica Policy Research 

98 

training worksite supervisors to ensure that they can provide quality tasks and professional 

mentoring. 

4. Green Jobs 

While more than half of sites reported at least some success placing youth in green industries 

and jobs, administrators and staff across sites and even within sites often did not use a common 

definition for green jobs. Respondents in three sites explicitly expressed confusion over the 

definition. To further expand youth opportunities in this emerging field, sites require additional 

guidance from ETA on what constitutes a green job. The Bureau of Labor Statistics as well as 

several states, foundations, and private organizations have already begun efforts to define the 

concept of green jobs more clearly and conduct inventories of these jobs across the country. 

5. Job Matching 

Some sites felt—and youth agreed—that job matching of youth to employers could have been 

improved by either aligning employer recruitment to the interests of youth or more closely 

considering data from youth intake and assessments when determining the most appropriate 

employer. To the extent possible, local areas should match youth to employers based on their 

interests and career goals to help maximize the potential for a valuable summer experience that may 

lead to better employment opportunities. To help achieve this goal, sites should consider using 

information on the types of jobs that best suited the interests of youth enrolled in the summer of 

2009 to help focus initial employer recruitment efforts in future summers. In addition, if sites chose 

to recruit employers before enrolling youth, they should consider continuing employer recruitment 

as needed once youth are enrolled to accommodate the interests of as many participants as possible. 

Given that all matches may not be ideal, staff should also work to ensure that both employers and 

youth have reasonable expectations for the summer experience. In particular, staff should stress to 

youth that, no matter what their work assignment, they will be able to build their résumés and can 

learn important work skills. 

6. Measurement of Work Readiness Increases 

Sites varied dramatically in their measurement of work readiness increases among youth and 

sometimes used different approaches within a site. These inconsistencies make it difficult to assess 

the true meaning of the national performance measure. To ensure the use of a valid measure across 

all local areas, sites require additional guidance from ETA on standards and best practices in 

measuring increases in work readiness skills. This includes guidance on the timing and frequency of 

youth assessments, the most appropriate sources of data on youth performance, and the types of 

skills that should be assessed. 

7. Innovation 

Variations in the local infrastructure and economy of study sites clearly affected their 

implementation of the SYEI. For instance, one site reported denying services to some youth who 

did not live near a participating employer because the youth’s community lacked a good public 

transportation system. However, other sites with youth in similar situations either developed their 

own van routes or recruited businesses within the communities where youth lived to allow them to 

participate. As another example, administrators in some areas said they could not place significant 

numbers of youth into green jobs given the lack of green industry in their local economies. Other 
Mathematica Policy Research 

99 

sites in similar situations, however, developed their own green projects or tapped into the public 

sector for green opportunities. Addressing local circumstances may require innovation. When 

encountering an implementation challenge, administrators should consider new or innovative 

models, including looking to other sites with similar local circumstances for potential solutions. 

C. Looking Beyond the Summer of 2009 

Although the SYEI of 2009 was a monumental effort, it was not the end of the road for 

participating youth. Many participants came out of the initiative looking for new opportunities to 

expand on their experiences. How they fared beyond the summer and what effect the SYEI had on 

their employment prospects can only be determined through further research. During the 

evaluation site visits, some administrators and staff were still overwhelmed by the task at hand. 

However, others had already begun reflecting on what worked and what could be improved. 

1. New Opportunities for Youth in the Fall 

Most sites planned to use established linkages with other local organizations and partners to 

transition youth to new opportunities when the summer ended. The largest proportion of 

participants planned to return to school. Some youth could receive additional services from the 

workforce investment system, including regular WIA youth and adult programs and other 

organizations within the community. Still other youth sought to move into permanent jobs. 

The evaluation was not designed to examine what opportunities youth were able to seize, but 

respondents mentioned several issues that could potentially limit these chances. Although the 

regular WIA programs for youth and adults might yield services for some SYEI participants, sites 

were concerned that most Recovery Act funding was spent on the SYEI and that the regular WIA 

programs already had waiting lists due to excess demand. In addition, administrators worried that 

the state of the economy would limit the extent of job opportunities that could become permanent 

placements. 

2. The Need for Future Evaluations 

This study provided rich information on the implementation of the SYEI funded by the 

Recovery Act in 2009. It examined national patterns of participation and explored the experiences 

of 20 sites through qualitative data collection and analysis. The study could not, however, assess the 

quality of youth experiences, examine what strategies sites implemented with Recovery Act funding 

in the fall and spring, or track participants to assess their longer-term progress. Future evaluation 

efforts are necessary to study those aspects of the Recovery Act effort. Long-term follow up or 

better efforts to track future participants can provide more insight into how this youth population 

fares beyond the summer. The extent of waiting lists and excess demand for the SYEI that sites in 

this study reported may also suggest that a random assignment evaluation to assess the impact of the 

SYEI on youth outcomes is possible if funding is available to serve sufficient numbers of youth in 

future summers. 

3. Site Readiness for Summer Initiatives in 2010 

During the summer of 2009, sites worked through many of the challenges inherent in the 

implementation of a new initiative and learned lessons that can be used to inform future efforts. As 

they reflected on their experiences, some administrators were already developing plans to improve 
Mathematica Policy Research 

100 

certain aspects of their initiatives. With sufficient funds and time for planning, sites looked forward 

to offering summer work opportunities to youth in 2010. Even if dedicated funding were not 

available, a few sites felt the success of the SYEI in helping youth gain a better understanding of the 

world of work would prompt them to consider dedicating a larger portion of their WIA-formula 

funds to developing summer initiatives for youth. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

101 

REFERENCES 

Bloom, H. S., L. L. Orr, G. Cave, S. H. Bell, and F. Doolittle. “The National JTPA Study: Title II-A 

Impacts on Earnings and Employment at 18 Months.” Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates, 1993. 

Center for Labor Market Studies. “Dire Straits for Many Workers: The Economic Case for New Job 

Creation and Retraining Strategies in 2010 for the Nation’s Young, and Dislocated Blue Collar 

Workers.” Boston, MA: Center for Labor Market Studies, 2009. 

CTB McGraw-Hill. Tests of Adult Basic Education (TABE). Retrieved from http://www.ctb.com

on January 8, 2010. 

Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems. “CASAS.” Retrieved from 

http://www.casas.org on January 8, 2010. 

Eurostat. “The Environmental Goods and Services Sector.” Luxembourg: Office for Official 

Publications of the European Communities, 2009. 

Graybill, Bonnie. “California’s Green Economy.” Presentation to the Green Collar Jobs Council, 

California Labor Market Information Division, December 8, 2009. 

Hardcastle, Alan. 2008 Green Economy Jobs in Washington State. Washington State University, Extension 

Energy Program. Prepared for the Washington State Employment Security Department, 

January 2009. 

Jolly, Nicholas A. “How “Green” is Connecticut’s Economy?” The Connecticut Economic Digest, vol. 13, 

no. 12, 2008, pp. 1–3, 5. 

McLaughlin, J., A. Sum, and S. O’Brien. “Nation’s Teen Summer Employment Rate Hits New PostWorld War II Low: Effects of Federal Jobs Stimulus Overwhelmed by Private Sector Declines.” 

Boston: Center for Labor Market Studies, 2009. 

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth. Michigan Green Jobs Report 2009.

Bureau of Labor Market Information and Strategic Initiatives, May 2009. 

New York State Department of Labor. 2009. New York State’s Clean Energy Industry: Labor Market and 

Workforce Intelligence. Albany, NY: NYS Department of Labor, May 2009. 

Oates, Jane, Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, U.S. Department of Labor. 

Testimony before the Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC, October 1, 2009. 

Oregon Employment Department, Workforce and Economic Research Division. The Greening of 

Oregon’s Workforce: Jobs, Wages, and Training. Salem, OR: Oregon Employment Department, June 

2009. 

Pew Charitable Trusts. The Clean Energy Economy. Washington, D.C.: The Pew Charitable Trusts, June 

2009. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

102 

Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. “Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT).” Lutz, FL: 

PAR, 1005. Retrieved from http://www.parinc.com on January 8, 2010. 

Social Policy Research Associates. “Technical Assistance Guide: Providing Educational Services in 

the Summer Youth Employment and Training Program.” Waltham, MA: SPR and the Center 

for Human Resources, Brandeis University, 1998. 

Social Policy Research Associates. “The Workforce Investment Act After Five Years: Results from 

the National Evaluation of the Implementation of WIA.” Waltham, MA: SPR and TATC 

Consulting for the U.S. Department of Labor, 2004. 

Statistics Canada. Environment Industry: Business Sector 2002 (revised) and 2004. Ottawa: Minister of 

Industry, September 2007. 

Sum, Andrew. “The Crisis in the Black Youth Labor Market: A True Depression.” In The Defenders 

Online, retrieved from http://www.thedefendersonline.com/ on December 15, 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. “State and County Quick Facts.” Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009. 

Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov on December 15, 2009. 

U.S. Congress. “How is the summer employment opportunities element administered?” Code of 

Federal Regulations Title 20, Pt. 664.610. Washington, DC: Code of Federal Regulations, 1999. 

U.S. Congress. “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” Pub. Law No. 111-5, February 

17, 2009. Retrieved from U.S. Government Printing Office, http://frwebgate.

access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.txt.pdf on 

September 10, 2009. 

U.S. Congress. “Workforce Investment Act of 1998.” Pub. Law No. 105-220, August 7, 1998. 

Retrieved from http://www.doleta.gov/USWORKFORCE/WIA/wialaw.txt on September 10, 

2009.

U.S. Congress. “What definitions apply to this part?” Code of Federal Regulations Title 29, Pt. 37.4. 

2000. 

U.S. Congress. “What safeguards are there to ensure that participants in Workforce Investment Act 

employment and training activities do not displace other employees?” Code of Federal Regulations

Title 20, Pt. 667.270, 1999. 

U.S. Department of Labor. “Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 17-05 Attachment B.” 

Washington, DC: DOL, February 17, 2006. 

U.S. Department of Labor. Program Year 2008 Workforce Investment Act Title I Annual Report.

Washington, DC: DOL, 2009. 

U.S. Department of Labor. Performance and Accountability Report FY 2009. Washington, DC: DOL, 

2009a. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. “The Employment Situation.” Washington, 

DC: DOL, 2009b. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

103 

U.S. Department of Labor. “Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 13-08.” Washington, 

DC: DOL, March 6, 2009c. 

U.S. Department of Labor. “Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 14-08.” Washington, 

DC: DOL, March 18, 2009d. 

U.S. Department of Labor. “Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 24-08.” Washington, 

DC: DOL, May 21, 2009e. 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve 

Quality of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services. Washington, DC: GAO, February 

2004. 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. Recovery Act: Funds Continue to Provide Fiscal Relief to States and 

Localities, While Accountability and Reporting Challenges Need to Be Fully Addressed. Washington, DC: 

GAO, September 2009. 

Mathematica Policy Research 

 A.1 

APPENDIX A. DETAILED LIST OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

The evaluation answers a set of six research questions and related subtopics: 

1. How did the selected sites plan for and organize summer youth initiatives with 

funding from the Recovery Act? What was the organizational structure of summer 

youth initiatives?.How did sites identify and select summer youth providers? How did 

the summer initiative fit within the larger context of the regular WIA youth program 

and within existing summer youth programs? What processes did sites use to design 

their initiatives? What proportion of funds from the Recovery Act was allocated for 

summer activities? 

2. How did selected sites identify, recruit, and enroll at-risk youth? How many and 

what types of youth did sites target for their summer initiatives? Did sites have 

procedures for identifying and recruiting youth most in need of services, such as out-ofschool youth and those most at risk of dropping out, youth in and aging out of foster 

care, youth offenders and those at risk of court involvement, homeless and runaway 

youth, children of incarcerated parents, migrant youth, Indian and Native American 

youth, and youth with disabilities? How did sites provide priority service for veterans 

and their eligible spouses? What challenges did sites face in identifying and recruiting 

youth? What challenges emerged in determining eligibility and conducting youth 

enrollment? What strategies worked well? 

3. What were the characteristics of participants nationwide? How many youth 

participated in summer youth initiatives funded by the Recovery Act? What were the 

background characteristics of participating youth? How many youth completed 

summer work experiences? What growth did states report that youth achieve in work 

readiness skills? To help inform the national statistic, how did selected sites determine 

whether a measureable increase in work readiness skills for summer youth participants 

has occurred? 

4. What services were offered in the summer months in selected sites? How were 

participants oriented to the initiative? Did sites use a group orientation process for 

youth prior to the start of the summer initiative? What types of assessments and 

Individual Service Strategies (ISS) did sites use for youth served with Recovery Act 

funds? Which of the 10 youth program elements were offered to summer 

participants?23 How was work readiness preparation integrated into the initiative? Did 

sites integrate work-based and classroom-based learning activities and how? What is the 

typical duration and intensity of services? How did services differ for youth of different 

ages? How did sites determine whether a 12-month followup should or should not be 

 23 The 10 youth program elements offered through the regular WIA program include (1) tutoring, study skills 

training, and instruction leading to secondary school completion; (2) alternative secondary school offerings; (3) summer 

employment opportunities directly linked to academic and occupational learning; (4) paid and unpaid work experience, 

including internships and job shadowing; (5) occupational skill training; (6) leadership development opportunities; (7) 

supportive services; (8) adult mentoring for a duration of at least 12 months; (9) follow-up services; and (10) 

comprehensive guidance and counseling, including drug and alcohol abuse counseling (Workforce Investment Act of 

1998). 
Mathematica Policy Research 

 A.2 

used for youth served with Recovery Act funds during summer months? How and 

under what circumstances do sites transition youth to the regular WIA youth program? 

Did states plan to use a waiver of regular reporting requirements to keep serving older 

youth? Does this appear to encourage services to older youth? What successes and 

challenges did sites encounter in offering summer services to at-risk youth? What 

promising strategies do they identify? 

5. What types of work experiences were offered to participating youth in selected 

sites? What was the breakdown between public sector, private sector, and nonprofit 

summer employment opportunities offered in the summer youth initiative? How were 

employers recruited, assessed, selected, and oriented to the initiative? To what extent 

was the Work Opportunity Tax Credit promoted as an incentive to hire disconnected 

youth? What were the connections to registered apprenticeship or pre-apprenticeship 

programs? Did sites use project-based community service learning opportunities that 

are not conducted at an employer worksite? Did sites consider and/or use transitional 

job approaches that combined short-term subsidized work experience with support 

services and career counseling? To what extent did sites develop work experiences and 

other activities that exposed youth to opportunities in “green” educational and career 

pathways? How were youth matched to work experiences? How were worksites 

supervised, and what was the participant-to-staff ratio? To what extent and how did 

initiatives support the transition of older youth to permanent placement? What 

successes and challenges did sites encounter in developing and implementing summer 

work experiences for at-risk youth? What promising strategies did they identify? 

6. What lessons can be drawn about the implementation of summer youth 

initiatives? What implementation strategies appeared to work well? What challenges 

did sites encounter and how did they overcome those challenges? How has the current 

economic context influenced implementation? How did sites’ experiences vary based 

on their location in urban and rural areas? How did their experiences vary based on 

other site characteristics (for example, size, prior summer youth programs, 

organizational structure)? 
Mathematica Policy Research 

B.1 

APPENDIX B. CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUTH FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS 

Percentage of All Participants 

Age at Time of Site Visit 

14–15 20.7 

16–17 35.2 

18–21 35.2 

22–24 9.0 

Male 48.0 

Race 

White 11.4 

Black or African American 20.8 

Multiracial 6.7 

Other 39.6 

Not Specified 21.5 

Latino or Hispanic Origin 28.9 

Education Status 

Enrolled for 2009–2010 school year 81.9 

Not enrolled for 2009–2010 school year 18.1 

Grade for Those Enrolled for 2009–2010 School Year 

8–9 5.4 

10 15.4 

11 14.1 

12 20.1 

College/Vocational School 26.9 

Educational Attainment of Those Not Enrolled for the 

2009–2010 School Year 

High school diploma 11.4 

GED 3.4 

Associates degree 0.7 

None 2.7 

Mental, Physical, or Emotional Health Problems 9.4 

Sample Size 149 

Source: Information forms completed by youth who participated in site visit focus groups. 

Mathematica Policy Research 

C.1 

APPENDIX C. RECOVERY ACT ALLOCATIONS AND DRAW DOWNS BY STATE 

Funding 

 Allocation 

Draw Downs 

Through 

November 2009 

Percentage of 

Allocation Drawn 

Down Through 

 November 2009 

Total a $1,188,000,000 $717,299,355 60.4 

Alabama $11,647,403 $6,907,116 59.3 

Alaska $3,936,018 $1,782,928 45.3 

American Samoa $170,030 N.A. N.A. 

Arizona $17,830,637 $8,740,869 49.0 

Arkansas $12,065,555 $8,097,148 67.1 

California $186,622,034 $90,934,238 48.7 

Colorado $11,874,970 $7,553,078 63.6 

Connecticut $11,034,723 $7,720,153 70.0 

Delaware $2,918,025 $989,503 33.9 

District of Columbia b $3,969,821 $0 0.0 

Florida $42,873,265 $31,260,046 72.9 

Georgia $31,361,665 $21,877,460 69.8 

Guam $1,383,998 N.A. N.A. 

Hawaii $2,918,025 $962,798 33.0 

Idaho $2,918,025 $2,702,489 92.6 

Illinois $62,203,400 $41,108,830 66.1 

Indian and Native Americans $17,820,000 N.A. N.A. 

Indiana $23,677,573 $14,451,625 61.0 

Iowa $5,172,183 $3,729,683 72.1 

Kansas $7,121,714 $3,572,925 50.2 

Kentucky $17,709,821 $12,388,656 70.0 

Louisiana $20,012,271 $12,459,616 62.3 

Maine $4,293,710 $2,324,563 54.1 

Maryland $11,585,610 $6,760,700 58.4 

Massachusetts $24,838,038 $15,187,870 61.1 

Michigan $73,949,491 $47,957,332 64.9 

Minnesota $17,789,172 $12,064,000 67.8 

Mississippi $18,687,021 $14,626,657 78.3 

Missouri $25,400,077 $19,662,596 77.4 

Montana $2,918,025 $1,976,125 67.7 

Nebraska $2,944,616 $2,367,115 80.4 

Nevada $7,570,212 $4,489,715 59.3 

New Hampshire $2,918,025 $1,398,671 47.9 

New Jersey $20,834,103 $11,017,481 52.9 

New Mexico $6,235,678 $4,089,402 65.6 

New York $71,526,360 $38,215,020 53.4 

North Carolina $25,070,698 $15,216,257 60.7 

North Dakota $2,918,025 $2,372,760 81.3 

Northern Marianas $512,149 N.A. N.A. 

Ohio $56,158,510 $37,250,239 66.3 

Oklahoma $8,708,036 $5,811,533 66.7 

Oregon $15,068,081 $11,586,865 76.9 

Palau $86,779 N.A. N.A. 

Pennsylvania $40,647,780 $19,910,754 49.0 

Puerto Rico $42,456,987 $26,189,294 61.7 

Rhode Island $5,611,097 $3,549,668 63.3 

South Carolina $24,712,293 $14,230,501 57.6 
Mathematica Policy Research 

C.2 

Funding 

 Allocation 

Draw Downs 

Through 

November 2009 

Percentage of 

Allocation Drawn 

Down Through 

 November 2009 

South Dakota $2,918,025 $2,422,337 83.0 

Tennessee $25,099,116 $17,502,348 69.7 

Texas $82,000,708 $59,095,423 72.1 

Utah $5,067,154 $4,065,703 80.2 

Vermont $2,918,025 $2,262,337 77.5 

Virgin Islands $817,044 N.A. N.A. 

Virginia $12,982,612 $7,320,015 56.4 

Washington $23,445,432 $14,645,836 62.5 

West Virginia $5,343,318 $3,362,290 62.9 

Wisconsin $13,808,812 $10,012,084 72.5 

Wyoming $2,918,025 $1,116,703 38.3 

Source: Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 13-08 and state performance reports for WIA youth 

initiatives supported by the Recovery Act submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor as of December 31, 

2009. 

N.A. = not available. 

a

 Total draw downs and percentage of funds drawn down do not include data from outlying areas or from Indian and 

Native American grantees. 

b

 Draw down reports show that Washington, DC has not yet begun to draw down its Recovery Act allocation. It is unclear 

whether this reflects actual initiative status or a reporting error. 
Mathematica Policy Research 

D.1 

APPENDIX D. KEY PERFORMANCE STATISTICS BY STATE 

Total Number 

of Participants 

Enrolled 

Through 

November 

2009 

Percentage 

Employed 

During 

Summer 

Percentage 

Completing 

Summer 

Employmenta

Percentage 

Achieving 

Work 

Readiness 

Goalb

Percentage 

Employed 

Outside the 

Summer 

Months 

Totalc 355,320 88.3 82.4 74.8 12.8 

Alabama 5,367 64.6 75.9 80.5 0.0 

Alaska 972 97.3 95.9 84.2 4.9 

American Samoa N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 

Arizona 3,404 87.6 89.0 86.8 0.9 

Arkansas 3,475 97.3 85.2 90.1 0.0 

California 45,267 92.9 86.7 73.7 6.8 

Colorado 3,328 94.3 79.6 78.5 5.5 

Connecticut 4,066 100.0 94.1 84.2 1.8 

Delaware 1,071 99.6 69.4 65.1 0.0 

District of Columbiad

 94 0.0 N.A. N.A. 100.0 

Florida 14,548 93.8 92.4 86.7 3.2 

Georgia 11,192 98.5 91.1 90.9 7.5 

Guam 357 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 

Hawaii 626 94.7 79.8 80.5 1.9 

Idaho 848 99.1 85.1 76.4 0.0 

Illinois 17,868 93.0 81.0 80.2 0.4 

Indian and Native 

Americans 3,763 84.8 85.0 79.0 N.A. 

Indiana 2,603 98.4 70.8 79.8 0.0 

Iowa 1,375 92.4 80.3 78.8 7.2 

Kansas 1,920 89.2 75.1 61.0 1.4 

Kentucky 6,051 99.9 98.0 80.1 0.0 

Louisiana 5,762 93.3 86.6 79.6 5.6 

Maine 1,544 45.3 59.1 71.0 5.8 

Maryland 4,438 81.4 98.8 90.8 1.1 

Massachusetts 6,917 98.2 91.8 85.2 2.9 

Michigan 20,649 88.9 68.2 67.6 28.6 

Minnesota 6,031 92.1 88.9 85.8 3.2 

Mississippi 6,742 97.0 75.2 72.3 1.6 

Missouri 9,447 91.9 78.5 74.6 6.4 

Montana 819 84.2 58.7 56.6 23.2 

Nebraska 1,062 98.9 77.6 71.3 0.0 

Nevada 1,560 96.3 76.4 84.2 30.5 

New Hampshire 585 88.2 89.7 94.0 0.0 

New Jersey 6,195 95.0 31.9 21.9 0.0 

New Mexico 1,831 96.3 36.5 82.8 6.0 

New York 25,323 94.3 85.2 83.2 3.8 

North Carolina 6,436 100.0 71.1 62.2 3.7 

North Dakota 817 73.4 67.3 48.8 7.7 

Northern Marianas N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 

Ohio 17,861 58.7 85.4 89.5 13.6 

Oklahoma 1,847 89.9 71.0 64.1 14.4 

Oregon 4,251 85.3 94.6 66.4 1.1 

Palau N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 

Pennsylvania 9,359 98.7 73.5 71.8 0.8 

Puerto Rico 25,627 61.6 N.A. 21.7 100.0 

Rhode Island 1,665 98.7 84.3 95.9 0.8 

South Carolina 7,235 89.4 80.5 84.2 7.7 

South Dakota 721 100.0 88.5 88.3 0.0 

Tennessee 12,577 92.9 75.1 72.5 2.0 
Mathematica Policy Research 

D.2 

Total Number 

of Participants 

Enrolled 

Through 

November 

2009 

Percentage 

Employed 

During 

Summer 

Percentage 

Completing 

Summer 

Employmenta

Percentage 

Achieving 

Work 

Readiness 

Goalb

Percentage 

Employed 

Outside the 

Summer 

Months 

Texas 24,669 88.6 87.4 83.3 2.4 

Utah 847 87.1 43.0 44.6 8.9 

Vermont 808 98.9 100.0 59.0 9.0 

Virgin Islands 314 89.2 67.9 27.5 0.0 

Virginia 3,968 95.5 79.7 75.7 8.0 

Washington 5,913 92.1 91.2 77.4 7.9 

West Virginia 2,501 56.4 96.2 78.9 0.4 

Wisconsin 4,071 99.7 89.0 91.0 0.0 

Wyoming 496 76.0 79.4 65.8 13.3 

Source: Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 13-08 and state performance reports for WIA youth 

initiatives supported by the Recovery Act submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor as of December 31, 

2009. 

Note: ETA defined “summer” as May 1 through September 30. 

N.A. = not available. 

a

 Pertains only to those youth who were employed during the summer and for whom data are available. 

b

 Pertains only to those youth who participated during the summer months and for whom data are available. 

c

 Statistics in the total row do not include youth from outlying areas or those served by Indian and Native American 

grantees. 

d

 Draw down reports show that Washington, DC has not yet begun to enroll youth with its Recovery Act allocation. It is 

unclear whether this reflects actual initiative status or a reporting error. 

www.mathematica-mpr.com 

Improving public well-being by conducting high-quality, objective research and surveys 

Princeton, NJ ■ Ann Arbor, MI ■ Cambridge, MA ■ Chicago, IL ■ Oakland, CA ■ Washington, DC 

Mathematica® is a registered trademark of Mathematica Policy Research