ED 203 069

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATE

NOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

DOCUMENT RESUME

CE 029 119

Vocational Exploration--Interim Findings and

Background. Pre-Employment and Transition Services.

Youth Knowledge Development Report 6.1.

Saint Louis Univ., Mo.

Employment and Training Administration (DOL) , Washington, D.C. Office of Youth Programs.

May 80

,'-:,49p.; For related documents see CE 029 106.

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC 20402 (Stock No.

029-014-00164-3, S11.00) . EDRS PRICE MF03/PC26 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Career Education; *Career Exploration: Demonstration

Programs: Disadvantaged Youth: Economically

Disadvantaged: Employment Potential; *Employment

Services: Federal Programs: Job Placement: Job

Skills: *Job Training: Longitudinal Studies; Outcomes

of Education: Participant Characteristics: Program

Descriptions: *Program Effectiveness: Program

Evaluation: *Youth Employment: *Youth Programs

IDENTIFIERS Private Sector: Vocational Exploration Demonstration

Project: *Vocational Exploration in the Private

Sector

ABSTRACT

This report contains evaluations of various phases of

the Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector Program (VEPS).

(VEPS is designed to provide youth with exposure to jobs available in

the private sector through observation of such jobs, instruction,

and, if appropriate, limited practical experience so long as the

participant does not contribute to additional sales or profits of a

private-for-profit organization.) The first evaluation is a

preliminary analysis of the 1979 summer component of the Vocational

Exploration Demonstration Protect. The 1978 Summer Vocational

Exploration Program is examined in the second evaluation. The third

report provides a comparison of impact of the pilot and second

experimental years of VEPS during the years 1972-1973. A longitudinal

impact assessment of the 1971-1972 VEPS constitutes the fourth

section. Topics covered in the individual evaluations include an

introduction and overview of the given program, description of the

evaluation design, assessment of program operations, and outcomes.

(Related youth knowledge and development reports are available

separately through ERIC--see note.) (MN)

******************e..****************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document. ***********************************************************************
4P. 141 14"

, *,

..1frIrAn.aert 7:11.M.7r.zenueS_V m011:690 .51,-M 4{....21261, SU.A.r3.."SACI.A.2

],20-,3. r ,..2.4.1tutesabrAla

s..21,2.,.-.as.. T.,..1.22: ,2,7321.T yrtio, a ..11.222,2211STMSEP CIA; ..71:1,..,00.1 Nh -24 ..11,7,1

31=112.11121-21.2,...22 2" .12 A.:Al 27_12 2 T. -an-e ..-121.11, _ nrCrallit.17.1%71,11.rs - I ;Ls, A. AI .12-7 - "2.2k1r-....227.1470.2.S. U..krea n 11.7.1 .1 .7,-11. "121",,212S4.121. "1121.S..., . '1" -

,1'11. -2.12=-1..--76.110.... r.VR AS-. Age

_ 2 -12. Sr

iAn " ". SA. U:r.k-7.1cr,ss..-7.41...1 1. I 111/1,..m.rE Ar-rt=r11,-..1, JOAIrraM1C.r. ".11.61- -4.-..-212.2.-.14 1,2...1

ZeWa-43,CW,., r- ,... I srea. I e 4114.11 1tirf.)01"'"

Mall1Inirair.67911115 %VIZ 7,7,11,111Str,trf:774,17.7.77-,17,,,,,, r -Trr..17LTAL,

ITRYLr.Z., . .771.13.,111197TE.4,1,1,,,,,,,,,,, :471,7,171, .1,,,,C17,1,WPFLVILCGES.

'dlr'''1,Z,11711146,20 nr.1=1,112961,1,..- PAIR" ALIGT=ISC... U S DEPARTMENT OF WEALTH.

EDUCATION A WEL FAME

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EOUr ATI' 4

THIS 00 .1 HaS BEEN REPRO -

OUCEO EXPC ' AS RECEIVED FROM

THE PERSON C ORGANIZATION ORIGIN

ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRE

SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EOUCATICN POSITION OR POLICY
U.S Department of Labor

Ray Marshall, Secretary

Employment and Training Administration

Ernest G. Green, Assistant Secretary for

Employment and Training Administration

Office of Youth Programs

Material contained in this publication is

in the public domain and may be

reoduced, fully or partially, without

permission of the Federal Government.

Source credit is requested but not

required. Permission is required only

to reproduce any copyrighted material

contained herein.

3
YOUTH KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT

REPORT 6.1

VOCATIONAL EXPLORATION--INTERIM

FINDINGS AND BACKGROUND

ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY

MAY 1980

For sale h the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington. D.C. 20402

4
OVERVIEW

The ultimate aim of employment and training programs for

youth is unsubsidized placement in a good job. As is so frequently noted, four of five jobs are in the private sector.

Many economically disadvantaged youth who enter CETA have never

held an unsubsidized job. They lack the network which eases

the transition into the labor market. With limited work

experience, usually concentrated in public sector youth programs,

they may not know what to expect or what is expected of them.

For these reasons, private sector exposure and experience

makes obvious sense as a way to help youth at the labor market

threshold. On-the-job training and direct placement are the

most obvious routes, but in the early 1970's a new approach

called the Vocaonal Exploration in the Private Sector or VEPS

was developed. (Under VEPS, according to current CETA regulations,

youth may be exposed "to jobs available in the private sector

through observation of such jop?e, instruction, and, if appropriate,

limited practical experience.") VEPS must include a detailed

curriculum to assure that any work is a learning experience.

The youth are intended to work only so long as they are in a

learning mode; in other words, under VEPS the participant cannot

contribute to additional sales or profits of a private-for-profit

organization. In other words, VEPS includes short-term "try-out"

employment experiences which last only until the youth proves

productive, rotational assignments which expose youth to multiple

jobs, career exploration in the classroom and with private sector

involvement through field trips and lectures by businessmen or

union representatives, and training in basic skills required on

the job, presumably linked to the above activities.

Such activities are intuitively appealing and have been

encouraged under the regulations for youth programs. There have

been several experimental programs testing the effectiveness of

VEPS as well as several technical assistance guide to aid in

implementation. Nevertheless, VEPS has only limited utilization

Less than 2 percent of total enrollments in youth programs under

CETA are in VEPS components. It is difficult to se-ure private

sector experiences and at the same time to assure that the work

will not contribute to productivity. It is also difficult to

involve the private sector in an active way other than as a site

for field trips. The public and nonprofit sector orientation of

the delivery agents also may go against the grain of VEPS. In

fact, the preponderance of vocational exploration programs in

the country are those supported with direct national funding

under the guidance of the Natiol:al Alliance of Business and the

AFL-CIO's Human Resource Developnent Institute.
In practice, VEPS is a diverse mixture of activities. At

the one extreme, VEPS has been used as a rationalization for

subsidizing private sector work experience. There is really

no way to determi*:When a youth is contributing to output

and profits, and theie is little enforcement. Moreover, where

a match is achieved under a rotational program and the youth

is successful, both the youth and the employer are likely to

want the assignment to continue, and will likely get a

friendly ear from the program operator because of the promise

of placement into unsubsidized employment. At the other

extreme, what is called VEPS in some sites is simply a basic

life skills or job search activity with a sprinkling of

private sector involvement, such as one or two field trips

to employer settings. VEPS has also been implemented as a

summer component, an in-school and an out-of-school component.

Obviously, the transitional impacts are different when

participants are in school or returning to school than when

they are already available for half-time continuing labor

market participation.

The potential impact of VESP will, of course, vary

depending on the specific mix of activities. If VEPS is,

in reality, "try-out" employment, then it must be judged

relative to public and nonprofit sector employment in terms

of the differential impacts of private vs. public sector work

experience (presumably because of the greater discipline and

"realism" in the former) and the transitional impacts

(presumably because there are more jobs at the end of the line

in the private sector). If the activity is a true rotational

experience, there will be less impact on either transition or

learning about the nature of "real" employment because the

participants will not be integrated into the employment structure; rather, the benefits should broaden knowledge of the

world of work and improve career choice. To the extent VEPS

emphasizes classroom activity, its impact on knowledge of work

mores and expectations will probably be reduced; certainly

the transitional potential is less. Depending on the focus,

under the classroom approach, participants may experience a

much greater number of careers than under the rotational

approach because logistical arrangements are less challenging;

they may do better in learning job seeking and job application skills rr else basic life skills which can be acquired

cognitively. In classroom oriented VEPS, private sector

involvement which makes the activity different from regular

transition services is difficult to define and may rather be

the result of the choice of delivery agents than the composition of services. One would eypect a summer or year-round

VEPS for graduates or dropouts to have a measurable transitional impact. For students in the summer or for juniors in

ii
high school the results are more likely to be delayed, the

result of cumulative developmental changes. Cognitive gains must be greater for the latter group if VEPS is to have

transitional impact.

Finally, there is the fundamental Analytical question of how

productivity will be treated in assessing the comparative bene- fits and costs of VEPS and its different components. Where VEPS

emphasizes "try-out" employment, it must be compared to work in the public or nonprofit sector where some useful social output

is produced, offsetting the costs. By definition, VEPS participants are not to contribute to additional sales or profits. If

this means that output cannot be increased, then presumably

more resources will be used in supervising and providing a

setting for the try-out than will be produced by the youth. If

the profit standard is used, this means that the product of

the participant will not be enough to provide "surplus value" or profit but may equal the wages paid and costs of employment. If neither standard is enforced--as is frequently the case in

real life--then the youth may actually produce in excess of

the costs of employment to the employer (which does not include

wages that are paid from CETA); however, this output cannot be

considered a social product on equal standing with that produced by a public or nonprofit sector employee since all of

society does not benefit. Obviously, under rotational VEPS

there is much less production than with try-out employment, while in classroom experiences, there is no product. Where

the useful social product of VEPS is counted as zero, then

the in-program and pcst-program impacts on participants must

be significant to justify VEPS relative to traditional public sector work experience.

Given the multiplicity of activities and approaches under

the vocational exploration rubric, and the variation in

expected outcomes related to each of these activities and

approaches, it is no wonder the evaluation literature on VEPS

is mixed in its findings. The aggregate impacts depend on

the aggregate mix of emphases under local VEPS efforts, as

well as the quality of these activities.

/The volume illustrates the problems in evaluating VEPS

but also provides the foundation for the Vocational Exploration_

Demonstration Project mounted under YEDPA which seeks to control quality, activities and enrollments adequately to get a

true picture of VEPS' potential impact both absolutely and

relative to more traditional work experience ani transition

Activities. Included are the evaluations of the 1971-1973

VEPS demonstrations, the large-scale summer demonstration

mounted in fiscal 1978, and the results of the start-up sum- mer component of the new Vocational Exploration Demonstration Project.

iii
All these studies provide documentation of positive impacts,

but the picture is very mixed. The most significant positive

findings are for the in-school year-round version of VEPS. Summer

VEPS produces some gains in work attitudes and awareness relative

to par'-icipants in the regular summer program, but the VEPS 1978

program was largely focused on youtn wno returned to school,

so that little transition effect was expected nor was it

measured. The VEDP results for the first summer indicate very

limited cognitive gains, and no control group methodology was

yet in place to assess transition impacts. Further, the first

summer results of VEDP do not yet permit a determination of

the types of impacts of different VEPS approaches or the

relative benefits to different groups, although the previous

studies would suggest that females will probably benefit most.

In other words, the volume is important for background but not

in resolving the basic policy questions which must await full

operations of VEDP. It should be noted that many of the VEDP

sites were those in previous studies, i.e. they !-.ad years of

experience with the VEPS approach. There is no doubt that the

current VEPS projects are of a very high caliber and they will

test the potential of VEPS under ideal circumstances.

This volume is one of the products of the "knowledge development" effort implemented under the mandate of the Youth Employment

and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977. The knowledge development effort consists of hundreds of separate research, evaluation

and demonstration activities which will result in literally

thousands of written products. The activities have been structured

from the outset so that each is self-standing but also interrela-Led with a host of other activities. The framework is presented in A Knowledge Development Plan for the Youth Employment

and Demonstration Projects Act of 1977, A Knowledge Development

Plan for the Youth Initiatives Fiscal 1979 and Completing the

Youth Agenda: A Plan for Knowledge Development, Dissemination

and Application for Fiscal 1980.

Information is available or will be coming available from

these various knowledge development efforts to help resolve an

almost limitless array of issues. However, policy and practical

applications will usually require integration and synthesis from

a wide range of products, which, in turn, depends on knowledge

and availability of these products. A major shortcoming of past

research, evaluation and demonstration activities has been the

failure Lu organize and disseminate the products adequately to

assure the full exploitation of the findings. The magnit "_; and structure of the youth knowledge development effort puts a

premium on structured analysis and wide dissemination.

As part of its knowledge development mandate, therefore,

the Office of Youth Prcgrams of the Department of Labor will

organize, publish and disseminate the written products of all

major research, evaluation and demonstration activities supported

directly by or mounted in conjunction with OYP knowledge development efforts. Some of the same products may also be

published and disseminated through other channels, but they will be included in the structured series of Youth Knoweldge Development Reports in order to facilitate access and integration.

iv
The Youth Knowledge Development Reports, of which this is

one, are divided into twelve broad categories:

1. Kv,owledge Development Framework: The products in this

category are concerned with the structure of knowledge development activities, the assessment methodologies which are employed, validation of measurement instruments, the translation of knowledge

into policy, and the strategy for disseminating findings.

2. Research on Youth Employment and Employability Development: The products in this category represent analyses of existing data, presentation of findings from new data sources, special

studies of dimensions of youth labor market problems and policy

analyses.

3. Program Evaluations: The products in this category include impact, process and benefit-cost evaluations of youth programs including the Summer Youth Employment Program, Job Corps, the Youth Adult Conservation Corps, Youth Employment and Training

Programs, Youth Community Conservation and Improvement Projects,

and the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit.

4. Service and Participant Mix: The evaluations and demonstrations summarized in this category concern the matching of

different types of youth with different service combinations.

This includes experiments with work vs. work plus remediation vs.

straight remediation as treatment options. It also includes

attempts to mix disadvantaged and more affluent participants, as

well as youth with older workers.

5. Education and Training Approaches: The products in this

category present the findings of structured experiments to test

the impact and effectiveness of various education and vocational

training approaches including specific education methodologies

for the disadvantaged, alternative education approaches and

advanced career training.

6. Pre-Employment and Transition Services: The products in

this category present the findings of structured experiments to

test the impact and effectiveness of school-to-work transition

activities, vocational exploration, job-search assistance and

other efforts to better prepare youth for labor market success.

7. Youth Work Experience: The products in this category

address the organization of work activities, their output, productive roles for youth and the impacts of various employment

approaches.
8. Implementation Issues: This category includes cross- cutting analyses of the practical lessons concerning "how-to-do-it."

Issues such as learning curves, replication processes and programmatic "batting averages" will be addressed under this category, as well as the comparative advantages of alternative delivery

agents.

9. Design and Organizational Alternatives: The products in this category represent assessments of demonstrations of alternative program and delivery arrangements such as consolidation,

year-round preparation for summer programming, the use of incentives and multiyear tracking of individuals.

10. Special Needs Groups: The products in this category

present findings on the special problems of and adaptations

needed for significant segments including minorities, young

mothers, troubled youth, Indochinese refugees and the handicapped.

11. Innovative Approaches: The products in this category

present triiFIriarigs of those activities designed to explore new

approaches. The subjects covered include the Youth Incentive

Entitlement Pilot Projects, private sector initiatives, the

national youth service experiment, and energy initiatives in weatherization, low-head hydroelectric dam restoration, windpower

and the like.

12. Institutional Lin%ages: The products in this category

will include studies of institutional arrangements and linkages

as well as assessments of demonstration activities to encourage such linkages with education, volunteer groups, drug abuse and

other youth serving agencies.

In each of these knowledge development categories, there

will be a range of discrete demonstration, research and evaluation

activities, focuseo on different policy, program and analytical

issues. For instance, all experimental demonstration projects

have both process and impact evaluations, frequently undertaken

by different evaluation agents. Findings will be published as

they become available so that there will usually be a series of

reports as evidence accumulates. To organize these products,

each ?ublication is classified i^ one of the twelve broad knowledge

development categories, described in terms of the more specific

issue, activity or cluster of activities to which it is addressed, with an identifier of the product and what it represents relative

to other products in the demonstration. Hence, the multiple pro- ducts under a knowledge development activity are closely interrelated and the activities in each broad cluster have significant

interconnections.

0

vi
Because of the commonalities between VEPS and other

transition services, this volume should be assessed in conjunction with others in the "pre-employment and transition

services" category, particularly School-to-Work Transltion

Services -- The Initial Findings of the Youth Career Development

Program and Job Search Assistance -- 'Survey and Experimental

Results. Likewise, the impacts of private sector vs. public

sector work experience are presented in A Comparison of Public

and Private Sector Worksites -- An Interim Report in the "youth

work experience" category.

ROBERT TAGGART

Administrator

Office of Youth Programs
TABLE OF CONTENTS

OVERVIEW

THE VOCATIONAL EXPLORATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT:

A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE 1979 SUMMER COMPONENT 1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF VEDP 2

EVALUATION DESIGN 19

ANALYSIS OF ENROLLEE CHARACTERISTICS AND GAINS 36

ENROLLEE CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES 64

ENROLLEE AND PROGRAMMATIC CORRELATES OF PROGRAM

OUTCOMES 73

IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS 81

THE 1978 SUMMER VOCATIONAL EXPLORATION PROGRAM 120

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 121

RESEARCH DESIGN 127

OUTCOME PROFILE 135

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS 197

IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ON THE VEP

PROGRAM 217

VOCATIONAL EXPLORATION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR,

1972-73: COMPARISON OF IMPACT OF THE PILOT

AND SECOND EXPERIMENTAL YEARS 366

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 367

INTRODUCTION TO VEPS 374

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS AND

ADMINISTRATION 392

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMMATIC IMPACT ON ENROLLEES 406

VEPS CITY SUMMARIES 448

APPENDIX A 497

LONGITUDINAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE 1971-72

VOCATIONAL EXPLORATION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR

PROGRAM 519

INTRODUCTION TO VEPS 520

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 526

ASSESSMENT OF LONGITUDINAL IMPACT ON VEPS-I

COMPLETERS 530

COMPARISON OF VEPS COMPLETER AND CONTROL

GROUP OUTCOMES 546

APPENDIX B 557
THE VOCATIONAL EXPLORATION DEMONSTRATION

PROJECT: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF TEE

19 79 SUMMER COMPONENT

Brian P. Nedwek, Ph.D.

J. Terence Manns

E. Allan Tomey
3E:

I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF VEDP

The Center for Urban Programs at Saint Louis University

(SLU/CUP) is under contract to the Office of Youth Programs,

U.S. Department of Labor (OYP/DOL) to undertake a process and

outcome assessment of the experimental Vocational Exploration

Demonstration Project (VEDP). This effort is a modification

and extension of a planning contract (No. 99-9-2037-33-11)

under whose aegis the VEDP program was conceived, planned and

operationalized. This section of the report will describe the

VEDP concept and program: the nature of the cooperative relationship among OYP/DOL, the National Alliance of Business (NAB),

the Human Resources Development Institute (HRDI) of the AFL-CIO,

and SLU/CUP; and the specific nature of the research and assessment responsibilities of SLU/CUP.

The Vocational Exploration Demonstration Project

Observers of, youth employment and training programs suggest

that vocational exploration is an amorphous educational and

motivational experience through which youth gain increased

"transitional readiness" for the world of work. This transitional readiness is said to result from:

(1) Learning about the world of work;
(2) Becoming acquainted with different occupations,

jobs and career opportunities; and

(3) Acquiring knowledge, information,. positive attitudes,

behavior, and a broader perspective about one's future.

However, a recent synthesis of youth programs has noted that

"despite over 17 years of public experimentation with employment

and training programs for youth, our knowledge of what works

best for whom is at best sketchy and at worst non-existent."1

The VEDP is a discretionary funded vocational education

youth program which aims (1) to examine the relationships, in

a variety of vocational exploration program models, among the

people served, the program activities and services, the impacts,

and environmental facrs; (2) to compare summer and non-summer

vocational exploration efforts; (3) to compare a vocational

exploration experience over a twelve-month period with similar

activities and services offered for shorter periods of time;

and (4) to investigate the effects of vocational exploration

programs upon the attitudes and institutional behavior of business and organized labor.

This special demonstration project involves analysis of

various vocational exploration program designs to determine

what works for whom, when, where, why and how. The operations

and results of several different program models are researched

1Garth Mangum and John Walsh, Employment and Training,ProKrum for Youth: What Works Best for Whom? A Report to tne

Office of Youth Programs, Employment and Training Administration,

U.S. Department of Labor, May, 1978, p. 1.

- 3 -
and compared in terms of relative efficiency, effqctiveness,

and impact.

The purpose of VEDP was to assist enrollees cognitively,

affectively and in transitioning from the prcgram.

The VEDP--cognitively--focused on helping youth learn

about the types and characteristics of different jobs and occupations, the role of unions, physical and psychological working

conditions, entry level requirements, skills and/or credentials

needed, how much the jobs pay and their employee benefits,

promotional opportunities, career ladders and potential for

occupational growth, the material and non-material rewards of

working, the availability of jobs, personnel policies and practices, and how to find, get and keep work.

Second, the project--affectively--sought to in.Ucate

participants with positive work habits, attitudes and behavior

patterns such as punctuality, regular attendance, presenting

a neat appearance, getting (Owl: and working well with others,

exhibiting good conduct, accepting instruction from supervisor;,

and assuming responsibility. The VEDP also concentrated on

developing motivation among the program youth, assisting enrollees

in gaining an improved self image and achieving greater self

awareness, helping participants in understanding the world

around them and their place in it, and obtaining effective interpersonal relations skills.

Third, program activities and services were directed toward

the attainment of positive post-program opportunities and objectives for each youth. This transition procesp is extremely

- 4 -
important-because it can provide enrollees with a forward

momentum on which to build, give them a sense of achievement

and a feeling of confidence, and, most of all, impart the

positive belief that personal progress is possible.

Finallyr, vocational exploration was not seen as an end

in 1,3elf, but rather as a "stepping stone" activity. Participation in a vocational exploration program involves the enrollee in a transitional process of growth and decision making.

Such exposure is directed toward fostering appropriate attitudes,

understanding, and appreciation of what is needed to successfully move from school to work and compete in the job market.

Enrollees need to be made aware of their own characteristics,

needs, and abilities to help them formulate realistic world

of work and occupational expectations. In addition the program

attempted to instill an increased sensV,ivity to and awareness

of the realities of their own personal options, and to motivate

youth to acquire the education, training and skills required

to move from where they are now to where they want to be.

VEDP Summer 1979 component operated in sixteen sites

across the country and tested four basic program strategies

for providing a vocational experience for youth. The program

was implemented in the summer of 1979 and ran through the 1979-80

academic year; summer 1980 extensions will operate in two of

the sixteen sites.

Each of the fifteen program operators implemented a specific

program design based on the four models--Onsite Exposure, Vocational Exposure-Laboratory, Eclectic Exposure, or Multi-Modal.
The On-site Exposure Model (Type A) operated in New

Orleans, Omaha, Pittsburgh, and Tacoma. The Vocational Exposure-Laboratory model (Type B) operated in Allentown,

Atlanta, and Lansing. The Eclectic Exposur' model (Type C)

was conducted in Kennebunkport, Memphis, and San Francisco,

while the Eclectic Exposure model (Type D) was implemented

in Akron, Colorado Springs, Duluth, Haverhill, Helena and

New York City. Extension models (Type E)--applicable only

to the Fall in- school cycle--were conducted in New Orleans

and Colorado Springs. This last model will extend through

the summer of 1980. Brief descriptions of these intervention

strategy models are given below. A complete description of

each of the program models may be found in the VEDP Operations

Guidelines Manual prepared by OYP/DOL.

Each of the local programs will have three components-- one serving the In-School Youth, another serving Out-of-School

youth, and a third, offered during the summer for both InSchool and Out-of-School youth. (It is this last component

which is discussed in this report.) A detailed plan for implementation was required in advance from each operator, including written curricula and scheduling arrangements. Within

each of the local sites, all youth received the same mix of

activities and services called for by the specific program model

being operated.

In order to reduce the number of research variables and

facilitate the comparison of multi-dimensional program types

operating in different sites, the four program models, while
different in their main program delivery strategies, had many

elements in common. These common items included: program

purpose; client eligibility; outreach and recruitment, application, eligibility determination and verification; list com7/

pilation, randomization and referral; assessment for selection

and selection; pre-program survey and step locator; program

orientation; assignment of youth to staff person; brief orientation to world of work; individual enrollee plan; activity

and service assignment; counseling; coping skills workshop;

educational enrichment; supportive services; job development/

placement and assistance in securing post program opportunities;

post-program survey and termination data collection format;

and, occupational controls.

Onsite Exposure (Type A)--This model achieved occupational

exploration through youth placement at a priva e or public (if

necessary) sector employer's place of business for worker shadowing, job/task observation and rotation, and limited practical- -

"hands-on"-- experience. This included exposure to a wide variety

of jobs in many industries, but focused on a few careers within

specific industries.

Worker shadowing allowed the youth to observe the duties

and responsibilities of a regular employee, while job/task observation permitted enrollees to learn about the characteristics,

functional aspects and operating conditions of different types

of work. Observation and shadowing of any one employee, job

or task was limited because these activities are unable to hold

the participant's. interest over a period of time, and thus lose
their educational value. Short term, practical "ands on" experience let enrollees learn how to perform certain tasks, get

a fuller appreciation of the job as it is done in the real world,

and achieve a greater sense of accomplishment. Situations that

had program participants "working" with regular, full-time employees for short periods of time involved the employer's work

force in the vocational exploration process; such circumstances

allowed "co-workers" to teach youth about the skills of the

trade and the related formal and informal norms of the workplace

in the way that most workers learn their livelihood--on-the-job.

Rotation made worker shadowing acid job observation more

interesting, gave youth a greater variety of exposures, and

kept the practical, short-term, "hands on" activities from becoming work experience in the private sector and violating the

prohibitions against increasing an employer's profitability

or productivity. Enrollees may have rotated within one large

organization or company or shifted among various worksites at

different employers to obtain the broadest possible program

experience.

This model was designed to provide 400 total hours of

service to each of 180 participants in three cities. Of the

400 hour curriculum, a maximum of 15% of time was spent in

Eclectic Exposure activities (see Type C). The remaining hours

were spent in onsite exposure activities.

Vocational Exposure - Laboratory (Type BI--Vocational Exposure - Laboratory i3 occupational exploration through classroom activities--"survey style" vocational training, limited
skill instruCtion and simulated or "laboratory" mock up work- -

usually conducted at union trade instruction institutions,

vocational schools, skill training centers, or community colleges. Real and simulated job experiences provided a catalyst

for self and vocational exploration. Since the Vocational

Exposure - Laboratory model carried with it the essential partnership of classroom activities and simulated or mock up experiences and epl.sodes, local operators had to focus on both of

these areas in designing and implementing their programs and

curricula. Addditionally, care had to be taken by local operators in formulating and operating classroom and simulated activities which aimed to develop understanding of occupations and

the world of work in general, rather than to teach specific

job skills.

Type B programs therefore had to make sure that classroom

sections entailed active and involved interaction between instructors and enrollees, as opposed to the "classically" straight

imparting of material in the more traditional educational setting.

Simulated activities generally took place through structured

laboratory situations, problem solving exercises, or combinations

of these two methods.

The curriculum of a Type B program focused specifically

on vocational exploration, and to that extent differed significantly from the substance, content, process and procedures

found in the average occupational skill competency development

course designed to make students proficient in the performance

of particular jobs. This model included exposure to a wide
variety of jobs in many industries but focused on a-few careers

within specific inductries.

This program model provided 320 total hours of service

to 216 participants in each of three cities. Of the 320 hour

curriculum, a maximum of 15% of the time was spent in Eclectic

Exposure activities (Type C). The remaining hours were spent

in classroom and simulation activities.

Eclectic Exposure (Type C)--Eclectic Exposure is occupational exploration through a multiple process approach combining

several basic elements in an intervention strategy. The combination of these various building blocks was the main service delivery

mechanism through which vocational exposure was accomplished.

Enrollees were involved in a range of activities founded on

people-oriented interaction, world-of-work encounters, examination

of jobs and careers, creative expression, verbal and non-verbal

experiences, achievement of personal awareness, and multi-media

focusing the realities of the labor market. Type C is an

eclectic combination of program offerings including the following:

1. Field trips, visits and tours focusing on the occupations seen, their entry requirements and growth potential, and the causal relationships between the jobs

and the process of production;

2. Films, speakers, panel discussions, and seminars;

3. Presentation of occupational and vocational information including the use of computerized career information systems such as MOIS and CVIS;

4. Orientation to the local labor market, including

- 10 -
ipformation on how it works and data on presently

available and predicted future openings;

5. Instruction on how to find, get, and keep a job;

6. Instruction on how to advance a career after entry

into the labor force;

7. Presentations on business and the private enterprise system, the labor movement and the collective

bargaining system, labor-management issues and

practices, and the social security system;

8. Discussion of the relationship between school and

work;

9. Sessions on ethnic history and heritage and understanding social and cultural milieus; and

10. Sessions on survival skills, especially those

related to employment.

A full Eclectic Exposure program model was probably the

most difficult of the four VEDP types to design, and certainly

required the most local ingenuity. Commonality, in the absence

of any major curriculum strategy such as onsite exposure or

vocational exposure - laboratory, was hardest to achieve among

the Type C programs. No one quintessential C was formulated,

nor was one even ever anticipated up-front by the designers

of VEDP.

This program model provided 320 total hours of service

to 216 participants in each of three cities. Of the 320 hour

curriculum which each enrollee received, 100% of the time was

spent in Eclectic Exposure activities. In no instance were
Type C activities to consist of onsite placement of an enrollee

at an employer's place of business, or skill instruction at

a union trade instruction institution, a vocational school or

skill training center.

Multi Modal (Type D)--This model provides for the operation

of various mixtures of the three basic types described in the

preceding sections. The activities for Type D include onsite

exposure, vocational exposure - laboratory, and eclectic exposure

models.

This intervention strategy provided 400 total hours of

service to each of 180 participants in each of four cities.

The four Type D programs included the following combinations:

A/B - Onsite Exposure and Vocational Exposure - Laboratory

A/C - Onsite Exposure and Eclectic Exposure

B/C - Vocational Exposure - Laboratory and Eclectic Exposure

A/B/C - Onsite Exposure, Vocational Exposure - Laboratory,

and Eclectic Exposure

In programs A/C, B/C and A/B/C, the 400 hour curriculum

was equally split between or among the main activities. For

program A/B, the main activities were split equally but with

15% of time available for Eclectic Exposure activities. Each

Type D program included exposure to a wide variety of jobs in

many industries and focused on a few careers within specific

industries.

Extension (Type E)--In this model youth enrolled in the

In-School (Fall) component will take part in a sequence of

- 12 -

9 ,

4,1
program activities extending over a twelve-month period and

will receive a total of 800 hours of service. Extension is

a 15-month model because the In-School component encompasses

the summer of 1980.

The Extension model will operate in three cities serving

180 youth each. One city will operate an extended onsite exposure (Type A) program and two cities will operate an extended

A/B/C Multi Modal (Type D) program. Type E will provide 400

total hours of service to enrollees in the Out-of-School and

Summer components.

This model will permit In-School youth to explore a variety

of different occupations on a general basis for the first 400

hour block, and then provide a more intensive look at two to

five types of careers for the second 400 hour block. Every

enrollee in the Out-of-School and Summer components will also

receive an opporLunity to do some general and specific exploration. The guidelines pertaining to Types A and D are operative

for the Extension programs.

In Summary

VEDP is an employment and training modality which entails

detailed exposure to the workings and realities of the labor

market. Program enrollees, by a variety of means, are involved

in a series of experiences which focus on learning about and

understanding the world of work, its occupational and career

particulars, its functional milieu, and its operative code of

behavior. Vocational exploration may take the form of limited
skill instruction conducted in survey 4shion, b4 such activity

serves the larger purpose of providing a vehicle whereby youth

range over various occupations, discover different facts about

them, and examine them in some careful detail.

VEDP utilizes program transition as the carefully planned

final step of a program intervention strategy that seeks to

impact a youth in the cognitive and affective realms as well.

A youth may indeed move from participation in a vocational

exploration program to further schooling or training, entrance

into another employment and training program or military service,

return to school, entrance into an apprenticeship program or

obtaining unsubsidized employment. Thus, in its various formats

under the VEDP, vocational exploration may well be used as a

labor exchange, a pre-employment screening device or mechanism,

a selection process, and/or a probation.period for potentisl

new employees.

What is pivotal, though, is that vocational exploration

as the employment and training modality embodied in the Vocational Exploration Demonstration Project, has the tripartite

purposes of assisting enrollees cognitively, afZectively and

in transitioning from the program.

The key point to remember is that the goals of the VEDP-- cognitive, such as increased knowledge about the world of work

and its range of careers, affective, such as better understanding of and adherence to the generally prevalent cods of job

behavior, and improved self concept and interpersonal relations

skills, and transition, such as moving from the program to an

- 14 -
unsubsidized job or other opportunity that helps the enrollees'

forward progress--are the same for all five of the program types.

The adjunct services--counseling, supportive services, educational

enrichment, job development and assistance in securing post

program opportunities, and coping skills workshop (usuable at

local option)--are the same for all five of the model types.

The differences lie in the main program service and activity

delivery plans and structure employed by each model type. All

five types of local programs seek to impact each enrollee cognitively and affectively, and to work to ensure that each participant is transitioned from the program to that situation most

appropriate for him or her. Each program curriculum, regardless of its prototype designation, contains the substance and

procedures to attain the three major program goals.

Although the means may have varied across the various local

programs of the VEDP, the ends--meaningfully impacting each

youth in the cognitive, affective, and transition realms--are

the same. Program curriculum and intervention strategies are

planned to achieve these goals. Adjunct services are also

applied to attain these objectives.

VEDP has, since its inception, been a vital, dynamic, and

constantly evolving program, involving a hectic and often frenetic pace. Such is necessary to achieve the ambitious overall

objectives, outcomes and products sought by all parties involved

in the project. The potential benefits of the Vocational Exploration Demonstration Project--the definition, development and
refinement of an employment and training program modality-- would seem to more than justify the effort and expenditure

involved.

Responsibilities of the Cooperating Organizations

The VEDP involves a partnership among four organizations

in the planning, implementation, and research activities of

the program.

The Office of Community Youth Employment Programs (OCYEP)

of the United States Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and

Training Administration (ETA) serves as the general manager

of the project providing.on-going guidance, assistance and involvement during the total period of the demonstration effort.

The St. Louis University Center for Urban Programs (SLU/CUP)

is under contract with the Department of Labor to develop and

administer the research design and methodology. SLU/CUP is

also responsible for process monitoring, assessment and evaluation, and the collection and analysis of data. Field staff:

have been hired to assist in these functions.

The National Alliance of Business (NAB) and the Human

Resources Development Institute (HRDI) AFL-CIO have jointly

contracted with the Department of Labor for the administration

of the overall project. At the national level this includes

the establishment of administrative systems, technical assistance,

fiscal management and compliance monitoring. NAB/HRDI will also

take the lead role in determining employer and labor institutional

and attitudinal changes. A National Vocational Exploration

- 16 -
Project Contract Center has been established. The local NAB

and HRDI representatives assist program operators in all phases

of the program and took the lead role in facilitating the involvement of business and organized labor, especially during

the early planning stages of the program.

Sixteen sites have been selected to operate the various

program models. Each local program individually subcontracted

with the National VEP Contracting Center on the basis of a

program proposal submitted to NAB/HRDI.

Responsibilities of SLU/CUP

SLU/CUP has singular responsibility for the design, implementation and analysis of a research plan having two main

thrusts. The major effort is directed at collecting and analyzing data on and about program enrollees as they enter, move

through, and exit the demonstration programs. Follow-up

activities are conducted at three and eight month intervals

following program close-out. This activity is a massive data

collection effort involving numerous forms and interviews for

each of approximately 3,000 youth, culminating at an estimated

78,000 data cards of information.

The second major thrust is an organizational assessment

of the program operation seeking answers to the questions what,

how and how well was the demonstration project implemented.

Operationalization of this thrust relied heavily upon program

monitors hired in each of the sixteen sites and upon frequent

field visits by SLU/CUP personnel.

- 17 -
Complete specification of the responsibilities and activities of SLU/CUP may be found in Section II of this report,

Research Design.
II. EVALUATION DESIGN

The evaluation and research effort of the VEDP program has four main objectives:

(1) To examine the relationships, in a variety of

vocational exploration models, among the people

served, program activities and services, the results, and the environmental factors;

(2) To compare summer and non-summer vocational exploration efforts;

(3) To compare a vocational exploration experience

over a 12-month period with similar activities

and services offered for shorter periods of time;

and

(4) To investigate the effects of vocational exploration programs upon the attitudes and institutional

behavior of business and organized labor.

Accomplishment of the first three objectives is the responsibility of SLU/CUP; the fourth objective is the responsibility

of NAB/HRDI.

The data and conclusions reported herein are based only

on the Summer, 1979, program operations and enrollees, consisting of an N of 1040 youth who were served in fifteen sites

- 19 -
using four intervention modalities. Seven basic questions have

been targeted for the research component:

(1) How different program models, individually and

in various combinations, differentially impact

enrollee attitudes, cognitions, behaviors, and

outcomes;

(2) Whether variations in program length and intensity

have a differential impact on attitudes, cognitions,

behaviors, and outcomes;

(3) Whether enrollee participation and retention (i.e.,

positive and negative termination) is related to

program length, intensity, modality, component,

or cycle;

(4) Whether gains and outcomes vary across program

types when controlling for in-school and out-ofschool status or type of youth (e.g., sex or race);

(5) Whether summer program participation differs from

nonsummer program participation in terms of youth

transitional readiness (i.e., attitudes, cognitions,

behaviors) and outcomes;

(6) How environmental forces (social, economic, political, and geographic) impact program and enrollee

performance; and

(7) What problems or advantages appear when comparisons

are made by program length, intensity, modality,

component or cycle in the areas of planning, implemeri*at ion, administration, and operations.

- 20 -
Eclectic exposure (skill development), vocational exposurelaboratory, and onsite exposure are viewed as three bro.ld program

mix variables that are tested for their impact upon enrollee

transitional readiness (measured by attitudes toward self, society,

work, as well as cognitions about and participation in the work

world) and upon post-program outcomes. We are asking, for example,

do enrollees who are exposed to onsite experiences show more

positive gains than enrollees exposed to employability skill

development or vocational laboratory experiences?

We attempt to assess whether enrollee performance is correlated with each type of program mix, but whether combinations

of program mix have a differential impact upon transitional readiness and post-program outcomes. Thus, enrollees gaining experiences in both employability skill development and vocational

exposure laboratories may show greater gains than enrollees exposed to either one experience taken alone. Or, perhaps in an

additive sense, enrollees participating in programs with all

three types may show post-program gains superior to any one

delivery method.

Enrollee performance gains may be influenced by variations

in the length of program exposure. Providing for some combinations of a "year-round" program will create an opportunity to

test the hypothesis that extended treatment has a greater impact

on enrollee transitional readiness and outcomes than does a less

extended program mix.

Program performance may be influenced by the time of year
that a program is operating. Whether summer efforts differ

from non-summer activity will be analyzed.

In summary, several questions are examined in this demonstration effort. Different program combinations are analyzed

for their impact upon short term gains, for example, increases

in knowledge of occupations, and for their effect upon long

term gains, such as increases in hourly wage rates and retention. Beyond a comparison within and across program types,

programs are examined in the areas of planning, implementation,

administration and operations.

Research Approach

Although no specific control groups are tested in the

classic experimental design sense, several non-equivalent comparison groups were available for use in a quasi-experimental

research design. For some of our basic research questons a

nonrandomized comparison group pretest/posttest design was followed, while for other research questions a time-series design

was used. For some research issues, a qualitative approach

proved most appropriate.

When comparing program model effects within sites and across

sites, some pooling of site data was done because of small sample

size. To make justifiable comparisons, those programs nested

under a particular program model, for example the three onsite

exposure programs, were pooled if no one or more programs under

the model demonstrated significant differences when compared

themselves. This blocking procedure was employed for each

34

- 22 -
program type.

It is important to note that while a number of research

questions guided the evaluation design, no specific hypotheses

were formulated nor were specific outcomes postulated. Rather,

the essence of the design is the testing of treatment modalities

in terms of outcomes. By analogy, the design might be labeled

"race horse," determining which modality worked best for whom

under what circumstances.

Data Analysis Routines

The research interests go beyond estimating program effects

by attempting to understand why certain models have greater impact than others. Regression analysis and procedures and gain

score techniques were used to unravel the interrelationships

among:

- -input variables (e.g., enrollee background characteristics),

--program processes (e.g., counseling and supportive services),

- -pre/post program gains (e.g., self-esteem),

- -outcomes (e.g., post-program behavior and status), and

- -environmental forces (e.g., labor market conditions).

Thus, the basic test is the extent to which individual characteristics and program processes have both direct and indirect effects

on post program outcomes under a variety of environmental conditions.

Figure One displays the general model that guides the analysis routines. Enrollee background characteristics and program

processes are shown to have both a direct effect on post program
outcomes and an indirect effect through improved pre/post

program gains.

FIGURE ONE: ANALYSIS MODEL

r -

Enrollee

Characteristics

and Abilities

1 Program Gains - Post Environmental

Attitudes and

nitions

Program

OutImes

Conditions

Program

". Processes

and Activities

Population and Sample

It is the "soft-core" disadvantaged who form the population

at which the VEDP was targeted. The sample for this project

was from a population of such youth who were typically served

by employment and training programs in the program operator's

area.

The sample was composed of those youth who met the CETA

eligibility requirements and expressed an interest in the program. The measurement of interest was based upon (a) the interest interview as a subjective assessment, and (b) an objective

assessment, namely, the simple fact that the youth showed up!

The operations guidelines and the general instructions

covering eligibility certification each indicated that SLU/CUP
would specify the randomization process to be used for determining which youth certified as eligible were to be referred

to the program operator for intake and selection. The steps

followed to ensure that youth were randomly referred included:

(1) The certifying agent prepared and numbered sequentially

eligibility certifications until the number received

equaled at least two and one-half times the number of

youth to be enrolled in a particular component. For

the summer component two lists--one in school, one

out of school--were prepared.

(2) The certifying agent (or, if local circumstances

dictated, the program operator) informer. SLU/CUP

on a regular basis of the number of certified youth

in each pool.

(3) When the number of certified youth in each pool

reached the requisite level (for the summer component,

at least 100 youth in each pool), SLU/CUP was notified

and appraised of the actual number of eligible.youth

in each pool.

(4) SLU/CUP then indicated to the certifying agent the

youth matching a randomly generated number with the

number assigned by the certifying agent) to be referred to the program operator. The number initially

referred to the program operator equaled the component

slot level plus fifteen percent.

(5) The program operator immediately contacted and scheduled
appointments with all youth referred by the certifying agent. At least five attempts were made to contact

a youth; notations were made on the eligibility certification on these attempted contacts.

(6) Intake forms were prepared for all youth who showed

up for scheduled appointments and were interested in

participating in the program. Those youth interested

and willing to participate were immediately informed

of their acceptance into the program and given more

specific instructions on when to report for orientation.

(7) When the interview process specified in (5) and (6)

above failed to enroll the requisite number of youth

(slot level plus fifteen percent), the operator notified

SIX/CUP, indicating the shortage.

(8) SIX/CUP then contacted the certifying agent and indicated which additional youth were to be referred to

the program operator. The routines specified in (4),

(5) and (6) above were repeated until the requisite

number of youth had been enrolled.

Concepts and Indicators

The central variables for the analysis of program impact

are the following:

(1) Individual enrollee characteristics and abilities,

(2) Program processes,

(3) Program related gains, and

(4) Outcomes.

- 26 -33
Individual Enrollee Characteristics--Individual enrollee

characteristics are viewed as key independent variables that

differentially influence program outcomes. The range of individual enrollee characteristics goes beyond sex and racial

differences. The set of characteristics examined but not necessarily included in the regression analysis were: age, sex,

race, prior work history, school status, labor force status,

size of family/dependents, family and personal income (6 month

period), economic status, marital status, handicapped status,

offender status, military status, prior CETA experience, and

reading comprehension. The enrollee characteristics selected

for the regression and gins analysis routines are consistent

with the ETS knowledge development efforts. In this way comparability of findings enhances the generalizability of the

research efforts supp.drting tLe knowledge development plan.

Prior work history had a time frame of eight months prior

to program entry. The specific measures include: (a) hourly

wages, (b) length of employment and unemployment, (c) spells

of employment, (d) average length of each spell, and (e) receipt of subsidized and unsubsidized wages.

School status, other than in-school and out-of-school

classification, included measures on highest grade completed,

receipt of GED, type of post secondary schooling obtained,

and year last attended school.

The inclusion of a reading test in the assessment sequence

of beginning enrollees served a number of important uses. It

provided a useful diagnostic aid in identifying the reading and

- 27 -
comprehension achievement of the enrollees, as well as yielded

valuable data pointing toward important relationships between

reading comprehension and success or failure in the VEDP

program. Additionally, the reading test provided for enrollee/

counselor interaction toward the development of enrollee goals.

An identification of reading and comprehension level might also

have provided an enrollee with valuable feedback for purposes

of referral toward development of deficient skills.

A second reading test was administered during program oper,

ations. Thiz test, a STEP-LOCATER, has been devised by the

Educational Testing Service, and is part of the larger knowledge

development plan of the Department of Labor.

Program Process Variables--Program process variables

cluded the following: Program type, program component, program

cycle, program length, number of program hours completed per

week, total number of program hours received, supportive services

prescribed, supportive services received, program counseling

services received, job development/placement and assistance in

securing post-program opportunities, educational enrichment services prescribed, and educational enrichment services received.

Documentation of the supportive services prescribed and/or

received included health/medical care, dental care, optometric

care, residential assistance, transportation, social services,

legal assistance, child care, and use of special equipment.

Pre/Post Program Gains--The third set of variables centered

upon programmatic gains in cognitions and attitudes. The Educational Testing Service pre-program and post-program surveys

- 28 -
provided the vehicle for gain measurement. The specific variables included in this set were the following: vocational attitude scale, job knowledge scale, job holding skills scale,

work relevant attitudes inventory, job seeking skills scale,

self-esteem scale, and sex stereotypes of adult occupations

scale.

Outcome Variables--Program outcomes were the central dependent variables in this research. Outcome measures included:

unsubsidized employment; credential upgrading; job site placement; entrance into military service; entrance into employment

and/or training program; educational improvement, such as,

continuing in school, re- entry, to school, and enrollment in

more educational training; program related results (job, employment and/or training program, military service, education) in

terms of an occupation explored during the program; job retention measures, such as, amount of time, number of spells, and

average length of spells; wage rate gains across the observation

period; cumulative income gains across the observation period;

and job upgrading as perceived by the enrollees at both the 90

day and 240 day follow-up.

The time frame for analysis of outcome variation included

work history data 8 months prior to program entry to eight

months after program completion.

Instrumentation

The following research instruments were used in this project to derive meaningful indicators: See also the VEDP Manage-

- 29 -
ment Information System Field Manual.

A. Individual Participant Profile including (a) enrollee

characteristics, (b) program status, and (c) termination.

B. Pre/Post Surveys including the seven subscales developed by the Educational Testing Service as well

as (a) a job knowledge gains test specific to program

experiences, and (b) counselor perception of work

habit gains.

C. Program Completion Survey and Exit Interview.

D. Program Follow-up Survey including post-program experiences at 90 day and 240 day observation times.

The ETS instrumentation was supplemented by additional

questions unique to the VEDP analysis plan.

E. Reading Tests including Peabody Individual Achievement

Test and the STEP-LOCATOR.

F. Management Information System Data Records including:

(1) Certification Form (VEDP-101)

(2) Intake Form (VEDP-105)

(3) Work History (VEDP-106)

(4) Individual Enrollee Plan (VEDP-110)

(5) Weekly Enrollee Log (VEDP-201)

(6) Supportive Service Log (VEDP-260)

(7) Termination Form (VEDP-301)

Tests of Instrumentation Reliability

Seven subscales developed by the Educational Testing Service

4 )

- 30 -
formed the core test battery for the measurement of attitudinal

and cognitive gains. These seven subscales were (1) Vocational

Attitudes, (2) Job Knowledge, (3) Job Holding.Skills, (4) Work

Relevant Attitudes, (5) Job Seeking Skills, (6) Sex Stereotyping

of Adult Occupations, and (7) Self-Esteem. In addition, a reading test, the STEP Locator, was used to measure reading level.

Using only Summer, 1979, component data, each of the seven

subscales and the reading instrument were analyzed for test

reliability using odd-even correlations stepped-up for full

test length using the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Test. Table One

displays the reliabilities on the pretest and posttest scores

for the entire sample as well as for sex and race subgroups.

Moderate to strong correlations are shown across the entire core

test battery. Except for Self-Esteem, the means and standard

deviations of the pretest scores were similar to those reported

by ETS for their sample of YCD seniors.

Vocational Attitudes--The Vocational Attitudes battery

showed consistently high correlations for the entire sample

as well as for the sex and race subgroups. Female test scores

had a slightly higher reliability than the male enrollee scores.

Slightly higher correlations on the posttest were found among

white enrollees when compared with minority enrollees.

Job Knowledge--Posttest reliabilities were consistently

higher than pretest scores across all subgroups. The correlations ranged from a low of .691 among white enrollee pretest

scores to .818 for male posttest scores. Overall, reliabilities

- 31-
Table 1: Subscale Test Reliability inelysill

Total Sample

Pre- Posttest test

Males

Pretest Posttest

Females Pretest Posttest

Minority

Pre- Posttest test

Nonainority

Pre- Posttest test Subscale

Vocational

Attitudes .172 .827 .725 .822 .809 .828 .762 .830 .762 .805

Job Knowledge .706 .188 .739 .818 .669 .746 .699 .784 .691 .776

Job Holding Skills .332 .451 .227 .460 .438 .387 .317 .419 .336 .480

Work Relevant

Attitudes .771 .802 .769 .793 .112 .811 .741 .785 .816 .817

Job Seeking Skills .715 .806 .728 .819 .681 .790 .713 .813 .705 .781

Sex Stereotyping .914 .924 .911 .905 .909 .932 .908 .917 .992 .932

Self-Esteem .400 .271 .448 .293 .348 .250 .410 .258 .375 .298

STEP Locator .879 .897 .858 .863 .905

1 Reliabilities are odd-even item correlations stepped-up for full test longth using the Spearman- /15

Brown Prophecy Test.
were sufficiently high to warrant their application for the

evaluation.

Job Holding Skills--The Job Holding Skills battery, like

the Self-Esteem items, had considerably lower reliabilities

than any other subtest. The correlations ranged from a low

of .227 for male pretest scores to .480 for the white posttest

scores. The .227 reliability was the lowest among the entire

set of subscales. Posttest correlations were consistently

stronger than the pretest, except among females.

Work Relevant Attitudes--High consistent correlations for

the pretests and posttests were found for all subgroups. The

reliabilities ranged from .769 for the pretest males to a high.

of .817 for the white enrollee posttests.

Job Seeking Skills--A pattern similar to work relevant

attitudes was found for the Job Seeking Skills battery. Posttest correlations were consistently higher than pretests. The

highest correlation was among the posttest scores of males,

while the lowest correlation (.687) was found among the pretest

female scores.

Sex Stereotyping of Adult Occupations--The Sex Stereotyping

battery showed the highest correlations for any of the subscales.

All reliabilities were above .905 and little variation occurred

across the subgroups.

Self-Esteem--The Self-Esteem battery posted lower average

correlations than any other subscale. Posttest scores had consistently lower reliabilities than pretests. None of the posttest patterns were above .298. The highest correlation (.448)

- 33- .1i)
was found among the pretest scores for males. In addition, the

difference between pretest and posttest reliabilities across

the subgroups was larger than for any of the other subscales.

The presence of moderately low reliabilities suggests a cautious

application of this subscale in gain analysis.

STEP Locator--The reading test scores had high reliabilities

for all subgroups. The correlations were in a narrow range between .858 and .905. Sex and race differences were minimal.

STEP Locator scores were run against a second reading test used

in the project. The Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT)

reading comprehension subtest was also administered. The correlations between the STEP and PIAT were .29 for an age and

grade equivalent score and .32 for the raw PIAT score.

Means and standard deviations indicate reasonable distributions for the subscales. Table Four displays the pretest and

posttest means and standard deviations for each subscale. These

data are consistent with the ETS findings for the YCD sample.

Program ImpL mentation Assessment

The second of the two major research thrusts of VEDP research desi.. called for a qualitative assessment of program

implumtu,At.on. Information for this component was derived

from field notes written by SLU/CUP following site visits which

were conducted on an irregular but frequent basis, and from

monitor reports submitted by the on-site monitors on a regular

basis. Such an assessment is required to add flavor and color

to an otherwise undiscriminating body of information generated

- 34 -4 ;
by the program operators. Possession of program implementation

information proved useful in the analysis of outcomes of enrollees.

In addition to collecting environmental information

assessment of program implementation included an examination of the following operational features:

1. Recruitment and selection of enrollees;

2. General administrative organization and procedures;

3. Staffing, including the recruiting and credentials

of counselors, instructors, and paraprofessionals;

4. Content and delivery of the program orientation to

the enrollees;

5. The quality, content, timeliness, and appropriateness

of the curriculum;

6. Generally, the quality and integration of all program

activities;

7. Level and type of the supportive services and conseling effort;

8. Post program opportunity assistance to enrollees; and

9. Any other information potentially useful in attaining

a qualitative assessment of the organization, administration, and implementation of the program.
I//. ANALYSIS OF ENROLLEE CHARACTERISTICS AND GAINS

During the Summer of 1979, fifteen sites (New York City elected not

to begin operations until the Fall cycle) participated in the Vocational

Exploration Demonstration Project. In four of the sites (Allentown,

Colorado Springs, Duluth and Tacoma) the program operator was the local

CETA prime sponsor, in ten sites it was a community based organization

and in one site (New prleans) it was a community college. In all, 1,040

youth were enrolled in one of four different treatment groupings: On-site

Exposure, Vocational Exposure-Laboratory, Eclectic Exposure, or some

Combinations of the other three. Operators, however, provided only one

treatment at their site. The program length was either 320 hours or

400 hours depending upon program type.

Demographic Profile

Females accounted for 54.2 percent of the total group; the mean age

of the group was 17.5 years and tha mean highest grade completed was 10.8.

Blacks constituted 53.8 percent of the population, while whites were

34.1 percent. All were CETA eligible and, were Lo:ween the ages of 16 and

21; 55.9 percent were classified as In-School.

As can be seen by insi,ecting Table 2, the On-sie Hxposure type was

more heavily female (63.0%) than was the populi.;io ,44*,,h the other

three types are more evenly divided between m:Ac: L.A(6.813, individual

sites within a type vary greatly. While there is some ve.;stion among

- 36
Total Group

On Site

New Orleans

Omaha

Pittsburgh

Tacoma

Vocational Lab,

Allentown

Atlanta

Lansing

Eclectic

Kennebunkport

Memphis

San Francisco

Combinations

Akron

Colo, Springs

Duluth

Haverhill

Helena

5\1

Table 2: Selected Demographic Characteristics By Program Type and Site

Sex

Male Female

(1040) 45.8% 54.2%

(262)

(69)

(65)

(59)

(69)

(231)

(11)

(12)

(82)

(230)

(10)

(82)

(18)

(317)

(59)

(60)

(62)

(10)

(66)

31.0%

31.9

52,3

33.9

30.4

49.3%

50.6

44,4

52.4

47.8%

44.3

53.1

44,9

48.9%

39.0

48.3

46,8

41.1

62,1

63.0%

68.1

41.1

66.1

69.6

50.1%

49.4

55.6

47,6

52.2%

55.1

46.3

55.1

51.1%

61.0

51,7

53.2

52.9

37,9

16 11 18 19 20 21 Mean

(1040) 30.1% 28,2%

(262)

(69)

(65)

(59)

(69)

(231)

(11)

(12)

(82)

(230)

(10)

(82)

(78)

(311)

(59)

(60)

(62)

(70)

(66)

28,2%

21.5

32.3

30.5

23.2

30.3%

44,2

25.0

22,0

36.5%

50.0

31.7

29.5

28,7%

21.1

33,3

22.6

41.4

18,2

30.5%

26.1

36.9

22.0

36.2

21.1%

28.6

23,6

30.5

24.3%

21.1

25,6

20.5

29.3%

45.8

30.0

25.8

18.6

28.8

18.1% 11.3% 1.0% 4,2% 11.5

21.0%

21.1

20.0

20.3

21.1

17,3%

16.9

15.3

19.5

16.1%

11.4

23,2

12,8

19,6%

15,3

18.3

24.2

21.4

18.2

12.2%

14.5

4.6

23.7

7.2

5.1% 2.3% 11.7

8.1 4.4

4.6 1.5

3.4

5.8 5.8

aft10.0% 8.2%

5.2 3.9

13.9 13.9

11.0 7.3

10.9%

4,3

9.8

17.9

8,3%

1.4

8,5

14,1

6.3%

3,4

3,3

4,8

5,1

13.6

6.5% 17,6

1.3

8.3

9.8

4.4% 17.5

1.1

3.3

8.1

5,7

3.0

t;.1.
Table 2 (cooed.)

Race

Black Sp. Am.

Nat.

Am. Asian

Highest Grade Completed more

than 12

White

8 or

less

9 or

10 11 12

1 Group (1033) 34.12 83.8% 5.6 1.72 4.72 (1034) 3.52 35.42 29.22 26.52 5.32

Ite (260) 11.52 54.92 1.52 --- 5.82 (259)* w Orleans

she

(69)

(65) - -- 94.2 1.4 - -- 4.3 (69) --- 36.5 31.9 30.4 1.4

.ttaburgh

15.4 83.1 1.5 -,-. --- (65) --- 33.9 38.5 24.6 3.1 (57) 7.0 93.0 --- coma (69) --- (57) 3.6 21.0 38.6 24.6 12.3 23.2 56.5 2.9 --- 17.4 (68) 25.0 33.8 32.4 8.8 ---

tional Lab. (231) 22.12 68.4% 9.12 --- 0.42 (230)

lanta

lentown (77) 48.1 32.6 18.2 --- 1.3 (77) 3.9 36.4 32.5 23.4 3.9 (72) ---- 100.0

using (72) --- 16.7 26.4 37.5 19.5 (82) 17.1 74.4 8.8 NM. INO. (81) --- 30.8 30.9 34.6 3.7

ctic (226) 31.0% 53.12 1.32 OAR 13.72 (228) nnebunkport

mphia

(69) 97.1 ---- 2.9 -- (70) 10.0 38.6 17.1 - - -- (82) 3.7 96.3 =mom.. n Francisco (81) 1.2 44.4 32.1 - - -- (75) - 54.7 4.0 --- 41.3 (77) --- 25.1 29.9 1.3 1.3

inations (316) 63.62 21.22 9.52 5.12 0.6% (317) ron (59) 22.0 78.0

to. Springs (59) 1.7 37.3 30.5 25.4 5.1

luth

(59) 39.0 30.5 27.1 --- 3.4 (60) 10.0 45.0 20.0 21.7 3.4

verhill

(62) 95.2 1.6 3.2 (62) 1.6 29.1 41.9 16.1 6.4 (70) 80.0 1.4 18.6

Lena

(70) 10.0 42.9 22.9 20.0 9.1 (66) 75.8 1.5 1.5 21.2 (66) 10.6 47.0 15.2 22.7 4.5

lest Grade Completed had not been calculated by treatment (program type) when this table was prepared.
sites in terms of the age of enrollees, the mean age for each program

type is quite close to the mean age of the population. There is considerable variation among sites in racial mixture. While the program

population is 53.8 percent black, the Atlanta site is 100 percent black,

Memphis is 96.3 percent black, New Orleans is 94.2 percent black, and

Pittsburgh is 93.0 percent black. On the other hand, Kennebunkport

(97.1 percent) and Duluth (95.2 percent) are almost entirely white.

The mean highest grade completed was 10.8. While there was some

variation among sites (Atlanta had a college graduate, Tel, ma and Haverhill had some college juniors, Helena had a youth who had not gone beyond

the fifth grade, and Allentown, Haverhill and Pittsburgh had youth who

had only completed the seventh grade), most youth were completing or had

completed their junior or senior year in high school. One-third were

high school graduates. More than half (55.9 percent) of the youth were

attending school at the time of program entry. Table 3 displays some

preliminary demographic data on the youth, controlled for school status.

The difference in mean age between In- School youth and Out-of-School youth

was one and one-half years while the difference in mean highest grade

completed between the two groups was just one-half year. Among sites

the range in mean age for In- School youth was one year (16.4 in Allentown

and Kennebunkport to 17.4 in Duluth and Helena). There was a wide range

in mean highest grade completed: two full years (10.1 in Helena to 12.1

in Atlanta) for Out-of-School youth and one and one-half year (9.9 in

Colorado Springs to 11.5 in Atlanta) for In-School youth. The overall

proportion of In-School youth to Out-of-School youth was 56:44; however,

Omaha and Kennebunkpott enrolled a significantly higher proportion of

InvSchool youth.

- 39 -
Table 3: Selected Demographic Characteristics By School Status, Program Type and Site

In

School

Out of

School

MME ALE

In Out

Mean Highest,

2 Male

Out

Grade Completed

In Out In

Total Group (1040) 55.9% 44.1% 16.8 18.3 10.5 11.1 49.9% 40.52

On Site (262) 60.3% 39.7%

New Orleans

Omaha

(69) 52.2

(65) 81.5

47.8 16.7 18.4 10.4 11.3 36.1 27.3

Pittsburgh (59) 57.6

18.5 16.9 18.3 10.8 11.4 45.3 83.3 42.4 16.8 18.6 10.2 11.9 Tacoma (69) 50.7 50.0 12.0 49.3 16.6 18.5 10.6 11.9 37.1 23.5

Vocational Lab. (231) 55.02 45.02

Allentown

Atlanta

(77) 58.4

(72) 52.8

41.6 16.4 17.7 10.4 11.2 64.4 31.3

Larsirkg (88) 53.7

47.2 17.2 18.7 11.5 12.1 42.1 47.1 46.3 17.3 18.3 10.9 11.1 52.3 52.6

Eclectic (230) 59.1% 40.9%

Memphis

Kennebunkport

(82) 51.2

(70) 67.1 33.9 16.4 18.0 10.0 10.6 48.9 34.8

San Francisco

48.8 16.6 18.2 10.2 10.9 78.6 27.5 (78) 60.3 39.7 16.8 19.0 10.2 11.5 38.3 54.8

Combinations (317) 50.9% 49.12

Akron

Colo. Springs (60) 55.0

(59) 54.2 45.8 16.8 17.8 10.5 11.1 46.9 29.6

Duluth (62) 53.2

45.0 16.7 18.0 9.9 11.0 54.5 40.7

Haverhill (70) 48.6

46.8 17.4 18.1 11.1 11.0 45.5 48.3

Helena (66) 42.4

51.4 16.5 18.1 10.4 10.3 47.1 47.2 57.6 17.4 18.2 10.6 10.1 60.7 63.2
Black enrollees were disproportionately female (59.2%) while

slightly more than half (52.8%) of the white enrollees were males (see

Table 4). The mean age for whites was 17.3 while for blacks it was 17.5.

The mean highest grade completed was 10.7 for whites and 11.4 for blacks.

Much of this difference is explained by the high proportion of high

school seniors and college students in the Atlanta and Pittsburgh programs. Over half (52.7%) of blacks had prior CETA experience while

under half (46.5%) of whites had such experience. For both whites and

blacks, Out-of-School enrollees had more CETA experience than did InSchool enrollees.

A higher proportion of blacks than whites had held no job in

either the three- or the eight-month period before the program began.

However, when controlling for school status, among the Out-of-School en- rollees there were more whites than blacks with no job in the period

immediately prior to program entry. The data suggest, however, that

the jobs which blacks held were temporary and low level. For In-School

youth, however, more whites than blacks had a job in the eight -month

period before VEDP. interviews with enrollees and program counselors

suggest that it is much easier for white youth to find acceptable part- time, after-school employment than it is for black youth.

Work History

Just over half (50.2%) of the Summer VEDP enrollees had been previously enrolled in a CETA program. The prior CETA experience for most

of the youth was in a summer youth program. What is a bit surprising

is that less than half of the Out-of-School youth had any prior CETA

experience. This suggests that program operators were successful in

- 41 tr ..

t),
Sex

Table 4:

White

Enrollee Characteristics By Race

Black Sp. Am. Indian Asian

Male 52.8 40.8 50.0 44.9 42.9

Female 47.2 59.2 50.0 55.1 57.1

Age

16 34.7 28.4 31.0 16.7 42.9 17 29.0 26.6 39.7 22.2 14.3

18 18.5 20.3 13.8 16.7 ----

19 8.2 12.8 10.3 22.2 28.6 20 4.3 8.1 5.2 16.7 14.3

21 5.4 3.8 ---- 5.6 - --- Mean 17.3 17.5

HGC

Less than 8 7.4 0.9 5.2 5.6

9 or 10 41.2 29.5 44.9 44.5 42.9 11 28.7 30.0 24.1 33.3 26.5 12 19.0 32.0 25.9 16.7 20.4 More than 12 3.5 6.9 ---- ---- 8.1

Mean 10.7 11.4

Prior CETA Exp. 46.5 52.7 53.4 55.6 46.9 In school 50.5 53.4 46.9 62.5 46.9

Out 34.7 42.4 58.3 49.4 48.4

No Job: 3 Months 71.0 82.2 86.2 61.1 79.6 In school 77.4 87.2 93.8 50.0 84.4

Out 79.6 71.7 66.1 76.4 65.6

No Job: 8 Months 59.7 75.2 75.9 55.6 96.6 In school 69.4 83.8 90.6 50.0 78.1 Out 67.3 52.2 53.5 64.0 53.1 -

.,1 1 tio
recruiting into the program youth who were not already in the "CETA

network" (see Table 5).

Those programs operating the On-site Exposure model had the highest proportion of youth with prior CETA experience, while those operating

the Eclectic Exposure model had the lowest proportion. All three operators conducting this model (Kennebunkport, Memphis and San Francisco)

were community,based organizations without direct or aistablished linkage

to the CETA network. On the other hand, the high proportion of former

CETA enrollees in On-site Exposure models may be accounted for by the

fact that Tacoma (a prime sponsor) had almost 85% former CETA enrollees

in their program and Omaha (a community based organization) had more

than four-fifths In-School youth and 75% of these were former CETA participants.

Except for those sites operating the On-site Exposure model, InSchool youth had a higher incidence of prior CETA experience than did

Out-of-School youth. There are, however, some variations present among

sires within a particular program type. Overall, only six of the fifteen

sites (New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Tacoma, Allentown, Memphis and Duluth)

had a higher proportion of Out-of-School youth with prior CETA experience

(se Table.5).

Among all youth, 78.0% had no job in the three months prior to program entry while 69.1% had no job in the eight months prior to program

entry. Since over half of the youth were In-School, it is necessary to

control for school status in interpreting job history information. A

more meaningful way of looking at the data is to look at Out-of-School

youth only: here Table 5 indicates that 70.8% of the Out-of-School youth

had no job in the three months prior to program entry and 57.1% had no

- 43
Table 5: Previous Employment Status By Program Type and Site

Prior CETA Experience No Job: Prior 3 months No Job: Prior 8 months

All

Youth

In

School

Out of

School

All

Youth

In

School

Out of

School

All

Youth

In

School

Out of

School

Total group 50.2% 51.6% 48.4% 78.0% 83.6% 70.8% 0.1% 78.7% 57.1%

On Site

New Orleans

65.6% 62.7% 70.2% 80.5% 85.8% 68.3% 71.3% 77.8% 61.5%

Omaha

50.7 44.4 57.6 78.3 91.7 63.6 62.3 83.3 39.4

Pittsburgh

70.8 75.5 50.0 89,2 96.2 58.3 80.0 86.8 50.0

Tacoma

55.9 47.1 68.0 76.3 73.5 80.0 69.5 67.2 72.0 84.1 77.1 91.2 78.3 77.1 79.4 73.9 68.6 79.4

Voc. Lab

Allentown

44.2% 44.9% 43.3% 78.8% 79.5% 77.9% 68.8% 77.2% 58.7%

Atlanta

59.7

37.5

57.8 62.5 89.6 89.9 90.6 84.4 86.7 81.3

Lansing

39.5 35.3 77.8 73.7 82.4 68.1 71.1 64.7 35.4 36.4 34.2 69.5 75.0 63.2 54.9 72.7 34.2

Eclectic

Kennebunkport

36.5%

32.9

36.8% 36.2% 81.7% 87.5% 73.4% 76.5% 83.3% 66.0%

Memphis 39.0

14.0 30.4 65.7 74.5 47.8 60.0 68.1 43.5

San Francisco

35.7 42.5 96.3 100.0 92.5 95.1 100.0 90.0 37.2 40.4 32.3 80.8 89.4 67.7 71.8 85.1 51.6

Combination

Akron 44.1

51.7% 58.7% 43.6% 72.6% 81.2% 61.0% 62.1% 76.2% 45.7%

Colo. Springs

56.3 29.6 94.9 100.0 88.9 81.4 93.8 66.6

Duluth

46.7

61.3

54.5 37.0 65.0 84.8 40.7 61.7 84.8 33.3

Haverhill

60.6 62.1 69.4 75.8 62.1 62.9 72.7 51.7

Helena

71.4 79.4 63.9 84.3 94.1 75.0 68.6 82.4 55.6 33.3 39.3 28.9 50.0 46.4 52.6 37.9 42.9 34.2
job in the eight months prior to program entry. The range of no jobs

in the prior three months is from 40.7% in Colorado Springs to 92.5%

in Memphis and 90.6% in Allentown. For the eight-month period the

range is 33.3% in Colorado Springs to 90.0% in Memphis. The figure

for Colorado Springs may be accounted for by the number of temporary

jobs available during the tourist season; the Memphis figure is partly

explained by the high number of ex-offenders in their program.
Gain Scores by Program Type and Enrollee Characteristics

One measure of program effect is the individual gain score. With the nonexperimental one-group pretest-posttest design, the gain score is simply a

constructed variable based on the difference between pretest and posttest scores.

The appropriate statistical approach is a single sample t-test of the null hypothesis, im 0.

Individual gain score analysis might tend to overestimate the magnitude of

the gain and thus suggest the use of analysis of covariance. However, where

variability between pretest and posttest is minimal, raw gain score analysis

is sufficient. A coefficient of variability was computed for the pretest and

posttest scores across the subscales. Insignificant differences were found

when pretest scores were compared with posttest scores and when subscales were

compared with each other.

Table 6 displays the mean gain scores and standard deviations for the

subscales. Overall, changes in scores are not statistically significant. However, an interesting pattern is shown. While each measure of attitudes showed

a positive change, all three measures of cognitive change showed a reverse

effect occurring. A partial explanation for this reversal may be a mild ceiling

effect. The pretest mean for Job Knowledge represented 75.5 percent of the

maximum score on this test. The Job Holding Skills battery pretest mean was

84.8 percent of the maximum score and the Job Seeking Skills pretest mean was

72.9 percent of the highest possible score. The attitudinal measures were less

- 46 -
extreme. Vocational Attitudes pretost tq;.n epntike, -vd a '; cent of the

maximum; Work Relevant Attitudes pru,aat Imt11 v, and Self - Esteem

was 69.2 percent of the maximum scot).

Table 7 displays the mean gain scores and stanuard deviations across the

four intervention strategies. Overall, the Eclectic Exposure ctogram type showed

the highest gain for changes in Vocational Attitudes and reduced Sex Stereotyping,

and the least reverse effect on Job Knowledge, Job Holding Skills and Work Relevant Attitudes. While Job Seeking Skills improvements were most pronounced

among On-Site Exposure programs, this intervention strategy had the least positive effect on Job Holding Skills (-.351), Work Relevant Attitudes (-.053),

and Self-Esteem (.210). Although not statistically significant, the Combinations programs had the highest mean gain scores for Self-Esteem. Finally, an

analysis of variance showed only Job Seeking Skills gains across programs were

statistically significant at the .05 level. The Job Knowledge F-ratio was

significant at .08.

Tables &A through 8G display the Gain scores by program type and site.

An inspection of gains across the seven subscales shows that the top programs,

i.e., those programs demonstrating the highest gain scores in each of the gain

areas, were all CBO's.

Programs in each of the subscales were ranked from highest to lowest according to mean gains. An analysis of the top four ranhed programs in each subscale

area showed that San Francisco, New Orleans, Lsverhill, and Memphis were the

best 'overall performers. Each of these programs was ranked among the top four

operators in at least four of the seven subscale areas. It is interesting to

note that the attitudinal gains were more positively impacted by programs under

the Eclectic Exposure model. On the other hand, cognitive gains tended to be

more likely to occur in the On-Site Exposure model. For example, Sex Stereo-
Table 6 :. Raw Gain Score Analysis

le

Pretest

Mean S.D.

Posttest

Mean S.D. Gain'

Score

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Significance

Maximum

Possible

Score

onal Attitudes 20.63 4.18 21.78 4.61 1.132 3.759 NS 30

owledge 22.66 3.64 22.17 4.15 -0.496 3.566 NS 30

lding Skills 27.98 1.88 27.80 2.19 -0.178 2.240 NS 33

elevant Attitudes 48.37 6.37 48.79 7.23 0.448 5.450 NS 64

eking Skills 12.39 2.73 12.05 3.34 -0.340 2.900 NS 17

ereotyping 45.77 8.44 47.13 8.84 1.357 6.540 NS 63

steem 31.15 2.17 31.62 2.24 0.474 2.540 NS 45

1The gain score for an individual is the change from the pretest to posttest score. The Gain Score Mean is equal to the mean average gain score. The statistical

procedure for significance is the single sample t-test of the null hypothesis of

a population gain score equal to 0.
Table 7: Gains by Program Type

On-Site

Exposure

Vocational

Laboratory

Eclectic

Exposure

Combinations

Gain Score Gain Score Gain Score Gain Score

le

onal Attitude

Mean

1.469

S.D.

4.15

Mean

0.869

S.D.

3.84

Mean

1.473

S.D.

3.68

Mean S.D.

0.774 3.40

wwledge -0.629 3.96 -1.029 3.64 -0.139 3.60 -0.297 3.09

olding Skills -0.351 2.41 -0.200 2.39 -0.128 2.19 -0.068 2.03

televant Attitudes -0.053 5.41 0.196 6.17 1.039 5.36 0.543 4.99

:eking Skills 0.194 2.82 -0.994 3.00 -0.103 2.85 -0.476 2.59

:ereotyping 1.108 7.12 0.615 6.54 2.140 7.01 1.436 5.55

Zsteem 0.210 2.26 0.409 2.80 0.504 2.69 0.709 2.40

Li 6 6
Table 8A:

SO

Vocational Attitude Gains by Program Type and Site

MEAN STD DSV VARIANCE

863,8020 1,1321 3,7591 14,1312 i 7631

site Exposure 261,4025 1,4666 4,1451 New Orleans 17,1822 ( 1731 133,9892 2,0936 3i84i3 14;7552 t 64) Omaha

Tacoma

121,1793 2,2441 3;6925 13,6344 1 541 612340 0,1039 4,5470 20,6751 1 60)

ational Laboratory 146,8707 0,8691 3.8439 Allentown 14;7754 ( 60;3295 1,2424 3,7330 13,9356 1 55) Atlanta 9018149 1,7464 4;2890 18,3957 t 52) Lansing .1212646 .011878 313223 11;0377 1 62)

Ileac Exposure 231,36/6 1,4731

terinebunkport 316755 13,5094 ( 1911 6618833 1'0788 3;8683 14;4639 ( 621 famphis 8319603 112721 3,4793 12,1057 t 66) an Francisco

13015100 210717 3,6638 13;4231 1 63)

inations 174,1591 3,4035 11,5837 1 22 ) krom

..012539

,017748

m0,009 2,9424 8,6578 1 43) olorado Springs 63,4265 117142 216/08 6,8164 ( 371 uluth

50,8251 113737 316454 13,2887 ( 37) Smerhill

46143/7 0,8590 3,9688 15,7513 1 54) elena

13,7297 0,2543 3,3233 11,0446 t 54)

1.96

Significance .11
Table 8B: Job Knowledge Gains by Program Type and Site

SUM MEAN STD DEV VARIANCE N

.38510000 014968 3,5659 12,7154 ( 775)

site Exposure "114,0000 016298 30611 15,6900 ( 111)

New Orleans 12,0000 011675 411437 17,1706 I 64)

Omaha 270000 .00909 310663 9;3657 t 55)

Tacoma 99,0000 .115968 4;3134 18,6052 t 62)

cational Laboratory "1760000 1,0292 3,6436 13,2756 271)

Allentown .200000 v013571 20054 7,8701 ( 56)

Atlanta .65.0000 4112500 4s2467 18,0343 ( 52

Lansing '910000 ..10444 317364 /3;9606 ( 63)

lactic Exposure 2710000 0,1392 3,5971 12,9391 ( /94)

Kennebunkport 3600000 015625 4,9876 15;9008 I 64)

Memphis 16,0000 012424 3,2725 10,7096 ( 66)

San Francisco .7,0000 9,1094 3,5147 12,3529 ( 64)

mbinations .6810000 .012969 30906 9,5518 229)

Akron 1810000 .014186 2,8304 8,0111 43)

Colorado Springs '.25;0000 .016579 2,4525 6,0149 38)

Duluth '1600000 .00193 3,4083 11,6167 39)

Haverhill .14,0000 4012593 3,9391 15,5164 54)

Helena 5,0000 010909 2,510 6;3064 55)

F,- 2.25

Significance ms .08
Table 8C: Job Holding Skills Gains by Program Type and Site

SUM MEAN STD RV VARIANCE N

'137,7472 .0,1782 2,2401 5$0181 ( 773)

lite.Exposura .63,2444 "0,3514 2,4051 5,7844 ( 189) icw Orleans 7,2194 1,1128 2,6023 6,7722 ( 64) huh& .37,0000 .016727

117278 2,9854 ( 55) Noma .3314639 415486 2, 66!,7 7;0952 ( 61)

atonal Laboratory .3410369 .0,2002 2,3860 Menton ...1010500 5/6930 ( /70) .011795 2,2943 51 2636 1 56) Itlenta 2114000 .001115 2/7280 7,4422 1 52) Aiming 2,5809 4,0418 211772 4,7404 I 62)

ttic Exposure 240222 .0,1279 211902 4.7971 1 194) annebwAgort '1312667 4112073 2,2438 50345 ( 64) lompnis 215809 00392 2;2498 5,0616 1 66) an Francisco "14,1444 'COM 2,0963 4,3946 t 64)

inations 110417 .010683 2,0325 4,1310 1 229)

kron

.14,000Q P0,0930 11671.1 2;7926 t 43)

olorado Springs 10,4000 4,2707 1,7741 3,1474 ( 38)

aluth 'OM 0011,279 2,6056 0;7893 t 39) 'verbal

3,6111 0,0669 2,4561 6,0322 t 54)

glens, 011301 010025 115360 2,3593 ( 5%)

F 0.57

Significance w.N.S.
Table 8D: Work Relevant Attitude Gains by Program Type and Site

On-site Exposure

New Orleans

Omaha

Tacoma

Vocational Laboratory

Allentown

Atlanta

Lansing

Eclectic Exposure

Kennebunkport

Memphis

San Francisco

Combinations

Akron

Colorado Springs

Duluth

Haverhill

Helena

Fel 1.37

Significance N, S,

SUM !IAN STD DEV VARIANCE

340,128 04451 0, 4580 2917815 750i

$915333 4110P3 504019 2912454 179)

630333 '1011.6 518636 34,3822 63)

/134667 !0,0558 47114 22;1910 55)

4412010 91098 513768 28;6453 61)

32,4667

"416000

4216990

7916607

195,6000

5014000

14710000

1,718009

12115905

.60,9000

46'16900

6814571

6517333

68000

0,1956 011702 384708 166)

410821 511977 27'0158 56)

418353 7i0138 49,1933 51)

113503 611574 37'10132 59)

110349 5,3566 28;6933 189)

09246 5,7158 32,6706 61)

21227? 5,2244 27;2914 66)

0112 8 4,9208 2412928 62)

0`;20 4,9871 24,0713 224)

14,i04134 4,9249 24,2549 411

113604 44385 17'1273 38)

417553 5,0207 2512073 39)

112403 6,1258 3745254 53)

011283 3,8361 14,7201 53)
On -site Exposure

Hew Orleans

Omaha

Tacoma

Vocational Laboratory

Allentown

Atlanta

Lansing

Eclectic Exposure

Kennebunkport

Memphis

San Francisco

Combinations

Akron

Colorado Springs

Duluth

Haverhill

Helena

Table 8E: Job Seeking Skill Gains by Program Type and Site

su> MEAN

2010000

"013402

3510000 011944

2510000

013906

0, 01

1010000 011639

016910000 #119941

2410000

*014643

* 410000

'8210000 '113226

'2010000 411031

'9,0000 4011006

P1710000 012576

610000 010938

010910000 .014780

01010000 412326

'2110000 0015526

'3010000 417692

'18,0000 4013313 40;0000

015055

5.90

Significance .001

STD DEV

2,8292

2,8207

216763

2,7217

310778

219980

216830

21900

3,3081

2,84b6

217938

2;5499

3,2008

20931

218605

2;1270

2,7093

1,2563

117932

VARDN4

0,0046 t 773)

7,944 1 180)

7,1625 1 64)

7,4074 1 55)

914727 1 611

8,5001 1 170)

7;1967 1 561

1,4597 1 521

10,5434 1 621

8,1033 1 1941

7,8053 1 64)

6,5019 1 661

10,2450 1 641

617242 1 229)

8,1827 1 13)

0;5242 1 38)

713401 I 391

1016034 1 541

3;2155 55)
Table 8F: Sex Stereotyping of Adult Occupations Gains by Program

Type and Site

SUM MEAN Pi) NV VARIANCE N

104215126 10574 615420 4217977 766)

On-site Exposure 199,4500 111081 7,1187 50,6759 1801

New Orleans 10312000 116125 0'14397 41,4703 64)

Omaha 5212000 09491 413085 69;0314 55)

Tacoma 41;0500 017221 6,7130 4510649 61)

1 Vocational Laboratory 10217605 016153 6,5395 1217646 1671

vi Allentown 4510000 9018333 5;3155 28;2547 54)

ul Atlanta 67,4605 12973 7,7462 60,0042 521

Lansing 000000 113164 612899 39;5624 61)

Eclectic Exposure

Kennebunkport

Memphis

Stn Francisco

Combinations

Akron

Colorado Springs

Duluth

Haverhill

Helena

F 1.73

Significance NIS,

41216276 2,390 7;005 49,1898

13310570 2,0790 7,6306 58,2250

11110647 117067 7,6880 59,1049

16017059 2,6360 5,5855 31,1973

193)

64)

65)

641

32714715 114363 515488 30,7686 226)

1416500 140384 512734 2718086 43)

5513500 1,4566 4'16064 2112189 161

5902745 10199 417703 2217556 391

1411050 116877 7,1931 5117410 531

65,1500 112391 512009 27,0496 55)
Onsite EXpOlUti

New Orleans

Omaha

Tacoma

Vocational

Laboratory

Allentown

vi Atlanta

Lansing

tolectic Exposure

Kennebunkport

Memphis

San Francisco

Combinations

Akron

Colorado Springs

Duluth

laverhill

Ha an&

Table SGI

Self-Esteem Gains by Program Type and Site

51A

413409

17,04l4

p115447

3012857

1111044

1,33

Significance Na,

6711401

7,5659

14,4201

4511518

9511196

11,8104

14,3571

49,0220

15111711

1215714

10,6429

1910604

0,9011

4t;0000

MEM

014740

012102

410554

015506

011120

014094

01428

012128

017526

015036

011936

015206

017907

017093

017575

0009

015151

019196

017455

SID DM

2,5371

212576

Z14306

2,019

2,2746

2,7995

211809

2,972

2,5713

2,691

214352

2,5646

310549

214020

2;4868

113918

2,225

311394

2,1854

V AM ON

6,43 70 1 7561

5,0970 1 VW

50011 1 641

4,059 1 551

5,1716 1 611

718371 1 1641

0,2998 1 531

0,8396 1 511

6,6479 1 601

7,2511 1 1691

5,9303 1 411

6,5770 1 66)

9,3321 i 621

5,7696 1 2231

611942 1 431

1,9566 1 171

5,3938 1 37)

9,8560 1 111

4,7760 1 551
typing improvements were found highest among Eclectic Exposure programs (San

Francisco and Memphis) and a multi-modal program where Eclectic Exposure was

one-half of the entire program (Haverhill). Cognitive improvements in the

areas of Job Seeking, Job Holding, and Job Knowledge were found highest in an

On -Site Exposure program (New Orleans). Although there are some variations to

this pattern, type of program model has some explanatory power over changes in

attitudes and cognitions. Finally, it is also interesting to note that SLU/CUP

monitors and staff had described these four CBO's as having good management and

a creative and dedicated staff.

Table 9 displays the mean gain scores for six enrollee characteristics,

including (a) sex, (b) race, (c) highest grade completed, (d) age, (e) reading

level, and (f) school status. The reading level was trichotomized into STEP

scores between (1) zero and eleven, (2) twelve and fifteen, and (3) sixteen

or greater. The first level corresponds to more than one standard deviation

below the mean. The second represents scores within one standard deviation

below the mean and tha third group contains scores greater than the mean.

Sex Differences

For three of the seven subscales, females showed a larger gain than males.

The three gain areas were Vocational Attitudes, Sex Stereotyping and Self-Esteem.

Males had slightly greater gains in Work Relevant Attitudes than females. Only

the Sex Stereotyping subscale gain was statistically significant at the .05 level.

Race Differences

None of the subscales showed statistically significant gains related to

race. For two subscales, Vocational Attitudes and Sex Stereotyping, minority

enrollees had larger gains. Whites showed more improvement in Work Relevant

Attitudes and Self-Esteem.
Highest Grade Completed

Enrollees with more than a high school degree showed the highest gain in

Job Holding Skills, Job Seeking Skills and reduced Sex Stereotyping. High

school graduates had the most improvement in Work Relevant Attitudes and SelfEsteem. Overall, improvements in the reduction of Sex Stereotyping is a function

of highest grade completed; enrollees with ten or more years of education had

larger gains than their less educated counterparts. The better educated appear

to be able to recognize the significance of the program and are more receptive

to it.

Age Differences

Improvements in attitudes and cognitions are related positively to age.

Enrollees nineteen years of age and older showed the largest gain in Vocational

Attitudes, Job Holding Skills, Work Relevant Attitudes, reduced Sex Stereotyping,

and Self-Esteem. It appears that gain is a function of maturity, normally

associated with age. Older enrollees may be more receptive to the program and

perceive the curriculum as related to life success.

Reading Level

Except for change in Self-Esteem, all attitudinal and cognitive gains were

related statistically to reading level. Enrollees with a STEP score greater

than the overall mean showed the largest average gain. Those individuals with

a STEP score less than eleven (Type One), consistently had the least gain overall.

Thus, minimal reading comprehension appears to be a condition for demonstrating

program effftct. Enrollees need at least minimal competency in reading to effectively participate in the curriculum.
Table 9: Gains by Enrollee Characteristics

Sex Minority Highest Grade Completed

le

tional Attitude

Male Female White Minority 8th 9th 10th 11th .12th 13th 14th

0.886 1.331 0.895 1.236 1.809 1.025 0.907 1.275 1.073 1.711 1.556

Knowledge -0.659 -0.403 -0.364 -0.598 -1.286 -0.926 -0.384 -0.621 -0.125 -0.136 -2.900

Holding Skills -0.355 -0.046 -0.077 -0.241 0.168 -0.625 -0.231 -0.036 -0.226 0.077 0.296

Relevant

titudes 0.441 0.435 0.815 0.225 0.000 0.044 0.008 0.618 0.890* -0.882 -0.333

Seeking Skills -0.530 -0.237 -0.492 -0.357 -0.857 -0.358 -0.568 -0.304 -0.289 0.227 -0.778

Stereotyping 0.883 1.733

* 1.186 1.453 0.685 0.799 1.608 1.473 1.468 0.144 1.889

f-Esteem 0.408 0.567 0.513 0.488 -0.368 0.348 0.469 0.482 0.717 0.126 -0.843

*The magnitude of the mean gain is statistically significant at the .05 level

using a one-tail t -test.
Table 91 Gains by Enrollee Characteristics (continued)

Age

STEP Locator

** School Statue

16 17 18 19 20 21 One Two Three In- Out-ofSchool School

scale

1.253 1.107 0.785 1.179 1.815 0.907 0.268 1.785 1.165 1.049 1.270 cational Attitude

b Knowledge

b Holding Skills

rk Relevant

-0.337

-0.218

-0.781

-0.112

-0.336

-0.319 -0.494

-0.329

-0,61', 0.185

-0.806

0.070

-1.707 -1.006

-0.247

-0.132

-0.243

0.059 -0.418

-0.137

-0.661

-0.249

Attitudes -0.143 0.965 0.259 0.300 0.739 10)1, $i -1.336 0.765 0.853 0.209 0.786

S Seeking Skills

c Stereotyping

lf-Esteem

-0.381

0.903

0.260

-0.100

1.933

0.648

4,,1.3u)

0.31/

-0.519

1.011

.,460

-0.628

1.366 0.946

-6.1,

-I 3b1

L' IA

f n64

0 ) 1.,

1 0.416

-0.308

2.431

0.311

-0.168

1.345 0.593

-0.252

1.670* 0.456

-0.537

0.902 0.561

*The magnitude of the nean gain is statistically significant at the .07 level using a one-taill-test.

**Mean gain differences are statistically significant at the .001 level for all

subscales =apt Self - Esteem. Ul
School Status

Youth who were out-of-school at the time of entry into the summer component

gained more than in-school enrollees in Vocational Attitudes, Work Relevant

Attitudes and Self-Esteem. In-school enrollees had significantly less Sex

Stereotyping attitudes toward occupations than their out-of-school counterparts.

Overall, the magnitude of the difference in gains between in-school and out-ofschool youth was small. A partial explanation for the lack of difference may

lie in the definition of the out-of-school classification. Included in the

definition of out-of-school were school dropouts, high school or alternative

school graduates or GED recipients. Thus, a portion of the out-of-school enrollees may simply have been recent school graduates looking for income during

the summer. Another explanation is related to program operations. For the

summer component, in-school and out-of-school enrollees were mainstreamed. For

the fall start-up, the two troupe were separated and the potential for subtle

reinforcement and greater attention to enrollee needs is expected to increase.

Gains by Completers and Early Terminees

Program completers include enrollees who remained in the program throug4

close-out. Early terminees were those enrollees, identified by the program

operator, who did not complete the entire program. Thus, early terminee status

doe's not differentiate enrollees by the ]ength of time in the program. Length

of time in program data were to be collected by NAB and sent to SLU/CUP. This

information remains unavailable at this time. Despite this limitation, early

termination is strongly related to attitudinal and cognitive gains.

Table 10 displays the attitudinal and cognitive gains by, program completers

and early terminees. Except for changes in Sex Stereotyping of Adult Occupations,

gains were significantly related to program completion. Table 10 shows that

61
Table 10: Gains by Completers and any Terminees

Completer. Early Terminees

Mean S.D. (N) Mean S.D. (N) Level of Gain Gain Significance Subscale

Vocational

Attitudes 1.303 3.56 636 0.217 4.56 125 .003

Job Knowledge -0.229 3.21 645 -1.852 4.77 128 .001

Job Holding Skill -0.062 2.12 644 -0.767 2.70 127 .001

Work Relevant

Attitudes 0.639 5.43 634 -0.558 5.53 122 .026

Job Seeking Skill -0.184 2.66 644 -1.095 3.48 127 .001

Sex Stereotyping

of Adult Occupations 1.494 6.46 639 0.721 6.95 127 NSSelf Esteem 0.544 2.53 630 0.118 2.55 124 .088
enrollees who failed to complete the entire program were far less likely to

show improved attitudes and knowledges. For example, the mean gain score of

completers on Vocational Attitudes was 1.303, while the gain for early terminees

was only .217. Concerning Work Relevant attitudes, program completers showed

a gain of .639, while early terminees regressed (-.558).
IV. ENROLLEE CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES

Program Completion

Almost seven in ten (69.7%) of the 1,040 youth enrolled in VEDP

completed the program. Table 11 lists the proportion of early terminations by site and program type; it also shows the proportion of negative terminations by site and program type. All of the programs run

by prime sponsors had an above average proportion of early terminations.

This is probably explained by the fact that these operators have clearly

defined and long established policies dealing with separation from a program. These operators are also more likely to be able to assess

the utility of a program for a client and to shift them to a more

suitable program when the need arises. Also, it should be noted that

most early terminations were not negative.

Negative termination is defined as termination by reason of refusing to continue, administrative separation, disappearance, or incarceration. About one in six (15.7%) of tht enrollees terminated for

negative reasons. Administrative separation accounted for moat negative terminations. Those programs operated by prime sponsors tended to.

have the highest proportion of negative terminations.

It should be again emphasized that many early terminations were

not negative terminations. Many early terminations were positive (e.g.,

found employment) or neutral (e.g., moved from area).

For research purposes, the assignment of a termination status was
Table 11: Early Terminations and Selected Termination Reasons By Component and Site

Total Group

On-Site

New Orleans

Omaha

Pittsburgh

Tacoma

Vocational Lab.

Allentown

Atlanta

Lansing

Empl. Skill Dev.

Kennebunkport

Memphis

San Francisco

Combination

Akron

Colo. Springs

Duluth

Haverhill

Helena

(315)

Early

Terminations

30.3%

26.2%

29.0

12.3

18.6

4i.5

32.9%

31.2

47.2

?2.0

20.9%

24.3

18.3

20.5

38.5%

30.5

38.3

50.0

31.4

42.4

(171)

Selected Termination Reasons

NegatiVe Employment Education

15.7% (64) 6.0% (580) 55,8%

17.6% 4.2% 64.5%

10.1 5.8 71.0

12.3 9.2 69.2

13.6 --- 79.7

34.8 1.5 40.6

10.4% 10.8% 59.8%

19.5 3.9 57.1

5.5 20.18 55.8

8.5 8.5 62.2

6.5% 7.4% 61.3%

10.0 7.1 58.6

6.1 7.3 57.3

9.0 7.7 67.9

24.6% 12.3% 41.0%

23.7 3.4 66.1

35.0 11.7 30.0

37.1 1.6 40.3

12.8 25.7 44.3

19.7 16.7 25.8
made on the basis of information available at the time of termination- - no temporal latitude was given the operators in making thin assignment.

The status code implying that the youth found employment was only

assigned where the youth had a definite commitment for a specific job

at the time of termination from VEDP. More than half (55.8%) of the

enrollees continued, re-entered or supplemented previous education and/or

training. Only in the Combination models did less than half the youth

terminate for education reasons. However, three cities (Colorado Springs,

Haverhill and Helena) in this group had higher than average proportions

of youth who terminated for reasons related to employment. Only Atlanta

had more youth (20.8%) with a termination status indicating employment.

Table 12 shows early and negative terminations by selected demographic characteristics. An inspection of this Table shows that almost

twice as many Out-of-School youth terminated early as did In-School

youth. Males are more likely to terminate than are females; whites more

likely than blacks; older youth than younger youth; those less educated

than those with more education. An almost identical pattern emerges

when we inspect the data on negative termination except that the magnitude

of the differences within categories is riot as great. The differential

rate of early terminations and the lowering proportion of negative terminations as educational level increases suggests that better educated

and, correspondingly older enrollees, are more likely to have both a

broader based opportunity structure and greater financial need.

Program Outcomes

At the 90-day follow up point, we were able to determine the Labor

Force Status (LFS) of 746 (71.8%) of the Summer VEDP enrollees. Of these

- 66 - t.y
Tailae 12: Early Termination and Negative Termination

By Selected Demographic Characteristics

Early

Terminations

Negative

Terminations

In School 22.2% 15.0%

Out of School 40.5 20.9

Male 33.8% 18.3%

Female 27.3 13.5

White 34.9% 20.2%

Black 28.1 12.9

Sp. American 27.6 15.5

Am. Indian 55.6 27.8

Asian 12.2 6.1

Age

16 25.2% 16.0%

17 31.7 17.7

18 33.0 16.0

19 32.5 15.4

20 35.6 11.0

21 31.8 6.8

HGC

8 or less 48.6% 28.6%

9-10 32.8 18.0

11 26.5 13.9

12 29.6 11.7

me.re than 12 26.8 3.6

- 67 -
746 youth, 14.6 percent were employed full time; 20.5 percent were

working part time; 3.4 percent were in CETA training programs; and

45.4 percent were attending school--an overall 83.9 percent in a positive status three months after program completion. Negative status

lunemployed or incarcerated) accounted for 14.5 percent of the youth;

the remaining 1.6 percent were not in the labor force. Just over onefifth (20.62) of the youth were both working and going to school. Those

youth reporting dual status (i.e., working and going to school) were

counted in the listing above as working; therefore, the 45.4 percent

listed as attending school have only that status.

Table 13 shows positive, neutral and negative status by program

type, site and selected demographic characteristics. While there are

differences among program sites, there is little variation among program types. The highest proportion of positive outcomes is found among

those sites operating the On-site Exposure model. Except for New Orleans, each site in this model had positive outcomes above the mean.

Omaha had the highest proportion of positive outcomes (96.62); much of

this can be attributed to the fact that Omaha had an unusually high

proportion of In- 3rbool enrollees (81.52--a figure which is twenty-five

percentage points above the mean). Controlling for this situation, there

is almost no variation in proportion of positive outcomes by program type.

Hales had a higher proportion of positive outcomes than did females.

In-School youth had more positive outcomes than did Out-of-School youth,

although even in this group nearly seven in ten (69.12) had a positive

status. Blacks fared slightly better than whites. Younger youth did

better at the 90th day than did older enrollees; much of this reflects

the In-School (and therefore returned to school) status of the younger

enrollees.

- 68 -
Table 13; 90-Day Outcome By Program Type, Site

and Selected Enrollee Characteristics

Positive Neutral Negative

Total Group (746) 83.9% 1.6% 14.5%

On-Site (208) 87.0% 1.9% 11.1%

New Orleans (52) 76.9 3.8 19.2

Omaha (58) 96.6 -- 3.4

Pittsburgh (50) 88.0 - 12.0

Tacoma (48) 85.4 4.2 10.3

Vocational Lab. (150) 83.3% 3.3% 13.4%

Allentown (46) 93.5 -- 6.5

Atlanta (49) 83.7 8.2 8.2

Lansing (55) 74.5 1.9 23.6

Eclectic (188) 83.5% 16.5%

Kennebunkport (55) 81.8 18.2

Memphis (74) 79.7 i 20.3

San Francisco (59) 89.9 .1 .1= 10.2

Combinations (200) 81.5% 1.5% 17.0%

Akron (41) 80.5 4.9 14.6

Colo.,Springs (35) 88.6 - 13.4

Duluth (54) 85.2 -- 14.8

Haverhill (30) 90.0 3.3 6.7

Helena (40) 65.0 - 35.0

White (229) 83.0% 1.7% 15.3%

Black (430) 85.1 1.4 13.5

Sp. American (34) 76.5 2.9 20.6

Am. radian (14) 64.3 --- 35.7

Asian (38) 91.9 2.8 5.3

Male (344) 88.4% 6.3% 11.3%

Female (402) 80.1 2.8 17.1

School (445) 93.9% 1.2% 4.9%

Out of School (301) 69.1 2.3 28.6

Age

16 (233) 93.9% 0.1% 6.0%

17 (214) 86.9 2.8 10.3

18 (142) 80.3 0.7 19.0

19 (82) 70.7 1.3 28.0

20 (53) 68.0 3.6 28.3

21 (25) 68.0 4.0 28.0
Among the Out-of-School youth who were interviewed at the threemonth follow up point, 35.2 percent were either working full time or

had had a full-time job during the three months since the program ended.

In addition, 27.6 percent reported some part-time work in the three-month

period. Since some had both part-time and full-time employment during

this period, the two figures cannot be simply added together but do

provide some indication of labor force participation by Out-of-School

VEDP enrollees. When this is compared with the 70.8 percent of Out-ofSchool youth who had no job during the three-month period prior to

entering the program, one can argue that, at least in the short run,

VEDP is beneficial.

Slightly more than half (50.6%) of the In-School youth had some

part-time employment during the three-month period following the program.

This contrasts sharply with the 83.6 percent of In-School youth who had

no job in the three-month period prior to VEDP.

Table 14 lists 90-day follow up status by early or end of program

termination, receipt of supportive services and selected reasons for

termination. As can be seen by ins-,a-ting this Table, those who complete the program are much more likely than chose who terminate early

to have a positive status after 90 days. Among completers, 87.1 percent

had positive status three months after the program; among non-completers

only 36.8 percent had positive status.

While program completion seems to predict outcome, the presence

or absence of supportive services during the program does ncc. Among

those who received no supportive services, 83.0 percent had a 90-day

positive status; which among those who received some supportive services,

85.4 percent were in positive status three monels after VEDP ended.

- 70 -
Table 14: Status at 90 Days By Supportive Services

and Selected Termination Data

Positive Neutral

Supportive Services

Negative

None delivered (466) 83.02 1.82 15.22

Some delivered (360) 85.4 1.6 13.0

Termination

Before program completion (76) 36.82 7.92 55.32

At program completion (558) 87.1 1.1 1111.=111 *meson for Termination

Negative (94) 64.92 4.22 30.92

Employment (53) 94.3 5.7

Education (426) 93.2 0.1 6.6

- 71 -
Care should bs taken in interpreting this data, however, because of

the wide variation across programs in the prescription, let alone the

delivery, of supportive services.

Another way of cutting the data is to inspect outcome by eason

for termination. Among those negative terminees for whom we had 90-day

status information, only 64.9 percent were in a positive condition.

Among those who terminated to take a job, 94.3 percent were positive

at the three-month follow up point; among those who terminated to continue schooling, 93.2 percent were positive.
V. ENROLLEE AND PROGRAMMATIC CORRELATES OF PROGRAM OUTCOMES

Concepts and Indicators

Four broad areas were explored to determine their joint explanatory power

of variations in program outcomes. For this analysis enrollee characteristics,

attitudinal and knowledge gains, prior work history, and programmatic service

activity were used as predictors of differential enrollee status three months

after the program ended.

The enrollee characteristics investigated were (1) race, (2) sex, (3) reading level, (4) edUcational achievement, and (5) school status. Race was a dichotomized variable using minority and non-minority status. Reading level was

measured by the STEP Locator reading test score. Highest grade completed was

the indicator of educational achievement and school status was dichotomized as

in-school or out-of-school at the time of program entry.

Attitudinal and cognitive gains-measures were used for each of the seven

subscales. Each subscale was entered individually in the regression analysis

to detect the individual contribution of each attitudinal or cognitive measure.

Two indicators of prior work history were used. The first measured the

presence of prior CETA experience. The second measure was the number of jobs

held by the enrollee in the three months prior to program entry.

One indicator was used to measure programmatic service activity. The

variable selected measured the total supplemental supportive services delivered

to an enrollee while particlpating in the program. The variable is actually

a measure of the total number of service weeks when any supportive service

was delivered. These supplemental services included health, dental, optometric

- 73 -
residential, transportation, legal, child care, social services, special equipment, and other services tailored to local program needs.

Although several program outcome measures were possible, only one is used

for this preliminary analysis. Other measures, e.g., number of jobs held since

end of the program, simply lacked sufficient variability to warrant fruitful

analysis. Other indicators are more suitable for measuring program effect at

the eight month follow-up point. Thus, this analysis is limited to a measure

of the short-run effect of the program.

The measure of program outcome used in the regression analysis is the outcome status of the enrollee at the three month follow-up. Status was divided

into three categories positive, neutral, and negative. A positive status included working full or part-time, attending school or participation in a training program on a lull or part-time basis, or any combination of work, school,

and training. A neutral status was limited to hospitalized, home responsibilities,

pregnancy, or not in the labor force. Negative status was limited to incarcerated or unemployed.

The scoring procedure for each of the variables was as follows:

Race: (1) minority, (2) white

Sex: (0) female, (1) male

STEP Locator: Raw reading score

Highest Grade: Actual grade

School Status: (0) out-of-school, (1) in-school

Gains: Raw gain scores

Prior CETA (1) yes (2) no

1

- 74 -
Work History: Actual number of jobs

Program Outcome: (1) negative status, (2) neutral status, and (3) positive

status

Findings

Table 15 displays the zero-order correlations among the independent and

dependent variables (except for gain scores). School status, work history,

and sex are most predictive of outcomes. Highest grade completed is we.lkly

related to race, sex, reading level, and school status. Prior CETA experience

and the amount of supplemental supportive services are unrelated to any other

enrollee characteristic. Race has little in common with school status, work

history, prior CETA experience or supportive services. Overall, the enrollee

characteristics are relatively independent of each other.

Table 16 displays the zero-order correlations of outcome, enrollee characteristics, work history, CETA experience, and supportive services by individual

subscale gains. It is interesting to note that attitudinal and cognitive gains

are unrelated to ninety day outcome status. Gains are moderately related to

reading level, especially for cognitive measures (Job Knowledge, Job Holding,

and Job Seeking Skills). A weak inverse relationship is alsc shown between job

knowledge or holding skill gains and the amount of supplemental supportive ser- vines provided.

Table 17 displays the results of the multiple regression analysis. Overall,

enrollee characteristics, gains, program services, reading level and prior work

history, taken together, explain 16.9 percent of the variation in outcome status

at the ninety day follow-up point. A stepwise regression analysis showed only
Table 15: Correlations Among Outcomes, Enrollee Characteristics,

Work History, and Supportive Services

Race

Sex

Reading Level

Highest Grade

School Status

Prior CETA

Experience

Work History

Supplemental

SupportiVe

Services

90 Day

Status

-.02

.10*

.05

-.01

.36*

-.05

-.11*

.04

Race

.04

.11*

-.13*

.02

.05

.06

.09

Sex

-.14*

-.20*

.09*

-.02

-.02

.06

Reading

Level

.25*

.00

-.01

.01

-.07

Highest

Grade

-.33*

-.06

.05

-.10

School

Status

-.11

* -.08

.02

Prior.

CETA

Experience

-.04

-.03

Work

Hist

.08

*Product moment correlation significant at the .05 level.

1
Table 16: Gains by Outcome, Enrollee Characteristics, Work History

and Su' ,rtive Services

90 Day Race Sex Read- High- School Prior Work Supportive

Status ing est Status CETA history Services

Level Grade Experiente

male Gains

itional Attitudes -.03 -.05 -.03 .07 .05 -.01 .01 -.01 .01

Knowledge -.02 .01 -.02 .14* .03 .02 .01 .05 -.12

* Holding Skills .03 .01 -.04 .18* .06 .01 .01 -.02 -.09*

k Relevant

ttitudes .00 .03 -.01 .15* .07 -.06 .03 .00 -.03

Seeking Skills .00 -.03 -.09 .16* .05 .02 -.02 -.07 -.02

Stereotyping

f Adult Occupaions -.04 -.03 -.03 -.03 .01 .04 .00 .01 .03

f -Esteem -.05 -.01 -.05 .03 .03 -.04 .05 -.02 -.01

*Product moment correlations significant at the .05 level.
Table 17: Program Outcome by Enrollee Characteristics, Attitudinal

and Cognitive Gains, Program Services, Reading Level,

and Prior Work History

School Status

Highest Grade Completed

Sex

Prior Work History

Reading Level

Supplemental Supportive

Services

90 Day Status

BETA Weights

.39 **

.14**

.1b** -.09**

.05

.05

(N 560)

Standard Error

.059

.024

.055

.006

R2 .169*

*Average R2 across all regressions with seven subscala

gain scores entered individually. The R2 per subscale

entered in the equatior ranged from .165 to ,173.

**Significant at the .05 level.
school status, highest grade completed, sex and prior work history significantly

related to program outcome. Using .05 as a liberal minimum standardized re- gression coefficient (BETA weight) accepted, the data show gains, race, and CETA

experience unrelated to program outcomes. Reading level and the incidence of

supportive service delivery are rather trivial.

Discussion

The above three tables present an interesting picture of program effects

at the three month follow-up. First, the relationship between school status

and positive outcomes is somewhat an artifact of measurement. The summer component data appear to suggest that in- school enrollees at the time of program

entry maintained that status in the Fall. In addition, a large enough proportion of the out-of-school enrollees were only temporarily out of the educational mainstream. However, the strength of the association also suggests

that in-school and out-of-school enrollees might better be served by separate

programming, rather than mainstreaming as occurred in the summer component.

Data measuring the extent to which separation by school status impacts on program outcomes are currently being collected from the Fall and second semester

components.

Second, unlike the preliminary results from the YCD sample data, males

were more likely to have a positive status at the tlAree month point than were

females, when other enrollee characteristics were controlled.

Third, contrary to expectations; prior work history is negatively related

to outcome status, at least in the short run. This inverse relationship may

be partially explained by the character and quality of the jobs held prior to
program entry. Perhaps tha incidence of multiple jobs across the three months

prior to program entry is a reflection of secondary labor market participation

or an indicator of instability in the enrollee work pattern. Thus, multiple

jobs are not necessarily predictive of positive outcomes.

Fourth, pra to post gains were not predictors of the labor market outcome

variable. Earlier it was shown that gains were significantly related to program completion. Here we find that these attitudinal and knowledge gains do

not predict short-term outcomes--a finding similar to that reported by ETS for

their YCD sample. It is important to recall that the magnitude of the gains

wars slight and that enrollee pretest scores were rather high. Thus, the

modest improvements showing up in the summer component are not of sufficient

magnitude to directly influence short-term outcomes. The extent to which the

impact of attitudinal improvements is delayed will be analyzed at the eight

mouth follow -up.

I:

- 80 -
VI. IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS

This section presents a discussion of the major implementation issues

raised in the operation of the 1979 summer component of the Vocational Exploration Demonstration Project (VEDP). VEDP was conducted in fifteen cities using

three basic program models and a combination model (multi-modal) which utilized

elements from the three basic program types. The section is organized by major

functional areas for youth employment and training programs: Program Operator

and Staffing; Youth Outreach; Recruitment and Intake; Orientation; General

Program Activity (including counseling and supportive services); and by Program , Type (Type A -- On-site Exposure, Type B -- Vocational Exposure-Laboratory, Type

C -- Employability Skills Development, now called Eclectic Exposure, and Type D

-- Combination Programs which include A/B/C, A/B, A/C and B/C). At the end of

the section are brief capsules describing the summer programs that operated in

each of the cities.

The information that was used in compiling this section was obtained from

three major sources. First, SLU/CUP personnel made monitoring visits to the

sites operating summer components. These visits occasionally had a training

aspect, but were primarily designed to enable SLU/CUP to gain first hand knowledge about the field implementation of the VEDP program models. The three

project co-directors were primarily responsible for conducting the visits, using

a semi-structured interview format supplemented by worksite, laboratory, and

classroom observations. Second, SLU/CUP subcontracted with a local on-site

monitor for more intensive monitoring and the completion of the three and eight
month ETS follow-up instruments on summer enrollees. In two cities, San Francisco and Allentown, a monitor for the summer was not obtained and SLU/CUP made

several additional field monitoring visits in order to fill this gap. The third

major information source was the Summer VEDP Debriefing Conference, which was

held in early September, 1979. On-site monitors and representatives of all VEDP

operators attended the debriefing sessions. The on-site monitors as a group

discussed their observations concerning the operation of the summer program. The

next day the program operators made presentations to the entire conference on

their summer VEDP componett.

Program Operators and Staffing.

The program operators for the demonstration project were selected through

joint discussions between the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Youth Programs,

The National Alliance of Business and Human Resource Development Institute, and

St. Louis University's Center for Urban Programs. In most cases, selections were

based on consideration of the operatorls past work with the 1978 Vocational Exploration Program, as observed in field visits by the three parties. The decision

often centered on which of the operators had performed well in conducting a program that was equivalent to the three basic vocational exploration program types

that had been identified.

* Generally, operators had operated programs very

similar to the VEDP model they were selected to conduct. Exceptions to this

occurred in finding operators to implement the combination models. Additionally,

several operators without previous VEP experience were selected, based on Office

*See Brian P. Nedwek and E. Allan Torrey, Process and Impact Evaluation of

the Summer 1978 Vocational Exploration Program. Office of Youth Programs Special

Report, Number 28, February, 1979, p. 16ff.

- 82 - 1 A'
of Youth Programs knowledge of their ability to implement demonstration youth

projects.

VEDP operators were typically local agencies with youth program experience,

since these agencies had been operators of the previous Vocational Exploration

Program efforts sponsored by NAB /HBDI. For some of the operators, the VEDP

program represents a major program activity, although most conduct other community activities. The demonstration does include four operators who are CETA prime

sponsors and had included the vocational exploration program concept in their

1978 SPEDY programs.

DOL began tentative negotiations with potential VEDP operators in December

1978. DOL, NAB/HRDI, and SLU/CUP participated in a round of field visits to

each site in early 1980 to more fully explain the demonstration concept and

various program models. At this time the operators wore instructed to apply

for planning grants that would provide funds for proposal preparation and submission. These field visits also provided feedback from the operators concerning the operational guideiines that DOL, NA8/HEDI and SLU/CUP were completing.

The operators received the planning grants, but these generally did not

provide for the hiring of full-time program staff. Therefore, the recruiting

of permanent staff was conditional on the award of the final VEDP grant. Most

operators transferred at least the VEDP project director from their existing

staff, while some retained counselors with previous vocational exploration ex- perience. However, many of the counseling staff were new to VEDP and in some cases were hired with little lead time before the summer component was scheduled

to begin. DOL, NAB /HBDI and SLU/CUP conducted a series of training sessions at

- 83 -
individual sites in order to fully explain the ETS instruments and other research

forms, as well as promote a more complete appreciation an understanding of the

research goals of the demonstration. Unfortunately, counselors had not always

been hired when these sessions were conducted.

Across all program sites the counselors chosen by the program operators

appeared to possess a high level of dedication to meeting the needs of youth

and in moot instances, a reasonable amount of experience in similar endeavors.

In addition to in-house posting of position openings, other professional staff

recruitment methods included newspaper advertisements, radio and television

announcements, notification of oster local agencies, and listing with the State

Employment Service. Most hiring procedures involved a review of written applications

and an interview, while several were more involved and entailed formal Civil

Service procedures and written examinations. Counselors might be best characterized as young human services professionals with some youth irogram experience.

With the exception of the CETA prime sponsors selected as VEDP operators,

VEDP was often a major activity for the operators. As a result, many lacked

the expanded facilities, materials and equipment necessary to provide all

the elements of the program models prior to receiving VEDP funds. Thus, the

delays and contractual problems with the nationalVEDP contracting office at

NAB had some impact on program start-up. While assuming importance in individual

cases, these difficulties seemed slight in the context of the overall implementation of the demonstration project.

Youth Outreach. Recruitment and Intake

The intensity required for youth outreach and recruitment varied widely

1

- 84 -
among sites. Operators were expected to have a pool of certified eligible

youth that was two and one-half times the number of enrollees to be selected

(for most sites that would yield approximately two hundred youth). SLU/CUP

randomly selected youth from the in-school and out-of-school pools based on

the pre-assigned numbers from the eligibility certifications.

This random selection process worked well in most cases. However, a

number of sites did not attair. a total pool which was two and one-half times

their enrollment level. Most sites were able to generate some excess of certified applicants over their slot level. (Initial enrollment was to exceed

the targeted slot levels by fifteen percent to allow for no-shows since replacement was not permitted).

CETA prime sponsors and operators who had working arrangements with prima

sponsors were able to obtain the required applicant pool. The remaining

operators usually fled to conduct an extensive outreach and recruitment effort

in order to reach enough eligible youth. While CETA prime sponsors included

the VEDP recruiting effort with their regular SYEP recruiting, other VEDP

operators relied heavily on media announcements, other local agencies especial'..'

those operating youth oriented programs, and their past network of outreach

and recruiting sources. In several sites, successful recruiting resulted only

from an all-out last minute effort by all VEDP personnel. Recruitment problems

often occurred because of program competition from other area summer youth

programs, although the extensive outreach efforts were sometimes required because of other factors, such as the lack of cooperation with the CETA prime
sponsors. CETA prime sponsors or the state Employment Services did the eligibility certifications for most programs.

Orientation

A total of 1,040 youth were present for the first day's orientation.*

Following relatively brief welcoming remarks, program operators gave the ETS

pre-program survey. At this point the orientations diverged considerably.

Some were one-half day in length, while others lasted the entire week.

The program orientation was set forth in the operational guidelines as

a common element. This designation did not require operators to use a standard

amount of time or material, but presented selected topics that had to be

presented during the program orientation. These were a description of the

program purpose and activities, rules and regulations including administrative

procedures and the administration of the research instruments. Presentation

of these "fundamentals" was estimated to take four hours. A brief orientation

to the world -of -work was also required of all program models.

Generally, the operators selected the length for the program orientation

based on the program model they were implementing and their decision concerning

the holding of a regular weekly meeting with enrollees. In the first case,

operators involved in employability skills development models (or combinations

having substantial Type C time) would have access to the enrollees for major

amounts of time during the program. As a result, the program orientation in

these instances tended to be shorter or to serve as an introduction to the

*Youth were considered enrollees when they completed the ETS pretest

and tan hours of paid time, but no-shows were not replaced since they would

not have had an opportunity to complete the pretest.
expanded Type C activities. In other sites (those not involving substantial

blocks of Type C time), operators felt that a regular weekly contact with

enrollees would aid the administration of the program and could be used to

help enrollees integrate their on-site or vocational laboratory exposure into

their future plans. Sites that choose this direction usually conducted the

initial program orientation in less than one week and met weekly or bi-weekly

with enrollees for one-half day throughout the program.

The typical program orientation was conducted by the VEDP staff. Guest

speakers and films were also utilized. In addition to the required topics,

programs involved the enrollees in activities aimed at improving their survival

or life skills and presented other materials concerning world-of-work attitudes.

A number of programs placed an emphasis on building a cohesive team from the

enrollees assigned to each counselor and improving enrollees' decision-making

and communications skills. Several programs presented a First Aid course

which proved not only helpful but was well received.

The most necessary element at this stage of VEDP appears to be using

methods which involve the enrollees in the program. The lecture technique

reminds the enrollees of the classroom, which is exactly what a large number

of VEDP youth are avoiding. Additionally, youth with previous CETA participation or employment are expecting to "do something." This requires a com.-

plate explanation of the vocational exploration concept of VEDP as early as

possible to avoid confusion with regular work experience programs. Due to

the demonstration nature of the research, this explanation was kept to a

minimum. This lack and the random selection procedure undoubtedly increased

- 87 r

. A.
early program terminations above what one could normally expect from VEDP.

Program

The Vocational Exploration Demonstration Project's Operational Guidelines

set forth a number of common elements that all programs must include. Many

of these deal with program administration, but several impact on program operations and implementation. This section will discuss the major common elements

and then detail the three basic program models and their combinations.

While not set out in the Guidelines as a common element, two factors which

impacted program start-up should be discussed. In spite of considerable planning time, some program operators required more time than they had anticipated

to complete the contracting process with the national VEDP office at the National

Alliance of Business. In several instances there were brief delays in program

start-up. However, as has been noted, delays were also caused by the need for

longer recruiting periods. Since CETA prime sponsors have greater resources

and seem to be accustomed to. delays, they were in a better poiition than several smaller agencies to cope with this situation. While contracting delays

may have been burdensome for specific sites, they do not appear to have caused

any major inconveniences for 'the overall demonstration effort.

A second factor potentially affecting program start-up was the involvement

of the local offices of NAB and HRDI. VEDP Guidelines do not mandate a specific

role for the local offices but leave this decision to the discretion of the local

VEDP program operator. Therefore, variation in local NAB and HRDI participation

is jointly determined by the extent of requests for assistance from the VEDP

operator and the level of cooperation provided by NAB and HRDI. Some operators,

- 88 -
particularly CETA prime sponsors, appeared less likely to enlist the local

offices of either group. However, with the exception of the On-Site Exposure

models (which required development of worksites), the other VEDP models would

not require a major input from NAB or HRDI. SLU/CUP found no cases where

program start-up was impeded by lack of cooperation between NAB, HRDI and the

local VEDP operators.

Supportive services such as transportation, legal services, child care,

health care and purchase of special clothes and equipment were another common

element. Supportive services were to be available to all enrollees on an

"as needed" basis. Use of existing community resources to provide supportive

services was strongly encouraged. Essentially VEDP operators made the provision of supportive services for VEDP conform to their generally accepted

practices. This created some variation between sites, but variations were

more often in the category of how the service was provided. For example,

some sites, either because of availability in the area or custom, provided

most supportive services on the basis of a referral to other community facil-

:,ties, usually at no cost. On the other hand, some operators customarily

provide a wide range of supportive services to enrollees in any program. In

both cases, VEDP enrollees received the supportive services necessary for

program participation.

Counseling was spe'cified in the Guidelines as a common element. However,

the extent to which counseling could be used in an individual program varied

considerably according to program model. In order to fully differentiate the

treatments provided by each of the models, the amount of C time in Type A,

B and Model AB was limited to 15 percent. ClParly, the Employability Skills

Development model which is conducted almost entirely by the VEDP staff has

89
the greatest amount of time that could be scheduled for group or individual

counseling. Except for field trips and some other activities, the enrollees

are in constant contact with the VEDP counselors. At the other extreme,

the On-Site Exposure models have relatively little time that can be utilized

for counseling. Enrollees are assigned to worksites around the community

and usually see their counselors briefly once a week. Some A programs did

spread their C time throughout the duration of the program, but even in

these cases the weekly group sessions were limited to four hours. Due to

the proximity of the enrollees and counselors, counseling activities for

Vocational Exposure sites can be somewhat greater than A, but less than C

program models. Enrollees in Vocational Exposures are in one place, the

vocational classrooms for the program, and thus are more accessible to the

counselors than enrollees in the scattered worksites of On-Site Exposure

programs. In all three basic models and their combinations, counselors were

able to respond to specific enrollee problems. The use of the Indie.dual

Enrollee Plan (IEP), also a common element, forced all programs to provide

some level of routine counseling that was not directed at an enrollee crisis.

In many cases, where sites updated the IEP on a regular basis, these counseling

contacts become on-going. Although difficult to fully document, counseling

contact appears to be a strong point of the program and is possible due to

the relatively low enrollees-to-counselor ratio (approximately 20:1). The

following subsections provide details on the general implementation of the

three basic program models, and combinations. This is followed by fifteen

VEDP site summaries arranged by program type.

- 90 -
Program Type A: On-Site Exposure

The On-Site Exposure model is designed to provide vocational exploration

by placing an enrollee on a worksite, preferably in the private sector. The

participating employer should provide the enrollee an opportunity to shadow

workers, observe job/tasks, receive limited practical ("hands on") experience

or some combination of the three. Rotation either within or between employers

is required in order to prevent VEDP from becoming work experience in the

private sector. Where "hands on" experiences are utilized, rotations occur

after 80 hours.

In examining the implementation of the On-Site Exposure model, the following factors should be considered: worksite development, the elements of the

experience (i.e., shadowing versus "hands on," etc.), rotation and the attitudes of enrollees.

Worksites for VEDP were usually developed by the VEDP staff including

the project director. Many sites requested general assistance in identifying

prospective participating employers from .the local office of NAB and HRDI.

Type A operators were usually able to call upon employers who had participated

in the agencies' previous programs. Although employers ranged in size, they

tended to be smaller firms. Since worksites were usually developed before

enrollees started the program, most worksites were not developed to match

specific enrollee interests.

On-Site Exposure is generally a blend of the elements suggested in

the Guidelines. Worker shadowing and job/task observation are limited because

there is only "so much to see" and the enrollees have a strong preference

for "doing something." Their preference likely stela from their previous

- 91
work experience and the idea that they want a job experience, not a classroom experience. Thus, "hands on" experiences are used considerably in the

On-Site Exposure models. There is some tendency of employers, particularly

those with previous employment and training progran experience, to view

VEDP as work experience or on-the-job training. A complete explanation

of the VEDP's goals and objectives during the worksite development phase and

strictly enforced rotation can minimize this problem. However, enrollees

also need the full discussion of VEDP to counteract their natural tendency

to want to do only what they are interested in ox whatever is assigned

first (this corresponds to their previous CETA program experience where

rotation was not part of the program). Although required by CETA regulations

for VEDP, it may be that certain enrollees (e.g., out-of-school youth with

a reasouab1 v clear career choice) would not be served by totating through

several digarent VEDP experiences.

Implementing rotation in the on-site models posed some difficulties.

As mentioned above, a substantial number of enrollees would prefer to stay

on one wcrAsite and receive more work experience or training. Additionally,

participating employers tend to resist rotation since it places an added

burden on the immediate supervisors of enrollees. The current two week

(80 hour) limitation appears as short as would be feasible in view of employer

and enrollee sentiment. There are some instances where rotation was centered

around different tasks at the same employer and seemed to circumvent the

program's intent. The key to the acceptance of rotation appears to be the

detailed "up front" explanation to enrollees and worksites (employers).

Enrollee attitudes were alluded to above. Type A programs came closest

to giving enrollees what many had experienced before, namely, a job. They

- 92 - /
did not complain that VEDP was like school, except in cases where regular

group counseling sessions were held. Many enrollees did not see the need for

rotation especially when they found a worksite which they enjoyed.

Program Type B: Vocational Exposure Laboratory

The Vocational Exposure Laboratory model provides an opportunity for

vocational exploration using classroom activities which include "survey style"

vocational training, limited skill instruction and simulated work. ntlse

programs are usually conducted at vocational or skill training centers. The

stress is on an understanding of occupations and the world-of-work, not on

specific job skills.

Factors which' impact the implementation of Type B programs include the

availability of facilities, the choice of exposures to be offered, and the

relationship of enrollees to the classroom setting.

Generally the Vocational Exposure Laboratory operators, like those

selected for other models in the demonstration, had previous experience

working with the vocational exploration concept. In this case, most had

utilized some vocational training facility previously. Since Type B is

conducted primarily in the classroom it is imperative that suitable space

be available. Type B operators were able to continue their past arrangements

or develop new ones.

Both the choice of vocational exposures and the method of presentation

are determined by the instructors who are available to teach in the programs.

In some inutances more specific direction to the exposures offered was made,

but exposures tended to be in traditional vocational-technical subjects.

While these may be the appropriate subjects, the fact tends to reinforce for

- 93 -
the enrollees that VEDP is like school. Several programs did include what

would appear to be more "exciting" topics with uneven results in terms of

enrollee interest.

In order to participate in the vocational exposure models, enrollees

must be somewhat comfortable with a structured classroom setting. Counseling

contact can assist in this adjustment but cannot overcome a completely negative

attitude. Enrollees perceive that Type B programs are like "going to school."

Given the proper motivation this may be a positive factor but in other circumstances can effectively limit the program's accomplishments. The Guidelines

stressed involvement and the simulated work aspects as means to maintain a

high level of enrollee interest. This was borne out in various field monitoring visits.

Program Type C: Employability Skills Development (now called Eclectic Exposure)

The Employability Skills Development model presented vocational exploration

through a variety of presentations and activities that did not involve a worksite or instruction in vocational areas. Instead operators provided youth with

a wide variety of program offerings including field trips, tours, films;

speakers, panel discussions, presentations and youth projects. Topics which

were suggested included occupational and vocational information, local labor

market information, job finding and keeping skills, the role of private enterprise and collective bargaining, ethnic history and survival skills.

The most pressing considerations in operating a Type C program appear

to be the length of the program, the extensive counselor-enrollee interaction,

fusing the various program elements into a unified whole, and the use of

youth projects.

Only one operator selected for the employability skills development model

- 94 -
had had previous experience with a similar program. Moreover, the one

experienced operator had not operated their past program for as long as the

320 hours of the VEDP Type C program requirement. All operators reported

some difficulty with maintaining the intense level of effort required to

occupy and stimulate enrollees in the topical areas over such a relatively

long time period.

One consequence of the Type C structure is that the program counselors

are in almost constant contact with the enrollees, either making presentations,

conducting discussions, monitoring outside speakers, panels or films, and

conducting field trips. Almost universally counselors found this intensive

contact difficult to sustain while at the same time maintaining a high level

of enrollee interest and involvement. Several programs expressed a need for

additional staff to enable both programmatic and research needs to be met.

This would also allow for more individual counseling time.

Providing a consistent program focus while using the wide variety of

program options available in Type C also requires considerable advance planning. The successful integration of widely divergent program elements into a.

"program" as opposed to a series of activities is more difficult than in

Type A and B programs. Generally, programs tried to tie together program

elements by centering their concern on how each element would assist the

individual enrollee in improving his/her employability.

The youth projects, while not used in every site, were another attempt to

provide a focus for the Type C programs. The projects appeared useful in

breaking up the classroom routine associated with presentations and group

discussions. One aspect of projects in Type C programs that must be analyzed

further is the extent to which projects represent enrollee involvement in

- 95 1- -
what is essentially Type A or B experience. While this may be desirable,

its impact on the concept of three basic program models needs further

exploration.

Program Type D: Combinations of A, B and C

Five program combinations were conducted during the 1979 VEDP summer

component. Two sites (Akron and Colorado Springs) operated an A/B/C

program, while one each operated an A/C (Haverhill), LA (Helena) and

B/C (Duluth). in addition to the discussion under individual program types

that may be relevant for the combination programs, three other factors can be

examined: organization of program time, integration of different program

models and the impact of enrollee preferences.

The combination programs had to decide how to organize the program time.

Several chose to allocate the first weeks to one model and then switch completely to the other type. Others decided to run all program types at the

same time, using some of each program time each week. The latter approach

seemed to interject scheduling confusion into the program and magnify any

existing transporation problems. However, it should be noted that the

combination programs as a group had a high rate of early terminations (39Z)

compared to the single program types.

Combining the basic program models into multi-modal programs required

operators to rationally link the models. It was reasonably simple to conceptually link the provision of employability skills development to an enrolleels

assignment to an on-site exposure. However, it appeared more difficult to

integrate vocational exposure with the two other program models. This seems

particularly true when considering that the Type B exposures and the Type A

- 96 -
worksites were not integrated to any significant degree and neither necessarily reflected the interests of enrollees.

A third aspect of combination models is the interplay between the

models and enrollee preferences. In the single model approach enrollees can

remain in the program and participate or terminate early. For the combination programs, enrollees can select the area-A, B or C - -that appeals to

them and complain about the others. Generally, program rules precluded

enrollees skipping "undesirable" sessions but could not prevent them from

being disinterested.

Subsequent discussions of implementation issues should benefit considerably from the fact that the summer experience allowed operators to become

more familiar with the research needs of the project and add minor refinements

to their program approaches. The questions raided in this section will be

explored more fully based on the implementation of fall program components.

Following this subsection are the individual site summaries.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

Program Type A: On-site Exposure

Program Operator and Staffing

Delgado College is the VEDP program operator in New Orleans. Several

of the counselors and the project director had worked for Delgado in the

VEP program in 1978.

Youth Outreach, Recruitment and'intake

VEDP contacted the Orleans Parish School system and approximately

15 community based organizations in order to recruit youth for the Summer

component. It was necessary to expand these efforts to include additional

schools and radio and television announcements in order to ensure a large

enough pool of eligible youth.

Orientation

The start of the program was delayed one week as the contractual

arrangements with NAB were finalized. The orientation was conducted over

a two and one-half day period. Guest speakers were utilized to supplement the presentations by the program staff. At the end of the orientation the enrollees received their first workaite assignments.

Program

Although New Orleans is operating an extended On-site Exposure model,

the summer program would be equivalent to other Type A programs. The onsite exposure for VEDP enrollees was provided by businesses in the New

Orleans area including some that had participated in the previous year's

program. Most positions had been "created" by businesses to enable enrollees to explore the world of work. Rotations, generally to different

businesses, were carried out on a bi -weekly schedule. VEDP counselors

used regular weekly meetings (Monday and Wednesday mornings) to keep in

regular contact with the enrollees. Additionally, Wednesday afternoons

were devoted to classroom sessions which provided the 15% of the program

hours allowed for employability skills development (Type C time). Counselors also visited the worksites weekly.

Comments

Although delayed slightly, Delgado College's VEDP program provided

ten weeks of on-site exposure as planned. The required rotations were

implemented with relatively few problems. Communications between counselors and the employers appeared good. Some enrollees expressed the

feeling that the Wednesday afternoon sessions should be moved to the beginning or end of the week.

- 98 -

1 w "
OMAHA, NEBRASKA

Program Type A: On-site Exposure

Program Operator and Staffing

Youth Opportunities Unlimited (YOU) was selected as the VEDP

operator in Omaha. YOU's previous youth program experience included

operating a Vocational Exploration Program. The project director

was already with YOU and counselors were recruited through newspaper

ads and contacts with other youth programs.

Youth Outreach, Recruitment and Intake

The Omaha CETA program was expected to provide the youth for the

program. When this arrangement did not work out, YOU conducted its own

outreach and recruitment, primarily with high schools and local agencies

involved with youth programs. CETA performed VEDP eligibility certification. Seventy-two youth were selected for the program.

Orientation

VEDP staff presented an orientation to the program's rules and regulations. Speakers were utilized to present information on the necessary

world-of-work attitudes and habits. Enrollee worksite interests were

also explored. Sixty-five youth were present for the orientation sessions.

Program

The Omaha VEDP program placed all its enrollees at worksites at

Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha. This arrangement was similar to YOU's

relationship with Offutt for previous youth programs. Youth were exposed

to a wide variety of jobs and, in addition, were expected to conform to

generally accepted military discipline. Additionally, the worksites

appeared to provide an unusually high degree of supervision. Enrollees

were transported to the base daily. The VEDP program office was housed

on the base which facilitated the counselors meeting with the youth for

counseling activities and monitoring worksites. Rotations were scheduled

for every two to three weeks. Some problems were encountered with enrollees who did not want to change worksites and supervisors who were

satisfied with the initial enrollee assigned to them. Counseling contracts were regularized on an every-other-Monday basis.

Comments

The established relationship between YOU and Offutt seemed to make

it difficult to give the VEDP program its own identity. Consequently,

some enrollees did not rotate as planned which limited their exploration

and gave their experience more of a work experience character. Offsetting

this limitation were the wide variety of positions which were explored

and the close supervision provided by base personnel.

- 99
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

Program Type A: On-site Exposure

Program Operator and Staffing

Pittsburgh's VEDP program was operated by Urban Youth Action,

Inc., an established agency oriented toward providing youth employment

programs including the VEP program in 1978. Counselors were selected

after recruiting through several sources. Youth Outreach, Recruitment and Intake

The VEDP program used a variety of outreach and recruitment

strategies. First, Urban Youth Actiont6 files were reviewed. Contacts were initiated with schools and the CETA'vrime sponsor. Finally,

radio, television and newspaper announcements were utilized. Employment Service workers aided the certification. Some potential enrollees

were lost to competing programs and the limits that were placed on the

types of activities permitted on the worksites (i.e., shadowing and

exploration with limited "hands-on" exposure).

Orientation

The Pittsburgh VEDP staff presented a four-day orientation to

the program. Beyond the usual topics such as rules and regulations,

the program used a number of business people as speakers. Even though

some enrollees felt this phase was much like school, they were impressed

that they heard "real business people, not teachers."

Program

The VEDP program used some of Urban Youth Action's previous em- ployer contacts in developing worksites for the on-site exposures.

There was the usual amount of difficulty in implementing a program involving shadowing at a worksite which had previously provided work

experience. Some employers were anxious to limit counselor access to

the worksites. The inevitable problems with employers in conducting

an On-site Exposure model were intensified by enrollee desires to

gain job experience. There were some problems with completing necessary research forms in a timely manner.

Comments

The previous experience of Urban Youth Actions proved invaluable

in gaining worksites and speakers for orientation. However, employers

who had participated in other youth programs often found it difficult

to make available worksites for explorations rather than work experience

or on-the-job training. Enrollees felt that having a completed resume

and using the IEP for "their own plans" were additional positive aspects

of the program.

- 100 - 1 L.)
TACOMA, WASHINGTON

Program Type A: On-site Exposure

Program.9perator and Staffing

The City of Tacoma's Comprehensive Employment Services, the CETA

prime sponsor, operates the VEDP program in Tacoma. Comprehensive Employment Services had a vocational exploration component in their 1978

Summer Youth Employment Program. The project director and one counselor

continued their work in the new VEDP program and two additional counselors

were recruited, both had been YET? counselors in the high schools.

Youth Outreach, Recruitment and Intake

The CETA program has a centralized recruitment strategy for youth

program:: including summer. Applications are made available in the high

schools and through a number of community based organizations. Youth

came in to the centralized intake center for certification by the

Summer Youth Employment Program division of the CETA prime sponsor.

Orientation

In an effort to expedite the program (the late starting date, July 2,

was necessitated by a lengthened school year resulting from a teachers'

strike), VEDP met with enrollees several times prior to the start of the

official two-day orientation. During these meetings some of the research

forms were completed and the ETS pre-program survey was administered in

small groups. Sixty-eight enrollees attended the program orientation

which focused on counselor assignment to three teams of enrollees, development of a conduct code by team and.activities designed to improve

communication and negotiation skills.

Program

Tacoma's. VEDP program provided on-site exposure at businesses in

the Tacoma area and a group of worksites at Ft. Lewis for women to explore

nontraditional careers. Enrollees were assigned to worksites based on

their interests wherever possible. A large number (35 of 75) of worksites

involved unions and union concurrence. Enrollees rotated worksites, often

to different employers, but sometimes to different tasks within one company. The youth met once a week in teams at the VEDP office for on-going

counseling and other activities which included coping skills workshops.

As a result of a cooperative arrangement with the school system, academic

credit was granted for VEDP; enrollees received two high sehool credit

hours with the option of doing an additional project for an extra credit

hour.

- ioi
Comments

VEDP scheduled several extensive worksite rotation experiences

designed to acquaint an enrollee with all phases of the lumber business

and with brickworking. These rotation schedules took a good deal of

planning time and were difficult to fully implement. Some enrollees

felt the Thursday group sessions were too much like class and that

they took away time from the worksites. Enrollees generally moved to

different workaites when rotating.
ALLENTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

Program Type B: Vocational Exposure-Laboratory

Program Operator and Staffing

The Allentown program is operated by the Lehigh Valley Manpower

Program (LVMP), the local CETA prime sponsor. The Summer VEDP used

the facilities of the Bethlehem Area Vocational-Technical School (BAVT).

LVMP used media spots and newspaper advertisements as well as in-house

posting to recruit staff. The normal LVMP personnel policies were in

effect in selecting VEDP staff. The instructional staff (and some

support staff) came from the faculty of BAVT.

Youth Outreach, Eecruitmentand'Intake

The program operator used many of its own resources for outreach

and recruitment. Included were outreach through community and neighborhood centers, two skill centers, schools and social agencies, as well as

BES referrals, media spots and direct referrals from the local school

systems. Certification was performed by the LVMP Intake Unit. Applications were then forwarded to VEDP staff who had ultimate responsibility

for verification. Intake forms were completed by the VEDP staff.

Seventy-seven youth participated in the program.

Orientation

Basically the first three days of the program were devoted to

orientation, tests, career awareness, films, speakers and other employability development activities. Students went to the various shops on

the fourth and fifth iAays.

Program

Allentown conducted the Vocational Exposure-Laboratory model using

thirteen learning components: welding, sheet metal, drafting, machine

shop, cabinet making, auto engine repair, tool and die design, graphic

arts, construction surveying, nursing, horticulture, auto chemists:and

electronics. Youth were divided into nine groups by the project director

before the program began. They remained in these groups for the entire

project; each group had nine one-week exposures. In each exposure they

were given a specific project to work on. This provided them with a

"hands-on" exposure, as well as the theory of the vocation. The number

of weeks a component was offered was determined by the availability of

an instructor; the specific components available to each youth was determined by the schedule arranged by the project director prior to the

beginning of the program.
Comments

The field trips were well integrated with the classroom exposures.

There was good NAB/HRDI interface. The enrollee-VEDP contract was a

good tool for enforcing the rules of the VEDP as well as the rules of

the vocational-technical school. Transportation was the biggest problem;

three counselors drove the vans each day during the entire Summer component.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA

Program Type B: Vocational Exposure-Laboratory

Program Operator and Staffing

The VEDP program operator in Atlanta is ANAFCO, a flying club that

was begun in the 1960's. Applicants for the instructor /counselor positions were recruited using newspaper advertisements and some media presentations. Instructor /counselors were required to be licensed pilots.

Several of the successful applicants had been associated with other

ANAFCO programs.

Youth Outreach, Recruitment'and'Intake

An agreement with the Atlanta CETA program did not produce sufficient referrals. MAPCO expanded the outreach effort to its contacts

with other agencies and used media announcements. As a result of intensified outreach and recruitment, CETA certified approximately 200

youth. Eighty-one youth were selected using the randomizing procedure.

Orientation

The program'a orientation was presented over a four-day period.

Some space and facility problemi were overcome as the program settled

into new quarters (two airplane hangers). Many of the enrollees were

college students or college bound.

Program

The ANAFCO VEDP program was the result of program development over

several years. Classroom instruction was combined with counseling 'sessions,

guest speakers andfieid trips. The program has a heavier academic emphasis than other Type B programs; the stress is on training students to

be pilots. In accommodating the demonstration project, the program's

thrust was broadened to present careers in aviation. The field trips to

such places as an air control center and a maintenance hanger reinforced

this expanded approach. All VEDP enrollees received some flying time.

Comments

The project overcame some initial difficulties with facilities and

equipment. The requirement that the'instructor/CounselOrspossess

pilot's license reduced the pool'otqualified applicants. It is not

clear that such a requirement would always yield personnel with enough

counseling-background. As might be expected, enrollees expressed their

preference for the flying time and field trips. Some enrollees viewed

the emphasis on classroom' sessions as an extension'of school and not a

"real job."

- 105 -1
LANSING, MICHIGAN

Program. Type B: Vocational Exposure-Laboratory

Program Operator'and Staffing

The Lansing program is operated at Lansing Community College under the auspices of the A. Philip Randolph Institute's Lansing office. The counseling staff was recruited using media advertisements and referrals, particularly of personnel with previous VEP experience. Four vocational

laboratory instructors were recruited from among existing faculty at

Lansing Community College.

Youth'Outreach Recruitment and Intake

VEDP utilized public service announcements on local media and con- tacts with local agencies in recruiting potential applicants. Eighty-five

youth were selected for the program's Summer component.

Orientation

A one-day orientation program stressing rules and regulations and

the program goals was presented.

'Program

Lansing conducted the Vocational Exposure-Laboratory model using

tour learning components: carpentry, electrical shop, auto mechanics/

small engine repair. -nd plumbing. The classes were held in the vocational -

technical building of Lansing Community College. instructional techniques included lectuees, films and "hands-on" exposure. The VEDP counselors

provided employability skills development sessions emphasizing topics such as interviewing skills. Enrollees completing the program are granted

academic credit at Lansing Community College.

Comments

The vocational exposures presented in laboratory or classroom settings often appear too traditional to enrollees, particularly those who

have not performed well in a traditional school setting. Instructors have to be particularly adept at mixing instructional methods and maintaining a sense of involvement using a project focus.
KENNEBUNRPORT, MAINE

Program Type C: Employability Skills Development

Program Operator and Staffing

The VEDP program in Rennebunkport is operated by SALT, Inc., a

community based organization with previous experience in operating

youth programs. The program staff was recruited primarily from the

existing SALT staff and former participants. Some new staff were recruited using newspaper advertisements.

Youth'Outreach,' Recruitment and Intake

SALT conducted youth outreach and recruitment in cooperation with

York County CETA, using four YETP enrollees assigned to SALT. The four

made slide presentations-on'VEDP and the York County SYEP at the 13 high

schools serving the area. Recruitment for Out-of-School youth utilized

an "eligibles" list from'York County-CETA and SALT's own outreach. Certification'for'VEDP was done by CETA.

Orientation

Seventy-five of the 82 youth enrolled in the program began the

two-day orientation. The first day was utilized to administer the ETS

pre-test, discuss VEDP goals and explain the program rules and regulations. The second day was modeled after a typical day in the program,

namely, one-half day of project activity and one-half day of counseling.

Program

Kennebunkport planned its Type C activities with a focus on youth

projects. Youth spent half of each day working on projects in the following areas: boatbuilding, carpentry, cultural journalism, river ecology,

photography and video production. The projects were combined with half -

day counseling sessions which included activities such as career exploration interviews, job shadows (observations) and field trips. The summer

program was a mixture of skill development and counseling/exploration.

'Comments

Rennebunkport's rural setting and SALT's tradition of youth involvement provided the thrust to a project approach to employability skills

developMent. The operator felt that this gave enrollees a sense of

"ownership" in the program. The project staff felt that two days a week

of counseling would have been too much without extensive field trips and

other activities. The forms for research created some time problems.
MPH'S, TENNESSEE

Program Type C: Employability Skills Development

Program Operator and Staffing

Community Day Cars A Comprehensive Social Services Association

operates the VEDP in Memphis. Want ads and contacts with local agencies were used to recruit the program director and counseling staff. Appli- cants (25 and 100, respectively) completed written exams and oral inter- views during the selection process.

Youth Outreach, Recruitment and Intake

Community Day Care's VEDP program recruited youth from affiliated

agouties, particularly youth oriented programs and the school system.

Eligibility forms were submitted to VEDP and the certification was completed by the Tennessee Employment Service. During the recruiting process several applicants got jobs before they had an opportunity to be

selected for VEDP. Eighty-five youth were enrolled.

Orientation

The VEDP staff conducted a two-day orientation program. The sessions Included the rules and regulations and a preview of world-of-work

concepts that would be explored more fully during the program.

Program

Community Day Care conducted the VEDP program over a six-week

period. The Employability Skills Development model was presented primarily in a classroom setting. However, staff worked to involve the

enrollees in sustained activity in order to maintain their interest.

Areas of emphasis were coping and survival skills and world-of-work

attitudes and knowledge. Lecture presentations were supplemented with

films, outside speakers and field trips. Counselors also stressed

interaction between enrollees. The program did encounter soma minor

problems with facilities, obtaining materials and the compression of

the program from ten weeks to six.

Comments

Since the counselors are constantly involved with the enrollees,

the Employability Skills Development model places the greatest burden

on counselors who must balance administrative functions such as recordkeeping with program activities and counseling. in addition, activities

which stimulate involvement such as role playing are essential in order

to prevent the classroom setting from becoming "too much like school."

The counselors work with the total group which tends to restrict the

time available for individual counseling.

- 108 -
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

Program Type C: Employability Skills Development

Program Operator and Staffing

The San Francisco program is operated by Shelter Research Institute, Inc., a local education and research organization. Staff was

recruited through newspaper advertisement on both sides of the Bay.

Staff already associated with Shelter was used to direct the Summer

component.

Youth Outreach, Recruitment and Intake

In- School youth were recruited through the school system; Outof-School youth through the local prime sponsor. Many problems arose

with this recruitment procedure and Shelter had to engage in much

direct recruiting. Certification of the youth recruited was a timeconsuming and frustrating process, as was the intake process. Many

of the problems were associated with the linguistic diversity of the

pool recruited into the program.

Orientation

Formal, orientation took place during the first week of the program

and included the normal paper work, program description, world -of -work

orientation and surveying. Also included was the formation of enrollee

"unions"; one "union" for each of the three groups into which youth had

been assigned.

Program

Sin Francisco had some difficulty getting the Summer VEDP started.

Much of this was due to the lack of precision in defining just what is

a "C" program. .However, the staff proved quite dedicated and resourceful and developed --and delivered --a program which included survival

skill training, occupational information, job hunting techniques, as

well as special projects and field trips. Staff worked as two-person

teams; one as counselor, one as instructor. Each of the three teams

was responsible for the specific curriculum offered to its group. However, weekly staff meetings were held to ensure that all required program elements were delivered.

Comments

One major concern of the San Francisco operation is with developing a more "articulate program." To quote from their end-of-summer

report, "There appears to be...a natural progression of program activities

- 109 -
and priorities that will 'move' participants from self-assessment of

interests and aptitudes, through general work exploration, to individual,

intensive career exploration. Within this framework the range of survival, employability, and job finding skills must be offered ....The

framework should also integrate an exit plan, assuring positive and

concrete next steps for participants.

- 110 - 1:3s
AKRON, OHIO

Program Type A/B/Cs Combination: On-site Exposure, Vocational ExposureLaboratory and Employability Skills Development

Program Operator and Staffing

Akron-Summit Tutorial Program, Inc. was selected to operate the

demonstration project in Akron. Counselor positions were filled after

recruiting through newspapers, community based organizations and the

Ohio Bureau of Employment Security (OBES). Instructors for the training lab segment were selected in the same manner.

Youth Outreach, Recruitment and Intake

Applicants for VEDP were recruited from the Akron School District,

OBES and various local agencies. Enrollees were certified for eligibility

by OBES. Seventy youth were enrolled for the summer program.

Orientation

Sixty-three youth showed up for the two-day orientation program.

After administering the necessary pre-program survey and explaining the

rules and regulations, the first day was given over to assisting the

enrollees in organizing their "union." The second day focused on presentations concerning scheduling and providing the enrollees some introduction to the types of worksites (called internships in Akron) and vocational exposures that the program would offer.

Program

The Summit Tutorial's VEDP program combined all three basic program models into a multi-modal approach. Enrollees' time was equally

divided between training labs providing vocational exposure, worksites

providing on-site exposure and employability skills development sessions.

Since enrollees receive a substantial exposure to all three basic models,

they are most likely to be able to judge the three. The on-site exposure

was provided by Akron businesses while VEDP staff conducted the training

labs and the employability skills development sessions. Training labs

were conducted in clerical, building trades and printing careers.

Comments

The multi-modal approach implemented in Akron afforded an opportunity

to observe the process for all three basic models. As in the single

modal B and C programs, enrollees generally felt that these program elements were like school. Also, the on-site exposure portion raised concerns similar to those exhibited in the single modal A programs. Employers

- 111 -130
and.worksites alike need careful and complete instructions on what enrollees can do at the worksites. A number of questions surfaced concerning the ability of worksites to provide a challenge to enrollees

without "hands-on" exposure. Some employers felt that the training

time was too short due to the rotations.
COLORADO SPRINGS

Program Type A/B/C: Fatiended Combination: On-site Exposure, Vocatibnal

Exposure-Laboratory and Employability Skills Development

EPoismiltsstmLinldlatfisg

The City of Colorado Springs through the local CETA prime sponsor,

the El Paso County CETA Consortium, was selected to operate VEDP. The

project director was transferred from other duties with CETA. Three

counselors were recruited through the City's Personnel Department.

Youth Outreach; Recruitment and Intake

A VEDP description was handed out at the regular intake sessions

for the CETA summer youth program. Youth who expressed interest in VEDP

were certified for eligibility by CETA.

Orientation

The orientation program was conducted by VEDP personnel assisted

by staff from CETA's Youth Employment Section. In addition to the research form and survey, the sessions included a.First Aid course and

workshops on communications and human relations. Seventy-four youth

attended the first day of orientation.

Program

Colorado Springs operated a program which combined equal amounts

of the three basic VEDP models. The multi-modal aspect of the program

was retained on a weekly basis since enrollees participated in Type A,

B and C activities every week, as opposed to conducting the types separately in consecutive time periods. On-site exposures were provided

by Colorado Springs area private employers and public agencies. The

Vocational Exposure-Laboratory portion was performed under subcontract

by Pikes Peak Community College and Colorado Technical College. Vocational exposures offered included medical, office, automotive, electronics, bio- medical equipment and solar energy. The employability

skills development sessions were conducted primarily by the VEDP counseling staff. Their presentations and discussions were supplemented

by outside speakers, films and field trips.

Comments

The opportunity to work with all three program models appears

particularly challenging in two respects. First, the coordination of

the activities and the resulting scheduling and transportation problems

require considerable staff effort. Second, the enrollees seem to have

a difficult time making the transition to different kinds of activities,
often in one-half day time blocks. As a consequence of being ore interested in the activities in one program model v-xsus the other two,

enrollees sometimes seem particularly disinterested in sessions they

don't like or merely fail to show up at the next program location for

the day.
DULUTH, MINNESOTA

Program Type B/C: Combination: Vocational Exposure-Laboratory and

Employability Skills Development

Program Operator and Staffing

The City of Duluth as CETA prime sponsor operated the VEDP program. The project director was transferred from other duties with CETA.

The program counselors were recruited through the City's Personnel

Office using regular civil service procedures. A VEDP instructor was

recruited by the Duluth School Board.

Youth Outreach, Recruitment and Intake

Recruiting took place from the CETA eligible youth who had applied

for the Summer Youth Employment Program. Additionally, Duluth utilized

TV and radio spots and posters. CETA did the eligibility certification.

Using the random selection procedure, 72 youth were enrolled out of 172

applicants.

Orientation

Program staff conducted an orientation to VEDP in four hours.

Rules and regulations, the Individual Enrollee Plan concept and the role

of the counselors were some of the topics covered. Sixty-four of 72

enrolled youth attended the orientation session.

Program

As a Combination or Multi Modal program, Duluth's VEDP activities

were equally divided between vocational exposure and employability skills

deyelopment. The vocational exposure was accomplished through a combination of hale-day field trips to local businesses, enrollee with the

PLATO computer interface system and the use of a Cooperation Evaluation

Facility. The latter facility used VALPAR modules to provide an introduction to occupations such as welding, plumbing, electrical, carpentry

And servicing. The business field trips were carefully structured and

participating businesses had participated in a training workshop sponsored by the program. Type C experience was provided in a classroom

setting by VEDP staff and included exercises in decision making, values

clarification, basic job skills and world-of-work attitudes.

Comments

Some early start -up problems with the field visits, PLATO and CEF

may have contributed to the number of program drop-outs. In informal

interviews, enrollees indicated that they like the'computer assisted

- 115 -

1113
PLATO system and a First Aid course best, while the Type C group work

sessions were least interesting. The staff felt that the random selection procedure and the lack of motivation provided by money coupled

with the classroom time (one-half the total) may have added to absenteeism and early termination.
HAVERHILL, MASSACHUSETTS

Program Type A/C: Combination: Onsite Exposure and Employability

Skills Development

Progrem.Operator and Staffing

The VEDP program is operated in Haverhill by Community Action,

Inc., the local anti-poverty agency. Community Action is not the CETA

prime sponsor in the area but operates other employment and training

programs, including a YEW component under subcontract. VEDP recruited

staff through newspaper advertisements and contacts with staff that had

worked in previous programs operated by Community Action.

Youth Outreach, Recruitment and Intake

Youth outreach and recruitment was conducted by Community Action

and the local CETA office. These efforts were supplemented by contacts

with the Haverhill school system, other local agencies, media announcements and an active poster/flyer campaign. The intensive effort was

required to generate a large enough pool of eligibles competition

with other summer programs with approximately 750 slots. VEDP applicants were certified by the CETA sponsor. The VEDP program ended with

120 applicants and enrollees were selected using the randomization process.

Orientation

The program orientation was conducted during the first week and

led into an additional four weeks of employability skills development

activities. /n addition to the research forms and materials, which

took longer to complete than expected, the first week emphasized values

clarification exercises and introduction of world-of-work attitudes.

Seventy-two youth attended the first day of orientation.

Pro ram

Community Action's multi-modal VEDP program provided five weeks

of employability skills development activity followed by five weeks of

on-site exposure. During the first five weeks enrollees completed a

variety of activities designed to improve their career awareness and

self-awareness while developing their living and employment skills.

These activities culminated in a career fair held during the fifth program week. Classroom activities were supplemented by using guest speakers,

films and field trips. Over the final five weeks VEDP enrollees received

on-site exposure in five career clusters which included health, metal

crafts, technical and office. Worksite rotations were carried out;

however, some youth moved to different tasks at the same employer.

Transportation to some outlying worksites was a continuing difficulty.

- 117 -115
Comments

Haverhill's tightly structured curriculum for the first five

weeks tended to keep enrollees involved and moving toward the dual

goals -- hosting the career fair and preparing for their on -site exposures. Most employers interviewed informally expressed their understanding of the worksite rotation concept. As noted in discussion of

the on-site exposure, enrollees usually prefer the "hands-on" portion

of the worksite exposure.
HELENA, MONTANA

Program Type A/B: Combination: On-site Exposure and Vocational

Exposure -Laboratofy

Program Operator and Staffing

The Montana State AFL-CTO is the VEDP operator for the Helena

program, which, while based in Helena, also operated in Missoula,

Great Falls and Butte/Anaconda. (The programs will be referred to

collectively as the Helena VEDP program.) A separate project staff

operates in each of the four locations. Counselors were recruited

with the requirement that they have a state teaching certificate or

be able to obtain one.

Youth Outreach, Recruitment and Intake

Youth were recruited through four Human Resource Development Centers and the offices of the Montana Job Service. There was some competition for youth from other summer youth programs. Since youth were

in four locations, random selections were not made from a single pool

of eligible applicants, but done by location.

Orientation

Three days of orientation were provided by the Helena VEDP program. Day one was utilized to administer the ETS pre-program survey

and discuss procedures. On the second day, speakers presented material

on the world of -work. The third day was devoted to Individual Enrollee

Plan activities.

Program

The vocational exposure portion of the summer program had to be

subtitantially modified because the vocational-technical facilities at

the high schools were closed for the summer vacation. The counselors

attempted to provide directed study as a substitute for the Type B portion of the program. Enrollees were assigned worksites in businesses

in the area based on their expressed interests. The last week of the

program was spent with the counselors working on future goals.

Comments

During the summer, Helena VEDP was unable to obtain the facilities

required for operation of the vocational exposure portion of their Combination model. Enrollees did explore careers through on-site exposure

and work with the VEDP counselors. A number of participants felt that

one week at a worksite was too short to enable them to obtain adequate

"hands-on" exposure.

- 119 -

1'1
THE 1978 SUMMER VOCATIONAL EXPLORATION PROGRAM

CENTER FOR URBAN PROBLEMS

St. Louis University

- 120 - 1 .13
I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Authorized under Title III of the Comprehensive Employment and Training

Act of 1973, as amended, the Vocational Exploration Program (VEP) was jointly

conducted and administered by the National Alliance of Business (NAB) and the

Human Resources Development Institute (HRDI) of the AFL-CIO. Approximately

140 subcontractors of NAB/HRDI operated summer only programs in 1978, the

third year of VEP programming. While a VEP option was conducted by several

prime sponsors, the focus of this report is upon the NAB/HRDI system.

The objectives of VEP can be summarized under four main headings:

(1) provide eligible youth with the incentive 1J remain in school and earn

a high school diploma; (2) facilitate the transition to the full-time work

force; (3) provide learning experience for youth in the private sector

through a system of job "shadowing" and vocational exploration activities;

and (4) improve youth attitudes toward and cognitions about the world of

work, individual self-esteem, the value of education and career and life

expectations. In popular terminology, these program objectives may be seen

as attempts to develop job and coping skills.

The Center for Urban Programs (CUP) at St. Louis University was obligated

to the U.S. Department of Labor (Grant No. 28-29-78-53) to perform the following tasks:

1. Develop an attitudinal and cognitive profile of VEP enrollees and

assess change derivative of participation in the program;

2. Using a sample of SPEDY enrollees, develop a cognitive and attitudinal

profile of them and compare these data with that derived from VEP

enrollees;

- 121 - 1 ti
3. Assess special components of the VEP program for the handicapped,

youth offenders, and entrants into nontraditional work roles;

4. Conduct site visits to a sample of programs in order to identify

innovative program approaches and compile documentation of the issues and practices involved in implementation; and

5. Assess the impact of environmental forces upon program operations.

Major Conclusions

Based on our analysis of the data, the major conclusions are as follows:

1. Demographic differences between VEP and SPEDY enrollees were slight

VEP youth were older than SPEDY enrollees and had completed more years

of school; VEP had a higher proportion of blacks than did the sample

of SPEDY enrollees, but the sex ratio was similar for each group.

2. While a sizeable proportion of enrollees entered the VEP and SPED!

summer program lacking social and work attitudes appropriate for a

successful transition to the world of work, improvements in attitudes

occurred disproportionately among VEP enrollees when compared with

SPEDY enrollees.

3. Female VEP enrollees appear to be more positively influenced than

males; moreover, females appear to have obtained an expanded view

of available roles, both socially and work world related.

4. The areas of most improvement in attitudes were world of work related

or sex-role perceptions.

5. Only sex and race were significantly related to attitudinal change;

neither age nor year in school were related significantly.

6. A factor analysis of the survey instrumentation data yielded eleven

distinct factors or dimensions. The world of work attitudinal items

I -0 - 122 - "
loaded on four distinct dimensions, including (a) Personal Work

World Norms, (b) Work World Cognitions, (c) Work World Idealism,

and (d) Organized Labor Orientation.

7. The Personal Work World Norms dimension showed the presence of a

constellation of attitudes that may be generalizable beyond the

work setting. Work World Norms were related to legal norms suggesting that orientations toward the world of work, expressed as

expected behaviors, are part of a larger sense of normlessness,

i.e., the attitude that an individual can violate social norms to

get ahead.

8. Handicapped, ex-of:,:ender, and regular VEP enrollees showed a significant reduction in positive attitudes toward work norms, but a

positive gain for the other world of work factors. A partial explanation for a loss of favorable attitudes may be that enrollees

are entering the program with unrealistic perceptions of the world

of work that are not true reflections of reality. Program participation might alter these more romanticized notions of the world of

work.

9. Significant positive increase among both ex-offenders and regular

VEP enrollees were found in the area of life satisfaction. A sense

of helplessness among handicapped remained after completion of the

program. However, this negativism lessened after participation in

the summer effort.

10. Only 14 percent of VEP enrollees were negatively predisposed toward

the program upon entry. Except for Work World Norms, these negatively
disposed enrollees showed significant gains for five attitudinal

dimensions; three of these concerned the world of work.

11. Positively predisposed enrollees completed the program holding better attitudes than youth with low expectations about the program.

With one exception, the perceived helplessness factor, favorably

predisposed enrollees retained more positive orientations toward

the world of work and society than did their negatively predisposed

counterparts.

12. Variation in world of work attitudes and socio-psychological predispositions remain largely unexplained by such enrollee background

characteristics as sex, race, year in school and welfare status.

Of the eleven factors, only three showed background characteristics

explaining more than 5 percent of variation in attitudes and cognitions.

13. The 1978 Vocational Exploration Program exhibited a wide range of

organizational and operational components. Program implementation

strategies were very diverse and uneven in quality. Such diversity

reflects the need to better structure vocational exploration efforts

and to develop more elaborate guidelines and program materials.

14. Cooperation and past interaction among key actors in a given geographic area, e.g., NAB/HRDI, prime sponsors, schools, etc., appear to

facilitate "slot" acquisition, but had no demonstrable effect on program operations and content. Cooperation ensures that the program is

obtained (granted) for the community, but cooperation to benefit program implementation, once the program is received, tends to dissipate.

15. Cooperation among actors may-influence the selection of program operators. Although there exists the normal tendency to select operators

- 124 - 1 :J43
that can be "trusted" to deliver a program, i.e., a history of success,

that reputation need not be in youth employment and training. The reputational factor, in turn, can influence program processes, e.g.,

certification and referral may result in "dumping" high risk enrollees

in programs (as opposed to program operators) that lack a positive

reputation. Where this occurs, there is a definite impact on program

operations. In addition, selection processes tend to screen out highly

innovative approaches to youth programming.

16. The structure of manpower decision-making is weak in most areas. This

lack of an integrated, policy oriented, program operating structure

minimizes the impact of local forces upon program operations. PrOSTMOO

are left to their own devices with minimal external intervention.

17. Since NAB/HRDI may have been perceived as taking the largest share Of

the payoff, i.e., good local press, other actors tended to view the

program opportunity as a low priority--lacking in sufficient reward

to warrant entrance into the bidding process. The small size of the

program (both in terms of slots and dollars) further minimizes the

likelihood of a highly competitive environment.

18. A stable or growing local economy appears to increase the likelihood

of the private sector positively impacting program operations, e.g.,

an increased variety and number of on-site exposures, higher quality

of on -site experiences. However, this positive linkage between program operations and economic forces may be exacerbated where economic

growth is occurring outside the program area. Thus, this linkage is

conditional upon the presentd'of adequate and accessible local trans

portation. In addition, the economic growth of the area may offer

youth other more attractive opportunities which may compete with a

vocational exploration program.

- 125 -
Structure of the Report

The remainder of this report is divided into five sections. The strategies and assumptions underlying the research design are reported in Section

II. Data collection procedures, instrumentation, and program outcome measures

are discussed.

SeLion III contains a description and analysis of enrollee outcomes.

The pre-test and post-test data are used to describe enrollee characteristics,

world of work attitudes and cognitions. Four analytical procedures are then

reported including (a) difference of means, (b) gain measurement, (c) factor

analysis, and (d) multiple regression.

Section IV contains material assessing program approaches and implementation features. The material focuses on VEP program operations and includes

subsections on administration, staffing, worksite development, enrollee recruitment and selection, orientation, program content, and worksite analysis.

Section V of this report contains an analysis of the impact of environmental factors on the VEP program. Political, social, geographic, and economic

factors are analyzed for their influence on program operations, e.g., availability of alternative programs, relationships among key actors.

Section VI is the technical appendix to the report. The appendix includes (a) sites visited by CUP, (b) 1978 VEP Youth Application, (c) Instructions for Coordinators: Pre-Program, (d) Pre-Program Survey Instrument,

English and Spanish language versions, (e) Instruction for Coordinators:

Post-Program, (f) Post-Program Survey Instrument, English and Spanish language

versions, (g) Format for Intensive Site Visits, and (h) the Code Book and

final frequency distribution.

- 126 154
II. RESEARCH DESIGN

The Vocational Exploration Program is designed to provide economically

disadvantaged youth an opportunity to explore career opportunities in the

private sector. Its central programmatic objective is to ease the transition

from school to work through the development of cognitive and attitudinal

skills appropriate to the world of work. However, as Garth Mangum and John

Walsh recently stated, "despite over 17 years of public experimentation with

employment and training programs for youth, our knowledge of what works best

for whom is at best sketchy and at worst non-existent" (Employment and Training Programs for Youth: What Works Best for Whom?, 1978).

The Center for Urban Programs attempted to narrow the gap of knowing

what works best for whom by addressing four major research questions:

(1) What are the attitudinal and cognitive effects of the VEP program

youth (e.g., attitudes toward work and school, knowledge of work

rules and employer practices, career and life expectations, etc.)?

(2) Do various combinations of program components have differential

effects on enrollees?

(3) What is the VEP program impact on regular enrollees in comparison

to special emphasis enrollees (e.g., handicapped, ex-offenders,

and non-traditionals)?

(4) How does VEP compare with other summer youth programs (i.e., SPEDY)

in achieving these effects?

Several assumptions and limitations argue against the ability of this

research effort to completely answer the question of what works best for whom.

As is true of any quasi-experimental design involving comparison groups, the

major threat to validity is selection. Without the random assignment of an

initial pool of eligible youth to the VEP and SPEDY programs, one remains

- 127 -
uncertain about the programmatic effects on enrollee attitudes and cognitions.

Another limitation of the research effort centers on the measurement of

short-term changes rather than the long-term durability of the change. Whether

VEP enrollees retain any cognitive or attitudinal changes that enhance the

likelihood of a smooth transition from school to work remains unanswered.

Lacking longitudinal data on enrollee performance seriously impairs the

ability of this research to provide the "demonstration effect."

Finally, and perhaps most important, much of this research effort is

directed toward measuring cognitive and attitudinal changes rather than behavioral differences. We are measuring enrollee predispositions toward the

work world. Whether enrollees will translate these predispositions into

specific behaviors (e.g., believing in the importance of filling out accurately

and thoroughly an employment application and actually behaving in that fashion)

remains untested.

Research Approach

The major objective of the research effort was to develop a profile of

VEP enrollees through an assessment of cognitive and attitudinal changes

resulting from participation in the Summer 1978 program. To accomplish this

objective, three research strategies were used. First, a quasi-experimental

research design resulted in the construction and administration of a preprogram and post-program survey instrument to VEP youth and a sample of

SPEDY enrollees. A nonequivalent control group (a sample of SPEDY enrollees)

was used for before and after comparisons. The second and third strategies

involved a field research approach designed to assess the qualitative factors

contributing to enrollee performance. Site visits by CUP personnel to twentyone cities involving forty-four operating programs were undertaken to identify

innovative program approaches and to observe variations in implementation.

- 128 -
The third strategy involved more intensive site visits to six of the twentyone cities to analyze the political, social, and economic environments in

which the VEP program operated. The intensive site visits were designed to

secure information on program-environment interrelationships that may assist

in explaining variations in enrollee performance.

Analytic Design

The analytic design required qualitative and quantitative data analysis

routines focused upon the interrelationships among enrollee background, program characteristics, and enrollee attitudinal and cognitive changes.

The primary independent variables were enrollee demographic characteristics including age, sex, race, highest grade completed, welfare status,

and membership in a special emphasis group, e.g., ex-offender, handicapped,

or non-traditional role.

The central dependent variables were the degree and direction of change

in enrollee attitudes and cognitions having the following conceptual focus:

1. Career Aspirations

2. Value of Education

3. Entry Expectations and Exit Evaluation of Program

4. Knowledge of the Work World in areas such as employer requirements,

employee behaviors, job search mechanisms, and occupational information.

5. Attitudes Toward Work including measures of work ethic and orientations toward organized labor;

6. Attitudes Toward Self and Society in areas such as life satisfaction, self-esteem, personal efficacy, and interpersonal trust;

7. Attitudes Toward Law including measures of role perceptions and

- 129
8. 1,f.-111::: 07°_Alitt.t :1,1Au pgrceptions :v.nropriate sex

-ocleA 1,ctn tl z.,A.ttAac and in job-related si?-..t,utions.

Selection of subitct4

The un2.ertiso was lefined as all enrollees in the Summer, 1978 VEP

programs (VEP III) in every city that operated a VEP program the previous

year (VEP II). The pre-program and post-program survey was to have been

administered to alp. enrollees in the VEP III cities meeting that criterion.

No sampling of the universe was intended for the study. Rather, the instruments were to be administered to the universe of enrollees, thereby enabling the Center to have sufficient data for detailed analysis of various

subgroups of VEP participants. However, the system for identifying programs

was faulty and resulted in several programs that did not participate in the

pre program and post-program survey activity.

The Center was not notified by the NAB Washington Office in time to

administer the pre-program instrument in nine of the 140 possible Summer,

1978 programs. In addition, information was never received on eight other

subcontracts. As a result, the data constitutes a non-random sample.

In each of eight VEP III cities, the instrument was administered to a

sample of 250 SPEDY enrollees. SPEDY program personnel sampled enrollees

on a random basis designed by the Center.

Instrumentation

The questionnaire used in this study, available in both Erglish and

Spanish language versions, attempted to tap several dimensions of work related attitudes. The questions making up each of the subscales were for the

most part taken from existing literature. There were, however, some questions

added to each of the scales by Center personnel. The potential for scaling

130
all dimensions was somewhat limited by the fact that several operational

definitions were limited to two or three items. Although using more items

for each of the subscales would have been desirable, this was not possible

because of the conflicting need to develop an instrument of reasonable length

(approximately thirty minutes for execution).

Although the two instruments are essentially the same (the post-survey

differed from the pre-survey in that it asked for an exit evaluation from the

enrollee), there was little danger that the pre-program survey would contaminate the responses given on the post survey. This was due to the seven to

eight keek interval between the two test periods. Therefore, any changes

tapped by the instrument more likely represented true attitudinal and cognitive changes than any artifact of the besting procedure.

Besides the questionnaire, site visits were utilized to identify innovative program approaches and to observe variations in program implementation.

Eight areas of concern guided site investigators when visiting various programs. The eight areas included:

(1) Program Organization and Administration

(2) Recruitment and Selection of Enrollees

(3) Enrollee Orientation

(4) Program Content

(5) Characteristics of Work Sites

(6) Enrollee Perceptions of Program

(7) Coordinators Perceptions of Program

(8) Local Monitoring and Evaluation.

The specific questions asked in each of these areas is contained in the VEP

III site analysis form.

The Center's third research strategy, intensive site visits to selected

- 131 -

tJ
cities conducting VEP programs, provided data to analyze the soclo-economic

and poltical climate in which the various programs operated. Information on

other youth employment programs available in the area, the rel. --anships among

various programs and actors (e.g., labor unions, school systems, prime sponsors, principal employers), and socio-demographic data for the area were

analyzed. Data sources included (a) Annual Planning Reports, (b) Prime

Sponsor Agreements, (c) ..lane for various titles, (d) Quarterly Summary of

Youth Characteristics, (e) Local Educational Agreements, and (f) other pertinent reports as available.

Survey and Field Procedures

Three systems were developed to implement survey and field procedures

including: (1) a method for identifying programs eligible for participation

in the study; (2) instructions to program personnel for administering the

instruments; and (3) use of criteria for selection of site visits.

The system for identifying programs called for the NAB/HRDI Vocational

Exploration Program Office to inform CUP on a daily basis of the existence

of a funded program. The Center was to receive the following information:

(1) Program Operator and address, (2) initial contact person, (3) telephone

number, (4) start-up date for enrollees, (5) start-up date for coordinators,

(6) total number of enrollee: slots, (7) number of anticipated enrollees in

special emphasis groups, and (8) whether the program was running as a single

or umbrella operation.

Attempts were made to contact all programs made known to CUP by the

Program Office. Survey instruments were sent to all those programs where

information was received in time to insure delivery before the start-up date.

As noted previously, CUP was notified too late to have the pre-program instrument administered in nine programs. In addition, the Center was never

- 132 -
informed officially of the existence of eight other programs.

Program personnel were given written instructions for administering the

pre-program and post-program instruments. In the site visited cities, coordinators were given a two-hour training session on instrument administration.

Coordinators were informed that no instruments were to be given to youth after

the first operational week of the program unless the planned intake of groups

of enrollees was staggered over a longer period of time. The post-program

instrument was to be given before any formal program orientation or components

were discussed. The consent forms, pre-program surveys, and post-program instruments were to be given to youth in a group setting with instructions End

questions read to the enrollees. The pre-program and post-program survey instructionsJare included in the technical appendix to this report.

Eight criteria were used to guide the selection process of site visited

cities. The criteria were: (1) geographic location and DOL regions, (2) size

of city, (3) size of program, (4) availability of special emphasis groups in

program, (5) potential for VEP/SPEDY prime sponsor programs, (6) history of

innovation attempts, (7) time frame for program start-up, and (8) potential

for clustering sites for coordinator training. CUP visited forty-five programs in twenty-one cities. In addition, two SPEDY/VEP programs and eight

SPEDY programs were visited. The cities selected for site visits are found

in the technical appendix.

Data Collection and Recording

Program personnel were responsible for the return shipment within one

week of all completed pre-program instruments, consent forms, refusals, unused

instruments, and copies of the intake form for all enrollees who were expected

to complete the program. The same process of data collection was used for

return of the post-program instruments and related material. In general,

- 133 -

1
program operators were very cooperative in returning materia, ithin the requested time frame.

As questionnaires, consent forms, and intake forms were received from

the programs, a double blind procedure was utilized by CUP to guarantee the

anonymity of the respondents. At no time.was any one person in possession of

the consent form, instrumentation, and the enrollee application. All documentation other than the instrumentation was destroyed after. coding.

The coding process was relatively straightforward with the exception of

the two open-ended questions on type of preferred job and sources of information about job openings (questions 3 and 5, respectively on the pre-program

and post-program surveys). Coders used the three digit Dictionary of Occupational Titles classification to code type of preferred job responses. The

code covering information sources for job openings was developed by the Center.

A copy of the coding manual ib appended to this report.
III. OUTCOME PROFILE

This section of the report is divided into two main parts. The first

describes the social background characteristics of VEP and SPEDY enrollees.

The second part is subdivided into four subsections: (1) a difference of

means analysis of outcomes; (2) measurement of attitudinal and cognitive

improvements or gains; (3) factor analysis of the pre-program and postprogram survey data, and (4) a multiple regression analysis of enrollee

characteristics and outcomes.

Enrollee Profile

VEP enrollees were older than SPEDY enrollees and had completed more

years of schooling. As a group VEP had a slightly higher proportion of

Blacks, but the male/female ratio for the two groups was practically identical.

The modal age for VEP was 16 while that for SPEDY was less than 16.

While only 5.7 percent of VEP enrollees were under 16, 41.5 percent of SPEDY

enrollees were less than 16. Almost three-fourths of VEP enrollees were

16 to 18, but less than half of the SPEDY enrollees were in this age cohort.

Since VEP enrollees were older, it is to be expected that they would

have completed more years in school. As can be seen in Table 3.1, this proved

to be the case. The difference is much greater, however, than appears from a

casual inspection of Table 3.1. One-fourth of the SPEDY enrollees have an

eighth grade education or less; whi7e only two percent of the VEP enrollees

are in this category. Again, over ninety percent of the VEP enrollees had

completed at least 10th grade and over one-third had completed high school.

The same is true of 55 percent and eight percent of SPEDY enrollees respectively.

- 135 -

I
VEP and SPEDY had virtually the same male/female ratio (48 and 52 percent respectively). However, individual VEP programs often had a significantly

.higher female enrollment. Several VEP program operators offered a possible

explanation for this difference. They noted that the minimum age was not an

attraction to males in their area. Males could receive a higher wage and/or

more hours elsewhere. A casual inspection of the data from individual programs

seems to suggest that programs run in areas of low unemployment had some difficulty attracting males. Since SPEDY programs were made up of younger youth,

they were unlikely to encounter this problem.

Although not statistically significant, VEP had a higher proportion of

blacks than did SPEDY. While only one in five VEP enrollees was white, one

in four SPED! enrollees was white. A little less than two-thirds (62.8 percent of VEP enrollees and more than half (57.3 percent) of SPED! enrollees

ware black. While ten percent are Spanish surnamed in VEP when compared with

fifteen percent in SPED!, it should be kept in mind that the VEP data is drawn

from a much more geographically spread area than is the SPED! data.

VEP had several target populations for the 1978 SuMmer program. Over

one-fourth of the enrollees were in a special emphasis category. About twelve

percent were youth offenders, just under ten percent were handicapped, and

five percent were now-traditionals.
TABLE 3.1

FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE'DISTRIBUTION OF VEP AND SPEDY ENROLLEE CHARACTERISTICS

Demographic

Characteristics

VEP Enrollees SPEDY Enrollees

be..

Less than 16 248 5.1% 660 41.5%

16 1383 28.5 356 22.4

1.7 1263 26.0 276 17.3

18 877 18.0 123 7.7

10 460 9.5 74 4.7

20 280 5.8 33 2.1

21 184 3.8 25 1.6

Over 21 14 .3 --- ----

Unknown 150 3.1 44 2.8

Sex

Male 2291 47.1 760 47.8

Female 2568 52.9 831 52.2

Race

White 1034 21.3 394 24.8

Black 3012 62.0 911 57.3

Native American 55 1.1 7 0.4

Oriental 58 1.2 25 1.6

Spanish Surname 508 10.5 231 14.5

Other 17 0.3 6 0.4

Unknown 175 3.6 17 1.1

Highest Grade

8th or less 97 2.0 415 26.1

9 393 8.1 NI 18.9

10 1199 24.9 262 16.5

11 1358 27.9 223 14.0

12 1091 22.5 72 4.5

more than 12 535 11.0 50 3.1

Other 30 0.6 --- - - -- Unknown 151 3.1 268 16.8

GED 5 0.1 MIPIO
TABLE 3.1 (continued)

Demographic

Characteristics

VEP Enrollees SEEDY Enrollees

Welfare Status

AFDC 922 19.0 600 37.7

Other 732 15.1 256 16.1

Both 21 0.4 23 1.4

Yes, Unspecified 2 0.0 86 5.4

No Welfare 2531 52.1 582 36.6

Unknown 651 13.4 44 2.8

Special Emphasis

Handicapped 401 8.3 Not Applicable

Youth Offender 561 11.5 NA

Non-traditional 258 5.3 NA

Regular 3457 71.1 NA

Unknown 182 3.7 NA
DIFFERENCE OF MEANS

Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 compare the VEP and SPED! enrollees' pre-test

responses on attitudes :cr7ar3 work and social attitudes. The purpose of

these comparisons was to ascertain whether the two groups were significantly

different on these dimensions at the beginning of the programs. The data

suggest that at the start of the programs the two groups were similar. There

did not appear to be a skewing of the population, with those more likely

to succeed going to one or the other of the programs.

Table 3.4 reports the pre- and post-test differences of VEP enrollees

on social attitudes. In general, the direction of the net changes tend to

support the thrust of the summer youth program effort. There are two notable

exceptions to this. The personal efficacy subscale tends to show a decrease

in feelings of being able to exert some control in one's environment. Citizenship attitudes also appear to become increasingly negative.

Table 3.5, which reports on attitudes toward world of work, shows a

tendency towards, increasing negative attitudes. It may be that enrollees

are being socialized into the attitudes of older workers. Belief in ability

to change the system or the environment (efficacy), the absoluteness of Law

(citizenship), and ideal work norms seem to be indicative of the idealism

of youth. Contact with older workers may act to lessen such idealistic views.

Further analysis will be needed to verify such a hypothesis. However, if

this hypothesis is correct it is logical to assume that the greater the

contact between youth enrollees and workers, the more pronounced will be

the negative trend among the youth. SPED! pre/post comparisons indicate

that this is in fact the case.

Table 3.6 and 3.7 report the SPEDY pre-test and post-test comparisons on

- 139 - &.
TABLE 3.2

VEP AND SPEDY WORLD OF WORK ATTITUDES

ON THE PRE-TEST

Concept

8. Attitudes toward

world of work

VEP

X

SPED!

X

Q. 10 1.26 1.36

Q. 11 1.27 1.47

Q. 12 1.43 1.59

Q. 13 2.47 2.65

Q. 14 2.06 2.07

Q. 15 1.48 1.56

Q. 16 2.39 2.72

Q. 17 1.24 1.34

Q. 18 1.40 1.51

Q. 19 1.69 1.99

Q. 20 1.88 2.02

Q. 21 2.20 2.15

Q. 22 1.44 1.48

Q. 24 1.45 1.51

Q. 25 2.47 2.65

Q. 27 2.14 2.30

Q. 28 1.60 1.69

9. Attitudes toward

labor

Q. 23 1.87 2.13

Q. 26 2.59 2.72

- 140 -
TABLE 3.3

VEP AND SPED! ENROLLEE ATTITUDES

ON THE PRE-TEST

CONCEPT VEP

X

SPED! DIFFERENCE

1. Life Satisfaction

Q. 29 2.01 1.94 -.07

Q. 30 2.21 2.17 -.04

2. Self-Esteem

Q. 31 1.30 1.63 .13

Q. 32 3.07 3.34 .07

Q. 33 1.43 1.64 .21

Q. 34 1.59 1.73 .14

3. Personal Efficacy

Q. 35 1.82 2.03 .21

Q. 36 2.62 2.70 .08

Q. 37 2.45 2.56 .11

Q. 38 2.92 3.11 .19

Q. 39 1.56 1.72 .16

4. Interpersonal Trust

Q. 40 3.73 3.59 -.14

Q. 41 2.08 2.13 .05

Q. 42 3.77 3.71 -.06

5. Attitudes Toward

Criminal Justice

System

Q. 43 3.29 3.19 -.10

Q. 44 ',.60 2.50 -.10

Q. 45 ?,93 3.04 .11

6. Citizenship

Attitudes

Q. 46 1 56 1.73 .15

Q. 47 1 1)s 2.37 .31

Q. 48 e. '3 1.74 .21

Q. 49 1.45 1.68 .23

7. Sex-Role Orienr,:ions

Q. 50 2.22 2.33 11

Q. 51 1.97 2.18 .21

Q. 52 1.94 2.L() .06

Q. 53 1.93

I. .ff .22

Q. 54 2.00 2.95 .05
TABLE 3.4

VEP ENROLLEES PRE- AND POST-TEST SOCIAL MEASURES

CONCEPT

VEP Pre-Test VEP Post-Test

1 % %

2te-test (4) (U) i

1. Life Satisfaction

Q. 29

Q. 30

2. Self Esteem

Q. 31

Q. 32

Q. 33

Q. 34

3. Personal Efficacy

Q. 35

Q. 36

Q. 37

Q. 38

Q. 39

4. Interpersonal Trust

Q. 40

Q, 41

Q. 42

5. Attitudes Toward Criminal

Justice System

Q. 43

Q. 44

Q. 45

2.01 76.6 7.5 15.8

2.21 61.3 25.4 13.3

1.50 87.8 4.6 1,5

3.07 40.7 9.9 49.4

1.43 92.5 5.3 2.2

1.59 82.9 1.2 9.9

1.82 78.7 4.5 16.8

2.62 55.7 10.5 33.8

2.45 58.1 15.3 26.6

2.92 47.0 9.7 43.3

1 Si 91.0 3.6 5.4

:.73 17.6 16.2 66.2

1,.08 76.5 11.1 1244

3.77 22.0 9.2 68.8

3.29 27.5 27.0 45.5

2.60 49.5 23.4 27.1

2.93 38.6 25.2 36.2

1.80 82.6 7.5 10.0 +.21

2.07 66.7 24.0 9.3 .14

1.49 87.5 5.4 7.1 .01

3.02 43.6 11.0 45.5 .05

1.40 92.6 5.2 2.1 .03

1.65 81.3 7.7 11.0 -.06

1.87 76.7 6.0 17.3 -.05

2.57' 57.2 12.0 30.7 .05

2.40 59.3 16,0 24.8 .05

2,96 45.8 9.7 44.5 -.04

1.60 119.5 4.9 5,7 -.04

3.80 16,3 14.6 69.1 -.07

2.04 76,7 11.8 11.7 .04

3.74 22.5 10.0 67.5 .03

3.31 26.3 27.4 46.3 .08

2.56 !2.0 21.6 26.4 .04

2.97 38.2 25.9 37.9 -.04
TABLE 3.4

VEP Pre-Test

(continued)

VEP Post-Test

:EPT Pre-Test

%

( +) %

(U) (-) Y2 (+)

%

(-) xi-K2

Citizenship Attitudes

Q. 46 1.58 83.9 9.6 6.6 1.62 82.1 10.7 7.2 -.04

Q. 47 2.06 67.2 16.6 16.2 2.15 64.5 17.2 18.3 -.09

Q. 48 1.53 85.4 7.3 7.3 1.67 81.3 8.09 10.8 -.14

Q. 49 1.45 88.7 3.1 8.2 1.52 86.2 4.5 9.3 -.07

Sex-Role Orientations

Q. 50 2.22 68.0 10.8 21.2 2.09 71.2 11.5 17.3 .13

Q. 51 1.97 73.4 10.5 16.1 1.99 72.8 10.1 17.1 -.02

Q. 52 1.94 72.9 13.0 14.1 1.85 75.2 13.3 11.6 .09

Q. 53 1.93 70.9 16.9 12.2 2.05 67.6 17.2 15.2 -.12

Q. 54 2.00 77.0 7.7 15.3 1.96 77.9 8.0 14.1 .04
TABLE 3.5

VEP ENROLLEES PRE- AND POST-TEST ATTITUDE TOWARD THE WORLD OF WORK

CEPT /1 (+)

VEP PRE-TEST

% Z

(U) X

(-) 12

VEP POST-TEST

X X

(+) (U) X

(-) i

1 -1 2 ATTITUDES TOWARD

WORLD OF WORK

Q. 10 1.26 93.6 1.9 4.5 1.32 92.0 2.0 5.9 -.06

Q. 11 1.27 93.6 1.5 4.9 1.30 92.9 1.7 5.4 -.03

Q. 12 1.43 89.0 4.0 7.0 1.43 88.8 3.9 7.3 .00

Q. 13 2.47 54.7 18.5 26.9 2.44 57.4 15.6 27.0 .03

Q. 14 2.06 77.0 8.4 14.7 1.93 80.2 8.2 11.6 .13

Q. 15 1.47 90,6 3.0 6.4 1.51 90.5 3.2 6.3 -.03

Q. 16 2.39 65.2 8.4 26.4 2.10 74.8 6.7 18.5 .29

Q. 17 1.24 94.5 1.4 4.1 1.30 92.9 2.0 5.1 -.06

Q. 18 1.40 92.3 3.8 3.9 1.34 94.0 2.6 3.4 .06

Q. 19 1.69 83.5 2.9 13.6 1.87 78.5 3.7 17.8 -.18

Q. 20 1.88 75.1 11.7 13.2 1.90 74.5 10.8 14.7 -.02

Q. 21 2.20 69.4 11.9 18.7 2.07 72.8 12.6 14.6 .13

Q. 22 1.44 91.1 3.8 5.1 1.45 91.1 3.9 4.9 -.01

Q. 24 1.45 91.6 3.9 4.4 1.47 91.5 4.0 4.6 -.02

Q. 25 2.47 63.3 5.8 30.9 2.47 62.2 8.2 29.6 .00

Q. 27 2.14 70.4 5.4 24.2 2.20 67.7 7.6 24.7 -.06

Q. 28 1.60 87.6 5.5 6.8 1.57 88.6 5.6 5.8 .03

ATTITUDES TOWARD

LABOR

Q. 23 1.87 70.5 26.0 3.5 1.82 72.6 23.4 4.0 .05

Q. 26 2.59 40.4 42.4 17.2 2.50 46.0 36.9 17.1 .09
social attitudes and attitudes toward the world of work. As can be seen,

the negative trend is slightly more pronounced. Negative trends are apparent on the personal efficacy scale, the interpersonal trust scale and

the criminal justice systcm scale. The citizenship scale shows some negative

tendency, but further analysis is needed to determine exactly what has occurred regarding the attitudes on this dimension. It is significant that

the major difference between the two programs is that the SPED? enrollees

actually work at their job sites, thus presumably having more contact with

the older employees.

Table 3.8 displays the magnitude of social and work attitudinal change

among VEP and SPEDY enrollees. For fourteen of the twenty-six indicators of

social attitudes, the magnitude of positive change was larger among VEP than

SPED? enrollees. Concerning attitudes toward the world of work, twelve of

the seventeen indicators showed the magnitude of positive change to be greater

among VEP enrollees. Finally, favorable attitudes toward organized labor

increased more among VEP than SPEDY enrollees. However, with few exceptions,

the magnitude of the attitudinal changes were minimal.

Table 3.9 displays the proportion of correct responses to six job descriptions. Overall, little difference can be found in comparing VEP with

SPY enrollees. The magnitude of change does not appear to be related to

program type. The data does show, however, that VEP enrollees tend to be

more knowledgeable about these jobs than their SPED? counterparts.

Table 3.10 and Table 3.11 display indicators of world of work attitudes And

cognitions among VEP and SPEDY enrollees with age controlled. Table 3.10 shows

that for two of the three attitudinal indicators, contiYilling for age does not

substantially alter the magnitude of attitudinal change. When VEP enrollees

were asked respond to dress conformity on the job (Q. 16), the controlled
TABLE 3.6

SPIRY ENROLLEES PRE- AND POST-TEST SOCIAL ATTITUDES SPED! PRE-TEST SPEDY POST-TEST WEPT Pr:5test

2

(+) 2

(U) 2

(-) x2

2

(+) 2

(U) 2

(-) FE1-i2

Life Satisfaction

Q. 29 1.94 77.6 9.3 13.2 1.88 79.6 9.8 10.6 +.06

Q. 30 2.17 62.9 26.1 11.1 2.07 67.7 22.7 9.6 +.10

Self Esteem

Q. 31 1.63 83.8 6.8 9.5 1.61 84.7 6.4 8.9 +.02

Q. 32 3.14 35.5 16.3 48.2 2.98 41.3 16.0 42.7 +.16

Q. 33 1.64 85.5 10.6 3.9 1.63 87.1 8.1 4.8 +.01

Q. 34 1.73 78.0 11.2 10.7 1.80 76.2 12.7 11.1 -.07

Personal Efficacy

Q. 35 2.03 71.4 6.7 22.0 2.10 68.7 8.0 23.3 -.07

Q. 36 2.70 51.7 14.2 34.1 2.61 54.1 14.8 31.1 +.09

Q. 37 2.56 53.9 16.2 29.9 2.47 57.9 16.9 25.3 +.09

Q. 38 3.11 39.9 14.0 46.1 3.18 36.8 13.5 49.6 -.07

Q. 39 1.72 84.8 7.8 7.4 1.78 84.0 8.6 7.5 -.06

Interpersonal Trust

Q. 40 3.59 17.8 23.0 59.3 3.65 17.7 21.3 61.1 -.16

Q. 41 2.13 74.4 13.0 12.6 2.14 74.5 11.6 13.8 -.01

Q. 42 3.71 22.0 13.0 65.0 3.63 25.3 10.7 64.1 +.08

Attitudes Toward the

Criminal Justice System

Q. 43 3.19 30.3 27.3 42.5 3.21 27.8 32.0 40.1 -.02

Q. 44 2.50 50.7 26.2 23.1 2.42 55.0 23.7 21.2 +.08

Q. 45 3.04 33.5 26.9 39.6 3.06 32.2 30.4 37.5 -.02
TABLE 3.6 (continued)

SPED! PRE-TEST SPED! POST-TEST

PT

1 Pre-test (+) (U) Z

(-) 7{2

X

(+)

2

(U) 2

(-) X1 -X2

itizenahip Attitudes

46 1.73 77.9 15.1 7.1 1.80 78.1 13.6 8.3 -.07

47 2.37 56.2 21.5 22.3 2.36 57.3 20.4 22.3 +.01

! 48 1.74 78.2 10.7 11.1 1.77 77.2 9.9 12.9 -.03

I. 49 1.68 81.5 5.6 12.9 1.67 81.7 6.4 11.9 +.01

Iex-Role Orientations

). 50 2.33 61.7 17.0 21.2 2.23 66.5 12.3 21.1 +.10

). 51 2.18 65.7 12.3 21.9 2.09 69.2 12.6 18.2 +.09

). 52 2.10 65.1 20.2 14.7 2.07 68.0 16.5 15.4 +.03

1. 53 2.15 62.2 20.9 16.8 2.18 62.8 20.3 17.0 -.03

1. 54 2.05 74.6 10.1 15.2 2,q2 75.1 10.9 14.0 +.03

1 0
TABLE 9,7

SPEDY ENROLLEES.PRE- AND POST-TEST ATTITUDE TOWARD THE WORLD OF WW.K

INCEPT

SPED! PRE-TEST

(+) (U) (-)

ATTITUDES TOWARD

WORLD OF WORK

Q. 10 1.36 91.6 2.6 6.4

Q. 11 1.47 98.3 3.7 8.0

Q. 12 1.59 F3.3 7.0 9.6

Q. 13 2.65 46.9 26.1 27.0

Q. 14 2.07 76.0 11.1 12.9

Q. 15 1.56 87.6 t.3 8.1

Q. 16 2.72 55.3 33.4

Q. 17 1.34 91.6 . . 5.1

Q. 18 1.51 88.4 ,. 3.7

Q. 19 1.99 74.5 o. 19.3

Q. 20 2.02 67.9 10._ k".e.9 Q.. 21 1.15 69.3 ,:l. ', k

Q. 22 .48 90.5 4 7 5..1 Q. 24 1.11 89.4 .1 5.5

Q. 25 2 ... 54.9 10.3 3409

Q. 27 2.30 62.8 10.4 /6,9

Q. 28 ..6^ 84.8 7.2 8.0

ATTITUDES TOWARD

LABOR

Q. 23 2.13 58.6 35.9 5.6

Q. 26 2.72 34.7 47.1 18.1

SPED! POST-TEST

(+) (U) ( )

1.43 89.3 3.7 7.0

1.,49 88.1 3.8 8.1

1.68 79.7 9.0 11.4

2.63 47.1 25.1 27.8

1.95 79.5 10.4 10.1

1.64 87.0 5.1 8.0

2.54 63.5 8.4 28.0

1.49 87.8 4.5 7.7

1.43 91.7 4.9 3.4

2.02 73.1 7.8 19.1

2.03 69.4 13.6 17.1

2.07 71.7 14.6 13.7

1.53 89.4 5.5 5.1

1.63 86.7 5.9 7.4

2.59 56.6 11.3 32.1

2.27 65.3 8.6 16.1

1.70 85.2 7.2 7.6

2.16 56.5 37.6 6.0

2.82 29.6 49.8 20.6

-.07

-.02

-.09

+.02

+.12

-.08

+.18

-.15

+.08

-.03

-.01

+.08

-.05

-.12

+.06

+.03

-.01

-.03

-.10
TABLE 3.8

MAGNITUDE OF SOCIAL ATTITUDE AND WORK ATTITUDE

CHANGE AMONG VEP AND SPEDY ENROLLEES

MEAN

DIFFERENCES

ICEPT SPEDY VEP CONCEPT

MEAN

DIFFERENCES

SPED? VEP

Life Satisfaction

6. Citizenship

Q. 29 +.06 +.21 Attitudes

Q. 30 +.10 +.14 Q. 46 -.07 -.04

Q. 47 +.01 -.09

Self Esteem

Q. 48 -.03 -.14

Q. 31 +.02 +.01 Q. 49 +.01 -.07

Q. 32 +.16 +.05

Q. 33 +.01 +.03 7. Sex-Role

Q. 34 -.07 -.06 Orientation

Q. 50 +.10 +.13

Personal Efficacy

Q. 51 +.09 -.02

Q. 35 -.07 -.05 Q. 52 +.03 +.09

Q. 36 +.09 +.05 Q. 53 -.03 -.12

Q. 37 +.09 +.05 Q. 54 +.03 +.04

Q. 58 -.07 -.04

Q. 39 -.06 -.04 8. Attitudes Toward

World of Work

Interpersonal Trust

Q. 10 -.07 -.06

Q. 40 -.16 -.07 Q. 11 -.02 -.03

Q. 41 -.01 +.04 Q. 12 -.09 .00

Q. 42 +.08 +.03 Q. 13 +.02 +.03

Q. 14 +.12 +.13

Attitudes Towards the

Q. 15 -.08 -.03

Criminal Justice System

Q. 16 +.18 +.29

Q. 43 -.02 +.08 Q. 17 -.15 -.06

Q. 44 +.08 +.04 Q. 18 +.08 +.06

Q. 45 -.02 -.04 Q. 19 -.03 -.18

Q. 20 -.01 -.02

Q. 21 '-.08 +.13

1

h4
CONCEPT

TABLE 3.8

(continued)

MAGNITUDE OF SOCIAL ATTITUDE AND WORK ATTITUDE

CHANGE AMONG VEP AND SPEDY ENROLLEES

MEAN

DIFFERENCES

SPEDY VEP CONCEPT

MEAN

DIFFERENCES

SPEDY VEP

8. Attitudes Toward

World of Work

(continued)

Q. 22 -.05 -.01

Q. 24 -.12 -.02

Q. 25 +.06 .00

Q. 27 +.03 -.06

Q. 28 -.01 +.03

9. Attitudes

Toward Labor

Q. 23 -.03 +.05

Q. 26 -.10 +.09
TABLE 3.9

COGNITIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VEP AND SPEDY ENROLLEES,

CONTROLLING FOR AGE*

VEP

SPEDY

PRE-TEST POST-TEST PRE-TEST POST-TEST

16 16-17 18+ 16 16-17 18+ 16 16-17 18+ 16 16-17 18+

:al Orderly 51.5 55.6 66.6 58.8 58.7 68.0 52.9 56.5 55.8 53.2 53.9 60.0

ich Operator 52.1 54.1 64.2 60.6 56.7 67.4 47.3 58.8 58.3 54.8 56.8 61.7

:lent Store

3r 49.7 49.7 60.0 50.9 50.1 63.6 43.6 44.3 58.3 47.6 49.6 55.8

list 37.6 34.7 40.5 30.3 33.7 40.6 30.3 33.6 42.5 35.6 34.8 46.7

cian 38.8 49.5 68.3 48.5 57.4 71.7 30.9 47.8 58.3 42.3 47.2 59.2

ift Operator 60.0 61.7 69.5 49.1 60.6 62.3 56.6 55.1 56.7 54.5 60.3 68.3

lee are the percent correctly identifying job duties.

151
TABLE 3,10 A

SOCIAL ATTITUDINAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VEP AND SPEDY

CONLIOLLING FOR AGE OF ENROLLEE

PT 16

Xl

PRE-TEST

16-17

1

3

18+

1

s

16

X2

POST-TEST

16 -17 X \

4 18+

X

6

UNCONTROLLED

MEAN

IIFFERENCE

CONTROLLED

MEAN DIFFERENCES

Xi X2 X3 X4 X5 X6

Satisfaction

29 VEP 1.93 1.94 2.13 1.70 1.76 1.88 +.21 +.22 +.18 +.25 SPEDY 1.87 1.94 2.10 1.82 1.93 1.92 +.06 +.05 +.01 +.18

30 VEP 2.11 2.20 2.23 2.05 2.03 2.10 +.14 +.06 +.17 +.13 SPED!

ole

tation

2.13 2.23 2.16 2.02 2.14 2.04 +.10 +.11 +.09 +.12

50 VEP 2.35 2.18 2.25 2.17 2.07 2.12 +.13 +.18 +.11 +.13 SPED! 2.47 2.22 2.18 2.40 2.07 2.18 +.10 +.07 +.15 +.00

1 '3
TABLE 3,10 B

WORLD OF WORK ATTITUDINAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

VEP AND SPED! ENROLLEES,

CONTROLLING FOR AGE

CONCEPT

<16

!RE-TEST

16-17

X

3

18+

1

5

(16

X

2

POST-TEST

16-1'1 X

4

18+

X

6

UNCONTROLLED

MEAN

DIFFERENCE

ATTUTUDE

TOWARD

MD-OF-MIX

Q. 16 VIP 2.64 2.41 2.31 2.37 2.11 2.05 +.29

SPED! 2.92 2.61 2.36 2.63 2.48 2.37 +.18

Q. 14 VIP 3.52 2.02 2.10 1.88 1.92 1.93 +.13

SPED! 3.15 2.14 2.08 1.93 1.93 2.07 +.12

Q. 21 VIP 2.23 2.17 2.23 2.07 2.05 2.07 +.13

SPED! 2.22 2.10 2.03 2.07 2.10 1.98 +.08

CONTROLLED

MEAN DIFFERENCES

i -I

2

i3

1 XS

X6

+.27 +.30 +.26

+.29 +.13 -.01

+1.64 +.10 +.17

+1.22 +.21 +.01

+.16 +.12 +.16

+.15 +.00 +.05

tuI
mean differences remained unchanged. A similar pattern is found for our measure of a work ethic (Q. 21). Age does appear to make a difference in the

'VEP enrolllee attitude toward the utility of friends as reference points for

job openings (Q. 14). Among the less than sixteen year old VEP enrollees,

the mean differences improved by 1.64.

SPEDY enrollees work attitudes appear to be less affected as age increases. The least amount of attitude change is found among enrollees age

eighteen and over. The largest improvement in positive attitudes toward the

world of work is found among under the age of sixteen.

The data presented in Table 3.11 is less clear. Although, overall,

cognitions seem to improve with age, there does not appear to be a consistent trend.

- 154 -
TABLE 3.11

COGNITIVE CHANGES AMONG VEP AND SPED! ENROLLEES

VEP SPED! STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANC

2

CORRECT CORRECT DIF- CORRECT CORRECT DIF- VEP & SPED! POST -TESL

CONCEPT PRE-TEST POST-TEST TERENCE PRE-TEST POST-TEST FERENCE 2 AND DIFFERENCE

INOWLEDGE

OF WORK

WORLD

Q. 64 59.6 62.1 +3.5 55.0 54.4 -0.6 7.7 .05

Q. 65 57.7 60.9 +3.2 53.5 56.5 +3.0 4.4 .05

Q. 66 53.5 54.9 +1.4 45.8 49.5 +3.7 5.4 .05

Q. 67 37.0 36.4 -0.6 33.3 36.9 +3.6 .5 N.S.

Q. 68 55.7 62.1 +6.4 41.7 46.7 +5.0 15.4 .05

Q. 69 64.5 61.0 -3.5 56.0 58.6 +2.6 2.4 N.S.
GAIN MEASUREMENT

Introduction

The data from the Difference of Means Analysis suggested overall positive

change in social and work attitudes among both VEP and SPED? enrollees. However, several issues were unresolved, including; (1) What explains the lack

of consistent change across all dimensions of the concepts? (2) Although

generally positive change occurred, where are significant changes located?

and (3) What impact does the variety of enrollee characteristics taken together have upon attitudinal change? This section addresses these issues

by providing data on the correlates of statistically significant attitudinal

changes.

Attitudinal changes have been measured by the mean differences in pretest and post-test scores. Although comparing mean differences is a standard

methodology for assessing program impact, it does have limitations. First,

the mean scores for either a pre-test or post-test item simply records the

central tendency of response across all enrollees. The difference in mean

scores can mask the directional change from the pre-test to the post-test.

Second, a comparison of mean score does not allow for a highly sensitive

measure of the intensity of change in either a positive or negative direction. This section resolves these limitations by a two-step process of data

analysis. Initially, we identify those enrollees that were negatively predisposed attitudinally at the outset of the program. Next, we explore which

enrollee characteristics, if any, account for positive changes.

Methodology

The basic methodology employed to identify negatively predisposed enrollees involved an analysis of the response patterns in the pre-test instrument.

- 156 -
Each of the forty-five foils (Items 10 through 54 in the survey instrument)

were examined. This series of items was expressive of a wide range of attitudes from extremely positive to extremely negative. Each item required

a response to one of five Likert-type fixed-alternative expressions, including:

(1) agree a lot, (2) agree a little, (3) unsure, (4) disagree a little,

and (5) disagree a lot. Negatively predisposed enrollees were identified

by a response of either (1) or (2) to an unfavorably worded item, or (4)

or (5) to a favorably worded item.

The second task required a determination of positive change. The procedure followed to assess improvement required an enrollee to have responded

favorably to the same item on the post-test. Individuals who responded

"unsure" to either the pre-test or post-test item were excluded from this

analysis. (The decision to exclude the "unsure" responses does not alter

the findings because of their relatively infrequency across all items.)

F_nally, enrollee background characteristics were cross-tabulated with

the pre/post response patterns indicating a positive change. After each

demographic characteristic was run against the forty-five items, multivariate cross-tabulations were executed. Differences in the magnitude of

the proportions of positive changers across the background factors were

analyzed for statistical significance.

This section deals with those enrollees who were negatively pre-disposed

attitudinally at the outset of the summer program but were positively disposed

at the end of the program. The analysis was limited to those items where

statistically significant differences were found. Major highlights were:

1. Enrollee background differences were related to positive change

for twenty of the forty-five attitudinal items examined.
2. Most of the items eliciting improvement were in the area of world

of work attitudes or sex-role perceptions.

3. Only sex and race were significantly related to attitudinal change;

neither age nor year in school were significantly related.

4. Females in VEP were far more likely to show improvement in worldof-work attitudes than were males.

5. Females appear to have obtained an expanded view of available roles,

both socially and work world related.

6. Black enrollees in VEP were far more likely to have an improved

sense of personal efficacy than were white enrollees.

The preliminary review of the survey data suggested that a sizable proportion of enrollees entered the VEP or SPEDY summer program lacking social and

work attitudes appropriate for a successful transition to the world of work.

Here we focus upon those enrollees who held negative attitudes at the outset

of their summer experience and whose attitudes were positive at the close

of the summer effort. Whether these positive attitudinal changes were related to enrollee background characteristics became the central research task.

Enrollee age, year in school, sex, and race were run against each of

the forty-five attitudinal items. That is, the pre-test to post-test relationship per item was determined controlling for enrollee characteristics. Thes°

multivariate cross-tabulations, taking one characteristic at a time, resulted

in fourteen of the forty-five items with statistically significant differences

in the proportion of positive attitudinal changers. Table 3.12 displays the

fourteen individual items where one or more demographic variable resulted in

a statistically significant (.05 level) difference in proportions.

Table 3.12 shows that significant improvements in attitudes occurred

disproportionately among VEP enrollees when compared with SPEDY enrollees.

- 158 -
Only four of the forty-five items resulted in statistically significant proportions of positive attitudinal change across SPEDY enrollee characteristics.

Thirteen of the items were significant across VEP enrollee characteristics.

More important, neither age nor year in school resulted in significant differences.

Of those items where sex differences are significant, Table 3.12 shows

that females in the VEP program were more positively influenced than their

male counterparts. Females gained more for seven of the ten items where

sex differentials were significant.

Tbale 3.13 displays the proportionate gains across the various enrollee

attributes. It is interesting to note that four of the five world of work

items showed females far more likely to improve attitudinally. This same

pattern appears for work-related sex-role perceptions (Q. 51 and Q. 53).

Of those female respondents who at the pre-test indicated that something

is wrong with women who wanted to work at men's jobs, 60.6 percent of the

females responded with a favorable attitude on the post-test. Only 40.4

percent of the males displayed the same attitudinal improvement. Similar

gains are shown among SPEDY enrollees. The same gain is reported for the

item concerning an enrollee's willingness to work for a woman (Q. 53). In

summary, female enrollees in the VEP program appear to be influenced more

positively toward the world of work than males.

Personal efficacy items are related to racial characteristics. Table

3.13 shows that for Loth efficacy foils, black enrollees are influenced mk.;.e

positively than are whites. Yet, contrary to expectations about the relationship between efficacy and trust, the indicator of social trust shows whites

more likely to respond favorably than blacks.
TABLE 3.12

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE ATTITUDINAL

CHANGE MEASURES BY DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS AND

SUMMER PROGRAM TYPE

World of Work

Q. 10: It's all right to miss work when

ever you don't feel like going

VEP SPEDY

females

Q. 12: It's all right to fill out only

the parts of the job application

that you want to. females

Q. 16: At work, you'should try to dress

like most other people on that whites

job. females

Jp

Q. 17: If your job starts at 8:00 A.M.

it's all right if you show up

at 8:30 A.M. females

Q. 19: On the job, it's not important_

to get along with your fellow

workers.

Personal Efficacy

females

Q. 36: I never have any trouble making up

my mind about important decisions. blacks

Q. 38: I would rather decide things when

they come up than always try to

plan ahead.

Social Trust

Q. 42: Most people try to take advantage

of you if they get a chance.

Criminal Justice System Attitude

blacks

whites

Q. 44: The courts treat all people alike

regardless of race or nationality. males

Q. 47: People should not be punished for

breaking a law they think is wrong. females

- 160 -

1

whites
TABLE 3.13 (continued)

VEP SPEDY

Sex-Role Perceptions

Q. 50: A man can take just as good care

of children as a woman can. males males

Q. 51: There is something wrong with women who wnat to work at men's jobs. females females

Q. 53: I would not want to work for a

woman. females

Self-Esteem

Q. 31: All in all, I'm incli.aed to feel

that I am a failure. males

- 161 -
re.

TABLE 3.13

PROPORTIONATE ATTITUDINAL GAINS BY

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND

SUMMER PROGRAM TYPE

TO,

VEP SPEDY

World of Work

Q. 10

Q. 12

Q. 16

Q. 17

Q. 19

males 58.1%

males 50.0

males 56.9

white 63.1

males 12.8

males 25.1

Personal Efficacy

Q. 36

Q. 38

Social Trust

Q. 42

white 29.0

white 18.2

white 23.4

Criminal Justice System Attitude

Q. 44

Q. 47

males 35.1

males 38.7

Sex-Role Perceptions

Q. 50

Q. 51

Q. 53

Self-Esteem

Q. 34

males 52.7

males 40.4

males 37.9

females 78.8%*

females 68.0

females 49.1

black 48.9

females 74.0

females 62.8

black 45.0

black 26.4

black 12.0

females 28.0

females 51.9

femalef 41.5

females 'C.t.

females

white 60.0 black 32.6

males 59.3

males 35.7

females 43.1

females 59.7

males 71.9 females 45.1

*All proportionate differences reported are statistically significant at the .05 level.

- 162 -
Self-esteem attitudinal gains were significant among SPEDY males but

not among VEP enrollees. However, because only one of the four indicators

of self-esteem elicited statistically significant differences, the likelihood that this item is a valid indicator is diminished greatly.

While criminal justice system attitudes improved more so among males

for one indicator (Q. 44), females gained more on the second indicator

(Q. 47). A partial explanation for this lack of consistency may be related to the different objects toward which the attitude is directed. In

the first foil, the item is used to tap a generalized attitude toward the

equity of the courts. In the second, the indicator addresses the role

orientation toward citizenship.

The second phase of analyzing the correlates of positive attitudinal

change involved the development of multivariate cross-tabulations controlling for sex and race simultaneously. The decision to combine sex and race

and exclude age and year in school was based upon two criteria. First,

combining all four enrollee background factors would have resulted in cell

sizes that were too small for analysis. Second, on the original runs neither

age nor year in c.chool resulted in statistically significant differences.

The combination of race and sex was run against each of the forty-five

attitudinal items. These cross-tabulations resulted in ten of the forty-five

items with statistically significant differences in the proportion of positive

attitudinal changers. Table 3.14 displays the ten-items where various combinations of race and sex resulted in a statistically significant (.05 level)

difference in proportions.

The fourfold multivariate runs supported the earlier findings that female enrollees appear to be more positively influenced than males. While

there was no statistically significant change concerning attitudes toward

- 163 -
organized labor which could be attributed to any single demographic variable,

multivariate analysis uncovered significant improvement for white females

when compared with white males (Q. 26). A similar pattern is shown for another

indicator of world of work attitude. Neither race nor sex was significantly

correlated with positive gain on :ployer expectations (Q. 27.). However,

when controlling for both race and sex, we find that black females do improve

significantly more than do black males. The same is not true for whites.

Further evidence supporting the observation that females improve attitudinally more so than males is found in work-related sex-role orientations.

Table 3.14 shows that females made gains significantly more than males in

the area of women wanting to work at men's jobs (Q. 51). When race is added,

black females positively change more than do black males. Again this change

doss not occur in the case of whites. In addition, although there was no

sax or race related differences about attitudes toward women working outside

the home (Q. 52), by combining race and sex, there is significant improvement

of black females over black males. Finally, although the -2X differentiated

work world attitudes found significant in Table 3.13 were not sustained when

sex and race were combined, the proportionate gains consistently favored

females. Only the lack of adequate call sizes kept the differences from

statistical significance.

The combined effect of race and sex showed significant gains in personal

efficacy. Table 3.14 shows that for the first indicator of efficacy (Q. 36),

blacks improved over whites. Fourfold analysis confirms the strength of this

relationship; black males do signficantly better than white males and black

females do significantly better than white females. We found no significant

sex or race related difference on the second indicator (Q. 37). However,

- 164 -
TABLE 3.14

PROPORTIONATE ATTITUDINAL GAINS BY SEX AND RACE

AMONG UP ENROLLEES

World of Work

Q. 26: Organized labor unions don't

seem to care about helping youth.

Q. 27: Taking it easy on the job is all

right as long as you don't get

caught by the boss.

Self-Esteem

1.J Q. 34: All in all, I'm inclined to feel

that I'm a failure.

Personal Efficacy

Q. 36: I never have any trouble making

up my mind about important decisions.

Q. 37: I seem to be the kind of person

that has more bad luck than good

luck.

Social Trust

Q. 42: Most people try to take advantage

of you if they get a chance.

White Black White Black

Males Males Females Females

28,1 N.S.* 44.6

N,S. 28.7 N,S. 36.8

31.0 N.S. 63.0 N.S.

30.8 45.7 27.7 44.6

N, S, N, S. 23.8 36.2

N,S. N, S. 24.9 10.9
urinal Justice System Attitudes

45: The police have it in for young

people and pick on then unfairly.

Role Perceptions

50: A man can take just as good

care of children as a woman

can.

51: There is something wrong with

women who want to work at men's

jobs.

52: A woman who works full time can

be just as happy as a woman who

stays at home with her family.

TABLE 3.14 (continued)

White Black

Males Males

14.9 N.S.

N.S. 54.1

N.S. 39.3

N.S. 51.2

S. indicates no significant difference at the level.

White

Females

Black

Females

29.5 N.S.

N.S. 41.4

N.S. 62.6

N.S. 66.9
when controlling for both sex and race, black females show significant improvement when compared with white females.

One indicator of interpersonal trust (Q. 42), had improved significantly,

greater among whites than blacks. Adding sex as an additional control,

it was found that white females improved significantly over black females

(24.9 percent compared with 10.9 percent). However, there was no significant

difference between white males and black males.

Only one measure of self-esteem (Q. 34) resulted in significant differences

in gains. On this indicator, white females improved attitudinally more so than

white males.

One measure of sex role perceptions displayed proportionate differences

between males an females. Concerning the sex role differences in child

care (Q. 50), the data show black males improving over black females; the

same improvement is not true in the case of whites.

Finally, only one measure of attitudes toward the criminal justice system

resulted in significant gains. Attitudes toward police treatment of youth

(Q. 45) were sex related. White females showed significant improvement over

white males.

The data displayed in Table 3.14 concerns enrollee attitudinal gains in

the VEP program. The same analysis routines were used for SPEDY enrollees

but only one of the forty-five items showed significant differences among

the combinations of background characteristics. One indicator of work world

attitudes, conformity of dress behavior (Q. 16), showed white males improving

more than black males (61.3 percent and 34.4 percent, respectively). Whether

a lack of sufficient cell sizes ( a problem typical of physical control procedures) or the absence of any programmatic effect accounts for no significant

167 2;)7
differences among SPEDY enrollees cannot be determined from the available

data.

In summary, we have attempted to measure the relationship between enrollee characteristics and significant improvements in social and work-related

attitudes. While neither age nor year in school were related to attitudinal

improvements, sex and race differences resulted in significant change.

The data suggests that females in the VEP program are far more likely

to show improvements in attitudes toward the world of work than are males.

More important, the data trends appear to suggest that females obtained an

expanded view of available roles both socially and work-related. addition,

black enrollees were far more likely to have an improved sense of personal

efficacy than were white enrollees.

7.68 ,
FACTOR ANALYSIS

Factor analysis is a useful technique for reducing a large amount of

information to an economical description. In addition, it provides a means

to chart the central empirical concepts and their sources of variation.

The earlier sections of this report analyzed the relationship between en- rollee characteristics and attitudes on an item by item basis. In this

section, we are concerned with determining empirically the structure and

pattern of interrelationships among the forty-five items in the program

survey instrument. These empirical dimensions will then be used as the

dependent variables in the multiple regression analysis.

Nine concepts were defined in the pre/post program survey. These concepts included: (a) attitudes toward the world of work, (b) attitudes

toward organized labor, (c) life satisfaction, (d) self-esteem, (e) personal efficacy, (f) inter-personal trust, (g) attitudes toward the criminal

justice system, (h) citizenship, and (i) sex role orientations. Table 3.15

displays the product moment correlations among the items for each concept.

These correlations were developed using the post-program survey instrument.

(Using the pre-program instrument, slightly lower correlations were found).

The inter-item correlations show moderate to low relationships. Among the

world of work items for example, Table 3.15 shows moderately strong relationships among some items (e.g., items 10, 11, 12, 17), and the absence of a

relationship among others (e.g., item 21). The personal efficacy and interpersonal trust items reflect a similar pattern of variable relationships.

Thus, the conceptual dimensions of the survey instrument are only moderately

clear empirically. Moreover, there is a possibility that some items on one

subscale may be related to dimensions or concepts other than those originally

developed.

, - 169 -4 /,)
WORLD OF WORK

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 27 28

10

11 .54

12 .47 .43

13 - .05 -

14 - .15

15 .08 .06 .01 .11 .25

16 - .10 .12 .11

17 .43 .40 .37 - .10 -

18 .10 .12 .09 .10 .10 .15 .15

19 .23 .24 .22 - - .08 - .21 .08

20 .30 .21 .29 .06 - - - .30 .10 .30

21 - - .09 .11 .08 - .10 - - 22 .19 .15 - .08 ,09 .19 .11 .13 .17 .09 .07

24 .12 .09 .10 .05 .05 .14 .12 ,09 .19 ,08 - .2b ,22

I 25 .22 ,21 .21 .05 .08 ,18 - .18 .24 - .09 .11

}-1 27 .30 ,25 .24 - .12 .08 - .29 .09 .18 .28 - .11 .10 .34

0 28 .08 .06 - - .08 .11 .15 .08 .15 .10 - .13 .18 .17 - .22

PERSONAL EFFICACY INTERPERSONAL TRUST CRIMINAL JUSTICE CITIZENSHIP

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

35 40 43 46

36 .05 41 - 44 .28 47 .10

37 .30 .05 42 .20 - 45 .44 .13 48 .12 .32

38 .13 .07 .17 49 .20 .26 .42

39 .15 .15 .11 -

SEX ROLE

50 51 52 53 54

50

51 ,05

52 ,18 ,11

53 ,06 ,34 ,11

54 ,08 ,17 .17.12

ORGANIZED LABOR

23 26

23

LIFE SATISFACTION SELF ESTEEM

29 30 31 32 33 34

29 31

32 ,10

33 .37 .09

34 ,22 .27 .26

26 .19 30 .36
Factor analysis provides an opportunity to empirically determine the

pattern of relationships among the items. It permits the study of the cor- respondence between the expected or designed measures and the empirical

results. The forty-five items of the survey instrument were factor analyzed

using conventional social science criteria and varimax rotation of the orthogonal factor pattern axes. The factor analysis showed a moderately strong

correspondence between expected patterns and the empirical pattern.

The factor pattern matrix was based on the product-moment correlation

coefficients of items ten through fifty-four of the post-test for VEP enrollees. Factor loadings, showing the degree and direction of relationships

of the variables with the different patterns, were obtained by rotating the

rinciDal component matrix. The parameters for this method were set to

values that are standard conventions; eigenvalues equal to or greater than

one and a limit of twenty-five iterations on the main diagonal of the correlation matrix.

The results of the factor analysis indicate the presence of eleven dimensions rather than the original nine. Table 3.16 shows that thirty-eight of

the forty-five items were involved in at least one dimension. The world of

work attitudes emerge as four distinct dimensions. The first dimension or

factor can be described as Personal Work World Ncrms. This factor includes

items 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 27, 48, and 49. The specific wording of these

items was as follows:

Item 10: It's all right to miss work whenever you don't feel like

going.

Item 11: When you are sick it's all right to miss work without calling

to say you won't be there.

Item 12: It's all right to fill out only the parts of the job application that you want to.

- 171 - 21"
TABLE 3.16

FACTOR LOADINGS

ITEMS

FACTORS

I II

.74

.68

.59

.34

.49

.41

.57

III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 .32

19 .34

20 .38

21 .39

22 .44

23 .36 .34

24 .47

25 .39

26 .51

27 .33 .42

28 .32

29 .57

30 .55

31 .39

32 .40

33 .40

34 .51

35 .48

36

37 .45

38

39 .37

40 .32

41

42 .30

43 .77

44 .36

45 .51

46

47

48 .36 .46

49 .35 .43

50

51 .46

52 .31

53 .38

54 .34

Factor pattern matrix based on the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients of questions 10 to 54 on the Post Test of VEP. Factor loadings,

showing the degree and direction of relationship ofthe variables with

the different patterns, were obtained by rotating the principal component

matrix by the Varimax method.

- 172 -

t )
Item 17: If your job starts at 8:00 A.M. it's all right if you shin

up at 8:30 A.M.

Item 19: On the job, it's not important to get along with your fellow workers.

Item 20: When you are applying for a job, employer's don't consider

how you did in previous jobs.

Item 27: "Taking it easy" on the job is all right as long as you don't

get caught by the boss.

Item 48: If somebody needs somethira bad enough it's all right to

break the law to get it.

Item 49: It's all right to drive an automobile while drunk as long

as you don't have an accident.

The Personal Work World Norms factor appears to be tapping an attAtude

that can be generalized beyond the work setting. Note the loading of two

items dealing with legal norms (items 48 and 49) on this factor. These

loadings suggest that this dimension is tapping a broader sense of normleanness, i.e., the attitude that an individual can violate social norms

to get ahead.

The second world of work factor is labelled Work World Cognitions. This

factor comptiEe2 she following items:

Item 13: Usually an employer can fire someone for not teling the

truth on a job application.

Item 14: A good way to find out about job openings is from friends

or relatives who are working.

Item 15: On the job the toss has the right to tell you what to do.

Work World Idealism is the third factor. The items include:

Item 18: Doing well on the job interview helps you to get a job.

Item 21: Hard work makes you a better person.

Item 22: Even if you dislike your work you should do your best.

Item 23: Organized labor unions are good for workers.
Item 24: Work should be an important part of a person's life.

Item 28: You should help other people on a job so that they will help

you.

A Work Motivation factor is the fourth world of work dimension. The

items loading on this factor include:

Item 25: To me, work is nothing more than a way of making money.

Item 27: "Taking it easy" on the job is all right as long as you don't

get caught by the boss.

The second item loads both on the initial factor (.33) as well as the Work

Motivation factor (.42).

Factor V, the Organized Labor factor, comprised two items:

Item 23: Organized labor unions are good for workers.

Item 26: Organized labor unions don't seem to care about helping youth.

Of the remaining six factors displayed in Table 3.16 four correspond

to our initial conceptualization of the items. Factor VI, Life Satisfaction,

contains two items with loading of .57 and .55 respectively. The items were

worded as follows:

Item 29: I am generally satisfied with my life these days.

Item 30: I have enjoyed my life more than most people have enjoyed

theirs.

Factors IX, X, and XI each correspond to our original conceptualization.

Factor IX, Attitudes Toward Criminal Justice, comprised the following items:

Item 43: The police treat rich people better than poor people.

Item 44: The courts treat all people alike regardless of race or

nationality.

Item 45: The police have it in for youth people and pick on them unfairly,

Factor X, Citizenship, loaded with items 48 and 49. The items were:

2 1 5

- 174 -
Item 48: If somebody needs something bad enough it's all right to

break the law to get it.

Item 49: It's all right to drive an automobile while drunk as long

as you don't have an accident.

Sex-Role Orientations, Factor XI, included four items:

Item 51: There is something wrong with women who want to work at men's

jobs.

Item 52: A woman who works full time can be just as happy as a woman

who stays at home with her family.

Item 53: I would not want to work for a woman.

Item 54: If a woman is working at a job, her man should do some of

the housework.

Three concepts in the original formulation, self-esteem, personal efficacy,

and interpersonal trust, were merged into two factors. Factor VII has been

labelled Self-Image, and contains four items:

Item 31: I feel that I am as good as anybody else.

Item 33: I feel that I have a number of good qualities.

Item 39: Generally, I can finish the things I set out to do.

Item 40: You can't be tco careful in dealing with other people.

It is interesting to note that Factor VII contains loading from items that

were measures from both self-esteem and interpersonal trust. The fact that

these items loaded on one factor is not surprising, given the conceptual

overlap between the two concepts in the literature. Factor VIII, Helplessness, further shows conceptual overlapping among the social psychological

var'Abies of trust, efficacy, and self-esteem. The items loading of Factor

VIII were:

Item 32: I wish I could have more respect for myself.

Item 34: All in all, I'm inclined to feel that I am a failure.

Item 35: Generally, people tend to push me around.

- 175 -
FACTOR I:

PERSONAL WORK

FACTOR II: FACTOR III:

WORLD NORMS WORK WORLD COGNITIONS WORK WORLD IDEALISM

48 49 13 10 11 12 17 19 20 27

10

11 .54

12 .47 .43

17 .43 .40 .31

19 .23 .24 .22 .27

20 .30 .27 .29 .30 .30

27 .30 .25 .24 .29 .18 .20

48 .31 .28 .27 .30 .20 .22 .27

49 .30 .28 .27 .33 .19 .26 .33 .42

13

14 .15

15 .17

FACTOR IV: FACTOR V: FACTOR VI:

WORK MOTIVATION ORGANIZED LABOR LIFE SATISFACTION

25 27 23 26 29 30

I 25

27 .34

01

23

26 .19

FACTOR VIII:

HELPLESSNESS

32 34 35 37

32

34 .27

35 .21 .30

37 .20 .30 .30

42 .09 .11 .11 .14

FACTOR XI:

SEX ROLE ORIENTATION

51 52 53 54

7 51

52 .11

53 .34 .11

54 .17 .17 .12

29

30.36

FACTOR IX:

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

42 43 44 45

43

44 .28

45 .44 .13

14 15 18 21 22 23 24 28

18

21 .10

.25 22 .18 .18

23 .14 .14 .19

24 .19 .20 .22 .18

28 .15 .13 .18 .08 .17

1,4

FACTOR VII:

SELF IMAGE

0

31 33 39 40

31

33 .37

39 .23 .27

40 .08 .08 .15

FACTOR X:

CITIZENSHIP

48 49

48

49 .42
Item 37: I seem to be the kind of person that has more bad luck than

good luck.

Item 42: Most people try to take advantage of you if they get a chance.

Table 3.17 displays the interim correlations among the items that loaded

on each of the factors. Of the eleven factors, Work World Norms provides

the strongest pattern of interrelationships. In addition, this factor alone

accounted for 39.2% of the total variance in the data. The four world of

work factors (Factors I, II, III, and IV) cumulatively accounted for 74.2%

of the total variance. The remaining factors show moderate to low correlations, yet sufficiently large to suggest unidimensionality.

In summary, a factor analysis of the post-program survey items yielded

eleven distinct factor clusters. Four of the clusters focused on the World

of Work. A fifth factor tapped Organized Labor, while the remaining clustered around socio-psychological attitudes, sex-roles and criminal justice

orientations. The extent to which enrollee background characteristics explain variations in these patterns will be examined through multiple regression analysis.
MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Three sets of enrollee characteristics were analyzed for their impact

upon the eleven factors. The first set examined the, influence of special

emphasis group membership upon attitudes and cognitions. The second set

examined whether enrollee predispositions to the program were related to

the factors. While the third set explored the relationships among demographic background factors and the eleven dimensions.

For this analysis the dependent variables were developed by constructing

a summated index for each of the factors. The index score was computed by

adding the individual responses to each of the times that loaded on a given

factor. These cumulative indices were used as dependent variables. For the

analysis of the impact of special emphasis group membership or program predisposition on enrollee gains, a "lean index score was calculated and differences

in mean scores were compared.

For the demographic backgroend characteristics, a multiple regression

analysis was followed using the cumulative indices as the dependent variables.

Each of the background characteristics were analyzed for their individual

and joint contribution to the explained variance of each factor.

Special Emphasis Groups

Membership in a special emphasis group was limited to handicapped, emoffender, or non-traditional occupations. Membership was identified by local

program operators and reported to SLU/CUP. No attempt was lade to verify

the validity of these classifications. Handicapped status and ex-offender

statuses were assumed to contain the highest degree of consistency in definition across the various programs. Non-traditional roles were.subject to a

variety of interpretations and thus will not be compared to either regular

enrollees or special emphasis groups.

- 178 -
Table 3.18 displays the mean index scores among the various special

emphasis groups and regular enrollees for each factor. Mean indices were

calculated for both the pre-program and post-program surveys. The same

items that loaded on the various factors using the post-program survey were

used in calculating the pre-program mean indices.

As Table 3.18 indicates, handicapped enrollees, ex-offenders, and regular enrollees showed a significant reduction in positive attitudes toward

work norms. Factor I: Work World Norms shows handicapped entering the program with the least positive work world normative orientation (X 15.931)

and leaving the program with a lessened positive set of norms (X .1117.096).

However, this regression does not occur for the other world of work factors.

For dimensions II, III, and IV a positive gain is shown. Among the regular

enrollees, these gains are statistically significant. A partial explanation

for a loss of favorable attitudes toward work world norms may be that enrollees enterothe program with unrealistic perceptions of the world of work that

are not true reflections of reality. Program participation might alter these

more romanticized notions of the world of work.

Life satisfaction, Factor VI, shows significant positive increases among

'both ex-offenders and regular enrollees. Handicapped showed a loss of positive

orientations toward the criminal justice system; however, this may be due to

the high positive attittude coming into the program when compared with that of

ex-offenders and regulars.

Handicapped enrollees had a higher mean index score for helplessness,

Factor VIII, than either ex-offenders or regular enrollees. This negativism,

although lessened, remained after completion of the program. Finally, Table

3.18 shows all three groups with a lessened positive orientation toward
TABLE 3.18

SPECIAL smrsAsis GROUPS AND FACTORS

DIMENSIONS

PRE

I POST

PRE

/7

POST

PRE

II POST

PRE

Iv

POST

PRE

r

POST

PRE

VI

POST

PRE

/I

POST

PRE

If

POST

IPRE

Is POST

1PRE X

.POST

PRE

XI

POST

HANDICAPPED

X CI

15.931

17.096 -1.165

5.748

5.613 N.S.

9.885

9.522 N.S.

4.747

4.490

N.S.

5.171

5.325

N.S.

4.234

4.119

N.S.

8.964

9.036 N.S.

14.847

14.637

N.S.

8.008

8.583 -5.74

3.234

3.758 -.525

8.565

8.657 N.S.

EX- OFFENDER

X dX

15.141

15.896 -.755

5.748

5.687

N.S.

9.857

9.749 N.S.

4.617

4.474 N.S.

5.028

5.060 N.S.

4.433

3.879 .553

8.357

8.451

N.S.

13.587

13.611 N.S.

9.437

9.624

N.S.

3.362

3.670 -.308

8.367

8.558

N.S.

NON-TRADITIONAL

X dX

13.653

14.100 N.S.

6.193

6.259 N.S.

10.269

10.175 N.S.

4.558

4.245 .313

4.559

4.670 N.S.

4.210

3.870 .340

7.926

7.987 N.S.

12.845

12.521 N.S.

9.000

8.669 N.S.

2.883

3.117 N.S.

7.248

7.185 N.S.

REGULAR

X cif

13.214

13.724 -.510

6.028

5.905 .213

9.889

9.678 .210

4.392

4.291

.101

4.472

4.547

N.S.

4.207

3.831 .375

8.140

8.196 N.S.

12.301

12.299

N.S.

8.773

8.787

N.S.

2.872

3.052 -.179

7.686

7.657

N.S.

- 180 - 2 2
citizenship. Handicapped enrollees showed the largest reduction in favorable

attitudes toward citizenship.

Program Predispositions

Program predispositions are those expectations that enrollees bring to

the program. These expectations are thought to range from highly positive

through highly negative. The former suggests an anticipation of a rewarding

experience, with the latter reflecting an attitude that little would be gained

from the program.

Several agents are though:. to account for the variations in predispositions.

Peer group influences, prior program experiences, and among others, categoric

group membership are socialization agents that influence the development of

'orientations toward youth programming. Whatever the source of these attitudes,

program dispositions were examined for their impact on attitudinal and cognitive changes.

Program predispositions were operationally defined by constructing a cumulative index from the responses to four items on the survey instrument. These

items were:

Item 6: This program will help me find out what workers do in different

kinds of jobs.

Item 7: This program will tell me how much training I need for different

kinds of jobs.

Item 8: This program will tell me what employers expect their workers

to do.

Item 9: This program will give me information about how I can get a job.

Responses to these items were limited to (1) agree a lot, (2) agree a little,

(3) unsure, (4) disagree a little, and (5) disagree a lot. The cumulative

index was constructed by simply adding the responses across the four items.

181 -
The index scores could range from 4 through 20; the lower score indicating

a highly favorable predisposition and the latter a highly negative orientstion. For this analysis, a cutting point of 8 was arbitrarily selected as

the ceiling score to indicate positive predisposition. A score of 9 or more

was used for identifying the negatively predisposed. Enrollees who failed

to respond to any one or more of the items were excluded from further analysis.

It is interesting to note that only 14 percent of the enrollees were negatively predisposed toward the program; 85 percent had positive expectations for

the program, while only one percent failed to respond to one or more items.

Table 3.19 displays the mean index scores on the pre-program survey and

post-program survey for the positively predispositioned group and the negatively oriented enrollees. Except for Factor I: Work World Norms, negatively

predisposed enrollees showed significant gains for five dimensions; three

of these factors were associated with the world of work norm (Factors II, III,

and IV).

Except for Factor VIII: Helplessness, positively predisposed enrollees

had consistently better attitudes that those with low expectations about the

program. For three dimensions, the favorably predisposed showed a decline

in positive attitudes for Factors VII, IX, and X.

Demographic Background Characteristics

Five background characteristics were entered into the regression analysis

to explain variations in factor index scores. These background characteristics

included (1) sex, (2) race, (3) highest grade completed, (4) age of enrollee

as of June 1, 1978, and (5) welfare status. A conventional multiple regression

analysis was performed using the factor index as the dependent variable, both

for the pre-program and post-program data.

- 182 -
TABLE 3.19

PROGRAM PREDISPOSITION AND FACTORS

DIMENSIONS

INDEX MEAN

13.442

POSITIVE NEGATIVE

DIFFERENCE

OF MEANS

PRE

DIFFERENCE

OF MEANS INDEX MEAN

14.673

I POST 13.997

-.555

15.435 -.762

PRE 5.934 6.443

II POST 5.858

N.S.

6.002

.441

PRE 9.663 11.416

III

POST 9.548 10.625

PRE 4.378 4.891

IV

POST 4.248

.130

4.672

.219

PRE 4.512 4.942

V

POST 4.614 -.101 4.848

N.S.

PRE 4.150 4.735

VI

POST 3.819

.331

4.184

.551

PRE 8.143 8.617

VII

POST 8.232 -.089 8.516

N.S.

PRE 12.662 12.662

VIII

POST 12.653

N.S.

12.322

N.S.

PRE 8.691 9.477

IX

POST 8.794 -.103 9.175

.301

PRE 2.888 3.337

X

POST 3.130 -.242 3.457

N.S.

PRE 7.678 8.445

XI

POST 7.679 N.S.

8.420

N.S.

- 183 -
Tables 3.20a through 3.20k display the multiple regression coefficients,

product-moment correlations, and the beta weights for each background characteristic entered into the regression analysis. Overall, demographic characteristics show little explanatory power to account for variations in enrollee

attitudes and cognitions at the time of either entering the program or completing the program. Of the eleven factors, only three show background forces

explaining at least five percent of variation in attitudes and cognitions.

Confirming earlier analyses, enrollee sex and race are the dominant variables

in explaining variations in Work World Norms (Factor I) and attitudes toward

organized labor (Factor V). Sex and to a lesser extent, highest grade cempleted, were the dominant variables in explaining differences in sex-role

orientations (Factor XI).

Social background characteristics held little explanatory power for explaining variations in world of work attitudes. Tables;3.20a through 3.20d

show the relationships between social characteristics and the four dimensions

of work world predispositions and cognitions. Other than the Work World

Norms factor, using the post-program survey data, these characteristics

operating jointly explain less than three percent of the variation in any

one dimension.

Concerning attitudes toward organized labor, the proportion of variance

explained by the five background characteristics is slightly more than five

percent. For both the pre-program and post-program factor scores, the standard regression coefficients (BMA's) show race as the most influential varia

ble and sex as the second most powerful predictor of attitudes toward labor.

Social background differences are of little predictive utility in accounting for :ariations in socio-psycholigical variables. Life satisfaction,

- 184 - 2 )t0
Variable

TABLE 3.20a: FACTOR I -- WORK WORLD NORMS

Pre-Program

Multiple R Square le Change Simple R BETA

Sex .15005 .02252 .02252 -.15005 -.15032

Race .19397 .03762 .01511 .10987 .12574

Highest Grade .21138 .04468 .00706 -.09661 -.08436

Welfare Status .21236 .04510 .00042 -.03910 -.02086

Age .21238 .04510 .00001 -.06843 .00342

Total 4.52

Post-Program

Variable Multiple E R Square R2 Change Simple R BETA

Sex .18031 .03251 .03251 -.18031 -.18522

Race .22618 .05116 .01865 .12092 .13739

Highest Grade .23381 .05467 .00351 -.07543 -.07221

Welfare Status .23584 .05562 .00095 -.04619 -.03206

Age .23644 .05590 .00028 -.04338 .02380

Total 5.6%
TABLE 3.20b: FACTOR II -- WORK WORLD COGNITIONS

Pre-Program

Variable Multiple R, R Square R2 Change Simile R BETA

Race .07340 .00539 .00539 .07340 .06766

Sex .08387 .00703 .00165 .04661 .03999

Welfare Status .08703 .00757 .00054 -.03210 -.02378

Age .08718 .00760 .00003 .00642 .00828

Highest Grade .08724 .00761 .00001 .00802 -.00457

Total 0.8%

Post-Program

Variable Multiple R R Square R2 Change Simple R, BETA

Race .05832 .00340 .00340 .05832 .06219

Highest Grade .06814 .00464 .00124 -.03134 -.04859

Age .06961 .00485 .00020 -.01389 .01971

Welfare Status .07017 .00492 .00001 -.00729 .00291

Total 0.5%
Variable

TABLE 3.20c: FACTOR III -- WORK WORLD IDEALISM

Pre-Program

Multiple R R Square R2 Change Simple R BETA

Highest Grade .07752 .00601 .00601 -.07752 -.08497

Welfare Status .08596 .00739 .00138 .02684 .03470

Race .08810 .00776 .00037 -.02854 -.01891

Sex .08828 .00779 .00003 -.01935 -.00558

Age .08842 .00782 .00002 -.04952 .00704

1 Total 0.8%

CO Post-Program

1 Variable Multiple R R Square R2 Change Simple R BETA

Race .06297 .00397 .00397 -.06297 -.05580

Sex .08325 .00693 .00297 -.05956 -.05234

Welfare Stati,a .08466 .00717 .00024 .02358 .01743

Highest Grade .0575 ,00735 .00019 -.02237 -.01392

Total 0.7%

2ti
TABLE 3.20d: FACTOR IV -- WORK MOTIVATION

Pre-Program

Variable Multiple R R Square R

2 Change Simple R BETA

Race .12987 .01687 .01687 -.12987 -.12515

Age .14759 .02178 .00492 -.07228 -.04588

Sex .15121 .02286 .00108 -.04898 -;03105

Highest Grade .15272 .02332 .00046 -.07550 -.02997

Welfare Status .15283 .02336 .00003 -.00070 -.00581

Total 2.3%

Post-Program

Variable Multiple R Square R2 Change Simple R BETA

Sex .07762 .00602 .00602 -.07762 -.06795

Race .10209 .01042 .00440 -.07260 -.06307

Highest Grade .10496 .01102 .00060 -.03819 -.01897

Welfare Status .10713 .01148 .00046 .02750 .02215

Age .10750 .01156 .00008 -.02956 -.01247

Total 1.2%

2.10
TABLE 3.20e: FACTOR V -- ORGANIZED LABOR

Pre-Program

Variable Multiple R R Square R2 Change Simple R BETA

Race .16363 .02677 .02677 .16363 .18117

Sex .22323 .04983 .02306 -.13756 -.14535

Highest Grade .22777 .05188 .00205 -.05374 -.08491

Age .23097 .05335 .00147 -.01378 .05385

Welfare Status .23105 .05339 .00004 -.01206 .00623

Total 5.3%

Variable

Post-Program

Multiple R R Square !Lame Simple R BETA

Race .17435 .03040 .03040 .17435 .18691

Sex .22344 .04993 .01953 -.12461 -.13394

Highest Grade .23010 .05295 .00302 -.06104 -.06494

Welfare Status .23134 .05352 .00057 -.04586 -.02475

Age .23169 .05368 .00017 -.03810 .01820

Total 5.4Z
TABLE 320f: FACTOR VI -- LIFE SATISFACTION

Pre-Program

Variable Multiple R R Square R

2

Change Simple R BETA

Race .08774 .00770 .00770 -.08774 -.09124

Age .12240 .01498 .00728 .08387 .13488

Highest Grade .13118, .01721 .00223 .02115 -.07222

Sex .13973 .01952 .00232 .04177 .04786

Welfare Status .14089 .01985 .00032 -.00326 -.01833

Total 2.0%

Post-Program

Variable Multiple R R Square R2 Change Simple R BETA

Race .11622 .01351 .01351 -.11622 -.12047

Age .14912 .02224 .00873 .09149 .09609

Sex .15088 .02276 .00053 .02023 .02306

Welfare Status .15118 .02286 .00009 .01360 -.00952

Highest Grade .15122 .02287 .00001 .05726 -.00459

Total 2.3X

rt.
TABLE. 3.20g: FACTOR VII -- SELF-IMAGE

Pre-Program

Variable Multiple R R Mare R

2 Change Simple R BETA

Race .08292 .00688 .00688 -.08292 -.07170

Highest Grade .10202 .01041 .00353 -.06473 -.08745

Welfare Status .10761 .01162 .00122 .03511 .03281

Sex .11229 .01261 .00099 .04730 -.03133

Age .11559 .01336 .00075 .02264 .03880

Total 1.32

Post-Program

Variable Multiple R LALsare R2 Change, Simple R BETA

Race .06048 .00366 .00366 -.06048 -.05318

Sex .07281 .00530 .00164 -.04548 -.03717

Welfare Status .07630 .00582 .00052 .03033 .02597

Highest Grade .07909 .00625 .00043 .02638 -.02124

Total 0.62
TABLE 3.20h -- FACTOR VIII -- HELPLESSNESS

Pre-Program

Variable Multiple R R Square R

2

Change Simple R BETA

Highest Grade .09847, .00970 .00970 -.09847 -.16177

Age .11941 .01426 .00456 -.02176 .09348

Race .12311 .01516 .00090 -.03916 -.02962

Sex .12324 .01519 .00003 -.02276 -.00586

Total 1.52

Poet-Program

Variable Multiple R R Square R

2

Change Simple R BETA

Highest Grade .09194 .00845 .00845 -.09194 -.15368

Age

. .11048 .01221 .00375 -.02160 .08344

Welfare Status .11626 .01352 .00131 .02668 .03470

Race .11702 .03169 .00018 -.02593 -.01302

Sex .11717 .01373 .00004 -.02262 -.00611

Total 1.42

2.y1'
TABLE 3.20i: FACTOR IX -- CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Pre-Program

Variable Multiple R R Square R2 Change Simple R BETA

Race .11965 .01432 .01431 .11965 .12956

Sex .17423 .03035 .01604 -.11614 -.13537

Highest Grade .18926 .03582 .00546 .06459 .06199

Welfare Status .19105 .03650 .00068 .02696 .02619

Age .19126 .03658 .00008 .05115 .01265

Total 3.7%

Post-Program

Variable Multiple R R Square R? Change Simple R BETA

Race .11619 .01350 .01350 .11619 .12594

Sex .15984 .02555 .01205 -.09961 -.11429

Age .16770 .02812 .00258 .04404 .04246

Welfare Status .16830 .02833 .00020 .01112 .01389

Highest Grade .16844 .02837 .00004 .03425 .00958

Total 2.8%

2 ;
TABLE 3.20j: FACTOR X -- CITIZENSHIP

Pre-Program

Variable Multiple R R Square R2 Change Siaple R BETA

Sex .18611 .03464 .03464 -.18611 -.18231

Age .18963 .03596 .00132 -.05088 -.02663

Welfare Status .19214 .03692 .00096 -.02821 -.03328

Race .19352 .03745 .00053 -.03554 -.02284

Highest Grade .19359 .03748 .00003 -.05689 -.00777

Total 3.7X

Post-Program

Variable Multiple R R Square R2 Change Siaple R BETA

Sex .19038 .03625 .03625 -.19038 -.18757

Welfare Status .20065 .04026 .00402 -.05616 -.05932

Highest Grade Completed .20359 .04145 .00119 -.06793 -.04905

Age .20407 .04165 .00020 -.03680 .01980

Total 4.2X

2 )
TABLE 3.20k: FACTOR XI -- SEX-ROLE ORIENTATION

Pre-Program

Variable Multiple E R Square R2 Change Simple R BETA

Sex .30992 .09605 .09605 -.30992 -.29888

Highest Grade .32127 .10321 .00716 -.12555 -.10166

Age .32167 .10347 .00026 -.07241 .02342

Race .32176 .10353 .00006 -.02380 .00700

Welfare Statue .32180 .10356 .00003 -.00516 -.00542

Total 10.42

Post-Program

Variable Multiple R R Square, R2 Change Simple R BETA

Sex .32372 .10480 .10480 -.32372 -.31590

Highest Grade .33110 .10963 .00483 -.11240 -.10345

Age .33277 .11073 .00111 -.05067 .04919

Welfare Status .33340 .11115 .00042 -.01604 -.10866

Race .33388 .11147 .00032 -.01239 .01811

Total 11.1%

2 j
self-image, and variations in perceived helplessness remain largely unexplained

by social background. Tables 3.20f through 3.20h show explained variance at

less than three percent for any of the socio-psychologiCal factors.

Race and sex differences are the best predictors of variations in attitudes toward the criminal justice system and predispositions toward citizenship. Table 3.201 shows race and sex as the most significant factors in account

for differences in attitudes toward criminal justice, while Table.3.20j shows

sex as the most important predictor. However, for both factors the proportion

of variance explained by the joint occurrence of all background forces is

minimal.

Differences in sax -role orientations are best explained by the sex of

the enrollee. The proportion of explained variance is the highest among all

eleven factors, 10.4 percent andr11.1 percent for the pte-program and postprogram data, respectively. Background characteristics other than sex, show

weak explanatory power.

In summary, five social background characteristics were regressed on

each of the elate!' dimensions. The results show that variations in world

of work attitudes and socio-psychological predispositions remain largely

unexplained by enrollee background.
IV. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS

The observations concerning the implementation of the 1978 Vocational

Exploration Program are a result of two on-site visits that the CUP faculty

and staff conducted in twenty-one cities operating forty-four VEP programs.

Overview and Highlights

The on-site monitoring efforts were designed to achieve two goals. First,

the initial visit was conducted before the programs were operational in order

to familiarize local program staff with the pre-program survey instrument and

to obtain details of the planned program. Second, the follow-up site visits

were made during the operating phase of the programs. These visits enabled

CUP personnel to determine how the VEP plans were operational/zed in each

program and to visit worksites, classroom instruction sessions, and other

program components.

Preliminary findings of these site visits are detailed in the following

sections. The highlights of the findings can be summarized as follows:

1. The 1978 Vocational Exploration Program exhibited an extremely wide

range of organizational and operational components.

-- Program organizations varied from one person conducting an

isolated program to large staffs operating programs that were

well integrated into the local summer youth effort.

-- Programs ranged from having one component through multifaceted

efforts employing such elements as orientation, classroom vocational skill instructions, group counseling, and worksite observation.

4 The involvement of NAB and HRDI varied widely. This variation appeared to stem from existing local relationships with youth programming

- 197 -
and the interests of the local NAB and HRDI representatives.

3. Many cities in which VEP programs were operated in previous years

had new program operators for the 1978 VEP; the resulting absence

of continuity or experience factors complicated program comparison.

4. Generally, VEP coordinators hired by the individual subcontractors

developed the worksites used in the shadowifig segment of the program.

5. A majority of the worksites were with small employers.

6. Most programs had little difficulty in recruiting their planned

number of enrollees. However, a number of cities had to use a

variety of techniques including newspaper advertisements and radio

and television coverage to meet their slot requirements.

7. Enrollees in the regular program were generally in-school with many

high school graduates planning to continue their education in the

fall.

8. Programs for three special emphasis groups -- handicapped youth,

youthful offenders, and non-traditional roles -- were someVhat more

difficult to structure.

9. Virtually all programs conducted an initial orientation program that

lasted from one to five days.

10. Vocational Exploration Programs were of three broad types in which

emphasis was placed on:

a. Classroom instruction with some work observation, or

b. Combinations of classroom instruction and a worksite placement, or

c. Only a worksite placement.

11. In addition to the program elements of orientation, worksite placement, and classroom instruction, VEP programs often included such

- 198 -
activities as on-going counseling sessions, field trips, rap sessions, and wrap-up meetings.

12. Programs which contained components in addition to a worksite placement were generally able to maintain a focus on worksite observation

or "shadowing" as opposed to work experience.

13. Some subcontractors viewed VEP more as a work experience program than

a vocational exploration program.

14. Most VEP enrollees who were involved in observation or a worksite

placement, were in clerical or sales positions, or in positions

developed or matched to their career interests.

15. A number of VEP enrollees expected to receive part- or full-time job

offers after the program ended.

16. Non-traditional special emphasis groups were disproportionately female in male dominated occupations.

17. Handicapped and youth offender programs were generally more difficult

to operate than the regular VEP programs.

These highlights represent preliminary generalizations made from the

on-site visits conducted by CUP. The following sections provide additional

detail and insight into the operation of the 1978 VEP. As with the highlights, the following discussion is based solely on the observations made by

CUP during visits to the sampled operational programs.

Administration

The administration of VEP was influenced by two major choices: the type

of local subcontractor who was responsible for the operation of the program

and the type of subcontractor arrangement that was established. These choices

did not affect the overall contract arrangement between NAS/HRDI and the U.S.

- 199 -

2
Department of Labor. Communications, including proposals from local groups,

were to go to the NAB/HRDI Vocational Exploration Program Office which was

housed in the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the National Alliance of Business. Local subcontractors, the first major choice affecting administration,

could be either private for-profit employers or private not-for-profit organizations. Included in the latter group are community based organizations,

non-profit charitable organizations, Chambers of Commerce, trade associations, labor organizations and private educational institutions. Although

some private sector employers submitted proposals and were designated subcontractors, most VEP local subcontractors were from the non-profit sector.

Many of these were business related groups and trade unions.

The use of non-profit subcontractors created a difficult situation for

programs that planned to utilize worksite placements as part of their program. These groups often had no particular contacts in the business community.

Lacking initial contacts meant added pressures on these groups to develop

the necessary number of worksites for enrollees. In some cases these pressures resulted in presenting the program to potential employers in such a

manner that the program goals and regulations were not stressed, thus enabling

youth to obtain worksite assignments.

For programs where the use of worksites was not a program component or

received a minor emphasis, non-profit subcontractors presented no difficulty.

In fact many of the non-profit subcontractors were adding VEP to their already

successful programs, often utilizing concepts and strategies in the VEP program that had proved successful in their other programs. The use of private

sector business as subcontractors usually guaranteed that any necessary worksites

- 200 - 2
would be more easily obtained from existing contacts. This was also true

for such non-profit groups as Chambers of Commerce and trade organizations.

There were two types of subcontractor arrangements: single employer

subcontractor or umbrella subcontractor. Under the single employer arrangement the subcontractor conducted and administered VEP solely within its own

facilities. The umbrella arrangement involved a subcontractor who was responsible for administering and coordinating a VEP where a number of organizations including private sector firms and non-profit agencies, served as program

sites for youth. Most of the 1978 VEP subcontractors were of the umbrella

type. Although the umbrella arrangement by definition places more of an administrative burden on the local subcontractor, it is also more f...asible given

the reluctance of many large employers to handle the entire program. While

many larger employers have the capacity to serve as single employer subcontractors, they appear to be committed to other existing youth activities or find

the lead time in VEP much too short.

With few exceptions the choice of subcontractor or type of arrangment

made little difference in the administrative burden of VEP. The recordkeeping, time sheet and payroll procedures used in operating VEP were simply

added to the organization's regular procedures. In many cases these activities

were easily meshed with "normal" operations. Even in cases which had some

problems, these were viewed as accounting matters and did not significantly

interfere with program operations.

There were, of course, exceptions which proved to be more troublesome.

These administrative matters which created problems involved payment of allowances (not subject to withholding) rather than wages, and insurance and bonding

requirements. Many subcontractors had little or no experience in dealing with

- 201 -
these matters. Some completed the entire program without resolving issues

such as obtaining the bond. Again, these administrative issues, while troublesome, did not create difficulties in programming. Also, it should be noted

that there were administrative problems regardless of the type of subcontractor

or arrangement. However, the extent of problems varied widely.

CUP expected that cities in which VEP operated during 1977 would be more

experienced and would have fewer problems. However, although VEP had operated

in these cities last year, often a different subcontractor conducted the 1978

program. In addition, even the same subcontractor often utilized new staff.

Therefore, many subcontractors were in effect new operators in 1978.

The local role of NAB and HRDI varied widely. The subcoLtracts were

handled by the National VEP office. In some cases the local NAB and HRDI

representatives were only peripherally involved. This lack of involvement

was exacerbated by the local representative's previously less than satisfactory relationships with the subcontractor and other summer priorities. While

"benign neglect" was often the role, there were a number of examples of very

close continuing cooperation between the NAB and HRDI representatives and the

local subcontractors. Sometimes the regular SPEDY program operators were

drawn into this cooperative arrangement and contributed time and funds. In

these cases, SPEDY often funded a portion of the VEP program effort, (e.g.,

paying for classroom skill training instructors).

One universal administrative issue was the relatively short time that

program operators had to submit proposals, await their contract, and implement

the program. Delays in processing proposals and finalizing contracts was

placed variously on the Department of Labor, national NAB/HRDI, local NAB

or HRDI and others. Regardless of the responsibility, efforts should be taken

- 202 - n
in the future to maximize the time between subcontract award and starting

date so that local operators have sufficient time to organize their program.

Staffing

Subcontracts included funds to hire program coordinators. Coordinators

were to perform all program functions including the recruitment of participating employers, curriculum design, counseling, and administrative duties (one

full time coordinator was recommended for every 20 to 30 enrollees).

Most program operators hired new personnel to serve as VEP coordinators.

In some instances, existing staff was transferred to the VEP program for the

summer. Generally, all program activities were the responsibility of the

coordinators. Most programs had between one and four coordinators.

The background of VEP coordinators varied considerably. Some agencies

shifted their regular staff to VEP, many %rograms used regular high school

teachers and counselors, while others used college students with an interest

and background in youth programs or hired recent college graduates. A number

of coordinators had worked with or been enrolled in the previous summer's

VEP.

While it is difficult to characterize a "good" coordinator based on the

limited nature of the field visits, it appeared that the vast majority were

sincerely interested in contributing to the enrollee's progress in the program. Caerally, any coordinator problems seem to result from lack of experience, and, in a few cases, poor judgment in hiring on the part of the

subcontractor.

The coordinators played the pivotal role in the VEP programs. Their

enthusiasm, imagination, and ability was directly responsible for the degree

of success that programs enjoyed. The only cases in which the coordinator's

- 203 - 2 A t)
role was less important were the few programs that relied heavily on a structured program of classroom training utilizing outside instruction. Even then

the coordinators were involved in recruiting and selecting enrollees, a range

of routine administratiire duties and the on-going troubleshooting assignments

necessary to resolve enrollee and program difficulties.

In the majority of cases the coordinator's 7-91e was more extensive and

involved a great deal of latitude in structuring and implementing the program.

This responsibility, coupled with the short lead time, often lead to difficulties iu phasing-in the program. For example, it was not uncommon for programs

to be looking for additional enrollees and/or worksites as the program began

operations. This made orientation a fragmented component and lead to some

poor choices of worksites. These problems were much lass acute in programs

which did not emphasize worksite placements. Programs which stressed classroom instruction simplified the coordinator's role because the responsibilities

and consequently, the pressures were singificantly less.

Administratively, the VEP coordinators usually reported to the director

of an agency, youth program director, or a similar position in larger organizations. The administrator's normal style sets the tone of this relationship --

whether control was close with a great deal of supervision or whether the VEP

coordinator would have a relatively free hand to conduct the program with a

minimum of direction. Programs with a more structured set of activities usually resulted from more planning by the subcontractors and implied closer control

of the coordinator in order to meet the program plan.

Worksite Development

Worksite development for the VEP program was difficult for many subcontractors to implement successfully. This activity requires ample lead time

- 204 -

2
and a comprehensive strategy, both of which were often lacking in VEP.

Several questions concerning worksites must be addressed in order for

this component to be satisfactorily implemented. First, how can worksites

be developed which permit "shadowing" and job rotation instead of merely offering work experience? Second, should worksites be developed before or

after the youth begin the program? Third, what kinds of positions, employers

and supervision provide the best opportunity for worksite observation?

Admittedly these questions are not easy to answer. However, formulating

answers on the role of worksites can lead to improvement in the operation of

VEP. Since work experiencl/tn the private for-profit sector is prohibited by

the federal regulations governing CETA programs, the development of worksites

conforming to the regulations is crucial. Programs which were successful in

this area resisted the easy way out -- tbat of saying, "We (the program) can

give you a youth to work this summer." Instead, the programs presented the

VEP goals and objectives and stressed the necessity of meeting the regulations

concerning work experience (no matter how one feels about them). This approach was no doubt more difficult to use, resulting in more refusals, but

employers who agreed to participate understood fully what was expected of

them. Participating employers appeared to be most impressed by the availability of the VEP coordinators to handle problems and the lack of "red tape"

in the VEP program.

The question of when to develop the worksite is also difficult to answer.

If worksites are developed before the enrollees begin the program, youth often

feel that their career interests will not be considered. However, waiting until

the enrollees have started creates time pressures and assumes that interests

can be determined early in the program. In addition, potential enrollees

- 205 -
always want to know what types of jobs or worksites they will be observing.

In most programs a combination of the two choices was forced on the coordinators because they did not have sufficient sites when the program began.

Therefore, they continued their efforts after the youth were enrolled. In

some instances, the programs did attempt to ascertain enrollee interests so

that worksites could be developed or matched from an existing pool of sites

to coincide with enrollee interests.

The qualities of the "best" worksite remain open to question. From its

field visits, CUP can cite a number of factors or combinations of factors

that lead to quality worksites. The main differentiating element is the

worksite supervisor's interest in the program and the youth. Although this

might seem obvious, it is sometimes difficult to operationalize in selecting

worksites. All too often the programs are in a rush for worksites and will

take all comers, or more precisely, will sign up anyone who agrees to participate. Due to the need for close and sympathetic supervision, especially

for youth in the three special emphasis groups, most enrollees were at smaller employers where the owner provided the worksite supervision.

These positions were generally developed through personal contacts made

by the coordinators. Although the VEP coordinators usually developed the

worksites, they often made use of the entry provided by the affilitation of

VEP with NAB and ERDI. The strength of the entry depended a great deal on

local conditions and the nature of the subcontractor. For example, a Chamber

of Commerce did not particularly need the NAB or HRDI affiliation in order

to gain access to potential participating employers.

Enrollee Recruitment and Selection

VEP enrollees were to be youth between the ages of 16 to 21 who were

- 206 -
CETA certified as economically disadvantaged. NAB/HRDI materials expressed

a preference for youth who were entering their junior or senior year in high

school or had dropped out of school. In 1978, three special emphasis groups

were added to those which could be served through VEP. These were handicapped

youth, youthful offenders, and youth in programs emphasizing non-traditional

roles.

Programs used a number of different methods to recruit youth. Recruiting through the school system and the local prime sponsor's SPEDY program

were used in many areas. Community youth centers and alternative schools

were also used to recruit youth. In several cities VEP ran newspaper advertisements and displayed posters, and in some were featured in local radio

and television news reports.

These efforts usually produced more than enough potential VEP enrollees

from which to select the program participants. There were some cases where

recruitment was a problem due largely to the competition from other programs

(many with assured funding which came earlier than VEP) in the area and some

instances where regular jobs were available at higher hourly rates than the

$2.65 per hour paid by VEP. It should be noted that the tax free $2.65 hour

paid as an allowance under VEP is equal to a higher hourly wage if the taxes

on the latter are considered.

In the program with an adequate number of potential enrollees, the selection process for the regular enrollees, as opposed to the special emphasis

groups, generally involved a personal interview with the coordinator. The

coordinator would determine the youth's suitability for VEP based largely on

the subjective impressions gained from the interview. These impressions included the interviewer's judgment concerning the potential enrollee's "interest"

- 207 -
in the program. A few programs utilized more formal (and perhaps more objective) methods to assess the interest and sometimes the skills of potential

enrollees. Programs employing such techniques tended to be those which

placed a major emphasis on classroom skill training and instruction. These

programs felt justified in screening participants based on measures of interest and aptitude to ensure that the enrollees would benefit from the

planned instruction.

In some cities VEP had to obtain enrollees from the pool of SPED! eligible youth in order to meet the requirement that the youth be CETA certified

as economically disadvantaged. In these cases VEP often had no choice in

determining which youth were referred to the program, since the prime sponsor

would only agree to refer youth on a random basis. VEP programs faced with

this situation usually interviewed and then accepted most of the referrals,

but may have done so in order to ensure attaining their planned number of

enrollees. In a few cases, programs were unable to obtain the desired number

of referrals from the summer program. This appeared to result in cases where

the summer program needed the eligible youth to meet their enrollment goals.

Enrollee recruitment and select/Ain . r the special emphasis groups was

handled differently. Programs which opted for filling their planned number

of special emphasis group enrollees through regular channels usually fell below their goals. On the other hand, programs which made special contacts with

agencies and schools which would have knowledge of youthful offenders and handicapped youth had little difficulty obtaining enrollees. Youthful offenders

were usually located by seeking referrals from juvenile courts, probation

and parole officers, and special programs designed to serve status or other

youthful offenders. Handicapped youth were usually recruited at special

- 208 -

2; I)
schools for the handicapped or from existing school programs.

Recruitment for programs which emphasized non-traditional roles was generally easier than for handicapped or youth offenders. Almost all of the

non-traditional programs were designed to place females in non-traditional

occupations. In recruitment and selection, coordinators usually used the

pre-enrollment interview to determine whether or not a woman was interested

in exploring a non-traditional occupation. In the event she was she was

merely enrolled in the non-traditional program or segment of the program.

Orientation Program

In addition to providing vocational or career exploration, VEP programs

were to include instruction on the techniques and skills required to find,

obtain, and maintain a job; the relationship between education and employment;

the principles and practices of business and the free enterprise system; and

labor-management issues and practices, labor history, and the collective

bargaining system.

VEP programs conducted orientation sessions which served as an introduction to the program and met, at least partially, the above objectives. These

sessions usually were conducted in a classroom setting over a one to five day

period. A variety of techniques were used to provide instruction in these

areas.The most frequently used techniques were outside speakers either alone

or in panel discussions, presentations by the VEP coordinators, role playing

and skits, and field trips to local businesses and agencies. Outside speakers usually made presentations on business and industry, company personnel

policies, and labor organizations and the role of collective bargaining.

- 209 -
Films, film strips, tape cast. .:1 r- riuted brochirls

and pamphlets were used durte,o; 11:1*1 VEP coordinators uhderto. s in 4.:!- c.rientation programs.

In addition to arranging and .:utst speakers, field trips

and materials, the coordinators usually i.londucted those portions of the orientation concerning job applications and resumes, job interview techniques,

and essential world of work attitudes.

After initiating the program with the orientation sessions, many programs

continued to provide this type of information to enrollees at regular intervals in the program. For example, the coordinator in one program met with

enrollees as a group once a week to air concerns and provide additional opportunity for sharing experiences. In another program, the enrollees met

for additional presentations at the mid-point of the program, while others

had wrap-up sessions during the last few days of the program. Only a few

programs presented a perfunctory orientation.

As discussed in the following section, the type of overall program that

was executed played a role in the stress placed upon the topics during the

orientation sessions. For example, programs with an emphasis on classroom

instruction during the entire program considered the orientation sessions

to be the introduction to the total program as opposed to a separate and

distinct segment.

Program Content

The major thrust of VEP was to provide youth with an opportunity to explore various careers which were available with the subcontractor or the participating employers to which youth were assigned. Additionally, youth were

- 210 - 2
to receive information on the mental, physical, and educational requirements

of these careers.

In order to provide exploration for youth, programs could use activities

which included classroom instruction, simulated production activity, on-site

experience, worker shadowing, field visits and production by youth from their

own projects. However, programs were prohibited from engaging VEP enrollees

"in roles which augment employer profits or services." Enrollees could not

displace existing employees or prevent new hiring. Programs had to observe

existing collective bargaining agreements, healt1L and safety regulations, and

federal, state or local labor laws.

Subcontractors designed their programs to meet the exploration objective

by emphasizing one of the following program types:

1. Classroom instruction with some work observation.

2. Classroom instruction combined with a worksite placement.

3. Only worksite placement.

The programs with a classroom instruction emphasis were almost always

designed to provide vocational or skill training in several occupations.

The occupations explored were usually in the construction or building trades,

although others such as aviation and film making were explored by some programs. Field trips to worksites on a weekly basis were used to supplement

the classroom training. Enrollees typically rotated through five to ten occupational explorations during the summer. The actual training was provided

by existing vocational training programs in some cases, while instructors

were hired for the summer in others.

In one program, the focus of the classroom sessions was not on training,

but was a continuing intensive exploration of successive businesses which

- 211 -
were then observed in field trips. The field trips were followed by a debriefing session in which the enrollees discussed whx they had seen and

wrote up reports on the experience. This program was operated over a four

week period and required a great deal of the coordinator's time to maintain

the enrollee's interest.

The classroom emphasis programs had the least difficulty in ensuring

that enrollees were not engaged in any work orperience which contributed to

an employer's profits. Enrollees were clearly an observational field trips

which added a "real world" dimension to their clast,_)om training. Classroom programs did encounter some resistance hod enrollees who perceived

them as being "just like school."

The second broad program type used classroom instruction in conjunction

with placement at a worksite to enable youth to explore a career. The classroom training provided in these programs focused on improving the enrollees'

knowledge of world of work with particular emphasis on job finding skills,

necessary attitudes for keeping a job and materials concerning making occupational or vocational choices. The amount of classroom time each week varied

from one-half day each day to one-half day each week.

The enrollee spent the remaining time each week at a worksite placement.

In this setting the enrollees used worker shadowing to observe the duties

and responsibilities of a regular em ogee. In many cases, the enrollee also

received on-site experience, under supervision, in learning how to do certain

activities. For example, enrollees in various businesses learned the operation of the cash register, telephone switchboard, duplication equipment, calculators, and other business machines. Few projects were visited which used

either simulated production activity or production by enrollees in their own

projects.

- 212 -
The quality of the on -site experience varied considerably. In most programs, the VEP coordinator worked closely with the participating employers to

ensure that the enrollee's worksite placement would contribute to a better

understanding of the various careers offered at that site. Taking into account the relatively brief period that enrollees were at the worksite in these

programs (usually approximately 20 days) and the amount of supervisory time

devoted to orientation to the company and instruction, it is doubtful that

the enrollees enhanced the participating employer's profits. Employers

felt quite the contrary and made it clear in discussions, that the VEP enrollees generally meant supervisory time taken away from other activities.

Bovever, employers were willing to participate for several reasons: out of

a sense of public spirit, in order to give youth a chance, and in some cases

as a means to recruit part-time help.

The third type of program involved placing the enrollee at a worksite

after the initial VEP orientation. These programs can be differentiated from

the classroom programs which had worksite placements by the lack of any continuing classroom involvement after the program orientation. In most of the

programs emphasizing a worksite placement, the only additional planned activities were several field trips-and a wrap-up session at the end of the

program.

In analyzing the impact of the programs which related heavily on a worksite placement, it is useful to consider two alternative approaches used in

these programs. First, some programs plated enrollees on worksites after obtaining a clear understanding that the youth would not be involved in work

experience but would be learning about the business and available careers.

Since this procedure did not take the entire eight weeks, these programs

- 213 -
formalized job rotation so that enrollees would be at a particular work station for no more than ten days. The work experience obtained in these brief

assignments served to give the enrollee a fuller appreciation of the job as

done in the real world. Enrollees seemed pleased with the opportunity to

do something instead of just hearing about careers.

Second, (and more difficult to justify) some VEP programs made exclusive

use of worksite placements and provided nothing additional after the initial

program orientation. VEP coordinators in these programs made weekly or biweekly visits to worksites to do housekeeping functions such as picking up

time sheets and delivering paychecks. In some cases, these visits were used

briefly as a counseling contact with the enrollee. Most of the programs

that evolved in this manner did so as a result of the time pressure to obtain enough participating employers and as a result did not feel they could

make demands on the employers.

Another reason that programs operated with only worksite placement was

the operator's or coordinator's desire to structure the program to meet their

ideas of what a program should be or what they interpreted to be the desires

of enrollees. In these cases, coordinators often lacked the time, resources

or imagination to structure a comprehensive program of vocational exploration.

As a result they simply met the expressed desire of most enrollees to "do

something." Coordinators rationalized their decision based on perceived

employer resistance and the belief that enrollees can't really "shadow" for

very long. The latter idea is no doUbt correct, but calls for a careful

program plan rather than following the line of least resistance. In spite

of their failure to meet all the regulations, these programs appeared to

be well received by most enrollees and subject to relatively little actual

- 214 - 2,,,
abuse by participating employers. In any case, future program efforts can

mitigate against this problem by carefully structuring the program in advance.With few exceptions, the special emphasis group enrollees participated

in the same programs as did the regular enrollees. In most cases, no special

program components were provided. The handicapped and offender groups required more of the coordinator's time than did the other enrollees. The

programs for non-traditional role were also similar except for the addition

of a section on women's role during the orientation sessions.

Worksites

Some of the alternatives for obtaining worksites and their role in the

program have been discussed in the preceding sections. However, it is important to note the size of participating employers, types of positions that

were obtained, supervision the youth received and the operation of the worksite placement.

Most enrollees who were placed at worksites were with smaller employers,

although there were many exceptions to this observation. The larger employers

were more difficult to recruit, but where NAB and HRDI promoted VEP and sought

to gain access they were able to place enrollees in larger firms.

In both large and small firms, enrollees received an extremely wide

variety of career exposure. Most VEP enrollees were involved in clerical

or sales positions, or in positions developed or matched to their career interests. Clerical and sales positions may seem =amine unless one bears in

mind that many of the enrollees had either never worked or had only held

clean-up or recreational jobs in regular summer programs.

- 215 -
There were also a number of quality placements. Generally, these wei

obtained or matched according to the career interests expressed by enroll(

during the orientation phase of the program. Since a number of the enrol]

were planning on going to college, they were able to learn more about thel

career plans as a result of VEP.

The supervision that the enrollees received at the worksites was uew

adequate. The owner of smaller businesses was often the worksite supervil

In larger firma, supervisors were usually selected for their interest in

working with youth and youth programs.

Where rotation of worksites was initially planned, it was relatively

easy to implement. Such rotation was often done at a single employer bec:

of the ease of implementation. In other cases, especially where youth lit

she worksite, enrollees were reluctant to change sites even in the name of

exploration. In programs with little or no worksite rotation, coordinator

justified this decision because it increased the enrollee's chances of be:

retained in employment on a part- or full-time basis. Several local prow

operators thought VEP was successful because many of the youth would be el

ployed at the worksite after the program ended.
V. IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ON THE VEP PROGRAM

This section contains case studies of five cities where the 1978 Summer

Vocational Exploration Program was implemented. Political, social, geographic,

and economic factors are analyzed for their impact on program operations.

The five cities include:

Allentown, Pennsylvania

AtlAuta, Georgia

Providence, Rhode Island

San Francisco, California

Tacoma, Washington

Information for this section of the report was compiled thropgh document

search and interviews by CUP staff. Interviews were held with representatives

of school systems, prime sponsors, members of Youth Councils, and NAB/HRDI members. Documents such as Annual Plans, Prime Sponsor Agreements, and LEA Agreements were used to supplement the interviews.
ALLENTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

Introduction

The VEP Contractors in the Allentown/Bethlehem area, the Lehigh -Northhamp -

ton County Labor Council, AFL/CIO and Carbon Training C and R, Inc. worked

in conjunction with HRDI, NAB, Lehigh Valley Manpower Program (LVMP), Schuylkill

Carbon Agency for Manpower (SCAM), Carbon Training Center, Carbon County Vo

Tech, Bethlehem Area Vocational Technical School, Eastern Northampton County

Vo Tech and Lehigh County Vo Tech to implement the program.

The area served through VEP encompassed three counties, two prime sponsor

jurisdictions and numerous school districts. Although the area is considered

to be rural, several medium sized cities are included in the jurisdiction.

In addition, there are over 20 separate school districts included in the area,

and a large metropolitan area (Philadelphia) is less than two hours away.

;Ives of Programs

The vast majority of employment and tvlining programs for youth are operat

either through the prime sponsors or the school systems. Only two others were

mentioned during staff interviews. One was a Rent-a-Kid project of Easton

Neighborhood Center which primarily provides a link-up of youth with individual

who need odd jobs done. The other was the Lehigh Valley Apprenticeship Program

operated in cooperation with the Bethlehem Chamber of Commerce. Neither of

these provided competition for VEP.

Since the VEP project in Carbon County is targeted for handicapped youth

it would be unfair to not mention that there are a number of service* available

for handicapped persons. However, social services, rehabilitation or basic

living skills are their major activities.

- 218 -
The Lehigh Valley Manpower Program serves youth through SPEDY (800 slots),

YCCIP (30 slots), YETP (approximately 565 slots), and some Title I (70 slots

specifically for youth). The SPEDY activity plimarily work experience.

Approximately 45 of these, primiarily high sr.%ool graduates and drop outs receive one or two hours per week of career counseling. Also, approximately

60 junior high school youth participate in the Career Exposure Program which

includes hands-on laboratory exposures to several occupations (e.g., welding,

food service, electrical trades, cabinet making and cosmotology).

Project of Easton operates YCCIP for the prime sponsor. The 30 slots

provide work experience for out-of-school youth and the youth perform a twofold community service. First, youth winterize the homes of the low-income

elderly residents. Second, the youth clear public lands and then give the

resultant wood supplies to the low-income elderly.

Through YETP funding 350 in-school youth are served by two programs. The

Lehigh County Area Vocational Technical School provides 10 hours per week of

intensive career counseling, assessment, employability skills development, and

field trips for 75 youth. In addition, youth are placed in work experience

slots which relate to their career goals. In some cases, primarily for graduating seniors, OJT and placement services are provided at program completion.

Approximately 250 youth are provided with transition services through Northampton County Area Community College. These services are targeted for high school

seniors who have not made a career choice and who are potential dropouts.

Through the Eastern Northampton Area Vocational Technical School's Business

Education Placement Program, 25 in-school youth are placed at selected cooperative education worksites for 15 hours per week during the school year and 30

hours per week during the summr: months.

- 219 - 2 1
The prime sponsor (LVMP) provides 200 work experience slots through YETP.

These slots include the following occupational areas: service, clerical, health

care, day care, data processing, building maintenance, and automotive repair.

Some youth who participate in work experience also receive job sampling in eight

occupational areas.

LVMP also offers classroom training under YETP in: distributive education,

automotive technology, prevocational education, and prescription training. Prevocational education assists youth in basic education skills and GED preparation.

Prescription training meets the more individualized needs of youth. Finally,

literary and bilingual training is available for 15 out-of-school youth through

a subcontract with the Hispanic American Organization servicing primarily Spanish

speaking youth. There are also two career awareness programs to serve eighth

and ninth grade students. These two projects involve a day long tour of the

participating vocational technical schools including selected stops and a tour

of an area business or industry. Bethlehem Area Vo Tech serves 600 students

and Eastern Northampton Area Vo Tech serves 400 students.

Through Title I funding LVMP provides: 1) a career awareness program for

25 high school dropouts, 2) a part-time work experience program for 110 in-school

youth, 3) a nine week work experience program which serves 45 handicapped

youth, and 4) other standard Title I programs such as OJT and classroom training.

The school districts are numerous in the LVMP's jurisdiction. However,

they do form a cooperative linkage through the various vocational/technical

schools. These vo techs provide what seems to be the second major source of

employment and training related services for youth in the area. In addition

to these programs listed above (funded through LEA agreements), these vo techs

provide a standard mix of classroom training and training related work assistance.

- 220 - 2 : )

ti
They also provide the Diversified Occupation Program to assist juniors and

seniors in obtaining training and experience in careers not available in the

vocational shops.

In Carbon County information was obtained from the Schuylkill Carbon

Agency for Manpower (SCAM). SCAM provides services to youth through YETP

(16 slots), YCCIP (14 slots), SPEDY (200 slots) and some Title I. Due to

the small numbers, programming is limited primarily to work experience activities coupled with GED preparation. Also the majority of youth s.ried

are out-of-school. The Carbon County Vo Tech seems to have a very similar

set up to those vo techs in the LVMP jurisdiction. Since the Carbon County

VEP was targeted to serve only handicapped youth it is important to note that

the Intermediate Unit (special education) has specific linkages to the vo

tech to provide handicapped youth with vo tech services.

Relationships and Cooperation

Generally, there appeared to be cooperative efforts on the part of all

actors involved. The Lehigh Valley Manpower ProxT. -)oper.ted with the

local NAB-HRDI sponsored summer VEP for youth. LVMP to fund two summer

administration positions, donate office space aumml personnel, certify

eligibility of applicants, provide supportive iervices e i perform payroll

functions. NAB-HRDI personnel conducted day-toifty (7aations of the programs.

Both business and labor cooperate with your. programs in general. and

specifically on VEP. NAB as a major business force also assists in lob development efforts Ind veterans outreach. PRDI along with other union onenizntions are severely hampered in their effort& to help youth due oxt the high

number of unemployed within their ranks. However, they have been able to provide labor education.

- 221 -
Cooperation with the schools appear to be positive overall. The LVMP

has a number of subcontracts with the area vo tech schools to perform training

services. There are some bureaucratic problems particularly with the community colleges.

A major academic credit problem stems frcs the fact that there are 36

separate school systems in the three county rArea with no overriding board.

It is difficult to get academic credit in Pennsylvania due to the inflexible

rules and regulations of the Pennsylvania acilool system. Concurrence must

first come on the state level and trickle (13qn each of the 36 districts. Instead of academic credit, the GED completion is an important aspect of the

program.

Cooperation with CBOs has been stt-orte also. Tiny use local groups as outreach and recruitment sites and others simorp37/ for rrl..ferral. This helps to

promote feelings of good will and allow er, crqn._ity to be involved with the

programs.

Political

The political climate is favoralile youth programs. There is little

political pressure from any of the lo-.A1 politicians. However, some middle

class backlash has been felt in the area. The attitude is that it is fine to

run these types of programs as long as DOL continues as the funding source.

There is some indication that perhaps theist:: programs would not run if the

city had to run them themselves.

YPC

In the Lehigh Valley Region, the YPC is an expansion of the earlier

Youth Subcommittee of the Manpower Area Planning Council. It includes representatives from business, labor, schools, Qammunitpeople, youth, etc.

- 222 0.
Responsibilities of the YPC are to advise and recommend procedures for implementation, solicitation and recommendations of projects for funding.

Youth Council

In the Carbon County region, the youth council is a component of the prime

sponsor's advisory council. The youth council's primary responsibilities include: 1) assist in progra :, arid operaticinal planning of all youth-related

projects, 2) monitor and evaluate youth programs, and 3) review and rate

youth project proposals for purposes of recommendation to the entire advisory

council of funding recommendations. In addition, members are expected to

assist in monitoring in order for the prime to conform to mandated federal

regulations.

All recommendations are reviewed by the prime sponsor's administrative

staff, who notify the youth council of prime sponsor decisions affecting any

aspect of youth programs. This review process acts as an assurance that the

youth council prioritize projects in conformance with federal parameters.

A youth representative has similar membership, responsibility and voting

responsibilities as other members. To assure input from the youth, each

youth program participant (drawn from each of the various youth components)

is invited to attend the subcommittee meetings for their input.

Demographics

Data available indicates that between 1960 and 1970, the Lehigh Valley

SMSA grew by nine percent. In 1970 the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton (A -B -E)

area had a population of 594,124 persons with 1979's projected population at

641,916 or an eight percent gain. However, while Lehigh and Northampton counties

experience growth, Carbon County experienced a slight decrease in population.

- 223 -
Between 1970 and 1979, the nonwhite population is forecast to increase

rat approximately six percent higher than the total growth rate (abouth 13.8%),

with nonwhite females higher than nonwhite males. With a total population

in July 1975 of 489,300, the civilian labor force in 1976 was estimated to

he 241,000 with 15,800 unemployed. Projections for 1978 show 246,400 employed

with 15,800 unemployed.

Unemployment rates for whites in this area is 6.33% and 11.70% for nonwhites. For white males, it is 5.4% versus 15.48% for nonwhite males. The

unemployment rate for all males is 5.5% versus 7.6% for females.

The projected youth population in the A-B-E area for January 1979 is

46,996 between 15-19 and 40,930 between 20-24. In school youth 16-19 is

estimated at 44,169 with out-of-school estimated at 1,098.

The number of youth ente /ing the civilian labor force indicates a slight

decline. However, the unemployment rate for youth continues to be much higher

than the overall unemployment rate of 7.0% in 1977 compared with 14.8% for youth.

Unemployment and Employment Trends

The employment picture in the A-B-E region has been brightening slowly.

Since 1975, total employment has advanced each year and is expected to continue.

Unemployment has slowly decreased since the recession of the mid 1970's. The

decrease would have been more dramatic had it not been for the simultaneous

expansion of the civilian labor force.

Projections for fiscal year 1979 indicate a gain in employment of about

2.5% as a result of the industrial diversification that exists locally. Unemployment is expected to continue a downward trend to a rate of 6.3% for

fiscal year 1979.

- 224 -
In the Carbon County area, the labor force is decreasing in -al s2.ze.

Carbon County showed a net employment loss of nearly 1,000 worker lug the

1962-1972 period.

Market Analysis for Youth

There are a number of barriers to youth gaining employment in this area.

Placing them in private unsubsidized employment is difficult because of such

laws as child safety, etc. that employers are bound by Coupled with the laws,

are the large numbers of unemployed persons in the work force which allows

the employers a large pool of experienced persons to employ. This problem is

intensified by the simultaneous entry of a large number of women to the work

force by taking many of the jobs originally available to youth. It is much

easier to place youth in this area when they are over 18. However, they still

face intense competition for the jobs available, due to the large number of

unemployed and additionally, some employer biases. Employers frequently feel

an older more experienced worker is more likely to stay on the job for a longer

period. All of these factors relate to the types of jobs youth find themselves

doing. These are jobs with frequent turnover, low skill, low pay and entry

positions with little chance for advancement. In turn, the nature of these

jobs perpetuates the syndrome of frequently switching jobs and not acquiring

a good'work history.

In addition to the problems youth face with employers' perceptions, the

large number of unemployed people and limited work experience, even if youth

are able to find a worthwhile job, the transportation system in the A-B-E is

completely inadequate. Bus service is limited to the center city areas of

this region and do not reach the outlying areas. For the most part, public

- 225 - 2::

1
transportation does not even service the majority of the vo tech schools in

the area. The prime sponsor has had to make private arrangements with their

counselors driving vans to provide transportation to youth participating in

their program.

There is no public transportation at all in the Carbon County Area so

other arrangements have to be made. In addition, the majority of youth in

that area cannot even find employment. There are very few places where youth

can work. There are, however, opportunities available in the large labor market outside the area. Thus, there is a high percentage of youth out-migration

from this region.

In summary, while there are jobs available, in general the bi-county area

has poor employment prospects for youth. This can be attributed to a number

of factors including: 1) a lack of substantial work history and the need for

exposure to short term work Situations; 2) absence of vocational maturity,

3) unrealistic expectations of actual conditions in the world of work; 4) inability to make choices in vocational training; 5) lack of suitable educational

facilities in the region; and 6) the high volume of unemployed adults competing

for the same jobs.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA

Introduction

Six VEP projects were run in Atlanta in the summer of 1978. These

programs included (1) Butler Street YMCA, (2) Equifax, Inc., (3) ANAIFCO, Inc.

(4) Communication Center of Greater Atlanta, (5) Printing Specialists, Local

527, and (6) Metropolitan Atlanta Boys Club, Inc. All six of these organizations served youth from the City of Atlanta which encompasses 137 miles

in Fulton and Decalb counties. The city is the center of a fifteen county

SMSA that is approximately 7.5 times the area of Atlanta.

Types of Programs

The provision of services to youth in Atlanta is quite varied. There

are a number of agencies which provide social services and recreational activities. Some of these also provide limited vocational counseling (e.g., Atlanta Auea Council Explorer Division). Others provide some employment and

training services in direct relation to their primary goal (e.g., Atlanta PreTrial Intervention Project). There are a number of nationally affiliated agencies such as OIC, Job Corp and Urban League with offices in Atlanta, which

have employment and training services. Finally, Atlanta, as the state capital,

is served by a number of state agencies (e.g., Georgia Department of Labor,

Atlanta Office) in addition to the Prime Sponsor.

The City of Atlanta Prime Sponsor provides employment and training services fur youth through YETP (1040 slots), YCCIP (76 slots), SPEDY (690 slots)

and some Title I. YETP services 240 in-school youth in work experience. Emphasis

is placed on servicing the potential drop out and providing some assessment,

work orientation and counseling in addition to ten hours per week ( twenty hours

during school vacations) of work experience for twenty-two weeks.

Approximately 400 out-of-school youth are served through Career Exptoration

- 227 - /
which provides nine months of work exposure, classroom orientation, vocational

counseling and referral services. An additional 300 out-of-school youth are

provided job placement services with special emAlasis on world of work knowledge and behavior. There is one week of intensive classroom orientation in

addition to some on-going counseling followed by placement efforts. Finally,

100 out-of-school youth are serviced through OJT slots developed specifically

for youth.

The City of Atlanta provides 76 slots for out-of-school youth through

five YCCIP sub-contracts, including: (1) Project MOVE, a cooperative project

including the American Postal Workers Union, VISTA, and Carpenters' Local 225.

This group provides eighteen slots for youth to work under the supervision of

journeymen carpenters in a home rehabilitation project. (2) The Southern Area

Youth Council has six youth in each of three Atlanta Housing Authority Projects

conducting a thorough clean-up campaign. (3) Interfaith Incorporated employs

six youth in developing and implementing physical improvements in three housing

projects. (4) The Latin American Association employs six youth with bi-lingual

capabilities in implementing physical improvements in one of Atlanta's Hispanic

population centers. (5) The Bureau of Cultural Affairs employs twenty-eight

youth in three projects involving work in the Botanical Gardens, production

pottery, and historical research.

The Summer Youth Program provided 3,320 work experience slots. Economic

Opportunity Atlanta, Inc. provided 2,480 of these slots. The Atlanta Board of

Education provided 790 slots which also included the Career Awareness Laboratory.

The Committee to Increase Minority Professionals in Engineering, Architecture

and Technology (CIMPZAT) provided fifty slots for prospective engineering students

Ii addition to the ANAIFCO (Atlanta Negro Airmen Intervetional Flying

Club) and CCGA (Communication Center of Greater Atlanta) programs, Atlanta had

- 228

6 I 1)
four innovative programs including: (1) Voice News Network providing 150 youth

with nine weeks of classroom and field work in various areas of print journalism;

(2) Atlanta University Center providing twenty-five slots in career exploration

in computer sciences; (3) Grassroots Organization Incorporated providing a

nine week program for twenty youth in career exploration and work experience;

and (4) Opportunities Industrialization Centers providing vocational exploration,

personal assessment and evaluation in addition to living skills, employability,

and job matching for 100 youth.

Finally, Title I provides substantial service to youth. Approximately

thirty-five percent of all Title I participants are youth. While it is somewhat difficult to single out those spacific programs where youth comprise a

significant number of participants, there are at least two. The Atlanta Urban

C,:rps provides 350 summer internships for college students who meet CETA eligibility. The Work Experience/Education Program (WEEP) provides vocationallyrelated part-time employment combined with remedial basic education. WEEP is

six months in duration and participants are paid wages for hours worked, but

not for the time in remedial education. In addition, youth participate in

classroom training and other standard Title I services.

Beyond the standard vocational/technical educationi,services such as

Distributive Education and Co-Op, the school system provides several innovative

programs. These include: (1) Class-size skill training for the Prime Sponsor

at the Metro Atlanta 'kills Center, (2) The Executive Internship in conjunction

with the Chamber of Commerce, which provides youth (mostly 15 and 16 year olds)

with experience in the private sector for high school credit, and (3) School

House Without Walls, an internship program for high school seniors.

Relationships and Cooperation

In general, there appears to be a major emphasis placed on developing

- 229 -.
linkages and pronoting communication among all segments of youth programming.

There are strand attempts being made to move from self-sufficiency and fragmentation of servicen to a coordinated and cooperative network. In addition,

through Economic Opportunity Atlanta, Incorporated, there are efforts directed

at maximizing contact in the surrounding community and gaining additional support and cooperation.

Atlanta experiences active participation and involvement by labor,

business (even to the extent of finding placement sites) and employment security.

With the movement back to the use of community organizations and schools as recruitment and referral sites, more cooperation can be expected in the future.

For the summer programa in 1978, Atlanta changed its recruitment and

referral mechanism. Originally, all recruitment and referral had been handled

by schools and community organizations. However, the prime sponsor wanted

the recruitment done by a central agency, namely ES, for the summer of 1978.

This presented several major problems. There was no procedure or mechanism

instituted by ES to define youth interests, goals, or needs. Thus, both employers and youth were displeased with the referrals. While the original plan was

for ES to do certification and recruitment only, they did do referrals. This

method essentially eliminated school and community involvement. It also negatively affected the mix of youth who applied for the program. A majority of cow

tractors expressed displeasure with referrals.

Since 1976, NAB and BRDI have operated the VEP program. In addition,

numerous unions sponsor apprenticeship programs which serve persons 18 to 27,

but focus on the under 21 age group by actively recruiting recent high school

graduates. The private sector has been ;evolved in youth programs through the

summer hiring programs coordinated by NAB.

Due to the cosibination of business and industry movement out of the
central city to the perimeter and a mass transportation system that does not

adequately service the area, the school system perceives business and industry

as not particularly concerned with the quality of education in the city. While

there is strong support for expanding economic development in the city, the

city school system is not viewed as a training ground for potential employees

in industry. There is no cohesive notion or plan linking economic development

and improvement in educational facilities to meet future needs.

Concerning academic credit, the Atlanta Board of Education does award

academic credit through its alternative programs or its vocational program.

Those who participate in the OJT programs may receive limited academic credit

toward a high school equivalency diploma requirement.

Political Factors

The City of Atlanta has a mayor-council form of government with a political climate favorable to youth programs. The mayor's office has consistently

given active support to youth programmatic efforts. While political interference is said to be minimal, the process whereby the awards are granted is

quite political and competitive. The selection process for contracts is set

by a city ordinance which appears to have a negative impact on potential bidders, i.e., too much red tape. Both the Employment and Training Advisory

Council (ETAC), appointed by the mayor and City Council review the recommendations they receive from the Youth Planning Council (YPC) on programs to be

funded. No program can be funded without prior approval from the council and

ETAC. However, it is rare that recommendations of the YPC are not accepted.

In its advisory role, YPC is responsible for (1) review of the current

labor market and employer needs, (2) prioritize these needs in view of the

current situation, (3) call for proposals, (4) review and evaluate all proposals on youth programs, (5) make recommendations to the City Council and
ETAC, and finally (6) monitor and review the results of current programs

for future planning.

Criteria used to judge which programs will be recommended for funding

include: (1) programs that are innovative, yet not too extreme and expensive,

(2) those programs that are essential in teaching skills and appropriate attitudes in the world of work, (3) past performance of the agency, (4) capability

and staff expertise, (6) facilities where the program would operate, and (7)

quality of the board of directors of the agency.

Although the YPC does contain youth representation (six of twenty-five

seats), youth input and influence is minimal. Youth membership has experienced

a high degree of.turnover. In addition, youth rarely speak and appear to be

quite intimidated. Finally, there appears to be a number of individuals on

the council with a vested interest in the proposals that are funded.

In addition to the numerous problems unemployed youth face, their situation is compounded by Atlanta's transportation system. While boasting one

of the country's finest transportation systems, it unfortunately is affected

by the political forces in the metropolitan area:. The system does not service

those counties who do not pavticipate in the tax structure (to receive bus

service, counties must vote to pal a tax for the service). Therefore, in many

instances, transportation does not service those areas that need it most. In

addition, the majority of businesses are locating outside of the city, further

compounding the problem.

Demographics,

Data available from the Georgia DOL indicate the 1970 population of the

city was 495,144 and by 1979 it is expected to decrease by twenty-one percent

to 391,130. Of the 1979 estimate, 154,861 will be white and 236,269 nonwhite.

Nonwhites will decrease about twenty percent from the 1970 figure.

- 232 -
Between 1970 and 1975, Atlanta experienced a net population loss of 3,974

due in large part to "white flight" from the central city. According to the

1975 Housing Annual Report, a larger percentage of whites left the central city

for other parts of the metropolitan area than blacks. Conversely, a larger

percentage of blacks moved into the central city from elsewhere than whites.

This migration within the SMSA accounted tar a net loss of 48,846 whites and

a net gain of 1,541 blacks.

Statistics for out-of-school youth are not readily available. According to the 1970 census, 58.06 percent of youth (14-21) in the civilian labor

force were not in school, half again as large as the number of in-school youth.

The annual drop out rate is estimated at 4.9 percent. The total number of

drop outs, age 14-18, is 1,391; while over the age of 18, the number of drop

outs is 76.

The unemployment rate is projected to risefrom 7.7 percent to 9.7 percent in 1979. The projection is based nn an eight year trend, coupled with the

forecast for a national economic dovnturn. Whites are estimated to have a

seven percent unemployment rate as opposed to 11.8 percent among nonwhites.

For females, the unemployment level is estimated at 12,801 (57 percent of the

total unemployed) with an unemployment rate of 10.7 percent. According to the

1970 civilian labor force data, 39.14 percent of the 202,604 youth aged 14-21

were in the civilian labor force. Of those youth not employed, 56.28 percent

were not enrolled in school.

The July 1977 employment statistics indicate that Atlanta is above the

national average with an unemployment rate of 8.1 percent for the total population, and 6.9 percent for males only. Black unemployment was at ten percent.

According to the Burer.0 of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for nonwhites

in Atlanta for both sexes, aged 16-19, for the past three years has been 22.5

- 233 - 2 0
percent in 1974; 41.7 percent in 1975; and 39.2 percent in 1976.

Little information was available on youth and the types of employment

they seek in the Atlanta area. However, indications are that youth gravitate

to low skill, low wage, high turnover positions. It is difficult for youth

to find entry level positions that have a possibility for advancement. Therefore, those occupation groups which employ large numbers of youth tend to have

higher replacement needs.
PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND

Introuuction

The VEP operator for Providence, the National Alliance of Business, concentrated its efforts in the City of Providence but did extend VEP services

throughout the state. Since Rhode Bland is only 1,058 square miles divided

into five counties and two prime sponsors, this environmental report covers the

State of Rhode Island.

Types of Programs

Programs, specifically for youth employment or training, are operated

either by the prime sponsors (including their subcontractors) or the school

systems. While there are a number of organizations which provide social

semlces and recreational activities, employment and training activities are

primarily CETA funded.

The City of Providence prime sponsor served yout.. through five YETP projects (291 slots), one YCCIP project (20 slots), SPEDY (1,350 slots), a Title

I Classroom Training Program (60 slots) anc Titlt; I Work Experience Program

(200 slots).

The largest of the YETP projects (180 slots: provides classroom training

and work experience for in-school youth and i operJted by the Providence

School Department under an LEA agreement. Thi& project also provides for a

comprehensive assessment of youth prior to assiome.s.t ro one of three types

of slots. The first slot, Career Employment Experience (YETP), provide.: for

skill training, work experience and career and vocational courseling. It is

primarily concerned with eligible youth who appear to L_ potential dco,cuts.

In the second type, classroom training component, youth closest to graduation

235
are provided with training and job sampling in preparation for placement into

the labor market. Finally, the work experience component provides slots for

youth who may or may not be participating in the regular vocational program.

There are four YETP projects for out-of-school youth: 1) Project Persona

(25 slots) for non-English speaking youth which provides 50 weeks of remedial

education, career guidance, vocational exploration and cultural orientation;

2) Youth Jobs Program operated by Providence OCI provides 48 slots for 43 weeks

of assessment, pre-employment classroom training, work experience, job development and placement services; 3) Josilin provides 23 slots for 20 weeks of

orientation, job sampling, field trips, job counseling, individualized remedial

education, and placement services; and 4) Providence Family Learning Center,

Inc. provides 15 slots for 40 weeks to female heads of family who are high

school dropouts offering individualized instruction in the participants' home

for GED success, family life and parenting skills, and job related counseling

and skill development.

The YCCIP project, Citizen Service Program, is for high school dropouts.

This program provides 20 slots for 45 weeks to perform community beautification

and winterization projects.

SPEDY activities are divided into four categories: 1) Skills training --

a combination of training and practical experience for eight weeks. One hundred and eighty slots are divided among vario'is occupations including wood

working, office procedures, commercial art, printing, animal/plant husbandry,

health care, and building maintenance. There is an emphasis on having at

least one group of 15 handicapped youth. 2) Stills sampling -- Youth spend

two weeks in each of four skill areas of their choice. The areas are the

same as in skills training with the exception of health care. 3) Work

236

2'.
experience -- the bulk of SPEDY participants are in standard work experience.

4) Special projects -- approximately 100 youth are involved in eight special

projects: remediation and vocational training for the deaf, a touring theatre

project, a theatre arts program, model job sampling, beautification project,

a newspaper, restoration of City Hall and stptrvision of the Mayol's Neighborhood Basketball League. In addition, SPED\ also offers labor market orientation for all participants.

Finally, the Providence prime sponsor also has a non-financial agreement

with opportunities for women to provide seminars for graduating female seniors

on non-traditional opportunities.

The Balance of State prime sponsor provides the following services to

youth: YETP (600 slots), YCCIP (100 slots), SPEDY (4,000 slots), and some

Title I activities. Since their Prime covers a considerably larger area,

there are more numerous subcontractors with a multitude of variations. In

general, the types of programs are similar to those of Providence. Two exceptions are: 1) BOS makes use of OJT for out-of-school youth; and 2) Classroom

training includes keypunch operators/data processing, food service, maintenance

machinist, auto mechanics, shipbuilding trades, maintenance welder, truck

driver, drafting, health occupations, carpenter helper, tool and die maker,

and cosmotology.

The school system, both on the state level and in the City of Providence

provides a combination of services related to employment and training. These

include: 1) many standard avenues such as Distributive Education, CO-OP, vocational and technical courses, 2) a demonstration project such as ExperiencedBased Career Education, and 3) those services provided through LEA agreements

such as Extended Day/Career Employment Experience.

- 237 -

2
Relationships and Cooperation

There appeared to be little involvement from the unions in terms of absorbing and placing youth on jobs. This is due to a number of reasons. Rhode

Island, while enjoying economic growth, is not expanding its industries in

any great numbers. While there are jobs available, it is mainly through job

replacement as opposed to job expansion. In addition, there are still a number of union employees that are not working. HRDI does not have an office

in Rhode Island. Therefore, NAB had full responsibility for the operation and

administration of VEP's. In addition, unions in general are not particularly

strong in Rhode Island. The exception being the construction union, from which

there is little involvement due to the lay offs.

Private sector involvement appears to be mixed. Employers cooperated

well with VEP. The employers participating seemed to be enthusiastic about

the program. For the most part these empl^yers provide good experiences to

promote some realistic work attitudes and skills among the youth. The youth

were also provided with some hands on training of various tasks. It was noted

by members of the public sector that they would like to see more of this kind

of involvement by the private sector. However, private sector employers appeared to be reluctant in hiring youth for a variety of reasons including their

perception of youth as high risk workers.

The school systems varied with respect to cooperation but much of the

issue was clouded by competition for available funding. This competition

was either with other school districts, as in the case of the Balance of State

prime sponsor, or with other agencies, as in the City of Providence. There

also seems to be some problem between prime sponsors and the school systems.

238 2,)1)
The school system suggests that prime sponsors do not provide enough planning

time and prime sponsors suggest that school systems show little regard for

deaalines.

Little cooperation was found on the academic credit issue in both the

BOS and the City of Providence. While the in-school youth receive 1/2 credit

for every 100 hours worked, out-of-school youth may receive credit only after

the program is completed and the youth returns to school. It therefore becomes

a reward for participation as opposed to an enticement to take part in the

program.

Political Factors

In Rhode Island there appears to be little actual political interference

in youth programs although there is good rhetoric about intervention. The

political make-up of the City of Providence consists of a Democratic city

council and a strong Republican Mayor. While these factions have some problems, those reported had no effect on the program. In addition the City of

Providence does not have a civil service system. While politics might put

enormous pressure on the prime sponsor because of the civil service absence,

the prime sponsor seems to have insulated the program from potential inter-

. ference with a detailed eligibility certification process.

The governmental units which comprise the Balance of State jurisidlction

also provides little problem. The state government has been instrumental in

promoting economic development in Rhode Island. Members of both YPC-BOS and

City of Providence tended to agree that once recommendations for funding were

made it was a rare occasion when they were not accepted.

Programs funded by the Youth Planning Council are judged on a number of

criteria. These criteria include: 1) funding for programs that are not

- 239 - 2,1,1
extremely innovative. These innovative programs are perceived to be more

expensive than the other programs. When funds are tight it is preferred to

fund more traditional programs. 2) Funding usually goes to programs sponsored by groups with an established track record. This helps to assure that

the programs will be run in a reasonable and reliable manner. 3) The YPC

tend to fund programs that teach some tangible skills and promote a strong

work attitude. These programs expect youth to perform as opposed to being

paid to do nothing. 4) Funding should be provided to those programs where

the community is tht. benefactor, e.g., programs in weatherization, rehabilitation of homes, etc. 5) Finally, the programs must allow the youth an experience as realistic as possible in the world of woz . The major problem that many YPC members noted was the need to get the

private sector more involved in these programs. It is through the private

sector that the youth would gain the most realistic attitudes and expectation

about the world of work.

In addition to the numerous other difficulties youth face in finding

employment, the lack of adequate transportation system compounds the problem.

While there appears to be enough job opportunities in the City of Providence,

there is little way of reaching them. Jobs that are located out of the Providence area are almost impossible to get to by public transportation.

Demographics

Rhode Island, with a total land area of 1,058 square miles, had a population of 949,723 in April 1970, making it one of the highest states in population

density, with 898 persons per square mile.

Population trends in Providence are comparable to other Eastern urban

centers. The city reached its population peak from 1930-1940 and has been

240

2
experiencing a decline in population over the past thirty years. Between

1960-1970, Providence experienced a net out-migration of 28,825 (13.6%) from

207,498 in 1960 to 170,213 in 1970. The Employment and Training Administration population projection for Providence for July 1, 1979 is 150,974, down

significantly from the 1970 figure.

By comparison, the BOS prime sponsor area increased by 118,520 or 18.2%

from 1960 to 1970. This growth indicates Rhode Island experienced substantial

growth in the suburban areas. Projected population estimates for July 1, 1979

is 770,515.

The entire state experienced growth during 1970-73 with a drop in population after 1973, reflecting the results of the Navy Base closing with an outmigration of military personnel and their families. While the city of Providence

did not suffer as great a loss of population as the rest of the state, the

city did experience some outmigration as a direct result.

Youth statistics for fiscal year 1978 has a projected population for 14-21

year olds for the state at 138,253. Of this, 88.9% or 122,881 reside in the

BOS jurisdiction. Non-whites comprise 4.4% of the state's youth population

and 2.5% of the BOS youth.

Unemployment rates for the State of Rhode Island and the BOS show youth

(16-21) rates of 11.2% and 10.9% respectively. Youth unemployment remains

consistently high due to a number of factors, including such forces as the

nature and types of jobs in which they are engaged and the high turnover nature

of jobs.

Family income information indicates there are an estimated 19,107 youth

(14-21) in families with income less than the poverty level in 1977. Approximately 15,773 ox these youth are in families having income less than 85% of the

poverty level.

241 -

2
The Bureau of Labor Statistics anticipates the state's labor force to

reach 432,320 during fiscal year 1978. Most notable increases will be through

participation by women.

Projected labor force participation rates for Providence 1978 indicate

42.8% (2,302) white males and 42.8% (2,297) white females will be active in

unsubsidized employment for ages 16-19. Nonwhitaa, on the other hand, had

participation rates of 5.2% for males (282) and 9.2% (494) for fe-;ales ages

16-19. These figures indicate the difficulty non-white youth have in gaining

employment opportunities.

According to information from DES and CETA records, the majority of

youth enter the labor force in the service, wholesale or retail trade, or

the manufacturing sectors. Providence labor force composition differs significantly than the rest of the state, in every employment category. Generally,

the city possesses a higher percentage of persons employed in the lower wage

paying industries. There seems to be a large number of low wage, low skilled

jobs.

In regard to the City of Providence's labor force it must be noted that

of the total labor force employed, less than 50% are residents of Providence.

There is a significant difference in the socio-economic make up of the City

of Provi.ence as compared with the Providence SMSA. Generally, there appears

to be a higher percentage of high-wage, high-skilled jobs located outside of

Providence. The population of the city is poorer and less educated than that

of the Providence SMSA. Indications are that a significant portion of higher

salaried employment is held by persons from outside the city.

Economic Conditions

The state has continued to enjoy a general strengthening of its economy

!I

1

242
reflected in both manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors. In 1977, 8.4%

more people were employed than the recession year of 1975 or 3.2% above the

pre-recession year of 1974.

The state's 1977 wage and salary employment total represented a gain of

12,000 or 3.3% from 1976. The manufacturing increase was led by jewelry.

Other manufacturers to gain included metals and machines, electrical machinery,

fabricated metals and primary metals.

In the non-manufacturing sector, gains wee primarily made in the trade

and service areas. Substantial increases also occurred in government, finance,

insurance and real estate, and construction. These facts hold true for both

the State of Rhode Island and also the City of Providence.

Recent Trends in Unemployment

The annual average number of unemployed in Rhode Island in 1977 was

38,C00, an increase of 3,000 or 8.6% over the 1976 totals. The state's labor

forte total of 440,000 was up 6,000 from the 1976 total. Although the state

experienced an increase in total employment, it was not enough to offset persons entering the labor force. This resulted in an increase in both unemployment and the rate of unemployment.

Unemployment in Providence city followed the same trends as the BOS.

The average unemployed in the area rose from 35,400 in 1976 to 38,200 in 1977,

a gain of 2,8O 7.0%. These unemployment figures are subject to change

due to a number of factors. In winter months the increased jobless is due

to severe weather. Seasonal spring hiring causes unemployment to decline in

March, April, and May. June increases are due to new and re-entrants to the

labor force, particularly students.

- 243=i
Industry and Occupational Trends

While the strengthening of the economy is expected to continue during

fiscal year 1979, many of the job openings that will be available will be

in lower pay, unskilled, poor advancement potential -- undesirable jobs.

£here is anticipated a limited need for professional and skilled occupations.

Those most in demand include registered nurses, computer programmers, machinists,

tool and die makers.

Unfortunately, the majority of job openings will be the result of workers

leaving the labor force (retirement, death, etc.) as opposed to job expansion.

It is also anticipated that new and re-entrants into the labor force will continue to experience difficulty in finding jobs due to continuing high unemployment rates. The new entrants (majority are youth and women) will have to

compete with those who have prior work experience. While long term employment

projects seems to suggest job availability contingent on replacement demand,

these projections could be modified if the state is successful in attracting

new industry through economic development efforts.

Most information seems to suggest that there is not a shortage of job

opportunities for youth. However, the majority of these jobs are in the

jewelry industry (which pays considerably less than comparable jobs). Also,

there are a number of jobs available in the machine trades.

2, A'

- 244 -
SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND

Introduction

Three separate visits were made to the San Francisco-Oakland area: two

during the summer to observe program operations and one in early December

to conduct interviews with individuals familiar with youth employment and

training programs in general and VEP in particular. On the first visit, interviews were held with the operators of the Oakland Summer VEP program just

as the program was beginning; on the second visit in late August interviews

were held with the program operator and members of his counseling staff to

elicit their views on the VEP summer experience. Also on this visit interviews were held with the program operator in San Francisco, some VEP enrollees,

and the HRDI representatives in San Francisco. (This program.had not been

funded at the time of the first visit). In December, twelve interviews were

conducted in the San Francisco-Oakland area. Included in these interviews were

local NAB and HRDI officials, program operators, representatives from the prime

sponsors, and representatives from both the San Francisco and the Oakland

school systems. While this report is based primarily on the informa-ion secured in the December round of interviews, data gathered on earlier s't:tts is

included where appropriate.

The Area

The San Francisco-Oakland Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area consists

of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties and

covers 2,480 square miles bordering San Francisco Bay. San Franciscocity and

county (the boundaries are coterminous) is the largest city with a population

of 654,400 (1977 estimate); Oakland, across San Francisco Bay, in Alameda

245 2
County is the second largest city with a population of 338,000 (1977 estimate).

Berkeley and Fremont are each approximately 100,000 in population, while Hayward and Concord are just under 100,000. All four are on the inland side of

the Bay. The estimated general growth rate of the area has been only 0.3%

per year since 1970. San Francisco has experienced a 8.6% decline since 1970

and Oakland a 6.5% decline. This decline continues trends begun in the 1950's

and is similar to patterns in many older "central cities" and across the nation.

The down trend has accelerated in the 1970's as the result of the lower birthrate and a sharp reduction of migration into California and the Bay Area.

The 1979 projected racial composition for the SMSA was 77% white and 12%

black. These figures, however, mask more than they reveal. San Francisco's

population is multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and polyglot in nature. For instance,

the San Francisco Unified School District's student population is roughly 20%

white, 20% black, and 60% Asian, Latin, and other ethnic groups. Since 1970

white enrollment has decreased by 56% while Korean enrollment has increased

by 130%. Overall city public school enrollment has declined by more than 30%

since 1979. In this period of overall decline, Filipino enrollment has increased

by 52.2% and now accounts for 9% of the district's students. Last fall a study

showed 4,500 immigrant students from 73 different countries, the majority of

these were from 14 different Asian countries, each with its own history and

culture. Even San Francisco's Latin population cannot be considered a single

entity; the Spanish-speaking students come from 19 different countries. The

problem is so large that the school system has established three newcomer centers; for Spanish-speaking, Chinese-speaking and Filipino students.

The unemployment rate for the SMSA averaged 7.5% during 1977, an improvement over the previous two years. While the Bay Area unemployment rate was

246
slightly higher than the national rate in 1977, it trailed nearly one percentage

point behind the California annual average unemployment rate of 8.2%. The San

Francisco unemployment rate is significantly above the rate for the Bay Area,

due to the city's concentration of job seekers with limited marketable skills

and/or little experience. These figures from the Annual Planning Information

document, however, do not indicate much about the problems of youth unemployment. Reliable sources place the youth unemployment rate at 75% in Oakland

and at 70% in San Francisco. The Annual Planning Information document places

the youth, 15-19 years old, unemployment rate at 16% for San Francisco and at

14% for the SMSA. Most of those interviewed by CUP staff felt these official

estimates were too low.

The Program

Two Vocational Exploration Programs (VEP) were conducted in the San Francisco-Oakland area during the Summer of 1978. One was operated by the United

Teachers of Oakland, AFT Local 177, AFL/CIO, the other by Shelter Institute of

San Francisco.

The Oakland Project enrolled approximately 125 youth and covered a two

county area. To cover an area this large five satellite centers (or subprograms) were used. One center enrolled only handicapped youth and another

enrolled youth offendera; the other three had no special emphasis program,

although each attempted to deal with non-traditional roles. Both ': .ocal

NAB and HRDI representatives were actively involved in setting up L. program

and in facilitating program operations.

Youth were recruited and certified eligible by the State's Employment

Development Department and the local prime sponsor; applications were filled

out in the local schools as well as at various outreach centers. Interviews

247
were held with applicants and those chosen were notified by mail. Orientation

was conducted in a group setting in Oakland; one day each week was devoted

to field trips and general vocational exploration. Orientation was conducted

over a three day period and had a heavy dose of union information. Essentially the program was conceived as providing a "shadowing" or "on-site"

vocational exploration exposure. Most youth were rotated among sites every

two weeks because many of the work sites were at smaller business enterprises, "shadowing" often became on-the-job training.

In appraising the program, counselors reported general satisfaction with

what had been achieved. Half of the youth offenders received jobs as a result of their VEP experience. Counselors felt that most youth had a greater

appreciation of what work is and a greater appreciation of the world of work.

Some employers felt that youth were Jtitially not "in tune" with the realities

and expectations of the work world, but felt that VEP helped these youth.

In achieving program goals, counselors felt that supervision at the site

was more important than size of employer, although the youth offender program

counselor felt that a small operation with "hands on" experience was best for

these youth. In the handicapped program most enrollees entered with very low

self-esteem (at least, as perceived by the counselor) and required a great

deal of individualized attention. However, most of the handicapped enrollees

were directed into some career training program.

The San Francisco VEP program differed significantly from that run in

Oakland. It was shorter (three weeks); it enrolled only 25 youth; and it

concentrated an employability skill development rather than "on-site" experience. Originally two programs were to be run from San Francisco but only

one actually operated. The program involved students from high schools throughc

- 248 - 2./0
San Francisco in an intensive three week program of work awareness, work exploration and work experience. Work awareness included completing applications,

mock job interviews, information on careers and clarification of individual

values; exploration involved field trips and guest speakers; work experience

came by participating in the management of the program.

Among the more innovative features of the program was enrollee participation in program management. Enrollees selected foremen who took attendance,

collected assignments and assisted in maintaining discipline. Enrollees

formed career contact teams to do research on various jobs and set up interviews with employees and employers in various job categories. In addition,

enrollees formed their own "union" which (among other things) established

a mechanism for student feedback concerning the program.

Enrollee reaction to VEP was quite positive. Many wanted a program which

covered the entire summer; some hoped for an in-school continuation. There

were, however,.some criticisms: some speakers were boring, some field trips

were boring, some businesses conducted "standard" tours rather than res'onding

to the needs of the enrollees in this type of program.

The program operator noted that many enrollees had a severe lack of ability

in reading comprehension and in writing. It was suggested that a program such

as VEP can offer what the schools apparently do not offer -- a strong incentive

for learning basic skills and a rationale concerning the importance of those

skills in the real world. However, the program operator argues that "unless"

there is some means of referral as follow-up, offering such incentive is worse

than useless -- it verges on cruelty."

The Competition

In the San Francisco Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (with its

249 2.)i
multiplicity of prime sponsors) there are the standard range of DOL programs

available for youth. YETP, YCCIP, SPEDY, Title I (classroom training), Title

I (work experience) and Title III slots are all available. Although not each

of the primes has all the programs nor are satisfied With the number of slots

allocated to them, it is true that most federal programs available can be

found in the area.

In the specific area of career or vocational exploration the Oakland

CETA office provides direct competition (but not necessarily wasteful duplication) for a vocational exploration type program, at least for in-school

youth. After eligibility determination and intake processing (done at local

public and private schools) and assessment (done by the Community College),

an individualized Employability Development Plan is drawn up and executed.

This 500 hour program provides career exploration, value clarification, private

sector exposure and work experience. Oakland also has established a community

career council to work with CETA eligible youth.

The Oakland School System offers seniors the opportunity to participate

in General Work Experience (300-400 hours paid by the employer); Exploratory

Work Experience (40 hours, non-paid) for younger students and vocational work

experience, in which a student must be enrolleed in a vocational education

class and must be supervised by a vocational education instructor. There are

40 different occupations currently available for vocational education students.

Commenting on the youth employment situation in Oakland, one school official noted that 60% of the city's entry level jobs were being filled with

people from outside Oakland. He felt that the most crucial years for career

education (vocational exploration) were grades 6, 7, 8. The potential drop

out must be reached before he drops out or they may not be able to be reached

until they are age 24 or 25, he noted.

250

2.
In San Francisco, prime sponsor recruitment of out-of-school youth is

handled by eleven community based organizations and by the school system.

Activity is heavily focused on the area of work experience. There is little

direct competition for a prcpram focused on vocational exploration.

The school system, largely due to Proposition 13, is in dire financial

straits. While it runs a few CETA programs for in-school youth, its involvement with vocational exploration is marginal. With the loss of reserve, programs are being cut quite drastically. Summer school was dropped; cultural

and fine arts programs were greatly reduced or eliminated. While specific

vocationally oriented high schools (e.g., Business and Commerce) do exist,

no meaningful vocational exploration program is available on anything approaching a district wide basis. One school official noted that no meaningful work 2xperience is offered to students. It was suggested that what the

school system needed was a career education center and a job development office. Another official agreed but noted that the number one priority for the

system was the development and implementation of state mandated minimum proficiency standards. It was also noted that the school system cennot (and should

not) be a substitute for CETA.

The school system seems quite willing to work with private sector to help

youth transition to the work world. Operation Bridge is a community based career

education project to provide resources for high schools. The proposed "Adopt

A School" project would involve business in helping to upgrade the public

schools throughsuch activities as the Loaned-Executive Program, the development

of Job Placement Centers, the development of Career Centers, and the establishment of various awards, c"holarships and prizes. Another proposal would

strengthen the career awareness component in the middle schools (junior high)

- 251 -

2 '1 )
Counseling Education Center and the Educational Asses - lent Center.

Summary

The San Francisco SMSA area encompasses five counties with numerous

political jurisdictions and covers almost 2,500 square miles. Within this

area there are many subregions of widely diverse chixacter. These range from

very densely populated cities and suburban "bedroom" communities, to sparsely

populated agricultural areas and woodlands. Most of the population and industry is located in the low lands around San Francisco and San Pablo Bays,

although substantial growth has begun in the interior areas of Alameda and

Contra Costa counties. On the other hand, the areas along the ocean in San

Mateo and Marin counties and the more rugged hils in Marin remain lightly populated.

The City of San Francisco functions as the administrative center for the

Bay area. It is the headquarters for many area financial, transportation,

manufacturing, and government establishments. As in other large cities, a

disparity exists between the types of skills required to run San Francisco's

diverse economy and the types of skills that its residents possess. As a

result workers commute daily to the city from surrounding counties. At the

same time, workers (esrecially youth) residing in the city who lack skills

and training are often frustrated in their search for work. A large number

of youth from racial and ethnic minorities without adequate preparation are concentrated in the core of the city.

Most forecasts indicate that total employment in the City of San Francisco will rise moderately over the next two years. The local economy's increasing

emphasis on the performance of services rather than the production of goods

should generate more jobs in the service and retail trade industries than in

Z,1 1 252
any other industry group. Employment opportunities should be available for

workers in a wide range of occupations, particularly professional, technical,

managerial, clerical, sales, and service.

Despite increasing employment levels, however, there is expected to be

a continuing surplus of applicants, particularly youth, in most fields of

work especially for entry-level positions. Competition will remain intense;

those unprepared will lose. Because of the low job-mix opportunity in the

city and of the racial and ethnic diversity of the population, vocational

exploration programs are needed (and would be welcomed) which would relate

youth needs with work opportunities.
TACOMA, WASHINGTON

Introduction

Tacoma is the central city in the Tacoma Standard Metropolitan Statistical

Area which includes all of Pierce County. Tacoma is adjacent to Puget Sound

la Western Washington approximately 45 miles from Seattle. The 1977 population

of the Tacoma metropolitan area was estimated at 422,700. The City of Tacoma

and Pierce County are both CETA prime sponsors. The discussion in this report

deals primarily with the City of Tacoma.

Types of Programs

There are relatively few programs available to youth during the summer.

Most of the work experience, vocational and career education programs of the

Tacoma Public schools are conducted during the school year. Programs operated

by Pierce County only overlap with Tacoma in the county areas near Tacoma.

The SPEDY programs in Tacoma, called JOY (Job Opportunities for Youth),

placed 850 youth out of 1,543 eligible applicants in 1978. Another 70 youth

were in the VEP program.

SEX

The characteristics of the 920 participants were:

Male 424 46.1%

Female 496 53.9

AGE

14-15 111 12,',

16-17 508 55.2

18-19 233 25.3

20-21 68 7.4

- 254 - 2 t-;
ETHNIC GROUP f X

White 341 37.1

Black 469 51.0

American Indian 41 4.4

Other 63 6.8

Spanish American 11 1.2

No information 6 0.5

In addition, JOY placed 25 handicapped youth and 61 ex-offenders. The largest

employers for JOY participants were the City of Tacoma, Tacoma School District

No. 10, McChord Air Force Base, Ft. Lewis and Tacoma Community College.

The Tacoma prime sponsor, Comprehensive Employment Services, operated the

1978 summer VEP program as a separate part of this regular summer effort. While

the VEP staff was separate, the youth were recruited from the pool of eligible

applicants to the JOY program. Recruitment and intake is centralised at the

Tacoma Youth Employment Center which is located in downtown Tacoma. The Center also provides assessment and employment orientation workshops.

A wide variety of youth programs was offered during the school year. These

include YETP, YCCIP, and CETA Title I programs. In addition, youth might leave

the area as participants in the Youth Development Corps, (sponsored by the Department of Natural Resources) or the Job Corps. The Tacoma public schools have

a number of programs during the school year. These are conducted through the

five city high schools (each serving grades 10-12). The city schools have an

open enrollment policy.

Although not really competing programs, The Youth Employment Center conducts two programs in addition to the other services it provides. The programs

are the Youth Employment Organization which functions as a job finding club

- 255 -
working usually on a temporary basis for households. The other effort is

"KIDWERKS," a youth owned and operated graphics design .usiness.

Relationships and Cooperation

Since the prime sponsor operated the VT, grogram in Tacoma the cooperation

necessary between the program operator and the prime was not a problem. VEP

utilized approximately 20 worksites at Ft. Lewis for their non-traditional emphasis. Clearly, these could have been filled by JOY or other programs in the

absence of VEP.

The relationships of VEP to the private sector employers were handled

by a combination of the efforts of the local NAB office and the staff of the

VEP program. Both parties contributed to the development of worksites for

VEP participants. NAB used its typical connections in the business community

to involve the Chamber of Commerce. Overall, most of the VEP worksites were

with smaller employers in the area (with the exception of the women placed at

Ft. Lewis).

Tacoma faced problems similar to other areas in dealing with organized

labor unions. Al with the private sector employers, unions were approached

by representatives of NAB and the VEP staff. There is no HRDI office in

Tacoma. Unions, like private employers, vary considerably in their willingness to be involved with youth programs such as VEP. This appears to be a

result of the strength of the union and the employment situation of its members coupled with the personalities involved on both sides.

Relationships with the Tacoma schools are important for the prime sponsor

since YETP operates at the schools. However, the facilities of the Youth Employment Center lessens the need to recruit youth directly in the schools.

The school system appears cooperative, but feels that during the school year

2 IRA
they are providing a full range of career development related components.

Alternative schools and programs are just beginning to develop to any degree.

Environmental

In the year prior to start-up of the Summer VEP, the Tacoma SMSA showed

continued improvements in employment opportunities. Total employment in the

area increased by 8,600 while the unemployment rate decreased from 10.8 percent

to 6.9 percent. This economic expansion is reflected in the overall populationchanges. Since 1973, the population of Pierce County has increased each year.

Because of displaced Vietnamese in the area, non-white population increases

were the largest.

Since 1970, the labor force in the Tacoma SMSA has undergone considerable

change. White male labor force participation increased by 12.1 percent, while

their non-white counterparts increased 110.8 percent. Among females, white

female labor force participation increased by 18.9 percent since 1970, while

non-white female participation rates increased by 37.5 percent for the same

period.

- 25

,
Part VI. Technical Appendix

A. Sites Visited

B. 1978 VEP Youth Application

C. Instructions for Coordinators: Pre-Program

D. Pre-Program Survey Instrument

E. Pre-Program Survey Instrument (Spanish language)

F. Instructions for Coordinators: Post-Program

G. Post-Program Survey Instrument

H. Post-Program Survey Instrument (Spanish language)

I. Format for Intensive City Visits

J. Code Book and Final Frequency Distribution
Akron, Ohio

Allentown, Pennsylvania

Atlanta, Georgia

Baltimore, Maryland

Denver, Colorado

Fort Worth, Texas

Lansing, Michigan

Miami, Florida

Minneapolis, Minnesota

1978 SUMMER VEP

CUP Site Visits

Akron Summit Tutorial Program

Akron Public Schools

Carbon Training Center, Inc.

Lehigh & Northampton Counties Labor Council3 AFL/CIO

ANAIFCO, Inc.

Butler Street YMCA

Communications Center of Greater Atlanta, Inc.

Metropolitan Atlanta Boys Club, Inc.

Printing Specialists Local 527

AFSCME, Local 44

YMCA of Greater Baltimore

Employ Ex. Inc.

Northern Colorado Consortuim, Inc.

Fort Worth Area Chamber of Commerce

I.B.E.W. Local 655

Latin Chamber of Commerce

Miami-Dade "hamber of Commerce

B'nai B'rth

Minneapolis Regional Native American Center

The Way-Opportunities Unlimited, Inc.

Welcome Community Homes, Inc.

YWCA of Minneapolis Area

New Orleans, Louisiana Delagdo College Development Foundation

Oakland, California United Teachers of Oakland

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Columbia School, Inc.

Negro Trade Union Leadership Council

YWCA of Philadelphia

Providence, Rhode Island Blue Cross/Blue Shield

Community Affairs Office

Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce

The Outlet Company

Woonsocket Chamber of Commerce

St. Louis, Missouri Regional Commerce and Growth Association

St. Paul, Minnesota Women's Center - St. Paul YWCA

259
San Diego, California

San Francisco, California

Syracuse, New York

Tacoma, Washington

Toledo, Ohio

Chicano Federation of San Diego County, Inc.

Shelter Institute

Greater Syracuse Chamber of Commerce

Tacoma Employment Service (Fort Lewis)

Lower Columbia Community Action Council (Longview)

Thurston County Off-Campus Schools (Olympia)

Puyallup Valley Youth Services (Puyallup)

National Alliance of Business (Owens-Corning Fiberglass)

Washington, D.C. Greater Washington Board of Trade

Greater Washington Central Labor Council AFL/CIO
1. NAME

INSTRUCTIONS: Interviewer should fill in lines 1-11 as completely as possible.

Use "N /A" if question does not apply. Be sure Applicant has signed the completed form, DATE OF BIRTH SOCIAL SECURITY f

2. ADDRESS CITY COUNTY CTATE ZIP

3. 110ME PHONE MARITAL STATUS: LI SINGLE L7 MARRIED LI DIVORCED NUMBER IN FAMILY HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD: BYES L:7 NO

4. EDUCATION - LAST GRADE COMPLETED DO YOU PLAN TO ATTEND SCHOOL IN THE FALL? OYES ONO

NAME OF LAST SCHOOL ATTENDED

DO YOU HAVE A GUIDANCE COUNSELOR? L7 YES L7 NO

HIGHEST TYPE OF

5. MILITARY SERVICE - FROM TO BRANCH OF SERVICE RANK HELD DISCHARGE

6. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED? L7 YES L:7 NO

1107. IS YOUR FAMILY RECEIVING AFDC (AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN'? L7 NES 0 NO

8. DO YOU HAVE ANY HEALTH PROBLEMS OR IIANDICAPU? L7 YES L:7 NO IF YES WHAT?

9. DO YOU HAVE A DRIVERS' LICENSE? L:7 YES L7 NO OWN A CAR? L7 YES L7 NO

10. 'WORK HISTORY (LIST PRESENT AND PAST EMPLOYERS. START WITH MOST RECENT JOB_

DATE EMPLOYED FROM TO REASON FUR LEAVING EMPLOYER 6 ADDRESS HOURLY SALARY OCCUPATION

11, REFERRED BY A.C7MOF

B. L7w L* 7 Al E7, OR L7SA j0

C. 0 AFDC (.7 OTHER

D, L7H L7Y0L7MIG

313

SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

DATE

E. TERMINATION DATE TYPE: L7 POS L7 NEC /7 SELF

WEEK TERMINATED L7 OTHER

F. SIGNATURE OF INTERVIEWER DATE
CENTER FOR URBAN PROGRAMS

016

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COUNSELORS/COORDINATORS

1978 VEP/SPEDY ENROLLEE STUDY

221 NORTH GRAND BOULEVARD

SAINT LOUIS. MISSOURI 113103

Saint Louis University is under 'contract to the U.S. Department of

Labor to develop a youth profile of all 1978 VEP and a sample of SPEDY

enrollees. This study is being conducted in approximately 60 cities across

the nation and will, upon completion, provide valuable demonstration research information for the Department of Labor and to the Congr.s. Your

subcontract indicates specific responsibility for administering the youth

pre and post survey instrument.

The study involves a profile of youth enrollees at the time of

entry into the VEP or SPEDY program and a follow-up upon completion of

the program. We have attempted to design implementation of this study

so as to cause as little inconvenience to program staff as possible. The

success of this study depends largely upon your support and cooperation,

and the Department of Labor and Saint Louis University urgently request

your assistance.

This is the first of two study instruments. The instructions provided here refer only to the instrument to be given to enrollees 2.1222 entry

into the VEP or SPEDY program. If you have any questions about the instructions below or the project itself, please call collect (314) 658-3934 and

ask to speak to one of the VEP project coordinators.

A. WHO SHOULD RECEIVE THE INSTRUMENT?

All VEP youth (and sampled SPEDY enrollees for certain CETA prime

sponsors) are to be given the instrument on the first dm of the program.

No instrument should be given to any youth who will not have the opportunity

to complete the entire program. No instruments should be given to youth

after the first operational week of the program unless the planned intake

of groups of enrollees is staggered over a longer period of time. The

instrument is not to be given to any "stragglers" who might enter the program.

B. WHEN IS THE INSTRUMENT TO BE GIVEN TO THE YOUTH?

The instrument should be given to the youth the first thing on the

first day of orientation. It should be given before any formal program

orientation or components are discussed. Giving the instrument at any other

time will seriously bias the results.

:3:1411

- 262 -
C. WHERE SHOULD THE YOUTH FILL OUT THE INSTRUMENT?

The instrument is to be given to youth in a group setting. If a

mass meeting is held on the first day, that wculd be ideal; or, you may

prefer to give the instrument to small groups meeting simultaneously with

their individual counselors or coordinators, if that is the first thing

planned. Whatever procedure best suits your program should be followed,

so long as enrollees are Al.ven the instrument on the first day, in groups,

and before any formal program orientation. It is desirable that the youth

be provided a writing surface -- either tables, lap pads, chairs with arm

desks, etc.

D. WHAT PROCEDURES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED?

1. The instrument should be completed in pencil.

2. Two versions of the instrument are available, one in English

and one in Spanish. An adequate supply of both instruments

have been provided. Ask any Spanish speaking enrollees if any

of them would prefer the Spanish language instrument over the

English. It would be helpful if those who prefer the Spanish

language instrument were grouped in a separate room to facilitate the reading of the instrument. See instructions 4 and

6 for more detail.

3. Distribute the instrument to the youth.

4. After distributing the instrument, READ THE FOLLOWING TO ENROLLEES.

(Note: If you are unable to group the Spanish speaking enrollees

and English speaking separately, read first in English and then

in Spanish. Both versions follow.)
(GIVE ENROLLEES

TIME TO PRINT

NAME)

(GIVE ENROLLEES

TIME TO SIGN

THEIR NAME)

"You are being asked to participate in a study thit Saint Louis

University is doing for the U.S. Department of Libor. The purpose of the study is to find out how youth enrollees in certain

summer programs think and feel about a variety of things. The

information will be used to improve the program.

This ie not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. The

study takes about 30 minutes to complete, but you will not be

timed. As each question is read to you, follow it in your booklet.

What we want is your opinion, what you think. Please answer all

the questions.

Your participation is na important, but you may refuse to participate if you do not want to. You may also withdraw your consent to participate at any time, and you may refuse to answer any

question.

All answers you give will be kept strictly confidential. You will

never be identified as an individual. Your answers will be combined with those of about 6000 other youth in 60 cities across the

country.

The procedures used in this study have been approved and they conform to the promise of Saint Louis University to the U.S. Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare to protect the rights of people

when research is being done.

Now, please look at the top page of the booklet. Print your full

name on the top line.

Informed consent means that you understand that you may refuse to

participate and that your answers will be kept confidential.

Let's pc) over this page together.

The meaning of informed consent has been explained to me. I understand this explanation and voluntarily agree to participate

in this study.

I understand thatmy identity will not be revealed and all my

answers will be kept confidential.

I understand that I may withdraw my consent at,any time. I may

refuse to answer any question.

If you are willing to participate, sign your full name at the bottom.
EVE ENROLLEE

)RE TIME TO

MN THE CON

ENT FORM)

After we have completed the study, I will ask you to tear off this

top sheet and hand it in. Then I will pick up the booklet. If you

do not want to participate, just follow along with the rest of the

group and when the time comes, tear off the top sheet, but do not

sign it, and turn it in. Then turn in the unmarked b00%let.

The Department of Labor and the University urge you to participate,

and Saint Louis University guarantees that neither you nor your

answers will ever be identified individually."

265

3: ) ..2
Ten a los participantss tiempo

pars ssoribir sus

hoibres.

"Les rogamos a ustedes que participen en un estudio prepared° por is

Universidad de Saint Louis para el Departamento del Trebajo (Department of Labor) de los Estados Unidos.

Nuestra investigacidn tiene el prop6sito de averiguar c6mc piensan y

opinan de muchas cones, los j6venes partiepantes en ciertos programme

de versa°.

La informaci6n sera utilizada pars mejorar el programa.

No as un examen.

Ho hey respuestas corrects/1 ni incorrectap.

Ustedes tardarin aproximademente treinta (3C) minutos en llenar mites

hojas, pero no se pondri lfaite al tiempo que pueden user.

Cuando les lemon en vos alts las preguntes, efganlas en el follete.

Per favor, respondan a todas las preguntas.

Lo que queremos son sus opinions, lo que piensan.

Su participaci6n es gatimportante, pero ustedes no tienen que participar si no quieren.

Ustedes tienen el derecho de retirar su consentimiento en participar

en cualquier moment°, y tambi6n de no contester a cualquier pregunta.

Tadao las respuestas sera absolutamente confidenciales.

Ustedes nunca serin identificados individualmente.

Sus respuestas Perin combinadas con las de aproximadamente seis mil

(6000) j6venes en assents. (60) ciudades por el psis.

Los procedisdentos seguidos en site estudio fueron aprobados, y son

conforms a is promesa que hiso is Universidad de Saint Louis al Departamento de is Salud, de is Educaci6n, y del Bienestar (Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare), de proteger los derechos individuates cuando se est& realisando uns investigaoi6n.

Ahora por favor, miren is primers hoja del toilet°.

Por favor, escriban con letra de molds su ncabre cospieto en is primers

Linea.

3,j,)

- 266 -
)en a los par -

ticipantes tiempo

pars firmer sus

todbres.

El consentimiento consciente signifies que ustedes entienden que no

tienen que participar, y que sus respuestas serin confidenciales.

Vamos a repasar juntos eats hoja:

Ya me explicaron el sentido de este eonseatimiento consciente. Entiendo la explicaci6n que me dieron y consiento de buena fe en par -

ticipar en este estudio.

Entiendo que mi identidad no seri revelada y que todas mis respuestas

serin confidenciales.

Entiendo que tengo el derecho de retirar mi eonsentimiento en cualquier momento, y de no contester a cualquier pregunta.

Si ustedes quieren participar, por favor firmen su nombre completo

abajo en esa hoja.

Despubs.que ustedes terminen de contester a las preguntas, les voy a

pedir que separen la primers hoja y que me la entreguen; despugs voy

a pedir que me entreguen e7 re.leto. Si no quieren participar escuchcn las preguntas con el resto dt1 grupo y, cusndo todo se termine,

separen la primer& hoja y mtrfgrmtmela sin firmer. Despugs entr4-

guenme el folleto sin marcar.

El De:exemento del Trabajo (Department of Labor) y la Universidad de

Saint Lotie is rogamos a ustedes que participen, y la Universidad de

Saint Louis garantiza que ni ustedes ni sus respuestas nunca sergn

identificados individualmente.

(DEN A LOS JdVENES MAS TIEMPO PARA QUE FIRMEN LA HO.IA DE CONSENTIMIENTO

CONSCIENTE)
5. Begin reading the instrument to the enrollees. Read the instructions to them on how to answer the questions. Read the

number of the question and then read the question, first in

English and then in Spanish if separate groups are not possible.

Read slowly, exactly, and evenly. Avoid voice inflections and

do not comment on any question.

6. Allow about ten (10) seconds for the enrollees to respond to

each question except Question 3 and 5; in those two cases

allow about one (1) minute.

7. If a question is asked about the meaning of one of the items,

its phrasing or anything else concerning content, do not interpret

the question.

Answer: "Just answer 'Ale question as you understand it. Don't

worry about right or wrong answers; there are none. Answer the

best way you can."

8. When the study is finished, have the enrollees tear off the top

sheet and collect them. Then collect the booklets separately.

E. WHAT ABOUT HANDICAPPED YOUTH?

If it is overly difficult or impossible for a handicapped youth to

follow these procedures, it may be necessary for the program staff to adopt

a one-on-one procedure, where the enrollee will indicate his/her response

and the counselor will mark the booklet. However, the consent form must

be signed by the enrollee.

F. WHAT ELSE IS REQUIRED FROM US?

1. Make a copy of all program intake forms.

2. Be sure to indicate whether the enrollee is part of one of the

special emphasis groups, i.e., exoffender, handicapped, or nontraditional roles.

G. HOW SHOULD WE GET THIS MATERIAL BACK TO SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY?

When all enrollees (that is, all those who will have the opportunity

to complete the entire program) have completed the booklets, it will be

necessary for you to return them to Saint Louis University. These can be

returned in the same box in which they were received; a return label and

tape to secure the package has been provided for your convenience. Return

should be by United Parcel Servize. If you call the local UPS office, they

will pick up your package. Your return package should include all completed

instruments, consent forms, refusals, all unused instruments AND copies of

268 3 I.
the intake form for ALL enrollees who are expected to complete the program.

We appreciate all your help in getting this information to us; these

returns should be sent to us within a week after the instrument has been

administered to all eligible enrollees. While this may impose an additional

burden on an already overworked staff, it is necessary so that we may start

processing the data for the Department of Labor. Should you have any problems returning the material to us or have any questions, please call

(collect) 314-658 -3934.

6/1/78

3, 14,

269
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

CENTER FOR URBAN PROGRAMS 221 NORTH GRAND BOULEVARD

SAINT LOUIS. MISSOURI 12103

NAME

1978 VEP/SPEDY STUDY

(Please print)

The meaning of informed consent has been explained to me.

I understand this explanation and voluntarily agree to

participate in this study.

I understand that my identity will not be revealed and all

my answers will be kept confidential.

I understand that I may withdraw my consent at any time.

I may refuse to answer any question.

Signature of Enrollee

3i,;

- 270 -
/ / / / / / /

/ / / / / / /

121014

(please print)

City

WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE PART IN A STUDY THAT SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY IS

DOING FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY IS TO GATHER

INFORMATION ON WHAT YOU THINK OR FEEL ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS. YOUR OPINIONS

ARE IMPORTANT AND WILL HELP TO MAKE THE PROGRAM BETTER.

ALL INFORMATION THAT YOU GIVE WILL BE KEPT IN STRICT CONFIDENCE AND WILL

NEVER BE REPORTED OR SHOWN IN ANY WAY THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO BE IDENTIFIED

INDIVIDUALLY. 0 or W1L.L.

MOVED-AMO.YOUR ANSWERS WILL BE COMBINED WITH THOSE OF ABOUT 6,000 OTHER PEOPLE.

YOUR PARTICIPATION IS VOLUNTARY. HOWEVER, YOUR OPINIONS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO US AND WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL FILL OUT THIS FORM.

WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR PLANS FOR THE FUTURE, WHAT YOU WOULD

LIKE TO DO, OR WHAT YOU THINK YOU MIGHT LIKE TO DO. Cinete the number in 6nont

o6 your an4wen.

1. What are you planning to do this fall?

1 In 2 Skill 3 Working 4 Military 5 Other 6 Not sure

School Training Full Time Service Plans at this time

2. To get a good job, how important do you think it is to get a high school

diploma?

1 Very 2 Somewhat 3 Not too 4 Not at all

important important important important

3. When you start working full time, what kind of job do you think you would

like to do?

4. To get that kind of job do you think you will need more education or training

than a high school diploma?

1 Yes 2 No 3 Not sure

5. How would you find out if there are any job openings for that kind of job?

1978 SUMMERlieldi11 PROGRAM
For the Ottowing que6tion6, ciute the number o6 the statement which comet

c2o6est to the way you think on £eeL. Citcte 1 you agree a tot. Citete

2 44 you agree a tittte. Cincte 3 44 you ate unouxe. Citcte 4 you diAagnee

a tittte. Citcte 5 is you di6agtee a tot.

FIRST, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU EXPECT FROM THIS SUMMER'S PROGRAM.

6. This program will help me find out

what workers do in different kinds

of jobs.

7. This program will tell me how much

training I need for different kinds

of jobs.

8. This program will tell me what employers expect their workers to do.

9. This program will give me informstion about how I can get a job.

agree agree

a lot a little unsure

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

NOW HERE ARE SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT GETTING AND KEEPING A JOB.

10. It's alright to miss work whenever you don't feel like going.

11. When you are sick it's alright to

miss work without calling to say

you won't be there.

12. It's alright to fill out only the

parts of the job application that

you want to.

13. Usually an employer can fire someone for not telling the truth on a

job application.

14. A good way to find out about job

openings is from friends or relatives who are working.

15. On the job the boss has the right

to tell you what to do.

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

- 272 -

disagree

a little

disagree

a lot

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5
16. At work, you should try to dress

like most other people on that

job.

17. If your job starts at 8:00 A.M.

it's alright if you show up at

8:30 A.M.

18. Doing well on a job interview

helps you to get a job.

19. On the job, it's not important

to get along with your fellow

workers.

20. When you are applying for a job,

employers don't consider how you

did in previous jobs.

agree

a lot

agree

a little unsure

disagree

a little

disagree

a lot

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

NOW WE WOULD LIKE YOUR OPINION ABOUT THINGS THAT PEOPLE SOMETIMES THINK ABOUT.

REMEMBER THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. IT'S YOUR OPINION THAT COUNTS.

21. Hard work makes you a better

person.

22. Even if you dislike your work

you should do your best.

23. Organized labor unions are good

for workers.

24. Work should be an important part

of a person's life.

25. To me, work is nothing more than

a way of making money.

26. Organized labor unions don't seem

to care about helping youth.

27. "Taking it easy" on the job is alright as long as you don't get

caught by the boss.

28. You should help other people on a

job so that they will help you.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

273 -3 U
29. I am generally satisfied with my

life these says.

30. I have enjoyed my life more than

most people have enjoyed theirs.

31. I feel that I am as good as anybody else.

32. I wish I could have more respect

for myself.

33. I feel that I have a number of

good qualities.

34. All in all, I'm inclined to feel

that I am a failure.

35. Generally, people tend to push me

around.

36. I never have any trouble making up

my mind about important decisions.

37. I seem to be the kind of person

that has more bad luck than good

luck.

38. I would rather decide things when

they come up than always try to

plan ahead.

39. Generally, I can finish the things

I set out to do.

40. You can't be too careful in dealing with other people.

41. Most of the time people try to

be helpful.

42. Most people try to take advantage

of you if they get a chance.

43. The police treat rich people better than poor people.

agree

a lot

agree

a little unsure disagree

a little

disagree

a lot

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

274
44. The courts treat all people alike

regardless of race or nationality.

45. The police have it in for young

people and pick on them unfairly.

46. It is better to be unknown and

honest than famous and dishonest.

47. People should not be punished for

breaking a law they think is wrong.

48. If somebody needs something bad

enough it's alright to break the

law to get it.

49. It's alright to drive an automobile while drunk as long as you

don't have an accident.

50. A man can take just as good care

of children as a woman can.

51. There is something wrong with women who want to work at men's jobs.

52. A woman who works full time can be

just as happy as a woman who stays

at home with her family.

53. I would not want to work for a

woman.

54. If a woman is working at a job,

her man should do some of the

housework.

agree

a lot

agree

a little unsure

disagree

a little

disagree

a lot

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
NOW WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK

a woman ahoutd hotd that job.

job. CiActe 3 4 you think

job.

ABOUT SOME REAL JOBS. akete 1 you think only

eikete 2 4 you think only a man ahoutd hotd that

makes no diSiekenee 4 a man on woman hotda that

Only a

Woman

Only a

Man

Makes no

Difference

55. Car Mechanic 1 2 3

56. Factory Worker 1 2 3

57. Nurse 1 2 3

58. Truck Driver 1 2 3

59. Sales Clerk 1 2 3

41,

60. Secretary 1 2 3

61. Carpenter 1 2 3

62. Teacher 1 2 3

63. Telephone Operator 1 2 3
OW WE WOULD LIKE YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE KIND OF WORK THAT PEOPLE IN CERTAIN

INDS OF JOBS USUALLY DO. For each job therm axe thnee deacniptions 06 job

Ptease a/ae the deactiption you th.ink beat 64t4 each job. Be Aufte

o /Lead att 06 the pou'ible anAwera be6orte you decide.

4. HOSPITAL ORDERLY

1. Helps to take care of hospital patients.

2. Orders food and other supplies for hospital kitchens.

3. Works at hospital desk where

patients check in.

5. KEY PUNCH OPERATOR

1. Operates a machine which

sends telegrams.

2. Operates a machine which

punches holes in cards for

computers.

3. Operates a cordless telephone switchboard and pushes

switch keys to make telephone connections.

i6. DEPARTMENT STORE BUYER

1. Selects the items to be

sold in a section of a

department.

2. Checks on the courtesy of

sales people by shopping at

the store.

3. Buys department stores that

are about to go out of business.

67. MACHINIST

1. Makes adjustments on automobile, airplane, and tractor

engines.

2. Repairs electrical equipment.

3. Sets up and operates metal

lathes, shapers, grinders, buffers, etc.

68. DIETICIAN

1. Waits on tables in a restaurant.

2. Plans menus for hospitals and

schools.

3. Suggests exercises for persons

who are overweight or sick.

69. FORK LIFT OPERATOR

1. Operates a machine that makes

a certain kind of agricultural

tool.

2. Operates a freight elevator in

a warehouse or factory.

3. Drives an electrical or gas

powered machine to move material

in a warehouse or factory.

)NE LAST QUESTION. Carte the number!. in 6unt 06 your!. unmet.

MD. To get a good job, how important do you think it is to get a high school

diploma?

1 Very 2 Somewhat 3 Not too

important important important

...' 277 -

Thank you for your help.

4 Not at all

important

320
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

FON U11SAN PP1OONAMS

ESTUDIO DE LO8 JOVE= DE

VEP/SPEET DE 1978

NOIRE

221 MONTS (WAND SOULEVAMO

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOU111 43103

(Letra de molds, por favor)

Yams explicaron el sentido de site consentimiento consciente.

Entiendo is explicaci& que me dieron y consiento de buena fe

en perticipar en este eitudio.

Entiendo que mi identidad no seri revelada y que todss mis

respuestss serin confidenciales.

Entiendo que tengo el derecho de retirar mi consentimiento en

cualquier momento, y de no contester a cualquier pregunta.

Firma del (de la) participants

321

- 278 -
/ / / / /

1 (tetra de molde, par favor)

/ / / / / / / I Ciudad

1. NOS GUSTAR2A QUE USTED PARTICIPE EN UN ESTUDIO PREPARADO POR LA UNIVERSIDAD DE

SAINT LOUIS PARA EL DEPARTAMENTO DEL TRABAJO (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR) DE LOS ESTADOS UTIDOS. NUESTRA INVESTIGACION TIENE EL PROPOSITO DE OBTENER INFORMACION SOBRE SUS

PENSAMIENTOS U OPINIONES DE MUCHAS COSAS. SUS OPINIONES SON IMPORTANTES Y NOS AYU -

DARAN A MEJORAR EL PROGRAMA.

TODA LA INFORMACION QUE USTED NOS DE SERA CORSIDERADA CONFIDENCIAL Y NUNCA

SERA REVELADA 0 MOSTRADA EN CUALQUIER MANERA QUE PERMITA UNA IDENTIFICACION INDIVIDUAL 0 PERSONAL CON USTED. SUS RESPUESTAS SERAN COMBINADAS CON LAS DE APROXIMADAMENTE

SEIS MIL PERSONAS

USTED NO TIENE QUE PAMICIPAR SI NO QUIERE, PERO SUS RESPUESTAS SON MUY IMPORTANTES PARA NOSOTROS, Y POR ESO ESPERAMOS QUE LLENE ESTA HATA.

QUISIERAMOS SABER ALGO DE SUS PLANES PARA EL FUTURO, LO QUE LE GUSTARIA RACER, 0 LO

QUE TAL VEZ DESEARA HAMM. Ponga un circulo alrededor del n6mero de su respuesta.

1. 4Qufi planes tiene usted despus del septiembre?

1 asistir a 2 entrena- 3 trabajo (tiem- 4 servicio 5 otros 6 no estoy

la escuela miento po completo) militar planes seguro(a)

en este

momento

2. Para obtener buen empleo, 4 04 importante cree usted es recibir un diploma de la escuela secundaria?

1 muy 2 un poco 3 no tan 4 no es

importante importante importante importante

3. Cuando usted empiece a trabajar tiempo completo, 4qug tipo de trabajo cree que le

gustaria hazer?

4. Para obtener ese tipo de trabajo, Lcree usted que va a necesitar Ids educaci6n o

intrenamiento que un diploma de la escuela secundaria?

1 Si 2 No 3 No estoy seguro(a).

5. bamo piensa usted saber si hay empleos vacantes pare ese tipo de trabajo?

1978 PROGRAMA OE VE-RA9110 PARA LA LOS JOVENES

322
Para las siguientes preguntaa, ponga un circulo alrededor del aero

de is expresidn mejor de sus pensamientos u opiniones. Circule el nfimero "1" si

est& muy de acuerdo; el ndmero "2" si estfi un poco de acuerdo. Si no estfi seguro(a),

circule el ndmero "3". Circule el n6mero "4", si est& un poco de desacuerdo; y el

nGmero "5" si est& muy de desacuerdo.

PRIMCRO, NOS GUSTARTA SABER LO QUE USTED ESPERA DE ESTE PROGRAMA DE VERANO.

6. Este programs me eyudarfi a

aprender lo que hacen los

empleados en diferentes

tipos de trabajo.

7. Fate programa me informarfi

de cuinto entrenamiento

necesito pare diferentes

tipos de trabajo.

8. Este programa me informer&

de lo que jefes esperan de

sus empleados.

9. Este programa me darfi informacionsobre ago puedo

obtener trabajo.

maw de

acuerdo

un pow de

acuerdo

no estoy

seguro(a)

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

MORA ALGUNAS PREGUNTAS GENERALES SOBRE OBTENER Y MANTERER TRABAJO.

10. Est& bien si no voy al tra- 1 2 3

bajo, cuando no tengo

gams de trabajar.

11. Cuando estoy enfermo(a), es- 1 2 3

t& bien si no llama pare in -

formarles que no voy a trabajar.

12. Est& bien llenar solamente 1 2 3

las partes de una splice,.

cidn que quiero llenar.

13. Casi siempre un jefe puede 1 2 3

despedir a alguica por no

decir la verdad en la apli -

cacidn.

14. Una buena saner& de saber de 1 2 3

ample*s vacantes, as de los

amigos y los parientes que

estin trabajando.

-280-

un poco de

desacuerdo

muy de

desacuerdc

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5
muy de

acuerdo

15. Cuando estoy trabajando, 1

el jefe tiene el derecho de

decirme lo que tango que

hacer.

16. En el empleo uno debe vestirse en rope. pareci -

da a la que usa la mayoria

de las 'Ares personas

en el mismo sitio de

trabajo.

1

17. Si el trabajo empieza a las 1

8 de la =Bans, estt bien

si llego a trabajar a las 8

y media.

18. Racer bien en una entrevista 1

ayuda a las personas a obtener un trabajo.

19. En el empleo, no es importan- 1

to llevarse bien con los compafteros de trabajo.

20. Cuando la gente esti apli- 1

cando pars un

trabajo, los jefes no toman

en cuenta si uno trabaj6 bien

o no en otros sitios.

un poco de

acuerdo

no estoy

seguro(a)

un poco de

desacuerdo

muy de

desacuerdo

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

ARORA NOS OUSTARIA SABER SU OPINION DE CIERTAS COSAA EN LAS CUALES UNO PIENSA A VECES.

RECUERDE QUE NO HAY RESPUESTAS CORRECTAS 0 INCORMECTa6. ES SU Or7N1051 LO QUE VALE.

21. Si las personas trabajan du- 1

ro, asi se hacen mejores

personas.

22. Aunque no le guste su 1

trabajo, usted debe hacer

lo mejor que pueda.

23. Las uniones de trabajadores 1

son buenaa pars los trabajadores.

24. El trabajo debe ser una 1

parte importante de su yids.

25. Para mi el trabajo no es 1

nada mfrs que una miners de

ganar dinero.

26. Las unions de trabsjadores 1

no parson preoemparse por

ayudar a los Ovine..

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 le 5 281

324
muy de un poco de

acuerdo acuerdo

27. Esti bien que yo est6

flojo en el trabajo, si

el jefe no me encuentra.

28. En el trabajo yo dabo

syudar a las otras personas,

pars, que me ayuden tmabi6n.

29. En general, estoy satisfecho

con la vide, en estos dias.

30. He gonado ml vide mix que la

mayorfa de is gente.

31. Creo que yo soy tan bueno(a)

come cuaquier persona.

32. Quasiela toner xis respeto

hacia ml Alamo.

33. Creo que yo tengo muchas

buenas cualidades.

34. S.:bretodo, siento que soy

un fracaso.

35. Nunca tengo dificultad en

decidirme, cuando es una

decisi6n importante.

36. Generalmente, is gente tiende a aprovecharse de mS.

37. Parece que yo soy el tipo de

persona que tiene mis male

suerte que buena suerte.

38. Prefiero Meer decisions al

memento que hater planes.

39. Generalmente puedo acabar

las cosas que me propongo a

hacer.

40. Es major seguir con cuidado

en tratenientos con otras

personas.

41. La mayor parte del tiempo,

la sent, trate de ayudar a

los otros.

no estoy un poco de muy de

seguro(s) desacuerdo desacuerdo

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 - 282 - 325
mfr de un poco de no estoy un poco de muy de

acuerdo acuerdo seguro(a) desacuerdo desacuerdo

42. tienen la oportunidsd,

is mayor parte de la gents

trata de aprovecbsrse de

nno.

43. La policia trata a los ricos

major qua a los pobres.

his. Les cartes tratan a tads la

gents igualmente, sin pacer

caso de la nacionalidad o

la rasa de uno.

45. La valid& tiene mala voluntad con los j6venes y por

eso los molests injustamente.

46. Ss major ser desconocido y

bonesto, qua famoso y no

bonesto.

47. No se dabs castigar a las

personas por violar una ley

qua les parses injusta.

48. ft alguien necesito alga con

suficiente urgencia, esti

bien violar la ley pars ob -

tenerlo.

49. Nati bien manejar un carro

@stand° borracbo(a), si uno

no tine un accident,.

50. Un hoMbre puede cuidar de

los niftos tan bien como una

mujer.

51. No son normales las mujeres

que quieren trabajsr in

emplace de hombres.

52. Una mujer que trabaja tiespo completo puede sir tan

felts cone la mujer que se

quad* in cams con su familia.

53. No ms gustaria qua una mujer

tuera mi jefa.

54. Si una suer trabaja, su marido debe wads' taloa trip.

bajas de is case.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

- 283 -

326
AHORA NOS ourratA QUL USTED PINSARA EN ALOUTOS TRABAJOS VERDADEROS.

Circule en el doter° "1" si cree quo solo las mujeres debfan pacer ese tipo

de trabajo; el "2" si ores que sblo los hombres debfan hacerlo; y el "3" si

ores que no imports y quo los dos (hombre y miner) podrfan y debfan hacerlo.

solo las

mujeres

solo los

hombres

no import.

55. mecanico(a) de carro 1 2 3

56. trabajadorta) en una !brie& 1 2 3

57. enfermero(a) 1 2 3

58. cemionero(a) 1 2 3

59. vendedor(s) 1 2 3

60. secretirio(a) 1 2 3

61. csrpintero(a) 1 2 3

62. profesor(a) 1 2 3

63. operador(a) de tel6fono 1 2 3

AHORA NOS OUSTAR/A SABER SU OPINION SOBRE LO QUE RACE LA GERTZ EN CIERTOS EMPLEOS.

Para cads empleo hey trews descripciones o definioiones posibles de los deberes del

empleo. Hasa el favor de circular is definicibn que a su parecer describe major el empleo. No dojo de leer todu las descripciones antes de decidirse:

64. MISTIME EN UN HOSPITAL 65. OPKRADOR(A) DE "KEY PUNCH"

1. Ayuda a cuidar ds los pacientes en

un hospital.

2. Pids slims:nos y otru provisions,

pars is cocina ds un hospital.

3. Trabaja in el sitio donde los

pacientes eon admitidos al hospital.

- 284 -

1. Opera una miquina que mends

telegrams.

2. Opera una miquina que peribra

tarjetas pars las computedoras.

3. Opera un ouadro oonmutedor

(switchboard) automitico y empuja botones pars lacer is

conexiones telefbnioss.

32'7
66. COMPRADOR(A) PARA LAS TIENDAS 68. Dirmico(A)

1. Selecciona los articulos que sergn

vendidos en una secci6n de un departamento.

2. Comprueba y verifies la cortesfa de

los vendedores, haciendo compras en

la tienda.

3. Compra las tiendas que estfin al

punto de ser cerradas.

67. MAQUINISTA

1. Repara los motores de carros, aviones, y tractores.

2. Repara equipos el6ctricos.

3. Monta y opera tornos metglicos,

miquinas de taller o estampar,

miquinss amoladoras, ruedss de

pulir, etc.

1. Sirve a las mesas en un restor6n.

2. Planea las comidas en los hospi -

tales y en las escuelas.

3. Sugiere los ejercicios corporates

para las personas que estfin de -

masiado gordas o que estfin enferMaS

69. OPERADOR(A) DE "FORK LIFT"

1. Opera una m6quina que produce

herramientas agricolas.

2. Opera un ascensor de cargas en un

almacfin o en una febrica.

3. Maneja una miquina con motor de

combusti6n interns. o de electrici -

dad, que levanta cargas y las

tradlida, en un almac6n o en una

fibrica.

UNA OLTIMA PREOUBTA. Circule el nfimero de su respuesta.

71:4 Para obtener buen trabajo, b qu6 important. cree usted es recibir un diploma de la escuela secundaria?

1 muy importante 2 un poco importante 3 no tan importante leno es important.

MUCHAS ORACIAS POR SU AYUDA.
CENTER FOR URBAN PROGRAMS

et4

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

POST SURVEY INSTRUMENT

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COUNSELORS/COORDINATORS

1978 VEP/SPEDY ENROLLEE STUDY

221 NORTH GRAND BOULEVARD

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 3103

Saint Louis University is under contract to the U.S. Department of

Labor to develop a youth profile of all 1978 VEP and a sample of SPEDY

enrollees. This study is being conducted in approximately 60 cities across

the nation and will, upon completion, provide valuable demonstration research information for the Department of Labor and to the Congress. Your

subcontract indicates specific responsibility for administering the youth

pre and post survey instrument.

The study involves a profile of youth enrollees at the time of entry

into the VEP or SPEDY program and a follow-up upon completion of the program.

We have attempted to design implementation of this study so as to cause as

little inconvenience to program staff as possible. The success of this study

depends largely upon your support and cooperation, and the Department of Labor

and Saint Louis University urgently request your assistance.

This is the second of two study instruments. The instructions provided

here refer only to the instrument to be given to enrollees just prior to their

completion of the VEP or SPEDY program. If you have any questions about the

instructions below or the project itself, please call collect (314) 658-3934

and ask to speak to one of the VEP project coordinators.

A. WHO SHOULD RECEIVE THE INSTRUMENT?

All VEP youth (and sampled SPEDY enrollees for certain CETA prime

sponsors) are to be given the instrument. No instrument should be given

to any youth who did not have the opportunity to complete the entire program.

B. WHEN IS THE INSTRUMENT TO BE GIVEN TO THE YOUTH?

The instrument should be given to the youth on or a few days before

the end of the program. It may be possible to coordinate the timing of the

final pay period date with the administration of the post survey instrument.
C. WHERE SHOULD THE YOUTH FILL OUT THE INSTRUMENT?

The instrument is to be given to youth in a 'group setting. If a

mass meeting is held on the last day, that would be ideal; or, you may

prefer to give the instrument to small groups meeting simultaneously with

their individual counselors or coordinators. Whatever procedure best suits

your program should be followed, so long as enrollees are given the opportunity to participate in the post survey before they exit the program. It

is desirable that the youth be provided a writing surface -- either tables,

lap pads, chairs with arm desks, etc.

D. WHAT PROCEDURES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED?

1. The instrument should be completed in pencil.

2. Two versions of the instrument are available, one in English and

one in Spanish. An adequate supply of both instruments have been

provided. Ask any Spanish speaking enrollees if any of them

would prefer the Spanish language instrument over the English.

It would be helpful if those who prefer the Spanish language

instrument were grouped in a separate room to facilitate the

reading of the instrument. See instructions 4 and 6 for more detail.

3. Distribute the instrument to the youth.

4. After distributing the instrument, read to the enrollees the statement that is appended to the back of these instructions. (Note:

If you are unable to group the Spanish speaking enrollees and

English speaking separately, read first in English and then in

Spanish. Both versions of the statt ant are appended to the back

of these instructions.)

5. After the statement has been read, and enrollees have been given

the opportunity to sign the consent form, begin reading the instrument to the enrollees. Read the instructions to them on how

to answer the questions. Read the number of the question and then

read the question, first in English and then in Spanish if separate

groups are not possible.

Read slowly,,exactly, and evenly. Avoid voice inflections and do

not comment on any question.

6. Allow about ten (10) seconds for the enrollees to respond to each

question except Question 3 and 5; in those two cases allow about

one (1) minute.

- 287 - 3:f1)
7. If a question is asked about the meaning of one of the items,

its phrasing or anything else concerning content, do not Imes:nit

the question.

Answer: "Just answer the question as you understand it. Don't

worry about right or wrong answers; there are none.

Answer the best way you can."

8. When the study is finished, have the enrollees tear off the top,

sheet and collect them. Then collect the booklets separately.

E. WHAT ABOUT HANDICAPPED YOUTH?

If it is overly difficult or impossible for a handicapped youth to

follow these procedures, it may be necessary for the program staff to adopt

a one-on-one procedure, where the enrollee will indicate his/her response

and the counselor will mark the booklet. However, the consent form must

be signed by the enrollee.

F. HOW SHOULD WE GET THIS MATERIAL BACK TO SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY?

When all enrollees (that is, all those who have had the opportunity

to complete the entire program) have completed the booklets, it will be

necessary for you to return them to Saint Louis University. These can be

returned in the same box in which they were received; a return label and

tape to secure the package has been provided. Return should be by United

Parcel Service. If you call the local UPS offi6e, they will pick up your

package of printed material. Your return package should include all completed instruments, consent forms, refusals, and all unused instruments.

In addition, include the copies of the VEP application form for ALL enrollees

completing the program if you have not as yet done so.

We appreciate all your help in getting this information to us; these

returns should be sent to us within a week after the instrument has been

administered to all enrollees. While this may impose an additional burden

on an already overworked staff, it is necessary so that we may start processing the data for the Department of Labor. Should you have any problems

returning the material to us or have any questions, please call collect

(314) 658-3934.

6/30/78

- 288 -
"You are being asked to participate in a study that Saint Louis

University is doing for the U.S. Department of Labor. The purpose of the study is to find out how youth enrollees in certain

summer programs think and feel about a variety of things. The

information will be used to improve the program.

This is not a test. There are no right or wrong answers. The

study takes about 30 minutes to complete, but you will not be

timed. As each question is read to you, follow it in your booklet.

What we want is your opinion, what you think. Please answer all

the questions.

Your participation is Ila important, but you may refuse 'to participate if you do not want to. You may also withdraw your consent to participate at any time, and you may refuse to answer any

question.

All answers you give will be kept strictly confidential. You will

never be identified as an individual. Your answers will be combined with those of about 6000 other youth in 60 cities across the

country.

The procedures used in this study have been approved and they conform to the promise of Saint Louis University to the U.S. Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare to protect the ights of people

when research fel being done.

Now, please look at the top page of the booklet. Print your full

name on the top line.

GIVE ENROLLEES

TIME TO PRINT

NAME) Informed consent means that you understand that you may refuse to

participate and that your answers will be kept confidential.

GIVE ENROLLEES

TIME TO SIGN

THEIR NAME)

Let's go over this page together.

The meaning of infarmed consent has been explained to me. I understand this Aolanation and volUntarily agree to participate

141 tais study.

I undersAut that my identity will not be revealed and all my

answers well be kept confidential.

I understand that I may withdraw my consent at any time. I may

refuse to answer any question.

If you are willing to participate, sign your full name at the bottom.

- 289 -

332
After we have completed the study. I will ask you to tear off this

top sheet and hand it in. Then I will pick up the booklet. If you

do not want to participate, just follow along with the rest of the

group and when the time comes, tear off the top sheet, but do not

sign it, and turn it in. Then turn in the unmarked booklet.

The Department of Labor and the University urge you to participate,

and Saint Louis University guarantees that neither you nor your

answers will ever be identified individually."

.GIVE ENROLLEE

MORE TIME TO

SIGN THE CONSENT FORM)

4
Den a los participants' tiempo

pars escribir sus

noebres.

"Les rogamos a ustedes que participen en un estudio prepared° por la

Universidad de Saint Louis pars el Departamento del Trabajo (Department of Labor) de los Estados Unidos.

Nuestra investigeci6n tiene el prop6sito de averiguar c6mo piensan y

opinan de suchen cosas, los gvenes participantes en ciertos programas

de vereno.

La informaci6n serf utilizada pars mejorar el programa.

No es un examen.

No hay respuestas correotas ni incorrectas.

Ustedes tardarin eproximadamente treinta minutos en llenar estas

hojas, pero no se pondrf likite al tiempo que puedan user.

Cuando lee leamos en voz sits las preguntas, sigazilem en el toilets.

Por favor, respondan a todas las preguntas.

Lo que queremos son sus opiniones, lo que piensan.

Su participsoifn us mmimportante, pero ustedes no tienen que participar si no quieren.

Ustedes tienen el derecho de retirar su consentimiento en participar

en cualquier. =lento, y tambifn de no contester a cualquier pregunta.

Todas las respuestas vier& lbsolutamente confidenciales.

Ustedes nunca saran identificados ivdividualmente.

Sus respuestas merlin combinadas con las de aproximadamente seis mil

(6000) j6venes en secants (60) ciudades por el pais.

Los procedimientos seguidor en este @studio fueron aprobados, y son

conformes a la promos que hizo is Universidad de Saint Louis al Departemento de is Salud, de is Educsci6n, y del Bienestar (Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare), de proteger los derechos individuales cuando as esti realizando una investigaci6n.

Ahora por favor, miren la primera hoja del folic.;.

Por favor, escriban con lotra de molds su vombre comvleto en la primera

linea.

- 291 -
Zen a los participants. tiempo

pars firmar sus

noehres.

El consentimiento consciente signifies que ustedes entienden que no

tienen que participar, y que sus respuestas serfin confidenciales.

Vamos a repasar juntos esta hoja:

Ya as explicaron el sentido de este consentimiento consciente. Entiendo la explicaeibn que as dieron y eonsiento de buena fe en participar en este estudio.

Entiendo que mi identidad no seri revelada y que todas mis respuestas

serin confidenciales.

Entiendo que tango el derecho de retirar mi consentimiento en cualquier memento, y de no contester a cualquier pregunta.

Si ustedes quieren participar, por favor firmen su nombre campleto

abajo en sea hoja.

Despus.que ustedes terminen de contester a las preguntas, les voy a

pedir que separen is primers hoja y que as la entreguen; despuis voy

a pedir que as entreguen el folleto. Si no quieren participar escuchen las preguntas con el resto del grupo y, cuando todo as termine,

separen la primers hoja y entTiguenmela sin firmer. Despuice entriguenme el folleto dammreav

El Departamento del Trabajo (Department of Labor) y is Universidad de

Saint Louis les rooms a ustedes que participen, y is Universidad de

Saint Louis ma:antis& que ni ustedes ni sus respuestas nunca serin

identificados individualmente.

(DEN A LOS JOVE= NANTIENPO PARA QUE FIRMER LA RONA DE CONSENTINIENTO

CONSCIENTE)
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

CENTER FOR URBAN PROGRAMS 221 NORTH GRAND BOULEVARD

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI 113103

NAME

1978 VEP/SPEDY STUDY

(Please print)

The meaning of informed consent has been explained to me.

I understand this explanation and voluntarily agree to

participate in this study.

I understand that my identity will not be revealed and all

my answers will be kept confidential.

I understand that I may withdraw my consent at any time.

I may refuse to answer any question.

Signature of Enrollee

36

- 293 -
/ / / / / / / / / / / /

WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO HELP US AGAIN IN THE STUDS' THAT SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

IS DOING FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. .THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY IS TO GATHER e

INFORMATION ON WHAT YOU THINK OR FEEL ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS. YOUR OPINIONS

ARE IMPORTANT AND WILL HELP TO MAKE THE PROGRAM BETTER.

ALL INFORMATION THAT YOU GIVE WILL BE KEPT IN STRICT CONFIDENCE AND WILL

NEVER BE REPORTED OR SHOWN IN ANY WAY THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO BE IDENTIFIED

INDIVIDUALLY.

YOUR PARTICIPATION IS VOLUNTARY. HOWEVER, YOUR OPINIONS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO US AND WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL FILL OUT THIS FORM.

WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR PLANS FOR THE FUTURE, WHAT YOU WOULD

LIKE TO DO, OR WHAT YOU THINK YOU MIGHT LIKE TO DO. CiAete the numbet in inont

oi6 youn. an4wet.

I. What are you planning to do this fall?

1 In 2 Skill 3 Working 4 Military 5 Other 6 Not sure

School Training Full Time Service Plans at this time

2. To get a good job, how important do you think it is to get a high school

diploma?

1 Very 2 Somewhat 3 Not too 4 Not at all

important important importaat important

3. When you start working full time, what kind of job do you think you would

like to do?

4. To get that kind of job do you think you will need more education or training

than a high school diploma?

1 Yes 2 No 3 Not sure

5. How would you find out if there are any job openings for that kind of job?

- 294 -

33 7

1978 SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAM
Fon the liottowing questionA, einete the number the Atatement which COMe6

eto4e4t to the way you think 04 feet. Uncle 1 44 you ague a tot. Citete

2 44 ypu ague a tittte. Cinete 3 44 you are undone. Cinete 4 44 you dZsagnee

a tatte. CiActe 5 44 you diaagnee a tot.

FIRST, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU EXPECT FROM THIS SUMMER'S PROGRAM.

6. This program helped me find out

what workers do in different kinds

of jobs.

7. This program told me how much

training I need for different kinds

of jobs.

8. This program told me what employers expect their workers to do.

9. This program gave me information about how I can get a job.

agree agree

a lot a little unsure

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

NOW HERE ARE SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT GETTING AND KEEPING A JOB.

10. It's alright to miss, work whenever you don't feel like going.

11. When you are sick it's alright to

miss work without calling to say

you won't be there.

12. It's alright to fill out only the

parts of the job application that

you want to.

13. Usually an employer can fire someone for not telling the tru4.h on a

job application.

14. A good way to find out about job

openings is from friends or relatives who are working.

15. On the job the boss has the right

to tell you what to do.

1 2 3

1 2 3.

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

- 295 -338

disagree

a little

disagree

a lot

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5

4 5
16. At work, you should try to dress

like most other people on that

job.

17. If your job starts at 8:00 A.M.

it's alright if you show up at

8:30 A.M.

18. Doing well on a job interview

helps you to get a job.

19. On the job, it's not important

to get along with your fellow

workers.

20. When you are applying for a job,

employers don't consider how you

did in previous jobs.

agree

a lot

agree

a little unsure

disagree

a little

disagree

a lot

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

NOW WE WOULD LIKE YOUR OPINION ABOUT THINGS THAT PEOPLE SOMETIMES THINK ABOUT.

REMEMBER THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. IT'S YOUR OPINION THAT COUNTS.

21. Hard work makes you a better

person.

22. Even if you dislike your work

you should do your best.

23. Organized labor unions are good

for workers.

24. Work should be an important part

of a person's life.

25. To me, work is nothing more than

a way of making money.

26. Organized labor unions don't seem

to care about helping youth.

27. "Taking it easy" on the job is alright as long as you don't get

caught by the boss.

28. You should help other people on a

job so that they will help you.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3. 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

296 3, ;)
29. I am generally satisfied with my

life these days.

30. I have enjoyed my life more than

most people have enjoyed theirs.

31. I feel that I am as good as anybody plse.

32. I wl, i could have more respect

for myself.

33. I feel that I have a number of

good qualities.

34. All in all, I'm inclined to feel

that I am a fe-riure.

35. Generally, people tend to push me

around.

36. I never have any trouble making up

my mind about important decisions.

37. I seem to be the kind of person

that has more bad luck than good

luck.

38. I would rather decide things when

they come up than always try to

plan ahead.

39. Generally, I can finish the things

I set out to do.

40. You can't be too careful in dealing with other people.

41. Most of the time people try to

be helpful.

42. Most people try to take advantage

of you if they get a chance.

43. The police treat rich people better than poor people.

agree

a lot

agree

a little unsure

disagree

a little

disagree

A lot

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2. 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5
44. The courts treat all people alike

regardless et race or nationality.

45. The police have It in for young

people and pick on them unfairly.

46. It is better to be unknown and

honest than famous and dishonest.

47. People should not be punished for

breaking a law they think is wrong.

48. If somebody needs something bad

enough it's alright to break the

law to get it.

49. It's alright to drive an automobile while drunk as long as you

don't have an accident.

50. A man can take just as good care

of children as a woman can.

51. There is something wrong with women who want to work at men's jobs.

52. A woman who works full time can be

just as happy as a woman who stays

at home with her family.

53. I would not want to work for a

woman.

54. If a woman is working at a job,

her man should do some of the

housework.

agree agree disagree disagree

a lot a little unsure a little a lot

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

- 298 -

3,1.1
NOW WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT SOME REAL JOBS. elute 1 /6 you think only

a woman should hold that job. Citete 2 i6 you think only a man should hold that

job. elute 3 i6 you think it makeh no diWunce i6 a man of woman hotda that

job.

Only a

Woman

Only a

Man

Makes no

Difference

55. Car Mechanic 1 2 3

56. Factory Worker 1 2 3

57. Nurse 1 2 3

58. Truck Driver 1 2 3

59. Sales Clerk 1 2 3

60. Secretary 1 2 3

61. Carpenter 1 2 3

62. Teacher 1 2 3

63. Telephone Operator 1 2 3

312

- 299 -
NOW WE WOULD LIKE YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE KIND OF WORK THAT PEOPLE IN CERTAIN

KINDS OF JOBS USUALLY DO. Fox each job theke aft thnee duckiptionA oi job

dutie6. Pteaae ciute the deaciciption you think beat 6.ita each job. Be Auke

to mad ate o6 the po44ibte anawexa be6ote you decide.

64. HOSPITAL ORDERLY

1. Helps to take care of hospital patients.

2. Orders food and other supplies for hospital kitchens.

3. Works at hospital desk where

patients check in.

65. KEY PUNCH OPERATOR

1. Operates a machine which

sends telegrams.

2. Operates a machine which

punches holes in cards for

computers.

3. Operates a cordless telephone switchboard and pushes

switch keys to make telephone connections.

66. DEPARTMENT STORE BUYER

1. Selects the items to be

sold in a section of a

department.

2. Checks on the courtesy of

sales people by shopping at

the store.

3. Buys department stores that

are about to go out of business.

67. MACHINIST

1. Makes adjustments on automobile, airplane, and tractor

engines.

2. Repairs electrical equipment.

3. Sets up and operates metal

lathes, shapers, grinders, buffers, etc.

68. DIETICIAN

1. Waits on tables in a restaurant.

2. Plans menus for hospitals and

schools.

3. Suggests exercises for persons

who are overweight or sick.

69. FORK LIFT OPERATOR

1. Operates a machine that makes

a certain kind of agricultural

tool.

2. Operates a freight elevator in

a warehouse or factory.

3. Drives an electrical or gas

powered machine to move material

in a warehouse or factory.
NOW WE WOULD LIKE YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE SUMMER PROGRAM. Foh the 6attowing

que6tion4, cacte the numbet o6 the statement which cornea etoaeat .to the way

you think oh tieet.

70. This program helped me decide

the kind of job I would like

to have.

71. The orientation session explained

what the program was all about.

72. The only thing I got from this

program was money.

73. My coordinator or counselor

was available most of the

time.

74. The people .I worked with were

interested in teaching me about

their jobs.

75. Transportation to work was not

a problem for me.

76. The program taught me what I

have to do to keep a job.

77. My coordinator or counselor was

always interested in what I had

to say.

78. My work experiences in the program were a waste of time.

79. The classroom instruction was

not useful to me on the job.

80. I learned a lot from the field

trips.

agree

a lot

agree

a little unsure disagree

a little

disagree

a lot

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

ONE LAST QUESTION. Ci4cte the numbe4 in 64ont os yout anAwet.

80. To get a good job, how important do you think it is to get a high school

diploma?

1 Very 2 Somewhat 3 Not too 4 Not at all

important important important important

- 301 -

Thank you 6o4 yo wt hetp.

34j
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

CENTER FOR URBAN PROGRAMS

ESTUDIO DE LOS JOVEMES DE

VEP/SPEDY DE 1978

NOMBRE

EE1 NORTH DRANO OULIN/ARO

SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI OM

(tetre' de made, por favor)

Ya me explicaron el sentido de este consentimiento consciente.

Entiendo la explicacia que me dieron y consiento de buena fe

en participar en este estudio.

Entiendo que nd identidad no ser& reveled& y que todas mis

respuestas serin confidenciales.

Entiendo que tengo el derecho de retirar mi consentimiento en

cualquier momento, y de no contester a cualquier pregunta.

Firma del (de la) participant.
1

1 / J / / / / / jai /viii

NOS GUSTARIA QUE USTED PARTICIPE UNA VEZ MAS EN EL ESTUDIO PREPARADO POR LA UNIVERSIDAD DE SAINT LOUIS PARA EL DEPARTAMENTO DEL TRABAJO (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR) DE LOS

ESTADOS UNIDOS. NUESTRA INVESTIGACION TIENE EL PROPOSITO DE OBTENER INFORMACION SOBRE

SUS PENSAMIENTOS U OPINIONES DE MUCHAS COSAS. SUS OPINIONES SON IMPORTANTES Y NOS AYUDARAN A MEJORAR EL PROGRAMA.

TODA LA INFORMACION QUE USTED NOS DE SERA CONSIDERADA CONFIDENCIAL Y NUNCA SERA

REVELADA 0 MOSTRADA EN CUALQUIER MANERA QUE PERMITA UNA IDENTIFICACION INDIVIDUAL 0 PERSONAL CON USTED. SUS RESPUESTAS SERAN COMBINADAS CON LAS DE APROXIMADAMENTE SEIS MIL

PERSONAS.

USTED NO TIENE QUE PARTICIPAR SI NO QUIERE, PERO SUS RESPUESTAS SON MUY IMPORTANTES

PARA NOSOTROS, Y POR ESO ESPERAMOS QUE LLENE ESTAS ROJAS.

QUISIERAMOS SABER ALGO DE SUS PLANES PARA EL FUTURO, LO QUE LE GUSTARIA RACER, 0 LO QUE

PAL VEZ DESEARA RACER. Ponga un cfrculo alrededor del elmero de su respuesta.

1. Aug planes tiene usted despugs del septiembre?

1 asistir a 2 entrena- 3 trabejo (tiem- 4 servicio 5 otros 6 no estoy sela escuela miento po completo) minter planes guro(a) en

este momento

2. Para obtener buen empleo, Zque importante cree usted es recibir un diploma de la

escuela secundaria?

2 un poco 3 no tan 4 no es

1 muy importante importante importante

importante

3. Cuando usted empiece a trabejar tiempo completo, Equg tiro de trabeja cree que le

gustarfa baser?

4. Para obtener ese tipo de trabajo, Ecree usted que va a necesitar minis educaci6n o

entrenamiento que un diploma de la escuela secundaria?

1 Si 2 No 3 No estoy seguro(a)

5. ECSmo pimple usted saber si bay empleos vacamtes pare ese tipo de trebajo?

303

1978 PROGRAMA DE VERANO PARA LOS JOVENES

346
Para las siguientes preguntas, ponga un circulo alrededor del nimero de is expresi6n

mejor de sus pensamientos u opiniones. Circule el am= "1" si esti muy de acuerdo;

el ndmero "2" si estd. un poco de acuerdo. Si no esti seguro(a), circule el ndmero "3".

Circule el nfimero "4" si esti un poco de desacuerdo; y el ndmero "5" si esti muy de

desacuerdo.

PRIMERO NOS GUSTARIA SABER LO QUE USTED ESPERA DE ESTE PRO('RAMA DE VERANO.

muy de un poco de

acuerdo acuerdo

6. Este programa me ayudd a 1 2

aprender lo que hacen los

empleados en diferentes

tipos de trabajo.

7. Este programa me inform6 1

de cufinto entrenamiento

necesito pars diferentes

tipos de trabajo.

8. Este programa me inform6 1

de lo que jefes esperan de

sus empleados.

9. Este programa me dio in- 1

formacidn sobre c6mo

puedo obtener trabajo.

AHORA ALGUNAS PREGUNTAS GENERALES SOME

10. Est bien si no voy al

trabajo, cuando no tengo

gauss de trabajar.

11. Cuando estoy enfermo(a),

est& bien si no llamo pars

informarles que no voy a

trabalar.

12. Esti bien llenar solamente

las pastes de una splicer

ci6n que quiero llenar.

13. Casi siempre un jefe puede

despedir a alguiin por no

decir is verdad en la aplicaci6n.

14. Una buena miners de saber

de empleos vacantes, es de

los amigos y los parientes

que estgn trabajando.

no estoy un poco de muy de

seguro(a) desacuerdo desacuerdo

3 4 5

2 3

2 3

2 3

OBTENER Y HARMER TRABAJO.

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

- 304 -

:3:1 7

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5
muy ne

acuerdo

15. Cuando estoy trabajando, 1

el jefe tiene el derecho de

decirme lo que tengo que

hacer.

16. En el empleo uno debe yestirse en ropa parecida a is que usa is mayorla

de las otras personas

en el mismo sitio de

trabajo.

1

17. Si el trabajo empieza a las 1

8 de is maBana, est& bien

si llego a trabajar a las 8

y media.

18. Racer bien en una entrevista 1

ayuda a las personas a obtener un trabajo.

19. En el empleo, no es importan- 1

to llevarse bien con los compaBeros de trabajo.

20. Cuando la gente estg apli- 1

cando pare un

trabajo, los jefes no toman

en cuenta si uno trabaj6 bien

o no en otros sitios.

mu wcw

acuerdo

w W v V %Ims

a".4.04:""1. anw cuord*

2 5

2 3

A 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

AHORA NOS GUSTARIA SABER SU OPINION DE CIERTAS COSAS EN LAS CUALES UNO PIENSA A VECES.

RECUERDE QUE NO HAY RESPUESTAS CORRECTAS 0 INCORRECTAS. ES SU OPINION LO QUE VALE.

21. Si las personas trabajan du- 1

ro, asi se hacen mejores

personas.

22. Aunque no le guste su 1

trabajo, usted debe hacer

lo mejor que pueda.

23. Las uniones de trabajadores 1

son buenas pare los trabajadores.

24. El trabajo debe ser una 1

parte importante de su vida.

25. Para mS el trabajo no es 1

nada mas que una manera de

ganar dinero.

26. Las uniones de trabajadores 1

no parecen preocuparse por

syudar a los j6venes.

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 4 5

2 3 4 5

2 5

- 305 -34g
mi de un poco de no estoy un poco de muy de

acuerdo acuerdo seguro(a) desecuerdo desacuerdo

27. Esti bien que yo esti

flojo en el trabsjo, si

el jefe no me encuentra.

28. En el trabajo yo debo

ayudar a las otras personas,

pars que me ayuden tembiin.

29 En general, estoy satisfecho

con is vida en estos dias.

3C. He gozado mi vida mis que is

mayoria de is gente.

3-k Creo que yo soy tan bueno(a)

comp cualquier persona.

32. Quisiera tener mis respeto

haat' mi miaow.

33, Creo que yo tengo muchas

buena"' cualidades.

34. Sobretodo, siento que soy

un fracaso.

35. &Inca tengo dificultad en

decidirme, cuando es una

decisi6n importante.

36. Generalmente, is gente tiende a aprovecharse de mi.

37. Parece que yo soy el tipo de

persona que tiene 'As male

suerte que buena suerte.

38. Prefiero hacer decisions a].

pimento que hacer planes.

39. Generalmente puedo &caber

las cosas que me propongo a

hacer.

40. Es mejor seguir con cuidado

en tratamientos con otras

personas.

41. La mayor parte del tiempo,

is gente trata de ayudar a

los otros.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 4 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

- 306 -
,buy de un poco de no estoy un poco de muy de

acuerdo acuerdo seguro(a) desacuerdo desacuerdo

42. Si tienen la ,oportunidad,

la mayor parte de la gente

trata de aprovecharse de

uno

43. La policia trata a los ricos

mejor que a los pobres.

44. Las cortes tratan a toda la

gente igualmente, sin hacer

caso de la nacdonalidad o

la raza de uno.

45. La policia tiene mala voluntad con los j6venes y por

eso los molesta injustamente.

46. Es mejor ser desconocido y

honest°, que famoso y no

honest°.

4T. No se debe castigar a las

personas por violar una ley

que lea parece injusta.

48. Si alguien necesita alga con

suficiente urgencia, estfi

bien violar la ley pars obtenerlo.

49. Est bien manejar un carro

estando borracho(a), si uno

no tiene un accidente.

50. Un hombre puede cuidar de

los niflos tan bien como una

mujer.

51. No son normales las mujeres

que quieren trabajar en

empleos de hombres.

52. Una mujer que trabaja tiempo completo puede ser tan

feliz como la mujer que se

queda en casa con su familia.

53. No me gustarfa que una mujer

fuera md jefa.

54. Si una mujer trabaja, su marido debe ayudar en be trabajos de la casa.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 5

1 2 3 11 5

- 307 - 3,-;()
AHORA NOS GdSTARIA QUE USTED PENSARA EN ALGUNOS TRABAJOS VERDADEROS.

Circule en el ndmero "1" si cree que s6lo las mujeres debian hacer ese tipo

de trabajo; el "2" si cree que s6lo los hombres debian hacerlo; y el "3" si

cree que no imports y que los dos (hombre y miner) podrfan y debian hacerlo.

s6lo las

mujeres

s6lo los

hombres

no imports

55. mecinico(a) de carro 1 2 3

56. trabajador(`a) en una fibrice. 1 2 3

57. enfermero(a) 1 2 3

58. camionero(a) 1 2 3

59. vendedor(a) 1 2 3

60. secretfirio(a) 1 2 3

61. carpintero(a) 1 2 3

62. profesor(a) 1 2 3

63. operador(a) de telfono 1 2

AHORA NOS GUSTARIA SABER SU OPINION SOBRE LO QUE RACE LA GENTE EN CIERTOS EMPLEOS.

Pars cads empleo hay tres descripciones o definiciones posibles de los deberes del

empleo. Raga el favor de circular la definici6n que a su parecer describe mejor el empleo. No deje de leer toms las descripciones antes de decidirse:

64. ASISItmlb EN UN HOSPITAL

1. Ayuda a cuidar de los pacientes en

un hospital.

2. Pide alimentos y otras provisiones

pare is cocina de un hospital.

3. Trabaja en el sitio donde los

pacientes son admitidos al hospital.

65. OPERADOR(A) DE "KEY PUNCH"

1. Opera una mgquina que mends

telegramas.

2. Opera una miquina que perforce

tarjetss pars las computadoras.

3. Opera un cuadro conmutador

(switchboard) automitico y empuja botonea pars hacer las

conexiones telef6nicas.
66. COMPRADOR(A) PARA LAS TIENDAS

1. Selecciona los articulos que sera

vendidos en una secci6n de un deparbamento.

2. Compruebs y verifies la cortesfa de

los vendedores, haciendo compras en

la tienda.

3. Compra las tiendas que estfin al

punto de ser cerradas.

67. MAQUINISTA

1. Repara los motores de carros, aviones, y tractores.

2. Repara equipos elfictricos.

3. Monts y opera tornos metfilicos,

miquinas de taller o estampar,

miquinas amoladoras, ruedas de

pulir, etc.

68. DIETETICO(A)

1. Sirve a las mesas en un restorfin.

2. Planes las amides en los hospi -

tales y en las escuelas.

3. Sugiere los ejercicios corporales

pars las personas que estfin de -

masiado gordas o que estfin enfermas.

69. OPERADOR(A) Di "FORK LIFT"

1. Opera una miquina que produce

herramientas agricolas.

2. Opera un ascensor de cargas en un

almacfin o en una ffibrica.

3. Maneja una mfiquina con motor de

combustifin interns o de electricidad, que levanta cargas y las

traslada, en un almacfin o en una

ffibrica.

AEORA NOS GUSTARIA SABER LO QUE USTED OPINA DEL PROGRAMA DE VKRANO. Para las preguntas

siguientes, ponga un cIrculo alrededor del n6mero de is expresi6n mejor de sus penes,-

mientos u opiniones.

muy de

acuerdo

un poco de no estoy un poco de

acuerdo seguro(a) desacuerdo

muy de

desacuerdo

70. Este programme ayud6 1 2 3 4 5

a decidir sobre el tipo

de trabajo que as gustaria pacer.

71. Ls sesi6n de orientaci6n 1 2 4 5

explic6 de lo que se

trate en el programs.

72. Lo finis° que saqufi de 1 2 3 4 5

eate programs fue dinero.

73. Mi coordinador o consejero 1 2 3 4 5

estuvo asequible casi todo

el tiempo.

74. Las personas con quienes 1 2 3 4 5

trabaj se interesaron por

instruirme e informarme

de sus trabajos.

75. Llegar al trabajo no era 1 2 3 4 5

problems pars mI.

- 309 -
may de

acuerdo

un poco de

acuerdo

no estoy un poco de

seguro(a) desacuerdo

may de

desacuerdo

76. El programa me ensefl6 lo

que tengo que hacer pars

mantener un trabaJo.

1 2 3 4 5

77. Mi coordinador o consejero

siempre se interes6 por lo

que yo tenia que decir.

1 2 3 4 5

78. Mis experiencias de traba- 1 2 3 4 5

Jo en el programa rheron

una perdida de tiempo.

79. Lo que aprendi en close no

me ayud6 en el trabejo.

1 2 3 4 5

80. Aprendl macho de las excursiones de estudios

pricticos !Hera de la

close.

1 2 3 4 5

UNA ULTIMA PREGUNTA. Circule el n6mero de su respuesta.

81. Para obtener buen trabajo, Equ6 irportante cree usted es recibir un diploma de la

escuela secundaria ?

1 may importante 2 un poco importante 3 no tan importante 4 no es

importante

MUCHAS GRACIAS POE SU ATUDA

373

- 310 -
Format for Fall 1978 Intensive City Visits

Environmental Factors Relating to Youth Employment Projects

The purpose of these visits is to address the following questions that

were set out in the Center's proposal to DOL. These are:

PROGRAMS

What other employment programs are available to youth?

Who runs these programs?

How many youth are enrolled?

How are they selected?

What is the purpose of the program?

What services are provided?

What is the length of the program?

How long has it been in operation?

RELATIONSHIPS

How do the public and private sectors view each other?

Is there any indication of cooperation between area employers and

youth employment programs? school system?

What is the relationship between CETA prime sponsor and the school

system? the trade schools? the area's principal employers?

How is active is NAB? HRDI? What is their relationship?

What is the rola of the labor unions and youth employment programs?

What type. of programs are favored (supported)? and by what groups?

ENVIRONMENT

What is the rata of unemployment in the area?

What is the racial composition of the area? of its youth? of its

unemployed?

What political factors affect (hinder/support) the operation of youth

employment programs?

What is the general trend of employment in the area?

What forecasts have been made as to the employment needs of the area

over the next five years?

How are the youth employment programs meshed with these perceived needs?

The Center outlined the following in its proposal to DOL:

The purpose of this field visit will be to gain further insight

into the operation of the summer VEP program and, more importantly,

to analyze the environment in which the VEP program operated. Information will be developed on other youth employment programs

available in the area; interviews will be held with individuals

knowledgeable apout the mechanics of these programs; data will be

secured on the operatio.. of these programs; and social-demographic

data for the. area will, be analyzed.

- 311 -

36.E
In order to compile complete information the following groups should

be contacted:

1. CETA Prime Sponsor -- youth staff.

2. School System(s) -- various programs.

3. State Employment Service.

4. NAB and HRDI.

5. Other 10Lal groups serving youth, e.g., YMCA, Local Youth Agencies.

6. Any local youth council whether or not it is under political control.

7. Chamber of Commerce or similar business group.

8. Other groups or agencies that are involved in youth employment and

training.

The following documents should be obtained:

Document Source

Annual Planning Report Employment Service

CETA Plan CETA Prime Sponsor

Client Characteristics Report, CETA Prime Sponsor

Title III

Other Pertinent Reports As Available

Priority Contacts

Essential

1. CETA Prime Sponsor -- youth and planning staff.

2. School system(s) -- programs meeting youth employment and training

goals (e.g., co-op, distributive education, and vocational technical training).

3. State Employment Service.

4. NAB and HRDI.

5. Chamber of Commerce or similar business group.

- 312 - 3 5-)
Desirable

1. Other local groups serving youth, e.g., YMCA, YWCA, local youth

agency.

2. Any local youth council (even if it is political appointment).

3. Other groups or agencies that are involved with youth employment

and training.

4. Other groups dealing with offenders and handicapped students (time

probably will not permit us to go this far away from major focus).

Contact Procedures

We should make our contacts with essential "actors," so that we can obtain

a wide range of information on programs. The focus is on the overall local

environment in which youth employment and training programs operate. We do

not need to become specialists in a particular program. We should learn the

program goals, type of service, number of youth served and the general characteristics of enrollees. As time permits -- it generally won't -- explore

specific programs.

In making contacts with the essential groups, maximize the program information obtained from tnose in the best position to know, namely, prime sponsors' and

schools. Then consider other likely sources based on Your assessment of their

knowledge. For business and political information, utilize all three groups.

Time Period Covered

We should obtain information for the Federal fiscal year, October 1, 1977

to September 30, 1978. In examining summer programs obtain information on Summer 1978 and for school year programs use 1977-78.

Priority Issues for Intensive Site Visits

CUP needs to obtain the following information in order to assess the environment in which VEP operated:

- 313 - 3:5G
1. Economic conditions in the area

- - indications, e.g., unemployment rate

-- opinions

2. Relationships

-- cooperation (or lack) between prime sponsors, school, employers

and other groups

3. Youth Population

- - general information

- - specific target groups

Both are estimated in the Annual Planning Report prepared by ES for

the Primes.

4. Youth Programming

-- What types of programs?

- - What services are provided?

-- Who is served? Number?

5. Results

- - Any research and evaluation reports?

-- Opinions as to what works and why?

- - Any innovative programs?

- - Examples of cooperation?
1978 VEP/SPEDY ENROLLEE SURVEY

CODING MANUAL

WITH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Prepared by:

Center for Urban Programs

St. Louis University

for the

U.S. Department of Labor

Grant No. 28-29-78-53

May, 1979
VEP CODING MANUAL

VEP SPEDY

Column N % N %

DEMOGRAPHIC/PROGRAM DATA CARD

Code

1-3 --

-- -- -- City Code (See Appendix A for list)

4-6 -- - -- -- Enrollee Identification

7 Enrollee Age (as of June 1, 1978)

248 5.1 660 41.5 1. Less than 16

1383 28.5 356 22.4 2. 16

1263 26.0 276 17.3 3. 17

877 18.0 123 7.7 4. 18

460 9.5 74 4.7 5. 19

280 5.8 33 2.1 6. 20

184 3.8 25 1.6 7. 21

14 0.3 0 0.0 8. Over 21

150 3.1 44 2.8 9. Unknown

8 Highest Grade Completed

97 2.0 415 26.1 1. Ein. L- '.lo

393 8.1 301 18.9 2. 9L1

1199 24.7 262 16.5 3. 10th

1358 27.9 223 14.0 4. 11th

1091 22.5 72 4.5 5. 42th

535 11.0 50 3.1 6. More .1.1;1 12th

30 0.6 0 0.0 7. Spectral ,duration

5 0.1 0 0.0 8. GE! 151 3.1 268 16.8 9. '.10.no,,

9

Enro.. Lee Sex

2291 47.1 760 47.8 1. Male

2568 52.9 831 52.2 2. Female

9. Unknown

.115:P

- 316 -
Column

VIP

1034

3012

55

58

508

17

175

21.3

62.0

1.1

1.2

10.5

0.3

3.6

SPEDY

394

911

7 25

231

6

17

24.8

57.3

0.4

1.6

14.5

0.4

1.1

10 Enrollee Race

1. White

2. hack

3. American Indian, Native American

4. Oriental

5. Spanier Surname/American

6. Other, .inclaasifiable

9. Unknown

11 Welfare Status of Enrollee

922 19.0 600 37.7 1. AnC

732 15.1 256 16.1 2. Other

21 0.4 23 1.4 3. Rota AFDC and Other

2 0.0 86 5.4 4. Yas .mspecIfied

2531 52.1 582 36.6 8. No w3fare

651 13.4 44 2.8 9. 'inknotrn

12 2412/10.....Epceis (,:oup of Enrollee

401 8.3 1. Handicappun

561 11.5 2. Youth Offitel

258 5.3 3. NontradiL.tonal

3457 71.1 4. None; Re:galar

U 0.0 1591 100.0 8. SPEDY

182 3.7 9. Unknow

13 'yr: of Program/CUP Visitation

364 7.5 .;. Single, visited

239 4.9 2 Single, not visited

1451 29.9 3. Umbrella, visited

2805 57.7 4. Umbrella, not visited

0 n.o 15..)1 1U0.0 5. SPEDY

0 0.0 9. Unknown

317 - 3 )
Column

VIP

N

349

780

666

358

1014

857

546

289

0

0

X

7.2

16.1

13.7

7.4

20.9

17.6

11.2

5.9

0.0

0.0

N

1591

SPEDY

x

100.0

Code

14 Size of Program (Contracted)

1. 20 or less

2. 21-40

3. 41-60

4. 61-80

5. 81-100

6. 101-120

7. 121-140

8. 141 or more

9. SPEDY

O. Unknown

15-16 Contracted Program Emphasis

985 20.3 10. Regular only

536 11.0 11. Regular and Youth Offender

170 3.5 12. Regular and Handicapped (H)

187 3.8 13. Regular and Non-traditional

(NT)

504 10.4 14. Regular, YO and H

266 5.5 15. Regular, H and NT

183 3.8 16. Regular, YO and NT

1757 36.2 17. Regular, and all three

emphasis groups

43 0.9 21. YO only

76 1.6 22. H only

67 1.4 23. NT only

17 0.3 24. YO and H

0 0.0 25. H and NT

28 0.6 26. YO and NT

40 0.8 27. All three emphasis groups

0 0.0 1591 100.0 30. SPEDY

17 Subcontractor Identification

126 2.6 1. SPEDY/VEP

4733 97.4 2. All other VEP

0 0.0 1591 100.0 3. SPEDY Control Group

318 -

(Y0)
VII SPEDY

Column N X N %

353 7.3 202 12.7

355 7.3 0 0.0

854 17.6 441 27.7

829 17.1 0 0.0

834 17.2 249 15.7

572 11.8 0 0.0

367 7.6 216 13.6

79 1.6 238 15.0

409 8.4 0 0.0

207 4.3 245 15.4

18

END OF DEMOGRAPHIC/PROGRAM DATA CARD

Code

Standard Federal Region

1. Region I -- Connecticut, Maine

Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

Rhode Island, Vermont

2. Region II -- Neu Jersey, New

York, Puerto Rico

3. Region III -- Delaware, Maryland

Pennsylvania, Virginia, West

Virginia

4, Region IV -- Alabama,.Florida,

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,

North Carolina, South Carolina,

Tennessee

5. kagion V -- Illinois, Indiana,

Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,

Wisconsin

6. Region VI -- Arkansas, Louisiana

New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas

7. Region VII -- Iowa, Kansas,

Missouri, Nebraska

8. Region VIII -- Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South

Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

9. Region IX -- Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada

O. Region X -- Alaska, Idaho,

Oregon, Washington
VEP SPEDY

Column N E N E Code

1 -- -- -- 1. First Data Card (File Card Two)

2-7 Identification (Cola. 1-6 from File

Card One)

8-19 Blank

20 Q.1. What are you planning

fall?

21

22-24

3251 66.9 1112 69.9 1. In school

243 5.0 71 4.5 2. Skill training

714 14.7 195 12.3 3. Working full time

57 1.2 14 0.9 4. Military service

68 1.4 28 1.8 5. Other plans

353 7.3 140 8.8 6. Not sure at this time

173 3.6 31 1.9 9. No answer

Q.2. To get a good lob, how important dd you think it is to get

a high school diploma?

4090 84.2 1381 86.8 1. Very important

616 12.7 167 10.5 2. Somewhat important

91 1.9 24 1.5 3. Not too important

23 0.5 7 0.4 4. Not at all important

39 0.8 12 0.8 9. No answer

- 320 -

Q.3. When you start working full

time what kind of job do you

think you would like to do?

3 Col. Dictionary of Occupational

Titles with the following conventions:

997 -- Response unclassifiable

998 -- Don't know (actual

response)

999 -- No answer

Code first listed only.
VIZ SPEDY

Colt= Code

25 Q.3. Total number of jobs listed.

3501 72.1 1173 73.7 1. One

721 14.8 161 10.1 2. Two

100 2.1 26 1.6 3. Three

9 0.2 2 0.1 4. Four or more

215 4:i4 136 8.5 8. Don't know (written response)

313 6.4 93 5.8 9. Unknown (blank, no response)

26

27-28 Q.S. Haw would you find out if

3657 75.3

424 8.7

665 13.7

113 2.3

Q.4. To get that kind of job do

you think you will need more education or training than a high

school diploma?

1071 67.3 1. Yes

166 10.4 2. No

319 20.1 3. Not sure

35 2.2 9. No answer

there are any job openings for

that kind of job?

First mentioned method coded in

Column 27.

Second mentioned method coded in

Column 28.

If no second method, coded "s'

in Column 28.

27 489 10.1 140 8.8 1. School CoAnselor

513 10.6 130 8.2 2. Public employment agency/

manpower office

25 0.5 3 0.2 3. Private employment agency

1254 25.8 264 16.6 4. Contact employer directly

1181 24.3 374 23.5 5. Newspaper or other media

88 1.8 54 3.4 6. Friends or relatives

22 0.4 4 0.3 7. Union/labor organization

603 12.4 286 18.0 8. Other

173 3.6 122 7.7 9. Don't know (actual response)

511 10.5 214 13.5 O. Unknown; no answer

- 321. -
Column

VEP SPEDY

Code

28 Second Mentioned140 2.9 29 1.8 1. School counselor

263 5.4 66 4.1 2. Public employment agency/

manpower office

20 0.4 3 0.2 3. Private employment agency

410 8.4 94 5.9 4. Contact employer directly

327 6.7 71 4.5 5. Newspaper or other media

132 2.7 41 2.6 6. Friends or relatives

8 0.2 1 0.1 7. Union/labor orpanization

171 3.5 74 4.7 8. Other

2877 59.2 998 62.6 9. Don't know (ac:mal response)

No Second Method

511 10.5 214 13.5 O. Unknown; no answer

Total Methods Mentioned

% taken of 4859 VEP and 1591 SPED!

629 12.9 169 10.6 1. School counselor

776 16.0 196 12.3 2. Public employment agc_cy/

manpower office

45 0.9 6 0.4 3. Private employment agency

1664 34).2 358 22.5 4. Contact employer directly

1508 31.0 445 28.0 5. Newspaper or other media

220 4.5 95 6.0 6. Friends or relatives

30 0.6 5 0.3 7. Union/labor organization

774 15.9 360 22.6 8. Other

173 3.6 122 7.7 9. Don't know (actual response)

511 10.5 214 13.5 O. Unknown; no answer

29 Q.5. Total number of methods

mentioned.

2721 56.0 886 55.7 1. One

1152 23.7 303 19.0 2. Two

264 5.4 66 4.1 3. Three

38 0.8 7 0.4 4. Four or more

168 3.5 122 7.6 8. Don't know

516 10.6 214 13.1 9. Unknown, No answer
V8P SPEDY

Column Code

30 hg.12rogrp.6.Tamwillhelme

find out what workers do in different kinds of lobs.

3211 66.1 763 48.0 1. Agree a lot

1157 23.8 544 34.2 2. Agree a little

344. 7.1 180 11.3 3. Unsure

70 1.4 56 3.5 4. Disagree a little

42 0.9 32 2.0 5. Disagree a lot

35 0.7 16 1.0 9. No answer

31 Q.7. This program will tell me how

much training I need for different

kinds of lobs.

2729 56.2 640 40.2 1. Agree a lot

1366 28.1 525 33.0 2. Agree a little

507 10.4 225 14.1 3. Unsure

148 3.0 102 6.4 4. Disagree a little

77 1.6 79 5.0 5. Disagree a lot

32 0.7 20 1.3 9. No answer

32 Q.8. This program will tell me

what employers expect their workers

to do.

3375 69.5 1020 64.1 1. Agree a lot

1012 20.8 370 23.3 2. Agree a little

288 5.9 111 7.0 3. Unsure

104 2.1 51 3.2 4. Disagree a little

42 0.9 25 1.6 5. Disagree a lot

38 0.8 14 0.9 9. No answer

33 Q.9. This program will give ma

information about how I can get

AJAL

2649 54.5 593 37.3 1. Agree a lot

1247 25.7 454 28.5 2. Agree a little

650 13.4 321 20.2 3. Unsure

164 3.4 123 ; 7 4. Disagree a little

110 2.3 88 5.5 5. Disagree a lot

39 0.8 12 0.8 9. No answer

- 323

0

t l - 006
Colt=

VEP SPED:

Code

34 Q.10. It's alright to miss work

whenever you don't feel =witting.

120 2.5 49 3.1 1. Agree a lot

129 2.7 57 3.6 2. Agree a little

92 1.9 35 2.2 3. Unsure

356 7.3 135 8.5 4. Disagree a little

4126 84.9 1299 81.6 5. Disagree a lot

36 0.7 16 1.0 9. No Answer

35 0.11. When you are sick it's

alright to miss work without calling to say you won't be there.

168 3.5 89 5.6 1. Agree a lot

83 1.1 46 2.9 2. Agree a little

83 1.7 51 3.2 3. Unsure

334 6.9 180 11.3 4. Disagree a little

4157 85.6 1210 76.1 5. Disagree a lot

34 0.7 15 0.9 9. No answer

36 Q.12. It's alright to fill out

only the parts of the job application that you want to.

177 3.6 85 5.3 1. Agree a lot

177 3.6 74 4.7 2. Agree a little

215 4.4 115 7.2 3. Unsure

561 11.5 182 11.4 4. Disagree a little

3690 75.9 1122 70.5 5. Disagree a lot

39 0.8 13 0.8 9. No answer

37 Q.3. Unsually an employer can

fire someone for not telling the

truth on a job application.

1988 40.9 502 31.6 1. Agree a lot

633 13.0 247 15.5 2. Agree a little

895 15.4 406 25.5 3. Unsure

492 10.1 167 10.5 4. Disagree a little

793 16.3 251 15.8 5. Disagree a lot

58 1.2 18 1.1 9. No answer

- 324 -
PEP SPRDY

Column

1756

1921

401

489

247

45

2

36.1

39.5

8.3

10.1

5.1

0.9

N

558

638

167

124

85

19

2

35.1

40.1

10.5

7.8

5.3

1.2

Coda

38

39

Q.14. A good way to find out

about job openings is from triangle

or relatives who are working.

:L. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Dliagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.15. On the job the boss has the

right to tall you what to do.

3429 70.6 1085 68.2 1. Agree a lot

889 18.3 299 18.8 2. Agree a little

149 3.1 62 3.9 3. Unsure

163 3.4 71 4.5 4. Disagree a little

185 3.8 62 3.9 5. Disagree a lot

44 0.9 12 0.8 9. No answer

40 Q.16. At work. you should try to

dress like most other people on

the job.

1653 34.0 395 24.8 1. Agree a lot

1495 30.8 455 28.6 2. Agree a little

404 8.3 185 11.6 3. Unsure

645 13.3 222 14.0 4. Disagree a little

621 12.8 318 20.0 5. Disagree a lot

41 0.8 16 1.0 9. No answer

41 Q.17. If your job starts at 8:00

A.M. it's alright if you show up

at 8:30 A.M.

104 2.1 36 2.3 1. Agree a lot

94 1.9 59 3.7 2. Agree a little

73 1.5 47 3.0 3. Unsure

349 7.2 167 10.5 4. Disagree a little

4199 86.4 1267 79.6 5. Disagree a lot

40 0.8 15 0.9 9. Nn answer
8PIDY

Column

3511

897

210

96

85

60

72.3

18.5

4.3

2.0

1.7

1.2

1041

343

120

32

28

27

65.4

21.6

7.5

2.0

1.8

1.7

Code

42 0.18. Doing well on a lob interview helps you to net a job.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

43 2.1LAnthe lob. it's not imvortant to get alone with your

fallow workers.

401 8.3 200 12.6 1. Agree a lot

284 5.8 113 7.1 2. Agree a little

150 3.1 98 6.2 3. Unsure

742 15.3 249 15.7 4. Disagree a little

3217 66.2 900 56.6 5. Disagree a lot

65 1.3 31 1.9 9. No answer

44 Q.20. When you are applying for a

job. employer's don't consider how

you did in previous jobs.

288 5.9 112 7.0 1. Agree a lot

357 7.3 134 8.4 2. Agree a little

576 11.9 314 19.7 3. Unsure

991 20.4 286 18.0 4. Disagree a little

2606 53.6 728 45.8 5. Disagree a lot

41 0.8 17 1.1 9. No answer

45 Q.21. Hard work makes you a better

parson.

1732 35.6 630 39.6 1. Agree a lot

1579 32.5 471 29.6 2. Agree a little

578 11.9 206 12.9 3. Unsure

552 11.4 149 9.4 4. Disagree a little

383 7.9 127 8.0 5. Disagree a lot

35 0.7 8 0.5 9. No answer
VIM SPED!

Column Code

46 0.22. Even if you dislike your

work you should do your best.

3407 70.1 1087 68.3

963 19.8 317 19.9

175 3.6 73 4.6

155 3.2 47 3.0

117 2.4 48 3.0

4c 0.9 19 1.2

47

2206 45.4 563 35.4

1082 22.3 350 22.0

1303 26.8 561 35.3

124 2.6 49 3.1

76 1.6 40 2.5

68 1.4 28 1.8

48

3337 68.7 1048 65.9

1071 22.0 360 22.6

185 3.8 72 4.5

138 2.8 54 3.4

72 1.5 34 2.1

56 1.2 23 1.4

49

693 14.3 242 15.2

798 16.4 337 21.2

282 5.8 140 8.8

1403 28.9 405 25.5

1623 33.4 445 28.0

60 1.2 22 1.4

- 327 - 3

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.23. Organized labor unions are

Rood for workers.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.24. Work should be an important

part of a person's life.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.25. To me work is nothing more

than a way of making money.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer
VEP SPED!

Colt Code

50 0.26. Organized labor unions don't

seers to care about helping youth.

334

479

2099

719

1137

91

6.9

9.9

43.2

14.8

23.4

1.9

126

169

734

216

307

39

51

409 8.4 144

727 15.0 283

282 5.8 156

1035 21.3 356

235, 48.4 635

52 1.1 17

52

2923 60.2 S21

1269 26.1 420

280 5.8 110

215 4.4 61

137 2.8 55

35 0.7 14

53

2060 42.4 720

1540 31.7 492

371 7.6 152

512 10.5 136

314 6.5 75

62 1.3 16

- 328

7.9 1. Agree a lot

10.6 2. Agree a little

46.1 3. Unsure

13.6 4. Disagree a little

19.3 5. Disagree a lot

2.5 9. No answer

Q.27. "Taking it easy" cn the

job is alright as long as you

don't get caught by the boss.

9.1 1. Agree a lot

17.8 2. Agree a little

9.8 3 Unsure

22.4 4. Disagree a little

39.9 5. Disagree a lot

1.1 9. No mower

Q.28. You should help other people

on a job so that they will help you.

57.9 1. Agree a lot

26.4 2. Agree a little

6.9 3. Unsure

3.8 4. Disagree a little

4.1 5. Disagree a lot

0.9 9. No answer

Q.29. I as generally satisifed

with my life these days.

45.3 1. Agree a lot

3J.9 2. Agree a little

9.6 3. Unsure

8.5 4. Disagree a little

4.7 5. Disagree a lot

1.0 9. No answer

- 3 ';41
YEP SPEDY

Column V Z V Z Code

54 Q.30. 7 haw ..njoyed my life

more than most people have enjoyed theirs.

1652 34.0 557 35.0 1. Agree a lot

1212 24.9 419 26.3 2. Agree a little

1248 25.7 398 25.0 3. Unsure

418 8.6 129 8.1 4. ftsagres a little

247 5.1 67 4.2 5. Disagree a lot

82 1.7 21 1.3 9. No answer

55 Alp, T feel that I am 441 so:.d

da? ,0ody else.

3480 71.5 1036 65.1 I. ),-/ree a lot

702 14.4 274 17.2 : A, _a a little

227 k.7 99 6.2 *.A dasuva

169 3.5 91 5.7 4, D.t.lagree a little

166 3.4 46 2.9 5 Dagree a lot

115 2.4 45 2.8 9. No Answer

56 Q.32..__2212hI could have more

respect Zor myself.

1226 25.2 397 25.0 1. Agree a lot

1059 21.8 368 23.1 2. Agree a little

480 9.9 225 34.4 3. Unsure

633 13.0 188 11.8 4. Disagree , little

1245 25.6 356 22.4 5. Disagree a lot

216 4.4 53 ..3 9. No answer

57 .33. I feel that I have a number

of goon qualities.

3211 66.1 385 55.6 1. Agree a lot

1197 24.6 433 ^8.5 2. Agree a little

263 5.4 .W J.6 3. Unsure

57 1.2 41 2.6 4. Disagree a little

50 1.0 24 1.5 '. Disagree a 7o.s...

81 1.7 35 2.2 ). No answer
Column

VIP SPEDY

Coda

58 Q.34. All in all I'm inclined

to feel I am a failure.

129 2.7 46 2.9 1. Agree a lot

313 6.4 127 8.0 2. Agree a little

345 7.1 182 11.4 3. Unsure

587 12.1 247 15.5 4. Disagree a little

3383 69.6 956 60.1 5. Disagree a lot

102 2.1 33 2.1 9. No answer

59 eneraL135.Gndto

push me around.

290 6.0 99 6.2 1. Agree a lot

607 12.5 218 13.7 2. Ave. a little

237 4.9 118 7.4 3. Unsure

825 17.0 261 16.4 4. Disagree a little

2112 57.9 864 54.3 5. Disagree a lot

88 1.8 31 1.9 9. No answer

60 91,.u. I nevc- have any trouble

making up my wand about important

decisions.

1156 23.8 366 23.0 1 Agre a lo*

1452 29.9 454 28.5 Agri a little

528 10.9 223 14.0 L. Unsure

1196 24.6 376 23.6 4. Disagree a little

430 8.8 146 9.2 5. Disagree a lot

97 2.0 26 1.6 9. No answer

61 Q.37. I seem ;.c, be the kind of per-' son `141.t ho more bad luck than

good luck.

450 9.3 174 10.9 1. lozree a lo*

829 17.1 285 17.9 2. l: -Tee a litele

729 15.0 251 15.8 3. Disuse

1223 25.2 384 24.1 4. Disagree a little

1547 31.8 480 30.2 5. Disagre4. a lot

81 1.7 17 1.1 9. No answer

3 -1

- 330 -
VEP SPEDY

Colton X Code

6Z Q.38. 7 would rather decide things

when they come up than always try

to plan ahead.

1066 21.9 394 24.8 1. Agree a lot

1066 21.9 347 21.8 2. Agree a little

484 10.0 222 14.0 3. Unsure

1034 21.3 294 18.5 4. Disagree a little

1136 23.4 303 19.0 5. Disagree a lot

73 1.5 31 1.9 9. No answer

63 Q.39. Generally. I can finish the

things I set out to do.

2871 59.1 821 51.6 1. Agree a lot

1485 30.6 495 31.1 2. Agree a little

189 3.9 129 8.1 3. Unsure

173 3.6 78 4.9 4. Disagree a little

71 1.5 39 2.5 5. Disagree a lot

70 1.4 29 1.8 9. No answer

64 Q.40. You can't be too careful

in dealing with other people.

1561 32.1 417 26.2 1. Agree a lot

1615 33.2 517 32.5 2. Agree a little

767 15.8 349 21.9 3. Unsure

503 10.4 157 9.9 4. Disagree a little

309 6.4 115 7.2 5. Disagree a lot

104 2.1 36 2.3 9. No answer

65 Q.41. Moat of the time people try

to be helpful.

1379 28.4 476 29.9 1. Agree a lot

2186 45.0 664 41.7 2. Agree a little

543 11.2 201 12.6 3. Unsure

513 10.6 156 9.8 4. Disagree a little

151 3.1 60 3.8 5. Disagree a lot

87 1.8 34 2.1 9. No answer
VEP SPEW

Column Code

66 142. Most people try to take

ai;entage of you if they get a

chance.

1756 36.1 566 35.6 1. Agree a lot

1499 30.8 457 28.7 2. Agree a little

485 10.0 207 13.0 3. Unsure

685 14.1 215 13.5 4. Disagree a little

350 7.2 112 7.0 5. Disagree a lot

84 1.7 34 2.1 9. No answer

67 Q.43. The police treat rich

people better than poor people.

1365 28.1 440 27.7 1. Agree a lot

839 17.3 244 15.3 2. Agree a little

1254 25.8 457 28.7 3. Unsure

512 10.5 159 10.0 4. Disagree a little

815 16.8 266 16.7 5. Disagree a lot

74 1.5 25 1.6 9. No answer

68 Q.44. The courts treat all people

alike regardless of race or

nationality.

1468 30.2 521 32.7 1. Agree a lot

935 19.2 292 18.4 2. Agree a little

1063 21.9 391 24.6 3. Unsure

694 14.3 206 12.9 4. Disagree a little

627 12.9 158 9.9 5. Disagree a lot

72 1.5 23 1.4 9. No answer

69 1.45 The police have it in for

zamr2]2ndick on them

unfa!ra659 13.6 255 16.0 1. Agree ., lot

1131 23.3 380 23.9 2. Agree , little

1174 24.2 435 27.3 3. Unsure

945 19.4 272 17.1 4. Disagree a little

862 17.7 224 14.1 5. Disagree a lot

88 1.8 25 1.6 9. No answer

:3 '75

- 332 -
VEP SPEDY

Column E Code

70 Q.46. It is better to be unknown

and honest than famous and dishonest.

3228 66.4 927 58.3 1. &grae a lot

724 14.9 287 18.0 2. Agree a little

509 10.5 218 13.7 3. Unsure

152 3.1 59 3.7 4. Disagree a little

159 3.3 68 4.3 5. Disagree a lot

87 1.8 32 2.0 9. No answer

71 Q.47. People should not be punished for breaking a law they

think is wrong.

348 7.2 163 10.2 1. Agree a lot

457 9.4 187 11.8 2. Agree a little

859 17.7 331 20.8 3. Unsure

877 18.0 252 15.8 4. Disagree a little

2196 45.2 614 38.6 5. Disagree a lot

122 2.5 44 2.8 9. No answer

4

72 Q.48. If somebody needs something.

bad enough it's alright to break

the law to get it.

158 3.3 73 4.6 1. Agree a lot

243 5.0 96 6.0 2. Agree a little

356 7.3 157 9.9 3. Unsure

690 14.2 244 15.3 4. Disagree a little

3326 68.5 992 62.4 5. Disagree a lot

86 1.8 29 1.8 9. No answer

73 i!.49. It's alright to drive an

automobile while drunk as long as

you don't have an accident.

169 3.5 76 4.8 1. Agree a lot

275 5.7 134 8.4 2. Agree a little

171 3.5 94 5.9 3. Unsure

560 11.5 190 11.9 4. Disagree a little

3613 74.4 1073 67.4 5. Disagree a lot

71 1.5 24 1.5 9. No answer

- 333 -
VEP SPED!

Column

74

N 2 N 2

1920 39.5 583 36.6

1347 27.7 385 24.2

540 11.1 246 15.5

609 12.5 194 12.2

363 7.5 153 9.6

80 1.6 30 1.9

75

395 8.1 180 11.3

427 8.8 168 10.6

515 10.6 206 12.9

963 19.8 291 18.3

2460 50.6 706 44.4

99 2.0 40 2.5

76

2533 52.1 705 44.3

884 18.2 299 18.8

657 13.5 309 19.4

393 8.1 141 8.9

301 6.2 104 6.5

91 1.9 33 2.1

77

300 6.2 129 8.1

339 7.0 137 8.6

805 16.6 345 21.7

802 16.5 222 14.0

2319 51.8 725 45.6

94 1.9 33 2.1

- 334 -

Code

Q.50. A an can take just as

good care of children as a woman can.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

111_51. There is something wrong

with loosen who want to work at

men's lobs.

1. Agree a lot

2.. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.52. A woman who works full time

can be ust as happy as a woman

who stays at home with her family.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.53. I would not want to work

for a woman.

1. Agree a lot.

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

3 77
VIP SPEW

Column N 2 N 2 Code

If a mean is workins ate s 78 Q.54.

job her man should do some of,

the housework.

2167 44.6 695 43.7 1. Agree a lot

1448 29.8 446 28.0 2. Agree a little

396 8.1 166 10.4 3. Unsure

299 6.2 113 7.1 4. Disagree a little

481 9.9 145 9.1 5. Disagree a lot

68 1.4 26 1.6 9. No answer

79 9.55. Car Mechanic

26 0.5 9 0.6 1. Only a woman

2199 45.3 683 42.9 2. Only a man

2567 52.8 874 54.9 3. Makes no difference

67 1.4 25 1.6 9. No answer

80 Q.56. ?actors Worker

100 2.1 55 3.5 1. Only a woman

553 11.4 233 14.6 2. Only a man

4132 85.0 1272 79.9 3. Makes no difference

74 1.5 31 1.9 9. No answer
VIP

BEGIN CARD II

SPIN

Celt= Code

1 Card Number

2. Date card two (File card

three)

2-7 Identification Code, Cola. 1-6

from file card ona

8 Q.57. Nurse

2198 45.2 834 52.4 1. Only a woman

54 1.1 31 1.9 2. Only a man

2519 51.8 682 42.9 3. Makes no difference

88 1.8 44 2.8 9. No answer

9 Q.58. Truck Driver

52 1.1 24 1.5 1. Only a woman

2185 45.0 743 46.7 2. Only a man

2556 52.6 794 49.9 3. Makes no difference

66 1.4 30 1.9 9. No answer

10 Q.59. Sales Clerk

332 6.8 134 8.4 1. Only a woman

94 1.9 51 3.2 2. Only a man

4364 89.8 1371 86.2 3. Makes no difference

69 1.4 35 2.2 9. No answer

11 Q.60. Secretary

2218 45.6 774 48.6 1. Only a woman

67 1.4 44 2.8 2. Only a man

2484 51.1 731 45.9 3. Makes no difference

90 1.9 42 2.6 9. No answer

- 336 -
VEP SPED!

Column Code

12 Q.61. Carpenter

1.3 1. Only a woman

50.7 2. Only a man

45.5 3. Makes no difference

2.5 9. No answer

56

2418

2306

79

1.2

49.8

47.5

1.6

21

806

724

40

13

124 2.6 60

41 0.8 22

4621 95.1 1471

73 1.5 38

14

923 19.0 374

73 1.5 43

3798 78.2 1145

65 1.3 29

15

2935 60.4 852

875 18.0 336

861 17.7 341

188 3.9 62

16

271 5.6 110

2824 58.1 860

1578 32.5 551

186 3.8 70

Q.62. Teacher

3.8 1. Only a woman

1.4 2. Only a man

92.5 3. Makes no difference

2.4 9. No answer

Q.63. Telephone Operator

23.5 1. Only a woman

2.7 2. Only a man

72.0 3. Makes no difference

1.8 9. No answer

1.64. Hospital Orderly

53.6 1. Helps to take care of

hospital patients.

21.1 2. Orders food and other supplies for hospital kitchens.

21.4 3. Works at hospital desk

where patients check in.

3.9 9. No answer

Q.65. Ney_Punch Operator

6.9 1. Operates a machine which

sends telegrams.

54.1 2. Operates a machiue which

punches holes in cards for

computers.

34.6 3. Operates a cordless telephone

switchboard and pushem swit:h

keys to make telephore connections.

4.4 9. No answer

3 j)

- 337 -
Column N

VEP

2 N

SPEDY

2

17

2570 52.9 754 47.4

708 14.6 302 19.0

1397 28.8 471 29.6

184 3.8 64 4.0

18

1607 33.1 555 34.9

1093 22.5 423 26.6

1935 39.8 540 33.9

224 4.6 73 4.6

19

162 3.3 71 4.5

2713 55.8 672 42.2

1782 36.7 775 48.7

202 4.2 73 4.6

20

572 11.8 232 14.6

863 17.8 371 23.3

3177 65.4 901 56.6

247 5.1 87 5.5

- 338 -

Code

Q.66. Department Store Buyer

1. Selects the items to be

sold in a section of a

department.

2. Checks on the courtesy of

sales people by shopping at

the store.

3. Buys department stores that

are about to go out of business.

9. No answer

p:67. Machinist

1. Makes adjustments on automobile, airplane, and tractor

engines.

2. Repairs electrical equipment.

3. Seta up and operates metal

lathes, shapers, grinders,

buffers, etc.

9. No answer

Q.68. Dietician

1. Waite on tables in a restaurant.

2. Plans menus for hospitals

and schools.

3. Suggests exercises for persons who are overweight or

sick.

9. No answer

Q.69. Pork Lift Operator

3s1

1. Operates a machine that

makes a certain kind of

agricultural too1

2. Operates a freight elevator

in a warehouse or factory.

3. Drives an electrical or gas

powered machine to move

material in a warehouse or

factory.

9. No answer
Column

21

VFP SPED!

Code

Q.70. To net a good lob. how important do you think it is to

get a high school diploma?

4059 83.5 1342 84.3 1. Very important

574 11.8 172 10.8 2. Somewhat important

84 1.7 16 1.0 3. Not too important

19 0.4 9 0.6 4. Not at all important

123 2.5 52 3.3 9. No answer

NOTE: Column 21, Card 2 ends pre-test instrument.

339 2
NOTE: Column 22. Card 2 begins post-test instrument.

VEP

Column

SEEDY

N 2 Code

22

2377 74.6 700 82.5

117 3.7 31 3.7

365 11.5 39 7.0

36 1.1 4 0.5

51 1.6 12 1.4

123 3.9 32 3.8

118 3.7 10 1.2

23

2727 85.6 723 85.3

379 11.9 100 11.8

45 1.4 11 1.3

7 0.2 6 0.7

29 0.9 8 0.9

24-26

27

2253 7:,.7 59/ 70.0

442 13.9 97 11.4

57 1.8 10 1.2

6 0.2 2 0.2

154 4.8 98 11.6

275 8.6 47 5.5

- 340 -

Q.1. What are you planning to

do this fall?

1. In school

2. Skill training

3. Working full time

4. Military service

5. Other plans

6. Not sure at this time

9. No answer

S&L. To get a good job, how isportant do you think it is to get

a high school diploma?

1. Very important

2. Somewhat important

3. Not too important

4. Not at all important

9. No answer

Q.3. When You start working full

time what kind of job do you think

imum1211te to do?

Used DOT for 3 column coding with

the following convftntions:

997 -- Response unclassifiable

998 -- Don't know (actual response

999 -- No answer

Code first mentioned only.

Q.3. Total number of jobs listed.

1. One

2. Two

3. Three

4. Four or more

8. Don't know (written response)

9. Unknown (blank, no response)
Column

28

29-30

VEP SPIN

2 Code

Q.4. To get that kind of job do

you think you will need more education or training than a high

school diploma?

2481 77.8 583 68.8 1. las

289 9.1 76 9.0 2. No

347 10.9 169 19.9 3. Not sure

70 2.2 20 2.4 9. No answer

Q.5. Haw would you find out if

there are any job openings for that

kind ofjob?

First mentioned method coded in

Column 29;

Second mentioned method coded in

Column 30;

If no second method, coded "9" in

Column 30.

29 304 9.5 79 9.3 1. School counselor

314 9.9 66 7.8 2. Public employment agency/

manpower office

20 0.6 2 0.2 3. Private employment agency

723 22.7 106 12.5 4. Contact employer directly

919 28.8 290 34.2 5. Newspaper or other media

136 4.3 42 5.0 6. Friends or relatives

13 0.4 1 0.1 7. Union/labor organization

373 11.7 124 14.6 8. Other

89 2.8 48 5.7 9. Don't know (actual response)

296 9.3 90 10.6 O. Unknown; no answer

Second Mentioned

30 98 3.1 22 2.6 1. School counselor

179 5.6 42 5 3 2. Public employment agency/

manpower office

17 0.5 3 0.4 3. Private employment agency

300 9.4 54 6.4 4. Contact employer directly

255 8.0 49 5.8 5. Newspaper or other media

207 6.5 62 7.3 6. Friends or relatives

6 0.2 0 0.0 7. Union/labor organization

101 3.2 34 4.0 8. Other

1728 54.3 492 58.1 9. Don't know (actual response)

No second method

296 9.3 90 10.6 O. Unknown; no answer.

- 341 -

3;; 4
VEP SPEDY

Column N X N X Code

Total Methods Mentioned.

2 based on 3187 VEP and 848 SPED!.

402 12.6 101 11.9 1. School counselor

493 15.5 108 12.7 2. Public employment agency/

manpower office

37 1.2 5 0.6 3. Private employment agency

1023 32.1 160 18.9 4. Contact employer directly

1174 36.8 339 40.0 5. Newspaper or other media

343 10.8 104 12.3 6. Friends or relatives

19 0.6 1 0.1 7. Union/labor organisation

474 14.9 158 18.6 8. Other

89 2.8 48 5.7 9. Don't know (actual response)

296 9.3 90 10.6 O. Unknown; no answer. No

second method mentioned.

(Column 30 only.)

31 Q.5. Total number of methods

mentioned.

1641 51.5 450 53.1 1. One

862 27.0 199 23.5 2. Two

259 8.1 52 6.1 3. Three

38 1.2 15 1.8 4. Four or more

66 2.1 34 4.0 8. Don't know

321 10.1 98 11.6 9. Unknown, No answer

32 Q.6. This program helped me find

out what workers do in different

kinds of jobs.

2225 69.8 373 44.0 . iree a lot

763 23.9 336 39.6 *pee a little

64 2.0 60 7.1 1. Unsure

62 1.9 38 4.5 Jisagrae a little

46 1.4 33 3.9 5. Disagree a lot

27 0.8 8 0.9 9. No answer

3 s 5

- 342 -
VEP SPED!

Column N Z N x Code

33 Q.7. This program told as how

much training I need for different

kinds of jobs.

1596 50.1 272 32.1 1. Agree a lot

1033 32.4 294 34.7 2. Agree a little

217 6.6 94 11.1 3. Unsure

201 6.3 111 13.1 4. Disagree a little

110 3.5 71 8.4 5. Disagree a lot

30 0.9 6 0.7 9. No answer

34

Q.8. This program told me what

ewloyers expect their workers to

do.

2270 71.2 522 61.6 1. Agree a lot

668 21.0 211 24.9 2. Agree a little

117 3.7 60 7.1 3. Unsure

72 2.3 35 4.1 4. Disagree a little

25 0.8 16 1.9 5. Disagree a lot

35 1.1 4 0.5 9. No answer

35 Q.9. This program gave me information about how I can get a job.

1852 58.1 304 35.8 1. Agree a lot

836 26.2 252 29.7 2. Agree a little

201 6.3 111 13.1 3. Unsure

161 5.1 89 10.5 4. Disagree a little

103 3.2 84 9.9 5. Disagree a lot

34 1.1 8 0.9 9. No answer

36

0.10. It's alright to miss work

whenever you don't feel like going.

76 2.4 31 3.7 1. Agree a lot

111 3.5 28 3.3 2. Agree a little

63 2.0 31 3.7 3. Unsure

253 7.9 95 11.2 4. Disagree a little

2647 83.1 657 77.5 5. Disagree a lot

37 1.2 6 0.7 9. No answer

- 343 -
VEP SPED!

Column N

103

68

53

221

2700

42

Z

3.2

2.1

1.7

6.9

84.7

1.3

N

46

22

32

101

637

10

I

5.4

2.6

3.8

11.9

75.1

1.2

Code

37 Q.11. When you are sick it's alright to miss work without calling

to say you won't be there.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

38 Q.12. It's alright to fill out

only the parts of the job application that you want to.

104 3.3 35 4.1 1. Agree a lot

125 3.9 60 7.1 2. Agree a little

124 3.9 75 8.8 3. Unsure

325 10.2 97 11.4 4. Disagree a little

2471 77.5 570 67.2 5. Disagree a lot

38 1.2 11 1.3 9. No answer

39 Q.13. Usually an employer can

fire someone for not telling the

truth on a job application.

1370 43.0 268 31.6 1. Agree a lot

433 13.6 127 15.0 2. Agree a little

489 15.3 210 24.8 3. Unsure

288 9.0 114 13.4 4. Disagree a little

559 17.5 119 14.0 5. Disagree a lot

48 1.5 10 1.2 9. No answer

40 Q.14. A good way to find out about

job openings is from friends or

relatives who are working.

1331 41.8 325 38.3 1. Agree a lot

1191 37.4 341 40.2 2. Agree a little

258 8.1 87 10.3 3. Unsure

230 7.2 57 6.7 4. Disagree a little

136 4.3 28 3.3 5. Disagree a lot

41 1.3 10 1.2 9. No answer

- 344 - 3 7
Column

VIP

N

2130

721

101

105

96

34

2

66.8

22.6

3.2

3.3

3.0

1.1

SPEDY

N

522

212

43

26

41

4

2

61.6

25.0

5.1

3.1

4.8

0.5

Code

41 Q.15. On the lob the boss has the

right to tell you what to do.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

42 Q.16. At work, you should tcyta

dress like most other people on

that job.

1351 42.4 129 27.0 1. Agree a lot

1011 31.7 306 36.1 2. Agree a little

211 6.6 71 8.4 3. Unsure

292 9.2 98 11.6 4. Disagree a little

292 9.2 i38 16.3 5. Disagree a lot

30 0.9 6 0.7 9. No answer

43 Q.17. If your job starts at 8:00

A.M. it's alright if you show up

at 8:30 A.M.

75 2.4 26 3.1 1. Agree a lot

85 2.7 39 4.6 2. Agree a little

64 I.0 38 4.5 3. Unsure

279 8.8 113 13.3 4. Disagree a little

2656 83.3 627 73.9 5. Disagree a lot

28 0.9 5 0.6 1. No answer

44

Q.18. Doing well on a job interview helps you to get a lob.

2414 75.7 587 69.2 1. Agree a lot

539 16.9 177 20.9 2. Agree a little

83 2.6 41 4.8 3. Unsure

53 1.7 14 1.7 4. Disagree a little

53 1.7 14 1.7 5. Disagree a lot

45 1.4 15 1.8 9. No answer

- 3453-6,
VEP SPEDY

Column N X N % Code

45 Q.19. On the job, it's not important to get along with your fellow

workers.

334 10.5 87 10.3 1. Agree a lot

223 7.0 73 8.6 2. Agree a little

115 3.6 65 7.7 3. Unsure

498 15.6 155 18.3 4. Disagree a little

1958 61.4 457 53.9 5. Disagree a lot

59 1.9 11 1.3 9. No answer

46 Q.20. When you are applying for

a job, employer's don't consider

how you did in previous jobs.

213 6.7 52 6.1 1. Agree a lot

251 7.9 91 10.7 2. Agree a little

341 10.7 114 13.4 3. Unsure

582 18.3 159 18.8 4. Disagree a little

1766 55.4 422 49.8 5. Disagree a lot

34 1.1 10 1.2 9. No answer

47 Q.21. Hard work makes you a better

221119at

1282 40.2 336 39.6 1. Agree a lot

1015 31.8 265 31.3 2. Agree a little

397 12.5 122 14.4 3. Unsure

280 8.8 73 8.6 4. Disagree a little

182 5.7 42 5.0 5. Disagree a lot

31 1.0 10 1.2 9. No answer

48 Q.22. Even if you dislike your

work you should do your bee . 2211 69.4 538 63.4 1. Agree a lot

658 20.6 210 24.8 2. Agree a little

124 3.9 46 5.4 3. Unsure

91 2.9 27 3.2 4. Disagree a little

64 2.0 16 1.9 5. Disagree a lot

39 1.2 11 1.3 9. No answer

- 346 -
Column

VEP

1601

669

733

70

57

57

50.2

21.0

23.0

2.2

1.8

1.8

SPED!

293

175

312

32

17

19

34.6

20.6

36.8

3.8

2.0

2.2

Code

49 Q.23. Organised labor unions are

good for workers.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

50 Q.24. Work should be an iwortant

part of a person's life.

2117 66.4 501 59.1 1. Agree a lot

756 23.7 2:3 26.3 2. Agree a little

127 4.0 49 5.8 3. Unsure

96 3.0 43 5.1 4. Disagree a little

47 1.5 19 2.2 5. Disagree a lot

44 1.4 13 1.5 9. No answer

51 Q.25. To se, work is nothing more

than a way of making money.

368 11.5 103 12.1 1. Agree a lot

562 17.6 164 19.3 2. Agree a little

256 8.0 94 11.1 3. Unsure

937 29.4 230 27.1 4. Disagree a little

1012 31.8 241 28.4 5. Disagree a lot

52 1.6 16 1.9 9. No answer

52 Q.26. Organized labor unions don't

seem to care about helping youth.

226 7.1 54 6.4 1. Agree a lot

305 9.6 117 13.8 2. Agree a little

1143 35.9 414 48.8 3. Unsure

548 17.2 121 14.3 4. Disagree a little

877 27.5 125 14.7 5. Disagree a lot

88 2.8 17 2.0 9. No answer
VEP SPEDY

Column N X N % Code

53 Q.27. "Taking it easy" on the ob

is alright as long as you don't

get caught by the boss.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

290 9.1 61 7.2

488 15.3 157 18.5

237 7.4 72 8.5

670 21.0 202 23.8

1451 45.5 343 40.4

51 3.6 13 1.5

54

1956 61.4 457 53.9

835 26.2 258 30.4

177 5.6 60 7.1

108 3.4 41 4.8

74 2.3 23 2.7

37 1.2 9 1.1

55

1590 49.9 386 45.5

1003 31.5 280 33.0

235 7.4 82 9.7

200 6.3 59 7.0

113 3.5 30 3.5

46 1.4 11 1.3

56

1224 38.4 313 36.9

851 26.7 251 29.6

746 23.4 169 22.3

192 6.0 58 6.8

99 3.1 22 2.6

75 2.4 15 1.8

- 348 -

Q.28. You should help other people

on a job so that they will help you.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure.

4. Dleagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.29. I am generally satisfied with

my life these days.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.30. I have enjoyed my life more

than most people have enjoyed theirs.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

3,)
Column N

SPEDY

X N

VEP

Z Code

61 Q.35. Generally, people tend to

push me around.

171 5.4 63 7.4 1. Agree a lot

367 11.5 130 15.3 2. Agree a little

187 5.9 66 7.8 3. Unsure

563 17.7 138 16.3 4. Disagree a little

1820 57.1 430 50.7 5. Disagree a lot

79 2.5 21 2.5 9. No answer

62 Q.36. I never have any trouble

making up my mind about important

decisions.

753 23.6 185 21.8 1. Agree a lot

1027 32.2 261 30.8 2. Agree a little

376 11.8 122 14.4 3. Unsure

714 22.4 200 23.6 4. Disagree a little

240 7.5 56 6.6 5. Disagree a lot

77 2.4 24 2.8 9. No answer

63 Q.37. I seem to be the kind of

person that has more bad luck than

good- luck.

274 8.6 69 8.1 1. Agree a lot

496 15.6 141 16.6 2. Agree a little

494 15.5 140 16.5 3. Unsure

791 24.8 238 28.1 4. Disagree a little

1049 32.9 242 28.5 5. Disagree a lot

83 2.6 18 2.1 9. No answer

64 Q.38. I would rather decide things

when they come up'than always try

to plan ahem-.

660 20.7 185 21.8 1. Agree a lot

734 23.0 226 26.7 2. Agree a little

304 9.5 112 13.2 3. Unsure

695 21.8 160 18.9 4. Disagree a little

740 23.2 145 17.1 5. Disagree a lot

54 1.7 20 2.4 9. No answer

3j2 - 349
SPEDY VEP

Column Code

57 Q.31. I feel that I am as good as

anybody else.

63.6 1. Agree a lot

18.0 2. Aim* a little

6.1 3. Unsure

5.4 4. Disagree a little

3.2 5. Disagree a lot

3.7 9. No answer

2294

410

166

105

114

98

72.0

12.9

5.2

3.3

3.6

3.1

539

153

52

46

27

31

58

712 22.3 172

671 21.1 176

333 10.4 130

479 15.0 139

845 26.5 197

147 4.6 34

59

2104 68.8 463

700 22.0 257

164 5.1 67

37 1.2 26

30 0.9 14

62 1.9 21

60

135 4.2 32

206 6.5 59

240 7.5 105

376 11.8 143

2158 67.7 486

72 2.3 23

- 350

Q.32. I wish I could have more

respect for myself.

20.3 1. Agree a lot

20.8 2. Agree a little

15.3 3. Unsure

16.4 4. Disagree a little

23.2 5. Disagree a lot

4.0 9. No answer

Q.33. I feel that I have a number

of stood awilities.

54.6 1. Agree 'a lot

30.3 2. Agree a little

7.9 3. Unsure

3.1 4. Disagree a little

1.7 5. Disagree a lot

2.5 9. No answer

Q.34. All in all I'm inclined to

feel that I mm a failure.

3.8 1. Agree a lot

7.0 2. Agree a little

12.4 3. Unsure

16.9 4. Disagree a little

57.3 5. Disagree a lot

2.7 9. No answer

3:)

-
Column

VEP 31.'01 Code

65 909. Generally. I can finish the

things I set out to do.

1829 57.4 404 47.6 1. Agree a lot

969 30.4 292 34.4 2. Agree a little

152 4.8 71 8.4 3. Unsure

134 4.2 38 4.5 4. Disagree a little

43 1.3 24 2.8 5. Disagree a lot

60 1.9 19 2.2 9. No answer

66 Q.40. You can't be too careful in

dealing with other people.

1053 33.0 223 26.3 1. Agree a lot

1085 34.0 280 33.0 2. Agree a little

453 14.2 175 20.6 3. Unsure

317 9.9 96 11.3 4. Disagree a little

186 5.8 49 5.8 5. Disagree a lot

93 2.0 25 2.9 9. No answer

67 Q.41. Most w. the time people try

to be helpful.

1054 33.1 234 27.6 1. Agree a lot

1331 41.8 381 44.9 2. Agrae a little

365 11.5 96 11.3 3. Unsure

276 8.7 84 9.9 4. Disagree a little

85 2.7 30 3.5 5. Disagree a lot

76 2.4 23 2.7 9. No answer

68 Q.42. Most people Into take advantage of you if they get a change.

1170 36.7 284 33.5 1. Agree a lot

933 29.3 249 29.1 2. Agree a little

313 9.8 89 10.5 3. Unsure

452 14.2 124 14.6 4. Disagree a little

249 7.8 85 10.0 5. Disagree a lot

70 2.2 19 2.2 9. No answer

- 3500 4
VEP SPEDY

Column N X N X Code

69 Q.43. The police treat rich people

better than poor people.

852 26.7 212 25.0

594 18.6 123 14.5

858 26.9 267 31.5

330 10.4 94 11.1

495 35.5 138 16.3

58 1.8 14 1.7

70

913 28.6 i 279 32.9

716 22.5 179 21.1

677 27.2 197 23.2

464 14.6 101 11.9

361 11.3 76 9.0

56 1.8 16 1.9

71

423 13.3 130 15.3

760 23.8 181 21.3

810 25.4 252 29.7

589 18.5 145 17.1

542 17.0 122 14.4

63 2.0 18 2.1

72

2069 64.9 446 52.6

493 15.5 199 23.5

336 10.5 112 13.2

103 3.2 35 4.1

120 3.8 34 4.0

66 2.1 22 2.6

- 352 -

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.44. The courts treat all people

alike regardless of race or nationality.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.45. The police have it in for

.young people and pick on them unfairly.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.46. It is better to be unknown

and honest than famous and dishonest.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer
VEP SPEDY

Column N % N X Code

73 Q.47. People should not be punished

for breaking a las they think is

wrong.

252 7.9 70 8.3 1. Agree a lot

313 9.8 114 13.4 2. Agree a little

532 16.7 168 19.8 3. Unsure

560 17.6 162 19.1 4. Disagree a little

1435 45.0 311 36.7 5. Disagree a lot

95 3.0 23 2.7 9. No answer

74 Q.48. If somebody needs something

bad enough it's alright to break

the law to get it.

132 4.1 35 4.1 1. Agree a lot

201 6.3 72 8.5 2. Agree a little

253 7.9 82 9.7 3. Unsure

458 14.4 123 14.5 4. Disagree a little

2084 65.4 517 61.0 5. Disagree a lot

59 1.9 19 2.2 9. No answer

75 Q.49. It's alright to drive an

automobile while drunk as long as

you don't have an accident.

116 3.6 40 4.7 1. Agree a lot

177 5.6 59 7.0 2. Agree a little

142 4.5 53 6.3 3. Unsure

355 11.1 117 13.8 4. Disagree a little

2341 73.5 565 66.6 5. Disagree a lot

56 1.8 14 1.7 9. No answer

76 Q.50. A man can take just as good

care of children as a woman can.

1373 43.1 324 38.2 1. Agree a lot

847 26.6 226 26.7 2. Agree a little

359 11.3 102 12.0 3. Unsure

323 10.1 112 13.2 4. Disagree a little

219 6.9 63 7.4 5. Disagree a lot

66 2.1 21 2.5 9. No answer

- 3513.9G
VEP SPEDY

Column N Z N % 77

265 8.3 66 7.8

266 8.3 84 9.9

315 9.9 104 12.3

581 18.2 171 20.2

1680 52.7 401 47.3

80 2.5 22 2.6

78

1794 56.3 392 46.2

557 17.5 168 19.8

414 13.0 136 16.0

189 5.9 66 7.8

172 5.4 61 7.2

61 1.9 25 2.9

79 242 7.6 60 7.1

232 7.3 80 9.4

535 16.8 168 19.8

536 16.8 162 19.1

1565 49.1 357 42.1

77 2.4 21 2.5

80

1492 46.8 376 44.3

950 29.8 250 29.5

249 7.8 91 10.7

208 6.5 51 6.0

234 7.3 66 7.8

54 1.7 14 1.7

- 354 -

Code

Q.51. There is something wrong

with women who want to work at

men's lobs.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.52. A woman who works full time

can be just as happy as a woman

who stays at home with her family.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.53. I would not want to work

for a woman.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.54. If a woman is working at a

job, her man should do some of the

housework.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer
BEGIN DATA CARD THREE

VEP SPEDY

Column N Z N % Code

1 Card Number

--- --- --- --- 3. Data Card three; file card

four.

2-7 Identification

Repeat from file card one, Cols.

8

1-6.

g111CAr Mechanic

34 J.1 5 0.6 1. Only a woman

1159 36.4 348 41.0 2. Only a man

1929 60.5 480 56.6 3. Makes no difference

65 2.0 15 1.8 9. No answer

9 Qat Factory Worker

60 1.9 16 1.9 1. i...Ily a woman

285 8.9 106 12.5 2. Only a man

2774 87.0 712 84.0 3. Makes no difference

68 2.1 14 1.7 9. No answer

10 Q.57. Nurse

1236 38.8 393 46.3 1. Only a woman

53 1.7 9 1.1 2. Only a man

1826 57.3 423 49.9 3. Hakes no difference

72 2.3 23 2.7 9. No answer

11 Q.58. Truck Driver

55 1.7 12 1.4 1. Only a woman

1216 38.2 376 44.3 2. Only a man

1843 57.8 448 52.8 3. Makes no difference

73 2.3 12 1.4 9. No answer

- 35,39
Column N

VEP

x N SPEDY

x Coda

12 Q.59. Sales Clerk

203 6.4 60 7.1 1. Only a woman

57 1.8 25 2.9 2. Only a man

2858 89.7 745 87.Q 3. Makes no difference

69 2.2 18 2.1 9. No answer

13 Q.60. Secretary

1196 37.5 357 42.1 1. Only a woman

66 2.1 31 3.7 2. Only a man

1849 58.0 449 52.9 3. Makes no difference

76 2.4 11 1.3 9. No answer

14 Q.61. Carpenter

51 1.6 12 1.4 1. Only a woman

1298 40.7 394 46.5 2. Only a man

1758 55.2 417 49.2 3. Makes no difference

80 2.5 25 2.9 9. No answer

15 Q.62. Teacher

97 3.0 32 3.8 1. Only a woman

36 1.1 14 1.7 2. Only a man

2980 93.5 788 92.9 3. Makes no difference

74 2.3 14 1.7 9. No answer

16 Q.63. Telephone Operator

512 16.1 180 21.2 1. Only a woman

57 1.8 21 2.5 2. Only a man

2555 80.2 635 74.9 3. Makes no difference

63 2.0 12 1.4 9. No answer

- 356 -
Column

VEP

N

1979

566

492

2

62.1

17.8

15.4

SPEDY

N

461

189

163

Z

54.4

22.3

19.2

17

150 4.7 35 4.1

18

216 6.8 58 6.8

1940 60.9 479 56.5

882 27,7 277 32.7

149 4.7 34 4.0

19

1751 54.9 420 49.5

403 12.6 160 18.9

872 27.4 232 27.4

161 5.1 36 4.2

20

1054 33.1 273 32.2

807 25.3 219 25.8

1161 36.4 313 36.9

165 5.2 43 5.1

357 4110

Code

Q.64. Hospital Orderly

1. Helps to take care of hospital patients.

2. Orders food and other supplies

for hospital kitchens.

3. Works at hospital desk where

patients check in.

9. No answer

Q.65. Key Punch Operator

1. Operates a machine which sends

telegrams.

2. Operates a machine which

punches holes in cards for

computers.

3. Operates a cordless telephone

switchboard and pushes switch

keys to make telephone connections.

9. No answer

Q.66. Department Store Buyer

1. Selects the items to be sold

in a section of a department.

2. Checks on the courtesy of

sales people by shopping at

the store.

3. Buys department stores that

are about to go out of business.

9. No answer

Q.67. Machinist

1. Makes adjustments on automobile, airplane, and tractor

engines.

2. Repairs electrical equipment.

3. Sets up and operates metal

lathes, shapers, grinders,

buffers, etc.

9. No answer
Column

VEP

N

123

1979

923

%

3.9

62.1

29.0

SPEDY

N

29

396

381

X

3.4

46.7

44.9

21

162 5.1 42 5.0

22

394 12.4 105 12.4

662 20.8 200 23.6

1944 61.0 497 58.6

187 5.9 46 5.4

23

1324 41.5 237 27.9

915 28.7 260 30.7

299 9.4 116 13.7

287 9.0 105 12.4

243 7.6 113 13.3

119 3.7 17 2.0

24

1723 54.1 330 38.9

804 25.2 246 29.0

266 8.3 146 17.2

151 4.7 39 4.6

105 3.3 51 6.0

138 4.3 36 4.2

-358- 4')t

Code

Q.68. Dietician

1. Waits on tables in a restaurant.

2. Plans menus for hospitals and

schools.

3. Suggests exercises for persons who are overweight or

:,, sick.

9: No answer

gm. Fork Lift Operator

1. Operates a machine that makes

a certain kind of agricultural tool.

2. Operates a freight elevator in

a warehouse or factory.

3. Drives an electrical or gas

powered machinto move material in a warehouse or factory.

9. No answer

Q.70. This program helped me to

decide the kind of job I would like

to have.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.71. The orientation session explained what the program was all

about.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer
Column

VEP SPEDY

Code

25 Q.72. The only thing I got from

this program was money.

155 4.9 67 7.9 1. Agree a lot

199 6.2 92 10.8 2. Agree a little

118 3.7 67 7.9 3. Unsure

777 24.4 249 29.4 4. Disagree a little

1780 55.9 349 41.2 5. Disagree a lot

158 5.0 24 2.8 9. No answer

26 Q.73. My coordinator or counselor

was available most of the time.

1658 52.0 393 46.3 1. Agree a lot

769 24.1 206 24.3 2. Agree a little

239 7.5 106 12.5 3. Unsure

214 6.7 64 7.5 4. Disagree a little

153 4.8 57 6.7 5. Disagree a lot

154 4.8 22 2.6 9. No answer

27 Q.74. The people I worked with

were interested in teaching me

about their jobs.

1722 54.0 318 37.5 1. Agree a lot

750 23.5 237 27.9 2. Agree a little

163 5.1 95 11.2 3. Unsure

238 7.5 85 10.0 4. Disagree a little

184 5.8 95 11.2 5. Disagree a lot

130 5.1 18 2.1 9. No answer

28 Q.75. Transportation to work was

not a problem for me.

1896 59.5 476 56.1 1. Agree a lot

532 16.7 157 18.5 2. Agree a little

98 3.1 42 5.0 3. Unsure

277 8.7 81 9.6 4. Disagree a little

254 8.0 74 8.7 5. Disagree a lot

130 4.1 18 2.1 9. No answer

- 359 4 -) 2
VEP SPEDY

Column N % N X Code

29 Q.76. The program taught me what

I have to do to keep a job.

1894 59.4 412 48.6 1. Agree a lot

776 24.3 233 27.5 2. Agree a little

172 5.4 83 9.8 3. Unsure

128 4.0 53 6.3 4. Disagree a little

72 2.3 42 5.0 5. Disagree a lot

145 4.5 25 2.9 9. No answer

30 Q.77. My coordinator or counselor

was always interested in what I

had to say.

1782 55.9 372 43.9 1. Agree a lot

660 20.7 215 25.4 2. Agree a little

329 10.3 122 14.4 3. Unsure

137 4.3 56 6.6 4. Disagree a little

137 4.3 60 7.1 5. Disagree a lot

142 4.5 23 2.7 9. No answer

31 Q.78. My work experiences in the

program were a waste of time.

146 4.6 49 5.8 1. Agree a lot

152 4.8 73 8.6 2. Agree a little

149 4.7 92 10.8 3. Unsure

482 15.1 184 21.7 4. Disagree a little

2117 66.4 432 50.9 5. Disagree a lot

141 4.4 18 2.1 9. No answer

32 Q.79. The classroom instruction

was not useful to me on the job.

322 10.1 91 10.7 1. Agree a lot

427 13.4 105 12.4 2. Agree a little

466 14.6 196 23.1 3. Unsure

626 19.6 168 19.8 4. Disagree a little

1172 36.8 233 27.5 5. Disagree a lot

174 5.5 55 6.5 9. No answer

- 360 -
Column N VEP

X N SPEDY

X 33

1131 35.5 141 16.6

699 21.9 138 16.3

468 14.7 215 25.4

241 7.6 59 7.0

378 11.9 179 21.1

270 8.5 116 13.7

i4

2639 82.8 707 83.4

321 10.1 90 10.6

44 1.4 8 0.9

8 0.3 5 0.6

175 5.5 38 4.5

NOTE: Column 34, Card 3 ends the post-test instrument.

- 361 7/

Code

Q.80. I learned a lot from the

field trips.

1. Agree a lot

2. Agree a little

3. Unsure

4. Disagree a little

5. Disagree a lot

9. No answer

Q.81. To get a good job, how important do you think it is to get

a high school diploma?

1. Very important

2. Somewhat important

3. Not too important

4. Not at all important

9. No answer
APPEND/RA

101 Houston 125 Providence Blue Cross -Blue Shield

102 Richmond, Texas 126 Minnesota The Way

103 Pascagoula, Mississippi 127 Montpelier, Vermont

104 Gulfport, Mississippi 130 Baltimore AFSCME

105 Omaha Youth Opportunities Unlimited 133 Minnesota B'nai B'rith

106 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 134 Fort Lewis, Washington

107 Benton, Arkansas 135 Atlanta ANAIFCO, Inc.

108 Nashville Boys Club 136 Omaha Hayden Tile Co.

109 Fort Worth, Texas 137 Denver, Colorado Northern Consortium

110 St. Louis 138 Toledo Owens

111 New Orleans 139 Tacoma, Washington Employment Service

112 Lansing, Michigan 140 Boston

113 Wilmington, Delaware 141 Syracuse, New York

114 Nashville Communication Workers

of America

142 Providence -- Greater Providence Chamber

of Commerce

115 Mobile 143 Jackson Boys Club

116 Memphis 144 Akron -- Summitt Tutorial Program

117 Kansas City, Kansas Black Cult 145 Norfolk, Virginia

118 Jackson Education Center 146 Detroit

119 Jackson YWCA 147 Atlanta Printing Specialists, Inc.

120 Minnesota Welcome Community Homes 148 Minnesota YWCA

121 Miaihi Latin Chamber of Commerce 149 Kansas City, Missouri Metropolitan

Lutheran Ministry

122 Miami Dade Chamber of Commerce

150 Indianapolis

123 Greater Washington Central Labor

Council 151 Santa Barbara Terena Corp.

124 Kansas City, Missouri National 152 Cincinnati

Development Institute

362 A o
153 Santa Barbara Youth Employment 176 Brideeport, Connecticut Chamber of

Service Commerce

154 Columbus 177 Hartford, Connecticut

155 Philadelphia YWCA 176 Tampa, Florida United Methodist

Center, Inc..

156 Philadelphia Negro Trade Union

Leadership Council 179 Tampa, Florida Industrial Service, Inc.

157 Philadelphia Columbia School 180 Pittsburg AFL/CIO

158 Yacima, Washington 181 Pittsburgh YMCA

159 Longview, W ;hington 182 Pittsburgh Urban Youth Action, Inc.

160 San Antonio -- Consulting Associates of San Antonio, Inc.

183 Pittsburgh West YMCA

184 Oakland -- United Teachers of Oakland

161 San Antonio -- Consulting Associates of Laredo, Inc. 185 Helena, Washington

162 Santa Maria, California -- Youth 186 Akron, Ohio

Employment Services of Santa

Maria 187 Washington OCPO

16:) qashington Board of Trade 189 Allentown, Pennsylvania LeHigh

165 OlympiA, Washington 190 Kansas City, Missouri Don Bosco Community Center

166 an Juan, California

191 Oklahoma City, Okolahma MMC Training

167 Providence Community Affairs

Office 193 Binghamton Brome, New York Chamber

of Commerce

168 Denver Employ Ex Inc.

194 Binghamton, New York Hornell Area

169 Colorado Springs, Colorado Chamber of Commerce

170 San Antonio Builders Association 195 Binghamton, New York Greater Corning

Chamber of Commerce

171 Puyallup, Washington

196 Minnesota Regional Native American

172 Cleveland, Center

173 Atlanta -- Communication Center

of Greater Atlanta, Inc.

197 San Antonio Good Will Rehabilitation

Center

174 Atlanta Metropolitan Boys Club 198 Atlanta Butler City U

175 Birmingham,' Alabama 199 Binghamton, New York Chinango County

Chamber of Commerce

- 363

-4U6
237 Denver SPEDY

238 Toledo, Ohio SPEDY

239 Tacoma, Washington SPEDY

225 Providence, Rhode Island SPEDY

211 Allentown, Pennsylvania SPEDY

210 St. Louis SPEDY

223 Washington SPEDY

501 Allentown, Pennsylvania Carbon

Training Center, Inc.

503 San Francisco Shrater, Inc.

504 Trenton, New Jersey

505 Akron, Ohio Civic Club

506 Providence, Rhode Island Outlet.Co.

507 Woonsocket, Rhode Island Chamber of

Commerce

4 ; )

364
APPENDIX B

Missing Values Age to Q81POST (9999)

Document

Program 137 Northern Colorado A sortium post program surveys were not. received

in time for inclusion on this tap . Program 154 Columbus post program surveys were lost in mail.

Program 157 Philadelphia Columbia School did not return intakes or post program

surveys.

Program 164 does not exist, it is a duplicate of 171.

Program 166 San Juan did not receive the post program surveys in time to administer them to the enrollees.

Program 183 does not exist, Pitt Western Area YMCA never gave the instrument.

Program 185 Helena, Montana did not supply us with demographics on their enrollees.

Program 188 Pitt 6th Mt. Zion post program surveys were never received.

Program 192 does not exist, it is a duplicate of 176.
VOCATIONAL EXPLORATION IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, 1972-73:

COMPARISON OF IMPACT OF THE PILOT

AND SECOND EXPERIMENTAL YEARS

Donald P. Sprengel and

E. Allan Tomey

John T. Manns

Phyllis. J. Reser

Wiley C. Smith

George D. Wendel
PART I

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The second year Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector (VEPS-II)

program was designed to provide training and career exploration for sixteen year old in-school NYC enrollees who were "probable dropouts." The

main departure from the regular NYC program was that VEPS enrollees were

placed at private sector work stations and received intensive personal,

career, and academic counseling. NYC programs shared the wage costs of

enrollees with the private sector employers.

The major findings of the Center for Urban Programs (CUP) monitoring teams are presented below. The findings under Assessment of Program

Operations and Administration are detailed in Part III of this report,

while those under Assessment of Program Impact on Enrollees comprise Part IV.

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION

1. Administration and Staffing

a. The change which placed all program functions under the VEPS-II

program sponsored by the NYC program worked well.

b. VEPS-II programs generally did not have to develop staff specialization in an area such as job development.

c. Several VEPS-II programs were operated by one person who performed

all the required tasks.

d. Programs in rural counties found it necessary to assign VEPS enrollees

to their regular in-school NYC counselors.

2. Enrollee Selection

a. VEPS-II enrollees met the NYC income guideline.

b. Most enrollees were at least sixteen years of age.

c. The enrollees had a number of academic, personal and family problems,

but were generally not selected according to a rigorous definition

of probable dropout.

d. Most enrollees were not enrolled in the school's regular work experience or vocational training program.

e. Comparisons between cities must be qualified with the knowledge that

the enrollees varied in terms of previous academic performance.

- 367 -
3. Job Development

a. Direct job development by the VEPS-II staff worked well.

b. Smaller employers continued to provide the majority of training

stations for VEPS.

c. The simplified wage cost sharing feature in VEPS-II was useful iW'

recruiting employers, although not as great an attraction as initially thought.

d. The training stations covered a wide range of occupations.

e. Programs in rural areasbenefited from the access to private sector

training through VEPS-II.

4. Pre-Job Orientation

a. Pre-job orientation programs continued to be limited in some cities

due to the start-up problems involved in new programs.

b. The majority of VEPS-II programs concentrated the pre-job sessions

on developing proper world-of-work attitudes.

c. Programs staffed by one or two persons had more difficulty due

to efforts in job development.

d. Enrollees benefited from outside speakers, role playing, practice

on application forms, films, and tape cassettes.

e. The program flexibility to use a maximum of sixty hours was used

by only a few cities.

5. On-Going Counseling

a. VEPS -II program counselors conducted this phase well.

b.

c.

d.

Enrollees had a number of job-related problems

personal and family problems.

Counselors were able to intercede successfully

a number of on-the-job problem cases.

as well as academic,

with employers in

Enrollees who were several grades behind their age group presented

the most severe academic problems.

e. The increased enrollee-to-counselor ratio (1:30) did not present

any general difficulty. Where VEPS-II was operated by one person,

the counselor was occasionally overloaded.
6. Career Exploration

a. This program component continued to be the most difficult to implement.

b. Most cities conducted some type of vocational and career exploration sessions, but most found it necessary to modify the bi-weekly

time schedule.

c. Smaller programs often used the schools or other agencies to present some career exploration material.

d. Most VEPS-II programs used some sessions to reinforce the work

attitudes gained in the pre-job orientation sessions.

e. The main problems encountered were the difficulty of getting groups

of enrollees together and of scheduling the times with employers.

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM IMPACT ON ENROLLEES

Information is based upon data for the universe of 716 enrollees in

eleven intensively monitored cities. For some items N is less than 716.

1. Profile of VEPS Enrollees

a. Sex: Male 52.1%; Female 47.9%.

b. Age: 15 or younger 15.4%; 16 - 37.9%; 17 or older 46.7%.

c. Ethnic Background: Black 45.0%; White 33.32; Spanish surname 20.8%;

other 0.8%.

d. Year in School (during VEPS): Sophomore or less 11.2%; Junior 40.0%;

Senior 48.7%.

e. Ever Worked: Yes 74.6%; No 25.4%.

f. Worked thirty days or more: Yes 66.5%; No 33.6%.

g. Pre-program Mean Grade Point Average:

Mean 1.98 (All Cities)

Highest 2.73 (Las Vegas)

Lowest 1.39 (Pittsburgh)

h. Pre-program Mean Days Absent:

Mean 22.9 (All Cities)

Highest 35.0 (Pittsburgh)

Lowest 8.0 (Colorado Springs)

2. Work Experience in VEPS

a. Type of Occupational Exposure

Professional 1.0%

Managerial 0.0%

Sales 11.1%

Clerical 27.8%

369 4 1 2
Craftsmen 6.5%

Operative 19.0%

Laborer 13.9%

Service 20.7%

b. Size of VEPS Employers (Number of full-time employees)

1-4 23.7%

5-9 21.1%

10-19 22.3%

20-29 11.1%

30-49 7.7%

30-99 4.0%

100 or more 10.0%

c. Number of VEPS Work Experiences: One 69.2%; Two 25.9%; Three or

more 4.9%.

3. General Assessment of Programmatic Impact

a. Impact on School Dropout Rate

(1) Remained in school or graduated 90.1Z; dropped out of high

school 9.9%.

(2) Completed VEPS 53.9%; terminated 46.0%.

b. Impact on Academic Performance

Academic averages were available for 346 completers.

(1) Enrollee grade point averages improved from the previous school

year (1971-72) in eight of ten cities. (No data was available

from Eugene, Oregon).

(2) Improved G.P.A. 62.0 %; declined 32.0 %; unchanged 6.0%.

(3) Mean grade point changes ranged from +0.62 in Cleveland to

-0.14 in Fort Worth

(4) The distribution of G.P.A. change by degree:

+1.26 or more 8.9%

+0.76 to +1.25 14.4%

+0.26 to +0.75 23.4%

+0.25 to -0.25 29.4%

-0.26 to -0.75 13.5%

-0.76 to -1.25 7.8%

-1.26 or more 2.6%

- 370 -
c. Impact on School Attendance

(1) The mean number of days absent declined in five of the ten

cities. (No data was available from Eugene, Oregon). Two

cities in which absences increased did so only marginally

(one day).

(2) Fewer school days absent 48.8%; more days absent 44.7%;

unchanged 6.5%.

(3) The distribution of Attendance Change by degree improvement).

+10 days or more 18.8%

+4 to +9 15.3%

+3 to -3 32.8%

-4 to -9 14.3%

-10 days or more 18.8%

d. Improved Disciplinary Status

(1) Available information indicates that enrollees had significantly fewer incidents with school authorities and the police than

in previous years.

e. Continued Part-Time Private Sector Employment

(1) A significant number of VEPS completers remained in the private

sector, 69.0% at the VEPS employer and 6.3% at other private

worksites.

(2) Disposition of remaining VEPS completers

Returned to NYC 5.5%

Higher Education 6.0%

Not working 8.4%

Military 2.4%

Other 2.4%

f. Facilitated the Transition from School to the Work Force

(1) Of the 179 youth who were seniors and completed the program

and graduated, over half (59.2%) retained their VEPS job,

another 8.4% found other private sector employment, and 3.9%

found public sector employment for a total of 71.5% employed

full-time after VEPS.

(2) 9.5% went on to higher education and 4.5% joined the military.

(3) Enrollees who were working, continuing their education or in

the military accounted for 85.5% of the completers who graduated.

371 4

11.4
(4) Only 10.6% were not working and another 2.8% were married.

The disposition of 1.1% was unknown.

g. NYC and School System Personnel Opinions of VEPS

(1) NYC directors were enthusiastic about the potential that VEPS

provided.

(2) Particularly important was the availability through VEPS of

more varied worksites and exposure to private sector employers.

(3) Some programs found VEPS a much needed addition to NYC where

public sector jobs outside schools are in short supply.

4. Analysis of Completers and Terminators

a. Completed VEPS 53.9% (386); Terminated 46.0% (330).

b. Males completed VEPS at a higher rate, 55.2%, than females, 52.8%.

c. Enrollees seventeen years of age or older completed at a higher rate,

56.5%, than youth sixteen, 53.9%, or under sixteen, 46.8%.

d. Completion rates by ethnic backgrounds were: Blacks, 60.6%; Whites,

50.0%; Spanish surnames, 47.0%.

e. VEPS enrollees in their junior year completed the program at 49.6%

rate; those in less than the junior year, 51.3%; seniors 59.0%.

f. Only minor demographic and family differences existed between completers and terminators.

g. Neither the size of the VEPS employer nor the VEPS occupational

experience had any major impact on program completion rates.

h. Completers improved their academic averages more frequently, 62.0%,

than did terminators, 50.8%.

i. Improvement in school attendance patterns was shown by 48.8% of

completers and 46.2% of the terminators.

j. Comparison of the academic averages of completers and the universe,

controlled for age and grade in school, shows that completers improved their grade point averages more often than did all VEPS enrollees.

k. In the same comparison using school attendance data, the relationship is not as strong.

1. No direct relationship exists between academic improvement or

positive changes in school attendance and the type of VEPS work

experience or the size of VEPS employer.

- 372 - 4 I ;.;
5. Reasons for Terminating VEPS

a. Terminations from VEPS amounted to 46.0% (330 of the 716 youth).

b. The main reasons for terminating were dropping out of school,

21.6%; quitting, laid off or fired, 23.4%.

c. Taking other private sector employment was the reason for termination in 10.3% of the cases; not interested in 7.9% and conflict

with school activities in 5.2%.

d. No other reason accounted for as much as five percent of the cases.

e. Over half the enrollees completed the program in four of the eleven

cities; in another four cities, the completion rate was between

40% and 50%.

f. No pattern emerged from an analysis of reasons for termination

when compared with size of employer or type of VEPS work experience.

g. The limited academic information available on terminators indicated

that they did not improve in either grades or attendance as much as

VEPS completers.

6. School Dropouts and VEPS

a. Seventy-one, 9.9% of the 716 VEPS enrollees, dropped out of school

during the 1972-73 program year.

b. The VEPS dropout rate is comparable to findings of other studies

of youth in this age and school year bracket even though the youth

selected as VEPS enrollees generally were probable dropouts.
PART II

INTRODUCTION TO VEPS

As outlined in U.S. Department of Labor Field Memorandum 195-72*

(May 12, 1972), the Department of Labor authorized a one year extension

of the pilot Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector (VEPS) program;

the purpose of the extension was further experimentation with program

content and -mplementation. The second experimental year was coterminous

with the 1972-73 NYC summer and in-school phases.

A. Description of the Experimental VEPS Program.

VEPS-II (as the second year of experimental implementation is hereafter identified) differed in several significant ways from VEPS-I (firstyear). These differences are attributable to the experience gained in

the implementation of VEPS-I. For background and comparative purposes,

the description of the VEPS-I program is given below.

A.1. The VEPS-I Experimental Program. As described in Field

Memorandum No. 183-71,** the VEPS-I program was designed for eleventh

grade, 16 year old Nel;hborhood Youth Corps in-school youth who could be

identified as probable dropouts. Originally, fourteen cities were targeted

for VEPS programs, but four sites were unable to start programs. Two

cities -- Columbus, Georgia and Portland, Oregon -- terminated VEPS-I

after the summer phase. The cities that completed the program were:

Columbus, Ohio; Flint, Michigan; Fort Worth, Texas; Lawrence and Haverhill,

Massachusetts; Norfolk, Virginia; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Salt Lake

City, Utah; and San Bernardino, California. Developed by the U.S. Department of Labor and the National Alliance of Businessmen (NAB), joined by

the U.S. Office of Education of HEW, the program provided career exploration and training opportunities that, hopefully, would result in reduction

of high school dropouts and the flow of untrained, unskilled youth into

the labor market. Primary emphasis was to be given to the development

of training and career exploration opportunities in order to provide

enrollees with the widest possible exposure to the world of work. Training assignments were to be related directly to the interests and capabilities of enrollees in concert with their educational goals.

The major components of VEPS were as follows:

(1) Counseling and Remediation. This component was to provide

enrollees with the motivation and basic educational skills needed to

*See Appendix B.

**See Appendix A.

- 374 - 41
function effectively in a work environment. Remedial needs were to be

determined and assistance rendered. Counseling assistance was to be provided at work, in school, and at home.

(2) Orientation. This component was to provide enrollees with a

basic grasp of the demands placed on the individual in the world of work,

work attitudes and habits, an awareness of the participating company's.

business and company facilities, and an explication of the enrollees'

primary objectives while in the program and the company's interest in the

program.

(3) Career Exploration. This component was to provide enrollees the

opportunity to broaden their perception of the panoranip of jobs in the

world of work, to observe others in a work environment, to discuss with

permanent employees the training and education needed for job success, to

understand the rewards arising from employment, and to learn of the possibilities of upward mobility in a given skill.

(4) Non-Productive On-The-Job Training. This component involved

close supervision of youth enrollees as they developed work habits and

basic job skills and the application of those learned skills in the actual

work environment. This component was entirely non-productive on-the-job

training at private sector worksites.

(5) Productive Work Experience. This. program component provided

actual work experience in production of marketable goods and services with

wages paid entirely by the employer (see details below concerning "Employer

Phase").

The first four components listed above represented program activities

conducted when wages were paid to enrollees from NYC sponsor funds --

teferred to hereafter as "NYC Phase." The fifth component constituted the

"Employer Phase" with wages paid entirely by the private sector. The full

year VEPS program had three segments (summer, first school semester, and

second school semester), each of which had a "NYC Phase" and an "Employer

Phase" during the weeks designated below.

Segment

Summer

12 weeks (39 hours per week)

First School Semester

19 weeks (15 hours per week)

Second School Semester

19 weeks (15 hours per week)

NYC Phase Employer Phase

Weeks 1-6 Weeks 7-12

Weeks 1-15 Weeks 16-19

Weeks 1-10 Weeks 11-19

At the start of each segment, the enrollee was to move to a new work

station at his present or another employer. At the conclusion of the

program each enrollee was to have had three s.:parate VEPS work experiences.

- 375
Youth participants in the VEPS program were to be recruited by NYC

sponsors; potential enrollees were to be in- school youth at least 16 years

of age who were economically disadvantaged as defined by NYC guidelines.

Candidates were to be referred to special high school counselors for certification that the students would be 11th graders in September 1971 and that

they were "probable dropouts."

The special high school counselors assigned to the program were funded

by the U.S. Office of Education. Counselors were to be selected for their

interest in aiding the disadvantaged rather than objective counseling credentials, except where State regulations or union agreements required fully

credentialed counselors. They were to devote full time to the enrollee's

remediation, counseling, and career exploration needs and interests. A

counselor-enrollee ratio of 1:20 was to be maintained wherever possible.

Counselors would contact and observe enrollees at their private sector worksites and at their schools (during school year), and would assist NYC sponsors and companies in developing and operating several program components.

Work sites for enrollees were to be identified and selected by NAB

metro offices; criteria for participating private sector companies included

a demonstrated interest in training and employing in-school youth, and a

capability of effectively training new personnel. The program was to be

designed so as to provide each enrollee three separate and distinct work

experiences either within the same company or in different companies over

the course of one year. As conditions for participating in the program, a

company was to agree to the following:

(1) Provide, at its own cost, necessary staff, space, equipment,

supplies and access to the principal worksites;

(2) Make these resources available to enrollees and high school counselors; and

(3) Absorb the salaries of enrollees when each "NYC Phase" terminated.

Additional responsibilities of private sector participants under terms

of the program included: (a) identification of training and employment

positions; (b) development of orientation and career exploration curricula

with local NYC and school officials; (c) allocation of supervisory personnel

to training and work with enrollees; (d) development of procedures governing

payrolls during training periods where the employer bears the full cost of

the enrollee's salary; (e) designation of a company coordinator to assist

the NYC sponsor and high school counselor in developing program curriculums

and schedules.

In addition to the recruitment and referral of youth function, NYC

sponsors were responsible for program administration including record keeping, paying NYC wages to enrollees, maintaining liaison with company coordinators and high school counselors, working with the metro NAB youth director

to provide for joint monitoring, and establishing a program review committee.

- 376 -

41 ;)
A.2. Transition to and Structure of the VEPS-II Program. Partially on the basis of a preliminary assessment paper delivered to D.O.L.

on January 27, 1972, the VEPS program was authorized to continue into a

second action year. This decision was in agreement with the conclusion

of the CUP monitoring team that VEPS was a significant, meaningful, and

successful extension of the NYC basic concept and that the program should

be refined and retested in a second year.

The conclusion of the CUP monitoring team that a VEPS-II program

should be continued with modifications was based upon two general categories of information: quantifiable evidence of programmatic impact

as revealed in enrollee records, and the observations and opinions of

program administrators. The data available at that early stage in the

VEPS-I program was neither complete nor comprehensive, but the experiences

in the eight intensively studied cities were sufficiently similar to

isolate certain trends by January of 1972:

1. Reduced tendency to drop out from school among VEPS enrollees

comparable to regular in- school NYC youth.

2. Improved academic achievement for VEPS enrollees.

3. Improved school attendance patterns.

4. Improved disciplinary status.

5. Evidence that the VEPS program had provided realistic attitude

development and growth in individual responsibility.

6. Private sector skill development for youth not normally participants in work-experience prog, ms.

7. Enthusiastic support for the VEPS program among VEPS personnel.

Implementation of the VEPS-31 guidelines differed considerably among

the eight cities completing the experimental program. A brief itemization

of the major areas of programmatic ,niriatlxm is useful here in order to

demonstrate the need for the guideline revisions implemented for the second

VEPS program year beginning in the smmer of 1972.

1. Local offices of NAB represented a broad range of effectiveness,

tactics, and involvement. Generally, NAB was unable to develop work stations among larger employers. Several NAB offices provided little more

than verbal support, while others invested substantial staff time and effort.

2. NYC offices, while providing the overhead and administrative

services as well as referral of NYC youth as potential VEPS recruits, experienced a new dimension in youth employment activities. Cooperation

with NAB and the schools was generally good.

3. VEPS-I enrollees were not limited to 16-year old rising juniors

as called for in the guidelines and the potential' dropout criterion was

not rigorously implemented.

- 377 -
4. Counseling, exploration, and remediation programs varied in

extent, content, design, hardware, and rapport with enrollees.

Given the experimental thrust of the VEPS-I program, these observed

differences provided an opportunity to determine the impact of varying

program designs and to assess comparatively the effectiveness of these

designs.

In the assessment paper prepared by CUP (January 27, 1972), suggested

program guidelines for the VEPS-II year were specified. With minor

modifications these suggested guidelines were adopted by the Manpower

Administration. It should be noted that the main thrust of VEPS-I toward

reducing the dropout rate and improving the employability of youth was

maintained in the revised program. Enrollees in the revised program

were placed in the private sector as they were in VEPS-I.

In brief, the major changes in the revised program model are listed

below. The rationale for these revisions may be found in the assessment

paper dated January 27, 1972, and the guidelines themselves may be found

in Field Memorandum No. 195-72 (May 12, 1972).*

1. Program administration was centralized with the NYC sponsor which

employed the program team.

2. Job development was the responsibility of the program team; the

assistance of N!'.13 metro offices was sought, but sole reliance on NAB for

job development was discouraged.

3. Operationalization of the "probable dropout" criterion was made

more rigorous.

4. Work stations were to be sought among smaller employers since

these appeared to provide more variety in work experiences and fostered

closer supervision of the youth while at work.

5. Except for a 60 hour orientation program, private sector employers

shared the cost of enrollee wages on a 50-50 basis with NYC, including

time spent in counseling and career exploration.

6. The counseling, remediation, and career exploration component was

given greater emphasis; a bi-weekly average of four hours was devoted

for these purposes.

7. The counselor-enrollee ratio was increased to approximately 1:30

from 1:20.

*See Appendix B. The guidelines and implementation model may be found

in Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector: Model for Implementing the

1972-73 Guidelines. Saint Louis University: Center for Urban Programs, 1972.

37'8
Field Memorandum 195-72 specified that the nine cities that operated

VEPS-I programs were authorized to continue into the VEPS-II program year;

these cities were located in Regions I, III, V, VI, VIII, and IX; RMAs in

these regions were authorized to offer the VEPS-II program to one additional

city. In Regions II, IV, VII, and X, the RMAs were authorized to offer

the program to two cities. The final selection process underwent considerable flux as the program year went by. This fluctuation was due to several

factors, primarily the inability of programs to structure a delivery system

that incorporated the basic program model. In addition, the uncertainty

about NYC funding levels and the future of NYC generally had a dampening

effect on agencies at they considered the implementation of a new program.

Table II-1 provides a comprehensive overview of the operating programs as

of November 30, 1972.

TABLE II-1

Comprehensive List of NYC Programs Ever Authorized to

Conduct VEPS-II Programs, By Status As of November 30, 1972

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Buffalo, New York

Cleveland, Ohio

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Columbus, Ohio

Davenport, Iowa

Eugene, Oregon

Flint, Michigan

Fort Worth, Texas

Georgetown, Texas

Haverhill, Massachusetts

Las Vegas, Nevada

Lawrence, Massachusetts

Leon, Iowa

Merin County, California

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Newark, New Jersey

Newport News, Virginia

Norfolk, Virginia

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Portland, Oregon

Providence, Rhode Island

Pueblo, Colorado

Salem, Oregon

Salt Lake City, Utah

San Bernardino, California

Never started a VEPS program

Conducted a summer program only

In operation

In operation

In operation

Began operation in February, 1973

In operation

In operation

In operation

In operation

In operation

In operation

In operation

Recently authorized; status unknown

Never started a VEPS program

Recently authorized out-of-school program

In operation

In operation

In operation

In operation

Recently authorized

Recently authorized

Recently authorized

In operation

Recently authorized

In operation

In operation

CUP monitoring teams conducted intensive 6n-site studies in twelve

cities operating VEPS-II programs. These cities were Flint (Michigan),

Fort Worth (Texas), Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania), Salt Lake City, and San

- 379 -

4.., 2
Bernardino (all of which operated VEPS-I programs) and in Cleveland,

Colorado Springs, Eugene, Georgetown, Las Vegas, Newark, and Pueblo (all

of which were new to the VEPS program). In addition, technical assistance

visitations at the request of regional DOL personnel were made to Minneapo

(for a NYC-II program) and Davenport, Iowa.

B. Program Objectives of VEPS.

The program objectives of the VEPS-I and VEPS-II programs are comparable to those of the regular NYC in-school program. Briefly stated, these

objectives are:

(1) To provide youth with the incentive to remain in school and earn

a,high school diploma -- The VEPS project was designed for probable high

school dropouts. The incentive to remain in school was to be provided by

intensive counseling, remediation, and work experience components that

would demonstrate the need for and value of education.

(2) To facilitate the smooth transition upon high school graduation

into the full-time work force -- Utilizing private sector work sites with

three separate work experiences, coupled with career exploration, the VEPS

program sought to provide a broader and more transferable NYC work experience by using private rather than public sector work sites.

(3) To provide youth with part-time employment while in school -- A

major objective of VEPS was for employers to continue employing enrollees

on a full-time basis during the summer following the initial program year

and on a part-time basis during the enrollees' high school senior year.

Upon graduation, it was hoped that the enrollees would be employed by the

participating company as a regular full-time employee or by another employ

seeking labor skills possessed by the enrollees.

(4) To dramatize the need for and utility of a sound high school

education for success in the world of work -- Through example, experience,

and counseling it was hoped that enrollees could draw linkages between the

opportunities provided in formal education with the requirements for emplc

ability in the private sector.

C. The Role of the Center for Urban Programs in VEPS.

From June 15, 1971, to December, 1972, the Center for Urban Programs

(CUP) was under contract (Number 82-29-71-34) to the U.S. Department of

Labor to monitor-analyze the experimental Vocational Exploration in the

Private Sector (VEPS) program. Under terms of the contract CUP had the

following general responsibilities:

(1) Compared and documented alternative approaches for establishing

and operating the several program components.

- 380 - fl.)A.44
(2) Provided periodic feedback to the Department of Labor regarding program operations and problems.

(3) Analyzed the broad first year VEPS-I experience to (a) assess

whether there were outcomes which might support continuing VEPS in a

second year, and (b) developed an improved VEPS design and guideline for

use in Summer 1972 and thereafter.

(4) Assessed the impact of VEPS-I on the participating youth and

agencies.

CUP monitored the VEPS-I progrim and collected enrollee impact data in

eight of the nine participating cities. Periodic reports were submitted

to the Division of Experimental Operations Research of the Department of

Labor on September 15, October 22, and December 20, 1971. An assessment

report was delivered on January 27, 1972, which contained a preliminary

assessment of impact on VEPS enrollees and recommended guidelines for a

second program year. A program model and guide for program implementation

in 1972-73 was prepared in February, 1972, and was distributed in early

May (Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector: Model for Implementing

the 1972-73 Guidelines) to assist those programs beginning in the Summer,

1972 for the VEPS-II program.

Since June 1, 1972, CUP has continued its monitoring and assessment

activities under terms of a grant pursuant to the provisions of Title I-B

of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended (Grant No. 42-29-72-07).

CUP responsibilities under terms of the grant were both intensified and

broadened. These responsibilities included:

(1) Comparison and documentation of alternative patterns of VEPS-II

implementation in selected cities which had operated VEPS-I programs and

four to six new VEPS-II cities;

(2) Assessment of impact of the VEPS-II program upon enrollees and

agencies;

(3) Long range assessment of the impact of VEPS-I upon enrollees and

comparison of vocational experiences of VEPS-I youth and control groups

subsequent to their twelfth grade school year;

(4) Development of a revised program model and suggested guidelines

for national implementation of VEPS should programmatic outcomes support

continuation of the program; and

(5) Preparation of a conference for VEPS program personnel, employers

and DOL representatives to provide information exchange and feedback for

needed program revision.

Periodic progress reports were submitted to the Department of Labor

regarding on-going VEPS-II operations on August 21, 1972, and on April 30,

1973. An interim report on the VEPS-I impact study was submitted on May 25,

1973. A preliminary assessment of progress and recommended guidelines for

- 381
the national implementation of VEPS was submitted on May 10, 1973. The

conference was held in Saint Louis on November 1-3, 1972, and the proceedings of that conference were distributed on December 10, 1972. The revised

program model and guide to implementation was prepared but distribution was deferred pending Congressional action on manpower revenue sharing.

D. Research Methodology.

The costractual obligations of the Center for Urban Programs under

its monitor-analysis function involved three separate, but interrelated,

tasks: update and corrective-suggestive feedback to the national and

regional offices of the Department of Labor as the VEPS-II program year

progressed; development of an operational model including recommended guidelines and optional organizational arrangements preparatory to national

implementation; and assessment of the impact of VEPS-II upon enrollees and

operating programs. The data and information for these three purposes

involved a mixture of three methodological approaches; since the monitoranalysis function does not incorporate programmatic evaluation, the utilization of impressionistic and observational information is more extensively

involved than would ordinarily be expected. Since the nature of the questions to be answered dictated the specific mix of methodologies, multiple

approaches were utilized, not all of which involved quantitative techniques.

Wherever possible, quantifiable information was gathered, but in terms of

the feedback and model construction activities, the use of quantified data

was supplementary to observational, attitudinal, and impressionistic information.

To meet these diverse tasks, four data sources provided the bulk of

the required information to formulate the model, structure recommended

guidelines, prepare progress reports, and assess impact upon VEPS enrollees:

on-site observation including work station visits; personal interviews with

program personnel, enrollees, and private sector employers; NYC data forms;

and academic records of enrollees.

(1) On-Site Observation -- Observational methodology permitted development of the basic orientation to the VEPS program as it operated in each

particularized situation and provided a "feel" for the local setting in

which to assess impact data. While in many ways intangible and non-quantifiable, observation was the only efficient and economical tool to monitor

program components and to construct an operational map for the required model.

Of those cities authorized to conduct VEPS -II programs by November 30,

1972, seventeen operated year long experiments; these cities are Cleveland,

Colorado Springs, Columbus, Eugene, Flint, Fort Worth, Georgetown, Haverhill,

Las Vegas, Lawrence, Newark, Newport News, Norfolk, Pittsburgh, Pueblo,

Salt Lake City, and San Bernardino. One city, Buffalo, ran a summer only

program. At least one field visit was conducted to each of these cities,

regardless of whether they were chosen for inclusion in the monitoring

effort. Site visits were facilitated due to close geographical proximity

and did not require excessive travel and time allocations for CUP staff.

In addition site visits were made to Albuquerque, Minneapolis, and Davenport.

In the final selection process, cities were chosen for intensive monitoring

and assessment on the basis of several criteria: unusual organizational

- 382 - '1
structures, number of planned enrollees, number of participating private

sector companies, size of the city, evidence of unusual interagency interaction, the demographic/economic profile of the city, and impressions gained

from initial visitations to all cities. Ultimately, five cities which had

conducted VEPS-I programs were selected (Fort Worth, Salt Lake City, Flint,

Pittsburgh, and San Bernardino) and six cities which had conducted VEPS-II

programs only (Georgetown, Colorado Springs, Cleveland, Eugene, Las Vegas,'

and Pueblo). Georgetown and Eugene were chosen specifically due to their

rural character and broad geographic area.

The national office of the Department of Labor was provided with site

visitation schedules to keep them abreast of the field operations. At the

outset contact was usually initiated with the field representative of the

Department of Labor for the city concerned. Subsequently, field visits

were arranged through VEPS program personnel. Telephone communication was

universally employed to arrange field visits. Normally, each field visit

was undertaken by a two man team and its psual duration was two to three

work days, although the length of the visit depended upon the information

needs at the time.

Over the course of the program, five field visits were scheduled to

each of the participating cities. In certain instances additional site

visits were made in order to collect additional information, or at the

request of the Labor Department or program personnel. In some cases fewer

than five visits were made.

The field visits were planned as follows:

June-July, 1972 -- Initial site visits to those cities who

had begun VEPS-II to develop a contact system, introduce the monitoring

team, gather preliminary information, and select cities for intensive study.

October-November, 1972 -- The second visit was to monitor

the transition from the summer to the first semester in-school phase and

the beginning of the career explort_ion component and to gather data to

make a preliminary assessment of impact trends.

February-March, 1973 -- The third visit was to document inschool procedures and operations and gather all required information not

previously ascertained to assist in the development of the program model

and monitor the transition to the second semester.

May-June, 1973 -- The fourth visit was to monitor second

semester activities and to establish reporting systems for the impact

analysis at the conclusion of the second semester.

June-July, 1973 -- The final field visit was to amplify or

clarify all prior information ou enrollees, gather academic impact data,

and determine the disposition of the enrollee following the program year.

The format for the field visits was fairly standard throughout the

monitoring effort. A general session with all intereated parties was held

at the outset of each visit. At this session organizational arrangements

and administrative procedures were discussed and documented; problems of

implementation were discussed and remedial steps were suggested. The monitoring team then discussed individual program components with the person

most directly involved--job development with the VEPS-II job developer;

- 383 - :2 ti
administration with the project coordinator; counseling and career exploration with the counseling staff; etc. Lists of enrollees were obtained,

and pertinent information on each was then gathered. Arrangements were

also made for the collection of academic data on the enrollees. Once discussions and information needs were completed, the monitoring team then undertook to make a number of work station visits to talk with youth and employers;

occasionally, double duty was attained by having the monitoring team split,

each monitor going with one counselor to a number of job sites.

(2) Personal Interviews -- The interview situation should be interpreted

broadly. Primarily the format was informal discussion with largely unstructured interview schedules. A checklist of questions to be asked to meet

the various informational requirements was used on the field visits. The

monitoring team found it necessary at times to emphasize that their role was

not one of evaluation but of monitoring, that interest in failures or mistakes was due to a desire to prevent such occurrences in other cities and

to note them in the implementation model. Discussions with youth and employers

were undertaken at the work station, and their views and ideas were solicited.

In effect, the monitoring team attempted to open dialogues with program personnel, youth, and employers in order to gain an accurate impression of

programmatic activities and potential. No structured interview sessions

were used, although the same topics were covered. Such sessions were valuable in providing anecdotal information and in enriching the perspective of

the monitoring team for the task of model building.

(3) NYC Data Forms -- The primary source for enrollee demographic information was the NYC-16 intake form. Such forms were gathered from operating

programs for every youth who was enrolled in VEPS. Changes in the reporting

forms for NYC (from a NYC-16 to a MA-101 or other form) seriously complicated the collection of needed demographic data in a number of cities.

Since enrollees did not, at the time of registration, provide comparable information to that of the VEPS-I enrollees, it became necessary for CUP monitoring teams to devise other routines for gaining this information. Usually

the counselor was asked to obtain this information, and CUP provided a listing of data needs on each enrollee using the NYC-16 form as a model. While

staff in most cities cooperated with this effort, inevitably some youth

(especially those who terminated the program) were overlooked and no data

was obtained; in other cities, VEPS staff did not respond to the request for

this help in data collection, and CUP teams then examined individual enrollee

records to extract whatever information could be obtained. Despite the best

efforts of CUP monitoring teams, sizable data gaps appear in the demographic

analysis which follows. Termination data (occasionally the use of MA-102

forms) was usually obtained from the VEPS counselors. Normal procedure

called for a review of the list of enrollees in order to determine the place

of employment, the types of experiences received, termination reasons, and

such other information as might bear upon the youth's performance in the

VEPS program. The monitoring team in most cases experienced no difficulty

in obtaining information from program personnel.

(4) Academic Indicators -- Early in the visitation schedule, the monitoring team requested academic attendance and grade performance indicators

for the year preceding the VEPS-II year for each of the enrollees. This data

was to serve as baseline information for an assessment of impact. Generally,

VEPS personnel provided this information with little hesitance, but in several

- 384 -

4

.) 7
cases this information was never obtained or required repeated requests.

The problem was minimized where school systems were the NYC sponsors, but

where NYC was sponsored by the CAP agency or the city, occasional questiuna

were raised as to confidentiality and access. In some cases, no academic

data was released to the CUP teams.

Early in the monitoring effort, the decision was reached not to conduct

any universe-wide structured interviews with enrollees. A number of factors

were involved in this decision. First, approval of the Office of Management

and Budget constituted a restricting time factor. Second, prior experience

with such interviews had generally questioned both reliability and validity.

Third, the types of information sought (largely attitudinal change factors)

were extremely difficult to isolate and even more difficult to scale for the

instrumentation. Given these problems, the monitoring team decided to rely

on counselors' observations and statements by employers buttressed by change

in academic indicators.

Interim reports to the Department of Labor included general observations

for all participating cities organized by topical area, summaries of programmatic operations in individual cities, and copies of field notes written by

the monitoring teams. Additional information in the way of forms, curriculum

outlines, work station and job descriptions were included with the field

notes. The progress reports and the supplemental information provided the

base for the preparation of the model and recommended guidelines for continuation of the program. The initial assessment of program trends was based

on preliminary evidence from academic indicators and other data obtained

through field visits.

NYC-16 data, academic indicators, employment data, work experience and

other information including final disposition and reasons for termination

were coded and transferred to punch cards. These data were run on a CDC 3300

using two canned programs: DATA SORT for the preparation of marginal frequencies and data "clean-up" and NUCROS for the F:eparation of cross tabulations and statists -n1 routines. Work experience code descriptions were taken

from the Alphabetical Index of Industries and Occupations -- 1970 Census of

Population (Bureau of the Census, U.S. Deparment of Commerce, 1971). Academic performance and attendance data for enrollees was standardized to fit

a 4.0 grade point scale and to fit equivalent school days absent.

E. Preliminar Assessment of VEPS-II and Recommendations for National

Implementation.

CU2 staff prer:,Jd a preliminary assessment of VEPS-II program operations the Peps ..ment of Labor, which was delivered on May 10, 1973.

This report conth ad an overview of the impact of VEPS-I, the preliminary

findings au an assessment of the impact of guideline changes in

VEPS-TI. anci raconmendations for national implementation of the VEPS program.

Partly on the basis of that report, the Department of Labor issued Field

Memorandum 255-73 (August 24, 1973)* authorizing placement of both in- school.

*See Appendix C.

- 385 - 4.)..
and out-of-school NYC youth in private sector worksites. This authorization

was based on Manpower Administrielon Order 8-73 and involved amendment of

the Code of Federal Regulations. However, decision on these amendments was precluded by Congressional action on the Comprehensive Employment and Training

Act of 1973, and the VEPS authorization was held in abeyance.

The assessment paper did not discern any marked variation in impact on enrollees from the VEPS-I program, although the data were preliminary and

sketchy. For national implementation, however, several marked changes from

VEPS -II were recommended. These recommendations were summarized under seven

topical headings dealing with the substantive changes that had been made in

moving from VEPS-I to VEPS-II.

The following discussion itemized these seven major guideline changes.

Each item is followed by observations on their implementation during VEPS-II

and suggestions for modification in a nationally authorized program.

1. Program administration was centralized with the NYC sponsor which

employed the program team. The original concept had relied on a high degree

of cooperation and integration among the participating groups. In most

cities, the desired cooperation did not develop and, in some areas, competition between agencies hampered the program. Concentration of administrative functions with the NYC sponsor and the assignment of a program team

to handle VEPS was aimed at giving proper responsibility to the group with

the most experience in working with NYC enrollees. The program team concept

is flexible, depending on local conditions.

VEPS programs outside larger urban areas usually provided one staff

person who was responsible for all phases of the program. In some cases,

NYC counselors merely assumed the additional duties of operating VEPS. Only

the larger programs employed a staff of several persons; however, even where

several staff people were available, they usually did not specialize in a VEPS component, such as job development or vocational exploration.

There were several reasons why so little specialization took place.

First, counselors who worked with all aspects of the program felt more confident about placing students. They knew the students and their limitations

and were familiar with the emp1oyer's expectations. Second, counselors who

actually developed the training stations felt they had better access to the

work site in order to make counseling contacts. Third, the VEPS programs

were limited in enrollee size and consequently the staffs were never larger

than six. It may be that significantly larger staffs would result in the

need for more specialization.

Funding a program team presented problems in the second year. Cities

funded VEPS counselors using carry-over Office of Education funds from

VEPS-I, small supplemental grants from the Department of Labor, regular NYC

allocations and outside sources such as the Public Employment Program.

Several programs operating VEPS attempted to obtain funding from general

revenue-sharing through the appropriate Mayor or other local elected official.

The need for counselors who provide the program services is obvious. Many

of their functions such as job development could not be delegated to other

groups without eliminating the program as it has operated for two years.

- 386 - it
2. Job development was the responsibility of the program team; the

assistance of the NAB metro office and other YOU s was to be sought. In

most VEPS-I cities, NAB did little to promote private sector participation

in the program. Where NAB did work for VEPS, lack of staff and an emphasis

on working with large employers reduced their job development effectiveness.

With job development primarily assigned to the program team, NAB and other

groups could be used to provide publicity for VEPS and for initial access

to employers.

The formal change in the job development function for VEPS-II reduced

the uncertainty that surrounded the first year of VEPS. The counselors knew

from the start that they would be developing the training sites for the

enrollees. This approach worked well in almost all cities. The advantages

in terms of knowing employer expectations, working conditions, and establishing rapport for later access in the counseling program were mentioned above.

The counselors generally responded well to the challenge of obtaining

training positions in the private sector. As in the first year, most of the

counselors had previously worked only with public sector employers in the

NYC program. In most instances, the counselors felt that developing jobs

in the private sector was more demanding than placing NYC enrollees. However, other factors, such as the requirement that the private sector employers

pay a portion of the wages, hampered VEPS job development compared to NYC.

CUP recommended that job development continue to be a function of the

counselors working in VEPS.

3. Operationalization of the "probable dropout" criterion was made

more rigorous. In some programs, the only criterion utilized was that of

the 0E0 poverty guidelines; no real effort was made to select "probable dropouts" by specific criteria, such as academic achievement, attendance, disciplinary actions, and so forth. In some programs, there was deliberate

avoidance of enrollees with serious academic or personal problems (in effect,

"creaming" enrollees) to assure programmatic success. Since the counseling

component had the potential to reach youth with serious problems (and to

ensure proper evaluation of the program in this respect), CUP recommended

that a definite and concerted effort to recruit such enrollees be made.

Almost all programs in the second year made some attempt to include

"probable dropouts." The selection criteria varied widely but usually

included as a minimum some recommendation by summer NYC counselors. Few

cities made selections based on extremely rigorous criteria in any organized

manner. But, the enrollees participating in VEPS are not usually enrolled

in a regular school program in either vocational eeixatinn or career development; thus a clientele group having a vocational :ducation need was reached.

CUP recommended that programs be urged to continue to select students

who are not now participating in school programs in vocational or career

education. Generally, efforts should be made to wyrk xiith 5tudents who are

not doing superior academic work. By so doing thl recoi.16 maximized the

benefits from the VEPS counselors and the relrti-. ty rcl2e-to-counselor

ratio.

387 -
Insofar as out-of-school NYC enrollees are concerned, if VEPS is adapted

to out-of-school programs, the probable dropout criterion will already have

been met. In general, the recommendation was for eligibility to be based on

the needs of the enrollees and the benefits each would obtain.

The experience in the first year of VEPS was that students who were failing all their subjects were generally poor risks for VEPS. In other words,

they were too far behind their classmates in school and had been away from

the classroom setting too often to be motivated toward school attendance by

just obtaining a job.

Due to state and Federal labor legislation and typical insurance provisions, VEPS enrollees should be at least 16 years old. Whether to select

Juniors or Seniors has been the subject of considerable debate by program

sponsors. One side suggests that Seniors who have a part-time job are in a

better position to obtain full-time employment after high school graduation.

The other side suggests that Seniors are not very likely to be "probable

dropouts" and that efforts should be directed to working with Juniors or even

Sophomores who are behind their peers in school credits. CUP believes that

both these positions have merit and that the program goals of dropout prevention and transition to full-time employment are not entirely compatible.

CUP recommended that the decision on enrolling juniors or seniors be

decided by program sponsors. This procedure would allow variations,depending on the local labor market and school programming. As noted above, the

selection of "probable dropouts" is more difficult. It was recommended that

programs weigh the student's academic and personal problems in selecting

students who would benefit from VEPS.

4. Work stations were to be sought among smaller employers. It was

the observation of the CUP monitoring teams that VEPS programs were more

successful when they utilized smaller employers who would provide a wider

range of job experiences, closer supervision of the enrollees, and greater

interpersonal contact. In many cases, the owner of the establishment actually

provided the supervision and took a personal interest in the enrollees.

The variety of work experiences was felt to be of prime importance in

broadening the enrollees' limited knowledge of opportunities for employment

upon completion of high school. It was noted that many of the target population had no experience on which to base a career selection.

Also of interest, small employers were more receptive to the program

than larger employers who envisioned VEPS as requiring excessive "red tape."

Union restrictions also hampered the placement of enrollees with some larger

employers.

CUP recommended that programs continue to develop training positions with

smaller employers. However, job developers should select only those employers

who are willing to devote the necessary time to training and supervising the

student. Additionally, participating employers should permit enrollees to

learn a range of activities even if they are in one position during their

program experience.

- 388 - 4,0
5. Except for the first sixty hours devoted to orientation and beginning

vocational exploration, private sector employers shared the cost of enrollee

wages on a fifty-fifty basis with NYC. This change eliminated the difficulties

generated under VEPS-I guidelines which called for cost-sharing based on

various phases of each of three segments that made up VEPS-I. The phasing

procedure was found inoperable in many situations due to the late start, and

too confusing in areas which attempted to follow guidelines closely. Many

first year programs turned to a constant percentage sharing (about sixty percent NYC and forty percent private sector) which was maintained throughout the

pilot year.

In recognition of the fact that enrollees would be engaged in some productivework as their training progressed, CUP recommendel a fifty-fifty cost

ratio for all hours once the youth was placed on the job site after the

sixty hour orientation. This split also recognized that the youth would

have a disproportionate incidence of problems and would require an increased

supervisory load for the employer. Employers would also share the cost of

the four hour average bi-weekly counseling sessions when the enrollee would

not be at the job site.

The cost sharing feature has been the key to obtaining private sector

participation in VEPS. This incentive is essential since school programs

have a number of students, many with specific training who are doing well

academically that they are trying to place in part-time employment. Employers

pay the student's wages, but there are no program limits on the work he can

perform. Therefore, cost-sharing has been an incentive which provided access

to training for VEPS enrollees who are students outside the school's regular

programs, with limited skills, and mediocre academic records.

CUP recommended that the cost-sharing be retained on the same basis,

fifty percent employer and fifty percent program. While it may be possible

to operate a program similar to VEPS with employers paying all enrollee wages

and the program only providing counselors, the success of such a limited

program would depend largely on the type of students selected. VEPS program

experience suggests that placements could be made, but that employers would

be less willing to work with any enrollee problems before terminating them.

If students without problems were selected, the program could make more

placements, but the program concept would have been significantly altered.

Therefore, the coat sharing arrangements should be included if at all possible.

6. The counseling, remediation and career exploration component was

given greater emphasis. This component further differentiated VEPS from other

youth training programs and was the area in which the program had great

potential for benefiting the target population of probable dropouts. This

type of enrollee was shown to have little access to and little success in

work experience programs lacking a strong counseling component. The vocational exploration sessions coupled with the work training provided the

impetus for the probable dropout to reconsider the value of school and

academic training.

VEPS-II programs maintained a high level of counseling contacts. Remediation was handled on an individual basis in most areas. The implementation of career exploration continued to vary considerably between cities.

- 389 - 4
CUP recommended that these three areas continue to receive their present

emphasis. Career exploration should be stressed using either special meetings or by enrolling the youth in appropriate school classes. The actual

methods for achieving the emphasis should be left up to the local program

sponsor.

One aspect of career exploration that needed further attention was the

requirement in the first two program years that VEPS enrollees move to different job assignments either in the same companies or different companies. CUP

recommended that this formal requirement be eliminated. This recommendation

is based on several factors. First, the smaller owner managed employers that

have been receptive to VEPS and provided close enrollee supervision and support often do not have many distinct job positions or titles. Second, enrollees are involved in various tasks and work experiences even if they are only

in one position. For example, the duties of an office assistant in an insurance brokers office might include filing, typing, answering the phone, posting

billings, typing policies, verifying statements and other office chores. Thus,

the exposure to the actual world of work offered by one position can be quite

broad. Third, enrollees who like what they are learning should not be forced

to accept another position just to satisfy a program guideline. Finally,

although sponsors in the first year did not usually require that enrollees

move to new training positions, slightly under half (46.7%) of the enrollees

were placed in at least two positions during the first program year.

7. The counselor-enrollee ratio was increased to 1:30 from 1:20. Experience with VEPS-I indicated that even with the responsibilities required for

VEPS, an experienced full-time counselor can adequately carry a counseling

load of thirty to forty enrollees. This guideline reduced the administrative

cost factor, but due to limited DOL funding many programs still had problems

maintaining an adequate staff.

This guideline change was followed in VEPS-II programs. Counselors

generally believe that thirty to forty enrollees would be a maximum in a program which provides the counseling and supportive services called for in the

VEPS design. No firm ratio can ever be "correct" for all situations. However,

unless the enrollees are substantially different from those enrolled during

the first two years, counselors would probably not be able to work with more

than forty youth. Even this number would require a certain amount of phasingin during job development and placement.

F. Postscript: VEPS and the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act

In anticipation of national implementation of the VEPS program, guidelines based on CUP recommendations were prepared in Field Memorandum 255-73,

but VEPS also required major modifications in the Code of Federal Regulations.

These changes were under consideration simultaneously with Congressional debate

on the President's proposed manpower revenue sharing package. Due to the

apparent imminence of passage, action on the Code changes was delayed pending

final Congressional disposition.

The suggested guideline* (Field Memorandum 255-73) reflected two basic

themes. First, the guidelines imposed were minimal. This reflected the

- 390 -
decentralization effort of the Department of Labor and provided the regional

offices with substantial discretion in what additional guidelines would be

operable in the region. Second, the Field Memorandum incorporated a substantial adoption of the basic recommendations made by CUP. Cost sharing

was maintained; de-emphasis on probable dropouts was adopted; counseling and

career exploration packages were encouraged; and cooperation among the

schools, the National Alliance of Businessmen, and NYC programs was to be

encouraged.

The major amplification on the CUP recommendations occurred in two

categories. First, cost sharing was based on the wages received by the enrollee; thus, if an enrollee were to earn more than the minimum wage, NYC would

share that cost and not $0.80 per hour. Second, greater emphasis was given

to rotation in work experiences. After 500 hours at a worksite, the enrollee

was to be rotated to another work training experience. After 1000 hours

with one employer, the enrollee must be either picked up entirely by the

employer or be placed with another employer.

These proposed guidelines for national implementation of VEPS reflected

a basic thrust of the program - -a flexible structure designed to give maximum latitude to operating personnel in meeting the work training needs of

NYC enrollees. The ultimate success of an individual program depends on the

calibre and dedication of NYC staffs entirely; programmatic guidelines were

designed deliberately for minimal restraint on the ability of program personnel to respond to individual places and enrollees. It was hoped that this

thrust of adaptability and flexibility would be maintained in any future VEPS

program.

In late 1973, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Employment and Training

Act. Guidelines for implementing CETA appeared in the Federal Register on

Tuesday, March 19, 1974 (Volume 39, Number 54). Specific provisions within

these regulations appear to exclude the possibility of implementing a VEPS

type program. Section 95.33 (d) 2 (ii) reads in part: "Direct subsidization

of wages for participants employed by private employers organized for profit

is not an allowable expenditure." This prohibition relates to on-the-job

training. In Section 95.33 (d) 3 (ii) relating to work experience, the following is applicable: "Work experience in the private for profit sector is prohibited."

While the possibility remains that changes may be made in the regulations

to permit VEPS operations, at present VEPS as presently constituted does not

appear to be an option open to youth work experience programs. Prime sponsors

might, however, explore the possibilities of implementing a VEPS program under

on-the-job-training provisions.
PART III

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM

OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION

The second year VEPS program expanded the number of cities participating in the experimental area of NYC enrollee placement in the private

sector. The principle program features retained from the first year guidelines were the use of private sector worksites for training stations and

the selection of enrollees who were probable high school dropouts. The

major changes from VEPS-I were that NYC would be the sole program sponsor,

that there would be an equal cost-sharing split between employers and NYC

for all enrollee wages after any pre-job orientation program, and that the

responsibility for job development would be assigned to the VEPS-II program

team. Since Department of Labor regional offices were given a great deal

of discretion in working with local VEPS sponsors to initiate VEPS-II or

smooth the transition from VEPS-I to VEPS-II, each participating program

sponsor modified some of the less important aspects of the program guidelines. Generally, this flexibility allowed the prograu pliidelines to be

applicable in a wide range of situations from large iliz:tr-TUitan areas to

clusters of rural counties.

A total of twenty cities operated some portion of the VEPS-II program. This number includes Buffalo, New York, which only operated a summer component, and Minneapolis, Minnesota which began an out-of-school VEPS

program in early 1973. Other cities were authorized to implementa VEPS-II

program, but never followed through. In some cases their decision was

influenced by the freeze placed on manpower programs in late 1972.

Although all nine first year VEPS programs continued into VEPS-II,

several did so without a strong commitment to upgrading the program operation. Others made a more concerted effort to strengthen weak components

and, in some cases, expand the number of enrollees. All first year cities

found that the lack of Office of Education funding for counselors was a

major problem.

With the exception of Cleveland and Newark, the eleven new cities

which participated in VEPS-II were medium to small in size. Programs in

Georgetown, Texas and Eugene, Oregon covered a multi-county area and were

essentially rural in character. There was a wide diversity in population

size and make-up of the VEPS-II cities, and as with VEPS-I, all sections

of the country were represented.

The diversity represented by the VEPS-II program cities was matched

by the diversity in the programs developed by the twenty sponsors. The

flexibility of the experimental program atructurc resulted in wide variation in program operation. Differences were apparent in all phases of

VEPS-II operations. The generalizations made in the following comparisons

of the implementation of the VEPS-II program elements must be interpreted

in light of the diverse nature of local project implementation.

392 4,j;_
Site visits to all VEPS-II cities were conducted by CUP monitoring

teams at some time during the program year. However, only eleven cities

were subject to intensive study. Mese cities were selected in consultation with the Manpower Administration based on two factors: (1) potential

for the program operation, structure, or other unusual administrative

arrangements for yielding useful information on desirable program changes,

and (2) ease of gathering data on enrollees. The discussion and analysis

of each of the program components is based primarily on field observations

and interviews in the eleven intensive study cities.

The main VEPS-II program components and selected topics within each

are as follows:

Administration and Staffing

- NYC as the VEPS-II program sponsor.

- Arrangements for staffing the VEPS program team.

- Enrollee payroll procedures--the VEPS cost-sharing feature.

Enrollee Selection

- Determining probable high school dropouts.

- Carryover of enrollees from VEPS-I.

- Using school records and counselors.

Job Development

- VEPS program team as job developers.

- Cost sharing as an incentive to recruit employers.

- VEPS as a work experience/training program.

- Types and sizes of employers.

- Job training positions.

Pre-Job Orientation

- Orientation programs offered.

- Use of material contained in VEPS Model.

- Coordination with job development and placement.

On-Going Counseling

- Enrollee problems--on-the-job, academic and family.

- Procedures for regular on-going counseling.

- Enrollee to counselor ratio.

Career Exploration

- Types of career exploration programs.

- Mechanisms for implementing the sessions.

- 393 -

43u
A. Administration and Staffing

A major change in the VEPS-II guidelines gave the NYC programs sole

responsibility for program administration. Since most first year programs

were operated by school system sponsored NYC programs, this change merely

formalized what had generally existed. Also, by eliminating the dependency of NYC on NAB for job development, duties were to be performed by the

NYC program. In cities where NYC was not school sponsored, the confusion

over coordination and cooperation among the school system, NYC and NAB

wad eliminated. Non school sponsored NYC programs, such as Newark and

Colorado Springs, knew anu were able to plan for the total program responsibility: staff, enrollee recruitment, job development and counseling.

It was the clear task of NYC to develop the necessary cooperation win

groups such as the schools and NAB. In other cities where the school

system sponsored the NYC program (such as Eugene and Flint), little change

could be noted from the procedures generally followed during VEPS-I.

School sponsorship of NYC ensured the necessary cooperation and access

for the VEPS staff.

One factor which made the implementation, of VEPS-II more difficult

was the lack of supplementary funding for counselors which had been provided by the Office of Education during the first year program. Several

approaches were used by cities to overcome this obstacle. Some VEPS-I

cities were authorized to use carryover monies from the first year Office

of Education funds. Others received additional funding from the Department of Labor in an amount generally sufficient to pay for the addition

of a program coordinator. Severe_ cities used Emergency Employment Act

or P.E.P. funds to pay for counselors in the VEPS-II program. While these

arrangements were not as long as the first year funding pattern, the cities

seemed to work out something that met their needs. In several cases, the

extra effort strengthened the commitment to make the program succeed as it

became an integral part of NYC rather than just a special program.

The NYC share of enrollee wages was to be paid out of the regular

NYC funding. Since the NYC cost sharing with employers for enrollee wages

was based on each paying fifty percent after the initial orientation, this

feature worked to the advantage of VEPS programs. Except for paying all

the wages for a maximum of sixty hours for pre-job orientation, NYC programs could pay the wages of one and one-half times as many VEPS enrollees

as regular in-school NYC enrollees, because VEPS enrollees worked fifteen

hours per week during the school year while NYC enrollees were limited

to ten.

As with the VEPS-I experience, there was a tendency for cities to

overestimate their ability to enroll and place youth in VEPS. This appears

to be prima_lly the result of the added time necessary to develop jobs

and explain adequately the VEPS concept to private sector employers. Although several procedures, such as payroll and cost sharing were simplified in VEPS-II, the program still required a complete and detailed explanation. Discussing a new program with employers who might take one or two

students is more time consuming than finding work slots in the public sector

(at no cost to the agency) for an established program like NYC.

394 4,;
The 1972-73 VEPS guidelines suggested utilization of a three person

VEPS program team consisting of a counselor, vocational specialist and a

job developer-counselor. This proved to be one of the more unworkable

elements in the second year program. The problem was one of VEPS program

size. It had been estimated that a program team of three could work with

eighty to one hundred enrollees, an enrollee-to-counselor ratio of approximately 1:30. However, few VEPS programs planned to have one handred enrollees. Those that enrolled that number generally felt that the counselors

should be active in job development and vocational exploration for an assigned

number of enrollees. As a result, very little division of effort and specialization took place during VEPS-II. Given the necessity of developing rapport between the enrollee and the counselor and tha counselor and the employer, attempts at specialization might better be confined to the vocational

and career exploration component.

Several administrative and operational arrangements were common in

the second year of VEPS. The most common staffing pattern was to have

several counselors (not necessarily certified by school systems) who each

carried out the duties of job developer and counselor. A second pattern

which was used mainly in smaller VEPS programs was to employ one person

to handle all phases of the VEPS program. The third technique which was

generally employed in geographically dispersed areas was to assign VEPS

enrollees as part of the in-school NYC counselors work load. Each of these

systems was based primarily on local circumstances, and none created any

particular difficulty given situational constraints.

The role of the school system in cooperating with programs designed

for in-school youth continued to present problems in VEPS. Although the

number of cases is not large, school systems which were not NYC sponsors,

especially in larger cities, were not eager to cooperate with VEPS personnel. This hesitance was usually associated with past experiences with

the local NYC programs. In spite of .he link between failure to cooperate

with VEPS and past NYC program efforts, it is also clear that the school

systems felt threatened by VEPS as a possible competitor for work stations.

The desire to avoid or minimize the fear of competition was also present

in some school systems which sponsored the NYC program.

Generally, some degree of cooperation with the schools was worked

out with a minimum of difficulty. Certainly not all school systems were

unhappy with a program that was providng work experience, training, career exploration and counseling to some of their students. Where requested,

programs usually obtained access to grade and attendance records and high

school counselors as well as cooperation on course scheduling, early school

release and, often, academic credit for the VEPS work experience. However,

Newark was one case where several meetings between the VEPS coordinator

and school officials failed to produce any cooperation.

The staffing of VEPS varied depending on the NYC sponsor. School

system sponsored NYC's generally required counselors to be certified or

at least that the program coordinator be certified. This requirement was

frequently based on state regulations. In cities where NYC was sponsored

by the 0E0-CAP agency or the city, the VEPS counselors were hired from

among the counselors used in other youth and manpower programs. In both

- 395 -

438
cases, the NYC director was usually aware of a number of persons who were

qualified to work as counselors in VEPS.

Since the job development phase of the program was clearly identified

as a VEPS responsibility from the beginning, the cases of counselors being

disappointed with their role as job developer were reduced to only a few.

These instances generally resulted from the difficulty of developing parttime training positions for youth in the private sector. Most of the counselors worked well with the flexibility in VEPS.

A major change in the allowable payroll procedures simplified administration of the NYC-employer enrollee wage cost sharing. During VEPS-I

a complex switching back and forth between NYC and employer payrolls proved

so universally complicated that the guideline was overlooked. In VEPS-II

enrollee wages could be shared continuously throughout the program, with

NYC and employers each paying 50%. The only exception was that NYC would

pay the entire enrollee wage for a maximum sixty hours orientation before

the enrollee began at his training site. This guideline change facilitated

the explanation of VEPS and facilitated the job development effort.

The actual mechanics of payroll generally involved NYC producing the

payroll checks and billing the employers for their fifty percent share.

Most participating companies favored this method. In some instances employers paid all the wages and NYC reimbursed them for their share, while in

others enrollees received two checks. Several programs had difficulty

in working the VEPS payroll into their accounting systems and others had

questions about fringe benefits, but these were resolved after only short

delays.

B. Enrollee Selection

The selection of VEPS-II enrollees encountered the same kinds of

problems that first year programs experienced. There were several complicating factors. VEPS-II enrollees were to be NYC eligible youth who

were at least 16 years of age. The requirement that enrollees be "probable

dropouts" was retained from the first year and expanded in detail. After

consultation with the schools NYC enrollees were to be ranked According to

school problems such as grades, attendance and reading difficulty. Programs were to select those students with the highest incidence of problems

after permitting some flexibility to reflect personal and family problems.

The VEPS-I requirement that students be entering their junior year in the

Fall was dropped.

Several factors prevented the probable dropout feature from being fully

implemented. First, both new programs and second year programs were generally reluctant to aggressively recruit youth with severe problems. The

results of the first year program indicated that success with youth who for

all practical purposes had dropped out of school (e.g., were not attending

classes or were failing all subjects) was limited. Therefore, some discretion in selection proved desirable. Second, the guidelines provided

that enrollees who had participated in the 1971-72 (first year) VEPS program could be re-enrolled in VEPS-II. All the first year programs re-enrolled

a number of students. Since many of these students had not been selected

396
as probable dropouts in any rigorous manner, they were re-enrolled without meeting the new procedures. Third, the necessary school records and

access to high school counselors are often not available during the summer

months. As many programs began in July and August, they were precluded

from obtaining the information to base selection on academic indicators.

The comparisons between cities made throughout this report must take

into account the differing selection process which produced enrollees who,

while meeting the NYC family income requirements and the 16 year old age

minimum, were not the same academically. The outcome of differing selection techniques in the study cities is apparent in the following table

which shows the mean grade point average and number of school days missed

for the 1971-72 school year. For VEPS-I cities the data for the previous

year is also included.

Table 1

PRE - PROGRAM GRADES AND ATTENDANCE

CITY MEAN GPA

1971-72

MEAN DAYS ABSENT MEAN GPA

1970-71

MEAN DAYS ABSENT

Cleveland, Ohio

Col. Springs, Col.

1.62

2.34

27

8

Flint, Michigan 1.64 28 1.74 26

Fort Worth, Texas 2.24 24 2.17 18

Georgetown, Texas 1.84 18

,,as Vegas, Nevada 2.73 18

Pittsburgh, Pa. 1.39 35 1.07 57

Pueblo, Colorado 1.87 18

Salt Lake City, Utah 2.19 24 1.96 26

San Bernardino, Cal. 2.31 11 2.41 18

These figures must be considered when interpreting program impact

on such factors as academic performance, VEPS program terminations and

number of high school dropouts. While few programs appear to have "creamed"

enrollees, some had enrollees whose academic problems were not severe,

based on available academic criteria. Also, interpretations of impact

must take into account that expectations of success tend to be quite op-

-' 39 7 -

440
timistic as the program begins. Students with all ranges of grade point

averages were generally believed to be able to improve substantially.

The range of grade points and absences for the cities tends to mask

the essential characteristic of VEPS enrollees. They were seldom in the

school's regular programs of work experience or vocational training. In

school work experience programs the employer pays one hundred percent of

the enrollee wages. As a result school program personnel and employers

generally eliminate "problem" youth to maximize employer acceptance and

minimize on-the-job problems. This is done in part because work experience

counselors have student loads that they could not service properly if they

were constantly faced with problems. Another factor is that.school training programs for some occupations are very limited and only the better

students are permitted to enroll. Therefore* VEPS represented the only

opportunity for many youth to obtain training and work experience in the

private sector.

The number of problems that VEPS enrollees confront are indicated by

reference to some socio-economic and family characteristics. Fifty-eight

percent (351) of the VEPS enrollees lived with only one parent or a guardian.

Forty-eight percent (317) were in families receiving welfare assistance.

In seventy-one percent (395) of the cases the head of the household was

unemployed or worked less than 35 hours per week. These indicators together with the academic records of the enrollees provide reasonable evidence that programs were enrolling youth with problems that might lead to

dropping out of school.

In summary most cities did not precisely follow the guidelines regarding the selection of probable dropouts. However, although academic indicators show a broad range among cities, the VEPS programs did enroll youth

who would typically not be eligible for the school's usual work experience

programs. Students in five out of ten cities had aggregate mean grade

point averages below a C.

C. Job Development

The change in VEPS-II guidelines which gave VEPS programs the sole

responsibility for job development improved this phase considerably. Even

new programs were generally more successful than programs operating the

VEPS-I experiment. A considerable portion of this success can be attributed

to the initial planning to undertake this element ana staffing t:e program

to meet this need.

Coordination with other groups such as NAB, Chambers of Commerce and

the local employment service offices was stressed in the guidelines. Although these efforts were made in most cities, the programs did not appear

to derive major benefits from outside groups. Due to factors such as

short lead time and the fact that VEPS was a relatively small experimental

program, it was difficult to mobilize any meaningful amount of support

from other groups.

- 398 -
VEPS program teams were encouraged to continue the successful thrust

of VEPS-I among smaller employers. The experience in the second year of

VEPS continued to demonstrate that these employers are most readily recruited for program participation by personalized and individual contact.

This means that more time is spent developing training positions, but also

promotes the essential rapport between counselor and employer for the ongoing counseling phase of the program.

An additional factor which simplified job development in the cities

that had conducted VEPS-I was the carryover of employers. The uncertainty

surrounding the future of VEPS during June, 1972, did not cause employers

to drop the program. Instead, many participated and expanded the available training slots during VEPS -II.

The carryover of employers into the second program year had two negative aspects. First, some programs had planned throughout the first year

to improve some of their training stations. With the natural press for

enrollee job openings at the start of the VEPS-II the idea was abandoned

in many cases. This served to minimize the start-up time for a share of

the total openings in a city. A second and possibly less desirable result

was that carryover employers often wanted to retain the youth who had been

employed the first year. As a consequence some youth were re-enrolled into

VEPS-II, but did not change employers nor necessarily rotate to new job

assignments. This partially defeated the concept of VEPS as purely a vocational exploration program, but was generally permitted because VEPS was

an experimental program.

While noting that in some instances the failure to alter the job site

for re-enrollees was probably detrimental, CUP believes that the flexible

combination of work experience, counseling and on-the-job training was

generally beneficial in meeting two of VEPS' major goals: reducing high

school dropouts and smoothing the transition of youth into the labor market.

The same controversy on the merits of exposure to various jobs versus

training in a particular job was preset during VEPS -I. CUP feels that

for VEPS enrollees the latter course most desirable. For these youth

the time for "pure" work experience and career exploration had passed.

Gaining experience working and receiving on-the-job training was the need.

The cost sharing feature whereby employers would pay fifty percent of

enrollee wages and NYC the other fifty percent continued to provide mixed

results. In some cases it confused employers and made them suspicious.

In others the employers would not have participated in VEPS without it.

The guideline change which split costs equally (except for orientation

costs which were to be paid by NYC) throughout the program was most helpful in contributing to employer understanding of the program. The advantages

to employers and NYC were clear from the outset.

Some would argue that VEPS would not have obtained employers without

the cost sharing feature. While the extra incentive that this provided

cannot be determined, it is instructive to examine briefly a concept that

Pittsburgh used during the VEPS -II year. Thruugh separate funding the

- 399 -

4,19
school system which sponsors NYC was able to obtain monies to pay for job

developer-counselors in a program called Select Employment Training (SET).

This program operated in much the same manner as VEPS with respect to youth

selection, job development and the provision of intensive counseling services. The major difference was that the employers paid all enrollee wages.

The counseling support and need for opportunities for all students were

the main points used in recruiting employers for the program. Many employers did participate in SET even though 'he students were not as well qualified as those that could be obtained from the school system's regular work

experience programs. Therefore, even where cost sharing is not possible

a VEPS type program with a high level of supportives may be operated.

Data on 691 VEPS-II enrollees indicates that 464 (67%) were placed in

firms with one to nineteen employees (45% in companies employing fewer than

10), 130 (192) in firms with twenty to forty-nine employees, and 97 (14%)

in firms employing over fifty workers. Although rotation to different work

stations was not a consistent policy, almost one-third of the enrollees had

at least two separate work experiences. The significance of the number of

smaller employers is that the enrollees were exposed to a wide variety

of duties even though they were not formally assigned to a different work

station. The work experiences were classified into ninety-eight standard

occupational codes, representing 296 separate work experiences.

The job development effort focused attention on another benefit from

the program. In many sleets, especially rural counties, the number and

quality of public sector training sites for NYC enrollees was limited.

Placement in the private sector provided more and better training positions

and an opportunity for experience that would be more marketable in the

local community.

The overall outcome of the job development phase was successful. Some

cities were not able to develop as many jobs as quickly as they had hoped.

But this often appeared to be a result of the local economic situation.

The VEPS counselors encountered the typical range of problems that manpower

program job developers discover. These usually centered on the lack of

summer openings in July when programs were beginning, employer unfamiliarity with VEPS, and, for carryover employers, the reduction of the NYC

contribution for enrollee wages to one-half from two-thirds.

Job development proceeded more effectively in VEPS-II due primarily

to placing the responsibility with the VEPS program team. Simplification

of the payroll procedures also was helpful. First year employers who continued with VEPS-II hampered program changes in some cities where counselors

did not want to lose training positions. Enrollees were generally placed

with smaller employers who provided training and close supervision, but

who often did not formally rotate youth to different work stations. Although there were exceptions, most training positions offered more potential

for the enrollees than those previously available. This was especially

true in rural areas with limited public sector openings.
.11 D. Pre-Job Orientation

The 1972-73 VEPS guidelito pzovV:lj sixty hours

over three weeks for pre-job wags,' tc.. be said

by the NYC program. The seso,ins i,clae '"uc:;7:;d-cd-work" orientation and an introduction to vt:caonmi ray:-4t!%. If job development had

produced some openings, referre f,Nr 10! 'rk'ly youth were scheduled to begin

the second or third week.

The inclusion of specific infJrmation on orientation in the guidelines

as well as the provision of a sample orientation program ill the VEPS Model

produced improvement in this program element during the second year. Most

cities used portions of the sample orientation program of materials they

had developed to give enrollees an introduction to the world-of-work and

the private sector. Unfortunately, only a few cities took advantage of

the full sixty hours to introduce vocation and career exploration materials.

This was due in part to the continued emphasis on selecting probable dropouts which resulted in enrolling youth with little or no work experience

except possibly NYC positions.

Each program conducted some modification of the suggested pre-job

orientation program. The sessions varied in length, scope and format

of presentation. The length varied from one hour informal sessions to

two week structured sessions. Generally, smaller VEPS-II programs which

were operated by a single person as VEPS coordinator-counselor-job developer

devoted less time to pre-job orientation; these programs were usually undertaking VEPS for the first time. Offsetting the tendency for smaller first

time programs to shorten the time allocated due to other program needs

(such as job development) was the greater acceptance and use of the sample

pre-job orientation program in Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector:

Model for Implementing the 1972-73 Guidelines.

Programs continued to interpret the scope of orientation narrowly.

Few programs took advantage of the full sixty hours permitted. Also, most

did not include much material that could be considered as vocational exploration. Both of these situations were created by the nature of the program and the staffing. It is difficult for staff in new responsibilities

to implement a program such as VEPS which has a number of experimental

features (e.g., cost sharing). Since pre-job orientation was an early program phase, it was needed before the staff was able to utilize its potential

fully. Second year cities generally made fuller use of the orientation

time. In these cases the staff was fully acquainted with the program and

had the experience of conducting orientation for VEPS-I. These programs

were less likely to utilize materials from the Model having in most cases

prepared many of their own items.

The presentation format varied from individual counseling type sessions

to group sessions with semi-structured presentations. The longer orientation programs tended to meet in groups for part of the day with. the rest

devoted to job development. Cities which went beyond the brief introduction to NYC and VEPS usually were able to use one-on-one and group sessions.

- 401 -
The high incidence of enrollee problems requiring counseling in all

cities during VEPS-II makes :.t difficult to assess which combination of

pre-job orientation approaches is best. Based on observations made during

site-visits, it generally appeared that a longer time period spent with the

VEPS enrollees provided more information on necessary world-of-work attitudes and established rapport. between the enrollees and counselors. This

latter objective is extremely important since the enrollees' cooperation

was essential if on-going counseling was to be effective. The longer

sessions were generally accepted by enrollees, especially when the stress

was placed on how the orientation will assist in obtaining jobs and when

a variety of teaching and counseling techniques were used.

E. On-Going Counseling

On-going counseling was reasonably effective in VEPS-II as it had

been the first year. Dealing with enrollees who have a number of academic

and personal problems mitigated against total success. Some youth terminiated from the program and some dropped out of high school. The counselors in VEPS-II evidenced a high level of dedication to the needs of the

enrollees. For example, most programs continued to work with an enrollee

to achieve some satisfactory result, even if he terminated VEPS and dropped

out of school.

The VEPS-II guidelines called for on-going counseling including employer contacts to be maintained throughout the program. It was expected that

a portion of the counselor's time would be devoted to crisis situations

related to the enrollees training site, academic work or family circumstances.

In addition, counselors were responsible for deciding if enrollee transfers

should be made and whether or not employers should receive new enrollees

if any quit their training positions.

Although Office of Education funds were not available for VEPS-II

staffing, programs were generally staffed so that the enrollee-to-counselor

ratio was ap)roximately thirty to one. As a result, counselors were able

to devote a great deal of time to maintaining enrollee and employer contacts.

After the initial job development phase, counselors spent their time in

the following activities:

(1) Making periodic contacts with enrollees and employers to determine

enrollee progress;

(2) Continuing job development for enrollees who had not been placed

or to replace employers who dropped out of the program;

(3) Intervening in crisis situations involving an enrollee's VEPS

training station, academic difficulties, or family related problems;

(4) Handling the procedural aspects of the program, including such

items as time cards, payroll checks, enrollee evaluation forms

(usually used when high school credit was being granted), and

arranging school schedule changes.

- 402 - 4.15
Enrollee counseling was most frequently done at the job site, but

counselors also made contact with enrollees at the VEPS office, school and

the enrollee's home. After the pre-job orientation, the counseling sessions

were usually on a one-to-one basis, although where several enrollees were

with the same employer or in the same school, small group sessions were

also used.

Where VEPS-II was operated by only one person, the number of tasks

required by the program left little time for routine counseling. Continuing job development, regular program procedures and emergency situations

together with an attempt to operationalize the vocational exploration

component left little or no additional time In programs with more staff

it may be possible to increase the number enrollees that each counselor

works with; however, this does not appear rum-111e in programs with only

one professional staff person.

Predominantly rural areas had more difficult_ in making frequent enrollee contact because of the distances involved. This was offset to some

extent in programs which assigned VEPS enrollees to the regular NYC counselors. This procedure would generally not be desirable due to the differences in enrollees between the programs, but seemed the best possible solution given the geographic character of some of the program areas. There

were some indications that the dual responsibility facilitated transfers

from VEPS back into NYC when the counselor felt the enrollee was not ready

or unable to accept training in the private sector.

The success of counselors in establishing and maintaining relationships with the school was generally good. In most cases, VEPS-II programs

were able to work out arrangements to grant high school credit for the work

experience and training received in VEPS. This was also accomplished

where the NYC program was not sponsored by the school system. In some

cases the VEPS students were enrolled in the regular high school vocational or career exploration classes in order to qualify the students for

credit. VEPS-II in Newark, New Jersey, was the only program unable to gain

any cooperation from the school system. In Eugene, Oregon, state law prevented release to CUP of some academic data on enrollees, but the school

district sponsored NYC program had no other problems.

Employers were generally pleased with the program, though in many

cases, they expressed dismay at the types of problems the youth created.

CUP believes that VEPS served to make a group of smaller employers aware

of methods that would be useful employ younger workers. In many cases

employers had not utilized this potential source of manpower to any great

extent. In most cases, once the employer had decided to participate, the

relations with the counselor proceeded normally. As would be expected

if the employer was not willing to cooperate with the program concept or

the counselor, he just would not accept any VEPS students.

The problems encountered in VEPS-II by employers and enrollees were

unchanged from VEPS-I. Counselors worked with enrollees in such areas

as reporting to work on time, general requirements of the position, follow-

- 403 -
ing the supervisor's instructions, arranging any time off in advance, being

interested in their work, etc. Enrollees faced a number of difficulties

at school in connection with holding their VEPS training position. VEPS

counselors usually worked through the regular high school counselors to

arrange early release from school, adequate transportation (usually by providing bus passes), and changes in school course schedules.

The number of counseling-type problems seriously hampered the full

implementation of the career and vocational exploration programs in some

cities. This generally occurred in cities with one or two person staffs.

The only solution to this problem would be to operate with a minimum staff

size of about three. Lowering the enrollee-to-counselor ratio would not

provide the necessary assistance unless there were more staff. The ratio

in VEPS-II WIE approximately 1:30. CUP believes that in larger programs

with more specialized roles, particularly career exploration, that one

counselor could serve thirty-five to forty-five youth depending on their

characteristics and problems. Based on VEPS-II, one person programs appear

able to serve a maximum of thirty-five enrollees.

Remediation for enrollees was provided sporadically. Some cities

attempted to determine enrollee needs in academic areas. Others merely

waited for severe problems to surface and then worked with enrollees individually or by referring them to proper remedial classes. Remediation

seemed more acceptable to enrollees where the VEPS staff conducted the

sessions.

F. Career Exploration

VEPS-II programs were not notably more successful in implementing

on-going career exploration than first year cities had been. Two factors

continued to be the major obstacles. First, the program staffs generally

did not have as much experience in career exploration as they did in counseling. This fact and the variety of other activities required to implement VEPS-II meant that some cities did not begin the type of program outlined in the guidelines. Also, some second year programs did not move

aggressively to revise their first year approach.

The second major factor was that some cities were overly concerned

about employer acceptance. Because training stations were needed, they

were sometimes developed without regard to the enrollees' future participation in career exploration sessions. Such training stations were often

excellent in terms of the opportunity it offered the enrollee, but may have

reduced his chances for participation in any scheduled vocational exploration sessions. Where this occurred, counselors usually felt that employers

would not cooperate if. they could not count on the enrollee's presence

on a regularly scheduled basis. This reflects the potential conflict within the dual nature of VEPS--part work experience and part on-the-job training.

Another problem the rural areas and, to a lesser extent, other cities

faced was the physical impossibility of counseling small groups of students

on a regular basis. These programs generally relied on more individual

4 4 - 404 -
sessions throughout the year to introduce the enrollee to the vocational

exploration materials. In some cases, the schools or the employment service office was utilized for the delivery of vocational and career information. The small staff size of some programs constricted available time

for formalized career exploration.

In spite of these difficulties, cities operated some type of vocational and career exploration for VEPS-II enrollees. These sessions were

usually shorter in time and smaller in scope than that presented in the

VEPS model. Also, most programs devoted a great deal of time to dealing

with the world-of-work problems that enrollees were encountering.

Vocational exploration sessions during 1972-1973 utilized various

techniques, including:

(1) Guest speakers from local companies discussing work requirements

generally and career. opportunities specifically;

(2) Speakers from other agencies and institutions such as the employment service and junior colleges discussing careers and scholarships;

(3) Audio-visual materials such as films, film strips, and tape

cassettes on careers and world -of -work attitudes;

(4) Small group discussions about current VEPS training positions,

youth experiences and related problems;

(5) Presentations by the VEPS program staff on topics such as income

taxes, the local labor market, unions, the value of work, etc.

A major accomplishment of these sessions and discussions was the

enrollee awareness of what work meant. Many for the first time were working and not just learning in a classroom about what would be expected.

Others who had held NYC positions reiterated the feelings of the first

year enrollees -- "The private sector expects us to do more." Grasping

the challenge and opportunity of work and gaining concrete experience

appear to outweigh the compromises in the official guidelines for the

VEPS-II experimental program.
PART IV

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMMATIC IMPACT ON ENROLLEES

In monitoring and assessing VEPS-II, the Center for Urban Programs

collected information on 716 enrollees in eleven intensively studied

cities: Cleveland, Ohio (99); Colorado Springs, Colorado (41); Eugene,

Oregon ;42); Flint, Michigan (67); Fort Worth, Texas (63); Georgetown,

Texas (25); Las Vegas, Nevada (21); Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (70); Pueblo,

Colorado (41); Salt Lake City, Utah (122); and San Bernardino, California

(125). This compares to the 433 youth in eight cities studied in VEPS-I.

Other cities that either considered or implemented VEPS programs but were

not intensively studied include Albuquerque, New Mexico; Davenport, Iowa;

Haverhill and Lawrence, Massachusetts; Newark, New Jersey; Newport News

and Norfolk, Virginia; and Columbus, Ohio.

The information collected consisted of Lhe following: (a) where

available, demographic, background information and personal histories

taken from NYC intake forms; (b) VEPS employment history and final disposition provided by program directors and counselors; and (c) academic

data obtained from enrollees' high school records. Complete data was

usually not available for those youth who terminated the program; obviously,

incomplete data exists in those cases where the youth dropped out of school.

The CUP monitoring teams also experienced difficulty in obtaining comparable data with the VEPS-I youth. This situation resulted from the fact

that the NYC-16 form was no longer being utilized in all programs; this

form had been basic to data collection in VEPS-I. As a consequence, the

monitoring teams relied upon VEPS counseling staff and enrollee assistance

to fill in missing information; inevitably, however, substantial portions

of the data remained fugitive. In several cities significant gaps developed

for the purposes of comparing VEPS-I and VEPS-II demographic data; only

minimal information was obtained from Colorado Springs. In other cities

specific information with regard to academic background and performance

could not be obtained; Eugene was one such case. For the majority of enrollees, however, sufficient information was available to permit a meaningful

assessment of programmatic impact, an isolation of those factors which

appear to be related to specific outcomes, and a comparison with VEPS-I.

At the outset, several cautions should be made clear. First, percentage figures are based on the total number of cases for which information

is available; consequently, N may vary below the universe of 716 youth.

Second, data on all beginning enrollees is utilized as the base in Sections

A and B: Profile of the VEPS Enrollees and Work Experience of VEPS Enrollees. Other sections analyze program complettons, program terminations, and

high school dropouts; in these cases the N leflects the specific group.

Finally, where only marginal frequencies are reported, detailed tables may

be found in Appendix D. Wherever appropriate, comparisions are drawn with

the VEPS-I program.

- 406 -
A. Profile of the VEPS Enrollees

Because VEPS youth had to be eligible for NYC to participate in VEPS,

all enrollees met the poverty income criteria. In Table 2, selected demographic characteristics of enrollees are presented, controlled for participating cities and compared with the VEPS-I result. For comparative

purposes, baseline national NYC in-school data on enrollee demographic

Characteristics are available in Manpower Report of the President (March,

1973) and the final report of the VEPS-I project.*

A majority (52.1%) of the VEPS-II enrollees were males, down slightly

from the 52.4% found in the VEPS-I program and 56.6% reported for the

national NYC in-school program for Fiscal Year 1972. In four of the eleven

cities, however, females constituted a majority of the enrollees (Las Vegas,

90.5%; Colorado Springs, 56.1%; Salt Lake City, 54.1%; San Bernardino,

57.6%). The VEPS-II program deemphasized the age sixteen requirement, mandating only that youth working on job sites have attained that age. As

a consequence, the frequency distribution among the age patterns differo

considerably from that of VEPS-I. In VEPS-I over half of the enrollees

were age sixteen, while in VEPS-II only slightly more than one-third (37.9%)

were age sixteen. An approximately equal proportion were age seventeen,

and almost double were age eighteen in VEPS-II. The carry-over of enrollees from VEPS-I into VEPS-II in several cities partially accounts for this

difference. Flint, Fort Worth and Pittsburgh, all VEPS-I cities, have heavy

concentrations of seventeen year old enrollees. Due to the needs of its

work sites, Las Vegas also had a significant concentration. The arbitrary

date of July 1, 1972, was used to standardize age distributions. Although

15.4% of the enrollees were age fifteen at the time of enrollment, all of

these had turned sixteen by the time of job placement. As noted below,

this age distribution pattern is reflected in the year in school of the

enrollees.

One-third of the enrollees were white, 45.0% were black, and 20.8%

had Spanish surnames. This distribution is not dissimilar from that of

VEPS-I, representing a slight increase among Close with Spanish surnames

and a slight decrease among blacks. Although internal variations can be

found between and among cities, most of these inter-city differences can

be explained in terms of variances in ethnic concentrations in the areas.

As would be expected concentrations of youth enrollees with Spanish surnames

occurred in Colorado Springs, Fort Worth, Georgetown, Pueblo, Salt Lake

City, and San Bernardino. Compared to national data, whites are somewhat

underrepresented (40.0% nationally compared to 33.3% for VEPS-II)

as are blacks (53.4% nationally as compared to 45.0%), while youth with

Spanish surnames are somewhat overrepresented (6.6% nationally as compared

to 20.8%).

*Center for Urban Programs, Vocational Exploration in the Private

Sector: Final Report. and Assessment 1971-1972.

- 407 - 4,,i)
TABLE 2

SELECTED ENROLLEE CHARACTERISTICS, BY CITY AND TOTAL

risti. elev. Col.S. Eug. Flt. Ft.W. Geor. Las V. Pitt. Pueb. SLC. San B. VEPS-II

Total

VEPS-I

Total

co

(N)

(N)

Younger rere

Older

ACK-

(99)

66.7%

33.3

(99)

10.1%

39.4

31.3

19.2

(41)

43.9%

56.1

(40)

12.5%

45.0

37.5

5.0

(42)

66.7%

33.3

(42)

35.7%

23.8

40.5

--

(67)

50.7%

49.3

(67)

7.5%

34.3

44.8

13.4

(63)

52.4%

47.6

(59)

5.1%

30.5

55.9

8.5

(25)

60.0%

40.0

(23)

4.3%

39.1

30.4

26.1

(21)

9.5%

90.5

(21)

--%

42.9

42.9

14.3

(70)

58.5%

41.4

(70)

5.7%

21.4

45.7

27.2

(41)

65.9%

34.1

(41)

7.3%

31.7

48.8

12.2

(122)

45.9%

54.1

(122)

11.5%

44.3

35.2

9.0

(125)

42.4%

57.6

(125)

39.2%

48.8

10.4

1.6

(716)

52.1%

47.9

(709)

15.4%

37.9

35.3

11.4

(433)

52.4%

47.6

(410)

12.2%

53.5

27.4

6.9

(N) (99) (40) (42) (67) (63) (25) (21) (70) (41) (122) (125) (715) (432) vr 75.8% 15.0% --% 83.6% 77.8% 60.0% 66.7% 92.9% 2.4% 10.7% 22.4% 45.0% 47.9%

15.2 40.0 97.6 9.0 6.3 28.0 33.3 7.1 2.4 69.7 40.8 33.3 33.1

b Surname 9.1 45.0 2.4 6.0 15.9 12.0 -- 95.1 15.6 36.8 20.8 18.1

- - -- 1.5 -- -- 4.1 -- 0.8 0.9

SCHOOL (N) (99) (39) (42) (66) (63) (24) (21) (70) (41) (122) (123) (710) (426)

Ian 6.1% 2.6% --% --% --% 4.2% --% 2.9% --% --% 0.8% 1.5% 1.6%

lore 23.2 5.1 23.8 -- 1.6 16.7 -- 12.9 -- 2.5 13.8 9.7 6.8

29.3 33.3 21.4 40.9 23.8 54.2 4.8 22.9 29.3 53.3 68.3 40.0 67.1

41.4 59.0 54.8 59.1 74.6 25.0 95.2 61.4 70.7 44.3 17.1 48.7 24.5
While the VEPS-I program concentrated on youth enrollees in their

junior year in high school, the VEPS-II program had no such concentration

requirement. As a result and as shown in the distribution in Table 2,

representation of freshmen and sophomores 1.7 approximately the same for

both program years, while in VEPS-II somewhat fewer juniors (di 27.1%)

and somewhat more seniors (di 24.2%) are 1nclujed. The concentration

of seniors reflects the attitude of program pe;:onnel in several cities

that the VEPS program was ideally suited for seniors about to enter the

labor force. A majority of seniors can be found in seven of the eleven

cities.

The stereotype pathology of poverty generally holds true for the VEPS

enrollees, although some differences in degree do emerge (see Appendix

Table D-1). In over one-third of the cases (37.1%), both parents lived

in the household; this is up slightly from the 36.2% found in the VEPS-I

program. In 49.7% of the cases, youth identified their mother as head of

household, down from the 54.5% found in VEPS-I. Slightly more than one -

fourth of the heads of household (28.6%) were employed more than thirtyfive hours per week at the time of enrollment; this is down from the 31.1%

in VEPS-I; in VEPS-II, 56.0% of the heads of household were unemployed

(54.0% in VEPS-I) and 15.4% were working part-time, that is less than

thirty-five hours per week; this is up slightly from the 14.9% in VEPS-I.

Although the differences are not significant, VEPS-II enrollees came from

householda whose heads showed lower employment levels than those in the

VEPS-I program. Unemployment by the head of household was generally higher

in the older industrial centers of the East and Midwest. It should be

remembered, however, that employment of the head of household information

is dated, since it normally reflects the household situation during the

week immediately preceding completion of the NYC intake form. The data

are further suspect since, in the attempt to obtain directly comparable

information, the CUP monitoring teams collected employment information at

points later than the initiation of the program.

In VEPS-I less than a third of the youth (30.8%) contributed to the

support of the family through their earnings; in the VEPS-II program however, nearly one-half (47.2%) contributed to the support of the family.

As with VEPS-I only a small minority (17.4%) of the VEPS-II yOuth lived

in public housing. This figure is slightly skewed due to the varying

amounts of public housing available in the participating cities. Slightly

less than half (47.9%) of the enrollees' families received any form of

public assistance, compared to a national rate of 29.9% and to the precise

same rate (47.9%) in VEPS-I.

Among the participating programs some variation in enrollee employment history does exist (see Appendix Table D-2). In each of the cities

at least half of the enrollees had previously been employed for wages,

ranging from 52.4% in Fort Worth to 97.8% in Cleveland. Overall, almost

three-quarters (74.6%) of the VEPS-II youth had previously worked; this

is substantially higher than the 58.3% in VEPS-I and is partially accounted

for by the generally older group in VEPS-II. As with VEPS-I, only a small

number (9.3%) were employed the time of enrollment in the program.

Cleveland with 36.4% was the oily city having a sizable proportion employed

- 409 - 4:: -)
at the beginning of the program; in three cities--Eugene, Fort Worth, and

Las Vegas--no youth were currently employed. While only slightly more than

half (51.1%) of the VEPS-I enrollees had worked for thirty days or longer,

nearly two-thirds (66.5%) of the VEPS-II youth had been employed for at

least thirty days.

This employment history data should not be considered as reflective

of substantial or diversified work experience on the part of the enrollees.

Ample evidence exists that the substantial proportion of the enrollees with

experience had obtained it through the regular NYC program in public sector

slots. Moreover, enrollees who continued into VEPS-II from VEPS-I account

for a small percentage as well.

The VEPS-II program emphasized somewhat more strongly the probable

dropout criterion for youth selection than did the VEPS-I pilot program.

An analysis of the enrollee academic records demonstrates that some programs

were more rigorous than others in their selection of youth. Although academic factors are only me indicator of a probable dropout--others being

attitudes, home situations, discipline problems--the experience has been

that school performance is a reasonably good basis for identifying the

dropout prone. Some programs appear to have operationalized probable in

terms of possible. Other programs- -Las Vegas is an example--selected

youth on the basis of the work station requirements and the willingness

of the employers to hire "problem" youth. Table 3 lists the mean grade

point average and mean days absent for youth in each of the participating

TABLE 3

PRE-PROGRAM KEAN GRADE POINT AVERAGES AND DAYS ABSENT

FOR VEPS ENROLLEES, BY CITY

City

Academic Indicators*

Mean Grade Point Average Mean Days Absent

Cleveland 1.62 27

Colorado Springs 2.34 08

Eugene N.A. N.A.

Flint 1.64 28

Fort Worth 2.24 24

Georgetown 1.84 18

Las Vegas 2.73 18

Pittsburgh 1.39 35

Pueblo 1.87 18

Salt Lake City 2.19 24

San Bernardino 2.31 11

*Based on a 4.0 grade point scale; days absent were obtained by

standardizing individual city statistics. Data are based on the 1971-

72 academic yaar.

- 410 -
programs. The variation among programs ranges from a grade point average

of 2.73 in Las Vegas (where all youth were placed in branches of a bank)

to a 1.39 in Pittsburgh. In terms of mean days absent, the range is from

a low of eight days in Colorado Springs to a high of thirty-five in Pittsburgh.

Although in certain instances the evidence that the youth selected

were probable dropouts is weak, it should be also remembered that the process of selection involved the exercise of personal judgment by the counselor. In selecting youth such unquantifiable factors as personal problems,

social disability, or attitudinal disenchantment were certainly involved.

Moreover, some youth were selected solely on the basis of the potential

benefit that the youth would receive from the VEPS experience.

In summary, the VEPS-II youth are quite comparable to those who were

involved in the VEPS-I project except for the tendency of the former to

be slightly older and more advanced in school year. The poverty pathology

is substantiated, and VEPS-II youth were somewhat more prone to contribute

to the support of the family. More VEPS-II youth had had some work experience prior to enrollment in VEPS, but this is explained by the age differential. There is no evidence to indicate that this experience took place

outside the regular NYC program. Based on academic indicators only, the

selection of probable dropouts was less evident in VEPS-II than VEPS-I,

despite the emphasis given to probable dropouts in the guidelines.

B. Work Experience of VEPS Enrollees

Based on the VEPS-I experience, VEPS-II encouraged the placement of

youth at work sites in small or medium sized employers. Experience indicated that (1) such positions were easier to develop than bloc placements

with large employers and (2) personal interest and supervision were greater

in the small and medium sized firms. Choice was re- ..:.ntd between situations in which the youth would receive closer supe,-;Is.;(. '1 the levelopment of good work habits and marketable skills in the sell and medium

sized placements, and the possibilities for promotIon tick exist with large

employers. The VEPS-II program opted for the f, job stations

were developed by the VEPS counseling staff; in Aties v.,,ch had run VEPS-I

programs, substantial numbers of employers carried eve, Llto VEPS-II. Negligible aid was received from Chambers of Commercr. eni the : ltional Alliance

of Businessmen; this was to be expected given p):0r .710V ,ence. The absence

of such assistance was an additional factor in C.i Lee lity generally to

obtain blocs of jobs with larger employers.

The size of employers, controlled by city, win., participated in tiA!

VEPS-II program is given in Table 4; size is measured in terms of the r.Lumer

of full-time employees. Most work stations were with small or medine.

employers as had been recommended; two-thirds (67.r0 were with emplcers

having less than warty full-time employees, while 44.8% had fewer tha,1

ten. Only 10.0% of the employers were in the large (over 100 fun-time

employees) category. The general pattern holds for most of the ..ities

although some variations can be seen. Las Vegas is an obvious e;;,cepzion;

all youth were placed with the Bank of Nevada. in Cleveland, 19.8% were
TABLE 4

SIZE OF VEPS EMPLOYERS (NUMBER OF FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES), BY CITY

Number of

Employees

1-4

5-9

10-19

20-29

VEPS-II VEPS-I

Clev. Col,S. Eug. Fit. rt.W. Geor. LasV. Pitt. Pub. SLC SanB. Total Total

26.0% 48.82

14.6 12.2

11.5 29.3

33.3% 4.9% 1A4 28.0% 0.02 14.5% 44.4% 42.62 14.2% 23.72 23.02

38.5 34.4 37.7 28.0 0.0 8.7 30,6 15.6 10.8 21.1 26.6

17.9 39.3 27.9 8.0 0.0 29.0 5.6 16.4 32,5 22.3 14.9

16.4 18.0 8.0 0.0 20.3 2.8 4.9 13.3 11.1 6.3

10.3 0.0 3.3 12.0 0.0 7.2 5.6 13.9 9.2 7.7 7.1

0.0 3.: 0.0 16.0 0.0 11.6 8.3 4.1 2.5 4.0 11.7

1.; 11,5 0.0 100,0 8.7 2.8 2.5 7.5 10.0 IL

100.02 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.02 100.0% 100.12 100.02 100.0% 99.92 100.02 1

(691) (395)

15.6 4.9 0.0

30-49 9.4 0.0

50-99 3.1 0.0

100 or More 19.8 4.9 0.0

TOTAL 100.02100.1%

(N) (96) (41) (39) (61) (61) (25) (21) (69) (36) (122) (120)

4";)
placed with large employers. At the other end of the scale, Eugene (0.0%),

Flint (1.6%), Pueblo (2.8%), and Salt Lake City (2.5%) had no or very few

large employer sites and a heavy concentration among the less-than-twenty

employee work sites. In Pueblo four out of five work sites fell in this

category; in Eugene nine out of ten work sites had fewer than twenty

employees. Most program administrators agreed that smaller employers were

of greater benefit to the enrollees. These employers often had more time

to provide direct, personal supervision; they often took a personal interest in the youth and frequently were willing to deal with problem situations

in a less impersonal manner than might be found in large organizations.

While the data reported in Table 4 reflect only the size of employer

of the first work station to which a VEPS youth was assigned, it is a quite

accurate descripiion of all VEPS work sites. While 30.8% of the enrollees

had more than one work experience, these experiences were almost always with

the same employer.

NYC work experience has often been criticized as lacking transferability and applicability to the private sector; the range of experiences is

quite limited and may, in fact, encourage work habits not consistent with

the demands of the private sector. VEPS enrollees, on the other hand, enjoyed

a wide range of experiences. Table 5 lists these experiences by general

categories. Appendix E contains a comprehensive listing of specific job

titles held by enrollees. The general job code is based on the U.S. Bureau

of the Census, 1970 Census of Population: Alphabetical Index of Industries

and Occupations, which provides twelve general classifications of occupations; these were reduced to the eight shown in the Table.*

VEPS work stations were concentrated in the clerical (27.8%), service

(20.7%), and Operative (19.0%) categories. The clerical category represents

mostly secretarial, receptionist and office aide positions; as might be

expected these were held mostly by women. Although the service category

was represented mainly by food service workers, there were a sizable number

of youth working is the child care area. Most operatives worked as mechanics

or gas station attendants. Few youth obtained positions in the professional

or managerial fields. This, of course, was not unexpected given the training qualifications and experience required for these positions. Colorado

Springs (41.5%) and San Bernardino (35.0%) relied heavily on clerical jobs;.

Flint had most (40.9%) in the service area; Pueblo had 41.7% in the operative

category. Cleveland and Georgetown each had heavy concentrations in the

clerical and service occupations; Salt Lake City in the clerical and operative areas. Overall the differences among cities are not significant and

tend to reflect the employment situation in each area. What does merge is

the wide variety and diversity in the work stations occupied by VEPS enrollees.

*The twelve categories were reduced to eight in the following manner:

Farmers and Farm Managers were grouped with Managers and Administrators; Transport Equipment Operatives were combined with Operatives; Farm Laborers and

Farm Foremen were grouped with Laborers; Private Household Workers were combined with Service Workers. Apparently, no youth worked in any of the eliminated categories.

- 413 -

4
TABLES

CATEGORICAL DISTRIBUTION OF VEPS OCCUPATIONAL EXPERIENCES, BY CITY

Occupational

Category Clev, Col. S. Eug, Flt. Ft.W. Geor.

Professional 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 8.0%

Managerial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 U C

Sales 14.6 7.3 7.7 8.2 4.9 12.0 0.0

Clerical 22.9 41.5 12.8 22.9 26.2 24.0 95.2

Craftsman 3.1 4.9 7.7 1.6 21.3 12.0 0.0

Operative 12.5 7.3 25.6 9.8 19.8 8.0 0.0

Laborer 15.6 22.0 23.1 16.4 11.5 8.0 0.0

Service 31.2 17.1 23.1 40.9 13.1 28.0 0.0

TOTAL 99.9% 100.1% 100.0% 99.8% 100.1% 100.0% 100.0%

(N) (96) (41) (39) (61) (61) (25) (21)

ywiwami.mm..orli

Pitt. Pueb, SLC Sad.

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7%

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

18.8 5.5 10.7 15.0

15.9 13.9 27.9 35.0

0.0 8.3 8,2 5.8

29.0 41.7 24.6 17.5

14.5 16.7 13.9 9.2

21.7 13.9 14.8 15.8

99.9% 100.0% 100.1% 100.0%

(69) (36) (122) (120)

VEPS-II VEPS-I

Vital Total

1.0% 2.2%

0.0 0.7

11.1 11.7

27,8 34.9

6.5 4.8

19.0 18.3

13.9 18.8

20.7 8.6

100.0% 100.0%

(691) (581)
Using the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population: Alphabetical Index of Industries and Occupations, each identifiable work experience of the VEPS enrollee was classified and listed. Using this scheme,

ninety-eight different occupational codes were necessary to cover the range

of work experiences; this compares to eighty-five in VEPS-I. Concentrations,

of course, appeared in certain classifications: 104 were general clerical

workers; ninety-three were salesmen; fifty-five were general operatives;

forty-seven were food service workers; and twenty-eight were waiters or

waitresses. Such a listing does not differentiate sufficiently among the

types of experience gained by the youth. Within the ninety-eight occupational

codes, 296 discrete work experiences were identified (133 in VEPS-I). Even

this refinement tends to mask the range and type of work experience. For

example, the Code 280 occupational category--salesman--does not distinguish

between sales youth in grocery stores, department stores, clothing stores,

or record stores. The mere enumeration does not permit one to appreciate

either the range of occupations or the diversity within each category.

CUP monitoring teams found many instances where jobs were developed

which afforded the enrollees unustal advantage. When career interest was

clearly identified, most VEPS job developers attempted to place the youth in

work stations closely akin to that interest. An outstanding example was the

youth whose interest was photography. This enrollee was placed with a commercial photographer and, before the end of the program, was taking portraits

for the studio. Other interesting work stations included: accountant trainee,

systems analysts, advertising, bank tellers, data processing, bookbinding,

floral arranging, moldmaking, printing and ranch management.

In addition to the type of work experience, another dimension worthy of

consideration is the number of work experiences each enrollee received. In

other words, to what extent did job placement provide exposure to a range

of work tasks for the youth? It is extremely difficult to determine the

exact number of work experiences that an enrollee had. Change of work. station

is one indicator. Different experience in the same position would be another.

An enrollee working at a filling station may pump gas, work the cash register,

service cars, do mechanical repairs, clean up, run errands, etc. To label

this experience simply as gas station attendant is to understate the situation. The difficulty in tracking the total chain of work experience forces

an enumeration of only the clearly identifiable, separate and distinct experiences. The data in Table 6 provide the results of this enumeration.

Multiple work experiences were most common in Cleveland (51.0%). Colorado

Springs (41.5%), Flint (40.9%) and Salt Lake City (38.5%) also had numbers

of youth with multiple work experiences. At the other end of the range, six

cities--Georgetown (88.0%), Pueblo (83.3%), Eugene (82.1%), Las Vegas (81.0%),

Fort Worth (80.3%), and San Bernardino (79.2%)--tended toward keeping enrollees in a single work experience. Among all youth, 30.8% had more than one

work experience, down somewhat from VEPS-I (46.7%). In inspecting these

data, it must be borne in mind that any one work experience might include a

variety of exposures. Too great a reliance on these figures would leave one

with a much distorted perception of the actual range of work experiences.

In summary the work experience data are .ndicative of several patterns.

First, job development was easiest among small employers (less than ten full-

- 415 -

A . -
TABLE 6

NUMBER OF VEPS WORK EXPERIENCES TOR ENROLLEES, BY CITY

of

.ences Clev. Col S. Eug. Flt. Ft.W. Geor. LasV. Pitt. Pueb. SLC SanB. VET: II

Total

VEPS -I Total

49.0% 58.5% 82.1% 59.0% 80.3% 88.0% 81.0% 73.9% 83.3% 61.5% 79.2% 69.2% 53.3%

42.7 36.6 17.9 31.1 18.0 12.0 19.0 26.1 13.9 27.0 19.2 25.9 36.5

7.3 4.9 0.0 9.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 10.7 0.8 4.5 8.8

r or More 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.4 1.4

)TAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

f) (96) (41) (39) (61) (61) (25) (21) (69) (36) (122) (120) (691) (411) I r4
time employees, 44.8% were in this category. Two-thirds (67.1%) of the

employers had less than twenty full-time employees. Second, the range of

occupations and experiences opened to the enrollees was quite broad. The

range and type of experiences enabled VEPS to provide the enrollees a more

realistic exposure to the world-of-work and its opportunities than is provided by most regular NYC public sector programs.

C. General Assessment of Programmatic Impact

The guidelines ccntained in Field Memorandum 195-72 identified the

basic objectives of the VEPS program as: (1) reducing the high school dropout rate; (2) providing disadvantaged students with skills enabling them,

upon graduation from high school, to move on to further education or a job

in the private sector; and (3) helping disadvantaged students experience

achievement and learn the value of education and training as preparation

far the world of work. In the assessment papers prepared by CUP to provide

DOL with a mid-program perspective for VEPS-I (January, 1972) and VEPS-II

(May, 1973), seven outcomes were identified as having positive or favorable

characteristics. While the assessment report of May, 1973, was written

toward the terminus of the VEPS-II program year, that report reflected only

partial and scattered data; nonetheless, the preliminary indications for

VEPS-II were comparable to the preliminary assessment for VEPS-I. Since

the final VEPS-I report confirmed the accuracy of the preliminary assessment,

there was little reason to suspect that the VEPS-II experience would differ

substantially.

The seven outcomes that have transferability between the two program

years are: (1) a reduced tendency to drop out from school among VEPS enrollees comparable to regular in- school NYC youth; (2) improved academic achievement for VEPS enrollees; (3) improved school attendance patterns; (4) improved

disciplinary status; (5) evidence that the VEPS program had provided realistic

attitude development and growth in individual responsibility; (6) private

sector skill development for youth not normally participants in regular school

work-experience programs; and (7) enthusiastic support for the VEPS program

among VEPS personnel. The current grant to the Center for Urban Programs

provides for a VEPS-I longitudinal impact assessment of these preliminary

findings; the report on that study should be available in July, 1974.

In the analysis sections which follow, we have utilized academic data,

job outcome information, employability patterns, and programmatic experiences

of assorted types to assess the degree to which the VEPS program achieved

the guideline objectives and to test the validity of the findings in the

preliminary assessment. For organizational purposes, the data have been

organized and presented under the seven topical headings relating to the

outcomes specified above. Since programmatic objectives can be fairly

implied in each of these, the pertinence of the analysis is obvious.

C.1. Impact on the Dropout Rate. Data in Table 7 provide summary

disposition information for the 716 VEPS-II enrollees, and f r comparative

purposes, summary outcome data for VEPS-I. Over half (53.9%) of the enrollees completed the year long program. This completion rate is considerably

417

4 u
TABLE 7

SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF ENROLLEES, BY CITY

DISPOSITION OF ENROLLEES

City (N)

Completed

In-School

Completed

Graduated

Terminated

In-School

Terminated

Dropout

Terminated

Graduated

Cleveland (99) 45.5% 33.3% 5.1% 14.1% 2.0%

Colorado

Springs (41) 19.5 14.6 29.3 4.9 31.7

Eugene (42) 26.2 21.4 23.8 19.0 9.5

Flint (67) 22.4 20.9 22.4 9.0 25.4

Fort

Worth (63) 22.2 42.9 27.0 0.0 7.9

Georgetown (25) 20.0 8.0 60.0 12.0 0.0

Las Vegas (21) 4.8 57.1 19.0 0.0 19.0

Pittsburgh (70) 28.6 45.7 11.4 11.4 2.9

Pueblo (41) 19.5 19.5 9.8 24.4 26.8

Salt Lake

City (122) 23.8 20.5 35.2 9.0 11.5

San Bernardino (125) 41.6 8.0 37.6 7.2 5.6

VEPS-II

Total (716) 29.0 24.9 25.1 9.9 11.0

VEPS-I

Total (431) 46.9 16.2 25.1 9.7 2.1

- 418 -
lower than that experienced in VEPS-I (63.1%) and in MDTA programs in Fiscal

Year 1972; 69.9% of all enrollees in MDTA programs completed the training,

including 74.0% in institutional training and 62.5% in JOP-OJT (Manpower

Report of the President, March, 1973, p. 230). Completion rates in Fiscal

Year 1971 for MDTA programs were considerably lower. This lower completion

rate in VEPS-II can be attributed to one factor: de-emphasis on rising

juniors as a criterion for selection. As has already been noted, substantially more seniors participated in the VEPS-II program. The variance

between the two VEPS groups in completion rates rests entirely upon terminators who remained in school and graduated. Thus, in overall terms, the

selection of seniors coupled with a higher proclivity toward termination

among seniors accounts for the variance between the two program groups. To

bolster this interpretation, other data in the Table may be used. Terminations who remained in school compare exactly with the VEPS-I experience,

and dropout rates are also quite similar (9.9% in VEPS-II and 9.7% in VEPS-I).

Program completion rates were highest in Cleveland (78.8%) and Pittsburgh (74.3%). and lowest in Georgetown (28.0%), Colorado Springs (34.1%) and

Pueblo (39.0%). In only four of the eleven cities did a majority of youth

complete the program. Seventy-one youth dropped out of school; these youth

represent 9.9% of the total VEPS-II enrollees and 21.5% of terminations,

compared to 9.7% of the VEPS-I enrollees and 26.4% of the terminations.

The highest proportion of dropouts were in Pueblo, Eugene and Cleveland; no

youth dropped out in either Fort Worth or Las Vegas.

As we noted in the final report on the VEPS-I program, it is difficult

to assess with a strong degree of confidence the impact of VEPS upon dropout rates. The lack of empirical information, baseline data, or precise

dropout figures for given years in school makes a comparative assessment

impossible. The longitudinal study of the VEPS-I program which employs a control group should help to establish a meaningful indicator. Given the VEPS

target population -- probable high school dropouts--the rate of 9.9% can be

interpreted in a favorable light. The comparability of this figure with

the 9.7% in VEPS-I is also not without significance. Based on interpretation

of available information reported in the VEPS-I final report, we conclude

that, at worst, the dropout rate in the VEPS program is equal to or less

than the rate for school populations as a whole and can only be interpreted

as a substantial, qualitative improvement whose exact dimensions remain

unknown.

C.2. Impact on Academic Performance. The counseling and remediation components of the VEPS design were partially intended to demonstrate the

value of a sound high school preparation for the world of work. Effective

counseling, it was thought, would result in improved grade performance among

the enrollees. Since oue of the indicators most commonly used in selecting

probable dropouts was grade point average, substantial improvements were

expected. This thought rested on the assumption that poor academic performance was a symptom of attitude and not actual ability. In Table 8, mean

grade point averages were provided-for beginning enrollees for the 1971-72

school year (indicative of pre-program performance levels) and for VEPS

comple:ers for the 1971-72 school year and the 1972-73 echool year. No

data are available for the enrollees in Eugene. Data reflect only those

enrollees for whom complete academic information is available.

419
TABLES

MEAN GRADE POINT AVERAGES FOR 1971-72

AND 1972-73, BY CITY*

City

R.G.P.A. (1971-72)

All Completers

Enrollees (N) Only (N)

FG.P.A. (1972-73)

Compllters G.P.A.

Only Change

Cleveland 1.62 (95) 1.68 (77) 2.30 +0.62

Colorado

Springs 2.34 (35) 2.43 (14) 2.44 40.01

Flint 1.64 (67) 1.73 (29) 1.91 +0.18

Fort Worth 2.24 (62) 2.49 (37) 2.34 -0.14

Georgetown 1.84 (22) 2.16 (6) 2.13 -0.03

Las Vegas 2.73 (19) 2.48 (8) 2.58 +0.10

Pittsburgh 1.39 (63) 1.52 (52) 1.97 +0.45

Pueblo 1.87 (27) 2.01 (10) 2.07 +0.06

Salt Lake

City 2.19 (118) 2.55 (54) 2.71 +0.16

San Bernardino 2.31 (105) 2.41 (59) 2.44 +0.03

*No data available for Eugene.

- 420 -
The impact of VEPS-II upon the grade point averages of completers is

generally positive, but not nearly as dramatic as might be expected or

desired; substantial improvement aid occur in Cleveland and Pittsburgh.

While averages rose in all but two cities, most of the change is marginal

in terms of the individual program mean. It should be noted that, with

the exception of Las Vegas, mean grade point averages of completers are

higher than the mean for the total group of enrollees. As an overall indicator, the mean grade point change per completer in VEPS-II was +0.24; the

comparable figure for VEPS-I was +0.237. The difference is suggestive of

a constant program impact upon enrollee academic performance that is slight,

but positive.

While indicators of overall change are useful, the impact of the program

can be measured and assessed more directly in two waya: enumerating the

numbers of youth whose grade point rose or fell absolutely and classifying

that distribution among categories of degree. Such inforl. tion is provided

in Table 9.

The use of the direction and degree of change indicators ,.la a

somewhat more favorable impact. StvA.nt whose grade point e"t:I- rose

exceeded those whose average declines' . a ratio of nearly tro t Y - Substantial majorities of youth in Cle-..41aod, Colorado Springs, ..c

Las Vegas and Pittsburgh improved their A 7..-lges. In no cit d..o decline, although a plurality declined In :.rt Worth; the yot t syJniy

divided in Pueblo. In terms of degree of tha---e, a near major y (46.7%)

improved at least +0.26 grade points or 1.4,4tr,x -'ompared to 23.9% who deoliaed

-0.26 or more, a ratio of two to one. The la:io between opposite casor:;.es

of the degree of change scale also revealo lJtio of two to one. Moryover,

this distribution is quite comparable to the distribution found in the

VEPS-I program. Thus, when mean grade pant Change, direction of change sad

degree of change are examined, the data consistently reveal a skewness

toward improvement at a ratio of approximately two to one, a distribution

which co-firms estimated programmatic impact upon academic performance for

VEPS-I.

C.3. Impact Attendance in School. As with grade point averages,

an implicit goal of the VEn program was improved attendance patterns among

enrollees. Attendance is commonly viewed as an itdicator of student interest

and attitude and is usually osited as having a positive correlation with

academic performance. The deta 1rom (confirming that found in VEPS-):)

do not support this contention; academic performance and attendance are not

significantly relad-. phenor.na. Some distortion exists within the attendance

data due to the techniques used by school systems in determining

and reporting abc.oces; the distortion occurs in the aLte.apt to standardize

attendance factor .t terms cf days absent. Some systems report absences

in terms of days, others in class periods; it is not uncommon in some systems

to report students as present (while their presence can be questioned) in

order to increase per pupil daily attenklice to qualify for increased state

aid. It is our belief that, insofar as pos,Able, these dis'lrtione 'ave

been minimized in the data presented here, although the reader is ci.-...ttioned

not to place excessive faith in the data.

- 421 -
TABLE 9

DIRECTION AND DEGREE OF GRADE POINT M.' FOR COMPUTERS, BY CITY

Grade Point

Slav Indicator C ev. Col.S.

EICTION OF CHANGE (N) ,(78) (14)

Up ' 75.6% 71.4:

Same 7.7 0,0

Down 16.7 28.6

DEGREE OF CHANGE

+1.26 or more 21.8% 0.0%

+0.76 to 1.25 23.1 0.0

+0.26 to 0.75 16.7 21.4

+0.25 to -0.25 24.3 50.0

-0.26 to -0.75 6.4 21.4

-0 76 to -1.25 5.1 0.0

-1.26 or more 2.6 7.2

4 :;)

Fit.

(29)

58.72

, 3.4

37.9

6.9%

10.3

20.7

38.0

20.7

3.4

0.0

Ft.W. Geor, La5V. Pitt. Pueb. SLC Sant,

VEPS-II VEPS-I

Total Total

(37) (6) (8) (52) (10) (54) (59) (341) (254)

29 4 66.7! 75.0: 69.2: 50.0% 59.3% 59.3% 62.0% 61.5%

24.3 0.0 12.5 5.8 0.0 1.9 0.0 6,0 3.1

45.9 33.3 12.5 25.0 50.0 38.8 40.7 32.0 35.4

5.4% 0.0% 0.0! 17.3% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 8.91 9.12

13.5 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 11.1 10.2 14.4 12.2

10.8 50.0 50.0 21.2 40.0 29.6 28.8 23.4 26.8

21.6 16.7 37.5 17.3 40.0 33.3 37.2 29.4 28.,3

18.9 0.0 0.0 15.4 10.0 18,5 11.9 13.5 13.4

21.6 33.3 12.5 1.9 10.0 5.6 10.2 7.8 7.5

8.1 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.6 2.8
When the data are controlled for city, the impact upon attendance is

not great. Overall, absences per enrollee declined by less than one full

day (0.85); in VEPS-I the comparable statistic is 1.44 days. In five of

the ten cities attendance patterns improved, and in five cities attendance

patterns deteriorated; however, the degree of change is slight. See Appendix

Table D-3. In Pueblo and Fort Worth, enrollees averaged AU improvement

of seven days, while in Flint the enrollees averaged a deterioration of four

days; in all other cities the difference between 19U-72 and 1972-73 attendance

varied plus or minus three days or less. An objective interpretat of

these data force the conclusion that the VEPS Ilinpact waa non-existent in terms

of attendance.

To further test this attendance outcome, data ..re controlled for both

direction and degree of change to determine if any meaningful impact was

being masked through use of aggregate data and measures of central tendency.

The distribution may be found in Table 10. Less than half of the VEPS

completers (48.8%) improved in attendance, although this constitutes a

plurality of the youth. Some variation exists among the cities, but the

distributions are not significant. The outcome date on attendance are also

quite similar to that found in VEPS-I, which is again suggestive of a constant impact factor for the program upon enrollees that is slight, but positive.

When the data are controlled for degree of change, the general pattern

resembles a normal curve; opposite points on the scale are approximately

equal in value. Overall, 34.1% showed some improvement (+4 or more days

attended), 32.8% showed no marked change (+3 to -3 days), and 33.1% demonstrated some decline (-4 or more days attended). Compared to VEPS -I, while

there was less improvement in VEPS -II, there was also less decline; thus,

the attendance pattern for VEPS -II shows somewhat more stability over the

two year comparison.

These data demonstrate that attendance cannot be improved through a

VEPS program acting alone. Conversations with counselors and enrollees

brought out the observation that youth are "turned off school" for a variety

of reasons; many counselors found that the youth were prone to skip school

in favor of going to work, and where a no-school-no-work rule was not enforced,

the tendency was for absences to increase. One might speculate that attendance in school is a function of individual enrollee attitude and situation

which are amenable to intensive counseling. However, even where counseling

components were above average, little impact can be observed. Attendance

patterns, as a consequence, can only be judged as being influenced by factors

other than counseling.

C.4. Improved Disciplinary Status. .s was the case with VEPS-I,

specific data on instances of disciplinary action are not available for

tabulation, either for the baseline period of the 1911-72 academic year or

the 1972-73 VEPS year. In some cities records of such action are not a

part of the permanent student file; in others the information could not

or would not be released or was scattered in several locations. Consequently,

the CUP monitoring teams were forced to rely on counselor: reports of individual cases and to draw such conclusions as might be passible from that

partial information.

- 423 - 4
TABLE 10

DIRECTION AND DEGREE OF ATTENDANCE CHANGE FOR VEPS COMPLETERS, BY CITY

Attendance Change Clev. Col.S.

DIRECTION OF CHANGE (N) (77) (14)

Up 49.3% 28.6%

Same 2.6 21.4

Down 48.1 50.0

DEGREE OF CHANGE

+10 days or more 22.1% 0.0%

+4 to +9 days 22.1 21.4

+3 to -3 days 14.3 42.9

-4 to -9 days 15.6 21.4

-10 days or more 26.0 14.3

Flt.

(29)

34.5%

0.0

65.5

6.9%

20.7

'4.1

27.6

20.7

Ft.W. Geor. LasV. Pitt. Pueb. SLC Sad. Total

VEPS-I

Total

(36) (3) (7) (51) (8) (29) (39) (293) (244)

72.2% 66.7% 28.6% 51.0% 75.0% 51.7% 35.9% 48.8% 50.0%

11.1 33.3 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.4 15.4 6.5 4.9

16.7 0.0 71.4 45.1 25.0 44.8 48.7 44.7 45.1

19.4% 0.0% 0.0% 37.3% 37.5% 13.8% 7.7% 18.8% 26.2%

1

13.9 0.0 14.3 3.9 25.0 17.2 10.3 15.3 13.5

55.6 100.0 28.6 21.6 12..) 48.3 53.8 32.8 22.1 I

5.6 0.0 57.1 9.8 12.5 6.9 12.8 14:3 13.1

5.6 0.0 0.0 27.5 12.5 13.8 15.4 18.8 25.0

A,
In all programs where other programmatic indicators suggested reliability

of counselor reports, the general pre-VEPS condition was about what one would

expect given the fact that enrollees were probable drop-outs--above average

numbers of suspensions, transfers, inter-student conflicts, and confrontations with instructional personnel. The incidence of such problems appears

to have been somewhat less frequent in VEPS-II than it had been in VEPS-I,

probably due to the higher proportion of seniors among the enrollees. Over

the course of the program only two known instances of police involvement

took place, both having to do with chug related offenses. In several cases

employers made thinly veiled charges that a youth employee had stolen either

money or material from the worksite, but in no case could the fact be demonstrated and no charges were filed. Youth involved in these situations were

usually transferred to another worksite, and in no case was more than one

accusation made against any one youth. Suspensions from school occurred with

a slightly higher frequency, although these cases generally involved interstudent confrontations rather than student-school personnel incidents. No

evidence was obtained that would indicate any serious confrontations between

VEPS enrollees and school system personnel.

On the c-ntrary, in the opinion of VEPS counseling staffs and the small

number of teachers with whom the monitoring teams came in contact, the impression was consistent that substantial improvement in behavior and attitude

had occurred among VEPS enrollees. Conversations with enrollees indicated

that a latent function of VEPS was to demonstrate to the youth that both

NYC and school personnel were interested in their welfare and were willing

to help. It should be remembered, however, that this improved attitude did

not carry over into markedly improved academic performance and attendance.

While many youth remained skeptical of the educational process, contact

with the VEPS program evidentally was instrumental in reducing both the

direction and intensity of anti-school attitudes. Parents also indicated

that the program had had observable effects upon their children; VEPS also

provided an avenue for entry into the school system for parents with questions

or problems about their children and the school.

The information presented above is admittedly scanty, impressionistic,

and probably unreliable in some instances. Admittedly also, some problems

of discipline and suspension did occur. But the impression is clear and the

opinion widespread that youth o=no participated in the VEPS program did

experience marked behavioral and attitudinal change for the better and that

such change was reflected in an observable decrease in disciplinary actions.

C.5. Continued Private Sector Employment. Of equal or perhaps

greater importance than academic improvement, a major VEPS objective was to

provide a mechanism by which youth enrollees would, upon completion of the

program, be retained full time by the private sector employers. For nonseniors, it was hoped that full time private sector employment would be

found for the summer following the VEPS program, part time work during the

senior year, and full time employment upon graduation. Other programmatic

objectives--skill development and the maturation of realistic attitudes

about school and the world of work--can be related to this objective. Youth

who do mature and.do develop skills are more likely to be retained by an

employer or be able to secure other private se'-tor employment. Table 11

provides data on final disposition of the VEPS completers--what happened to

them upon termination of the VEPS year.

- 425 -
TABLE 11

FINAL DISPOSITION OF VEPS COMPLETERS, BY CITY

,.........1.ral.1.Mm,.

Final Disposition Clev. Col.S. Eut, Flt. Ft.W. Geor. LasV. Pitt. VEPS-II VEPS-I

SLC SanB. Total Total

(N) (78) (11) (19) (29) (41) (7) (13) (52) (16) (54) (61) (381) (258)

Remained at VEPS

Employer 69.2% 81,8% 42.1% 65.5% 46.3% 57.1% 92.3% 84.6% 50.0% 66.7% 32.0% 69.0% 37.2%

Other Private

Sector Work 2.6 9.1 10.5 3.4 4.9 28.6 0.0 3.8 0.0 16.7 4.9 6.3 4.3

Higher Education 10.3 0.0 0.0 10.3 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 6.6 6.0 6.2

Returned to NYC 1.3 0.0 26,3 0.0 17.1 14.3 0.0 3.8 12.5 0.0 4.9

5.5 20.9

Military 3.8 0.0 0.0 3.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 12.5 0.0 1.6 2.4 2.3

Nut Working 12.8 9.1 15.8 17.2 9.8 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.0 8.4 4.3

Other 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 5.8 18.8 1.9 0.0 2.4 24.8*

*Includes all VEPS-1 youth who were carried over into VEPS-II, 22.9% of the total; only 1.9% should be read as

"other."
The extensive success of the VEPS-II program in attaining its employment objectives is clearly discernible from the data. Over two-thirds (69.0%)

found full time private sector employment at the VEPS work station while an

additional 6.3% found other private sector employment. This rate of 75.3%

placement among completers is substantially higher than the 41.5% rate for

the VEPS-I program. Substantially fewer completers returned to NYC and

somewhat more were unemployed compared to VEPS-I, but both figures are largely

a function of the higher incidence of seniors in VEPS-IT. Although a higher

proportion of the VEPS-II enrollees were seniors, the proportion going on

to higher education is slightly less than that recorded among VEPS-I enrollees.

Internal variations among cities are not significant.

Favorable programmatic outcomes (private sector, higher education, and

military service) constitute 83.7% of the completers, compared to 50.0%

of the VEPS-I enrollees. The private sector retention rate and the favorable outcome rate are undeniable indicators of programmatic impact. While

the effect upon school related variables is slightly positive, the proof of

the employment potential of the VEPS program is amply demonstrated by the

data; it can only lead to the conclusion that VEPS is a significant modality

for facilitating the movement of youth into the private sector. A further

test of this potency is provided in Section C.6. below.

C.6. Facilitated the Transition from School to the Work Force.

The most direct test of the ability of the VEPS program to provide an expeditious means for facilitating the transition of high school students into the

full-time work force is through an analysis of seniors who completed the pro-=

gram. The high unemployment rate among recent high school graduates, and teenagers generally, is well documented. VEPS was intended to be a partial remedy

for the problems faced by this group in moving into the full-time labor force.

Slightly less than one-quarter (24.5%) of the VEPS-I enrollees were

seniors; in VEPS-II, however, 48.7% of the original group of enrollees were

seniors. Thus, the incidence of seniors was nearly double that of the first

VEPS program. Of the 346 seniors who started the program, 204 completed

(59.0%) and 179 graduated (51.7%). The graduation rate among completers was

87.7%.

Of the 179 seniors who completed and graduated, 106 (59.2%) were retained

at the private sector VEPS work site; fifteen (8.4%) found other private

sector work; and seven (3.9%) were employed full-time in the public sector.

The full-time employed rate among the 179 seniors, then, was a highly

respectable ii 5%, compared to 56.1% in the VEPS-I program. Substantially

fewer gradu,tiLg seniors (9.5%) in VEPS-II went on to higher education; in

VEPS-I over a quarter (28.0%) sought additional education. Another 4.5% of

the VEPS-II youth joined the military (5.3% in VEPS-I) and 2.8% became housewives (5.3% in VEPS-I). Nineteen of the youth (10.6%) were not working, compared to an unemployment rate of 5.3% in VEPS-I. Two youth (1.1%) could not

be accounted for.

In terms of favorable outcomes, therefore, when frequencies for fulltime employment, higher education and military are combined, 85.5% of the
youth experiencdd a satisfactory programmatic outcome; no connotation is

given to those who became married. This compares to an overall success

score of 89.4% for VEPS-I. In both program years, then, the ability of

the VEPS program to provide transitional means for movement from school

into the full -time work force is amply demonstrated.

C.7. NYC and School System Personnel Opinions of VEPS. Enthusiastic support for the VEPS concept exists among all those programs operating over the past two years. In addition, other NYC programs in states or

regions havin6 a VEPS experiment have sought information, guidance, and

operational authorizations to begin VEPS. The VEPS concept has been supported bylocal prime sponsors and comprehensive planning agencies of all

sorts. Authorizations for VEPS appear in a number of state plans including

Michigan, Utah, Nevada, Oregon, and California. As of February, 1974, CUP

had been contacted by representatives of state agencies from Indiana, Ohio,

South Dakota, Missouri, and Illinois. National meetings of NYC directors,

professional guidance counselors, and other professional associations have

devoted panels and discussions to the VEPS approach, and in each instance

the reaction has been highly favorable.

Each of the program components -- recruitment, counseling, guidance,

career exploration, job development, cost sharing incentives--have been

individually and collectively praised as a vehicle for surmounting many

of the operational difficulties confronting public sector-only NYC programs.

Las Vegas, for example, plans to allocate one-half of the NYC program to

VEPS; many program directors have indicated a willingness to make VEPS the

standard NYC program, using public sector work sites only when they constitute meaningful experiences with opportunity for full-time employment.

The most common opinion of VEPS personnel is that this program provides

a coherent, total and effective approach to solving the problems of teenage

unemployment among disadvantaged groups. The combination of public and

private work sites, a counseling package, and adequate resources has, in

their opinion, provided the opportunity for a comprehensive review of the

philosophy and thrust of the NYC program generally.

D. Analysis of Completers and Terminators

Of the 716 youth enrolled in the VEPS-II program, 386 (53.9%) completed

the full year program, and 330 (46.0%) terminated. While the completion

rate for VEPS-II is nine percentage points below that of VEPS-I, part of

this can be attributed to the fact that sponsors of VEPS-II programs were

allowed to replace enrollees as they terminated. Those replacements often

terminated as well, and thus the overall termination rate went up. As a

summary, it can be noted that males were more likely to complete the program

than were females. This represents the reverse of the VEPS-I program. Enrollees seventeen years of age or older completed at a higher rate than did

younger youth. Blacks completed at a higher rate than did other ethnic groups.

In general, enrollees who finished the -,rogram had more formal education than

did those who terminated. Table 14 prk lilts selected demographic characteristics for the universe, completers, at.. terminators. The same information

controlled for city can be found in the Appendix (Table D-4).

1173

- 428 -
TABLE 12

SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VEPS

UNIVERSE, COM!'LETERS, AND TERMINATORS

Demographic

Characteristics Universe Completers Terminators

SEX (N) (716) (386) (330)

Male 52.1% 53.1% 50.9%

Female 47.9 46.9 49.1

AGE (N) (709) (383) (326)

15 or younger 15.4% 13.32 17.8%

16 years 37.9 37.9 38.0

17 years 35.3 37.1 33.1

18 or older 11.4 11.7 11.0

ETHNIC BACKGROUND (N) (715) (386) (329)

Black 45.0% 50.5% 38.6%

White 33.3 30.8 36.2

Spanish Surname 20.8 18.1 24.0

Other 0.8 0.5 1.2

SCHOOL YEAR (N) (710) (386) (324)

Freshman 1.5% 1.6% 1.5%

Sophomore 9,7 9.1 10.5

Junior 40.0 36.5 44.1

Senior 48.7 52.8 43.8
Of the 386 youth who completed VEPS-II, 53.1% were male. Of the 330

youth who terminated, 50.9% were male. In other words, males were more

likely to complete the program than were females. For maleb the completion

rate was 55.2%; for females the rate was 52.8%. Inter-city comparisons

follow the same general pattern but do &low some differences. In Cleveland,

Eugene, Georgetown, and Pittsburgh, females were more likely to complete.

However, only in Georgetown is there a major deviation from the general

trend.

Age comparisons also exhibit only marginal differences. While virtually

the same proportion of completers and terminators are age sixteen (37.9% and

38.0%), those over sixteen account for 48.8% of completers but only 44.1% of

the terminators. The completion rate for youth over sixteen is 56.5% while

for those under sixteen it is 46.8%. This would indicate a better chance

for older youth to complete the program. The tendency for younger youth to

terminate is most evident in Eugene and San Bernardinc.

As in the case of the VEPS-I, ethnic background is a more discriminatory

factor than either age or sex in comparing completions and terminations. As

Table 12 indicates, blacks are more likely to complete than whites or those

with Spanish surnames. While blacks comprise 45.0% of the universe, they

account for just over half (50.5%) of the completions but only 38.6% of the

terminations. The completion rate among blacks was 60.8%, a full ten percentage points above whites (50.0%). For those with Spanish surnames the

completion rate was 47.0%

Enrollees who had completed their junior year had the highest rate of

completion (59.0%). However, a rather strange phenomenon appears when discussing other enrollees: among those in their junior year, only 49.6% completed the program, while for those with less schooling the completion rate

was 51.3%. (It must be remembered, however, that only 10% of all enrollees

fall in this latter category.) Among completers, 52.8% were in their senior

year; among terminators, 43.8% were in their last year of high school. City

comparisons show much the same pattern.

Enrollees who completed the program were likely to be single and live

in female headed households in which there was substantial unemployment.

Over half contributed to the support of their family and received some form

of public assistance (53.5% and 51.3%). Less than one-fifth (19.5%) live

in public housing. Terminators are also likely to be single and live in

female-headed households with substantial unemployment. However, among

terminators there is a greater incidence of full-time employment by the family

head. Terminators are less likely than completers to contribute to the support of the family, to live in public horsing or to receive any form of

welfare. Table 13 presents these characteristics in greater detail; Appendix

Table D-5 contains similar data controlled by city.

Almost half (49.7%) of all enrollees live in households headed by the

youth's mother; no difference appears when controlling for completion or

termination. Among those who live with both parents or with their father,

- 430 -
TABLE 13

SELECTED FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VEPS

UNIVERSE, COMPLETERS, AND TERMINATORS

Family

Characteristics Universe Completer. Terminators

MARITAL STATUS (N) (662) (367) (295)

Single 98.5% 99.5% 97.3%

Married 1.4 0.5 2.4

Divorced 0.1 0.0 0.1

LIVES WITH (N) (606) (343) (263)

Both Parents 37.1% 38.2% 35.7%

Father 3.0 3.5 2.3

Mother 49.7 49.9 49.4

Guardian 5.3 4.4 6.5

Other 4.9 4.1 6.1

HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD (N) (620) (350) (270)

Father 39.8% 42.0% 37.0%

Mother 49.7 49.4 50.0

Other 10.6 8.6 13.0

EMPLOYMENT OF HEAD (N) (553) (303) (250)

Full-time 28.6% 26.12 31.6%

35 hours or less 15.4 16.2 14.4

Unemployed 56.0 57.8 54.0

CONTRIBUTES TO FAMILY

SUPPORT (N) (536) (299) (237)

Yes 47.2% 53.2% 39.7%

No 52.8 46.' 60.3

PUBLIC HOUSING (N) (534) (4 (237)

Yes 17.4% 19.5% 14.8%

No 82.6 80.5 85.2

WELFARE ASSISTANCE (N) (662) (359) (303)

Yes 47.9% 51.3% 43.9%

No 52.1 48.7 56.1

- 431 -
there is a slightly increased rate of completion. Among completers, 42.02

came from households headed by the father; among terminators only 37.02

lived with their father. Unemployment and part-time employment (less than

35 hours a week) both were lower among terminators than among completers.

Full-time family employment was higher among terminators than among completers (31.62 to 26.12). Part-time employment shows just the reverse; 14.42

among terminators, 16.52 among completers. The family head was employed

(part or full-time) in 42.32 of completion cases and in 46.02 of termination

cases. Unemployment was substantial; 57.82 among completers, 54.02 among

terminators. Given this high rate of unemployment, plus the fact that 52.12

of all enrollees received no form of welfare assistance, it is somewhat

surprising that the program completion rate was as high as it was.

Also given the high rate of unemployment, it is surprising that less

than half of the youth contribute to the support of their family. When controlled for program disposition, completers were more likely to contribute

support than were terminators. Part of this may be explained by the fact

of substantial unemployment in many areas studied (thee offering the youth

fewer opportunities for part-time work); another part of the explanation

may be that some youth are already trapped by the "culture of poverty" and

thus have already given up on the world of work.

Given the extent of un- and underemployment, it might be expected that

many enrollees would reside in public housing. (Among completers it is 19.52;

among terminators, 14.8%). The explanation lies in the availability of

public housing; many of the cities studied had little or no public housing.

Again given the fact that 56.0% of household heads were unemployed, it is

somewhat surprising that only 47.9% of these households received any form of

welfare assistance.

Among all youth in the VEPS-II program, 74.6% had some previous work

experience. When controlling for program disposition the figure is exactly

the same; 74.6% of completers and 74.6% of terminators had previously worked.

Table 14 presents this data for all enrollees, for completers and for terminators. While many enrollees had work experience, few were employed at

the time of enrolling for the VEPS-II program year. Substantially more youth

who completed the program were employed at the time of enrollment than were

youth who terminated; 12.1% to 5.6%. This may partially be explained by the

fact that in a number of cities (e.g., Flint and Pittsburgh) youth who completed VEPS-I were carried over into the second year program. Although we

have no precise figures to offer, interviews with program sponsors and counselors leads us to believe that much of the previous work experience 1-ss in

a regular NYC public sector job. Just under two-thirds (66.12) of those who

completed and just over two-thirds (67.2%) of those who terminated, had held

a job for thirty days or more previous to VEPS. In terms of previous employment history, there is little difference between completers and terminators.

While a larger percentage of completers were working at the time of

enrollment, this is at least partially explained by the fact that some cities
TABLE 14

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VEPS

UNIVERSE, COMPLETERS, AND TERMINATORS

Employment

History Universe Complettre Terminators

EVER WORKED (N) (622) (350) (272)

Yes 74.6% 74.6% 74.6%

No 25.4 25.4 25.4

PRESENTLY WORKING (N) (561) (313) (248)

Yes 9.3% 12.1% 5.6%

No 62.6 59.4 66.5

Never Worked 28,2 28.4 27.8

HELD A JOB OVER 30 DAYS (N) (583) (327) (256)

Yes 66.5% 66.1% 67.2%

No 6.3 6.7 5.9

Never Worked 27.1 27.2 27.0
TABLE 15

VEPS WORK EXPERIENCE FOR THE VEPS

UNIVERSE, COMPUTERS, AND TERMINATORS

VIM Work

Experience Universe Completer' Terminators

SIZE OF EMPLOYER (N) (691) (384) (307)

1-4 23.72 21.32 26.7%

5-9 21.1 18.5 24.4

10-19 22.3 22.6 21.8

20-29 11.1 12.8 9.1

30-49 7.7 7.5 7.8

50-99 4.0 4.9 2.9

100 plus 10.0 12.2 7.2

TYPE OF WORK EXPERIENCE (N) (716) (386) (330)

Professional 1.02 1.02 0.9%

Manager 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sales 10.7 12.4 8.8

Clerical 26.8 29.5 23.6

Craftsman 6.3 5.2 7.6

Operative 18.3 19.4 17.0

Laborer 13.4 13.2 13.6

Service 20.0 18.6 21.5

Never Worked in VEPS 3.5 0.5 7.0

NUMBER OF WORK EXPERIBROM (N) (691) (384) (307)

One 69.22 64.12 75.6%

Two 25.9 29.2 21.8

Three 4.9 6.8 2.6
carried youth over from VEPS-I into VEPS-II. (See Appendix Table D-6).

Flint (°,1.7%), Fort Worth (51.2%) and Salt Lake City (56.8%) were the only

cities in which less than 60% of the completers had some previous work experience. In seven cities (Flint, Fort Worth, Georgetown, Pittsburgh, Pueblo,

Salt Lake City and San Bernardino) a higher percentage of terminators than

completers had previous work experience. Eugene and Las Vegas present cases

slightly different from the others. In Eugene 72.7% of the completers had

previously worke while only 43.8% of the terminators had; in Las Vegas 69.5%

of the completers and only 42.9% of the terminators had ever held a job. In

Eugene, Fort Worth and Las Vegas no enrollee was working at the time VEPS-II

began. Also, in these three cities plus Pueblo, all youth who had job experience had held a job for thirty days.

Table 15 presents information on the size of the VEPS-II work site and

the type of training received by the enrollees. As can be seen, most job

sites were quite small: 23.7% had less than five employees; 44.8% less than

ten; and 67.1% less than twenty. Among completers 62.4% worked at sites

having fewer than twenty employees; among terminators 72.9% fell in that

category. Although there were few enrollees at large job sites, the completion rate is slightly better at these locations. While only 10% of enrollees

were at sites having 100 or more employees; 12.2% of the completers were at

such sites. In the 50-99 employees category, 4.0% of all youth held jobs;

among completers 4.9% were at these sites. Since less than one in seven

youth held jobs at sites with fifty or more employees, no conclusion should

be drawn about site size and completion rate. Counselors insist that the

smaller the job site, the greater the probability of success. What appears

is that most jobs were developed with small employers; it is highest in the

under five (23.7%) full-time employees category. The highest rate of terminators (26.7%) is also found in that category. The rate of completion does not

seem to be statistically related to the number of employees. While more jobs

were developed with small employers (and in many cities, it was easier), the

rate of success is not dependent on job size.

Work experience for completers does not differ significantly from noncompleters, a few more completers are found in the clerical and sales category; a few more terminators had service jobs, but the differences are not

statistically significant. Most (69.2%) youth had only one work experience;

25.9% had two and 4.9% three or more different work experiences. Completers.

were a bit more likely to have more than one work experience. More than a

third (36.0%) had two or more work experiences; only a fourth (24.4%) of

terminators had more than one work experience. While there is no statistical

evidence to suggest that having more than one work experience increases program completion, differences between completers and non-completers on this

scale indicate that having more than one work experience could be a favorablP

factor.

It was hoped that the VEPS experience would have a favorable impact upon

enrollee academic performance. To a limited degree such was the case. Table

16 indicates that 62.0% of completers improved their grade point average,

while only 50.8% of terminators improved. At the other end, 32.0% of completers
TABLE 16

ACADEMIC IMPACT DATA ON THE VEPS

UNIVERSE, COMPLETERS, AND TERMINATORS

Academic

Indicator Universe Completers Terminators

G.P.A. CHANGE (N) (542)

57.9%

(347)

62.0%

(195)

50.8% Up

Same 6.3 6.0 6.7

Dawn 35.8 32.0 42.6

SUMMARY SCALE (N) (542) (347) (195)

+1.26 or better 6.6% 8.9% 2.6%

+0.76 to +1.25 14.6 14.4 14.9

+0.26 to +0.75 21.9 23.3 18.5

+0.25 to -0.25 31.2 29.3 34.4

-0.26 to -0.75 14.6 13.5 17.4

-0.76 to -1.25 7.9 7.8 8.2

-1.26 or worse 3.1 2.6 4.1

ATTENDANCE (N) (440) (293) (147)

Up 47.9% 48.8% 46.2%

Same 7.9 6.5 10.9

Down 44.1 44.7 42.9

SUMMARY SCALE (N) (440) (293) (147)

+10 days or more 19.1% 18.8% 19.7%

+4 to +9 days 14.8 15.3 13.6

+3 to -3 days 33.4 32.8 34.7

-4 to -9 days 14.1 14.3 13.6

-10 days or more 18.6 18.8 18.4
declined in grade point average, but 42.6% of terminators declined. This

was a slight improvement over the VEPS-I program experience. The highest

rate of improvement among completers was in Cleveland where 75.6% improved

academically. Colorado Springs, Georgetown, Las Vegas and Pittsburgh each

had two-thirds or more completers improve G.P.A. Every city had at least

half of the completers improving. Dramatic improvement ( +1.26 or better)

occurred among 8.9% of those who finished the program. Most of these youth

were in Cleveland and Pittsburgh. In fact 83.9% of completers who achieved

this degree of improvement come from these two cities. Both of these cities

followed the program guidelines very closely. The point made in the VEPS-I

report bears repeating here: improvement in grade point average demonstrates

that given intensive counseling and supervision, VEPS can be a very successful program. Overall 46.7% of all completers improved academic performance

by one quarter of a grade point or better, while only 23.9% declined a quarter

point or more. Among terminators 36.9% improved and 28.7% declined by one

quarter of a point or more. In Colorado Springs (60.0%), Fort Worth (63.6%),

Las Vegas (66.7%) and San Bernardino (53.8%) more terminators declined than

improved or stayed the same academically. Cleveland presents a most unusual

case: among terminators 14.3% improved academically; 28.6% declined but

57.1% remained the s'me.

In summary, academic performance, as measured by grade point average,

was more likely to improve and less likely to decline among VEPS completers

than among terminators.

While more than sixty percent of the youth who completed the program

improved academic performance, less than half (48.8%) improved their school

attendance. Attendance improvement was most dramatic in Fort Worth and

Pueblo where 72.2% and 75.0% of the enrollees who completed the program

improved school attendance. In Colorado Springs, Cleveland, Flint, Las Vegas,

and San Bernardino less than nalf of the completers improved school attendance.

In Pueblo 37.5% improved by ten days or more; 62.5% by four days or more.

Among those who terminated 46.2% improved and 42.9% declined in school attendance. Where there was attendance improvement among terminators it was not

as great as the improvement shown by completers. Overall, however, no real

difference can be shown by completers and terminators in the area of school

attendance.

In summary, while there is some relationship between program completers

on improved grades, there appears to be no relationship between program completion and improved attendance.

Much has been written arguing that academic performance is partly a function of age and grade in school: the older and further along in school a

youth is, the better his performance is likely to be. As can be seen upon

inspection of Table 17, both the universe of VEPS enrollees and VEPS completers generally follow the expected pattern. Among all youth those over

sixteen improved their grade point average more often than did those who were

sixteen. The sixteen year olds improve: more often than did those who were

under sixteen. The differences among these categories is not dramatic, but

it does run in the expected direction. When inspecting the data on completers,

however, a possible counter-trend is noticed. Two-thirds of the completers

under sixteen improved academically; this is higher than any other age category. Before attempting to draw any conclusions, it should be noted that
TABLE 17

DIRECTION OF G.P.A. CHANGE BY DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS FOR VEPS UNIVERSE AND COMPLETERS

Iemographic UNIVERSE COMPLETERS

haracteristics (N) Up Same Down (N) Up Same

(542) (314) (34) (194) (347) (215) (21) (111)

Male (288) 57.1% 6.3% 36.6% (180) 60.6% 5.6% 33.9% Female (274) 58.8 6.2 35.0 (167) 63.5 6.6 29.9

GE (537) (310) (33) (194) (344) (212) (21) (111)

Under 16 (73) 56.2% 5.5% 38.4% (45) 66.7% 6.7% 26.7%

16 (209) 57.4 4.3 38.3 (133) 56.4 4.5 39.1 Over 16 (255) 58.4 7.8 33.7 (166) 64.5 7.2 28.3

THNIC BACKGROUND (537) (310) (34) (193) (345) (214) (21) (110)

Black (276) 60.1% 8.0% 31.9% (189) 63.0% 9.0% 28.0% White (155) 58.1 5.2 36.8 (95) 64.2 3.2 32.6

Spanish (106) 50.9 3.8 45.3 (61) 55.7 1.6 42.6

RADE IN SCHOOL (541) (314) (34) (193) (347) (215) (21) (111)

Freshman (7) 71.4% 14.3% 14.3% (5) 60.0% 20.0% 20.0%

Sophomore (45) 48.9 13.3 37.8 (33) 54.5 12.1 33.3 Junior (216) 57.4 2.8 39.8 (132) 59.1 2.3 38.6

Senior (273) 59.7 7.7 32.6 (177) 65.5 7.3 27.1
there are few (45) cases in this under sixteen category. What should be

compared is the effect of program completion upon academic performance.

While roughly the same proportion of sixteen year old completers improved

G.P.A. as did all sixteen year old enrollees, in the other two categories

(under sixteen and over sixteen) a much higher proportion of completers improved their academic performance. With the exception of freshmen, grade

in school followed the expected pattern (there were only seven freshmen

in the universe, five of whom completed the program, too small a cell to

have any analytic significance). While seniors (59.7%) improved more often

clan juniors (57.4%) who in turn improved more often than sophomores (48.9%),

those who completed improved at a more dramatic rate. Whereas 59.7% of all

seniors improved academically; 65.5% of senior completers improved; for

juniors the rates were 57.4% and 59.1%. The VEPS experience had a positive

effect on academic performance over and above what would be expected by

advancing grade, as can be seen by comparing universe and completer data.

It must be concluded that the program did have a positive impact on G.P.A.,

especially if the target population for the program is taken into consideration.

Earlier in this section we noted that blacks were more likely to complete the program than were whites. Table 17 also indicates that all groups

were subject to a positive impact by virtue of completing the program, the

impact was more noticeable in the case of whites. Among blacks, 63.0% of completers improved grade point average as compared with 60.1% of all blacks.

For whites 64.2% of the completers improved academically compared with a white

universe figure of 58.1%. Both male and female completers improved more

often than did those in the universe. The impact was slightly greater upon

female completers than upon male completers. In summary, the VEPS-II program

had a positive inpact on academic improvement even when controlling for age,

sex, grade in school and ethnic background.

Going beyond program completion and academic improvement, can a relationship be established between type of VEPS job or size of VEPS employer and

academic improvement? Except in the craft and operative categories, Table 18

indicates that completers in all other categories show greater academic

improvement than that found among all enrollees. (The professional category

is excluded because it contains so few cases.) The greatest average improvement for both groups is seen in the sales and clerical categories. The

largest differences between completers and the universe are also found ia

these categories. Completed youth who held sales jobs improved at a 75.6%

rate; among all youth it was 67.2%. Completed youth who held clerical jobs

improved at a 68.0% rate, while among all youth it was 61.2%. Completers who

had craft jobs were less likely to improve than craftsmen in the universe.

The likelihood of academic improvement was highest among enrollees who

had a job with very small employers (leas than five employees) or quite

large (50 plus) employers. In all categories of site size, completers improved

more often than did all enrollees. In short there does not appear to be any

direct relationship between academic improvement and VEPS work experience or

size of VEPS employer. What appears is that the program itself, the whole

program, has the positive impact on grades rather than the work experience component.

- 439 -
TABLE 18

DIRECTION OF G.P.A. CHANGE, BY VEPS WORK

EXPERIENCE FOR VEPS UNIVERSE AND COMPLETERS

VEPS Work

Experience (N)

UNIVERSE

Up Same Down (N)

COMPLETERS

Up Same Down

TYPE OF WORK (533) (313) (31) (189) (347) (215) (21) (111)

Professional (7) 28.6% 0.L. 71.4% (4) 25.0% 0.0% 75.0%

Manager (0) -- -- -- (0) __, -- -- Sales (64) 67.2 4.7 28.1 (45) 75.6 4.4 20.0 Clerical (152) 61.2 5.3 33.6 (100) 68.0 5.0 27.0

Craftsman (28) 57.1 3.6 39.3 (17) 52.9 5.9 41.2

Operative (98) 53.1 7.1 39.8 (67) 52.2 6.0 41.8

Laborer (71) 54.9 5.6 39.4 (46) 58.7 6.5 34.8

Service (113) 60.2 7.1 32.7 (68) 60.3 8.8 30.9

SIZE OF EMPLOYER (533) (313) (31) (189) (347) (215) (21) (111)

1-4 (120) 60.8% 5.0% 34.2% (71) 62.0% 2.8% 35.2%

5-9 (110) 56.4 5.5 38.2 (64) 59.4 7.8 32.8

10-19 (125) 53.8 8.0 38.4 (81) 55.6 8.6 35.8

20-29 (63) 55.6 6.3 38.1 (45) 57.8 6.7 35.6

30 -49 (39) 59.0 0.0 41.0 (26) 61.5 0.0 38.5

50-99 (21) 71.4 9.5 19.0 (18) 72.2 5.6 22.2

100 plus (55) 69.1 5.5 25.5 (42) 78.6 7.1 14.3

4 ; /
TABLE 19

DIRECTION OF ATTENDANCE CHANGE BY DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS FOR VEPS UNIVERSE AND COMPLETERS

Demographic

Characteristics (N)

UNIVERSE

Up Same Down (N)

COMPLETERS

Up Same Down

SEX (440) (211) (35) (194) (293) (143) (19) (131)

Male (219) 43.4% 10.0% 46.6% (157) 45.9% 8.3% 45.9%

Female (221) 52.5 5.9 41.6 (136) 52.2 4.4 43.4

AGE (435) (206) (35) (194) (290) (140) (19) (131)

Under 16 (50) 48.0% 8.0% 44.0% (29) 44.8% 6.9% 48.32

16 (165) 41.2 10.9 47.9 (111) 41.4 9.9 48.6

Over 16 (220) 51.8 5.9 42.3 (150) 54.0 4.0 42.0

ETHNIC (436) (242) (35) (192) (292) (142) (19) (131)

Black (260) 48.8% 6.9% 44.2% (183) 47.5% 6.6% 45.9%

White (105) 45.7 8.6 45.7 (65) 47.7 4.6 47.7

Spanish (71) 47.9 11.3 40.8 (44) 54.5 9.1 36.4

GRADE IN SCHOOL (439) (211) (35) (193) (293) (143) (19) (131)

Freshman (6) 33.3% 0.0% 66.7% (4) 25.02 0.0% 75.0%

Sophomore (35) 25.7 8.6 65.7 (26) 23.1 3.8 73.1

Junior (164) 46.3 9.8 43.9 (103) 46.6 8.7 44.7

Senior (234) 53.0 6.8 40.2 (160) 55.0 5.6 39.4

4
TABLE 20

DIRECTION OF ATTENDANCE CHANGE, BY VEPS WORK

EXPERIENCE FOR VEPS UNIVERSE AND COMPLETERS

VEPS Work UNIVERSE COMPLETERS

Experience (N) Up Same Down (N) Up Same

TYPE OF WORK (433) (208) (34) (191) (293) (143) (19) (131

Professional (4) 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% (2) 50.0% 0.0% 50.0 Manager (0) -- -- -- (0) -- -- Sales (47) 48.9 4.3 46.8 (37) 48.6 2.7 48.6 Clerical (123) 45.5 7.3 47.2 (80) 46.3 7.5 46.3 Craftsman (23) 69.6 4.3 26.1 (15) 73.3 0.0 26.7 Operative (73) 49.3 8.2 42.5 (54) 50.0 9.3 40.7 Laborer (64) 43.8 10.9 45.3 (44) 45.5 9.1 45.5 Service (99) 48.5 8.1 43.4 (61) 47.5 4.9 47.5

SIZE OF EMPLOYER (433) (208) (34) (191) (293) (143) (19) (131

1-4 (91) 44.0% 8.8% 47.3% (60) 48.3% 6.7% 45.0 5-9 (93) 51.6 7.5 40.9 (54) 46.3 11.1 42.6

10-19 (100) 38.0 11.0 51.0 (67) 40.3 4.5 55.2 20-29 (61) 59.0 4.9 36.1 (44) 65.9 4.5 29.5

30-49 (25) 64.0 0.0 36.0 (17) 52.9 0.0 47.1

50-99 (13) 46.2 23.1 30.8 (12) 50.0 16.7 33.3 100 plus (50) 48.0 4.0 48.0 (39) 46.2 5.1 48.7

4:1.2
TABLE 21

REASONS GIVEN FOR TERMINATION OF VEPS ENROLLEES, BY CITY

Reason for

VEPS-II VEPS-I

Termination elev. Col.S. Eug. Flt. Ft.W. 'ET' Las V. Pitt, Pueb, SLC San B. Total Total

(N) (21) (27) (11) (38) (22) (111 (8) (18) (25) (68) (63) (319) (156)

Laid off, fired,

quit 4.8% 26.9% 18.2% 47,4% 18.2% 44.4% 12.5% 38.9: 12.02 10.3% 27.0% 23.4% 7.8%

School Dropout 66.7 7.8 36.4 15.8 0.0 16,7 0.0 44.4 40.0 16.2 14.3 21.6 26.

Other Private

Sector Job 0.0 15.4 18.2 5.3 18.2 5.5 50.0 0.0 8.0 11.8 '.9 10.3 17.3

Not Interested 9.5 7.8 4.5 7.9 13.6 0,0 12.5 0.0 4.0 14.7 4.8 7.9 5.8

Conflict with School

Activities 9.5 3.8 4.5 2.6 4.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.4 9.5 5.2 1.3

Moved 0.0 3.8 9.1 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 4.4 1.9 4.6 6.4

Affected Academic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 13.2 1.6 4.6 1.9

Unknown 0.0 11.5 0.0 7.9 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 5.9 0.0 3.9

Married 0.0 3.8 4.5 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 5.6 4.0 5.9 3.2 3.3 3.2

Transportation

ProLlem 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 2.7 1.9

To NYC at own

Request 0.0 3.8 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 8.0 2.9 3.2 2.7 2.6

Involuntary Move to

NYC 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 11.1 2.4 9.6

NYC Ineligible 0.0 7.8 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 2.9 3.2 2.1 1.9

Pregnant 4.8 3.8 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 7.0

Illness C,0 3.8 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 3.2 1.5 3.8

Never Worked 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.2 1.9

Incarcerated 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.6 0.9 0.6

4

44d4
School attendance data controlled for demographic factors is shown

in Table 19. Older, more advanced students are believed to improve school

attendance; our data seems to bear this out. Those over sixteen improve

more dramatically than do those sixteen. (Those under sixteen are discounted

because so few youth appear in that category). Seniors are more likely to

improve. It should be noted that only among those over sixteen and among

seniors do over half of the enrollees improve attendance, and here it is

only slightly over half. What really emerges is that youth are about as likely to decline in school attendance as to improve it. Completers do a

little better than all enrollees but the differences are neither striking

nor significant.

Looking at ethnic data, there is virtually no difference among blacks,

whites and those with Spanish surnames. Blacks improve at a very slightly

higher rate than do whites, but the difference is not meaningful. Except for those with Spanish surnames, there is no difference between completers

and the universe. Black and white completers improve at virtually the same

rate; although females improve attendance more often than do males, there

is no difference in improvement rates between completers and all enrollees.

In summary, there is no correlation between the VEPS program and changes

in school attendance patterns.

Is there, however, a discernable relationship between type of VEPS

work experience or size of VEPS employer and improved school attendance?

Table 20 presents data on this question. Excluding the very small professional category, those youth who held craft positions improved substantially; 69.6% of all youth and 73.3% of completers in this category improved

their school attendance. In no other job category did over half the enrollees

improve their school attendance. This is true for the universe and for

completers. In short, there appears to be no relationship between work ex- perience and attendance pattern change.

When examining size of employer, youth placed with medium sized (twenty

to fifty) employees were more likely to improve than those with the smaller

or larger employers. Among completers improvement is most pronounced in

the twenty to twenty -nine employees size. Here also, however, there does not

appear to be any important relationship between work experience or size of

employer and school attendance.

E. Reasons for Terminating_VEPS

As was described in preceding sections, youth who terminated the VEPS

program were disproportionately younger, white or Spanish surname, and juniors.

Some variation by sex was noted; youth coming from female headed households

did not show any greater tendency to terminate. Family circumstances with

regard to employment and public assistance did show some variation. There

was a higher tendency to terminate among those youth whose household head

was employed full time, who did not contribute to the support of the family,

and whose family was not receiving public assistance. Stated differently,

those youth who contributed to family support or whose family received

public assistance or whose head was under or unemployed were less prone to

terminate. The economic necessity of the youth's income is probably a factor

- 444 -

4 : )
in this tendency. Terminators were less likciy to improve their grade point

averages, and no difference between completers and terminators could be found

in attendance. The size of employer and type of work assignment also appear

unrelated to a decision to terminate.

In Table 21 the reasons given for termination are provided; as before,

summary VEPS-I data are also provided for inter-program comparison. In

VEPS-II, substantially more youth were laid off, fired, or quit; a threefold increase over VEPS-I. This statistic may be explained by the tendency

in many programs to let a youth go who was laid off; part of this was due

to a scarcity of job site alternates. Fewer youth terminated in VEPS-II

due to the availability of full time work, although this accounts for 10.6%

of the terminations. Termination due to dropping out of school was less

frequent in VEPS-II than in VEPS-I. The remaining distributions consist

of small percentages and indicate no substantial variation. More aggressive

counseling and job development in certain cities would have substantially

reduced the number of terminations. In certain of the cities with high

percentages of terminations due to youth being laid off, high unemployment

rates were already the case, and the availability of work sites, despite

the wage sharing incentive, was quite restricted. In these cases not much

could be done.

In an overall sense the large number of terminations projects a somewhat unfavorable image upon the program, but by pursuing the reasons for

termination, it can be seen that many youth abandoned VEPS for what might

be considered valid reasons. In approximately one-third of the cases (31.6%)

terminations were based on finding another private sector job, conflict

with school activities, moving, adverse affect on academic performance,

transportation problems, transferring to NYC at the youth's request, and

illness.

When the data are controlled for size of employer and type of work

experience in VEPS (if any), no meaningful associations are apparent. See

Appendix Tables D-8 through D-14. In essence, then, we conclude that neither

the size of employer nor the type of work which the enrollee experienced

were factors in a decision to terminate. The answer probably lies in the

area of individual attitude, motivation, or absence of effective counseling.

F. School Dropouts and VEPS

Seventy-one of the original 716 VEPS enrollees (9.9%) dropped out of

school and, therefore, did not complete the full year program. This rate

compares favorably with the data reported in other studies of school dropouts, and may, in fact, represent a sizable improvement. This speculation

is difficult to verify due to the absence of directly comparable baseline

data. Because of the small number of cases involved, cross tabulations

and between-group comparisons are unable to reveal significant relationships or differences. Consequently, marginal frequencies of dropout characteristics are presented and contrasted only with the universe of all

VEPS enrollees. Tabular presentations may be found in Appendix Tables

D-15 through D-17.
Two cities--Fort,Worth and Las Vegas--experienced no dropue,s among

the original group of.enrollees; dropout rates varied considerably among

the other nine intensively studied cities: Pueblo - 24.4%; Eugene - 19.0%;

Cleveland - 14.1%; Georgetown - 12.0%; Pittsburgh - 11.4%; Flint and Salt

Lake City - 9.0%; San Bernardino - 7.2%; and Colorado Springs - 4.9%.

With some exceptions dropouts were less frequent in those cities which

utilized extensive and intensive counseling programs, regardless of the

degree to which the probable dropout guideline was implemented. Those

cities which did adhere more closely to the guideline also experienced a slightly higher tendency toward dropouts, but the quality of the counseling mitigated the overall frequency.

CUP monitoring teams were able to isolate specific reasons for dropping out of school in fifty-four of the seventy-one cases. Ten youth (18.5%)

accepted full time employment while an equal number were married. Eight

youth (14.8%) joined the armed services, five (9.3%) became pregnant, and

three (5.6%) ran away from home. Other reasons accounted for eighteen dropouts (33.3%), but the reasons did not aggregate into meaningful categories;

for the most part, the reason ascertained or given was that the youth simply

stopped coming to school and no follow-up contact could be made.

There was a greater tendency among melee to drop out of school; 60.6%

of the dropouts were male, although males comprised only 52.1% of the total

enrollees. Slightly higher proportions of sixteen and eighteen year olds

terminated their education, and slightly lower proportions of fifteen and

seventeen year olds when compared to the characteristics of the original

group. Fewer blacks dropped out than their numbers would have indicated;

blacks constituted 47.9% of the total but only 39.4% of the dropouts.

Youth with Spanish surnames were substantially more prone to quit school;

26.8% of the dropouts had Spanish surnames, while they totaled only 18.1%

of the total group of enrollees. Enrollees in the sophomore and senior

years were also more likely to drop out, but juniors were decidedly less

prone. The senior statistic (31.9% of the dropouts but only 24.5% of the

group) is somewhat surprising, since it has been commonly argued that youth

who have reached the senior year have demonstrated a commitment to education, and that the dropout problem was thought to be more common among

sophomores and juniors. While nearly half of the dropouts were juniors,

the incidence is not reflective of their size in the program. The number

of cases is too small for meaningful correlations, but there appears to

be a tendency for sophomores, who are over age sixteen, to be the most

prone to drop out. This is logical given the fact that the youth is likely

to be behind his peer group in school and is confronted with the prospect

of three years of education, making him eligible for graduation around age

twenty. Several counselors have remarked about the discouraging realization that this forces on such youth.

Where both parents were present in the family, there is a lower tendency

to drop out, probably indicative of the influence of a more stable family

life. This interpretation is confirmed by other data which indicate a

tendency for dropping out to increase when the head of the household is unemployed. Likewise there is an association between probability of dropping

out and whether the youth contributed to the support of the family and

446
whether the family was receiving public assistance. Family and economic

pathologies, as has been argued by many analysts of the dropout problem,

appear to be linked with the propensity to drop out.

In summary, dropouts tended to be among the younger and older categories of enrollees, whites or Spanish surnames, and males who came from

unemployed female headed households who were receiving public assistance.

These trends are in basic conformity with the findings in the VEPS-I

program.
PART V

VEPS CITY SUMMARIES

Eleven cities that initiated VEPS programs were studied intensively.

This section of the report contains a comprehensive case study of each of

these eleven cities; the data include all the information made available

to the monitoring teams that are of consequence in reconstructing the

progress of VEPS, describing various experiences, and assessing programmatic impact.

Each city is discussed separately. Each case study contains information on administrative structure and staff, enrollee selection, job development, pre-job orientation, on-going counseling, career exploration, and

indicators of programmatic impact. The last of these, programmatic impact,

considers primarily frequency distributions for certain types of programmatic outcomes: final disposition, reasons for terminations and dropouts,

changes in grades and attendance patterns and certain demographic information. No attempt has been made to assess intangible programmatic impact

in the city summaries. None of the case studies Includes correlational

analysis since the N in each of the cities was too small. Such discussion

can be found in Part IV of this report.

We have attempted to avoid empirical or impressionistic evaluation in

these summaries. It will be noticed even by the casual reader that wide

differences occurred among programs, and programmatic impact had uneven

results. The reader is cautioned not to impute to these data more than

they justly amerve. More complete analysis and interpretation are reserved

to Part IV and the reader should defer such judgment until the analytic portion of this report is read.
CLEVELAND, OHIO

VEPS-II was Cleveland's first experience with the program. The city

of Cleveland is the prime sponsor for NYC, and prior to the Summer, 1972,

the city had regularly subcontracted with the school system to administer

the program. With the change in city administration, political and administrative uncertainty hampered immediate implementation of the VEPS program; this continued into the in-school phase. The city was unsure whether

it would continue to subcontract to the Board of Education or whether the

city, itself, would undertake the administration of the program. Although

the school system did ultimately operate both NYC and VEPS for 1972-73,

this proved to be a temporary arrangement which impeded stabilization of

the program and long range development. The regular NYC program in Cleveland

is substantial: 10,205 summer and 866 in-school slots.

Administrative Structure and Staff

experience with the NYC program together with the advantages of

a school system sponsored work experience program proved valuable assets

in the implementation of VEPS in Cleveland. Administrative routines, forms,

accounting systems, and similar functional necessities already in operation

were adapted to accommodate the VEPS program. The VEPS program was integrated with relative ease into the regular NYC and work experience program.

The VEPS program in Cleveland was aided by a state of Ohio Office of

Work Experience vocational education grant. These funds permitted the

hiring of full-time staff to work one-half time on VEPS and one-half time

in related work experience. The end result was an externally funded, nearly

full-time VEPS staff. Funds were received sufficient to man five teachercoordinator positions; in addition, a full-time VEPS coordinator was provided

by the school system under the supervision of the NYC director. Staff

ware chosen by the NYC director and the principals of the participating

high schools. During the summer, additional part-time staff were used in

the organizational and job development effort.

During the summer, staff were utilized in planning the program, beginning the selection of students, and structuring a job development effort.

Full scale implementation was scheduled for the beginning of school. Although

summer staffing was completed by mid-July, some turnover in coordinators

did occur. This did not appear to have an adverse affect on program operations. Full-time staff for the in-school phase were chosen by mid-August,

and these personnel operated the program to its termination. Since the

VEPS staff were designated as teacher-coordinators, counselor certification

was not required. VEPS staff were provided in-service training for graduate

credit through Cleveland State University. Ample opportunity for staff interchange was provided through the activities of the VEPS coordinator; communi-

- 449 "'

ti
cation among the staff appeared excellent. Although some difficulty was

experienced in communicating the purpose and mechanics of the VEPS program

to high school principals, no serious problems were encountered. Initially,

school counselors cooperated well with the program, although as the job

development effort intensified, some work experience counselors sensed competition from VEPS. Five high schools, all located in the inner city, were

involved in the program. Arrangements were made for early release for VEPS

enrollees, and graduation credit was provided for participation in the program.

Administrative routines were centralized through the VEPS coordinator

who worked closely with the NYC director. The VEPS coordinator provided

supervision of VEPS staff and general coordination of the project. Central

records, including wage and hour data, were maintaLned at the NYC office.

Due to the fact that Ohio public corporations do not pay FICA taxes, employers

paid all enrollee fringe benefits. Time sheets were maintained by the

employer; companies billed NYC for 50% of the wages upon certification by

VEPS staff.

Overall, standard school-NYC procedures and organizational patterns

were followed in implementing the VEPS program. State funding of counselors

provided the means for staffing the program; central coordination was quite

adequate. Ample opportunity was given the teacher-coordinators to adopt

the program to individual needs of the enrollees. Communication among the

VEPS staff and the central NYC administration was excellent. Record keeping and appropriate anecdotal counselor reports were also quite good.

Overall guidance and administration of the program greatly facilitated the

implementation of a quality program in Cleveland.

Enrollee Selection

The VEPS program was targeted for 100 youth with an additional 25

Chosen as backups to participate in the career exploration and counseling

program. Stiu:e funding of the work experience units called for five groups

of 20 to 25 youth each. Although the program processed 99 enrollees, substantially more were selected to participate. Some of these refused to

participate, chile others, identified as likely prospects, did not return

to school in the fall. All youth were NYC eligible. The primary criterion

for selecting enrollees was the potential benefit to the youth. Youth were

selected in the summer and early fall by the VEPS teacher-coordinators in

cooperation w.th the high school counselors and principals. Youth were

assigned to VEPS without prior consultation with the prospective enrollee.

Once chosen, contact with parents was initiated by letter informing

them of the nature and intent of the program.

Ninety-nine youth moved through the program, and 78 (78.8%) completed

the VEPS experience. The overall characteristics of the group indicate

the youth were generally drop-out prone. Mean grade point average for

the beginning group was 1.62 based on a 4.0 scale; mean days absent totaled

27. Two thirds of the enrollees were male. While 10.1% were under age

16 at the time of enrollment, all enrollees met the age requirement at

the time of employment; 39.4% were age 16 and another 31.3% were age 17.

Slightly more than three-quarters (75.8%) were black, and 9.1% had Spanish

surnames. A plurality (41.4%) had completed their junior year, 29.3% their

sophomore and 23.2% their freshman. Emphasis was placed on selecting seniors

- 450 -
for the program who would be entering the labor force upon graduation. It

should also be noted that due to a policy of social promotions, a youth

might be classified as a senior but be far short of the needed credits

for graduation.

Job Development

The job development effort began in early July and continued into early

November; most work sites were developed by late September. Initially two

staff persons organized the job development effort during the early summer.

When the state funded teacher - coordinators began to operate in August,

responsibility for Job development was turned over to them.

Regular school counselors assisted, at least in the early stages, in

developing work sites. For some of these work experience counselors, VEPS

came to have the aPPearance of a competitive program, which affected the

degree of cooperation received. This did not, however, constitute a serious

problem. The local National Alliance of Businessmen office was contacted

for assistance but other than placing an item in one of their newsletters,

no assistance was received.

VEPS staff utilized a variety of approaches in developing jots. First

in priority for contact were the many small businesses within a short distance of the schools themselves. Other contacts were made with those companies which were advertisers in the school newspaper aud the school yearbook. The assistance of community newspapers was also obtained. All the

counselors were to some extent', involved in the routine drudgery of door -

to -door contact in the job 44,roloiment effort. As the program developed,

wnrk sites were obtained on V1 -Itskirts of the central city, but transration problems and costs precluded use of most of them. Many black

businesses we's.t.; found to be hesitant to employ allegedly "problem" youth

(or any yvtt,) (i..e to claimed small profit margins. Staff also observed

CNa the base: problem in job development faced by a counselor is the inverse

relationship between degree of supervision and possibility of advancement

when dealing with small and 1-.rge employers. With the small employer, close

supervision is more common, but the chances of advancement are somewhat

restricted; the reverse, is true with larger employers.

Formal agreements were utilized by the Cleveland program when signing

up an employer. Staff noted some hesitancy on the part of the employers

when the question of the formal agreement was brought up, but staff maintain

that no appreciable number of employers were lost due to this. Youth were

held in regular NYC jobs or were placed in a fast food processing outlet

until suitable jobs could be found. Some effort was given to placing enrollees on jobs for which they had expressed an interest. As was the case in

other VEPS cities, some employers were willing to assume total enrollee

wage and fringe costs.

The work sites developed for VEPS were of generally good quality. Over

two-thirds (68.0%) were with employers having fewer than thirty full-time

employees; 26.0% were in the very smallest firms, those with less than

five employees. Only 19.8% were employers of the large size (over 100 full-

- 451
time employees). A plurality (30.3%) of the jobs were in the service worker

category; 22.2% were in clerical and kindred worker positions while 15.2%

were classified in laborer occupations. Sales positions constituted 14.1%

of the placements, operatives 12.1% and craftsmen 3.0%. A plurality of

youth (49.0%) remained at a single employer throughout the VEPS experience,

and 42.7% were employed at two sites. The remainder were employed at three

or more worksites over the course of the program.

As with other VEPS programs, the individual types of positions held by

the VEPS enrollees included unusual experiences as well as the more normal

clerical, sales, cashier, and stock positions. Among the uncommon work

experiences were floral arranging, landscaping, theatre production, bookbinding, photography aide, bakery aide, and butcher trainee. One enrollee began

as an assistant to a food service manager and by the time of program completion, he had become the food service manager in a large retail outlet.

Another enrollee was placed as a funeral home assistant, became interested

in the occupation, and is planning to attend mortician school supported by

his employer.

Pre-Job Orientation

Although some youth were working prioito the beginning of school, most

enrollees were not placed until after the commencement of the state funded

work experience courses. These classes met daily for a total of ninety

minutes, which maximized enrollee-counselor contact possibilities. Pre-job

orientation was conducted in these classes for most of the youth; those

placed prior to the beginning of school were provided the basic NYC orientation package supplemented by counseling provided by the VEPS staff, usually

on an ad hoc basis. The usual topics of grooming, attitudes, work habits,

and employer-employee relations were covered in the orientation sessions.

Individual counseling was provided in certain cases, although this

varied considerably among the teacher-coordinators. Generally, pre-job

orientation was provided as an integral part of the structured vocational

education curriculum mandated by the state grant.

On-Going Counseling

On-going counseling was greatly facilitated by the daily class sessions

conducted by the VEPS counselors for the enrollees. This daily contact was

supplemented through contact in school but outside the classroom, at the

worksite, and in some instances at home. Contact between counselors and

employers was on a regular bi-weekly basis; additional meetings where neces- sary were held to handle individual problems on a crisis intervention basis.

Home contacts were not a matter of routine, but reflected individual problems. Group counseling and group sessions were frequently employed in the

daily sessions. Counselors enforced a no school, no work rule.

Vocational Exploration

Vocational exploration was conducted by means of the daily class

sessions. Several techniques were employed including group discussions,,

occupational research tasks, resource people, film stips, and field trips.

- 452
Instruction in the range of occupational possibilities was provided with

opportunity for the individual enrollee to follow-up on a particular occupational interest. Some individual guidance was provided, but the bulk of

the career exploration was provided through group sessions.

Good rapport between the enrollees and the teacher-coordinators greatly

facilitated the orientation, counseling and career exploration components.

The usual interest inventories, skill specifications, educational requirements and so forth were included in the exploration package.

Indicators of Programmatic Impact

Ninety-nine youth participated in the Cleveland VEPS program, although

a slightly larger number were touched in some way. Of these, 78 or 78.8%

completed the VEPS experience. The group of enrollees possessed those

characteristics of the NYC stereotype. Only two were married; no data could

be collected on dependent children. In 60.2% of the cases, enrollees came

from female headed households; both parents were home in 24.2% of the cases.

Not inconsistent with the above data, the head of hi'usehold was unemployed

in 62.8% of the cases, and 15.1% were underemployed (less than 35 hours per

week). A sizable majority (71.9%) of the enrollees contributed to the

support of the family. In most cases, (77.2%) the enrollees' families

received some sort of welfare assistance, and 21.3% lived in public housing.

Enrollees also had extensive prior work experience (97.8%), and 93.1% had

held a job for thirty days or more. The overwhelming majority of these

work experiences were in the regular NYC program.

Twenty-one youth did not complete the program, or 21.2% of the original

group of enrollees. Fourteen (66.7%) of the terminators dropped out of

school for any one of a variety of reasons. Five simply did not appear at

the beginning of school, one other ran away from home, two obtained fulltime jobs, two joined the military, and three dropped for reason of pregnancy.

No reason was available for one youth. Of the remaining seven, two dropped

because of conflict with other school activities, two were not interested,

one quit his job, one was pregnant but remained in school and one was incarcerated. The number of dropouts was unexpectdly high given prior experience

in the VEPS program; however, five of these dropouts stopped coming to

school before they were deeply involved in the program. This was due to

the enrollee selection procedures that were used. Eliminating these five

from consideration reduced the dropout rate to 9.6%, roughly the equivalent

dropout rate with other programs.

Youth who completed the program were most prone to remain employed at

their VEPS worksite; fifty-four youth (54.5% of the total and 69.2% of the

completers) fell into this category. In addition two other youth found

other private sector employment. Eight continued their education, either

in summer school to graduate or went on to higher education. Three joined

the military. Ten were not working at the time of the survey and one had

gone back to a regular NYC job. Thus, in an overall assessment, 85.9% of

the completers achieved "favorable" outcomes, or 67.7% of the original

group of enrollees. Graduating seniors also did well. While only two of

the terminators graduated, thirty-three of the completers received diplomas,

- 453 - ,.1
one-third of the original group. Of these, twenty-one (63.6%) remained at the

VEPS employer, one found other private sector work, three joined the military,

and two went on to higher education. Six of the thirty-three graduates who

completed the program were not working at the time of the survey.

In terms of impact upon academic performance, the results in Cleveland

were mixed. Among completers, grade point average rose +0.62 from 1.68 to

2.30. Slightly over three-quarters (75.6%) improved their grade point, 7.7%

remained constant, and only 16.7% declined. These obviously positive results

are balanced by the fact'that mean attendance declined by one full day from

an average of twenty-three absences in 1971-72 to twenty-four in the VEPS year.

About equal numbers of youth improved or declined in attendance. The experience

in Cleveland adds strength to the thesis that grade point averages and attendance are not necessarily related phenomena.
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO

Colorado Springs began operation of the VEPS-II program in June, 1972.

The NYC program is sponsored by the 0E0-CAP agency. Although the regular

NYC program operates beyond the City of Colorado Springs, VEPS was generally limited to Colorado Springs.

Administrative Structure and Staff

Colorado Springs selected a VEPS coordinator who was responsible for

all phases of the VEPS program. The coordinator reported to the NYC director. The total 1972-73 summer NYC enrollment was 530 with the in-school

program of fifty. VEPS was targeted to have thirty enrollees in addition

to the regular NYC slots.

The VEPS coordinator was located in the NYC office. The operational

plan called for the coordinator to select enrollees, conduct pre-job orientation, develop work sites, and provide on-going counseling and vocational exploration. This integrated, generalist staff model was consistent

with the implementation recommendations, given the number of enrollees.

Tn addition, the later phases of the program were hampered by staff

turnover in the job coordinator position. The third VEPS coordinator supervised the end of the program year. This turnover resulted in reduced program continuity which adversely affected all program components, especially

on-going counseling of enrollees.

Individual enrollee record files were maintained at the NYC offices.

Record forms included the NYC application, bi -weekly time sheets, enrollee

progress reports and work site termination forms (where applicable).

The NYC ?rogram handled the payroll for the VEPS enrollees and paid

the entire coat of fringe benefits. Employers reimbursed NYC for their

share of enrollee wages. Colorado Springs encountered some billing problems

with several smaller employers, but these were exceptional cases. In general the reimbursement procedure worked well.

Enrollee Selection

The VEPS coordinator contacted the head counselor in each of six high

schools in order to obtain names of potential VEPS enrollees. The coordinator also talked with the outreach counselor in each of the schools.

Through these discussions, the coordinator compiled a list of one hundred

possible enrollees. No specific ranking was made of the types of problems

which would qualify the potential enrollees as probable dropouts.

The students on the list were contacted and invited to join the VEPS

program. Youth who accepted were scheduled for orientation sessions.

The coordinator encountered a number of youth who already were enrolled

in the summer NYC program or had other summer employment. Transfers from

summer NYC slots were not easily arranged, and students who were working

were reluctant to leave other summer jobs. Since specific jobs had not

- 455 -

5 u G
been developed for VEPS enrollees, the coordinator could not assure the

youth that they would be able to obtain employment with the program.

Therefore, few youth in NYC or with other jobs joined the program. This

had the effect of providing youth who had experienced a great deal of difficulty finding employment on their own with an additional work opportunity.

The coordinator initially used, as the pool of enrollees, those youth

who attended the orientation sessions. Due to a lag in developing work

sites some of the youth did not continue with VEPS after the brief orientation. Thus, the final group of VEPS enrollees in Colorado Springs were

those youth who qualified for NYC and were placed at private sector work

stations whether they had received orientation or not.

Forty-one youth were enrolled in VEPS-II in Colorado Springs. Slightly more than two-fifths (43.9%) were male. Over eighty percent were either

16 years old (45.0%) or 17 (37.5%). Five percent were 18 and 12.5% were

15 or younger at the time of enrollment. Enrollees with Spanish surnames

accounted for 45.0% (18), 40.0% were white and 15.0% were black. Almost

three-fifths (59.0%) of the enrollees were entering their senior year in

school, while one-third were going into their junior year. Three enrollees

were entering their sophomore or freshman year.

Job Development

The VEPS coordinator made personal calls to area businesses in order

to develop training sites. Some assistance was received from a local personnel officers group, but the NAB was not involved in youth employment.

There was some evidence that the work experience personnel at some high

schools viewed the program as unnecessary competition for their regular

work-study operations.

The coordinator made the majority of his contacts with smaller employers.

Referrals to available training slots were made from the pool of youth who

had been contacted about VEPS. A letter of agreement concerning enrollee

participation and employer responsibilities and a training facility profile were obtained from all participating employers.

VEPS training sites were developed for forty-one enrollees. Over

three-fifths (61.0%) of the enrollees were placed with employers having

fewer than ten full-time employees. Slightly less than one-third (29.3%)

were placed with companies having 10-19 workers, while 4.9% were in employee

size classes 20-29 and 100 or more. Enrollees' VEPS work experiences were

as follows: 41.5% as clerical and kindred workers; 22.0% laborers; 17.1%

service workers; 7.3% each in sales workers and operatives and 4.9% as

craftsmen. Almost four-fifths (58.5%) of theenrollees remained at one

employer throughout the VEPS program year while 36.6% had two work experiences and 4.9% had three.

Pre-Job Orientation

Pre-job orientation was conducted by the VEPS coordinator during the

second week in June. Thirty youth who had been contacted took part in

the sessions. The program was five hours each day for five days.

, - 456 -
The sessions focused on discussions of the necessary attitudes and

characteristics for succeeding in the world-of-work. Material contained

in the VEPS Model was used in several of the presentations. In addition,

representatives from groups such as CAMPS and the Youth Service Bureau

were featured as guest speakers.

On-Going Counseling

The VEPS coordinator provided the on-going counseling for the enrollees.

This was generally done at the VEPS work station. Contact with each enrollee was made approximately every two weeks.

This program component was hampered due to staff turnover during the

VEPS program. Colorado Springs had a total of three VEPS coordinators

during the year of program operation. Naturally, each coordinator required

a certain amount of time to become familiar with the program, enrollees

and the training positions. While this created some difficulty, the NYC

director provided continuity during each transitional period.

The enrollees which the CUP monitoring team observed on job site visits

appeared to adapt reasonably well to the changes in the program administrators. However, some enrollees may have been terminated by employers during

the changeovers due to the absence of a coordinator to mediate any work

site or academic problems. In addition, new coordinators were forced to

make some adjustments as enrollee eligibility had changed in some situations during the program year.

Vocational Exploration

The original VEPS coordinator had planned to rely heavily on the school

system and the community college for assistance in implementing the vocational exploration component of VEPS. For example, it was planned that

each student would meet individually with the chief job placement counselor

at the community college at least once during the school year.

As a result of the turnover in the VEPS coordinator position, this

plan was never fully implemented. Since each coordinator had to start at

the beginning in terms of learning about the program, enrollees and work

stations as well as begin dealing with everyday matters such as time sheets,

payrolls, counseling contacts, and crisis situations, a vocational exploration program of the type envisioned in the guidelines was not implemented.

However, both the second and third VEPS coordinator did attempt to touch

on careers and future training in their counseling contacts.

Indicators of Programmatic Impact

Forty-one youth participated in the Colorado Springs VEPS program.

Data on several items usually recorded on NYC applications were not available because the standard NYC were not utilized in Colorado Springs. Available information did indicate that thirty (88.2%) of the enrollees were

in families which received some form of welfare assistance.

Fourteen enrollees (34.1%) completed the VEPS program in Colorado . Springs, including six youth who graduated from high school; of those that

terminated the VEPS program only two (4.9%) dropped out of school. Thir-

- 457 5U
teen (31.7%) left the VEPS program but graduated from high school and twelve

(29.3%) left VEPS but remained in school.

Of the fourteen completers, nine (64.3%) remained at their VEPS employer while one completer found other private sector employment. Only one

enrollee was not working after the program year. Four of six completers

who graduated retained their VEPS employment, while one found another private sector job; one was not working. The disposition of three completers

is not known.

The reasons for terminating the program included:fired or quit totaling eight enrollees; found another job, four enrollees; and ineligible for

NYC, lack of interest and scho-A dropout, two enrollees each. Other reasons

accounted for no more than one termination each. One of the enrollees who

dropped out of school did so to get married and the other had no identifiable reason.

The VEPS enrollees in Coloardo Springs followed the pattern of other

youth in VEPS. Academic averages improved more frequently than did school

attendance. Slightly under three-quarters (71.4%) improved their grade

point, while 28.6% declined. Approximately one-fifth (21.4%) of the completers improved +.26 to +.75 of a point and an additional 50.0% improved

by less than one- quarter of a grade point. Only one of the declines was

more than three-quarters of a point. In attendance, 28.6% improved; 21.4%

remained constant and 50.0% declined. Two enrollees had declined in attendance of ten days or more. Three enrollees improved by 4 to 9 days.
EUGENE, OREGON

The NYC sponsor in Eugene is the school system. The program covers

a seven county area surrounding Eugene. NYC coordinators are located in

Eugene, Roseburg, Albany, and North Bend. The area is composed primarily

of small towns and rural areas. The Eugene NYC program had no prior experience with VEPS.

Administrative Structure and Staff

The school system had sponsored the NYC program for a number of years,

and NYC had developed procedures for conducting their programs over the

wide geographical area. The main administrative feature was the location

of NYC coordinators responsible for all phases of both the in-school and

out-of-school programs in Eugene and three outlying communities: Roseburg,

Albany and North Bend. An additional coordinator was located at Newport

during the summer program.

The NYC coordinators reported to the NYC director located in Eugene.

A central file of enrollee records was maintained at the Eugene NYC office.

All payrolls were handled by the school district facilities in Eugene.

These procedures were used with the 1,300 summer NYC enrollees and the

225 in-school slots, eighty of which were in Eugene. VEPS was targeted

to have a total of 40-60 enrollees in all locations.

VEPS-II was planned for implementation in those communities where

NYC coordinators were located. Each of the coordinators was given responsibility for selecting enrollees. In addition to a roster of in-school

and out-of-school NYC enrollees, each coordinator was permitted to add

some youth who were not in the regular NYC program. Although dispersion

of the VEPS program throughout the area required more effort than if it

had been confined to Eugene, it was felt that the smaller towns and rural

areas could benefit most from making placements at work sites in the private sector. Public sector openings are often severely limited or simply

unavailable in these smaller areas.

The details of administration were worked out between the school district accounting department and the NYC program so that VEPS could begin

with the in-school NYC program in September. The only detail that created

problems was the method of integrating the VEPS cost sharing feature into

the school district accounting system. The final arrangement was that

NYC paid the enrollees the full amount of wages due and billed the companies

monthly for their share of the cost. Due to the distances involvedothe

bi-weekly time sheets and checks were mailed to Eugene.

The use of existing coordinators in the VEPS program eliminated the

need for training VEPS personnel in the use of NYC forms or procedures.

Contact between the coordinators and the NYC director was maintained by

telephone and regular meetings in Eugene; this had been standard NYC administrative practice.

- 459 -
Enrollee Selection

The VEPS program in the Eugene area planned on enrolling between 40

and 60 youth. However, youth were to be phased in gradually as the job

development effort and the coordinator's other NYC program responsibilities proceeded. Since each of the coordinators would be working with only

five to ten VEPS enrollees, pre-job orientation was to be conducted individually by the coordinator as youth were recruited for the program. Group

sessions were not part of the program.

Most enrollees selected for VEPS in the Eugene program were taken

from the NYC roster. Selection was based on the coordinator's first-hand

knowledge of the youth's academic and family circumstances. Students were

selected on the basis of the greatest potential benefit in terms of staying in school and preparing for a job. Students were enrolled from four

of five high schools in Eugene and in each of the high schools serving

the other communities.

Although selected from the NYC rolls and referred to a private sector

work site, youth became VEPS enrollees only if hired by the employer. If

the youth was not hired, he continued as an NYC enrollee and was referred

to other work sites as these developed.

Forty-two youth were enrolled in the Eugene program. Due to Oregon

state law, grade point averages and attendance data were not available on

the enrollees. Two-thirds of the enrollees were male. A large percentage

(35.7%) were under age sixteen (computed as of July 1, 1972), while 40.5%

were seventeen and the remaining 23.8% were sixteen. Almost all (97.6%)

the enrollees were white; 2.4% had Spanish surnames. A majority (54.8%)

of VEPS students were going into their senior year while 23.8% had completed

their freshman year and 21.4% their sophomore. Therefore, over half the

enrollees in the Eugene program would be entering the labor force at the

end of VEPS-II program year.

Job Development

Job development was conducted by the NYC-VEPS coordinator in each community. Two primary methods were used. First, coordinators sought out firms

with positions in which enrollees had expressed an interest. This "custom"

job development approach was especially suitable because each coordinator

needed to obtain between five and ten positions in his community. Second,

coordinators used their personal contacts with potential employers. Personal contacts would be expected to have considerable success in smaller

towns such as those represented in the Eugene program. This was generally

true, although the number of youth placed was small.

Otter techniques and arrangements were also used. In some cases the

counselor in the high school provided work site leads to the coordinator.

In other places the high school work experience personnel viewed the VEPS

program as unnecessary competition for their programs. The coordinator

in Eugene served as the NAB's youth coordinator which in turn provided

some private sector employment potential for VEPS enrollees.

In all areas a formal employer agreement was used. NYC billed the

participating companies monthly for their share of the enrollee wages.

460 - t-

;
Over the program year this procedure did not present any difficulties.

Several employers were late with payments, but the system worked well with

only minor processing problems.

VEPS work sites were developed for thirty-nine enrollees. Emphasis

on developing training positions with smaller employers as well as an absence of many large employers resulted in almost ninety percent (89.7%) of

the enrollees being placed with employers having fewer than twenty fulltime employers; 71.8% were in firms employing fewer than ten. The remaining 10.3% were placed with firma employing 30-49 workers. The job classifications for the enrollees were consistent with other experiences: 23.8%

in the operatives category; 21.4% service workers; 21.4% laborers; 11.9%

clerical and kindred workers; 7.1% craftsmen; and 7.1% sales workers.

Over four-fifths of the enrollees (82.1%) remained with one employer during

the program year. Enrollees had two work experiences in 17.9% of the cases.

Pre-Job Orientation

The planning for pre-job orientation was essentially dictated by the

small number of VEPS enrollees assigned to each coordinator and the travel

distances involved for the enrollees and the coordinators. Each coordinator

conducted individual sessions with VEPS enrollees as they transferred from

NYC to VEPS.

The length of the sessions varied according to the amount of orientation the enrollee had received when he entered NYC and the coordinator's

judgment on which topics needed further work. The coordinators conducted

the sessions at the NYC offices, sometimes holding several meetings with

each enrollee. Sessions totaled from approximately three to ten hours per

enrollee. The content generally focused on the VEPS program, the training position and the labor market conditions in the community.

On-Going Counseling

On-going counseling for VEPS enrollees was included as an addition

to the coordinator's regular counseling load of in-school and out-of-school

NYC enrollees. In most cases this involved regular meetings between the

enrollee and the coordinator, supplemented with other contacts as needed.

Counseling contacts were usually made at the work site, but were also

made at school and the enrollee's home. Coordinators used several forms

to report on enrollee progress at the work station. Coordinators experienced no difficulty in contacting enrollees at the job site. Since most

employers were small, the impact of such visits on the regular work force

was not great. Schedules varied in the four communities: one coordinator

visited the site weekly while another used a bi-weekly schedule. In all

cases observed during site visits, the coordinators appeared well informed

on the individual enrollee's progress, both at the training station and

in school.

Vocational Exploration

Vocational exploration was implemented in several ways. Originally,

Eugene had planned to make extensive use of the Occupational Information

Access System (OIAS) which was developed by the University of Oregon.

OIAS contains a data file on 206 occupations, geared primarily to the

461
Oregon employment market. Students communicate with the system through

on-line remote computer terminals and after answering a set of questions,

receive a computer print-out of occupations that their answers indicate

an aptitude or interest in. However, problems of timing and distance,

especially for the outlying programs, precluded the system's use in VEPS.

Coordinators in the Eugene program operationalized vocational exploration using three methods. First, in several cities, the VEPS enrollees

were placed in the high school's regular work experience classes. This

enabled the enrollees to obtain high school credit for the VEPS work experience. Only one high school in the seven county area would not permit

this.

A second additional arrangement was made by one coordinator in a

smaller community. He enlisted the assistance of the high school counselor and the vocational rehabilitation counselor in the area. They met one

hour per week with the VEPS enrollees.

The third approach, adopted at several locations, was group meetings.

Enrollees were exposed to topics such as completing sample application

forms, information on filing tax returns, and role playing for interviews.

They also had an opportunity to compare job assignments and discuss career

goals.

The Eugene area appears to have been successful in adapting the vocational exploration concept to their geographically dispersed area. The

coordinators' initiative and experience in working independently appears

to be the primary reason.

Indicators of Programmatic Impact

Indicators of programmatic impact in Eugene must rest with the completion and graduation data. State law precluded the obtaining of any academic records from the school systems. Another complicating factor was that,

since the standard NYC application form was not required, information was

not compiled for all youth in the program.

A total of forty-two youth were enrolled in VEPS. Available information indicates that over fifty percent were living in female headed households. Tuo-fifths of the heads of household were unemployed and a like

number were employed more than 35 hours per week with the remainder working less than 35 hours per week. Approximately eight percent of the families had incomes under $5,000 per year. More than half the youth contributed to the support of their families. However, only 11.1% of the youth

lived in families which were receiving any form of welfare assistance.

Slightly over half of the enrollees had worked previous on a job lasting more than thirty days. These jobs were primarily in the NYC program.

Of the forty-two enrollees, twenty (47.6%) completed the program.

Nine of the completers also graduated from high school. The disposition

of VEPS enrollees was: eight (19.1%) remained at their VEPS employer;

two (4.8%) found other private sector employment; five (11.9%) returned

to the NYC program; two (4.8%) had other outcomes; three (7.1%) were not

working; and twenty-two (52.4%) terminated VEPS. Therefore, one-half of the

completers were employed in either the private or public sector after the

- 462 -
VEPS program year.

The main reason for leaving the program was dropping out of school;

of the twenty-two terminations, eight dropped out of school. Although

this percentage is somewhat higher than other VEPS cities, the outcomes

were not as bad as the dropout percentage might indicate. Of the eight

high school dropouts, two entered military service, one accepted full-time

employment, two were married and one dropped out for an unknown reason. Other reasons for termination include finding another job (four enrollees);

quit or fired (four); moving out of the community (two); lack of interest,

marriage, transfer to NYC and conflict with other school activities (one

each).

- 463 -

541
FLINT, MICHIGAN

The Flint Board of Education is the NYC sponsor. NYC conducted both

a VEPS-I and a VEPS-II program. Prior experience with the implementation

of the VEPS concept was an obvious advantage for the second year program.

In addition a number of other work experience programs are conducted through

the same centralized office responsible for the NYC program. School facilities, staff, counseling hardware and software were made available to the

program; support resources were generally excellent. Reference may be made

to the summary report of the VEPS-I program for additional information on

the Flint approach to VEPS and for comparative purposes.

Administrative Structure and Staff

Board of Education sponsorship of the NYC program simplified the administrative and coordinative processes required for the VEPS program. Academic

and work records, hour and wage verifications, payrolls, and anecdotal counseling reports were centralized in the NYC office. NYC paid all enrollee

wages and was reimbursed by private sector employers through a billing

procedure. VEPS counselors picked up the enrollee time sheets and delivered

all paychecks.

Despite the fact that Flint had operated a VEPS-I program, no summer

VEPS-II program was initiated. The reasons for this were several. Due to

problems encountered in the late stages of VEPS-I, no follow through procedures were instituted. The entire VEPS-I staff was replaced in late May

of 1972, which inhibited continuity. Funding for the VEPS-II staff was

also not available directly from NYC. Since unencumbered funds remained

from the U.S. Office of Education grant for the VEPS-I program, authority

was obtained to utilize these funds for the in-school phase of VEPS-II.

These funds were sufficient to provide for two full-time VEPS counselors

and a VEPS coordinator.

Due to these funding and staff continuity problems, Flint did not conduct a summer component. Beginning in late August and running through midSeptember, prepatory arrangements for an in-school component were conducted

by the regular NYC staff, primarily through the efforts of a school principal.

However, the counseling staff did not begin until late September; both counselors were qualified for the counseling position.

VEPS enrollees were selected from four high schools and were about

evenly dividei by sex. The male counselor handled all the male enrollees,

and the female counselor all the female. Overall coordination was provided

by the VEPS project director; both counselors were given ample freedom to

develop their own counseling and career exploration packages. This decentralized counseling routine was the same basic design conducted in VEPS-I,

although safeguards were instituted to prevent reoccurrence of the VEPS-I

- 464 -
problems. The VEPS-II administrative structure and staffing pattern were

close to that of VEPS-I.

Enrollee Selection

Original program plans called for the recruitment of seventy youth for

the VEPS program, evenly divided between males and females; 67 youth actually participated. All enrollees were NYC eligible, and most had previously participated or applied for the regular NYC program. Recruitment procedures

paralleled those in the VEPS-I program. From the NYC eligible list, a

preliminary sort was used to identify those youth who met the minimum age criterion. From these, an examination of high school records, conversations

with counselors and principals, and discussions with the prospective enrollees and their parents expanded the basis for selection. This procedure

was handled by a high school principal during the late summer months. The

final selection process was completed by early October, shortly after the

VEPS counselors had been brought into the program.

The recruitment process resulted in the selection of youth who would

gain the most benefit, who were among the target group of the program, and

who had been fully informed as to the nature and scope of the program's

requirements. The mean grade point average of beginning enrollees was 1.64

and mean days absent totaled 28 . These data are quite similar to that

found among the VEPS-I enrollees. Some carryover from VEPS-I took place;

18 enrollees (26.9%) fell into this category. Enrollees were about equally

divided among males and females; 34.3% were age 16 and 44.8% were age 17.

The vast majority (83.6 %) were black; another 6.0% had Spanish surnames.

Except for a higher percentage of seventeen year olds in VEPS-II, the demographic characteristics of both groups VEPS enrollees were quite similar.

Job Development

Some carryover among VEPS emoloyers from the first year program aided

the job development effort in rlirt. Due to tile substantial experience in

job development for related non-rfC work experience programs, ample contacts

already existed in the community. Nowe.er, a depressed job market in the

Flint area hindered the development sequence. No other assistance from outside agencies such as NAB was received or actively solicited. Actual job

development was conducted primarily by the VEPS counselors, assisted by

other NYC program personnel. Job stations were found for 61 of the 67

enrollees.

Flint VEPS utilized a work agreement form to ensure employer understanding of program requirements which had been one of the operational problems

in the VEPS-I program. Some employers refused to sign a work agreement form

for fear of a contractual arrangement. In some cases of this sort, work

sites were used, although monitored somewhat more closely. The cost sharing of wages proved to be an attractive feature in job development, mainly

due to the depressed job situation in the region.

Most of the job sites were with small employers; 95.0% of the work

stations had fewer than thirty full-time employees, and 73.7% had between

five and nineteen full-time employees. Although the attempt was made to

465
correspond enrollee interests with work sites, the tight job market prevented

total implementation of this objective. As a result, 41.0% of the enrollees

were placed in service worker positions, 23.0% in clerical and kindred

experiences, 16.4% as laborers, and the remainder scattered among sales (8.2%),

craftsmen (1.6%), and operatives (9.8%). As was the common VEPS experience,

a majority (59.0Z) remained at the same employer throughout the experience,

while 31.1% were placed at two sites and 9.82 at three work stations.

The range and quality of occupational experiences was not as broad as

that in the VEPS-I program, again due to the restricted availability of work

sites. A preponderance of the stations were in service categories, although

a good proportion were of such a nature that the enrollee was put in the position of dealing with the general public. Among the more unusual stations

were several in wig styling and cosmetology, shipping and receiving clerk,

and a travel agent.

Pre-Job Orientation

Based largely on the prior year's experience, the VEPS staff implemented

a sixty-hour orientation package containing the usual world-of-work components.

Despite the late start of the program, orientation was completed by midOctober. The orientation ran over a four to six week period, with an average

of three hours a day. VEPS staff estimated that about one-fourth of the

enrollees required additional orientation beyond the sixty hours.

Most of the orientation was held in group sessions, although individual

guidance was provided where required. Most sessions were held in the school

buildings. Over the course of the orientation, skill and interest inventories

were taken. Written exercises were made an integral part of the orientation.

All enrollees were processed through orientation before being placed on the

job. Enrollees who had participated in the VEPS-I program were given brief

refreshers and were occasionally utilized as resource persons in the orientation program. The overall thrust and content of the orientation were

quite similar to VEPS-I.

On-Going Counseling

Flint again utilized a counseling work division based on the sex of

the enrollee. Apparently, this approach had success in VEPS-I and the experience with VEPS-II showed nothing to contradict its general suitability. The

on-going counseling component was probably the strongest aspect of the Flint

program. Good rapport between VEPS counselors and the enrollees was a major

factor in the success of the counseling program. Contacts with the youth

were made at school, work, and home. School contact was a regular component due to the career exploration activities of the staff. Employer contact

was maintained through the bi-weekly time sheet pickup task which provided

the opportunity for discussions with employers to determine the degree of

progress or existence of problems.

Since the counselors. also delivered the paychecks to the youth at the

job, this gave the counselor another opportunity to make contact with the

youth. Home visitations were less frequent and usually resulted from crisis

466
situations. The apparent ingredients of success in the counseling component

were the frequency of contact, the rapport established between counselor

and youth, and most importantly the availability of the counselor. In several

instances this availability could have degenerated into dependency, although

the counselors handled those situations quite well.

Vocational Exploration

As with the other program components, the experience with the VEPS-I

program facilitated vocational exploration. Exposure tr career possibilities

was undertaken through both group and individual sessions. The vocational

exploration component was undertaken separably by the two counselors, but

joint activities were implemented. General coordination of vocational

exploration was undertaken by the VEPS coordinator.

Career options were identified in the orientation sessions, and subsequent exposures were based on those choices. When a youth no longer expressed

an interest in the occupation, new choices were developed and explored. An

attempt was made to bring the youth in contact with an individual employed

in the occupation under consideration.

The broad range of occupations was also emphasized. In addition to the

usual discussion sessions, use was made of resource persons from the community,

vocational guidance instructional materials, and field trips. Among the last

ware visitations to Central Michigan University, Kellogg Company, AC Spark

Plug, and the local Skill Center. Exposures were not limited to occupational

categories but included cultural and social events as well.

Indicators of Programmatic Impact

Although seventy youth were targeted for the program, ten of those were

earmarked as backups. The backups received all the counseling and orientation features, but ware held in reserve pending the availability of work sites.

Ultimately, 61 youth were placed on work sites. Of the 67 youth who started

the program, only 29 (43.3%) completed VEPS.

All of the youth were single; no data was available to determine the

number of youth having dependent children of their own, although counselors

reported that such instances were rare. As is common in other VEPS programs,

72.7% came from female (mother) headed households; both parents ware present

in 19.7% of the cases. Unemployment was high among heads of households;

86.2% ware unemployed and another 4.6% ware underemployed. Similar to VEPS-I,

none of the youth contributed to the support of the family, although such

data are usually suspect. Nearly seventeen percent of the youth resided in

public housing, and 83.1% received some sort of welfare assistance. A

majority (53.9%) had held a job for which they received wages, and 44.8% had

worked for thirty days or more. Most of this work experience had been in

the regular NYC program.

As previously noted, 43.3% completed the program. Of the thirty-eight

youth who terminated, six (15.8%) dropped out of school; however, this represents only 9.0% of the total group. Military service and full-time employment accounted for two of the dropouts. The remdining four could not be
located to determine the reason. Of the other thirty-two youth, eighteen

were laid off, fired, quit, or did not show up for work. Three were not

interested after they had been recruited, two each found other jobs or were

pregnant, two more never were placed and quit VEPS, one was transferred to

NYC, and one had a conflict with other school activities. Information is

unavailable for the remainder.

Of the twenty-nine youth who did complete the program, nineteen (65.5%)

remained at the VEPS employer, two went on to school, one joined the military,

and one found other private sector work. Four (13.8%) were not working. Of

the fourteen seniors who graduated and completed VEPS, six (42.9%) remained

at their VEPS employer, two went on to higher education, one found other

private sector work, and one joined the military. Four were not working at

the time of data collection.

The VEPS program had a marginal, but positive impact on the academic

performance of the enrollees. For all enrollees the mean grade point average

was 1.62 with an average of twenty-eight days absent in 1971-72. Among

completers mean grade point rose +0.18 from 1.73 to 1.91. On the other hand,

mean days absent increased from an average among completers of 27 days absent

in 1971-72 to 31 during the VEPS year. Grade point change bulked between those

who improved +0.26 to +0.75 (21.4%), those who declined -0.26 to -0.75 (21.4%),

and those who remained about the same (50.0%). However, only 34.5% of the

youth improved their attendance while 65.5% deteriorated; 48.3% of the youth

declined by four or more days. As was found in other cities, the relationship between grade point average and attendance is negligible.
FORT WORTH, TEXAS

The Fort Worth VEPS-II program was essentially a continuation of the

VEPS -I program. The NYC-VEPS sponsor is the Fort Worth Independent School

District. Prior VEPS experience was particularly helpful in the area of

job development; many VEPS-I employers continued into the VEPS-II program

year.

Administrative Structure and Staff

The NYC office is located in the school administration building, and

VEPS was operated as an integral part of the vocational-industrial program

of the city schools. Fort Worth conducted both a summer and an in-school

program. HEW funds were available for a summer phase which ended August 26.

The NYC director had overall responsibility for VEPS. During the summer,

he was assisted by three full-time counselors from the school system. With

the reduction of VEPS funds, staff was reduced to two for the in-school program.

Academic records of enrollees were maintained by the six high schools

served by the program. VEPS records were maintained by the NYC administrative office. Monthly progress reports from counselors, with emphasis upon

problem cases, were an essential part of the supervisory process.

The NYC office handled general administrative detail including payroll

processing and overall coordination. Counselors picked up time sheets at

the job site. In some cases, NYC paid full wages and fringes and was

reimbursed by the employer. In other cases, enrollees received two checks,

one from the company, and the other from NYC. An attempt was made to be

flexible in this regard in order to accommodate the employer. The program

utilized an employer agreement form and experienced no great difficulty in

collecting the employer's share of the wages in cases where this option was

chosen.

The program, because of its sponsorship by the school system, experienced no problems in arranging academic credit for students participating

in VEPS. Those participating for a full year received two credits towards

graduation. The school system also allowed considerable flexibility in

scheduling to facilitate the VEPS work schedule.

Selection of Youth

For the first year of the VEPS program, Fort Worth did not follow the

enrollee selection guidelines closely. The VEPS staff maintained that

469 -
selection was based primarily on factors such as family, health and emotional

problems which night lead to a dropout, rather than those having serious

academic problems. In selecting VEPS-II enrollees, an attempt was made to

follow the revised guidelines more closely. The selection process involved:

(1) the determination that the youth met the NYC poverty guidelines, (2)

recommendations by school personnel (counselors and teachers), and (3) a final sort by personal interview. For the in-school phase about five percent

of the enrollees were selected from a modification school. Although it was

conceded that some "creaming" had been done in selecting VEPS-II enrollees,

Fort Worth did attempt to reach the probable dropout.

Sixty-three youth wore enrolled for the program year. They entered

with a mean grade point aversge of 2.24 and a mean absence level of 24 days.

Almost three-quarters (73.0%) of the youth were seniors; 25.4% were juniors.

Over half (55.9X) were seventeen years old, 10.5% were over seventeen, and

30.5% were sixteen. Males accounted for 53.4% of the enrollees; 77.8% were

black and 14.3% had Spanish surnames.

Job Development

Since Fort Worth had an excellent retention rate among VEPS-I employeru,

little job development was required for VEPS-II. Almost 100% of the first

year employers participated in the second year program. NAB was not involved

in any way with VEPS-II.

Most job sites (67.2%) were with employers having fewer than twenty fulltime employees, 39.3% had fewer than ten employees. At the other end of the

scale, 11.5% of the job sites were with the largest companies (those having

100 or more employees). These stations reflected past contacts and working

relationships established by one VEPS counselor in his prev4ous capacity as

an administrator in private industry.

A variety of work experiences were offered in Fort Worth. A quarter

(25.4%) of the positions were clerical; 20.6% were craft; 19.0% were operative. Only 4.8% of the youth were in sales positions; 11.1% were laborers

and 12.7% had experience as a service worker. Four of five (80.3%) had only

one work experience; only 1.6% had three or more different experiences.

Counselors felt that the wage sharing feature is a big factor in the

VEPS acceptance by the Fort Worth business community. They see VEPS as something more than a "handout" program. In a conservative community, this is

important.

Pre-Job Orientation

The summer VEPS enrollees were placed on the job without formal pre-job

orientation. For the in-school phase there was no formal pre-job orientation,

but there was an attempt by the counselors, on a one-to-one basis, to prepare

the youth for the job interview. This component of the VEPS program was the

most obvious deviation from program guidelines.

On-Going Counseling

In attempting to up-grade the VEPS in-school counseling, Fort Worth

stressed direct counselor involvement with the enrollee on a one-to-one basis.

- 470 -
No group sessiopi were held.

his enrollees. PHe made home

telephoned parents. He felt

parents and the program as a

problem situations.

Career Exploration

One counselor had a great deal of c tact with

visits, weekly job.-site contacts, at frequently

that these were quite beneficial for the youth,

whole. The other counselor only dealt with

No career exploration other than that received as a part of the Fort

Worth school's on-going career exploration classes was used. VEPS enrollees

participated in these classes as part of their credit program for VEPS work

experience.

Indicators of Programmatic Impact

An overwhelming majority (96.8%) of Fort Worth enrollees were single.

One-third (36.8%) lived with both parents, but over half (52.6%) lived in a

female headed household. No data were available on employment for the head

of the household, but 68.6% of'the families received some welfare assistance

and 17.6% lived in public housing. Just over half (52.4%) of the youth had

work experience prior to VEPS, but in most cases this was NYC public sector

work experience.

Of the sixty-three youth, twenty-two (34.9%) did not complete the program year. All, however, remained in school. Four were laid off or quit,

the same number found other jobs and terminated because the program affected

their academic performance. Three lost interest and two moved out of the

community. Illness, marriage, or school activity each accounted for one

termination. The reasons for termination in two cases could not be determined.

Forty-one (65.1%) of the enrollees completed the program. Most of these

(46.3%) remained with their VEPS employer. Higher education claimed 17%;

a like number returned to NYC. Four (9.7%) were unemployed; one joined the

military and one got married.

Overall the mean grade point average of Fort Worth enrollees declined,

going from 2.34 to 2.18 for the forty-eight cases where complete information

was available. Among completers there was also a decline, but not as great

as among all enrollees. For completers the mean declined from 2.49 to 2.34.

Exactly half of the enrollees declined in grade point average, 20.8% remained

constant and 29.2% improved. Seventeen of the twenty-four who declined went

down by three-quarters of a grade point or more; eleven of these had completed

the program. Ten of the fourteen who improved did so by three-quarters of

a letter grade or more; seven of these completed the program.

While academic performance declined, school attendance improved in Fort

Worth. This was true for all enrollees and for those who completed the program. For all enrollees there was a mean improvement of five days, for

completers there was a mean improvement of seven days. Three-quarters (74.5%)

of all enrollees improved; slightly fewer (72.1%) of the completers improved.

However, among all those who did improve, there i3 more improvement among

those who completed the program.

- 471 -

5 tiff -)
GEORGETOWN, TEXAS

The Georgetown CAP agency covers twenty-seven counties in an area

close to the capitol city of Austin. The largest city within the CAP area

is Temple (33,431). For the purpose of the VEPS program, this was considered

a rural area with many problems unique to a rural program.

Administrative Structure and Staff

The NYC-VEPS sponsor in Georgetown is the Williamson-Burnet County

Opportunities, Inc. Administration of the VEPS program was complicated by

two factors: territorial spread and lack of cooperation by a number of

school districts.

VEPS was administered through the NYC Director. Originally it was

planned that the Assistant NYC Director would assume major responsibility

for the VEPS program, but this never developed. Two full-time VEPS counselor-job-developers were hired. As the year progressed, these functions

were divided; one staff member did the counseling, the other concentrated

on job development.

Initially the NYC Director had a number of concerns. He felt he was

not in a competitive position in regard to counselors' salaries but had

managed to secure funds for one counselor. The NYC Director, through his

political connections, did manage to secure additional funds above the

original DOL allocation. Another concern was that transportation for enrollees had potential as a very serious impediment to the success of the program dee to the rural spread of the program.

On the positive side, the NYC Director was enthusiastic over the

prospect of placing enrollees in the private sector, as he was dissatisfied with the quality of some job slots in the public sector, especially

the schools.

The regular NYC in-school program had four hundred slots. It was

planned to earmark one hundred VEPS slots, starting with thirty in the

area's population centers. After experimenting with the logistics of carrying out the program in a setting of extreme distances, it was hoped that

they could move into the rural areas. This never happened: enrollment

never exceeded twenty-five, and movement into the rural areas never occurred.

All enrollee wages were paid by NYC, and the employers were billed for their

share. No problems with collection from private employers took place.

One internal administrative problem did affect the VEPS program. VEPS

was operated as a nearly autonomous program with the VEPS staff reporting

directly to the NYC Director. The NYC Coordinator, who had the administrative responsibility for NYC, was bypassed. Since the VEPS enrollees came

- 472 -
from NYC and were working in NYC slots, this was upsetting to the regular

NYC staff who saw VEPS as an infringement on their territory.

Enrollee Selection

The staff tried to follow the guidelines in the selection of enrollees.

This was particularly true in the initial group of ten selected at the end

of the summer. After that, VEPS had to accept transfers from NYC and had

little control over the selection process. All enrollees, however, were NYC

eligible. The criteria.of probable dropout was often operationalized as

possible dropout. As the program developed, the location of a job sometimes

influenced the selection of the enrollee; this was necessary because of the

extreme distances between job site and the enrollee.

Three out of four of the enrollees were male: 30.4% were seventeen,

26.1% were eighteen, only 4.3% were fifteen. Of the twenty-five youth, 60%

were black and 12% had Spanish surnames. This was quite at variance with

the NYC population which split 50% white and 25% each black and Spanish

surnamed. As to grade in school, 16.7% were sophomores, 54.2% were juniors,

and 25% were seniors. The mean grade point average for enrollees was 1.84

on a 4.0 scale with an average of 18 days absent during the previous academic year.

Job Development

Several factors hindered job development. Territorial spread made it

impossible to develop jobs throughout the area simultaneously. It was

decided to concentrate on one population center at a time. Initially, jobs

were developed in Georgetown and Bartlett. This was done in early September.

Late that month the VEPS job counselor concentrated on Lexington and Temple.

Several school districts refused to participate in the VEPS program. San

Marcos refused to cooperate, fearing that VEPS would compete with their

Cooperative Education program. Georgetown and Temple initially refused to

cooperate but the counselors convinced the appropriate school official that

VEPS was no threat to other programs and thus secured their cooperation.

The NAB office in Austin was contacted and the reception, according to

the counselors, was positive but there was no follow-through on the part

of NAB. On a job sit. visit in Bartlett, the monitoring team met the Mayor

who had been instrumental in obtaining four job sites. He was pleased with

the program corcept and felt that the business people had been enthusiastic

also. He explained tha "paving the way" was necessary because the community

had been very resent4 . of the VISTA activity and did not want to get involved

in any simliar prop a. Another factor which hindered job development was the substantial

amount of under-employment in the area. This made many employers hesitant

to hire enrollees at the minimum wage (although the program was paying half)

when regular employees were making less than the minimum wage. Many employers

felt that it was too much for a youth to earn.

Despite these problems, the jobs developed by the VEPS staff were generally good. The jobs included Day Care Centers, Nursing Homes, ranches,

- 473 -
cabinet making, and the usual sales a1d clerical positions. Most employers

were quite small: 28% had fewer than five full-time employees, another 28%

had between five and nine, only 16% had over fifty. Service and clerical

positions accounted for most of the job stations: 28% of the youth had

service jobs and 24% had clerical positions. Sales and craft positions each

accounted for 12% of the youth. The rest were evenly divided among professional, operative and laborer positions. Only 12% of the youth received

more than one work experience.

Pre-Job Orientation

The 1.nitial VEPS orientation totaled about four hours. It was held on

two evenings from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. and consisted of films, talks on things

that are important in seeking a job, questions and answers, and group discussion. Primary emphasis was placed on the world-of-work, job attitudes

and the work environment. Additional counseling was provided on an individual

basis. As additional youth were selected for the VEPS program, the pre-job

counseling was handled almost exclusively on a one-to-one basis.

On-Going Counseling

Given the geographic spread, the two-hour weekly counseling sessions

proved impossible to implement. For the most part, on-going counseling was

handles on a one-to-one basis, usually at the job site. Home visits were

rarely made. The VEPS counselor felt that each enrollee received approximately one-half hour a week in counseling. An exception was those enrollees

from Georgetown. These enrollees had one hour of classroom study related

to their field of interest or general work information such as grooming, how

to start a bank account, etc.

Career Exploration

Vocational exploration consisted almost entirely in handing out literature, a few film strips, and occasional personal discussions. This component

was quite weak. No field trips were planned nor were any guest speakers

brought in. Again the exception was in Georgetown; the one hour a day in

the classroom often focused on various aspects of career exploration.

Indicators of Programmatic Impact

All but one of the enrollees was single, and 58.3% came from two-parent

households. None lived in public housing (there is little in the area) and

only one received any public assistance. A little more than one-third

(36.8%) contributed to the support of the family. A plurality (45.9%) were

in family situations where the head worked less than thirty-five hours a

week; one-fourth (25.1%) came from situations where the head was unemployed.

Four of five of the enrollees had previously worked but only 12.5% were working at the time of enrolling in VEPS. For most of the youth, previous employment had been with NYC.

Only seven of the twenty-five youth (28%) completed the VEPS program.

Eight of the youth who terminated were laid off or quit, five had tranapor-

- 474
tation problems, three dropped out of school, one found another job and

one had a conflict with school activities. Of the seven youth who finished

the program, four remained with their VEPS employer, two found other private

sector work and one returned to NYC.

The academic indicators for Georgetown are positive, although the small

number of cases makes it difficult to draw many conclusions. Three-quarters

of the youth for which we had information improved their grade point average,

the rest declined. Two-thirds of the completers improved G.P.A., but 80%

of the terminators did so. In all cases, improvement was slight, 58.32 of

the improvement was a quarter of a grade point or less; 25% was between a

quarter and three-quarters of a point. The average improvement was 0.11 on

a 4.0 scale. Attendance change was available for only nine cases; seven

improved and two remained constant. Six of the seven who improved attendance

had terminated the program; both of those who remained constant in their attendance completed the program. The average improvement in attendance was six

days.

j

- 475 -
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA

Las Vegas was one of the second year VEPS cities and had no experience

with the VEPS-I program. Clark County School District is the Neighborhood

Youth Corps sponsor and is responsible for other work experience programs.

While the district covers the entire county, the VEPS-II programmes confined to the city of Las Vegas and no attewpt was made to initiate the program in surrounding smaller communities.

Administrative Structure and Staff

School system sponsorship of the NYC program, as in other cases, facilitated implementation of VEPS-II. Easy and extensive cooperation of the

schools characterized program administration. In addition to the NYC

director who devoted some time to supervision of the VEPS program, one other

half-time coordinator was utilized. The latter's responsibilities included

general supervision of the program, some counseling, coordination with the

vocational counselors in each of the high schools, and liaison with the

private sector representative. Since the number of youth involved in the

program was small and job placement involved a relatively unique arrangement,

overall administration and implementation were simplified.

Las Vegas represents A unique VEPS program in that all of the enrollees

were placed with the same employer--the main and branch offices of the Bank

of Nevada. The entire program was coordinated with the bank including the

selection, orientation, counseling and work experiences of the youth. Due

to a high turnover rate among its employees, the bank approached the school

system with a proposal for a bank training course; this developed simultaneously with the VEPS-II program. Under terms of the agreement worked out

between NYC and the bank, a highly structured but relatively simple program

was organized. A Bank Advisory Board consisting of representatives of the

various departments in which the enrollees would be working was established,

and a bank official was designated as general coordinator for the bank. NYC

also designated a half-time coordinator. Youth were selected for the program

and an orientation program was conducted through joint efforts. Counseling

routines were to be handled by the school personnel with the advice and

assistance of bank officials and the advisory board; work supervision was

the responsibility of the bank.

The bank kept all time records, issued all checks, and billed NYC once

a month. In addition the bank provided salary increments on an incentive and

performance basis. Academic and counseling records were maintained by NYC

and the school system. A vocational counselor was stationed in each of the

high schools to work with the VEPS enrollees as part of the normal NYC assignment; responsibilities included liaison with work and central NYC, school

counseling, and remedial education where required. The NYC VEPS coordinator

provided overall direction to the progtim, participated in the liaison with

- 476 - e- , 2'77
the bank, and assisted in counseling of the youth. As executed, the program

was well coordinated and administered.

Enrollee Selection

As part of the agreement with the bank, no more than fifteen youth

were to be placed on work stations at any one time. Twenty-one youth were

recruited, the extras serving as backups. All youth met the NYC eligible

guidelines. The agreement between the bank and NYC called for the selection

of sixteen year old, eleventh grade students who expressed an interest in

banking as a career. NYC identified eligible youth and performed the preliminary screening; the advisory bank board conducted interviews and participated in the final selection.

The effect of the procedure was to select youth who would most benefit

from the program, who had an interest in banking, and who showed a reasonable

Chance for success. Both the NYC staff and the bank personnel insisted that

creaming was a necessity for this particular component. Of the twenty-one

enrollees, nineteen (90.5%) were female; they were equally divided (42.9% each)

among sixteen and seventeen year olds; one was eighteen and two were nineteen.

Two-thirds were black; none had a Spanish surname. Twenty were seniors.

The selectivity process is demonstrated by the fact that the mean grade point

average for the beginning group of enrollees was 2.73 on a 4.0 scale; mean

days absent totalled 18.

Job Development

All work stations were with the Bank of Nevada. Work assignments were

spread throughout the various bank departments. The availability of these

work stations was the major impetus to implementation of VEPS. Some consideration was given to expanding the program to include other employers having

a large bloc of jobs. Efforts here did not progress beyond a preliminary

investigation stage.

Pre-Job Orientation

Pre-job orientation involved close coordination between NYC and the

bank. Following selection, youth were provided a basic world-of-work orientation, largely the regular NYC training. A specific course was developed

for the youth geared to principles and procedures of banking. A teacher

coordinated the course which involved substantial instruction by banking

personnel and followed a course curriculum developed by the California Bankers

Association.

Enrollees began the course on June 15 and were assigned work stations

on June 20. The normal day consisted of two hours in the classroom and four

hours on the job. During the in-school phase, enrollees worked up to four

hours a day. The course lasted twelve weeks, and graduation credit was

arranged for its completion. Because of the single employer, the orientation

program was highly concentrated and extremely effective.

On-Going Counseling

Again due to the selective recruitment process, counseling problems

- 477 -
were minimal compared to other programs. School counselors, coordinated and

assisted by the VEPS coordinator, handled most of the routine school and

personal counseling; group sessions were held as a supplement to regular

individual meetings. On the job, a bank official was assigned as a trouble

shooter and handled most problems arising between the youth and his supervisor or fellow workers. VEPS staff were brought in as the occasion demanded.

Most of the youth adjusted quite well, although home problems did affect the

work performance of some. VEPS staff attributed this difficulty to the fact

that the youth was receiving a regular paycheck in a welfare situation. These

were largely problems which neither the bank nor NYC could effectively resolve.

As the attempt was made to mitigate the more serious effects of the home

situation, VEPS counselors came to the conclusion that a structured program

for the parents was required which, in part, would inform them of the abilities and deficiencies of the youth. Home contacts were normally limited to

crisis situations.

Vocational Exploration

Vocational exploration, except within the broad confines of the banking

profession, was limited. Since all but one of the youth were seniors, the

program did provide an immediate prospect for employment upon graduation.

Indicators of Programmatic Impact

Twenty-one youth were enrolled in the VEPS program in Las Vegas. All

were single, and most (71.4%) came from a female-headed household. Nineteen

percent had both parents present in the household. One-third of the heads of

households were employed full-time, but 52.4% were unemployed. In almost

two-thirds (63.2%) of the cases, the youth contributed to the support of the

family; while 22.2% resided in public housing, 60.0% of the families received

some sort of welfare assistance. Sixty percent of the enrollees had held a

job for thirty days or more, almost all of them in the regular NYC program.

Thirteen youth (61.9%) completed the program. Of those who terminated,

none dropped out of school. Four of the eight terminators found other

private sector jobs, one quit the bank job, one declined to participate due

to an adverse affect on his school performance, one was simply not interested,

and one became pregnant. Four of the terminators graduated from high school.

Among completers, twelve graduated while the other youth was continuing

in summer school to earn the diploma. Only one of the twelve was not working,

although the bank had offered a full-time position.

The impact of VEPS upon academic performance was marginal in Las Vegas.

Mean grade point average rose +0.09 from 2.58 to 2.67. Attendance deteriorated,

however, by an average of one day. In three-quarters of the cases, grade point

improved, compared to a decline in 12.5% of the cases. Almost the reverse

occurs with attendance; only, 28.6% improved while 71.4% declined. Once again,

the association between grades and attendance is weak and borders on being

inverse.

- 478 -
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

The Pittsburgh Board of Education sponsors the primary in-school NYC

program in the City of Pittsburgh. Summer NYC programs are sponsored by

the City, Board of Education, and the Catholic Archdiocesean school system.

The Archdiocese also sponsors an in-school NYC program that operates in

areas outside the City of Pittsburgh. Since the Pittsburgh Board of Education's NYC program had conducted a VEPS-I program, the VEPS-II program

profited from the previous years experience. The report on VEPS-I program

contains additional information on the Pittsburgh effort.

Administrative Structure and Staff

VEPS -II benefited from the Board of Education sponsorship of NYC in

several ways. First, access to schools and school records was easier than

it would have been for an outside agency. Second, the space for VEPS staff

was in the Occupational-Vocational Training Center. This arrangement put

the VEPS staff in direct contact with other personnel in Pittsburgh's vocational training programs.

A third advantage of Board of Education sponsorship in VEPS'-II was

the presence of the Select Employment Training program (SET) which was

funded by the U.S. Office of Education. This program was directed toward

the same types of students as VEPS but required that the private sector

employers pay the entire amount of enrollee wages. Intensive counseling

was provided through the Office of Education funding. When an employer

did not want to be involved in any cost sharing arrangement such as VEPS,

a training position could still be obtained using the SET program. On

the other hand, when an employer balked at paying the wages for a student,

the worksite might be secured for the VEPS program due to the 50-50 cost

sharing arrangement.

Administratively, the director of placement supervising both VEPS and

SET acted as the VE1" coordinator. He reported to the Director of the OVT

Center and was in close contact with the NYC director. The NYC program

was also housed at the OVT Center.

The staffing of VEPS and SET only overlapped to a slight degree. Three

professional,staff persons served as VEPS counselors; the SET program utilized two paraprofessionals. VEPS counselors were certified and had been

in the school system previously. The VEPS counselors occasionally provided

some assistance to SET and vice versa. There was come staff turnover during

the year but it did not significantly affect the VEPS program.

Due to an accounting problem she Board of Education did not adopt the

50-50 cost sharing procedure for all hours worked. Instead, Pittsburgh

used an equivalent arrangement. The NYC program paid all the wages for

enrollees in the first half of the program and the employers paid the entire amount of the wages in the second half. This procedure could create

difficulty if employers refused to pay when it was their turn or simply

fired the youth. However, only one employer failed to pay his share of

the wages.

- 410. -
Enrollee Selection

VEPS-II was targeted for sixty enrollees including some carryovers

from the first year program. The NYC in-school program had 740 enrollees.

The selection process was essentially unchanged from VEPS-I. High school

counselors and NYC personnel were contacted regarding potential dropouts

who could benefit from the work experience and counseling which VEPS provided. VEPS personnel checked academic records for grades and attendance

information as a further indicator of probable dropout status.

Pittsburgh enrolled seventy youth from thirteen high schools and,etwo

junior highs. All were eligible for NYC. The mean grade point average for

enrollees was 1.39 on a 4.0 scale. This was the lowest of the ten VEPS-II

cities studied.* The average number of absences during the 1971-72 school

year was 35 days. As in VEPS-I the program enrolled some educable mentally

retarded students.

Thirty-one (44.3%) of the enrollees had participated in the VEPS-I

program. Forty-one (58.6%) of the enrollees were male and twenty -nine

female. As of July 1, 1972, thirty -two (45.7%) were 17 yeas old, fifteen

(21.4%) were 16 and another fifteen were 18, four were un0!r and four

were over 18. There were sixty-five black enrollees and five white.

Forty-three (61.4%) enrollees were entering their senior year, while sixteen (22.9%) were entering their junior year. The remaining eleven students were sophomores or below.

Job Development

The carryover of thirty-one enrollees from the VEPS-I program meant

that fewer new training stations were required. The VEPS counselors developed the jobs relying primarily on personal contacts. The existence

of the SET program was a positive factor in job development with some

interchange occurring between VEPS and SET.

The main selling point to the employers for both VEPS and SET was that

the students would receive intensive counseling and follow-up services.

This feature offset any reservations employers might have had about the

type of students in the programs. The counselors made most contacts with

smaller employers, although they had some success with larger employers.

Several mailings to employers which presented a case history for several

anonymous youth was attempted, but response rates were very low. However,

several openings did result from this approach.

VEPS training sites were developed for sixty-nine enrollees. Over

one-half (52.2%) of the employed enrollees were placed with employers having fewer than twenty full-time employees. Slightly over one-quarter (27.5%)

were with firms having 20-49 workers, while one-fifth (20.3%) were in companies with over 50 employers. Enrollees' VEPS work experiences were concentrated in five general occupational categories: 29.0% trained as operatives; 21.7% service; 18.8% sales workers; 15.9% clerical; and 14.5% laborers.

*No academic data was available in Eugene, Oregon.

- 480 -
Slightly more than one-quarter (26.1%) had two work experiences and the

other enrollees had one.

Pre-Job Orientation

Pre-job orientation was conducted in early August. The sessions were

held daily for three hours for a three week period. The VEPS staff presented material from the VEPS Model as well as began an introduction to

the topic of vocational choice.

The sessions followed closely the procedures used in VEPS -I. Discussion focused on the types of positions available, necessary world -of -work

attitudes, completing application blanks and related subjects. A variety

of materials available in the school system such as films and tape cassettes

were used.

On-Going Counseling

This aspect of VEPS -II proved to be as difficult as it had been in

VEPS -I. The problem was the number of situations requiring the counselors'

attention. Pittsburgh had selected probable dropouts for the progra.n aggressively and as a result had enrollees with the lowest initia] grade

point of ehe cities studied. The counselors worked with school, home,

and work related problems of enrollees.

Pittsburgh was especially diligent in maintaining contact and trying

to assist youth even if they left the VEPS program or dropped out of school.

This added an important dimension to the program.

The counselors worked closely with school personnel to work out individual class schedules so that enrollees would be able to work during the

in-school portion of VEPS. In checking the enrollees' schedule and records

before placement counselors discovered several cases of youth who thought

they were going to graduate, but would not have had enough credits. VEPS

counselors were instrumental in alerting the youth and regular high school

counselors and changing course schedules wherever possible.

Counseling contacts were usually made on an individual basis once and

often twice per week. Most contacts occurred at the worksite, although a

number were made at school or at home.

Vocational Exploration

Pittsburgh did not institute formal group sessions to present vocational exploration materials. They were faced with the same problems that were

encountered in VEPS-I. First, the long distances and limited ability to

travel rapidly was a problem in the metropolitan area. This is true for

travel from school to the work station or a central meeting place. Second,

the enrollees were disadvantaged youth with a number of problems. Regular

counseling and crisis intervention took a great deal of time. When combined with job development efforts, little time was left for regular sessions.

Two years experience with VEPS has made clear the difficulties of implementing vocational exploration sessions. In Pittsburgh, the youth se-

- 481
lected for the program required too much other attention. Also, certain

training sites were unwilling to allow the program counselor to control

the enrollees scheduling at the worksite. Additionally, many employers

feel that even with 50-50 cost sharing the enrollees have too many problems

to make their employment truly profitable. Most viewed their participation as being evidence of their civic mindedness rather than strictly a

business proposition.

Inacators of Programmatic Impact

The Pittsburgh VEPS-II program enrolled seventy youth. All the enrollees were single and thirty-nine (55.7%) lived with their mothers, another 31.4% lived with both parents. In over three-fifths of the cases

(61.4%) the household head was unemployed; 18.6% were working more than

thirty-five hours per week and 20.0% were working less than thirty-five

hours. Sixty percent of the enrollees resided in public housing and fifty

percent were in families receiving public assistance. In spite of the

above figures which indicate that the VEPS-II enrollees were from low-income families with a potential for difficulties, only eleven (15.9%) youth

reported that they were contributing to the support their families.

Most (68.6%) of the enrollees had worked prior to joining VEPS-II.

Forty-three (61.4%) had held a job for mope than thirty days. The general

occupation of these positions was servi,.e (21), semi-skilled (16), clerical

(4), and other (2).

Of the seventy VEPS enrollees, fifty-two (74.3%) completed the second

year program. This total included thirty-two youth who completed VEPS-II

and graduated from high school. As further indication of the impact of

the program in aiding the youth in securing full-time employment following

graduation, twenty-six enrollees who graduated were retained at their VEPS-II

employers whiLe two found other private sector employment and one found a

public sector job. Of the other three completers who graduated, two were

married and one joined the military service. Therefore, none of the graduating VEPS-II completers was in the not working category.

The disposition of all fifty-two VEPS-II completers was: remained

at VEPS employer (44); other private sector employment (2); married (2);

returned to NYC (2); military service (1); and public sector employment (1).

Eighteen (25.7%) youth terminated from the program during VEPS-II.

Of tt.: terminators, eight (11.4%) dropped out of school. 'Eight terminated

and remained in school while two terminated and graduated from high school.

The ten students who left the program, but did not drop out of school were

fired from thei- VEPS position (7), and never had a VEPS job, married, and

transferred to NYC (1 each). The eight school dropouts were equally divided

between leaving school for employment and other reasons.

The Pittsburgh VEPS-II program also had a good record regarding academic performance. The data on improved academic performance was stronger

with forty-one (67.2%) enrollees improving, four (6.6%) remaining the same

and sixteen (26.2%) declining. The improvement ranged from ten (16.4%)

who improved by +1.26 or more of a grade point to eleven (18.0%) who changed

marginally between +.25 to -.25 of a grade point. Thirteen (21.3%) had

an improvement of +.76 to +1.25 and a like number improved by +.26 to +.75. . - 482 -
Cur Eleven (18.0%) had declines of -.26 to -.75 while only three had more severe

declines.

As in other cities the attendance data was less positive. Twenty-nine

(48.3%) enrollees improved and declined while two remained unchanged. Twenty

of the improved performances were for ten days or more while eighteen of the

declines were for ten days or more. Twelve students had slight changes of

plus or minus three days during the year.

- 483 - 5j4
PUEBLO, COLORADO

Pueblo was another city whose first experience with the program was

VEPS-II. The 0E0-CAP agency in Pueblo sponsored the NYC program. The

VEPS-II program was limited to the five high schools serving Pueblo.

Administrative Structure and Staff

The VEPS program was staffed by a coordinator who was responsible

for all phases of program operation. The VEPS coordinator was located

in the NYC office and reported to the NYC director. The coordinator's

previous background was in youth work and counseling in community programs.

NYC administrative forms such as enrollee applications, time sheets

and progress reports were used in VEPS. In addition to the regular file

on each VEPS enrollee, the coordinator kept a detailed card record on each

student. Close contact with the NYC program was maintained due to the

VEPS location in the NYC offices. This contact facilitated other arrangements, such as enrollee transfers between VEPS and NYC.

The experience of the NYC program and the VEPS coordinator indicated

that cooperation with the school system would be relatively good. One unanticipated problem arose in matching the enrollees' job interests to Private sector positions. In several cases, such as an interest in counseling,

the career interests of the enrollees could have been better served by

placement in the public sector. Although the NYC program could enroll

youth and place them in the public sector, it was not able to match the

intensive counseling which VEPS provided. Program flexibility in job placement to accommodate such differences should be built into future program

designs.

Enrollee Selection

Pueblo's VEPS program was targeted between thirty and forty youth.

Selections for the group to receive orientation were made by the VEPS co- ordinator. A few students were enrolled after the initial group had been

selected.

The VEPS coordinator focused on enrolling probable dropouts. The

coordinator met with the high school counselors in each of five high schools

during the summer. After outlining the goals of VEPS, each counselor provided a list of six students whose academic or family problems would qualify them for the program. Some of the factors considered were academic

progress, high school adjustment problems and family difficulties. Eligibility for free school lunches was used as a preliminary indication of

low-income status necessary to qualify for NYC.

After obtaining the names, the VEPS coordinator made personal contacts

with the youth to explain the program and invite them to participate. As

a result of this process, youth entering the program had a reasonable understanding of the program's objectives. At the same time, the VEPS coordi-

- 484
nator verified that the enrollees were eligible for NYC (many had participated in previous summer programs) and generally met the other VEPS

guidelines.

Forty-one youth in Pueblo participated during the VEPS-II program

year. Slightly under two-thirds (65.9%) of the enrollees were male. Almost one-half (48.8%) were seventeen years of age at the time of enrollment, another 31.7% were sixteen. Five enrollees (12.2%) were eighteen

or older, while 7.3% were under sixteen. Enrollees with Spanish surnames

accounted for 95.1% (39) of all enrollees; one was black and one white.

A large majority (70.7%) of the enrollees were entering their senior year

with the remaining enrollees going into their junior year. The VEPS coordinator anticipated that many of the seniors would retain their VEPS

employment or go on to further education or training after the program.

Job Development

Pueblo encountered the same situation that existed in other VEPS cities,

namely, that developing jobs with employers takes a considerable amount of

personal contact and follow-up. This is especially true when explaining

a relatively complex program such as VEPS to smaller employers who have not

had previous contact with manpower programs.

The VEPS coordinator began job development in the summer and continued

throughout the program year, except during the Department of Labor freeze

on manpower program enrollments. Contacts were initiated by the coordinator among previous acquaintances as well as businesses which offered the

type of training that matched enrollee interests. Job development was conducted in the morning during the period of the pre-job orientation sessions.

The coordinator felt that being female brought mixed results; sometimes helping secure training positions, but often obtaining polite refusals. This subjective judgment was tested somewhat late in the program

year when an older man in the Public Employment Program was assigned to

the coordinator to assist in job development. Working as a job development team his presence appeared to have a more favorable impact on potential employers than did the female VEPS coordinator.

Attempts were made to obtain positions in a wide range of firms both

in terms of type and size. Greatest success was achieved with smaller

businesses; this is partially a result of the type of businesses in Pueblo.

The recommendations on implementing the VEPS-II guidelines suggested concentrating on smaller employers, and Pueblo VEPS followed that advice.

Smaller employers also fit well with the coordinator's interest in matching jobs to enrollee interests and gaining access for counseling followup.

VEPS work sites were developed for thirty-six enrollees. Three-quarters

of the enrollees (27) were placed with employers having fewer than ten fulltime employees. The other nine enrollees were scattered in the other employer size classes from 10-19 to 100 and over. The job classifications

for the enrollee's VEPS work experience were as follows: 36.6% in the

operatives category; 14.6% in laborers; 12.2% each in clerical and kindred

workers and service workers; 7.3% craftsman and 4.9% sales workers. Over

- 485 -

5'J
four-fifths of the enrollees (83.3%) remained with one employer during their

program participation (which may have been less than the full program year),

while 16.7% had two or more work experiences.

Pre-Job Orientation

The VEPS coordinator conducted the pre-job orientation program for

the enrollees. The entire enrollee group met for the sessions which were

held for several hours each afternoon for two weeks. Attendance was good

because of the coordinator's initial explanation of the program during recruitment and intensive follow-up.

The sample orientation materials contained in the VEPS Model were used

extensively. Special attention was focused on filling out the sample application forms and role playing for job interviews. In addition, several

guest speakers made presentations concerning career choice, educational

opportunities beyond high school and community social service resources.

On-Going Counseling

Counseling contacts were maintained primarily at the work site and

through home visits. Less frequent contacts were made at school and at

the NYC office. The VEPS coordinator worked regular counseling contacts

into her schedule of continuing job development. Counseling at the job

site was often coupled with handling time sheet and payroll matters.

Most of the counseling problems involved job related matters, although

school and family problems were also encountered. Several enrollees were

involved in traffic offenses during the year, and the coordinator assisted

these youth in their court appearances.

Vocational Exploration

The vocational exploration component was not implemented through formal

sessions. Instead, the coordinator aided the youth in enrolling in the

regular high school vocational program where these classes matched the enrollees' interests or VEPS work experience. In a number of cases the enrollees were able to secure high school credit for their participation in

the VEPS program.

The coordinator devoted a significant portion of her time to working

with the enrollees to enable them to pursue further training in their chosen

career area. These efforts resulted in a number of VEPS enrollees pursuing

vocationally related programs at junior colleges and others going into

apprenticeship programs. In most of these cases the enrollees were able

to retain their VEPS employment while continuing their training.

Indicators of Programmatic Impact

A total of forty-one youth were enrolled in the Pueblo VEPS program.

Two of the youth were married. Slightly over two-fifths (41.5%) of the

enrollees lived with both parents and 39.0% were living with their mother

only. The head of the household was unemployed in 77.5% of the cases,

while the other 22.5% ware working more than 35 hours per week. Over twothirds of the youth contributed to the support of their family; although

- 486 -
only 15.0% lived in public housing, two-thirds of the families received

some form of welfare assistance. Most of the enrollees (90.2%) had held

a job for more than thirty days, but this was usually in the NYC program.

Clerical and service occupations accounted for over half of these previous

jobs.

Of the forty-one enrollees, sixteen (39.0%) completed the full year

program. Ten (24.4%) of the enrollees who terminated dropped out of school.

The fifteen who terminated but remained in school (eleven of whom graduated)

left VEPS for a wide range of reasons. Three quit their work stations and

two each found another job, moved from Pueblo and transferred to NYC. The

other six left for reasons such as lack of interest, marriage and illness.

Three of the ten enrollees who dropped out of school did so to be married,

two left for full-time jobs and five for other reasons.

Sixteen students completed the VEPS program. Of the completers,eight

(50.0%) remained at their VEPS employer; two went into military service;

one continued his education; two returned to the NYC program; and three

had other outcomes. None of the completers were in the not working category.

The academic and attendance data on Pueblo completers is not complete

because some enrollees wereinaspecial school program which were ungraded.

In two cases, records from the year prior to VEPS were unavailable due to

incomplete transfer records.

One-half of the ten VEPS completers with available :Information improved

their grade point average and half declined. Four improved by +.26 to +.75

of a point; four had marginal changes of +.25 to -.25; and two had declines

of 1.25 grade points. Attendance data was more favorable with all but two

enrollees showing improvement. Three improved by more than ten days while

only one declined by that much.

- asp -

tikid
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

The sponsorship of VEPS-II in Salt Lake City shifted from the Salt

Lake City Board of Education which had sponsored VEPS-I to the 0E0-CAP

sponsored NYC program. This change was not accomplished without some difficulty and staff turnover. The overall impact was to create some initial

problems during the transition while staff were being replaced. The report on VEPS-I contains additional information on Salt Lake City's VEPS

effort.

Administrative Structure and Staff

VEPS-II continued to serve four school districts after the NYC program

sponsored by the local community action agency took over administration of

VEPS. The school districts in VEPS-II were Salt Lake City, Jordan, Granite,

and Murray.

As a result of the changeover, the VEPS office was moved from the Salt

Lake City Board of Education offices to space in the NYC offices which were

in the main office of the community action agency. This change improved

communications between the NYC director and the VEPS coordinator, although

these had been good during the VEPS-I program year.

A more difficult problem was the changeover in VEPS project staff.

Several of the counselors became concerned that there would not be a second

year of VEPS. Since they did not have tenure with the school system and

were not employees of the NYC program, they sought positions elsewhere.

In addition, the VEPS-I coordinator elected to remain in a tenured position

with the school system.

VEPS-II did not lose all continuity since the new coordinator had been

a counselor in the first year program. The coordinator reported to the

NYC director. The counseling staff was built back up in the fall with the

addition of two persons with some previous youth counseling experience.

The transition in the late summer caused a reduction in counseling effectiveness at that time.

Once the program was clearly shifted to NYC, there were several benefits. NYC had been working with schools for some time and the access to

high school counselors was no more difficult than under Board of Education

sponsorship. NYC was more flexible on some matters such as payroll procedures than the Board of Education had been. Expense and budget information was centralized in the hands of the NYC directors.

The new 50-50 cost sharing arrangements were adopted for all work stations including employers who had participated in VEPS-I. Payroll procedures

for new work stations were changed so that enrollees were paid on the cmpony payroll with NYC reimbursing the companies for their share of costs.

This change had been suggested in the VEPS Model to provide a closer indentification between the enrollee and the worksite. Enrollees carried over

from VEPS-I were retained on the NYC payroll and their employers reimbursed

- 488 - 1 11ti
NYC. The time sheets and payroll cS..-'s ,!1. en.. ;kuso p*.;coll

were handled bt-weekly. Time reccrs 'or P on company

payrolls were collected monthly.

Enrollee Selection

VEPS-II enrollee were recr1.2.te elx.r.e.:,:k of the eighteen high

schools in the participating schuol ,:1:..;e the VEPS-I counselors were to be employed through the Ltusmer, cluing 7snexpended funds, they

began the selection, process in May, 1Q72. The academic and vocational

counselors in the high schools were contacted by the VEPS counselors to

determine students who might be potential dropouts.

The IMPS counselors also obtained lists of students whose fees had

been waived to aid the counselors in recruiting low-income stud6nts. The

selection process did not use records of grades or attendance, but relied

on the VEPS and high school counselors' knowledge of students who could

benefit from program participation.

VEPS had 122 enrollees during the entire program year. However, initial recruiting was targeted for one hundred slots. This number was in

line with the number served in VEPS-I program and below the 130 in-school

NYC enrollees. The VEPS-II coordinator was responsible for all enrollees.

In addition, enrollees in Salt Lake City more than elsewhere left VEPS

due to conflicts with their academic work or other school activities. This

may be attributed in part to trying to work with several different school

districts.

Sixty-six (54.1%) of the 122 enrollees served during the year were

male. Fifty-four (44.3%) enrollees were sixteen years old, forty-three

(35.2%) were seventeen; fourteen (11.5%) were fifteen or under, and eleven (9.0%) were eighteen years old. Eighty-five (69.7%) were white, nineteen (15.6%) had Spanish surnames, thirteen (10.7%) were black and five

(4.1%) had other ethnic backgrounds. Students entering their junior year

accounted for 53.3% of the enrollees and 44.3% were moving into their senior

year while 2.5% were to be sophomores.

Job Development

The job development task was reduced by the carryover of forty-one

enrollees from the VEPS-I program. Most of these enrollees remained with

their VEPS-I employer. The remaining job slots were developed by the VEPS

staff using personal contacts and employer convassing. These procedures

produced the suggested emphasis on smaller employers.

Worksites were developed for all 122 enrollees during the VEPS-II

year. Over two-fifths (42.6%) of the enrollees were in small business

employing fewer than five full-time workers. Training stations with 5-9

full-time workers employed 15.6% of the enrollees T '411 and additional 16.4%

in firms having 10-19 employees. Ninety-one (74.6%) of the VEPS enrollees

were in companies having fewer than twenty full-time employers. Twentythree (18.9%) were with companies employing 20-49 and eight (6.6%) with

firms having 50 or more employees. The general o,:cupational categories

in which enrollees receiving training were: 27.9% as clerical workers;

489

54
24.6% operations; 14.8% service workers; 13.9% laborers; 10.7% sales workers

and 8.2% craftsmen. Approximately three-fifths (61.5%) of the enrollees

had one work experience in VEPS-II, 27.0% had two, and 11.5% had three.

Pre-Job Orientation

A formal pre-job orientation program was presented for the fifty-nine

new enrollees who had not participated in VEPS-I. Ten four-hour sessions

were conducted in three high schools over a two week period. This represented a major change from the first year when no pre-job orientation sessions were held.

The VEPS counselors conducted most of the sessions using materials

from the previous year's vocational exploration workshops and other topics

from the VEPS Model. In addition to covering the necessary world-of-work

concerns, the pre-job orientation program began vocation exploration for

the enrollees. Speakers from business and industry were used to describe

careers that were available.

The information usually included a general assessment of entry level

requirements and demand in the Salt Lake City area.

On-Going Counseling

Salt Lake City VEPS-II employed the same techniques that had been used

the first year. Most of the counseling (as opposed to the vocational exploration sessions discussed below) contacts were on a one-to-one basis.

Counselors would meet with the enrollee at school or on-the-job.

The counselors met with participating employers at least once each

month. Also, a minimum of three home visits were scheduled for the year.

Enrollees faced personal problems similar to youth in other cities. Transportation was one problem that appeared more severe in the Salt Lake City

area. The dispersal of enrollees among several school districts and the

resulting difficulty in locating positions close to the enrollees' homes

required additional time of the counselors. The counselors provided remediation especially in English and math for some of the enrollees.

Vocational Exploration

Vocational exploration sessions were conducted monthly between October

and April. Each month the same session was repeated at three high schools.

Since the sessions had been started in VEPS-I most of the employers were

aware of them prior to the start of school.

The sessions continued and expanded upon the materials presented during

pre-job orientation. Guest speakers were used although the counselors conducted the majority of the meetings. The counselors worked with the school

districts to obtain high school credit for the VEPS experience. Approximately one-third of the enrollees received credit; many did not need any

extra credits to graduate.

Attendance at the exploration sessions was required. A few enrollees

were terminated after they missed three sessions.

- 490 -

(J'i I
Indicators of Programmatic Impact

Salt Lake City's VEPS program enrolled 122 youth dwAng its second

year. All but two enrollees were single. Fifty-seven (46.7%) lived with

both parents and another 40.2% lived with their mother only. The remaining sixteen enrollees lived with a.guardian (9) or other arrangements (7).

In fifty (48.5%) of the cases, the household head was not working while

in forty-four (42.7%) cases the head was working more than thirty-five

hours per week. Thirty-two enrollees responded that they contributed to

the support of their families. Only eleven enrollees lived in public housing. Thirty-four (28.8%) were in families receiving some form of welfare

assistance.

Sixty (61.2%) enrollees had worked previous to :heir VEPS experience.

Of the sixty, forty-five had held a job for more Cali thirty days. The

general occupational classification for these positions were service (36.6%),

semi-skilled (17.0%), agriculture (9.8%), clerical (7.'7), sales (2.4%),

and other (26.8%).

Fifty-four (44.3%) of the 122 enrollees completed the second year

VEPS program. Twenty-five of the VEPS-II completers also graduated from

high school. Of the high school graduates, thirteen (52.0%) were retained

at their VEPS employer while seven (28.0%) found other private sector employment. Four (16.0%) completers who graduated were not working and one

moved out of the Salt Ake City area. Forty-five of the fifty -four program

completers either remained with their VEPS employer or found other private

sector employment. Eight were not working and one had left the area.

Seventy-eight youth terminated during the program year. Only eleven

(9.0%) of the enrollees who left VEPS dropped out of school. Fourteen of

the terminated enrollees graduated from high school. Other than dropping

out of school the most often cited reasons for leaving VEPS were lack of

interest (ten); affected academic performance (nine); found another job

(eight) and quit (seven). No reason was mentioned more than four times.

The academic data revealed that thirty-two (59.3% of the fifty -four

completers) enrollees improved their grade point average while twenty-one

(38.9%) declined and one remained unchanged. Seven (13.0%) completers improved by +.76 of a grade point or more while only three (5.6%) dropped

by as much. Sixteen (29.6%) improved by +.26 to +.75 and 10 (18.5%) declined by -.26 to -.75. The grade point average for eighteen (33.3%) enrollees changed in the narrow range +.23 to -.25.

Attendance data was more difficult to obtain. Records on twenty-nine

program completers indicate that fifteen improved, thirteen declined, and

one remained unchanged. This pattern of less favorable performance in the

attendance indicator was observed in other cities. Fourteen of the enrollees

had a change in absences between plus and minus three days. Nine improved

by four days or more while six declined by at least four days.

- 491 -
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA

The Office of the County Superintendent of Schools is the NYC sponsor; San Bernardino County includes sixteen school districts. Individual school

districts subcontract for the operation of the NYC programs through the County Office. The County also provides special services and programs for

participating school districts and maintains an extensive career exploration capability in personnel, hardware and software, and library. The County Office is well financed and staffed, and 'the services it renders are gener- ally excellent. San Bernardino County NYC participated in the VEPS-I pro- gram (1971-72), and the experience gained permitted easy transition to

VEPS-II; only San Bernardino City Unified School District was involved in

the VEPS-I program. In VEPS-II eight other school districts were involved:

Yucaipa, Fontanna, Colton, Chaffey, Rialto, Chino, Barstow, and Victor Valley.

Administrative Structure and Staff

The San Bernardino VEPS program was facilitated by two programmatic

factors: (1) prior experience of the County Schools with NYC and vocational

education projects; and (2) prior experience with the first-year VEPS program. With the exception of private sector worksites, the regular NYC

program had, prior to 1971, incorporated much of the VEPS concept. Thus, the transition to VEPS was relatively simple. Few administrative problems

developed since program administration, counselor supervision, and enrollee

work records were centralized with the County Schools. Enrollee academic

records were maintained by the individual school districts, while counseling reports, internal monitoring, and enrollee assessments by counselors and

employers were centralized with the County NYC/VEPS coordinator.

Eighteen high schools were involved from the nine participating school

districts. Excellent coordination and cooperation was attained with regular

school personnel. Since the Office of County Schools had previously handled

all special and NYC programs, the question of direction and administrative

control never arose.

Payroll procedures were administered by NYC. Enrollees received two

checks, one representing the fifty percent private sector share and the

other the fifty percent NYC. The wage sharing feature proved very attractive to employers and did facilitate job development. Early release from

classes, high school graduation credit for work experience, and tailored

curriculum changes were standard aspects of the program.

In addition to the NYC director and the VEPS coordinator, four full-time

counselors were utilized in the program. One counselor was placed in San

Bernardino; others were located in Colton, Chaffey and Yucaipa. There was

turnover in one of the counselor positions during the course of the program.

One of the counselors had participated in the VEPS-I program and was continued

- 492 - 5 .1 3
in VEPS-II with DOL funding. The other counselors were hired through funds

made available through the Public Employment Program. The VEPS coordinator

was provided by San Bernardino County. Job specifications were prepared

and distributed through the Human Resources Development Agency which is the

state employment agency. Approximately fifteen applicants were processed

through interviews. None of the counselors were certified, although one had

embarked on certification training. No problems were encountered with state

regulations.

The VEPS coordinator held regular weekly meetings with the counseling

staff, and also communicated with the NYC director on a regular weekly basis.

Full staff meetings were held once a month.

The experience of San Bernardino County with the prior VEPS program

greatly eased the implementation of the VEPS-II program. Adequate and frequent communication among the staff was the rule, and the counselors were

provided with adequate flexibility in conducting the program. The geographic

spread of the prograM did create some coordination problems.

Enrollee Selection

The VEPS program in San Bernardino County, initially targeted for

between 100 and 150 youth, did enroll 125. The enrollee selection process

began in late May and early June. All enrollees were drawn from previous

NYC rolls; two enrollees carried over from VEPS-I. Potential enrollees for

the program were selected on the basis of their academic performance, incidence of school related problems, and whether the youth was currently

unemployed or underemployed, or employed in non-meaningful work. Less

emphasis was placed on academic indicators in order to improve acceptability

to employers. Although the enrollees did not strictly represent probable

dropouts, the youth were chosen from the lower end of the scale in terms of

family income. Each of the youth was personally interviewed by the counselor

before acceptance into the program. Counselors selected back-up youth to

replace any who might drop out of the program.

In the selection process VEPS counselors did contact parents to solicit

their approval of the VEPS program arnd to secure their cooperation in its

implementation; home contact was made immediately prior to job placement.

The decreased emphasis on the dropout criterion is reflected in the baseline

academic indicators used in this study. Mean grade point average for the

enrollees was 2.31 on a 4.0 scale. Absence rate averaged eleven days. Of

the 125 youth, 42.4% were male. Most (48.8%) were age sixteen at time of

enrollment, and 39.2% were age fifteen. All youth met the minimum age at

the time of job placement. A plurality (40.8%) were white, while 36.8% had

a Spanish surname and 22.4% were black. Reflecting the youth age, only

15.2% had completed their junior year; 68.8% had completed their sophomore,

and 13.6% their freshman.

Job Development

Job development was conducted by the VEPS counselors, assisted at times

by the VEPS coordinator. In San Bernardino, twenty -five employers who had

- 493 - ;
participated in VEPS -I carried over into VEPS -II. No assistance from NAB

or the Chamber of Commerce was received directly. In the other areas, job

development faced competition from other programs, and some suspicion of

VEPS was apparent among the regular work experience personnel. As a consequence, VEPS counselors did not attempt to recruit placements from regular

work experience job sites.

The wage sharing feature proved a strong selling point, particularly in

the outlying creels. Job developers used many of the normal tactics such as

telephone contact and door-to-door solicitation. To aid the development

process, the program developed and distributed descriptive flyers; these

proved to be quite useful. An employer agreement form was also used which

eliminated all but a few cases of employer misunderstanding about the program.

Some transportation difficulties were found in the outlying areas due to

a lack of adequate public transportation. School and work hours were adjusted

to make use of the school bus schedules, and many youth had access to automobiles. Most of the youth were placed by the beginning of school; those

who had not been placed were held on NYC work stations until a suitable position could be found. Counselors maintained weekly contact with employers

by visiting the work station; this was supplemented by frequent, but irregular telephone contact.

Two-thirds of the work stations were with employers having fewer than

twenty full-time employees, while 80.8% were at sites with fewer than thirty.

Nearly a third of the sites were in the range of ten to nineteen full-time

employees. Over one-third (33.6%) of the positions were clerical in nature,

while 16.8% were operatives, 15.2% service workers, and 14.4% sales. The

majority of youth (79.2%) remained at the same employer throughout the

experience, while 19.2% had two work stations. The usual occupational

titles were well represented, but among the more unusual work stations were

those in roofing, upholstery, candle making, book binding, floral arranging,

advertising, machine repairing, and carpet laying.

Pre-Job Orientation

The sixty hour orientation session began on July 1 and was based on

the VEPS-I experience. Counselors found that most of the youth were prepared for job placement within about twenty-five hours. Both individual

and small group sessions were utilized, with groups numbering no larger than

ten youth. The orientation was handled by the counselors but was based on

an instructional package prepared by the VEPS coordinator. Enrollees tended

to be reticent at first, but as the sessions progressed, they tended to open

up and participate. Sessions were usually held in the school buildings. The

content of the orientation involved the usual world-of-work aspects and

stressed interpersonal relationships. The lecture -J:scussion model was

supplemented with film strips, other audio-visual approaches, and written

materials. Enrollee interests and aptitudes were profiled, and career interests were determined.

On-Going Counseling

An extensive on-going counseling routine was implemented. During the

summer, contact with the enrollees was made primarily at the work site, while

- 494 -

e5 Ar
the In-school phase spread contact among school, home and work. To avoid

problems which had appeared in VEPS-I, the attempt was made to inform the

regular school counseling staff about the VEPS program. Home visits were

made on a two per semester basis, except where individual cases required

more intensive visitation. Contact at the work site was done on a weekly

basis.

To supplement the usual counseling routine, special problems and needs

were handled through supplemental aids available through the school system.

These included remedial teachers, medical personnel, and social workers.

VEPS counselors tracked each youth closely in an attempt to handle problems

before they reached the serious stage. Employers were urged to contact the

counselor whenever they felt the need, although in some cases counselors

found this to be a substitute for direct contact with the youth. When necessary, youth were called out of class; school officials cooperated in this

approach, and counselors attempted to vary their time of contact to avoid

too many removals from a single class.

Vocational Exploration

San Bernardino County possesses an extensive hardware and software

capability for vocational education. These holdings were made available to

the counseling staff and to the youth. Each of the participating high schools

had a guidance center, although the individual capabilities varied greatly.

Extensive use was made of these centers in assisting VEPS youth in exploring

various occupational interests. Enrollee interests were identified early in

the program, and counselors explored these early interests in detail. As

desires changed, so did the counseling.

To supplement those centers which were not as well equipped, a mobile

van was utilized. The van was equipped with substantial audio-visual and

job inventory equipment. VEPS youth were given first priority in the use

of this equipment, although the unit was available to the entire student

body. Enrollees were brought out of regular classes to use the van and

attend guidance sessions. The vocational exploration component was handled

entirely by the individual counselor for his group of enrollees.

In addition to the school and van based capability, use was made of outside speakers, field trips, and the like. The individualized approach of

the counselors, the career inventories and skill apptitudes, and the ample

hardware and software career education capability of the program blended to

make for an excellent vocational exploration component.

Indicators of Programmatic Impact

A total of 125 youth were enrolled in the San Bernardino VEPS program,

although five of these never worked at a VEPS job. Only one of the youth

was married. Unlike most other VEPS programs, a plurality (48.0%) lived

with both parents and rily 40.8% came from a female-headed household. Less

than half of she household heads (41.6%) were unemployed and another 25.6%

ware underer.ployed, working lees than thirty-five hours per week. Om:

two-thirds of the aprons*s contributed to the stipport of the family; while

8.1% livid in public housing, 53.0% of the families received some form of

- 495 -
welfare assistance. Most of the youth (94.8%) had worked for thirty days

or more, but as was the case in other VEPS programs, this work experience

was largely confined to the regular NYC program.

Of the 125 enrollees, 62 (49.6%) completed the program. Of the 63

youth who terminated, only nine (7.2%) dropped out of school. Youth who

terminated did so for a wide variety of reasons. Seventeen either quit,

were laid off, or never appeared for the job; three more were not interested.

Five found other jobs and another five moved from the community. Six experienced conflict with other school activities, and nine transferred to NYC.

Seven of the terminators graduated from high school. No reason could be

obtained for six of the nine school dropouts; the remainder either became

pregnaLL, got married, or ran away from home.

Of the VEPS completers, 50 (80.7%) remained at the VEPS employer; three

found other private sector work, four continued their education, and one joined the military. Three of the completers returned to NYC, and no information could be gotten for one enrollee. Ten of the VEPS completers graduated from high school; six of these remained at their VEPS employer and the

remaining four went on to higher education. As with the VEPS-I program, a

high percentage of youth were maintained by the private sector VEPS employers.

As with a number of other cities, the impact of VEPS upon academic

performance is mixed. For completers, the mean grade point average rose

slightly from 2.41 to 2.44; 59.3% improved in grade point average while

40.7% declined. In attendance, mean absences increased one day; a plurality

(48.7%) declined while 35.9% improved. The disassociation between performance

on grade point and attendance is clear in San Bernardino as it was in numerous

other VEPS programs.
APPENDIX A

In reply refer

to MEHOW

U.S. Department of Labor

Manpower Administration

Washington, D. C. 20210

May 14, 1971

FIELD MEMORANDUM NO. 183-71

TO: ALL REGIONAL MANPOWER ADMINISTRATORS

SUBJECT: Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector-Pilot Neighborhood

Youth Corps Program with National Alliance of Businessmen

The program description for a pilot program for Neighborhood. Youth Corps

(NYC) enrollees developed cooperatively by the Department of Labor,

Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and

the National Alliance of Businessmen is attached.

Local NYC sponsors will select enrollees and pay wages for a portion of

enrollee time in the program, provide remedial services, and perform

administrative duties. The Office of Education will provide funding for

counseling and remedial education and will develop a Vocational Guidance

Institute in connection with the program. NAB through its local Metro

Directors will select and work with private sector companies who will

provide vocational exploration worksites.

If you need any additional information regarding the program described

in the attachment to thisnmorandum, please Lind them to my office

(Attn: MEHOW), or call the Division of Work Experience Programs, 202 -

961-3380.

J. L. BLAKE

Deputy Manpower Administrator

Attachment: (RMA's and Executive Staff)

Pilot Cover Exploration and Training Program
Attachment to FM 183-71

PILOT CAREER EXPLORATION ANn TRAINING PROGRAM

PURPOSE

The purpose of this program is to provide selected in-school youth with

career exploration and training opportunities which will result in reduction

of the high school drop-out rate and the flow of untrained, unskilled

people into the labor market. The resources and know-how of the private

sector, the Department of Labor, and the Office of Education will be combined

to give eligible in-school youth opportunities to develop or further their

career interests within both the educational community and private sector.

Factors which can be related to the success of the program will be isolated

and incorporated into program models.

OBJECTIVES

--To provide economically disadvantaged students with skills enabling them

upon graduation from high school to move on to further education or a job in

the private sector.

--To demonstrate that the private sector, local school systems and government

agencies can effectively coordinate their individual efforts in providing

youth with meaningful career exploration and training experiences, and to

develop innovative program models for these experiences.

--To help disadvantaged students experience achievement and learn the value

of education and training as preparation for the world of work.

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Primary responsibility for program development rests with the NYC sponsor,

local school system and the local business community. Wherever possible and

desirable, organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Cooperative

Area Manpower Planning System (CAMPS), the Community Action Agency and the

State Employment Service may be consulted in developing the program.

Primary emphasis shall be placed on developing training and career exploration opportunities that will provide enrollees with the widest possible

exposure to the world of work. Training assignments should relate directly

to the students' interest and capabilities, and should be in concert with

their educational goals.

a. Role of the National Alliance of Businessmen

The local Metro office of the National Alliance of Businessmen will

select private sector bw4...less concerns willing to participate in this program. Primary consideratIcn should be given to those companies that have

- 498 -
a proven training capability, i.e. those which have been contractually

involved in the NAB program, those with qualified training programs, and

those which have conducted awareness training programs for their supervisory

personnel.

(1) Selection of Private Sector Participants. The NAB Metro

office shall identify and invite into the program those private

sector companies. which have demonstrated an interest in training

and employing in-school youth, and possess the capability of

,effectively training new personnel. As conditions for participating

in this program, a company must agree to the following (a) provide,

at its own cost, necessary staff, space, equipment, supplies and

access to the principal worksites, (b) make said resources available

to enrollees and school system counselors, and (c) absorb the salaries

of enrollees when NYC funding phase terminates beginning the seventh

week of the summer, the sixteenth week of the first semester, and

the eleventh week of the second semester. It is hoped that after

an enrollee completes the three work experiences, one of the participating companies will make an effort to employ him part-time during

after-school hours until he graduates from high school. Companies

must assure that participation of enrollees will not result in the

displacement of employed workers or result in the substitution of

these enrollees for regular workers who would normally be hired.

(2) Responsibilities of Private Sector Participants

a. Identify private sector training and employment positions

for eligible youth.

b. Develop student-oriented career exploration curricula with

local school officials.

c. Designate personnel who will devote sufficient time to

training and working with eligible youth, in cooperation with

high school personnel assigned to private sector.

d. Cooperate with the NYC sponsor in establishing payroll

procedures governing the period of training when the employer

bears the full cost of the student's training salary.

e. Execute a Letter of Agreement with the NYC sponsor covering the above responsibilities and the conditions for participation listed under (1) above and agreeing not to hire for

full-time employment any enrollees entering this program until

they have been graduated from high school.

f. Participating companies shall designate a Company Coordinator

(ideally from the corporate training staff) who shall assist

the NYC sponsor and/or school system personnel in developing the

career exploration and training curriculum. Prior to the implementation of the program in a company, the Company Coordinator

will acquaint the pertinent supervisors and employees about the

- 499 -
basic objectives of the program as a means of assuring a positive

working relationship between enrollees and company personnel with

whom they will work.

(3) Career Exploration and Training Components. The Career Exploration and Training phase shall include four major components: counseling and remediation, orientation, career exploration and on-the-job

training.

a. Counseling and Remediation. The counseling and remediation

component is designed to provide enrollees tth the motivation

and basic educational skills needed to function effectively in

a work environment, major responsibility for implementing this

phase of the program rests with school system counselors.

Counseling and remediation sessions will to condurterl in facilities mutually agreed upon by the NYC sponsor, participating company, and school system.

b. Orientation. The orientation component is designed to acquaint

eligible youth with the basic facts about the world of work, the

participating company's business, the American business and industrial system, thefole of the employee within the economic syst m,

the students' primary objectives while in the program, and the

company's interest in the program. Supervision will be provided

at all times by the Company Coordinator or staff he designates.

Management level personnel should participate in orientation presentations and discussion sessions.

This component will be conducted in group sessions and will

utilize panel discussion; question and answer sessions; media

such as films, tapes, slides; oral ,,,.qr,ntations and tours of

company faCilities.

The curriculum in each company shruAd iiclade specific information on income and Social Secut.'4.;. withh.,Aing procedures, the

role of unions in company labor-.,Intageme%. relations, the meaning to the individual employee o vari_ar; Federal and State laws

affecting the labor-management relations. Imployment trends

within the company and the inch.*Aly, the ,..ompany's efforts in the

equal opportunity area and safety ruL.er, and procedures as they

apply to youth. The latter will , .....ated to actual jobs when

enrollees observe employees at - in the career expl'ration component and any safety devices utilized will be explaiLad.

c. Career Exploration. he career exploration compuient

designed to provide eligible youth with an opportunity to tc.onva

familiar with the variety of jobs in the business, to diroltly

observe employees in the working envirohment, to question those

employees about the training and education needy. 'o perform the

pertinent skills, and to discuss the rewards arisinb from employment and the possibility for upward mobility within a given skill

area. 500 j
Career exploration will involve closely superrised observation

of employees at work and wIll include explanation of appropriate

safety procedures and laws as they apply to youth in the particular

job. It will also involve discussions with employees at the job

site unless for reasons of safety or efficien..y another location

in the company is used.

d. On-the-Job Training. The On-the-Job Training component will

provide close supervision of enrollees =,.1.; :11 times and will

involve the learning of basic job skill, and the application of

learned skills in actual work. The OJT :omponent of the "NYC

phase" will be devoted to the teaching of basic job skills which

may be applied by enrollees to the production of goods and services

in the "employer phase". The OJT compooent in any "NYC phase"

shall not exceed 25% of the hours involved in that "NYC phase."

e. Compliance With Fair Labor StantiarLA Act and Pertinent State

and Local Legislation. Employers snail comply with the

requirements of the Fair Labor Stand.irds Act and pPrf-tnent State

or local laws regarding the training -nd employment at youth.

b. Role of the NYC Sponsor

The NYC sponsor will recruit disadvantaged Fuden~r who are at least

16 years of age and moving from tenth to elev,..ath ;ra2a and who qualify for

admission into the NYC program. The sponsor will admil.13ter the program

and will provide needed supportive and when necessai tr:Aisportation services for enrollees. Each enrollee shall be limited to three separate work

experiences under this program; each experience shall be limited to one

summer or one semester.

(1) Recruitment of Students. The NYC ovmsor will identify in-school

youth at least 16 years of age who nre economically disadvantaged (as

defined by NYC guidelines) and refer same to the appropriate high

school counselors who shall deternine which students have been passed

from tenth to eleventh'grade and are probable drop-outs. An enrollee

will be selected for the entire program and will not be replaced by

another enrollee after the third week of simmer if he decides to leave

the program before completion of three experiences. The slot vacated

wIll revert to the regular NYC program and should be filled. When

selected, but prior to assignment to a private sector company, enrollees

shall agree to the following:

a. Maintain at least a passing grade in school year courses.

b. Work to the best of their _Ability in school and on-the-job.

c. Abide by the basic procedures governing this program as

t-stablished by the school system and the employer.

d. Consult their counselors on a regular basis as determined

by each student, school officials and employers.

A)

- 501 -
e. Agree not to seek employment from any employer participating

in this program until graduation from high school, or until

offered a work assignment by either the NYC sponsor, the local

school system or NAB.

(2) Program Administration. The NYC sponsor designated by the Regional

Manpower Administrator shall be responsible for program administration

which shall include but not be limited to:

a. Keeping pertinent records.

b. Drawing aau disbursing NYC wage payments to enrollees. (The

NYC sponsor Tay elect to disburse enrollee wage payments provided

by employers).

c. Maintain liaison with company coordinators and school system

personnel. (Where school system is the sponsor close liaison

should be maintained internally between the project staff and

enrollee's home school).

d. Establish a regular working relationship with the local NAB

office to provide maximum opportunity for joint monitoring and

evaluation of the program.

e. Establish a Review Committee composed of selected enrollees,

school system personnel, employers, NAB personnel and representatives of the NYC sponsor to review enrollee grievances and forward

recommendations to the appropriate employer.

c. Role of the Local School System

The Local School System will be responsible for developing and implementing the counseling and remedial education component which will provide counseling personnel for this program. It will also have responsibility for

developing a grading procedure for granting appropriate academic credits to

enrollees.

Counselors assigned to the program will work with students in-school and at

the private sector worksites. They will identify the probable drop-out

from the list of students referred by the NYC sponsor, will assist the NYC

sponsor and employer in developing the various components of the program,

and will cooperate with private sector employers in implementing the career

exploration and training functions.

Counselors will be assigned to Lhis program on a full time basis. Wherever

possible, the counselor-student ratio pertaining to this program shall be

maintained at 1:20 from funds provided by the Office of Education.

The involvement of counselors in the private sector phase of the program is

especially important since they assist private sector personnel in working

with eligible youth, and can increase their own understanding of employment

opportunities in the private sector and employer expectations regarding high

school graduates entering the job market.

- 502 -
Throughout the implementation phase of this program, counselors will be in

contact with their colleagues and can exchange with them information about

the program and its results. The "feed back" process could result in the

"re-education" of numerous counselors and teachers not able to participate

directly in the program.

In selecting counseling staff every effort should be made to designate

personnel who understand the "life style" of economically disadvantaged

yoith and who know how to relate to probable drop-outs.

- 503 -
FUNCTIONAL TIME ?RAVE

Phase Function Summer '7. First Semester Second Semester

Nticl Counseling 56 hot.. 45 hours 30 hours

Remediation 48 35 12

Introduction to the 4 4 4 World of Work

Introduction to the 7 7 7 Sponsoring C.,,any2

Tour of Company Facilities 7 7 7 (Includes review of

Safety Programs and

Procedures)

Career Exploration 17 26 22

(Discussion Groups

Involving Management

and Professional

Personnel)

Job/Skill Observation of 28 48 35

Line and Staff Positions

Non-productive OJT 46 45 30

Evaluation Sessions Involving

Counselors and Company

Coordinators

NLOYER3

TOTAL HOURS

Training 6 Productive OJT

234 225 150

234 hours 60 hours 135 hours

1 NOTES: ,Jhe Prime NYC sponsor will provide wages for all non-productive work outlined in the "NYC phase".

`Enrollees are required by NYC guidelines to change workeites for each segment. Workeite changes

may involve moving from one company to another, or only moving from one job to another in the

same company. Where movement within the same c any occurs, the hours alloted for this function

may be added to either the Career Exploration function or the Job/Skill Observation function.

3Employers will provide wages for enrollees in the "employer phase".
PILOT CAREER EXPLORATION & TRAINING PROGRAM

SCHEDULE

Summer

39 hours per week 12 weeks 6 NYC 6 employer

First School Semester

15 hours per week 19 weeks 15 NYC 4 employer

Second School Semester

15 hours per week 19 weeks 10 NYC 9 employer
APPENDIX B

In reply refer

to MDTW

U.S. Department of Labor

Manpower Administration

Washington, D. C. 20210

May 12, 1972

FIELD MEMORANDUM NO. 195-72

TO: ALL REGIONAL MANPOWER ADMINISTRATORS

SUBJECT: Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector, A Pilot

Neighborhood Youth Corps Program

REFERENCES: Field Memorandums 183-71, 179-72

1. Purpose. To provide instructions for the continuation and expansion

of the Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector (VEPS) program along

with the 1972-73 VEPS guidelines (See Attachment I).

2. Background. VEPS orginated in summer 1971 as a one-year pilot program

for Neighborhood Youth Corps (NYC) summer and in-school enrollees (See Field

Memorandum 183-71 for the 1971-72 guidelines). The program was a joint

effort between the Department of Labor, the Office of Education, and the

National Alliance of Businessmen. Nine of these projects are in operation.

3. Action Required.

a. Regional Manpower Administrators (RMAs) may offer the 1972-73 VEPS

program to the following nine cities which operated the 1971-72 VEPS program:

Region I - Haverhill and Lawrence, Massachusetts; Region III - Norfolk,

Virginia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Region V - Columbus, Ohio and Flint,

Michigan; Region VI - Fort Worth, Texas; Region VIII - Salt Lake City, Utah;

Region IX - San Bernadino, California. In addition, REAR in Regions I, III,

V, VI, VIII, IX and D.C. MA may offer the program to one other city per region,

and RMAs in II, IV, VII, and X may offer the program to two cities per region.

RMAs should give preference to a city which has an expressed interest in operating a VEPS program.

b. Field Memorandum 179-72 provides reporting instructions for the

summer phase of VEPS as we.,1 as other NYC summer models. These instructions

pm well as form MA 5 -94 should be issued to all summer sponsors.

4. Program Funding. The VEPS slots for the summer portion of the progra

must be reserved from the NYC summer slots which have already been allocated.

VEPS slots for the in-school phase must be funded from the NYC FY '73 inschool allocation or from FY '72 carry forward funds. No separate funds will

- 506 -
be provided for the VEPS program. The Office of Education will not be

involved in the 1972-73 VEPS program; therefore, RMAs must arrange to provide funds for the VEPS program team which will work exclusively with VEPS

enrollees (See guidelines).

5. Inquiries. Any questions concerning this Field Memorandum or requests

for technical assistance should be directed to the Chief, Division of Work

Experience Programs at (202) 961-2803.

6. Expiration Date. June 30, 1973.

HAROLD O. BUZZELL

Deputy Manpower Administrator

Attachment
Attachment I to FM No. 195-72

1972-73 Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector Guidelines

Purpose and Objectives

Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector (VEPS) isa pilot Neighborhood

Youth Corps (NYC) Summer and In-School program in which NYC enrollees are

provided on a year-round basis with work experience at private sector worksites as well as an intensified orientation session, career exploration

sessions, counseling, and remediation if needed. VEPS is not an additional

program to NYC, but provides the NYC project director with the alternative

of placing his NYC enrollees in private sector worksites rather than confining placement to the public sector.

Tne objectives of VEPS are: to reduce the high school drop-out rate, to

provide disadvantaged students with skills enabling them upon graduation

from high school to move on to further education or a job in the private

sector, and to help disadvantaged students experience achievement and learn

the value of education and training as preparation for the world of work.

Administrative Structure and Staff

1. The NYC project will have administrative and program responsibility for

the VEPS program.

2. NYC will establish a program team to work exclusively with the VEPS program.

3. It is suggested that the VEPS program team be composed of a counselor,

a vocational specialist, and a job developer-counselor. This staff should

generally be adequate for 80-100 youth, with the program team/enrollee ratio

being approximately 1:30. A counselor-job developer and a vocational specialist would be adequate for 50-70 youth. One member should be designated as

project coordinator.

4. Where NYC is not sponsored by the school system, the NYC project director will assist the program team in gaining access to school system personnel

and records in order to identify eligible youth (See Selection of Youth).

Selection of Youth

1. VEPS is a summer/in-school program, therefore, enrollees who begin the

VEPS program in the summer must be enrolled in the 1972-73 in-school program so they may continue in VEPS during the school year.

2. Utilizing NYC enrollees who are presently in the in-school program or

who have been recruited for the summer program, the program team will develop

a list of youth who are at least 16 years of age.

- 508 -
3. Through consultation with the school officials, the program team should

determine which enrollees on the list are probable dropouts according to

such criterion as academic achievement, attendance records, disciplinary

action, evidence of indifference, and reading difficulty.

4. Of these enrollees, the program team should determine those who are

interested and rank them, placing those with the greatest school problems at

the top of the list. This step will necessarily be subjective and some

flexibility should be encouraged to reflect special family or personal problems.

5. Enrollees who participated in the 1971-72 VEPS program may be reenrolled

in the 1972-73 program if the program team determines that reenrollment would

be beneficial for the individual student. If a youth is reenrolled in VEPS,

he may not be placed with any of his previous VEPS employers. New VEPS

enrollees, however, will only be allowed to participate for a one year period.

Therefore, prior to selection of VEPS enrollees, the program team should make

clear to eligible youth that VEPS is only a one year program.

6. After the youth are ranked, selection should be made, taking those students at the top of the list first and moving down the list.

7. When sufficient youth have been selected to meet the program level, an

additional fifteen enrollees should be identified as a reserve to replace

any enrollees terminated from the program. These youth should receive the

same counseling Etna orientation program as the other VEPS enrollees, but

should be placed in regular NYC jobs until any original VEPS enrollees are

terminated from the program.

Job Development

1. The program team will be responsible for job development. Cooperation

with the National Alliance of Businessmen (NAB) is essential when approaching large employers. In addition, coordination with the local employment

service office is encouraged to facilitate job development.

2. The program team will rely on NAB to provide local publicity, disseminate informaticu an the program, and provide initial access to NAB employers.

Additional help should be obtained from the Chamber of Commerce, professional

groups, trade organizations, and local ES staff.

3. If employers express an interest in the program to NAB, the inquiries

should be referred to the program team so that they can arrange for a full

explanation of the program to the employer.

4. Job development for the program will concentrate on smaller employers

(50 or fewer employees) who can:

a. provide two separate work experiences or job stations, one during

the summer phase and the other during the in-school phase.

b. provide a wide variety of job activities, and

- 50g -
c. guarantee the close supervision necessary for training.

Only secondary emphasis should be given to soliciting large blocks of job

stations with large employers, although this source should not be ignored.

5. NYC will pay 100 percent of enrollee wages during a 60 hour orientation

program and, thereafter, only 50 percent, with employers financing the other

50 percent of wages for all hours worked or spent in vocational exploration,

counseling, and remediation sessions. Note: This 50-50 split of enrollee

wages reflects the following factors:

a. employers will have increased supervisory duties

b. enrollees will need to be trained in each job assignment

c. enrollees will have a greater incidence of problems than regular

employees

d. enrollees will only be permitted to work part-time during the

school year

e. enrollees will typically have lower rates of productivity than

regular employees due to their part-time employment and lack of skill

and experience

f. a continual 50-50 split will ease those administrative problems

which might preclude smaller employers from participating.

6. A small number (5-10) of reserve work stations should be developed to

be utilized in the event any employer withdraws from the program or is found

to be unsuitable.

Pre-job Orientation

1. The program team will conduc'. "world-of-work" orientation and begin vocational exploration in the initial 60 hours of the program.

2. The sessions will generally be phased as follows:

a. Week One--World-of-Work Orientation and Vocational Exploration

b. Week Two--Continued Vocational Exploration and Determination of

Job Interests and Skills

c. Week Three--Correlation of Interest and Skills with Available Jobs

and Re-emphasis on Necessary Job Attitudes and Responsibilities

Counselors should have the flexibility to delay some referrals beyond the

60 hour orientation.

3. Job referrals will be conducted during the secotd and third week.

Responsibilities of Private Sector Employers

1. Identify private sector training and work experience positions for VEPS

enrollees.

- 510 -
2. Provide two work experiences or job stations (one during the summer

phase and one during the in-school phase), provide a wide variety of job

activities, and guarantee close supervision necessary for training.

3. Provide their regular orientation given for all employees, including

a company tour and a discussion of the interrelationships between various

jobs in the company.

4. Designate personnel who will devote sufficient time to training and

working with enrollees, in cooperation with he program team.

5. Companies must assure that participation of enrollees will not result

in the displacement of employed workers or result in the substitution of

these enrollees for regular workers who would normally be hired.

6. Agree to the terms of enrollee payment outlined in item 5 under Job

Development.

7. Comply with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and pertinent State or local laws regarding the training and employment of youth.

8. Execute a Letter of Agreement with the program team covering the above

responsibilities and agree not to hire for full-time employment any enrollees

entering this program until they have graduated from high school.

9. Ir the event that a VEPS occupation is covered by a bargaining agreement

within the employer's establishment, the employer must indicate that he has

discussed the program with the appropriate Largaining agency and has the concurrence of the agency as to the on-the-job training, and rates of pay associated therewith.

Responsibilities of VEPS Enrollees

When selected but prior to assignment to a private sector company, enrollees

shall agree to the following:

1. Maintain at least a passing grade in school year courses.

2. Work to the best of their ability in school and on-the-job.

3. Abide by the basic procedures governing this program as established

by the program team and the employer.

4. Consult their counselors on a regular basis as determined by the

program team.

On-Going Counseling and Employer Contact

1. The counselor and / :, job-developer counselor on the program team have

the primary responsibility for on-going counseling and employer contact.

2. The counadior(s) augmented by the vocational specialist should be able

to work effectively with the youth and their employers.

- 511 - 5
3. Contacts with the enrollees should be made at school, work and with

their families at home or in group meetings. Parental support should be

secured early in the program.

4. Contacts with the employers will be initiated to deal with such items as:

a. Enrollee Performance

b. Time Records and Payroll

c. Types of Job Assignments

d. Emerging Problems

5. 'Counselors will also need to determine whether rear :Isibilities outlined

in the section on Responsibilities of Private Sector En,:y;-ers are carried

out.

6. It should be expected that the counselors will have to et . vith various

crisis situations relating to the llee's job, academic family

situations.

7. Counselors should attempt to severe transpar-erAcl

through job placement near school and hn., assistance in wvrig public csschool transportation, arranging car poqa, tc. Counselors should avoid

creating situations in which the enroth-.L1 tecomes dependent upon the e..off

for work transportation.

8. Counselors will determine whether enrollees should be transferred to

other employers and if transfers are neceasery whether employers will remain

in the program.

9. If an enrollee terminates his employment*., the counselors will attempt

to replace the youth to avoid penalizing an employer for his efforts in

working with the program.

On-going Vocational Exploration

1. The vocational specialist's primary resronsibility will be to implement

a special, on-going program of eraser exploration which is independent of

the regular scho'i curriculum.

2. Generally, '.41.13 program will be conducted in NYC ricilities or the

schools as local conditions dictate, although employe of several youth may

provide their qt iaciliti a.

3. The exploration program may utilize a variety of techniques but should

include field trips and outside speakers Small group sessions with maximum

youth participation have been effective in th,! past.

4. The vocational specialist will also devote his efforts toward:

a. arranging school schedules to allow foi work

b. matching school subjects and fob assignment to enrollee s interest

- 512 -
c. attempting to arrange acadewic credit for the work experi .ce obtained through the program.

5. I; aeeded, remediation should be provided to VEPS enrollees.

6. A bi-weekly session of at least four hours for counseling, remediation

and vocational exploration is required. (Note: The nployers will be

required to pay 50 percent of the enrollees' wages fur these sessions).

Implementation Assistance

1. A "Model for Implementing the Revisad Guidelines for VEPS" is being

developed and will be distributed subsequently. The model will contain,

among other items, suggested materials for orientation and career exploration sessions.

2. Inquiries concerning VEPS should be directed to the appropriate regional

office.

Timing of Program Elements

While the following timing has

gram implementation follow the

some flexibility, it is recommended that proschedule as closely as practicable.

May 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Hire or identify program team

NAB publif.ity and weetings

Select youth

Begin :lob development

Program team develops internal

administrative arrangements

Program tea:!: develops curriculum for

orientation seestions

June First week 7. Orientacion curriculum finalized

8. Job development finished

Second week 9. Youth begin orientation

Third week 10. Orientation continues and referrai-,-:

begin

Fourth week 11. Referrals of c.rollees completed and

orientat'on ends

July and August 12. Full time training lnd work experience

for enrollees

13. On-going career ex?loration begins

14. On-going counseling and employer

contact

September - June 15. 15 hour per week in-schoo" segment of

work experience and training

16. Career exploration zontinues

17. Counseling and employer contact u0ntinues

513

556.
Cost Breakdown Per Enrollee

Hours NYC Share of Wage Per enrollee

DOL cost

Orientation 60 $1.60 (100%) $ 96.00

Full-time summer phase 400 .80 (50%) 320.00

Full-time in-school phase 585 .80 (50%) 468.00

$884.00

It is recommended that: the 60 hour orientation period be spread over a three

week period (15 days) at 4 hours per day, the full-time summer phase be spread

over a ten week period (50 days) at 8 hours per day and the full-time in-school

phase be spread over a thirty-nine week period (195 days) at 3 hours per day.

No allowance will be made for business holidays. Enrollees could work more

hours during their school vacations.

Reporting Requirements

Form MA 5-94, with accompanying instructions, is being issued to all NYC

summer sponsors. The number of VEPS enrollees who participate one or more

months must be listed by work assignment in line A.1 of form MA 5-94. This

form must be submitted at the conclusion of the summer program attached to

the final Form BWTP-9 3 Form MA 5-6A.
APPENDIX C

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Manpower Administration

Washington, D. C. 'J010

In reply refer

to MDTW

August 24, 1973

FIELD MEMORANDUM NO. 255-73

TO: ALL ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTORS FOR MANPOWER

SUBJECT: NYC Enrollee Placement in the Private Sector

REFERENCES: FM's 183-71 and 195-72; MAO 8-73

1. Purpose. To provide guidelines for placing Neighborhood Youth Corps

(NYC) In-School, Summer, and Out-of-School enrollees at private-forprofit worksites.

2. Background. In June 1971, the Manpower Administration implemented

a pilot program, Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector (VEPS), in

which NYC In-School and Summer enrollees were rotated through worksite

assignments in the private sector. This pilot program has operated in

approximately 23 cities with mixed success. Two of the cities were

granted permission to implement the program in the Out-of-School component.

Manpower Administration Order 8-73 indicates that placement of enrollees

at private-for-profit worksites will be allowed pending new guidelines

to be issued within 60 days. These new guidelines (see attached) allow

more flexibility to regions and sponsors than did the previous VEPS guidelines (FMB 183-71 and 195-72). However, regional offices may retain the

VEPS guidelines in part or in their entirety, or may use them as a model.

3. Action Required. The Code of Federal Regulations must be amended

prior to implementation of the new guideline ". It is expected that this

will be accomplished in about 6 weeks. As soon as this process is completed, ARDM's will be notified that they may execit,e contract modifications to allow for placement of NYC enrollees at private-for-profit worksites in accordance with the attached guidelines, if it is determined

that such modifications will make new or existing programs or projects

more effective.

- 515 -

4
4. Implementation Assistance. The Center for Urban Programs at St.

Louis University has been under contract with the Department since 1971

for the purpose of monitoring/analyzing the VEPS program. Based on their

experience with VEPS, they will be developing a model with ideas for

implementing a program to effectively place enrollees at private-forprofit worksites. It is expected that this model will be available early

this fall.

5. Inquires. Any questions concerning this Field Memo may be directed

to Ms. Wendy Lipton at (202) 961-3766.

6. Expiration Date. Continuing.

PIERCE QUINLAN

Director

Office of Field Coordination

Attachment
Attachment to FM 255-73

GUIDELINES

Enrollees may be placed at a private-for-profit worksite for up to 1000

hours of work experience provided that the following guides are adhered

to:

1. After 500 hours at the worksite, the enrollee will be rotated to a

new work/training experience. For example, if an enrollee is placed at

a dry cleaning store, the enrollee might spend the first 500 hours receiv -.

ing training/work experience as a cashier, and the second 500 hours receiving training /work experience as a machine operator.

An enrollee may not be trained in any field in which after a short demonstration, the enrollee would be productive. To determine occupations

of this sort, you should refer to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

Any occupation whose Specific Vocational Preparation time is listed at

level 1 would be inappropriate for NYC enrollees.

2. The wages which the enrollee receives will be shared on a 50/50 basis

between the employer and the NYC sponsor. The sharing may be for time

spent in work experience only, or if the employer agrees, for the total

enrollee participation time in the project, including orientation, career

counseling, remedial education, etc.

3. After the 1000 hours with one employer is completed, the enrollee

can e=ther (a) be picked up by the employer entirely on his payroll (hence

terminated from the vogram), or (b) be placed rtth another employer t'lr

new training.

4. Companies with whom enrollees are placed must assure that participation of enrollees will not result in the displacement of employed workers

or result in the substitution of these enrollees for regular workers who

would normally be hired.

5. Companies must comply with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and pertinent State or local laws regarding the training and

employment of youth.

6. In the event that an occupation in which an NYC enrollee is being

trained is covered by a bargaining agreement with a company's establishment, the company must indicate that it has discussed the program with the

appropriate bargaining agency and has the concurrence of the agency as

to the on-the-job training, and rates of pay associated therewith.

517 5
The following recommended practices should, if possible, be incorporated:

1. Pre-placement orientation should be provided by the sponsor. Areas

covered might include world of work orientation (job attitudes, dress,

responsibilities), career exploration 'sessions, determination of job

interests and skills, and correlation of interest and skills with available jobs.

2. Career counseling and exploration activities are encouraged and should

be provided by the sponsor and the employer on an on-going basis. Exploration activities might include field trips and outside speakers.

3. To avoid duplication of effort, sponsors should be encouraged to

coordinate their worksite development activities with the National Alliance

of Businessmen.

4. In-School and Summer NYC sponsors should also be encouraged to establish a linkage with the school's vocational or work experience division

to assist in the development of a career counseling/cl,loration curriculum,

etc. An effort should be made to enroll youth into the private sector

NYC program who would not ordinarily be eligible for the school's regular

vocational or work experience program.

5. Companies should be encouraged to:

a. Identify private sector training and work experience positions

for NYC enrollees.

b. Provide two work experience/training positions (or job stations),

a wide variety of job activities, and guarantee close supervision

necessary for training.

c. Provide their regular orientation given for all employees,

including a company tour and a discussion of the interrelationships

between various jobs in the company.

d. Designate personnel who will devote sufficient time to training

and working with enrollees.

e. Agree to the terms of enrollee payment as stipulated in Item 2.

f. Agree not to hire any In-School or Summer NYC enrollees for fulltime employment until they have graduated from high school (this does

not apply to Out -of- School enrollees).

g. Execute a Letter of Agreement with the NYC sponsor covering the

above responsibilities.

- 518 -
LONGITUDINAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE

1971-72 VOCATIONAL EXPLORATION IN THE

PRIVATE SECTOR PROGRAM

Donald P. Sprengel and

E. Allan Tomey

John T. Manns

George D. Wendel
PART I

INTRODUCTION TO VEPS

As outlined in U.S. Department of Labor Field Memorandum No. 92-71

(March 19, 1971) and detailed in Fieli Memorandum No. 183-71 (May 14, 1971)

the U.S. Department of Labor, the National Alliance of Businessmen (NAB),

and the Office of Education of HEW cooperated in the development and eemonstration of a full year pilot program "Vocational Exploration in the ?rivate

Sector" (VEPS) for Neighborhood Youth Corps in-school youth. The tine

frame cf the experimental program was June 1, 1971 to June 30, 1977..

A. Description of the First Year VEPS Program (VEPS -I)

As described in Field Memorandum No. 183-71, the year-long VEPS-I

program was designed for eleventh grade, 16 year old Neighborhood Youth

Corps, in- school youth who could be identified as probable dropouts. Originally, fourteen cities were targeted for VEPS-I, but four sites were unable to initiate programs: Two cities -- Columbus, Georgia and Portland,

Oregon -- terminated VEPS-I after the summer phase. The cities that completed the program were: Columbus, Ohio; Flint, Michigan; Fort Worth,

Texas; Lawrence and Haverhill, Massachusetts; Norfolk, Virginia; Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania; Salt Lake City, Utah; and San Bernardino, California. Developed by the U.S. Department of Labor and the National Alliance of Businessmen (NAB), joined by the U.S. Office of Education of HEW, the program

provided career exploration and training opportunities that, hopefully,

would result in reduction of high school dropouts and the flow of untrained,

unskilled youth into the labor market. Primary emphasis was to be given

to the development of training and career exploration opportunities in

order to provide enrollees with the widest possible exposure to the world

of work. Training assignments were to be related directly to the interests

and capabilities of enrollees in concert with their educational goals.

The major components of VEPS were as follows:

(1) Counseling and Remediation. This component was to provide enrollees

with the motivation and basic educational skills needed to function effectively in a work environment. Remedial needs were to be determined and assistance r_adered accordingly. Counseling assistance was to be provided at

work, in school, and at home.

(2) Orientation. This component was to provide enrollees with a basic

grasp of the demands placed on the individual in the world of work, work

attitudes and habits, an awareness of that participating company's activities

and company facilities, and an explication of the enrollees' primary objectives while in the program and the company's interest in the program.

(3) Career Exploration. This component was to provide tha opportunity

for enrollees to broaden their perspective of the panorama of jubs in the

world of work, to observe others in a work environment, to discuss with

permanent employees the training and education needed for job success, to

understand the rewards arising from employment, and to learn of the possibilities of upward mobility in a given skill.

520.
(4) Non-Productive On-The-Job Training. This component involved close

supervision of youth enrollees as they developed work habits and basic job

skills and the application of those learned skills in the actual work environment. This component was entirely non-productive on-the-job training

at private sector worksites.

(5) Productive Work Experience. This program component provided actual

work experience in production of marketable goods and services with wages

paid entirely by the employer. (See details below concerning "Employer

Phase.")

The first four components listed above represented program activities

conducted when wages were paid to enrollees from NYC sponsor funds--referred to hereafter as "NYC Phase." The fifth component constituted the

"Employer Phase" with wages paid entirely by the private sector. The full

year VEPS program had three segments (summer, first school semester, and

second school semester), each of which had an "NYC Phase" and an "Employer

Phase" during the weeks designated below.

Segment

Summer

12 weeks (39 hours per week)

First School Semester

19 weeks (15 hours per week)

Secon:. School Semester

19 weeks (15 hours ?er week)

NYC Phase Employer Phase

Weeks 1-6 Weeks 7-12

Weeks 1-15 Weeks 16-19

Weeks 1-10 Weeks 11-19

At the start of each segment, the enrollee was to move to a new work

station either at his present employer or with another employer. At the conclusion of the program each enrollee was to have had three separate VEPS

work experiences.

Youth participants in the VEPS program were to be recruited by NYC

sponsors; potential emmllees were to be in-school youth at least 16 years

of age who were economically disadvantaged as defined by NYC guidelines.

Candidates were to be referred to special high school counselors for certification that the students would be 11th graders in September, 1971, and

that they were "probable dropouts."

The special Lligh school counselors assigned to the program were funded

by the U.S. Office of Education. Counselors were to be selected for their

interest in aiding the disadvantaged rather than objective counseling

credentials, except where State regulations or union agreements required

fully credentialed counselors. They were to devote full time to the enrollee's

remediation, counseling, and career exploration needs and interests. A

counselor-enrollee ratio of 1:20 was to be maintained wherever possible.

Counselors would contact and observe enrollees nt their private sector worksites and at school, and would assist NYC spor7,rs and companies in deileloping and operating several program components.

Work sites for enrollees were to be identified and selected by NAB metro

offices; criteria for participating private sector companies included a demonstrated interest in training and employing'in-school youth, and a capability

- 521 -

b
for training youth personnel. The program was to be designed so as to provide each enrollee three separate and distinct work experiences either within the same company or in different companies over the course of one year.

As conditions for participation in the program, a company was to agree to

the following:

(1) Provide, at its own cost, necessary staff, space, equipment, supplies

and access to the principal worksites;

(2) Make these resources available to enrollees and high school counselors; and

(3) Absorb the salaries of enrollees when each "NYC Phase" terminated.

Additional responsibilities of private sector participants under terms

of the program included: (a) identification of training and employment positions; (b) development of orientation and career exploration curricula with

local NYC and school officials; (c) allocation of supervisory personnel to

training and work with enrollees; (d) development of procedures governing

payrolls during training periods where the employer bears the full cost of

the enrollee's salary; and (e) designation of a company coordinator to assist

the NYC sponsor and high school counselor in developing program curriculums

and schedules.

In addition to the recruitment and referral of youth functions, NYC

sponsors were responsible for program administration including record keeping, paying NYC wages to enrollees, maintaining liaison with company coordinators and high school counselors, working with the metro NAB youth director

to provide for joint monitoring, and establishing a program review committee.

B. Program Objectives of VEPS

The program objectives of VEPS were comparable to those of the regular

NYC in-school program. Briefly stated, these objectives were:

(1) To provide youth with the incentive to remain in school and earn

a high school diploma -- The VEPS project was designed for probable high

school dropouts. The incentive to remain in school was to be provided by

intensive counseling, remediation, and work experience components that would

demonstrate the need for and value of education.

(2) To facilitate the smooth transition upon high school graduation

into the full-time work force -- Utilizing private sector work sites with

three separate work experiences, coupled with career exploration, the VEPS

program sought to provide a broader and more transferable NYC work experience

by using private rather than public sector work sites.

(3) To provide youth with part-time employment while in school -- A

major objective c" VEPS-I was for employers to continue employing enrollees

on a full-time b. 's during the summer following the initial program year

and on a part -tint. basis during the enrollees' high school senior year.

Upon graduation, it was hoped that the enrollees would be employed by the

participating company as a regular full-time employee or by another employer

seeking labor skills possessed by the enrollees.

- 522 - 51-1
(4) To dramatize the r. I' for and utility of a sound high school education for success in the world of work -- Through example, experience and

counseling it was hoped that enrollees could draw linkages between the op - portuntties provided through formal education with the requirements for

employability in the private sector.

C. The Role of the Center for Urban Programs, Saint Louis University

The Center for Urban Programs (CUP) at Saint Louis University was under

contract (Number 82-29-71-34) to the U.S. Department of Labor to monitoranalyze the experimental Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector (VEPS)

program. Under terms of the contract CUP had the following general responsibilities:

il) Compare and document alternative approaches for establishing and

operating the several program components;

(2) Provide periodic feedback to the Department of Labor regarding program operations and problems;

(3) Analyze the broad first year VEPS experience to: (a) assess whether

there were outcomes which might support continuing VEPS in its second year;

and (b) develop an improved VEPS design and guidelines for use in Summer 1972

and thereafter; and

(4) Assess the immediate impact of VEPS-I on the participating youth

and agencies.

CUP monitored the VEPS-I program and collected enrollee impact data in

eight of the nine participating cities. Periodic reports were submitted to

the Division of Experimental Operations Research of the Department of Labor.

An assessment report was prepared in January, 1972, which contained a re- liminary estimate of impact on VEPS-I enrollees and recommended guidelines

for a second program year. The experience during the first year of the VEPS

program has been detailed by the Center for Urban Programs in Vocational

Exploration in the Private Sector: Fine -eport and Assessment 1971-72. In

addition, a program model containing guidelines and implementation suggestions

for the second year of VEPS (VEPS-II) was distributed in Spring, 1972 (Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector: Model for Implementing the 1972-73

Guidelines) to assist those programs operating during the 1972-73 school year.

The duration of the first year study of the VEPS program was insufficient

to determine whether long term VEPS-I program objectives had been met. The

study ended with the completion of the program year. Thus, contract termination prevented analysis of specific questions relating to high school graduation and future labor market participation. Most of the VEPS-I enrollees

were in their junior year during the program year and would not move into

the full-time labor force until the summer of 1973. Ultimately, the disposition cf students leaving high school was the fundamental question which had

to be answered through further analysis.

Effective assessment of VEPS-I dictated the need for a longitudinal

study to compare changes in enrollee academic performance, attendance, high

school graduation/dropout rates, and absorption infl the labor force. For

example, the goal of moving enrollees into labor force could only be

- 523 -

0 .
measured at a point in time two years after the VEPS-I program was initiated.

Therefore, CUP needed to track VEPS-I e:xollees through the program year,

the summer following, the senior year, and into the summer following their

anticipated graduation.

Other goals, such as improved academic performance, also had long term

implications. Presumably, students whose grades were improving would be

more interested in staying in school and, at the same time, be in a better

position to complete the necessary credits for graduation. In short, longitudinal study was required to assess the extent to which VEPS-I goals were

Achieved over time.

The lorgItudinal tracking of only VEPS-I enrollees was incapable of

assessing tne ignificance of the program due to other possible intervening

variables; use of a control group was also required. The objectives of

VEPS-I constituted the variables to be considered. Operationalization of

those variables provided the data sets for the analysis and assessment of

outcomes. While it may be suggested that more complex indicators could

be used, the goals of VEPS regarding the target group of NYC eligible,

probable dropouts required simple outcome data.

The existence of records and other information on a group of regular

NYC enrollees suggested the availability of a control group. Although this

group was not selected in advance (because CUP's first grant was merely to

monitor the first year program), the existence of NYC records made the

selection relatively easy; in consultation with the Department of Labor

four control group cities were chosen: Columbus, Flint, Pittsburgh, and

San Bernardino. Although methodological purity would prefer control group

selection at the commencement of the program and late selection did cause

some comparability problems (See Part II of this report), the use of a pretest, post-test with control group experimental design was nonetheless

feasible.

Encouraged by the possibilities of the longitudinal study, the Center

for Urban Programs drafted a proposal for the Department of Labor. As a

result the Center received financial support under Grant Number 42-29-72-07.

The Grant was made in order to enable the Center to pursue the questions

raised concerning the longitudinal impact of the VEPS-I program. As noted

above, these questions relate to the long term effects of the first year

program, especially with respect to basic programmatic goals. At the time

of the award it was assumed that the NYC Program would be in operation

during the 1973-74 school year.

Under the terms of the grant the Center for Urban Programs was to perform the following tasks: (1) monitor the implementation of the VEPS-II

program and prepare a revised implementation manual (See Youth Training

in the Private Sector: A Model for Implementation, June, 1974); (2) compare the VEPS-I and VEPS-II experiences (See Vocational Exploration in the

Private Sector: Final Report and Assessment, 1972-73; Comparison of Impact

of the Pilot and Second Experimental Years, July, 1974); and (3) determine

the extent to which the VEPS-I program attained its several objectives through

longitudinal analysis and the utilization of a control group of regular NYC

eurollees. This report, the last in the series of VEPS documentation, deals

with this third task.

- 324 -

r7k

tJ
Part II of this report sets forth the research methodology employed

in the longitudinal study and gives special attention to the selection of the

control group as well as its comparability to the VEPS-I group. Part III of

the report analyzes programmatic outcomes for the VEPS-I enrollees only, giving special attention to employability patterns at several cross-sections in

time. Part IV assesses programmatic outcomes in comparison to "-he control

group; statistical measures of significance are utilized to Are differences.

Section V contains summary observations.
PART II

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The experience and knowledge gained from having monitored and assessed

both the VEPS-I and VEPS-II programs permitted the Center for Urban Programs to adopt a relatively simple research design. Information posited

as necessary to specify characteristics of enrollees and assess programmatic outcomes based on stated goals was collected as described below.

Pertinent enrollee demographic, family history and employment data were

obtained from NYC-16 intake forms and school records. Survey instruments

or interviews were employed where such forms were missihg or otherwise

not available. Outcome data were derived from intervirfs with VEPS project directors and individual counselors. For each of the enrollees records

were obtained on academic performance, employability and general behavior.

Academic impact data were obtained through access to the school records of

the individual. Complete confidentiality was assured and maintained throughout the data collection and analysis. Both employment and academic impact

variables were correlated with an array of demographic, family history,

and work experience variables in order to reveal commonalities among various categorizations of enrollees.

While the results of these analyses left the unmistakable impression

that the VEPS experience had significant short and medium term impact upon

the enrollees, the monitoring of both VEPS-I and VEPS-II did not permit

answers to two vital questions:

(1) Although short term influence can be assessed, what is the long

term influence of the VEPS experience upon the enrollee in terms of academic performance and transition into the full-time labor force?

(2) Are favorable outcomes among VEPS enrollees significantly different from those of regular summer and in-school NYC enrollees? Can any

difference be attributed to the VEPS experience?

A. Experimental Research Design

To answer these questions, a standard pre-test, post-test with control

group experimental design with multiple post-test observations was adopted.

Graphically depicted, the research design may be presented as follows:

01 X 02, 03, 04 Experimental (VEPS-I) Group

05 06 07 Control (Regular NYC) Group

in which the symbols have the following data and group designations:

01 represents academic performance in the 1970-71 academic year and

then current information on demographic profiles and family history;
X represents the experimental VEPS year (1971-72);

02 represents academic performance in the 1971-72 academic year; employment status during the summer of 1972, and'related data;

03 represents employment activity and academic status during the 1972-

73 academic (senior) year;

04 represents final 1972-73 academic year performance, graduation/

dropout rates, and employability status;

05 represents control group information comparable to 01 for the experimental (VEPS-I) group;

06 represents comparable control group information to 03;

07 represents comparable control group information to 04.

The utilization of this design permits resolution of the questions

raised above; it also provides longitudinal impact tracks for the VEPS-I

enrollees concentrating on outcome variables and permits comparison to a

control group of NYC enrollees along comparable dimensions. The design

is an effective control for the intervention and influence -a-exogenous

and intervening variables (assuming comparability between experimental

and control groups), so that any significant differences in the academic

performance or outcome variables may be attributed to the VEPS experience.

B. Selection of the Control Group

To implement the analysis design it was necessary to select a control

group of approximately comparable size and characteristics to the VEPS-I

experimental group. Since eight programs were intensively monitored during the VEPS-I program year and enrollee data for 1970-71 and 1971-72 were

already collected, the selection of program sites in which to choose control groups became somewhat easier. Randomization among all enrollees in

the'eight programs would have required extensive travel and, given the

problems cited below, would have been impossible in some cases. The design thus called for the selection of control groups in only four of the

eight programs.

The criteria originally suggested to select the control group in each

of the four cities were multiple and complex. The following itemization

is based on the VEPS youth selection guidelines:

1. Control group youth had to be sixteen years of age and rising

juniors in high school as of September 1, 1971;

2. They must have participated in the summer 1971 and in-school

1971-72 NYC program;

3. They should be identified as "probable dropouts;"

4. They must have been in school as of June, 1972; and

- 527 - 5
5. They must not have participated in all or any part of the VEPS

programmatic experience.

Youth selection in VEPS-I mandated sixteen year old rising juniors

who were probable dropouts; thus the control group should have had the

same criteria for selection. However, as was noted in the VEPS-I final

report,* adherence to these guidelines was not uniform among cities or

consistent within cities. While a large majority of the VEPS enrollees

met these criteria, large numbers did not. Consequently, when control

groups were drawn, youth had to be included who did not meet all the formal program criteria in order to provide comparability between the two

groups.

Related to this problem was an insufficiency in the size of the universe from which to select the control groups, especially in those cities

where selection criteria were rigorously followed. Since the VEPS program had mandated certain demographic characteristics for enrollees, selection of VEPS youth from the pool of NYC enrollees reduced the size of the

universe from which to select a control group. For example, if Flint,

Michigan, enrolled sixty-two youth who met the age and academic year criteria flr VEPS selection, the number of youth not selected who met the

program (and thus control group) criteria would be substantially reduced.

The number of subjects available for the control group was further

reduced by the requirement that the youth have been in both the summer

and in-school NYC program during the VEPS experimental year; the sharply

reduced size of in-school NYC programs thus acted to reduce the pool available for a control group. Finally, if VEPS personnel had carefully selected only those youth who, having met age and academic year criteria, were

also probable dropouts, it would have been numerically and conceptually

impossible to form a representative control group. Presumably, a number

of youtl. who were not "probable dropouts" wouli have to be selected for

the control group, thereby inhibiting direct outcome comparisons.

In summary, the pool of eligible control group youth available to

thereseardh team was considerably reduced by the fact that (1) the VEPS

program had consumed a substantial proportion of the youth who met the

selection criteria, (2) the youth had to remain in. school during the VEPS

year, and (3) the youth had to participate in both summer and in- school

NYC programs.

Original procedures in selecting the control group were modified in

light of the above problems. Initially, a case by case search of the

1971-72 NYC records was made, and a list of youth who met the selection

criteria was compiled. If the resulting list was more than five percent

below the required sample size, then a second list of youth was compiled

uoing the same criteria with the exception of in- school NYC participation.

If this modification also failed to attain the requisite number of youth,

then cases were selected who were not rising juniors. Selection of these

latter cases is justified by the fact that VEPS programs also included

*Center for Urban Programs, Vocational Exploration in the Private

Sector; Final Report end Assessment, 1971-72.
youth other than rising juniors. All youth who met the original selection criteria were included in the sample, and a systematic random sample

of the other list(s) was used to draw a number sufficient to equal the

desired size. Similar procedures were followed in cities which had not

rigorously applied selection guidelines.

Where the initial listing was within five percent of the desired

quota, then the entire group was absorbed. Finally, where the initial

list was greater than five percent over the desired number, a systematic

random sample was then drawn.

The choice of cities from which to select control groups was made on the basis of the following criteria: (1) potential existence of a large enough pool of in-school NYC enrollees so that a wnple could be drawn;

(2) ready access to school records and NYC counselors; (3) reasonable

assurance of the cooperation of the VEPS staff and the school system,

especially during follow-up; and (4) subjective judgments based on individual VEPS program designs. The four programs selected for control groups

are: Columbus, Ohio; Flint, Michigan; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and San

Bernardino, California.

C. Experimental and Control Group Comparability

The sampling procedures for drawing the control group yielded 151

cases that, in aggregate, are reasonably comparable to the VEPS experimental group. In order to obtain a control group of adequate size, it

ultimately proved necessary to deviate from the original, ideal design

and to oversample in some cities to offset undersampling in others. Consequently, when the VEPS and control groups are compared, variations cah

be found.

A number if non -parametic statistical tests were used to determine

whether differences between the VEPS and control groups were within tolerable limits, given the sampling problems mentioned above. Although internal validity was tested several ways, the Chi squared test was deemed

easiest and most appropriate. In certain cases, classes were collapsed

to ensure valid use of the test. ,wals of significance in comparing the

control group with both the total of all VEPS enrollees and the subtotal

from the four VEPS cities with controls are provided in the tables below.

Demographic comparability between the groups is shown in Table 1.

While little difference can be noted in terms of enrollee sex, significant variation can be found in age, school year, and ethnicity. The control group is somewhat younger than the VEPS group, and understandably,

this age differential is also reflected in school year (more underclassmen). The differential is due to two factors: the emphasis on sixteen

year olds in selecting the control group and the rejection of this criterion for selection in certain VEPS programs. The combination of these

factors, plus the fact that VEPS was geared to a relatively small universe,

results in highly significant distributional differences between the VEPS.

group and the control group in terms of age. Analysis routines consequently took cognizance of this differential, as explained below and in Part

IV of this report.
PART III

ASSESSMENT OF LONGITUDINAL IMPACT ON VEPS -I COMPLETERS

The VEPS-I program enrolled 431 youth in eight cities--Columbus, Ohio

(49); Flint, Michigan (62); Fort Worth, Texas (48); Haverhill (20) and Lawrence (33), Massachusetts; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (60); Salt Lake City,

Utah (99); and San Bernardino, California (60). Although Norfolk, Virginia,

also conducted a VEPS-I program, no systematic data were available on enrollees in that city. No follow-up data are available for Lawrence and

Haverhill. Almost two-thirds (63.1%, n = 272) completed the year long program. Of the completers, sixty-nine (25.4%) were seniors who graduated.

The 159 terminations (36.9%) included forty-two high school dropouts (9.7%

of the original group of enrollees and 26.4% of the terminations). The

descriptive analysis which follows concentrates on the VEPS-I completers

for the summer following the experimental year, their senior year in high

school, and the three-month period following graduation of their class.

Additional information on the experimental year outcomes may be found in

Center fir Urban Programs, Vocational Exploration in the Private Sector:

Final Report and Assessment, 1971-72. For a comparison of the VEPS-I and

VEPS-II programmatic outcomes, see Center for Urban Programs, Vocational

Exploration in the Private Sector: Final Report and Assessment, 1972-73;

selected comparative demographic and outcome data for the two program years

are reported in the Appendix.

Four separate data sets are utilized in this section--academic performance (grade point average and attendance) in the senior year, final

high school academic dipposition, employment patterns following the VEPS-I

experiment, and employment patterns following commencement of the high

school class. Statistical assessment of the significance of these longitudinal patterns in comparison to a control group of NYC enrollees is provided in Part IV of this report.

A. Academic Performance of the VEPS-I Completers

Among the several program objectives was a desire to enhance enrollee

awarenessof the need for, and value of, a high school education. Two indicators of program impact were available to assess the degree of program

success--grade point performance (G.P.A.) and attendance. Table 5 provides

a comparison of change in academic indicators for the VEPS-I experimental

year and the senior year following. The data base for the VEPS-I year was

the year ;receding (1970-1971); the data base for the senior year is the

VEPS-I year (1971-1972). Data for the senior year (1972-73) presumably

demonstrate the staying power of the VEPS-I impact, that is the degree to

which the VEPS experience continued to manifest itself in improving or

stabilizing grade point performance and attendance in school during the

senior year.

In terms of grade point average, the aggregate data reveal quite similar impacts. Although in terms of totals, slightly more youth declined
Table 5

Comparison of Change in Academic Indicators for the VEPS-I

and Senior Years for VEPS-I Completers

Academic Indicator VEPS -I

Year

Senior

Year

Grade Point Average Change (N) (254) (148)

Up 61.8% 56.8%

Same 2.8 2.7

Down 35.4 40.5

100.0% 100.0%

Summary Scale G.P.A. Change (N) (254) (148)

+1.26 or better 9.1% 6.1%

+0.76 to +1.25 12.2 12.2

+0.26 to 40.75 26.8 28.4

-0.25 to +0.25 28.3 31.8

-0.26 to -0.75 13.4 15.5

-0.76 to -1.25 7.5 3.4

-1.26 or worse 2.8 2.7

Attendance Change

Up

Same

Down

Summary Scale Attendance Change

+10 days or more

+4 to +9 days

-3 to +3 days

-4 to -9 days

-10 days or more

(N)

(N)

100.1%

(245)

49.8%

4.9

45.3

100.0%

(245)

26.5%

13.5

22.0

13.1

24.9

100.U%

100.1%

(129)

48.8%

3.2

48.0

100.0%

(129)

24.8%

17.8

21.7

14.0

21.7

100.0%
0 3 it

TABLE Do7 . CHARACTERISTICS OF VEPS WORK EXPERIENCE OF COMPLETERS, BY CITY

M11.11MmoMMEMIII1

VEPS

tEerig2LWorlt.Ft,LGeor.Las,

SIZE OF

Pitt. Pueb. SLC

VEPS-II VEPS-I

San B. Total Total

EMPLOYER (N) (78) (14) (18) (29) (41) (7) (13) (52) (16) (54) (62) (384) (261) 1-4 23.1% 78.6% 38.9% 6.9% 0,0% 14,3% 0.0% 11.5% 31.3% 44.4% 12.9% 21.3% 22.2%

5-9 16.7 0.0 27.8 27.6 36.6 28.6 0.0 7.7 31.3 14,8 17.7 18.5 28.0 10-19 10.3 14.3 16.7 44.8 26.8 14.3 0.0 28.8 12.5 22.2 32.3 22.7 13.8 20-29 15.4 7.1 0.0 13.8 24.4 14.3 0,0 21.2 6.3 5.6 9.7 12.8 6,5

30-49 9.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 7.7 6.3 9.3 12.9 7.5 7.7 50-99 2.6 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 28.6 0.0 13.5 6.3 3.7 4.8 4.9 10.7 100 or More 23.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 100,0 9.6 6,3 0.0 9.7 12.2 11.1

WORK

EXPERIENCE (N) (78) (14) (18) (29) (41) (7) (13) (52) (16) (54) (62) (384) (261) Professional 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9% 14.3% 7,7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.3% Manager 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Sales 17.9 7.1 5.6 10.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.0 14.8 16.1 12.5 17.6

Clerical 23.1 28.6 27.8 27.6 19.5 42.9 92.3 19.2 12,5 38.9 37.1 29.7 34.5

Craftman 2.6 7.1 11.1 0.0 24.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 4.8 5.2. 4.2 Operative 11.5 7.1 27.8 13.8 22.0 14.3 0,0 28.8 62,5 13.0 22.6 19.5 14,2 Laborer 16,7 14.3 11.1 13.8 12.2 0.0 0.0 17.3 25.0 14.8 6.5 13.3 16,1

Service 28.2 35.7 16.7 34.5 14.6 28.6 0.0 15.4 0.0 14.8 12.9 18.7 10.7

535
TABLE D-8

SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF VEPS

TERMINATORS BY CITY

ographic

racteristics Clev. Col.S. Eug. Flt. Ft.W. Geor. Las V. Pitt. Pueb. SLC San B. VEPS-II

Total

VEPS-I

Total

(1 (21) (27) (22) (38) (22) (18) (8) (18) (25) (68) (63) (330) (159) ale 71.4% 40.7% 72.7% 50.0% 45.5% 72.2% 0.0% 72.2% 52.0% 47.1% 41.3% 50.9% 53.5% emale 28.6 59.3 27.3 50.0 54.5 27.8 100.0 27.8 48.0 52.9 58.7 49.1 46.5

(N) (21) (26) (22) (38) (21) (16) (8) (18) (25) (68) (63) (326) (151) 5 or Younger 9.5% 7.7% 50.0% 5.3% 14.3% 6.3% 0.0% 5.6% 8.0% 11.8% 41.3% 17.8% 12.6% 5 Years 47.6 42.3 13.6 31.6 23.8 37.5 37.5 33.3 36.0 48.5 41.3 38.0 58.9 7 Years 33.3 42.3 36.4 44.7 52.4 31.3 50.0 33.3 44.0 26.5 15.9 33.1 25.8 3 or Older 9.5 7.7 0.0 18.4 9.5 25.0 12.5 27.8 12.0 13.2 1.6 11.0 2.7

4IC BAC-

(21) (26) (22) (38) (22) (18) (8) (18) (25) (68) (63) (329) (159) tOUND (N)

Lack 76.2% 11.5% 0.0% 84.2% 72.7% 72.2% 87.5% 94.4% 4.0% 14.7% 19.0% 38.6% 40.3% cite 19.0 42.3 95.5 7.9 9.1 16.7 12.5 5.6 4.0 64.7 44.4 36.2 40.9 )anish Surnames 4.8 46.2 4.5 5.3 18.2 11.1 0.0 0.0 92.0 16.2 36.5 24.0 17.0 :he. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 1.2 1.9

t IN SCHOOL (N) (21) (25) (22) (37) (22) (17) (8) (18) (25) (68) (61) (324) (155) !esbman 9.5% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 2.6% *more 33.3 8.0 36.4 0.0 4.5 23.5 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 16.4 10.5 11.6 inior 38.1 24.0 18.2 43.2 18.2 58.8 0.0 27.8 32.0 58.8 68.9 44.1 65.2 nlior 19.0 64.0 45.5 56.8 77.3 17.6 100.0 50.0 68.0 41.2 14.8 43.8 20.6

5b;

5 b 7
TABLE D-9

SELECTED FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS OF VEPS TERMINATORS, BY CITY

ly

icteristics

OF HOUSE- D (N)

her

:her mr Male

mr Female

fer

IYMENT OF B (N)

r 35 hrs.

hrs. or less

mployed

IBUTES TO PAMSUPPORT N)

C HOUSING (N)

C ASSISCE (N)

Clev. Col.S. Eug. Fit. Ft.W. Geor. Las V. Pitt. Pueb. SLC San B. VEPS-II

Total

VEPS-I

Total

(20) (NA) (8) (37) (6) (17) (8) (18) (25) (68) (63) (270) (159) 25.0% --% 12.5% 18.9% 16.7% 64.7% 0.0% 16.7% 52.0% 47.1% 42.9% 37.0% 36.3%

60.0 -- 62.5 73.0 83.3 11.8 87.5 72.2 28.0 30.7 47.6 50.0 54.8

0.0 -- 12.5 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 5.6 4.0 2.9 0.0 2.6 3.2

0.0 -- 12.5 5.4 0.0 5.9 12.5 5.6 0.0 4.4 4.8 4.4 2.5

5.0 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.5 0.0 1.1 2.5

10.0 -- 0.0 2.7 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 12.0 4.4 4.8 4.8 0.6

(15) (NA) (8) (36) (1) (17) (8) (18) (24) (60) (63) (250) (155) 6.7% --% 50.0% 13.9% 0.0% 52.9% 50.0% 16.7% 25.0% 45.0% 31.7% 31.6% 31.3% 13.3 -- 25.0 8..3 100.0 23.5 25.0 11.1 0.0 8.3 23.8 14.4 12.4

80.0 -- 25.0 77.8 0.0 23.5 25.0 72.2 75.0 46.7 44.4 54.0 56.6

(14) (NA) (8) (32) (NA) (15) (7) (18) (25) (55) (63) (237) (152) 28.6% --% 62.5% 0.0% --X 33.3% 57.1% 11.1% 56.0% 41.8% 58.7% 39.71 34.7%

71.4 -- 37.5 100.0 -- 66.7 42.9 88.9 44.0 58.2 41.3 60.3 65.3

(19) (NA) (NA) (36) (5) (17) (7) (18) (24) (52) (59) (237) (152) 26.3% --% --X 22.2% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 44.4% 16.7% 13.5% 3.4% 14.8% 22.6%

73.7 -- -- 77.8 100.0 100.0 85.7 55.6 83.3 86.5 96.6 85.2 77.4

(19) (23) (19) (37) (17) (16) (7) (17) (23) (65) (60) (303) (152) 78.9% 13.0% 5.3% 78.4% 47.1% 6.3% 57.1% 41.2% 60.9% 27.7% 55.0% 43.9% 44.4%

21.1 87.0 94.7 21.6 52.9 93.8 42.9 58.8 39.1 72.3 45.0 56.1 55.6
TABLE D-10

SELECTED EMPLOYMENT HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS OF VEPS TERMINATORS, BY CITY

yment

Clev. Col.S. Eug. Flt. Ft.W. Geor. Las V. Pitt. Pueb. SLC San B.

VEPS -II Total

VEPS-I

Total

WORKED (N) (14) (NA) (16) (36) (22) (17) (7) (18) (25) (54) (63) (272) (150)

92.9% --% 43.8% 55.6% 54.5% 88.2% 42.9% 83.3% 96.0% 64.8% 93.7% 74.6% 52.7%

7.1 -- 56.3 44.4 45.5 11.8 57.1 16.7 4.0 35.2 6.3 25.4 47.3

IMIN

!KING (N) (14) (NA) (11) (36) (11) (17) (7) (18) (25) (53) (56) (248) (149)

28.6% --% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 0.0% 11.1% 4.0% 7.5% 1.8% 5.6% 11.4%

64.3 -- 18.2 55.6 9.1 76.5 42.9 72.2 92.0 56.6 91.1 66.5 40.9

rer Worked 7.1 -- 81.8 44.4 90.9 11.8 57.1 16.7 4.0 35.8 7.1 27.8 47.7

30

(N) (14) (NA) (15) (36) (11) (15) (7) (18) (25) (52) (63) (256) (147)

78.6% --% 40.0% 47.2% 9.1% 80.0% 42.9% 77.8% 88.0% 57.7% 88.9% 67.2% 46.9%

14.3 -- 0.0 8.3 0.0 6.7 0.0 5.6 8.0 5.8 4.8 5.9 4.8

rer Worked 7.1 -- 60.0 44.4 90.9 13.3 57.1 16.7 4.0 36.5 6.3 26.9 48.3

5;io
TABLE D-11

CHARACTERISTICS OF VEPS WORK EXPERIENCE OF TERMINATORS, BY CITY

t Experience Clev. Col.S. Bug. Flt. Ft.W. Geor. Las V. Pitt. Pueb. SLC San B. VEPS -II VEPS-I

Total Total

E OF

MPLOYER (N) (18) (27) (21) (32) (20) (18) (8) (17) (20) (68) (58) (307) (132)

-4 38.9% 33.3% 28.6% 3.1% 5.0% 33.3% 0.0% 23.5% 55.0% 41.2% 15.5% 26.7% 24.2%

-9 5.6 18.5 47.6 40.6 40.0 27.8 0.0 11.8 30.0 16.2 24.1 24.4 24.2

0-19 16.7 37.0 19.0 34.4 30.0 5.6 0.0 29.4 0.0 11.8 32.8 21.8 16.7

0-29 16.7 3.7 0.0 18.8 5.0 5.6 0.0 17.6 0.0 4.4 17.2 9.1 6.1

0-49 11.1 0.0 4.8 0.0 5.0 16.7 0.0 5.9 5.0 17.6 5.2 7.8 6.1

3-99 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 5.9 10.0 4.4 0.0 2.9 13.6

30 or More 5.6 7.4 0.0 3.1 15.0 0.0 100.0 5.9 0.0 4.4 5.2 7.2 9.1 EXPERIICE (N) (18) (27) (21) (32) (20) (18) (8) (17) (20) (68) (58) (307) (129)

7ofessional 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 1.0% 0.0%

inager 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8

Iles 0.0 7.4 9.5 6.2 10.0 16.7 0.0 17.6 10.0 7.4 13.8 9.4 12.4

erical 22.2 48.1 0.0 18.7 40.0 16.7 100.0 5.9 15.0 19.1 32.7 25.4 34.1

liftman 5.6 3.7 4.8 3.1 15.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 15.0 11.8 6.9 8.1 2.3

tredve 16.6 7.4 23.8 6.2 15.0 5.6 0.0 29.4 25.0 33.8 12.1 18.2 25.6

borer 11.1 25.9 33.3 18.7 10.0 11.1 0.0 5.9 10.0 13.2 12.1 14.7 14.7

rvice 44.4 i 4 28.6 46.9 4.3 27.8 0.0 41.2 25.0 14.7 19.0 23.1 10.1

5:)3
TABLE D-12

ACADEMIC INDICATORS OF VEPS TERMINATORS, BY CITY

Clev. Col.S. Eug. Flt. Ft.W. Geor. Las V. Pitt. Pueb. SLC San B. VEPS-II

Total

VEPS-I

Total

CTION OF

(20)

35.0%

5.0

60.0

(NA) --;

--

--

(32)

53.1%

0.0

46.9

(11)

27.3%

9.1

63.6

(10)

80.0%

0.0

20.0

(6)

33.3%

0.0

66.7

(9)

55.6%

11.1

33.3

(12)

50.0%

16.7

33.3

(49)

67.3%

6.1

26.5

(39)

43.6%

2.6

53.8

(195)

50.8%

6.7

42.6

(65)

53.8%

3.1

43.1

P.A. CHANGE (N) (7)

14.3% me 57.1

iwn 28.6

E C.P.A.

ANGE (N) (7) (20) (NI) (32) (11) (10) (6) (9) (12) (49) (39) (195) (65) .26 or Better 0.0% 0.0% --% 9.4% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 7.7% 06 to +1.25 0.0 20.0 -- 12.5 27.3 10.0 16.7 11.1 16.7 18.4 10.3 14.9 10.8 1.26 to +0.75 14.3 5.0 -- 15.6 0.0 0.0 33.3 22.2 16.7 32.7 23.1 19.5 26.2 .25 to -0.25 71.4 40.0 -- 31.3 9.1 70.0 50.0 22.2 50.0 30.6 25.6 34.4 23.1 .26 to -0.75 0.0 20.0 15.6 9.1 0.0 0.0 33.3 8.3 12.2 30.8 16.4 17:0 .76 to -1.25 0.0 15.0 6.3 18.2 10.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 6.1 10.3 8.2 9.2 .26 or Worse 14.3 0.0 9.4 36.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 6.2

CTION OF ATTEND-

!CZ CHANGE (N) (7) (19) (NA) (31) (11) (6) (5) (9) (7) (25) (27) (147) (61)

14.3% 21.1% --% 35.5% 81.8% 83.3% 40.0% 33.3% 57.1% 68.0% 44.4% 46.2% 45.9% me 0.0 15.8 -- 9.7 9.1 16.7 0.0 0.0 14.3 8.0 18.5 10.9 3.3 wn 85.7 63.2 -- 54.8 9.1 0.0 60.0 66.7 28.6 24.0 37.0 42.8 50.8

E OF ATTEND -

'CE CHANGE (N) (7) (19) (NA) (31) (11) (6) (5) (9) (7) (25) (27) (147) (61) 0 Days or More 14.3% 10.5% --% 22.6% 18.2% 33.3% 0.0% 11.1% 28.6% 36.0% 11.1% 19.7% 18.0% to +9 0.0 10.5 -- 9.7 27.3 16.7 0.0 22.2 14.3 12.0 18.5 13.6 19.7 to -3 28.6 36.8 -- 22.6 45.5 50.0 60.0 11.1 28.6 32.0 48.1 34.7 18.0 to -9 14.3 36.8 -- 12.9 9.1 0.0 20.0 11.1 0.0 8.0 11.1 13.6 19.7 0 or More 42.9 5.3 -- 32.3 0.0 0.0 20.0 44.4 28.6 12.0 11.1 18.4 24.6

4

5J5
TABLE D-13

REASONS GIVEN FOR TERMINATION OF VEPS ENROLLEES, BY SIZE

OF VEPS EMPLOYER (NUMBER OF FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES)

Reason for

Termination 1-4 5-9

SIZE OF EMPLOYER

10-19 20-29 30-49 50-99 100 plus

VEPS-II

Total

VEPS-I

Total

Other Private Sector Job 14.7% 26.5% 23.5% 8.8% 11.8% 0.0% 14.7% 11.5% 17.8%

Involuntary Transfer to

NYC 25.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 9.3

Pregnancy 20.0 20.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 1.7 4.7

Not Interested 27.3 27.3 18.2 4.5 9.1 0.0 13.6 7.5 5.4

Moved 23.1 7.7 30.8 15.4 7.7 0.0 15.4 4.4 7.0

Laid off, Fired, Quit, etc. 24.4 25.6 19.2 14.1 10.3 2.7 3.8 26.4 9.3

Other 35.6 21.9 24.7 6.8 1.4 2.7 6.8 24.7 20.2

School Dropout 27.4 22.6 17.7 8.1 11.3 8.1 4.8 21.0 26.4

TOTAL 26.7% 24.1% 21.7% 9.1% 7.8% 3.0% 7.5% 99.9% 100.1%

(N) (79) (71) (64) (27) (23) (9) (22) (295) (129)
TABLE D-14

REASONS GIVEN FOR TERMINATIONS OF VEPS ENROLLEES, BY

TYPE OF VEPS WORK EXPERIENCE

Cason for

emination

her Private Sector Job

voluntary Transfer to

NYC

. egnancy

t Interested

ved

id Off, Fired, Quit, etc.

her

hool Olopcat

PS-II TOTAL

Prof. Magri Sales

VEPS WORK EXPERIENCE

Cler. Craft. Oper. Labr. Service

Never

Worked (N)

0.0% 0.0% 11.8% 23.5% 5.9% 20.6% 20.6% 17.6% 0.0% (34)

12.5 0.0 0.0 25.0 12.5 25.0 12.5 12.5 0.0 (8)

0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 (5)

0.0 0.0 7.7 15.4 7.7 23.1 15.4 15.4 15.4 (26)

0.0 0.0 6.7 46.7 0.0 13.3 6.7 13.3 13.3 (15)

1.3 0.0 17.9 17.9 10.3 10.3 14.1 28.2 0.0 (78)

1.3 0.0 3.8 28.8 5.0 16.3 13.8 22..5 8.8 (SO)

0.0 0.0 5.6 15.5 9.9 22.5 11.3 22.5 12.7 (71)

0.9% 0.0% 8.8% 23.0% 7.6% 17.0% 13.7% 22.1% 6.9% (317)

5;Yi
TABLE D-15

SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF VEPS DROPOUTS, BY CITY

mographic

aracteristics Clev. Col.S. Eug. Flt. Ft.W. Geor. Las V. Pitt. Pueb. SLC San B. VEPS-II

Total

VEPS-I

Total X

Male

(N) 71.4%

(14) (2) (8) (6) (0) (3) (0) (8) (10) (11) (9) (71) (42)

Female

50.0% 75.0% 83.3% --% 66.7% --% 87.5% 40.0% 18.2% 66.7% 60.6% 66.7% 28.6 50.0 25.0 16.7 33.3 12.5 60.0 81.8 33.3 39.4 33.3

!15 or less

(N) (14) (2) (8) (6) (0) (3) (0) (8) (10) (11) (9) (71) (42)

l6 57.1

0.0% 0.0% 37.5% 0.0% --% 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 9.1% 33.3% 11.3% 11.9%

17 35.7

0.0 25.0 50.0 33.3 -- 12.5 30.0 54.5 55.6 40.8 61.9 50.0 37.5 33.3 66.7 --

18 or more 62.5 30.0 9.1 11.1 32.4 23.8 7.1 50.0 0.0 16.7 -- 0.0 -- 25.0 30.0 27.3 0.0 15.5 2.4

INIC !lack

(N) (14) (2) (8) (6) (0) (3) (0) (8) (10) (11) (9) (71) (42) ihite 71.4% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% --% 100.0% --% 100.0% 0.0% 27.3% 11.1% 39.4% 45.2%

;mash Sur21.4 50.0 87.5 16.7 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 10.0 54.5 44.4 32.4 40.5

ther

name 7.1.. 12.5 16.7 0.0 0.0 90.0 18.2 44.4 26.8 14.3 0.0' 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0

a

taken

IN SCHOOL (N) (14) (1) (8) (6) (0) (3) (0) (8) (10) (11) (8) (69) (42) 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% --% 0.0% --% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 4.8% Ophomore 35.7 0.0 50.0 0.0 -- 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 12.5 15.9 19.0 unior 42.9 0.0 12.5 83.3 -- 100.0 -- 12.5 50.0 54.5 87.5 49.3 66.7 enior 14.3 100.0 37.5 16.7 -- 0.0 -- 62.5 50.0 45.5 0.0 31.9 9.5

6ji
TABLE D-16

SELECTED FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS OF VEPS DROPOUTS, BY CITY

.ly .acteristics Clev. Col.S. Eug. Flt. Ft.W. Geor. Las V. Pitt. Pueb. SLC. San B.

VEPS -II Total

VEPS -I Total

) OF HOUSE-

(13)

15.4%

61.5

23.1

(0)

--%

--

--

(2)

0.0%

100.0

0.0

(6)

33.3%

33.3

33.3

(0) --%

--

--

(3)

33.3%

33.3

33.3

(0)

--% --

--

(8)

25.0%

62.5

12.5

(10)

30.0%

40.0

30.0

(11)

45.5%

27.3

27.3

(9) 22.2%

66.7

11.1

(62)

25.8%

53.2

20.9

(42)

19.0%

69.0

11.9

(N) tther

Ither her

DYMENT OF AD (N) (8) (0) (2) (6) (0) (3) (0) (8) (9) (9) (9) (54) (39)

er 35 hours 0.0% --X 100.0% 16.7% --X 0.0% -% 12.5% 33.3% 33.3% 55.6% 27.8% 28.2% Hours or Less 12.5 -- 0.0 33.3 -- 33.3 -- 12.5 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 5.1

employed 87.5 -- 0.0 50.0 -- 66.7 -- 75.0 66.7 55.6 44.4 61.1 66.7

RIBUTES TO FAMILY

?PORT (N) (7) (0) (2) (5) (0) (2) (0) (8) (10) (9) (9) (52) (40)

14.3% --% 50.0% 0.0% --X 50.0% --% 0.0% 50.0% 55.6% 66.7% 36.5% 32.5%

85.7 -- 50.0 100.0 -- 50.0 -- 100.0 50.0 44.4 33.3 63.5 67.5 S IN PUBLIC

USING (N) (12) (0) (0) (6) (0) (3) (0) (8) (10) (7) (9) (55) (37)

s 16.7% --X --% 33.3% --% 0.0% -% 12.5% 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.4% 27.0%

83.3 -- -- 66.7 -- 100.0 -- 87.5 60.0 100.0 100.0 83.6 73.0 IC ASSISNCE (N) (12) (2) (7) (6) (0) (2) (0) (8) (9) (10) (9) (65) (41)

83.3% 0.0% 0.0% 83.3% --% 0.0% --X 25.0% 100.0% 40.0% 77.8% 56.9% 63.4%

16.7 100.0 100.0 16.7 -- 100.0 -- 75.0 0.0 60.0 22.2 43.1 36.6
TABLE D-17

SELECTED EMPLOYMENT HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS OF VEPS DROPOUTS, BY CITY

)loyment

story Clev. Col.S. Eug. Flt. Ft.W. Geor. LasV. Pitt. Pueb. SLC San B.

VE2S -II Total

VEPS -I Total

flR WORKED

'es (N)

85.7%

(7) (0) (6) (6) (0) (3) (0) (8) (10) (8) (9) (5's. (39)

fo 14.3

--% 16.7% 83.3% - -% 100.0% --% 75.0% 90.0% 62.5% 100.0% 77.2% 56.4% -- 83.3 16.7 -- 0.0 -- 25.0 10.0 37.5 0.0 22.8 43.6

IRENTL

FORKING es

(N)

28.6%

(7) (0) (5) (6) (0) (3) (0) (8) (10) (8) (8) (55) (39)

57.1

--% 0.0% 0.0% --% 0.0% --X 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 10.2%

ever Worked 14.3

-- 0.0 83.3 -- 100.0 -- 62.5 90.0 62.5 100.0 70.9 46.2 -- 100.0 16.7 -- 0.0 -- 25.0 10.0 37.5 0.0 23.6 43.6

KED 30 DAYS

R MORE

es

(N)

57.1%

(7) --%

(0) (6) (6) (0) (2) (0) (8) (10) (8) (9) (56) (39) o 28.6 --

15.7% 83.3% --% 100.0% --% 75.0% 80.0% 62.5% 88.9% 69.6% 51.3%

ever Worked

0.0 C.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 11.1 7.1 5.1 14.3 -- 83.3 15.7 0.0 25.0 10.0 37.5 0.0 23.2 43.6

Cu5
Job Code

APPENDIX E

NUMBER OF YOUTH ENGAGED IN VARIOUS WORK EXPERIENCES

N Title of Work Experience

001 1 Accountants

004 2 Computer Sytema Analyst

056 1 Personnel and Labor Relations

101 1 Recreation

151 2 Chemical Technician; Chemical Mixer Aide

184 1 Editor and Reporter; Advertisement Aide

191 1 Photographer; Cameraman Aide

265 1 Insurance Agent

280 93 Salesmen; Sales Clerk, Maintenance; Cashier; Marketing and Sales

Aide; Rental Clerk; Retail Clerk; Clerk Trainee

301 1 Bankteller

305 9 Bookkeeper

310 24 Cashiers; Sales; Check out; Window Cashier; Clerical.Cashier

311 7 Clerical Assistant; Social Welfare

314 4 Counter Clerk; Mail Order Clerk

323 2 Expediters and Production Controller; Production Planning

Aide; Material Inspector and Stocking

325 9 File Clerk; Medical Records Trainee; Filing

332 3 Mail Handlers

333 7 Messengers and Office Boys; Secretarial; Clerical Office

Work; Mailroom

341 1 Bookkeeping and Billing Machine Operators; Proof Machine

Operators

344 2 Duplicating Machine Operator

355 3 Office Machine Operator

361 1 Postal Clerk; Mail Warehouse Aide

364 12 Receptionists; Telephone Receptionist Clerk Typist

372 12 Secretaries; Receptionists

374 2 Shipping and Receiving Clerk

375 1 Statistical Clerk

381 13 Stock Clerks

382 3 Teacher's Aide

391 14 Typists

394 4 Miscellaneous Clerical Workers; Vault Safe Deposit,' Credit

Clerk

395 102 Not Specified Clerical Workers; Service Clerical Office

Aide,; Clerical Aide; Customer Relations

402 4 Baker; Cook

405 2 Bookbinders; Bookbinder Aide

413 1 Cabinet Maker

415 4 Carpenter
Job Code N Title of Work Experience

420 1 Carpet Installer; Carpet Layout Aide

425 4 Decorators and Window Dressers; Floral Assistants;

Loading and Arranging; Sales Display; Window Display

443 2 Furniture and Wood Finishers; Stainers and Trimmers

452 1 Inspectors; Presser Inspector

461 11 Machinist; Moldmakers; Mashing

470 1 Air Conditioning; Heating; Refrigeration

472 4 Auto Body Repair

473 5 Auto Mechanics

474 4 Auto Mechanic Apprentice

475 6 Data Processing Machine Operator; Shipping-Receiving

Clerk

482 2 Miscellaneous Mechanics and Repairmen

510 2 Painting

542 1 Shoe Repair

543 1 Sign Painters and Letterers

551 2 Tailors

602 27 Assemblers

610 5 Checkers; Examiners; Inspectors

611 3 Clothing Ironers and Pressors; Cleaner, Pressing

615 1 Dry Wall Installers and Laborers

623 35 Garage Workers and Gas Station Attendants

630 1 Laundry and Dry Cleaning Operators

631 1 Meat Cutters; Butchers

640 1 Mine Operators

643 10 Packers, Wrappers

645 5 Photographic Process

662 1 Sawyer; Saw Operator

663 7 Sewers and Stitchers

664 1 Shoemaking Machine Operator

690 7 Machine Operator MiscellaneoUs

692 2 Machine Operator not Miscellaneous

694 55 Miscellaneous Operatives; Engineering; Printing Apprentice;

Butcher's Aide; Baker's Aide; Craft Mechanic Aide; Shop

Helper

695 2 Not Specified Operatives

705 2 Delivery and Routemen

711 4 Parking Attendant

750 2 Carpenter's Aide

751 2 Construction Helper

755 7 Gardeners and Groundskeepers

762 74 Stock Handlers; Stocking; Box Boy; Sales and Stock Clerk;

Bagging; Delivery; Shipping

764 11 -Vehicle Washers and Equipment Cleaners

770 9 Warehouseman

780 7 Miscellaneous Laborers

785 2 Not Specified Laborers

822 1 Farm Laborer

823 2 Farm Laborer; Unpaid Family; Ranch Management

902 5 Cleaners and Charwomen

903 21 Janitors and Sextons

901 1 Maid

911 7 Busboy; Counter Girl

- 544
Job Code N Title of Work Experience

912 8 Cooks

913 6 Dishwasher

914 4 Food Counter and Fountain Worker

915 28 Waiters and Waitresses

916 47 Food Service Workers

921 1 Dental Assistant

922 2 Health Aids (Except Nursing)

925 9 Nursing Aides, Orderlies and Attendants

926 2 Practical Nurses

933 3 Attendant; Personal Services

942 26 Child Care Workers

944 6 Hairdressers and Cosmotologists

981 3 Cooks; Private Household
PART IV

COMPARISON OF VEPS COMPLETER AND CONTROL GROUP OUTCOMES

To determine whether the generally favorable VEPS programmatic out- comes reported in the previous section were due to the program or to intervening variables (such as natural maturation or localized economic or educational situations), a control group of regular NYC enrollees was drawn

in four of the eight cities operating a VEPS-I program; these cities were:

Columbus, Ohio; Flint, Michigan; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and San Bernardino, California. The control group selection process is detailed in Part II of

this report. A total of 151 NYC youth was selected for the control group,

compared to 155 VEPS-I completers in the same four cities. The analysis N

may vary with individual variables and correlations due to missing data.

Comparison of outcomes focuses upon three data sets: (1) academic

indicators as measured by change in grade point average and attendance patterns; (2) the graduation and dropout rates; and (3) employability of the

youth upon graduation. Where rational data are involved (grade point average

and attendance), T-scores were deemed an appropriate statistical measure of

significance; with nominal data (graduation rates and employability), Chi

square was utilized. For each of the data sets, some discussion of programmatic outcomes is provided for individual cities. By examining the

nuances of the data within specific programs, the impact of those nuances

upon aggregate impact measures can be appreciated. Also, discussion of outcomes in individual cities provides some orientation to the reader in interpreting statistical presentations. Finally, such analysis permits the reader to assess levels of success within individual cities, and, by using prior

reports, to compare their own situation and work experience programs to those

in the VEPS-I cities. Due to small cells, statistical significance tests were

not computed for all cities for all variables.

A. Comparison of Academic Performance and Attendance Patterns

The t-scores provided in Table 11 compare grade point averages and

attendance patterns for the two groups in each of the four cities by year

and by change between years. Given the guidelines for selecting VEPS enrollees we would expect the t-scores for the 1970-71 school year to indicate a bias against the VEPS-I group, that is, the scores would indicate

that the VEPS youth were lower in grade point performance (indicated by a

negative sign) and higher in absences (indicated by a positive sign). The

asterisks next to each t-score indicate levels of significance. We would

further expect that, if the VEPS program occasioned change among the enrollees

in the 1971-72 experimental year, the intensity of the t-score bias against

the VEPS-I group would diminish or reverse to the point that there would

be little difference between the two groups (non-significant t-scorea).

We would further expect that the "no significant difference" pattern would

hold constant in 1972-73, indicative of a long range positive impact for

the program.

- 546 -
In terms of change, our expectations are similar. Change from 1970-71

through 1971-72 should reveal significant improvement among the VEPS youth;

the durability of that change (at a lower level of or no significance because much of the gap would have been eliminated between the two groups)

should be revealed in change from 1971-72 through 1972-73. Finally we would

expect to find significant differences in terms of change over the period

1970-71 through 1972-73. In light of previous analysis, we would expect

change in grade point performance to be at a higher level of significance

than change in attendance patterns.

As can be seen in Table 11, the expectations regarding the impact of

VEPS are generally confirmed when enrollee data are compared to that of

the control group. In terms of grade point average the differences between

the VEPS-I and the control groups is in the expected direction (negative)

for the 1970-71 base year with the exception of San Bernardino. Succinctly

interpreted, the data reveal that the VEPS -I group in three of the four

cities (significantly in Flint and Pittsburgh) was initially inferior to

the control group in academic performance. In San Bernardino, the VEPS-I

group was superior, but the difference is not statistically significant.

We find also that the difference between the groups narrows considerably

for the experimental year (1971-72) in the expected direction, again with

the exception of San Bernardino. Finally, for the 1972-73 senior year the

t-scores reveal that virtually no difference exists between the two groups.

This is indicative that in each city, the impact of the program was to

stabilize and equalize grade point performands between the VEPS and control groups. This is a positive outcome for the programs in Columbus,

Flint and Pittsburgh (particularly the latter two) and a negative outcome

for San Bernardino. It should be emphasized that the outcome in San

Bernardino, while negative, is not statistically significant; the data merely

reflect the influence of the creaming that occurred in the selection of

enrollees for VEPS in that city. Pittsburgh definitely recruited youth with

"hard core" academic problems, so that any change could only mean an improve

meat in that city.

Considering the change data, once again the expected distributions

occur with the exception of San Bernardino. The impact of VEPS during the

experimental year results in significant change in Flint and Pittsburgh;

in Columbus the change is incremental and maximizes during the senior year.

Overall, change from performance in 1970-71 to performance in 1972-73 is

significant in Columbus (.05 level), Flint (.02 level) and Pittsburgh (.01

level). In San Bernardino change is in the negative direction, although

the amount of change is not statistically significant.

In summary then, the conclusion that the VEPS program had a positive

and significant impact upon grade point performance for the VEPS enrollees

is confirmed in three cities -- Columbus, Flint and Pittsburgh; iu San Bernardino (which had been somewhat selective in its VEPS recruiting), change is

in the negative direction and reflects the creaming process, but is not

statistically significant.

The t-scores for the attendance data are also in the expected direction. For the 1970-71 base year, the VEPS-I completers were absent to a

greater degree than the control group (indicated 'ay the positive sign preceding the t-scores). Impact over the long term is significant only it

- 54 7 -

6 A.
TABLE D-1

SELECTED FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS, BY CITY AND TOTAL*

Family

Characteristics .Clev. Col.S. Eug. Flt. Ft.W. Geor. Las V. Pitt. Pueb. SLC. San B.

V!PS -II Total

VEPS-I

Total

LIVES WITH (N) (98) (0) (1) (66) (38) (24) (21) (70) (41) (122) (125) (606) (427) Both Parents 24.5% --% --% 19.7% 36.8% 58.3% 19.0% 31.4% 41.5% 46.7% 48.0% 37.1% 36.2% Father 7.1 -- 5.3 -- 1.4 4.9 0.8 4.0 3.0 0.9 Mother 60.2 100.0 72.7 52.6 12.5 71.4 55.7 39.0 40.2 40.8 49.7 54.5 Guardian 3.1 - - -- 3.0 5.3 12.5 9.5 10.0 2.4 7.4 2.4 5.3 3.5 Other 5.1 -- 4.5 16.7 -- 1.4 12.2 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.9

LEAD OF HOUSEHOLD (N) (98) (0) (15) (66) (38) (24) (21) (70) (41) (122) (125) (620) (429) Father 31.6% --X 26.7% 19.7% 42.1% 58.3% 19.0% 32.9% 46.3% 47.5% 52.0% 39.8% 36.4% Mother 60.2 53.3 72.7 52.6 12.5 71.4 55.7 39.0 40.2 40.8 49.7 55.4 Other 8.1 20.0 7.5 5.3 29.2 9.6 11.4 14.6 12.3 7.2 10.6 8.2

MPLOYMENT OF

HEAD (N) (86) (0) (15) (65) (3) (24) (21) (70) (40) (104) (125) (553) (409) Full-time 22.1% - -X 40.0% 9.2% 33.3% 45.8% 33.3% 18.6% 22.5% 43.3% 32.8% 28.6% 31.1% 35 hrs. or less 15.1 20.0 4.6 33.3 29.2 14.3 20.0 -- 8.7 25.6 15.4 14.9 Unemployed 62.8 40.0 86.2 33.3 25.0 52.4 61.4 77.5 48.1 41.6 56.0 54.0

ONTRIBUTES TO FAMILY

SUPPORT (N) (89) (0) (15) (60) (2) (19) (19) (69) (41) (97) (125) (536) (370) Yes 71.9% --X 60.0% --X 100.0% 36.8% 63.2% 15.9% 70.7% 33.0% 69.6% 47.2% 30.8% No 78.1 40.0 100.0 -- 63.2 36.8 84.1 29.3 67.0 30.4 52.8 69.2

UBLIC HOUSING (N) (80) (0) (0) (65) (34) (24) (18) (70) (40) (92) (111) (534) (404) Yes 21.3% - -X --X 16.9% 17.6% --X 22.2% 40.0% 15.0% 13.0% 8.1% 17.4% 21.8% No 78.7 -- 83.1 82.4 100.0% 77.8 60.0 85.0 87.0 91.9 82.6 78.2

RELIC ASSISTANCE (N) (92) (34) (36) (65) (51) (23) (20) (69) (39) (118) (115) (662) (422) Yes

No 22.8

77.2% 11.8% 11.1% 83.1% 31.4% 4.3% 60.0% 49.3% 66.7% 28.8% 53.0% 47.9% 47.9% 88.2 88.9 16.9 68.6 95.7 40.0 50.7 33.3 71.2 47.0 52.1 52.1

separable to VEPS-I, 98.5% of the enrollees were aing.ka. uSblo; one each in Georgetown, Salt Two youth were married in Cleveland, Fort Worth and Lave City and San Bernardino. 6 i
TABLE D-2

SELECTED EMPLOYMENT HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS

OF VEPS ENROLLEES, BY CITY

Employment

History Clev. Col,S. Eug. Fit. Ft,W. Geor. LasV. Pitt. Pueb. SLC SauB.

VEPS -II Total

I :11' S I

Total

EVER WORKED (N) (89) (0) (27) (65) (63) (24) (20) (70) (41) (98) (125) (622) (405) Yes 97.8% --% 55.6% 53.8% 52.4% 83.3% 60.0% 68.6! 95.12 61.2% 92.0% 74.6% 58.3%

No 2.2 -- 44.4 46.2 47.6 16,7 40.0 31.4 4.9 38.8 8.0 25.4 41.7 PRESENTLY WORKING (N) (88) (0) (15) (65) (34) (24) (18) (70) (41) (94) (112) (561) (402) Yes 36.4% --% 0.0% 7,7% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 4.3% 2,4% 6.4% 1.8% 9.3% 12.4% No 63.6 -- 100.0 92.3 100,0 87.5 100.0 95.7 97.6 93.6 98.2 90.7 87,6

0 WORKED 30 DAYS

t OR MORE (N) (89) (0) (25) (65) (32) (2;) (20) (70) (41) (94) (125) (583) (397) Yee 91.1% --% 52.0% 47.7% 6.3% 58.2% 60.0% 61.4% 90.2% 47.9% 87.2% 66.5% 51.1%

No 8.9 -- 48.0 52,3 93.7 31.8 40.0 38.6 9.8 52.1 12,8 33.6 48,9

612

613
TABLE D-3

MEAN SCHOOL DAYS ABSENT FOR 1971-72

AND 1972-73, BY CITY

City

Cleveland

Colorado Springs

Flint

Fort Worth

Georgetown

Las Vegas

Pittsburgh

Pueblo

Salt Lake City

San Bernardino

X Days Absent (1971-72)

Universe

X Days Absent (1972-73)

PEPS Absence

(N) Completere (N) coivcjrhan est

027 (94) 023 (76) 024 -001

003 (34) 007 (14) 010 -003

028 (66) 027 (29) 031 -004

024 (59) 022 (36) 015 +007

018 (14) 005 (3) 004 +001

018 (18) 018 (2) 020 -002

035 (60) 035 (51) 032 +003

018 (28) 019 (8) 012 +007

024 (93) 016 (29) 014 +002

011 (69) 009 (39) 010 -001

0+ improvement or fewer days absent; - decline or more days absent
TABLE D-4

SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF VEPS

COMPLETERS, BY CITY

Demographic

Characteristics

SEI (N)

Nile

Female

AGE (N)

13 or Younger

16 Years

17 Years

18 or Older

ETHNIC BACKGROUND (N)

Black

White

Spanish Surname

Other

YEAR IN SCHOOL (N)

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

Clev. CoLS. Eug. Fit. Ft.W. VEPS-II VEPS-I

Geor. Lae V. Pitt. Pueb. SLC San B. Total Total

(78) (14) (20) (29) (41) (1) (13) (52) (16) (54) (62) (386) (272)

65,4% 50,0: 60.02 51.7% 56.12 28.6% 15,42 53.8% 87.5: 44.4: 43.5% 53.1% 51.8%

34.6 50.0 40.0 48.3 43.9 71.4 84.6 46.2 12.5 5.5.6 56.5 46.9 48.2

(78) (14) (20) (29) (38) (7) (13) (52) (16) (54) (62) (383) (257)

10.3% 21.4% 20.0% 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.02 5.8% 6.3% 11.1: 37.1% 13.3% 12.1%

37.2 50.0 35.0 37.9 34.2 42.9 46.2 17.3 25.0 38.9 56.5 37.8 50.2

30,8 28.6 45.0 44.8 57.9 28.6 38.5 50.0 56.3 46.3 4.8 37.1 28.0

21.8 0.0 0.0 6.9 7.9 28.6 15.4 26.9 12.5 3.7 1.6 11.8 9.8

(18) (14) (20) (29) (41) (7) (13)

75.6% 21.4% 0,0% 82.8% 80.5% 28.6% 53.8%

14.1 35.7 100.0 10.3 4.9 57.1 46.2

10.3 42.9 0.0 6.9 14.6 14.3 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(52) (16) (54) (62) (386) (272)

92.3% 0.0% 5.6% 25.8% 50.5% 52.9%

7.7 0.0 75.9 37.1 30.8 28.3

0.0 100.0 14.8 37.1 18.1 18.4

0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.5 0.4

(78) (14) (20) (29) (41) (7) (13) (52) (16) (54) (62) (386) (269)

5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.5% 1.1%

20.5 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 5,6 11.3 9.1 4.1

26.9 50.0 25.0 37.9 26.8 42.9 7.7 21.2 25.0 46.3 67.7 36.5 68.4

47.4 50.0 65.0 62.1 13.2, 42.9 92.3 65.4 75.0 48.1 19.4 52.8 26.4

,13

616
TABLE D-5

SELECTED FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS OF VEPS COMPLETERS, BY CITY

unily

aracteristics Clev. Col.S. Eug. Flt. Ft.W. Geor. Las V. Pitt. Pueb. SLC San B. VEPS-II

Total

VEPS-I

Total

AD OF HOUSE-

(78)

33.3%

60.3

(NA)

--%

(7) 42.9%

42.9

(29)

20.7%

72.4

(32)

46.9%

46.9

(7) 42.9%

14.3

(13)

30.8%

61.5

(52)

38.5%

50.0

(16)

37.5%

56.3

(54)

48.1%

40.7

(62)

61.3%

33.9

(350)

42.0%

49.4

(270)

35.9%

56.3

HOLD (N)

FAther

Mother

Male Guardian 1.3 14.3 0.0 6.3 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 2.6 1.5

Female Guardian 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.1

Self 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1

Dther 2.6 0.0 6.9 0.0 42.9 0.0 1.9 6.3 3.7 4.8 4.0 4.1 PLOYMENT OF

3EAD (N) (71) (NA) (7) (29) (2) (7) (13) (52) (16) (44) (62) (303) (262)

)ver 35 hrs. 25.4% --% 28.6% 3.4% 50.0% 28.6% 23.1% 19.2% 18.8% 40.9% 33.9% 26.1% 30.5%

15 hrs or Less 15.5 14.3 0.0 0.0 42.9 7.2 23.1 0.0 9.1 27.4 16.2 16.4 bemployed 59.2 57.1 96.6 50.0 28.6 69.2 57.7 81.3 50.0 38.7 67.7 53.1

'TRIBUTES TO

FAMILY (N) (75) (NA) (7) (28) (2) (4) (12) (51) (16) (42) (62) (299) (221)

'es 80.0% -- % 57.1% 0.0% 100.0% 50.0% 66.7% 17.6% 93.8% 21.4% 80.6% 53.2% 28.1%

to 20.0 42.9 100.0 0.0 50.0 33.3 82.4 6.3 78.6 19.4 46.8 71.9

LIC HOUSING (N) (61) (NA) (NA) (29) (29) (7) (11) (52) (16) (40) (52) (297) (257) es 19.7% --% 0.0% 10.3% 20.7% 0.0% 27.3% 38.5% 12.5% 12.5% 13.5% 19.5% 21.4%

o 80.3 -- 89.7 79.3 100.0 72.7 61.5 87.5 87.5 86.5 80.5 78.6

LIC ASSISANCE (N) (73) (11) (17) (28) (34) (7) (13) (52) (16) (53) (55) (359) (267) es 76.7% 9.1% 17.6% 89.3% 23.5% 0,0% 61.5% 51.9% 75.0% 30.2% 50.9% 51.2% 50.2% 23.3 90.9 82.4 10.7 76.5 100.0 38.5 48.1 25.0 69.8 49.1 48.7 49.8

613
TABLE D-6

SELECTED EMPLOYMENT HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS OF VEPS

COMPLETERS, BY CITY

iployment

.story Clev. Col.S. Eug. Flt. Ft.% Geor. Las V. Pitt. Pueb. SLC San B. VEPS-II VEPS-I

Total Total

'ER WORKED (N) (75) (NA) (11) (29) (41) (7) (13) (52) (16) (44) (62) (350) (253) Yea 98.7% --% 72.7% 51.7% 51.2% 71.4% 69.2% 63.5% 93.8% 56.8% 90.3% 74.6% 61.7%

No 1.3 -- 27.3 48.3 48.8 28.6 30.8 36.5 6.3 43.2 9.7 25.4 38.3

MSENTLY WORKING (N) (74) (NA) (4) (29) (23) (7) (11) (52) (16) (41) (56) (313) (251) Yes 37.8% --X 0.0% 17.2% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 4.9% 1.8% 12.1% 13.1% No 60.8 -- 25.0 34.5 13.0 57.1 63.6 61.5 93.8 48.8 87.5 59.4 48.2

Never Worked 1.4 -- 75.0 48.3 87.0 28.6 36.4 36.5 6.3 46.3 10.7 28.4 38.6

IRKED 30 DAYS (N) (75) (NA) (10) (29) (21) (7) (13) (52) (16) (42) (62) (327) (248) Yea 93.3% --% 70.0% 48.3% 4.8% 42.9% 69.2% 55.8% 93.8% 35.7% 85.5 66.0% 53.6% No 5.3 -- 0.0 3.4 0.0 28.6 0.0 7.7 0.0 19.0 4.8 6.7 7.3

Never Worked 1.3 -- 30.0 48.3 95.2 28.6 30.8 36.5 6.3 45.2 9.7 27.2 39.1

Ate from Colorado Springs not available.

613 620
PART V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The preceding analysis of the longitudinal impact of the VEPS-I pro- gram on enrollees in the first experimental year (1971-72) encompassed two main concerns: specific outcomes for the youth enrolled in the VEPS-I

program, and the significance of those outcomes compared to the experiences

of a control group of NYC enrollees. The longitudinal character of the

assessment used the 1970-71 school year as a baseline; the academic and

attendance behavior of the VEPS-I completers was plotted over time through

the 1971-72 experimental year and the following 1972-73'senior year of high school. These youth were tracked to determine whether, in fact, they graduated from high school, did not graduate on time, or dropped out of school.

Where appropriate, academic outcome data was compared to similar data for the control group.

Longitudinal information was also collected pertaining to the employability of the VEPS-I youth subsequent to the program and upon graduation. Employment status for the VEPS-I completers was plotted for four points in

time: at the close of the VEPS-I experimental year, during the summer following the experimental year and preceding the senior year, during the

senior year of high school, and after graduation. Again where appropriate,

data were collected for the control group and used for comparative purposes.

The general conclusion to be drawn from the analysis of the above data is that the VEPS ro ram roved to be an effective si: ificant and acting experience for the youth who completed the program, resulted in significant improvement in academic performance and attendance in school, and

contributed significantly to the ability of the VEPS-I youth to obtain fulltime employment upon graduation from high school.

This assessment of the VEPS program is based on careful analysis of

data representative of the primary objectives of the program. We may summarize these objectives as follows:

1. To improve academic performance and attendance in school by means of demonstrating to dropout prone youth the value of a sound high school

education through work experience and intensive counseling;

2. To reduce the propensity of such youth to drop out and to encourage

them to obtain a high school diploma;

3. To provide meaningful work experience to enhance the work skills

and attitudes of the enrollees;

4. To provide part-time employment to the youth while in school; and

5. To enhance the ability of the youth to secure full-time employment

upon graduation.

- 554 - f:
The analysis of the longitudinal and outcome data confirms that the VEPS

program successfully attained each of the objectives, frequently at a level

superior to what might otherwise be expected. We may summarize the analysis

findings as follows.

The impact of VEPS-I upon grade point performance was both significant

and widespread. Dramatic improvement over the 1970-71 base year was characteristic of the VEPS-I youth during the experimental year; the impact of

this change persisted through the following (senior) year. Both frequency

distributions and t-score tests confirm this observation at a statistically

significant level. Overall improvement in grade point performance from

1970-71 through 1972-73 is also statiscally significant. The net result

is that the VEPS-I program was instrumental in improving the grade point

averages of VEPS-I youth to the point that they assumed a superior position

over the control group in contrast to their inferior position during the

baseline year. The analysis of differences between the two groups for only

the 1972-73 (senior) year reveals a positive bias toward the VEPS-I group,

although no statistical significance can be attached to the distribution.

Analysis of change in grade point average over the entire time spectrum

does result in a high level of significance in favor of the VEPS-I group.

This relationship holds true regardless of the combinations of cities analyzed.

Much the same findings occur in analysis of attendance data. In 1970-71,

the baseline year, the control group was significantly superior to. the VEPS-I

completers in terms of attendance patterns. Through each of the following two years this significance was eliminated, and the data indicate a

slightly superior position for the VEPS-I group. Analysis of change in

attendance patterns also yields high statistical significance. Although

previous observations had been made that the impact of VEPS-I upon attendance patterns had been slight but positive, the implications of the change

data are that VEPS-I had a significantly positive impact upon VEPS-I youth

attendance patterns.

Significant as these quantifiable indicators are, the ultimate test of

the academic impact of the VEPS program rests with only one outcome--whether

the youth graduated or dropped out of school. Virtually no difference exists

between the control group and the VEPS-I group in terms of either graduation rates or dropping out. Therefore, given the fact that VEPS was targeted for youth who were probable droputs as evidenced by lower pre-program

indicators, the conclusion is forced that the VEPS program reduced the propensity for VEPS youth to drop out of school and materially contributed to

their earning high school diplomas.

The employability data are no less striking than that on academic performance. VEPS was intended to proviet: part-time employment during the

VEPS-I year, fulj-time summer employwrt in tha nummer intervening between

the VEPS-I year and the senior year, ;,ext-..A.Ae employment in the senior year,

and full-time employment upon gradueon iichoo3. Part III of

the report contains data indicating to.:!,: '.,,ram was successful in the

first three of these four employment-tk, ,ONrect; part of this success

can, however, be attributed to a continu.....ah 'WS into a second year.

No control group information was pertinent to Opie VEPS objectives. The

ultimate objective for which comparative data c4. !.? generated is employability upon graduation, representative of a smor,71 transition from high

school into the full-time 'Abut foree. Regaidler of the combinations of

cities analyzed, at leant 11212 of Ole VEPS youth ivnica employed full -time

- 555 -
compared to apprwcimately

ment among the control

thirty percent of the control group. Unemploygroup was nearly double that

Chi square tests of the VEPS group. Both on the distributions and simple examination of the marginal frequencies yield the same conclusion: VEPS youth were employed at a signi- ficantly higher rate than was the control group.

Along all dimensions of programmatic objectives, then, the data indicate a highly successful VEPS-I experiment. The data reveal significant ment in grade point performance improve- and in attendance patterns, no discernable difference with the control group in graduation/dropout patterns (although VEPS-I enrolled probable dropouts), and significantly greater ability on the part of VEPS-I youth to obtain full-time employment upon graduation. In January, 1972, approximately six months into the VEPS-I experimental year, the Center for Urban Programs prepared an assessment paper for the Department of Labor to facilitate a decision

VEPS program into whether or not to continue the a second year. In that paper, seven preliminary observa- tions were made; it was contended that the VEPS-I program resulted in:

1. Reduced the tendency among VEPS-I youth to drop out of school; 2. Significantly improved academic

3. achievement among VEPS-I enrollees; Significantly improved school attendance patterns;

4. Improved disciplinary status among the enrollees;

5. Realistic attitu4e development and growth in individual

6. responsibility; Private sector work experience not normally available to the VEPS-I participants; and

7. Enthusiastic support of VEPS program personnel.

Analysis of the outcome data confirm the validity of these early state- ments. To these may be added two more; VEPS -I resulted in

8. Higher than expected graduation rates and lower than expected drop- out rates; and

9. Significantly higher employment rates among VEPS-I enrollees than within a comparable control group.
APPENDIX

Table A-1

COMPARISON OF VEPS PROGRAMMATIC OUTCOMES

FOR VEPS -I AND VEPS-II COMPLETERS

Programmatic Outcomes

Program Year

VEPS-I VEPS -II

Difference

(I-II)

GENERAL OUTCOMES

Completed 63.1% 53.9% - 9.2%

Terminated 27.2 36.2 + 9.0

Dropout 9.7 9.9 + 0.2

Total 100.0% 100.0%

ACADEMIC OUTCOMES

Direction G.P.A. Change

Improved 61.8% 62.0% + 0.2%

Unchanged 2.8 6.0 + 3.2

Declined 35.4 32.0 - 3.4

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Actual G.P.A. Change

+1.26 or more 9.1% 8.9% - 0.2%

+0.76 to +1.25 12.2 14.4 + 2.2

+0.26 to +0.75 26.8 23.4 - 3.4

+0.25 to -0.25 28.3 29.4 + 1.1

-0.26 to -0.75 13.4 13.5 + 0.1

-0.76 to -1.25 7.5 7.8 + 0.3

-1.26 or more 2.8 2.6 - 0.2

Total 100.1% 100.0%

ATTENDANCE OUTCOMES

Direction Att. Change

Improved 49.8% 48.8% - 1.0%

Unchanged 4.9 6.5 + 1.6

Declined 45.3 44.7 - 0.6

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Actual Att. Change

+10 days or more 26.5% 18.8% - 7.7%

+4 to +9 13.5 15.3 + 1.8

+3 to -3 22.0 32.8 +10.8

-4 to -9 13.1 14.3 + 1.2

-10 days or more 24.9 18.8 - 6.1

Total 100.0% 100.0%

FINAL DISPOSITION

At VEPS Employer 37.2% 69.0% +31.8%

Other Private Sector 4.3 6.3 + 2.0

Returned to NYC 43.8 5.5 -38.3

Higher Education 6.2 6.0 - 0.2

Not Working 4.3 8.4 + 4.1

Military 2.3 2.4 + 0.1

Other 1.9 2.4 + 0.5

Total 100.0% 100.0%

- 557 -

6,
which VEPS-I attained its two principal academic asjectives: rdid the en- rollees stay in school, and did they graduate? Since no methodology exists to run a double blind (test what would have been the case without VEPS) on the VEPS-I enrollees, an assessment can only be attempted by using a control group for comparison.

Given the fact that the VEPS program was intended to serve dropout

prone youth, evidence of a positive programmatic impact must be based on the presumption that without VEPS more youth would have dropped out and

fewer would have graduated. From this standpoint, if it can be shown that VEPS-I youth were less prone to drop out and more prone to gtaduate than

the control group, the impact of the program would have exceeded expecta- tions. More likely as an expected positive result would be the determination of no discernable or meaningful difference between the VEPS group and the control group.

Table 15 provides frequency distributions on final academic dispclition as of June, 1973, for the VEPS-I and control groups; consistent with

"previous analysis, we have utilized various groupings for the VEPS-I cities in order to mitigate the influence of data nuances. The key comparison

rests in the four VEPS-I cities versus their comparable control groups; in that comparison very little difference between the groups can be observed.

It should be mentioned in passing, however, that a small number of the

VEPS-I enrollees were seniors when they were recruited for the program;

thesis youth were graduated in 1972 rather than the expected 1973 date if

the guidelines had been rigorously followed. Nevertheless, the key interr. pretation is simply the lack of any observable difference between the two groups in terms of graduating or dropping out.

Although the marginal frequencies would indicate that no significant

distributions exist, Chi square tests were run on data for individual cities

as well as the various groupings of cities. Final academic disposition data. were dichotomized into graduated and not graduated to overcome small cells

and data nuances; youth who could not have graduated under any circumstances

were excluded. Small cells hampered computation in the four cities for

which control groups exist, rendering it impossible in two of them. In

the other two, no significant difference could be found. Only in the case

of the six VEPS-I cities and the four control groups could a significant

Chi square statistic (at the .05 level) be found; comparing the fOur VEPS-I

cities against the counterpart control groups and comparing the same data

excluding that from San Bernardino yielded Chi square levels of significance

of <.70 and <.80 respectively.

In short, then, in terms of final academic disposition, no meaningful

difference can be found in comparing the graduation rate for VEPS-I group

with the control group. This should be interpreted as a positive outcome

for the VEPS-1 program in that youth selected for the program were more

likely to be "probable dropouts" than were youth in the control group.

C. Employability in the Full-Time Work Force

While the school oriented objectives of VEPS constitute one major

emphasis of the program, the final objective lies in the area of youth

employability. Briefly stated, the objective of VEPS was to take dropout prone youth, reorient them toward completion of a high school educe-

- 558 -

).:
tion, and ease their transition into the full-time labor force. It was

hoped that the work experience and counseling received during VEPS-I would

provide the youth with marketable skills to enhance full-time employment

possibilities and thereby interdict the flow of unskilled youth into the

labor pool.

In Part III of this report we reported that 50.3% of the VEPS-I completers who graduated were employed full-time in the private sector, while

another 1.4% held public sector employment. Overall favorable outcomes

(excludes unemployed and "other" categories) totaled 87.2% of the youth.

Only 10.4% of the VEPS-I completers were unemployed at the time of the survey. Although interpretation bred of an awareness of the problems of unemployment among high school graduates would dictate that the 10.4% unemployment rate is comparatively low, the question still remains whether the

outcomes for VEPS-I youth are substantially different from those of other

NYC youth.

To achieve comparability of employment data with the control group,

the data were collapsed into three categories: employed, unemployed and

other; the other category included military service, higher education,

married, moved and untraceable. The frequency distributions for these categories are provided in the upper half of Table 16, organized under the various city groupings. The first grouping compares six VEPS cities with the

four control groups; the second grouping compares the four VEPS cities with

their comparable control groups; and the third compares three VEPS cities

and their control groups, excluding the data from San Bernardino. The comparability among the distributions regardless of city groupings is apparent

from the data. To test the significance of the distributions, Chi square

tests were run for each grouping, and in each case the level of significance

was greater than .001. In other words, the fact that more VEPS youth were

employed and fewer unemployed is statistically significant and is indicative of a substantial programmatic impact.

To eliminate the influence of the "other" category in the distribution, the data were dichotomized by eliminating the "other" category' from

the analysis. The resulting distribution is found in the bottom h...11 of

Table 16. Once again, the marginal frequencies are quite comparable across

the city groupings. A Chi square test was run on the distributions and

again revealed a high level of statistical significance--at the .001 level

for the first two groupings and the .01 level for the third grouping. No

Chi square tests could be run on the data for individual cities because of

small expected frequencies in individual cells. Thus the elimination of

the "other" category did not materially influence the levels of statistical

significance. Even assuming all untraceable VEPS-I and. control group youth

were employed does not change levels of significance.

Based on these employability data, therefore, the conclusion may be

drawn that a significant difference exists between the VEPS-I and control

groups in terms of employability upon graduation from high school, and

this difference may be attributed to the impact of the VEPS-I program.

This outcome may be hedged slightly by the fact that over half of the employed VEPS-I youth remained at their VEPS-I employer, indicating that the

mere fact of placing a youth in a private sector work setting is conducive

to maximizing employability. But this hedge on the programmatic impact

- 559 -
occurs over C.P.A. performance in 1971-72 compared to 1972-73. When over- all change is measured from 1970-71 through 1972-73, the longitudinal of the program is impact apparent. Although the differences between the groups vary with grouping of cities examined, a comparison of the four VEPS cities with their corresponding control groups shows

when San Bernardino is significance at the .01 level; removed (and, therefore, the influence of the Pitts- burgh data enhanced), the level of significance rises to the .001 level. Regardless of groupings, then, the analysis of change in grade point per- formance indicates a significant positive and long term impact upon the VEPS enrollees.

We have on occasion suggested that VEPS had only marginal impact upon attendance patterns, and that the relati,Inship between attendance and grade point performance was only weakly posittvc Analysis of the t-scores com- paring the VEPS-I and control groups is injlcative of a much more,substan- tial impact than we had previously maintained. In examinin3 the base year data (1970-71), the difference between the groups is significant at the .01 or the .001 level depending upon which grouping is used; VEPS-I youth were thus significantly more prone to be absent from school than was the control group prior to the experimental year. In the 1971-72 experimental year, this difference disappears, so that both groups are comparable in school attendance. This pattern continues to hold true for the year following the VEPS-I program. In fact, there is a slight positive impact in that the VEPS-I youth were less prone to miss school than the control group, although the difference is not statistically significant.

The real impact of VEPS emerges in analyzing change in attendance pat- terns over time. Comparing the VEPS-I year to the base year, significant

(.001 level) improvement among the VEPS-I youth can be observed. Change from the VEPS-I year through the senior year continues to show improvement, although not at a statistically significant level. In other words the im- pact of VEPS-1 was to radically improve performance among the VEPS-1 youth during the experimental year, the effect of which persisted through the senior year. Very little recidivism occurred. Comparing change over the period 1970-71 through 1972-73, the difference is statistically signifi- cant at the .001 level, except in the three city comparison. In summary, VEPS-I proved to have significant and long term beneficial impact upon the school attendance patterns of the VEPS-I youth.

In exploring this finding further, we attempted to account for the

variation from previous observations. It is apparent now that VEPS had sub- stantial impact upon youth who previously had missed a considerable number of days from school and only marginal impact on those youth whose attendance pattern was more normal. Thus, while maintaining the normality of attendance patterns among most of the youth, the program also resulted in substan- tially improved attendance among those youth who had been most truant. It is the dramatic improvement among these youth that accounts for the high level of significance in the analysis of change. It might be suggested

that improved attendance is the consequence of one of the operating norms of VEPS-I programs--no school, then no work and no money.

B. Final Academic Disposition

Important as grade point performance and attendance may be as indi- cators to assess the impact of VEPS upon the attitudes and behavior of the

enrollees, the ultimate test of programmatic impact rests in the extent to

- 560 -
Table 15

Final Academic Disposition for VEPS-I Completers and the Control Group as of June, 1973

Disposition First Grouping'

VEPS Control

Second Grouping

2 VEPS Control

Graduated, 1972 27.9% --1.* 8.62 --X Graduated, 1973 54.3 75.3 65.1 75.3

Not graduated, could have 3.6 6.7 3.9 6.7

Not graduated, could not have 5.3 4.0 8.6 4.0

Dropout 8.9 14.0 13.8 14.0.

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N) (247) (150) (152) (15G)

Third Grou ing

3 VEPS Control

12,4% -4

57.1 75.0

4,6 17.5

10.5 5.0

15.2 12.5

100.0% 100.0%

(105) (120)

1

Includes six VEPS cities and the four control groups.

2Includes. the four VEPS cities with their corresponding control groups.

3Excludes the San Bernardino VEPS and control groups.

4Represents sophomores in the VEPS-I year.

*To be included in the control group, a youth had to be in school during the 1972-73 academic year.
Table 12

Comparison of Change in Academic Indicators for the VEPS-I

and Senior Years for VEPS-I Completers and Control Group

Academic Indicator

VEPS-I

Year*

VEPS Control

Senior

Year**

VEPS Control

Grade Point Average Change (N) (151) (151) (115) (129)

Up 62.9% 47.0% 56.5% 58.1% Same 2.0 1.3 1.7 0.8

Down 35.1 51.7 41.7 41.1

100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0%

Summary Scale G.P.A. Change (N) (151) (151) (115) (129) +1.26 or better 10.6% 4.0% 6.1% 9.3%

+0.76 to +1.25 10.6 7.9 13.9 11.6

+0.26 to +0.75 29.1 21.9 28.7 20.9

-0.25 to +0.25 25.8 31.8 27.8 31.0

-0.26 to -0.75 11.9 20.5 15.7 20.2

-0.76 to -1.25 9.9 9.3 4.3 5.4

-1.26 or worse 2.0 4.6 3.5 1.6

99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Attendance Change (N) (149) (146) (111) (126)

Up 57.0% 37.0% 50.5% 39.7%

Same 7.4 3.4 2.7 5.6

Down 35.6 59.6 46.8 54.8

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.1%

Summary Scale Attendance Change (N) (149) (146) (111) (126)

+10 days or more 32.2% 12.3% 25.2% 14.3%

+4 to +9 days 14.8 13.0 18.9 11.1

-3 to +3 days 22.8 33.6 21.6 31.0

-4 to -9 days 10.1 17.1 12.6 15.9

-10 days or more 20.1 24.0 21.6 27.8

100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.1%

*Compares 1970-71 with 1971-72.

**Compares 1971-72 with 1972-73.

Data are for four VEPS-I cities with control groups only.
performance, and that the program appeared to have had only a marginal impact

on attendance. The data comparing VEPS-I with the control group for attendance indicate a somewhat more favorable outcome. During the program year

well over half (57.0%) of the VEPS youth improved their attendance compared

to only 37.0% of the control group. Moreover, this pattern continues during the senior year where, agaih, more than half (50.5%) of the VEPS-I

youth improved in attendance while only 39.7% of the control group did so.

Quantitatively expressed in terms of a summary scale, the difference is

even more apparent. While 47.0% of the VEPS-I youth were improving by at

least four or more days in attendance during the VEPS-I year, only 25.3%

of the control group did so. In the senior year, the same pattern holds;

44.1% of the VEPS-I youth improved a minimum of four days compared to only

25.4% of the control group.

Table 13 reveals the longitudinal pattern for the VEPS-I and control

groups for the G.P.A. and attendance variables. Over the two years following the 1970-71 base year, VEPS-I youth showed steady improvement in

G.P.A. in 33.9% of the cases compared to 20.2% for the control group. And

conversely, while 8.9% of the VEPS-I youth showed a steady decline over the

period, 13.2% of the control group did likewise. Much the same pattern

holds true in attendance. While only 13.6% of the control showed steady

improvement in attendance, 34.7% of the VEPS-I enrollees steadily improved.

Conversely, while 22.1% of the VEPS-I youth showed steady deterioration of

attendance, 32.8% of the control group did so.

Thus, utilizing comparative frequency distributions, the VEPS-I program appears to have had a substantial impact upon the enrollees, far beyond what would ordinarily be the case (as indicated by the control group).

Compared to the control group, the differences in performance are striking.

The question remains whether this disparate performance among the two groups

is statistically significant, or whether the apparent differences are really

not that dramatic.

Table 14 provides T-score tests for the significance of the unit data

underlying Tables 12 and 13. In terms of grade point performance in 1970-11,

comparison of the VEPS-I cities with the control groups reveals an insignificant negative bias indicating a superior control group; in the comparison

of the three VEPS cities (Columbus, Flint and Pittsburgh) and their control

groups, the difference is significant at the .01 level. This relationship

results largely from the influence of the Pittsburgh VEPS-I data. In the

1971-72 experimental year, the t-scores indicate a reversal of the positions; VEPS youth are no longer inferior to the control group and show a

slight positive bias, although the difference is not statistically significant. These data indicate that the program was successful in improving

grade point performance, and (importantly) the difference between the groups

is not significant at that point in time. The long term impact of VEPS-I

is shown in the t-scores for 1972-73. Once again, there is a slight positive bias toward the VEPS youth, although the difference is again not statistically significant.

The analysis of change in grade point performance is more indicative

of the impact of VEPS. Change from the base year (1970-71) during the experimental year is significant at the .u01 level regardless of the city

combinations. The lingering influence of VEPS is further demonstrated by

the fact that no significant difference in change in grade point performance

- 563 - 1;,
Table 13

Composite Three Year Academic Indicator Trends*

Composite Three Year Trend

(1970-71 to 1972-73)

Steady improvement

Improved VEPS; stable senior

Improved VEPS; declined senior,

Improved VEPS; declined senior;

Declined VEPS; improved senior;

Declined VEPS; improved senior;

Declined VEPS; stable senior

Steady decline

but improved over base

below base

over base

below base

(N)

C.P.A. Trend

VEPS Control

(115) (129)

33.9% 20.2%

1.7 0.0

17.4 17.8

14.8 10.1

16.5 22.5

7.0 15.5

0.0 0.7

8.1 13.2

100.0% 100.0%

Attendance Trend

VEPS Control

(95)

34,7%

4.2

14.7

0.0

12.6

11.6

0.0

22.1

99.9%

(125)

13.6%

2.4

5.6

16.0

16.0

10.4

3.2

32.8

100.0%

*Four VEPS cities with control groups only.
Table 14

T-Score Comparisons of VEPS and Control Group Aggregates for Academic Indicators

By Year and By Change Over Time

Academic Indicator

Six VEPS/

Four Contrail

Four VEPS/ 2 Four Control

Three VEPS/

Three Control

Grade Point Average

1970-71 -0.2233 -1.4993 -3.9987**** 1971-72 3.3948**** 1.8786* 0.4255 1972-73 1.4538 1.5758 0.6051

Change in G.P.A.

1970-71/71-72 3.9996**** 3.5416  4.2836** ** 1971-72/72-73 -0.2516 0.0258 0.6216 1970-71/72-73 1.9422* 2.5560*** 3.6575 

Attendance

1970-71 2.8217** * 3.5263**** 3.2595  1971-72 -0.1113 0.1770 -0.3065 1972-73 -0.4368 -0.9422 0.3187

Change in Attendance

1970-71/71-72 -3.4792** ** -3.8780  -3.7712** ** 1971-72/72-73 -1.8738* -1.2766 0.2600 1970-71/72-73 -3.6695**** -3.4244**** -1.3534*

1Data are for the four VEPS cities with control groups plus Fort Worth and Salt Lake City VEPS. 2Data are for the four VEPS cities with control groups only.

3Data exclude San Bernardino VEPS and lntrol groups.

Symbols:

* significant at the .05 level

** significant at the .02 level

*** significant at the .01 level

**** significant at the .001 level

6J4
Table 16

Final Employment Disposition for VEPS-I Completers and the Control Group as of June, 1973*

Employment Disposition

First Grouping 1 Second Grouping2 Third Grouping3 VEPS Control VEPS Control VEPS Control

Employed 52.9% 29.6% 53.6% 29.6% 59.3% 30.0%

Other 36.4 40.0 30.4 40.0 22.1 38.0

Unemployed 10.7 30.4 16.0 30.4 18.6 32.0

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N) (206) (115) (125) (115) (86) (100) p (.001 <.001 <.001

Employed 83.2% 49.3; 77.0% 49.3% 76.1% 48.4%

Unemployed 16.8 50.7 23.0 50.7 23.9 51.6

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N) (131) (69) (87) (69) (67) (62)

p <.001 (.001 (.01

lIncludes six VEPS cities and the four control groups.

2Includes the four VEPS cities with their corresponding control groups.

3Excludes the San Bernardino VEPS and control groups.

*To be included in the control group, a youth had to be in school during the.1972-73 academic year.
of VEPS-I must itself be modified in light of the fact that most NYC youth

are effectively precluded from participation in regular work experience

programs. The desirability of on-the-job training to ease the post-training placement problem is also confirmed by this outcome.
Table 11

Within City T-Score Comparisons of VEPS and Control Groups for Academic Indict ,a By Year and By Change Over Time

Academic Indicator Columbus Flint Pittsburgh San Bernardino

Grade Point Average

1910 -11 1971-72

1972-73

Change in G.P.A.

-:.389

0.0141

0.2107

-1.9150*

0.2745

0.6009

-3.7759****

1.7175*

-0.0438

362.524:

0.7207

1970-71/71-72 i.2480 2.0190** 6.1238  -1.3100

1971 - 72/12 -13 2.0764**  0.7040 -1.6157 -0.8609

1970-71/72-73 1.7472* 2.2050** 2.6435*** -2.6529

Attendance

1970-71 0.2426 1.377 3.5418  3.3898

1971-72 -1.6468 -0.2201 0.3896 3.8420

1972-73 .3666 2.3068 -0.5491 0.7603

Change in Attendance

1970-71/71-72 -2.9886 -1.3465 -3.3173** ** -0.9060

1971-72/72-73 0.1480 2.2664 -0.0082 -2.9386

1970-71/72-73 -1.4967 0.4693 -1.9054* -2.2582

Symbols:

* - significant at the .05 level

** = significant at the .02 level

*** = significant at the .01 level

**** significant at the .001 level

6.3.E
Pittsburgh, although the scores reveal improvement among VEPS enrollees in

the remaining cities, but not at a statistically significant level. Unlike

grade point performance, the impact of VEPS upon school attendance is not

dramatic within individual cities; this conclusion, however-, is consistent

with previous observations that attendance and grade point performance do

not appear to be related in a statistically significant manner, and on

occasion have been found to be inversely related. As was found in the data

on grade point performance, San Bernardino runs contrary to the trend in

the other cities, although again the change is not statistically significant.

The highly visible impact of VEPS in Pittsburgh, assuming all other

factors are constant, would influence the outcome of aggregate programmatic

impact measures. The strong influence of Pittsburgh upon the aggregate data

when combined with the slight opposite impact of San Bernardino tends to

balance each other in the aggregate data sets. However, in the analysis

of aggregate measures of group differences, three sets of t-scores are

utilized (See Table 13). The first set compares six VEPS cities (the four

mentioned above plus Fort Worth and Salt Lake City) against the control

group; the second set compares the four VEPS cities against the four counterpart control groups; the third set drops the San Bernardino data for both

VEPS and control groups due to the impact of the selective screening of

VEPS applicants in that city. As will be noted, however, these manipulations do not materially change the outcomes, except in terms of levels of

significance.

Table 12 compares frequency distributions for the academic indicators

for both VEPS -I and the corresponding control groups during the 1971-72

experimental year and the following senior year (1972-73). The N declines

in 1972-73 due to the number of graduating seniors (either mid year 1972-73

or at the end of the VEPS year) or drop-outs in both groups.

In terms of grade point performance during the VEPS-I year, 62.9% of

the (four city) VEPS-I youth improved their grade point average compared

to less than half (47.0%) of the control group. For the senior year, the

distributions among those improving or declining are virtually the same

for both groups. The interpretation emerges, therefore, that the VEPS program had a positive impact upon the VEPS-I youth during the experimental

year and that this impact continued into the senior year in that virtually

no difference can be seen in performance of the two groups. It must be

remembered that, as the t-scores will indicate, the VEPS-I group entered

the program with significantly inferior grade point averages.

In terms of a summary scale, 50.3% of the VEPS-I youth improved their

G.P.A. at least a quarter of a quality point during the VEPS-I year compared to only 33.8% of the control group. In the senior year VEPS-I youth

improved an additional quarter of a point in 48.7% of the cases compared

to 41.8% for the control group. Thus, VEPS-1 youth improved in C.P.A. not

only in absolute numbers, but quantitatively as well, in a manner superior

to the control group.

We have noted in final reports and assessments Icr individual program

years the apparent lack of a relationship between attendance and grade point

569
in grade point average during the senior year, when these data are scaled

it can be seen that a substantial portion of those declines were quite

small in magnitude. While 48.1% of the youth improved by at least a quarter of a grade point in the VEPS year, 46.7% did so in the senior year.

Looking at the opposite end of the scale, 23.6% of the youth declined by

a quarter point of more during the VEPS year compared to only 21.5% during the senior year.

The same pattern holds true for the attendance data. While slightly

more youth declined absolutely in attendance during the senior year (i.e.,

missed more school), the magnitude of that decline is quite small. In the

VEPS year, 38.0% of the youth declined in attendance by four days or more,

compared to 35.7% during the senior year.

Tt.ise data would indicate a moderately strong long term impact due

to the VEPS experience and supports the conclusion that VEPS has a beneficial impact upon the enrollees in terms of grade point average and school

attendance. This conclusion can be tested further by examining change in

academic and attendance performance over the two year period covering-both

VEPS and the following senior year. These data are provided in Table 6.

Table 6

Academic Indicator Trends: VEPS to Senior Year

Trend: VEPS to Senior Year G.P.A.

Trend

Attendance

Trend

(N) (148) (126)

Improved VEPS; improved senior year 16.9% 17.5%

Improved VEPS; stable senior year 14.2 9.5

Improved VEPS; declined senior year 22.3 15.9

Stable VEPS; improved senior year 10.1 5.6

Stable VEPS; stable senior year 9.5 5.6

Stable VEPS; declined senior year 3.4 11.9

Declined VEPS; improved senior year 15.5 20.6

Declined VEPS; stable senior year 6.8 4.8

Declined VEPS; declined senior ;.ear 1.4 8.7

100.1% 100.1%

In terms of grade point average, long term positive impact (improved at

least one-quarter grade point) is apparent in 31.1% of the youth (improved

VEPS and improved or stable senior years), and only 8.2% experienced long

term negative impact (decline at least one-quarter point in VEPS and were

stable or declined at least one-quarter point in the senior year). Short

term positive impact can be seen in 22.3% of the cases (improved in VEPS

but declined in senior year) compared to 15.5% short term negative impact

(declined in VEPS but improved in senior year). Of those who improved

academically in their senior year grade point average, two-thirds improved

or were stable in the VEPS year; of those who demonstrated a stable senior

year, over three quarters improved or were stable in the VEPS year. Finally,

- 570
of those who declined in their senior year, 94.8% improved or were stable

in their VEPS year. These several splits of the data confirm that VEPS

had long term favorable impact for nearly one-third of the enrollees and

short term favorable impact for anuther one-quarter, compared to a com- bined long and short term negative impact on about one-sixth of the enrollees. On balance, the VEPS experiment must be termed successful in

terms of improving academic performance.

Data for patterns in attendance are not as dramatic, although still

clearly positive in outcomes. Long term benefits can be seen for 27.0%

of the enrollees compared to long term negative impact for 8.7%; short

term positive impact occurred in 15.9% of the cases compared to short term

negative in 4.8%. Of those who improved in their senior year, over half

(52.9%) had improved or were stable in the VEPS year. Three-fourths of

those who were stable in their senior year attendance had improved or were

stable in the VEPS year, while a similar three-fourths of those who declined

in the senior year had improved or were stable in the VEPS year. These

date reinforce the conclusion that the net effect of VEPS upon enrollee

attendance in school is clearly positive.

As favorable as these trend data are in assessing the impact of VEPS

upon enrollee school performance, the enrollees who experienced declines

in their senior year may well mask an overall positive impact for VEPS,

especially, those who declined in their senior but whose performance through

and following VEPS was substantially better than their performance in the

year preceding the program year. Thus, composite three year trend data

are required to measure more precisely the actual impact of VEPS; these

data are presented in Table 7.

Table 7

Composite Three Year Academic Indicator Trends

Composite Three Year Trend

(1970-71 to 1972-73)

Steady improvement

Improved VEPS; stable senior

Improved VEP.;; declined senior,

improved over base

Improved VEPS; declined senior;

Declined VEPS; improved senior;

Declined VEPS; improved senior;

Declined VEPS; stable senior

Steady decline

(N)

but

below base

over base

below base

G.P.A.

Trend

Attendance

Trend

(148)

35.1%

(126)

27.0%

2.0 4.0

17.6 12.7

13.5 12.7

15.5 13.5

6.8 9.5

0.0 0.0

9.5 20.6

100.0% 100.0%
Both short and long term positive impacts upon enrollees can be discerned

for the three year period.* In terms of grade point performance, a total

of 70.2% improved their senior grade point average over the base period,

regardless of outcome during the VEPS year; this figure includes 35.1% who

show steady improvement and another 2.0% who improved in VEPS and stabilized

in the senior year. A total of 29.8% declined below the base figure with

9.5% showing a steady decline over the three year period and another 6.8%

who improved over VEPS in the senior year but were still below the base

figure.

In terms of attendance, once again the figures are favorable but somewhat less dramatic than grade point averages. A total of W.2% improved

attendance over the base period, including 27.0% who steadily improved and

4.0% who improved and then stabilized. On the opposite side, 42.8% showed

a decline below base figures, including 20.6% who steadily declined and

9.5% who improved uver VEPS in their senior year but still had more absences

than during the base period.

Overall, then, the three year trend data are quite clear. The VEPS

experiment had a beneficial impact on a substantial majority of the VEPS

enrollees; while some negative impact can be observed, both the short and

the long term impact is obviously positive, indicative of substantial and

enduring impact upon the enrollees. The program objectives of enhancing

enrollee appreciation of the need for and benefits of a high school education appear to have been met. Left unanswered (temporarily, see Part IV)

is the question whether the improvement shown is common to youth similarly

positioned or whether the outcomes can be attributed to VEPS.

B. Final Academic Disposition

A second major objective of the VEPS-I experiment was to encourage

youth to remain in school and to graduate. The indicator of programmatic

success or failure in this regard is relatively easy to operationalize,

and the data in Table 8 clearly demonstrate that to a substantial extent

this program objective was met.

Table 8

Final Academic Disposition for VEPS-I Completers as of June, 1973

Disposition (N) (Percent)

Graduated, 1972 69 27.9%

Graduated, 1973 134 54.3

Not graduated, could have 9 3.6

Not graduated, could not have 13 5.3

Dropout 22 8.9

Total 247 100.0%

*Previously, change had been measured in terms of + or - a quarter of

a grade point; any change of less than a qurrter point was considered stable.

Data in Table 3 are presented to show any, change whatsoever, regardless of

magnitude.

- 571 -

A
Of the 247 VEPS completers for whom data could be obtained, 203 (82.2%)

graduated from high school. Although VEPS guidelines called for the selection of rising juniors, several programs included a small number of rising seniors and sophomores among the enrollees; these are represented by

the sixty-nine seniors who gradated in 1972 (close of VEPS-I) and thirteen youth (predominantly sophomores) who were incapable of graduating

in 1973. A more accurate repvssentation, then, would have a total of 134

youth out of 165 (81.2%) who were rising juniors at the time of enrollment in VEPS who continued in school and graduated on schedule. Nine

youth (3.6%) who could have graduated failed to do so, while another twentytwo (8.9%) dropped out in their senior year. Males predominate among the

dropouts; the reasons most frequently given were finding full-time employment and entering military service.

As with the grade point averages and attendauce data, the final

academic disposition of the VEPS-I completers provides another indicator

of successful attainment of programmatic goals.

C. Employment Patterns Following the VEPS Experience

A major objective of the VEPS program was to provide NYC eligible

youth with work experience and job training so as to permit them to obtain full-time private sector employment in the summer between the end

of the VEPS experience and the start of their senior year and part-time

through the senior year. The data in Table 9 provide frequency distributions by employment status for three time references: at the close of

the VEPS experience, for the summer of 1972, and through the senior year

of school.

Table 9

Employment Status of VEPS-I Completers at Selected Time References

E..loyment Status

Close of

VEPS-I

Summer

1972

School Year

Senior 1972-73

(N) (258) (177) ** (177)

At VEPS employer 37.2% 29.4% 23.7%

Other private sector 4.3 3.4 4.0

VEPS-II 22.9 40.7 33.3

NYC, other public sector 20.9 20.3 18.1

Employed private sector,

later terminated

N/A 0.6 5.6

Unemployed in school 4.3 1.7 1.1

Dropout N/A 2.8 12.4

Other 10.4* 1.1 1.7

Unknown N/A 0.0 0.0

100.0% 100.0% 99.9%

*Includes 6.2% in higher education and 2.3% military service.

**Loeser N is due to exclusion of VEPS seniors who graduated at the

end of the program year and absence of data from several cities.

- 573 -
The data are complicated by a series of events that marked the operations of the VEPS-I Program. Many programs began the projected year long

program later than scheduled, and consequently, felt it desirable to reenroll youth in VEPS-II for a second year of work experience and training; other programs failed to convey the goal of unsupported private sector

employment for the youth after the first year to the employers. Consequently, when the employ r asked to retain the youth, many refused. A

small group of employers, who had been made aware of the program goal, took

advantage of it by late' refu-ing employment. In both these cases, youth

tended to be reassigned t3 ve.PS or the regular NYC program during the

summer and/or senior year. These events handicapped many programs and

seriously limited effective assessment of the intermediate employment goals

of the VEPS program. The impact of operational problems is clearly demonstrated in the data; 43.8% of the youth were re-enrolled in VEPS-II or

placed in NYC at the close of the experimental year; in the summer this

figure rose to 61.0% but fell slightly during the senior year to 51.4%.

Such heavy concentrations of youth in the VEPS-II and NyC categories inhibits meaningful analysis and clouds interpretation of other data. However, a sizable number of youth did remain at the VEPS employer, gradually

declining over the time references provided. A small percentage of youth

found other private sector work, but for one reason or another terminated

that employment. Extremely small percentages were unemployed at the various

measurement points. Other private sector employment remained fairly stable

over the time period; when these youths are combined with the youth retained by VEPS employers, a sizable proportion of youth were placed in

the private sector with some prospects of longevity. One suspects, therefore, that the VEPS program partially attained the objective of private

sector employment, but the data are imprecise due to the VEPS re-enrollments and NYC assignments.

D. Final Employment Disposition

The ultimate goal of the VEPS objective was to provide work experience

and training for full-time employment upon graduation from high school

and thus ease, transition into the labor force. The ultimate test of efficacy rests in the extent to which any of several programmatic outcomes are

consistent with the program objective, full-time employment and higher education being two of the more obvious favorable outcomes. The data in

Table 10 demonstrate the effectivenss of VEPS in attaining the ultimate

programmatic objective.

Table 10

Employment Status of VEPS Completers Following Graduation

Employment Status N

At VEPS employer 59 28.0%

VEPS skill related employer 15 7.1

Unrelated private sector 32 15.2

Public sector employment 3 1.4

Higher or technical education 48 22.7

Military service 14 ;.6

Married, hc1,3ewife 13 6.2

Unemployel 22 10.4

Other (moved) 5 2.4

211 100.0%

- 574 - 6' , ; ,
Private sector employment on a full-time basis accounts for slightly more

than half (50.3%) of those enrolled that could be tracked. Although 10.4%

of the youth were unemployed following graduation, this figure would appear to be substantially below the unemployment rates for teenagers generally

and black teenagers :.articularly.

The data on employment status.provide a reasonably clear picture

of the impact of VEPS. Favorable outcomes (excluding the unemployed and

the "other" categories) total 87.2% of the youth who completed the program.

Public and private full-time employment accounts for 51.7% of the VEPS

completers; a plurality (28.0%) of youth remained at the VEPS work station and an additional 7.1% found work at another employer utilizing skills

and experience obtained at the VEPS employer. The data implications are

clear: the VEPS program, based on these disposition outcomes, appears to

be a significant and meaningful instrument for encouraging youth to remain

in school, gain work experience, graduate from high school and find fulltime employment.
Table 1

SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF VEPS-I

COMPLETERS AND CONTROL GROUP

Enrollee

Characteristic

All VEPS -I

Completere

Four City

VEPS

Control

Group

SEX (N) (272) (155) (151)

Male 51.8% 56.8% 53.0%

Female 48.2 43.2 47.0

P>.80 p> .50

AGE (N) (257) (152) (151)

15 or younger 12.1% 12.r z 19.2%

16 years 50.2 57.9 74.8

17 or older 37.8 29.7 6.0

p < .001 p < .001

ETHNIC BACKGROUND (N) (272) (155) (151)

Black 52.9% 70.3% 69.5%

White 28.3 10.3 21.9

Spanish, Other 18.8 19.4 8.6

PG.01 p<.01

SCHOOL YEAR* (N) (269) (155) (151)

Freshman 1.1% 1.9% 6.0%

Sophomore 4.1 5.8 10.6

Junior 68.4 85.2 71.5

Senior 26.4 7.1 11.9

p<M01 p< .05

*In performing X2 significath:e freshman and sophomore were collapsed into a single categcry.

The disproprotionate di-)tributtel. along the ethnicity dimension is

also a function of limited t.!liverde but more can be explained in

terms of the geographic conclt.ents of youth with Spanish surnames.

Due to these area concentratjG;.4 j'apecially San Bernardino) a direct

correspondence between the gx0i.fri was impossible. t'ince no meaningful

ethnic related differences are suggested, this faetsi is not important

to the assessment of program outcomes. Thud, whi:e iropvrtant distributional variation cal: be noted, those differences ur!se fl,An uacontrol

factors (program guichilines, decisions of VEPS staff, nad a limite

verse) rather than procedural aspects of control group .3election.

Greater compaktbility, at least given !.ow statistical significance of the frequency distributions, exists totween the experimental and

control group with regard to family characteristics. See Table 2. Given

conventional interpretation of the Chi squared 4tatistic, none of the

variations approach statistical importance (p < .05), except for the public

6 A ley 57f
Table 2

SELECTED FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS OF VEPS-I

COMPLETERS AND NNTROL GROUP

Kmily

Characteristic

All VEFS-1

Completers

Four City

VEPS

Control

Group

HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD (N) (270) (155) (151)

Father 35.(.n.; 32.3% 44.0%

Mother 56...4 61.3 49.3

Other 7.5 6.4 6.7

P<.30 p 4.20

EMPLOYMENT OF HEAD (N) (2t2) (155) (150)

Over 35 hours 30.5% 18.4% 30.2%

Under 35 hours 1C.4 15.8 11.4

Unemployed 53.1 65.8 58.4

p<.50 p<.10

CONTRIBUTES TO

FAMILY SUPPORT (N) (2Z1) (132) (134)

Yes 28.1% 12.1% 19.4%

No 71.o 87.9 80.6

p< AO P < .30

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (N) (267) (153) (151)

Yes 50.2% 64.1% 51.0%

No 49.8 35.9 49.0

p< 99 p <.05

assistance variable comparing the control group with the same four VEPS

cities. Such bias as ,toer, exist casts the control group in a faiored

light. Generally, the Loltrol group evidences fewer characteristics of

social pathology--femaL; headed households, unemployed or underemployed

head of household, and public assistance--than do the VEPS enrollees. It

is not unreasonable to argue that youth experiencing fewer of the debilitating effects occasioned by social pathological factors would experience

less difficulty in attaining satisfactory academic performance and moving

into the full-timp labor force. Thus, although small levels of bias do

exist between the voArrol group and the VEPS group, that bias constitutes

a more rigorous test of the VEPS program--if VEPS can be shown to have an

impact upon enrollees.

The VEPS experiment. i group and the control group are also comparable

in terns of their prior work experience. As can be seen in Table 3, substantially equal proportions of youth had held a job for which they received wages and hied worked for thirty days or more. For most of the youth,

this work experience was obtained through the regular NYC program.

Finally, since academic performance constitutes one of the criteria

by which the impact of the VEPS program is to be assessed, some measures

- C77 -
Table 3

SELECTED EMPLOYMENT HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS OF

VEPS-I COMPLETERS AND CONTROL GROUP

Employment

History

All VEPS-I

Campleters

Four City

VEPS

Control

Group

EVER WCRVZD (N) (253) (136) (151)

Yes 61.7% 65.4% 62.7%

No 38.3 34.6 37.3

p < .80 p < .50

WORKED 30 DAYS (N) (248) (135) (151)

Yes 53.6% 58.5% 57.8%

No 7.3 6.7 4.4

Never Worked 39.1 34.8 37.8

P<.50 p <.20

of comparability must be determined for beginning (1970-71) grade point

averages and attendance in school. For reasons cited below (chiefly the

rational character of the data), t-tests were computed comparing both grade

point average and attendance for both groups in the 1970-71 school year

(the year preceding the VEPS experiment). See Table 4. No significant

difference could be found in grade point averages. With attendance, the

Table 4

T SCORES AND SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS OF ACADEMIC INDICATOR

COMPARABILITY BETWEEN VEPS COMPLETERS AND CONTROL GROUP

Six City VEPS/ Four City VEPS/

Control Control

1970-71 Grade Point Average

1970-71 Attendance

-0.2233 -1.4993

2.8217** 3.5263*

*Significant at the .001 level

**Significant at the .01 level

distributions were found to be significant at the .001 level, biased in

favor of the control group. In other words, the control group showed

significantly greater attendance and the VEPS group greater absence in

the year preceding the experiment. As with family characteristic data,

the importance of this distribution is that it provides a more rigorous

test of the VEPS program since to reduce the significance level would require substantial improvement among the VEPS enrollees.

- 578 - 6 4