ED 203 072

AUTHOR

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATE

NOT!

AVAILABLE FROM

DOCUMENT RESUME

CE 029 122

Gilsinan, James F.: Tomev, E. Allan

A Comparison of Public and Private Sector

worksites--An Interim Peport. Youth work Experience.

Youth Knowledge Development Report 7.7.

Saint Louis Univ., Mc. Center for Urban Programs.

Employment and Trainina Administration (DOW.

Washington, D.C. Office of Youth Programs.

May 90

167p.: For related documents see CE 029 106.

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC 20402 (Stock No.

029-014-00175-9, 55.501.

EDPS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.

DES,,RIPTORS Comparative Analysis: Disadvantaged Youth; Dropouts:

Economically. Disadvantaged: *Employment Programs: Job

Development: Job Training: Program Development:

Program Effectiveness: Program Implementation: *Site

Analysis: Vocational Education: *Work. Experience

Programs: *Youth Employment: *Youth Programs

IDENTIFIERS *Private Sector: *Public Sector

ABSTRACT

A study compared the effectiveness of public and

private sector work experience programs. In five locations equal

numb3rs of fobs were developed in the private and public/nonprofit

sectors. To equalize the incentives relative to the public sector,

full wage subsidies were provided on an experimental basis in the

private sector. Youth were matched in pairs and randomly assigned to

one of the two sectors. They were tested at entry and completion

using the Standardized Assessment System and supplemental measures.

Preliminary results of the study indicated that it is harder to

develop jobs and match disadvantaged out-of-school youth to jobs in

the private sector, even when full wage costs are covered. Youth are

more frequently termitated in the private sector. Finally, the

subsequent placement rate into unsubsidized jobs as a percentage of

all participants is higher in the private sector, while the placement

rate into subsidized plus unsubsLdized lobs is about the same. Thus,

the early finding is that the benefits of private sector employment

do not significantly outweigh those of public or nonprofit sector

employment for dropouts, although differences are in the anticipated

directions. (Related youth kno "ledge and development reports are

available--see note.) (MN)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that car, be made

from the original document. ***********************************************************************
YOUTH KNOWLE

RE

YOUTH WOR

A Comparison of Public an

An Inte

1

1

1
I

k

l

r

I I

0

I

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

EDUCATION & WELFARE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM

THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

l
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

reproduced, fully or partially, without

permission of the Federal Government.

Source credit is requested but not

required. Permission is required only

to reproduce an copyrighted material

contained herein.
YOUTH KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT REPORT 7.7

A COMPARISON OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

SECTOR WORKSITES--AN INTERIM REPORT

James F. Gilsinan

E. Allan Tomey

Center for Urban Programs

St. Louis University

April 1980

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

wevilington. D.C. 20402
OVERVIEW

It is a conventional wisdom of employment and training policy

that work experience in the private sector is preferable to

eork experience in the public sector. The private sector

provides "real" work rather than "make work." It standards

are presumably structure demanding a day's labor for a day's

pay. Thus, the experience should acclimate youth to the

requirements of the work world better than less disciplined

public sector work experiences. Finally, since four of five

jobs are in the provate sector, a private sector work experience is more likely to lead to permanent employment.

The case is not so clearcut as these arguments would suggest.

Public employment and training interventions are required because the labor market will not, on its own, hire adequate

numbers of economically disadvantaged, particularly minorities. There is a cost to getting employers to change behavior, whether in terms of , on-the-job training

subsidies or tax credits. Stricter worksite standards may

be a learning experience for some youth, but a debilituting

shock for youth who need to adjust gradually to the world of

work. There is no guarantee that disadvantaged youth can

prove themselves in jobs or that they will be given permanent

private sector employment when the temporary incentives end.

Perhaps most critically, when productive work is accomplished

in the public sector, the value offsets the costs of the

program for a social benefit-cost perspective. When a youth

is employed in the private sector, there is no such offset

to whatever subsidy must be paid to encourage the employment.

On the other hand, the private sector is rarely given the same

"deal" as public and nonprofit employers and hence is understandably less willing to take on the economically disadvantaged. On-the-job training subsidies and tax credits

usually amount to about half of wage costs in the private

sector; hundred percent wage subsidies have only been tried

under Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Projects. In contrast,

CETA has traditionally paid the full cost for employment in

the public and nonprofit sector.

Clearly, then, there is a need to test some of the basic

assumptions about public vs private sector work:

o Can private sector jobs be found for dropout and disadvantaged youth if the full hiring cost is subsidized?

o Will private employers "cream" in the hiring process

more than public sector employers?

o Are the experiences and gains of like youth employed in

the public and private sectors different?
o Will youth be fired more frequently in the private sector?

o Will youth who work in the private sector slots move more

frequently into permanent jobs?

o Do the in-program and post-program benefits from private

sector jobs offset the lack of social output?

The Public/Private Jobs Demonstration was designed to answer

these questions. 4 five locations an equal number of jobs

were developed in the private and public/nonprofit sectors;

the full wage subsidy was provided on an experimental basis

in the private sector to equalize the incentives relative to

the public/nonprofit sector. Youth were matched into pairs

and then randomly assigned to one of the two sectors. They

were tested at entry and completion using the Standardized

Assessment System plus supplemental measures; they will be

followed up at three and eight months after the work experience

period. Records are kept on job development efforts and costs

during the initial period as well as at the end of the program

when there are equal placement efforts for employees in the

public and private sector who have not been offered permanent

jobs.

The results presented in this volume, while only preliminary,

set the stage for more rigorous analysis:

1. It is harder to develop jobs and match disadvantaged

out-of-school youth to jobs in the private sector even when

the full wage costs are covered.

2. Youth are more frequently terminated in the private

sector, so that over the course of the work experience period,

roughly a fifth more employment weeks are generated in the

private sector from an equal number of originally filled jobs.

3. The subsequent placement rate into unsubsidized jobs

as a percentage of all participants is higher in the private

sector; the placement rate into subsidized plus unsubsidized

jobs is about the same. In terms of earnings outcomes, thus

it does not appear that private sector participants have much

advantage.

(In other words, the early finding is that the benefits of

private sector employment do not significantly outweigh those

of public or nonprofit sector employment for dropout youth

although differences are in the anticipated directions. Any

conclusion awaits in-program gains measures and the eight month

it
followup results, but at this point it would seem a good bet

that aggregate differentials will be modest. If it is assumed

that half of the c...st of public or nonprofit sector work is

returned in useful social product, a conservative assumption

according to most studies of work valuations, it does not appear

that the differential impacts of seeking private sector worksites are worth the costs.

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 interrelated 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 application will usually require integration and synthesis from a

wide array 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 to organize and disseminate the products adequately

to assure the full exploitation of the findings. The magnitude

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 Programs 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 Knowledge Development

Reports in order to facilitate access and integration.

iii
The Youth Knowledge Development Reports, of which this is one,

are divided into twelve broad categories:

1. Knowledge 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 Young 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 involves 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.

iv
8. Implementation Issues: This category includes crosscutting analyses of the practical lessons concerning "how-todo-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 multi-year 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 the findings of those activities designed to explore

new approaches. The subjects covered including 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 Linkages: 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

agencies and the like.

In each of these knowledge development categories, there will

be a range of discrete demonstration, research and evaluation

activities, focused on different policy, program and analytical

issues. For instances, 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 publication is classified in 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 products under a knowledge

development activity are closely interrelated and the activities in each broad cluster have significant interconnections.

7
This preliminary analysis of the Public vs. Private Sector Jobs

demonstration should be read in conjunction with The Youth

Entitlement Demonstration--Private Sector Experience in the

"innovative approaches" category. Also of importance are the

value of output assessments in Work Valuation--The Methods and

Findings for Their Application which suggest the tradeoft in

socially valued output that results from the private sector

focus.

Robert Taggart

Administrator

Office of Youth Programs

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

OVERVIEW

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. ANALYSIS OF WORKSITE DEVELOP DATA (LEVEL OF EFFORT) 5

III. ANALYSIS OF SAS PRETEST AND STEP 23

IV. FLOW OF YOUTH THROUGH PROGRAM PHASES 33

V. ANALYSIS OF EARLY PROGRAM TERMINATORS 43

VI. AN OVERVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 63

VII. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES BY SITE 71

vii
I. INTRODUCTION

Project Overview

A major goal of the Department of Labor's Office of Youth Programs is to explore alternative approaches for increasing the employability of disadvantaged

youth. Consistent with this goal is the Public versus Private,Sector Jobs Demon:t-.rion Project, a discretionary funded youth project (under CETA, Title IV,

Pu,-1 . Subpart 3 - YETP). The research component of this project examines the

relative benefits of serving youth through subsidized full-time jobs (100 percent of the minimum wage) in the private sector. This special pro ct is designed

to facilitate rigorous research for measuring the relative efficie.LL-, effectivenese and impact of subsidizing public versus private jobs as a means of aiding

needy youth.

The demonstration focuses on 16-21 year old YETP eligible youth who are out

of school. It involves random assignment of youth to public and private sector

jobs in a manner which assures comparability of youth in both types of subsidized

employment. The Department of Labor has specified various other research controls

to be utilized to assure that (a) program operations are designed to provide comparable manpower activities and services to youth in both subsidized employment

groups, and (b) the five separate demonstration project sites around the country

(Portland, Oregon; St. Louis, Missouri; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York,

New York; and rural Minnesota) have procedures similar enough to facilitate

multi-site research comparisons.

The national office of the U.S. Department of Labor contracted separately for

a central research agent (for the overall demonstration of the five sites), St.

Louis University's Center for Urban Programs, to be responsible for guiding the
research findings for the demonstration project.

Knowledge Development Objective of Project

The central knowledge development question to be answered by this demonst

tion research project is:

What are the differences in post-program employment and

earnings outcomes for out-of-school youth who have participated in fully subsidized work experience in the

public sector as compared to similar youth in fully subsidized work in the private sector?

Other analytic objectives of this "knowledge development" discretionary

youth project are to determine (1) whether and how subsidized jobs in the pri

vate sector are different and/or more difficult to develop than those in the

public sector, and (2) whether differential program outcomes are found for

varying participant characteristics/worksite locations/project jurisdictions.

General Project Organization

The five program sites agreed to conduct the project, known in local area

as the Youth in Jobs project, accarding to a standard grant plan which was jc

developed by DOL, the Center, and the operators. Each site was to place 320

youth, evenly divided between the public and private sectors (rural Minnesota

plan called for 240 youth). The grant plan specified standard requirements I

would be met by all operators in the following areas:

- Project Organization

- Youth Recruitment and Selection

- Worksite Development

2
-Worksite Assignment and Referral

-Program Services

-Placement Services

-Participant Flow

-Participant Wage Payment Processes

-Research, Recordkeeping, and Reports

Each operator provided attachments to the standard items detailing how they would

implement each project area.

Research Plan

This demonstration project is one of a number of efforts by the Department

of Labor's Office of Youth Programs to develop a national data base. Such a data

base will be used in an attempt to answer the question of what works best for

whoa under what conditions when dealing with the employment difficulties faced by

disadvantaged youth. Accordingly, Youth In Jobs has used the standardized instrument package developed by Educational Testing Services for this purpose. The

standardized package consists of a series of pre-post assessments and follow-up

instruments that seek to measure changes in work related attitudes, knowledge,

and the eventual employment outcomes of the youth being served.

The variety of programs established to improve the work readiness of youth

have, in recent years, faced numerous criticisms. Particular concern has been expressed about the apparent overreliance on public sector jobs for providing work

experience for the population of youth being served. Such jobs have been viewed

as lacking appropriate supervision, challenge, skill development opportunities,

and transitional potential for eventually moving the youth into the private

sector. Unfortunately, while such criticisms of public sector youth efforts have

been frequent, there has been little more than rhetoric supporting the assumption

3
that the private sector can provide superior work experiences and ultimately

better employment opportunities for the unemployed sixteen to twenty-one year

olds. This-demonstration project has therefore developed a second set of instrumentation designed to test some of the assumptions typically made about the

private sector and its availability, benefits, and transitional opportunities

for disadvantaged youth. These instruments measure the level of effort needed

to develop work experience slots and unsubsidized job opportunities in both the

public sector and the private sector.

This report provides data on two rather distinct issues. First, data are

presented comparing the level of effort needed to develop worksites in the two

sectors. Further comparisions between the sectors are made by types of employers contacted and eventually utilized,and by the types of jobs provided the

participating youth in each of the demonstration sites. Next, data are presented

on the pretest scores youth achieved on the ETS assessments instruments. Scores

are compared by site, by sector assigments, and by several demographics including

age, race, sex, and reading level. The report concludes with discussions of the

flow of youth through various program phases and some preliminary data on early

program terminators and program completers.

4
II. ANALYSIS OF WORKSITE DEVELOPMENT DATA

Worksite Developers in the five jurisdictions reported contacts with a

total of 3,337 companies Ind agencies to solicit worksites for the Youth in Jobs

Demonstration project. 305 contacts were in the public sector, 720 in the private not-for-profit sector, and 2,312 were in the private-for-profit sector.

Table I presents a summary of the data allowing the number of employers and

agencies contacted by site and sector.

Previous reports have indicated that sites almost always contacted smaller

employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees. In most cases, the employers

contacted were new to the operator.

Table 11 presents data on the total number of contacts made in each sector

for each site. Total follow-up calla were recorded and summed to obtain Table II.

Only Philadelphia had some employer contacts where more than 4 - 6 follow-up

contacts were made. The number of total contacts necessary to develop a suitable number of worksites varied considerebly among the five jurisdictions. 67%

of the total contacts were made with private sector employers. Subsequent tables

detail the level of effort required to develop worksites for the Youth in Jobs

Program.

The number of employers agreeing to provide at least one worksite and the

participation rate by site and sector is shown in Table III.

Overall, 30.2% of the employers contacted provided at least one worksite for

the program. Participation rates by site ranged from 13.0% in Philadelphia to a

high of 64.8% in St. Louis. In all sites, private not-for-profit employers participated at a higher rate than private sector companies. Except in New York and

St. Louis, this also held true for public agencies.

The total number of jobs developed in each site by sector is presented in

5

'
TABLET

TOTAL NO. OF EMPLOYERS CONTACTED

BY SITE, BY SECTOR

City °alio Private:

Not-for-Profit

Private Total

New York 21 72 307 400

Philadelphia - 486 1002 1488

St. Louis 40 52 158 250

Minnesota 180 45 505 730

Portland 64 65 340 469

Total 305 720 2312 3337

6
TABLE II

TOTAL NUMBER OF CONTACTS

BY SITE, BY SECTOR

City Public

Private

Not-for-Profit

Private Total

New York 35 83 482 600

Philadelphia -- 1150 2100 3250

St. Louis 70 69 286 425

Minnesota 355 84 816 1255

Portland 105 121 5 /i. 797

Total 565 1507 4255 6327

7
TABLE III

YOUTH IN JOBS EMPLOYER PARTICIPATION RATE

BY SITE, BY SECTOR*

Public Private:

Not-for-Profit

Private TOTAL

New York 15 51 147 213

(28.64) (70.8%) (49.9V (53.3%)

Philadelphia 0 88 105 193

( NA ) (18.1%) (10.5Z) (13.0V

St. Louis 23 38 101 162

(57.5%) (73.1%) (63.9V (64.8%)

Minnesota 91 25 157 273

(50.6%) (55.6%) (31.11) (37.4%)

Portland 33 41 101 175

(51.6%) (63.1%) (29.7%) (37.3%)

Total 162 243 611 1016

(53.1%) (33.8V (26.4V (30.2%)

* Total no. of employers Total no. of

//

providing at least employers contacted

one work site

8
Table IV. A total of 2,459 were reported as developed for the program: 18% in

the public sector, 30% in the private not-for-profit sector, and 51% in the private sector. The public/private split of these percentages reflec* the need to

place youth equally in the two sectors.

Table V presents data on the level of effort expended in each of the five

demonstration project locations to gain worksites for enrollees. The table presents the number of contacts necessary to develop one worksite for the demonstration projects. Six contacts were required to develop one worksite in Phila-

. delphia. Thus, a far greater level of effort was required in Philadelphia to

gain a suitable number of employers for project participation. The data reported in Table V confirms the trends described in previous progress reports.

Local factors that account for the higher level of effort needed in Philadelphia

center on the high level of hostility to any CETA-connected program whether for

youth or anyone else in the Philadelphia area. As the table shows, and as was

reported previously in the interim progress reports, Minnesota also had a more

difficult time in developinikworksites than did the remaining locations. This

appears due to the rural setting of the program and the consequent difficulties

of fewer businesses and greater transportation problems.

Alternatively, St. Louis had the least trouble developing worksites. Analysis ox why this might be so indicates that the Urban League has had continuous

contacts Ath various private-sector "influentials". For example, the League

used its board of directors and experienced job developers. This appears to

have helped immensely in promoting Youth in Jobs among various St. Louis employers.

Table VI shows the number of jobs developed per participating company. As

can be seen, the private-for-profit sector provided fewer jobs slots per par9
TABLE IV

TOTAL NO. OF JOBS DEVELOPED

BY SITE, BY SECTOR

Public Private:

Not-for-Profit

Private TOTAL

New York 42 180 336 558

Philadelphia - 314 234 548

St. Louis 167. 133 300 600

Minnesota 140 36 192 368

Portland 122 79 184 385

Total 440 742 1246 2459

10

0
TABLE V

NUMBER OF CONTACTS NEEDED TO DEVELOP ONE JOB

BY SITE, BY SECTOR

Public Private:

Not-for-Profit

Private TOTAL

New York .83 .46 1.43 1.06

Philadelphia - 3.66 8.97 5.93

St. Louis .42 .52 1.95 .71

Minnesota 2.54 2.33 4.25 3.41

Portland .86 1.53 3.10 2.07

Average: 1.20 2.03 3.40 2.57

(By Sector)

11

I ) (-)

titi
TABLE VI

NUMBER OF JOBS DEVELOPED PER PARTICIPATING EMPLOYER

BY SITE, BY SECTOR

City Public

Private

Not-for-Profit

Private

New York 2.8 3.5 2.3

Philadelphia 3.6 2.2

St. Louis 7.3 3.5 3.0

Minnesota 1.5 1.4 1.2

F land 3.7 1.9 1.8

Average

(by Sector)

2.7 3.1 2.0
ticipating employer than did the other two sectors. This was true for all five

sites. Participating private sector employers provided an average of two worksites each. Public sector agencies agreed to provide an average of 2.7 each and

private non-profit groups an_ average of 3.1 worksites. The number of jobs per

employer ranged from 7.3 (St. Louis / Public) to 1.2 (Minnesota / Private).

13
Tables VIT and VIII present data on the number of contacts and jobs

developed, respectively, by type of employer. Employers in the public and

private not-for-profit sectors were classified according to functional

area (consistent with the Census of Governments) and in the private sector

by S.I.C. code. Table VII shows that the majority of public sector

(including private non-profit) contacts were with human resource agencies

(43%), followed by health/hospitals (19%) and education (11%). In the

private sector 32% of the contacts were with service sector employers,

30% with trade and 20% manufacturing.

The number of jobs developed shown in Table VIII represents the

results of those efforts. In the public sector 46% of the worksites were

in human resource agencies, 14% in health and hospitals and 11% general

administration. This is generally consistent with the distribution of

total contacts (Table VII). Worksites develz. , d in the private sector

were in seinficz WT), trade (26%), and manJfv2turing (11%). Thus, the

at.rv.ice sector provided more worksites than would have been expected based

on contact-!, while manufacturing provided fewer (20% of contacts versus

11% of orksites).

Table IX presents the level of effort data (number of contacts

needed to develop one job) by employer S.I.C. code or functional area.

This table combines Tables VII and VIII in order to examine whether there

are consistent variations in required worksite development effort by

employer type across sites. There does not appear to be any systematic

variation by site. Small cell sizes hinder a more detailed analysis.

14
TABLE VII

TOTAL NO. OF CONTACTS BY SITE, BY EMPLOYER

SIC CODE OR FUNCTIONAL AREA

PUBLIC/PRIVATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT NI, PHIL STL MINN PORT T. -. -

Education 6 81 6 86 45 224

( 5.1%) ( 7.0%) ( S.3%) (19.6%) (19.9%) (10.8%)

Highways 3 1 - 22 7 33

( 2.5%) ( 0.1%) ( 5.0%) ( 3.1%) ( 1.6%)

Human Resources 86 639 34 67 62 888

(72.9%) (55.6%) (24.5%) (15.3%) (27.4%) (42.9%)

Health/Hospitals 1 242 35 85 29 392

( 0.8%) (21.0%) (25.2%) (19.4%) (12.8%) (18.9%)

Police Protection 1 - 8 6 8 23

( 0.8%) ( 5.8%) ( 1.4%) ( 3.5%) ( 1.1%)

Fire Protection - 2 1 - 4 7

( 0.2%) ( 0.7%) ( 1.8%) ( 0.3%)

Sewerage/Sanitation 1 - - 11 4 15

( 0.8%) ( 2.5%) ( 1.8%) ( Oa%)

Parks/Recreation 1 72 11 61 24 169

( 0.8Z) ( 6.3%) ( 7.9Z) (13.9%) (10.6%) ( 8.2%)

Housing/Urban Renewal 9 75 5 4 9 102

( 7.6Z) ( 6.5%) ( 3.6Z) ( 0.9%) ( 4.0Z) ( 4.9Z)

Libraries 1 7 5 7 2 22

( 0.8Z) ( 0.6Z) ( 3.6Z) ( 1.6Z) ( 0.9%) ( 1.1%)

General Administrator 9 31 34 90 31 195

( 7.6%) ( 2.7%) (24.5%) (20.5%) (13.7Z) ( 9.4%)

Sub Total 118 1150 139 434 226 2072

(100.0%) (100.0Z) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%)
TABLE VII

(cont.)

PRIVATE NY PHIL STL MINN PORT T.

Agriculture

3 8 8 19

( 0.7%) ( 0.6%) ( 1.0%) ( 0.4%)

Finance, Real Estate, Insurance 26 226 23 67 67 408

( 5.4%) (10.7%) ( 5.4%) ( 5.3%) ( 8.4%) ( 9.6%)

Manufacturing 27 676 27 23 75 828

( 5.6%) (32.2%) ( 6.4%) ( 1.8%) ( 9.4%) (19.5%)

Trade: Wholesale & Retail 148 379 65 492 173 1257

(30.7%) (18.0%) (15.3%) (39.2%) (21.7%) (29.5%)

Mining 4

3 7

( 0.8%) ( 0.4%) ( 0.2%)

Construction 10 99 11 43 53 216

( 2.1%) ( 4.7%) ( 2.6%) ( 3.4%) ( 6.6%) ( 5.1%)

Transportation/Public Util. 80 4 18 46 146

( 3.8%) ( 0.9%) ( 1.4%) ( 5.8%) ( 3.5%)

Service 267 641 153 165 146 1372

(55.4%) (30.5%) (36.0%) (13.1%) (18.3%) (32.2%)

Sub Total 482 2100 286 816 571 4255

(100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (10010%) (100.0%)

GRAND TOTAL 600 3250 425 1255 797 6327

16
TABLE VIII

TOTAL NO. OF JOBS DEVELOPED BY SITE,

BY SIC CODE OR FUNCTIONAL AREA

PUBLIC/PRIVATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT NY PHIL STL MINN PORT T.

Education 4 16 3 32 44 99

( 1.9%) ( 5.1Z) ( 1.1%) (18.9Z) (22.3%) ( 8.5Z)

Highways - - - 11 3 14

( 6.5%) ( 1.5X) ( 1.2Z)

Human Resources 171 210 63 29 65 538

(81.0%) (67.1Z) (22.3Z) (17.2Z) (33.0Z) (45.9Z)

Health/Hospitals 1 55 50 36 19 161

( 0.5X) (17.6Z) (17.7Z) (21.3%) ( 9.6Z) (13.7%)

Police Protection 2 - 30 1 4 37

( 1.0Z) (10.6%) ( 0.6Z) ( 2.0Z) ( 3.2Z)

Fire Protection - - 1 - 6 7

( 0.4Z) ( 3:1X) ( 0.6Z)

Sewerage/Sanitation 1 - - 6 2 9

( 0.5Z) ( 3.6%) ( 1.0Z) ( 0.8Z)

Parks/Recreation 8 8 61 26 11 114

( 3.8%) ( 2.6Z) (21.6%) (15.4Z) ( 5.6%) ( 9.7Z)

Housing/Urban Renewal 12 14 20 2 11 59

( 5.7X) ( 4.5Z) ( 7.1X) ( 1.2Z) ( 5.6X) ( 5.0Z)

Libraries 2 3 3 1 9

( 0.6Z) ( 1.1%) ( 1.8%) ( 0.5%) ( 0.8Z)

General Administration

Sub Total

12 8 51 23 31 125

( 5.7%) ( 2.6Z) (18.1Z) (13.6Z) (15.7Z) (10.7Z)

211 313 282 169 197 1172

(100.0Z) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0Z) (100.0Z) (100.0Z)

17
TABLE VIII

(cont.)

PRIVATE NY PHIL STZ MINN PORT T. - -

Agriculture, etc. - - 4 4 4 12

1.3%) ( 2.0%) ( 3.0%) ( 1.0%)

Finance, Real Estate, Insurance 27 32 30 14 18 121

( 7.9%) (13.2%) ( 9.4%) ( 7.1%) (13.3%) ( 9.8%)

Manufacturing 18 62 35 10 10 135

( 5.3%) (25.5%) (11.0%) ( 5.1%) ( 7.4%) (10.9%)

Trade: Wholesale & Retail 58 43 47 111 59 318

(16.9%) (17.7%) (14.8%) (56.4%) (43.7%) (25.7%)

Mining 9 - 3 12

( 2.6%) ( 2.2%) ( 1.0%)

Construction 16 2 10 10 3 41

( 4.7%) ( 0.8%) ( 3.1%) ( 5.1%) ( 2.2%) ( 3.3%)

Transportation/Public - 13 3 4 6 26

( 5.4%) ( 0.9%) ( 2.0%) ( 4.4%) ( 2.1%)

Service 215 91 189 44 32 571

(62.7%) (37.5%) (59.4%) (22.3%) (23.7%) (46.2%)

Sub Total 343 243 318 197 135 1236

(100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%) (100.0%)(100.0%)

GRAND TOTAL 554 556 600 366 332 2408

18
TABLE IX

NUMBER OF CONTACTS NEEDED TO DEVELOP ONE JOB

BY SITE, BY EMPLOYER SIC CODE, OR FUNCTIONAL AREA

Public/Private Non-Profit

NYC PHIL. ST. L MINN. PORT.

1. Education 1.5 5.1 2.0 2.7 1.0

2. Highways - - - 2.0

. 2.3

3. Human Resources 0.50 0.54 2.3 0.97

4. Health/Hospitals 1.0 4.4 0.70 2.4 1.5

5. Police Protection 0.50 - 0.27 6.0 2.0

6. Fire Protection - - 1.0 - 0.67

7. Sewerage/Santation 1.0 - - 1.8 2.0

8. Parks/Recreation 0.13 9.0 0.18 2.3 2.2

9. Housing/Urban Renewal 0.75 5.4 0.25 2.0 0.82

10. Libraries - 3.5 1.7 2.3 7.0

11. General Administration 0.75 15.5 11.3 30.0 31.0

Private-for-Profit

12. Agriculture; Forest, etc. - - 0.75 2.0 2.0

13. Finance, Real Estate, Insurance 0.96 7.0 0.77 4.8 3.7

14. Manufacturing 1.5 10.9 0.77 2.3 7.5

15. Wholesale/Retail Trades 2.6 8.8 1.4 4.4 2.9

16. Mining 0.40 - - 1.0

17. Construction 0.63 49.5 1.1 4.3 17.7

18. Transportation, Public Utilities - 6.2 1.3 4.5 7.7

19. Services 1.2 7.0 0.81 3.8 4.6

19

3 ci
Table X presents the breakdown of the types of jobs developed by

site, by sector. The categories are based on the occupational codes found

in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (D.O.T.). One modification was

introduced: a category (999) which was used for job descriptions that were

impossible to categorize precisely using the other classifications. One

hundred and two (4.4%) of the total number of jobs were placed in this

category.

For all sectors, clerical and sales positions represented the largest

category (39.9% of all jobs developed) and service positions the next

highest (23.4%). No other occupational classification accounted for as

much as 10% of the positions. Within sites and sectors a good deal of

variation exists. However, clerical, sales, and service remain the

predominant categories.

20
9r,

TABLE X NUMBER OF JOBS DEVELOPED BY MAJOR D.O.T. CODE

BY SITE, BY SECTOR

D.O.T. Category

New York

Pub PNP Pri

Philadelphia

Pub PNP Pri

St. Louis

Pub PNP Pri

Minnesota

Pub PNP Fri

Portland

Pub PNP Fri

Total

0-199 10 49 7 0 51 4 6 15 9 10 5 2 17 17 9 211 (Prof., Tech., (23.8)(27.6) (2.1) (17.1) (1:7) (6.8) (13.1) (3.0) (7.2) (13.9) (1.0) (15.9) (21.5) (4.9) (9.1)

Man.)

200-299 30 71 150 0 112 89 47 48 104 43 8 94 48 21 59 924 (Clerical, (71.4)(39.9)(44.6) (37.6)(38.2) (53.4)(42.1)(35.9) (31.2)(22.2)(49,0) (44.9)(26.6)(31.7) (39.9)

Sales)

300-399 2 45 68 0 102 43 22 35 96 23 16 21 15 18 36 542 (Service) (4.8) (25.3)(20.2) (34.2)(18.4) (25.0)(30.7)(33.1) (16.7)(4414)(10.9) (14.0)(22.8)(19.3) (23.4)

400-499 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 10 10 33 4 18 3 4 7 93 Agricultural) (0.3) (3.4) (8.8) (3.5) (23.9)(11.1) (9.4) (2.8) (5.1) (3.8) (4,0)

I-.500-599 0 0 0009002006002 19 (Processing) (3.9) (0.7) (3.1) (1.1) (0.8)

600-699 0 0 18 0 1 25 1 0 17 1 0 12 2 1 16 94 (Machine Trades) (5.4) (0.3)(10.7) (1.1) (5.9) (0.7) (6.3) (1.9) (1.3) (8.6) (4.1)

700-799 0 0 16 0 0 9 0 0 10 0 0 4 0 0 3 42 (Benchwork) (4.8) (3.9) (3.5) (2.1) (1.6) (1.8)

800-899 0 11 41 0 16 14 7 2 23 16 1 14 17 2 19 183 (Structural (6.2)(12.2) (5.4) (6.0) (8.0) (1.8) (7.9) (11.6) (2.8) (7.3) (15.9) (2.5)(10.2) (7.9)

Work)

900-998 0 0 19 0 2 33 0 2 14 3 0 9 3 8 14 107 (Misc.) (5.6) (0.7)(14.2) (1,8) (4.8) (2.2) (4.7) (2.8) (10.1) (7.5) (4.6)

999 0 2 17 0 13 7 2 2 5 9 2 12 2 8 21 102

'(4.4)

(Multi-job

description)

(1.1) (5.1) (4.4) (3.0) (2.3) (1.8) (1.7) (6.5) (5.6) (6.3) (1.9) (10.1)(11.3)

Total

42 178 336 (100) (100) (100)

0 298 233 (100) (100) (100)

88 114 290 (100) (100) (100)

138 36 192 (100) (100) (100)

107 79 186 (100) (100) (100)

2,317

(100)

v
Psychometric Battery

III. ANALYSIS OF SAS PRETEST AND STEP

psychometric battery

Tables XI through XVI present data on SAS/pretest assessment instruments. These instruments assess both work related knowledge and attitudes.

Participants, at the beginning of the program, responded to test items

arranged into seven subscales and a reading test. The seven subscales are

(1) a Vocational Attitudes Scale consisting of 30 items with a maximum possible score of 30; (2) a Job Knowledge Scale, also with a maximum scale

score of 30; (3) a Job Holding Skill Scale with eleven Likert items weighted

from one to three, the higher score indicating a greater degree of skill;

(4) a Work Relevant Attitudes Inventory, also a Likert scale "ith sixteen

items rated one through four, four indicating the most positive response;

"(5) a Job Seeking Skills Scale consisting of seventeen items, with one

point assigned for each correct answer; (6) a Sex Stereotype Scale with

twenty-one Likert items weighted one to three, three indicating the least

amount of sex role stereotyping; and (7) a fifteen item Self Esteem Scale,

with a three point Likert scale weighted in the direction of the more

positive attitude. The reading assessment instrument (STEP) consisted of

twenty items. Each correct response was given one point. Data is reported

on approximately 1,963 pretests.

Table XI reports mean score comparisons on the pretest instruments by

sector. Participants were matched on the bases of age, race, sex and a

reading score (SelectABLE). Matched pairs were then randomly assigned to

either the public sector or the private sector. As can be seen from the

table, this randomizing procedure avoided any systematic bias in the selection of a participant for either sector. There are no significant differences on any of the subscales between the participants in the two sectors.

Table XI also Jr--.!-! t program participants as a group had a fairly

high degree of k....., about the world of work and fairly positive work
TABLE XI

MEAN SCORE PRETEST COMPARISON

BY SECTOR

Subscale Public Private Significance

Explained

Variation

Vocational Attitudes 20.55 20.70 NS 0

Job Knowledge 22.49 22.38 NS 0

Job Holding Skills 30.94 30.80 NS 0

Work Relevant Attitudes 48.30 48.62 NS 0

Job Seeking Skills 12.44 12.46 NS 0

Sex Stereotyping 45.99 45.97 NS 0

Self Esteem 36.57 36.55 NS 0

STEP 15.53 15.60 NS 0

24

`J tL. L.)
attitudes at the beginning of the program. On Vocational Attitudes the

average scores clustered near 21, while Job Knowledge scores averaged over

twenty-two correct answers. As a group, participants also appeared to

possess a fairly high degree of Job Holding Skills as measured by the

pretest. Scores on Work Relevant Attitudes tend toward the higher end of

the scale, as do scores on Job Seeking Skills. There appears to be little

sex stereotyping. Both the Self Esteem Inventory and the STEP Test also

tended toward the high end of their respective scales. Given this finding,

we would expect little change to occur at the time of post-testing.

Table XII reports mean score comparisons by site. When examining scores

by site systematic variation becomes evident. Minnesota generally has the

highest scores, followed by Portland. Despite the systematic association

between site and pretest score, however, such association appears weak. As

can be seen from an examination of the Explained Variation column, site does

not provide any strong explanatory power when attempting to understand

pretest score variations. Tables XIII and XIV, which report score variations

by sex and by race, exhibit the same pattern.

Table XIII shows that females consistently score higher on all of the

pretest subscales. Again, however, despite the statistically significant

association between sex and pretest scores, such association is extremely

weak and therefore unable to explain to any high degree the variation in

test patterns. Table XIV, on race, while showing a consistent degree of

association between race and test scores, highlights the weakness of the

association. Age, reflected in Table XV, shows no association with test

scores.

Table XVI, which provides mean score pretest comparisons by SelectABLE,

demonstrates the strongest relationship to test score variation. SelectABLE

tested youth for matching purposes on verbal aptitude and computational

25
TABLE XII

MEAN SCORE PRETEST COMPARISON

BY SITE

Subscale New York Philadelphia St. Louis Minnesota Portland Significance

Explained

Variation

Vocational Attitudes 19.12 20.16 20.25 22.14 21.37 .001 42

Job Knowledge 22.36 21.76 21.58 24.24 22.47 .001 72

Job Holding Skills 30.51 30.63 31.08 31.42 30.14 .001 2%

Work Relevant Attitudes 47.11 47,62 48.52 50.75 48.74 .001 3%

Job Seeking Skills 12.34 12.07 12.51 12.94 12.44 .01 1%

Sex Stereotyping 44.69 46.08 45.27 47.66 46.71 .01 12

Self Esteem 36.79 36.90 37.04 35.57 36.21 .001 3%

STEP 15.20 14.80 15.16 11.48 15.64 .001 42
TABLE XIII

MEAN SCORE PRETEST COMPARISON

BY SEX

Subscale Male Female Significance Explained

Variation

Vocational Attitudes 20.03 21.13 .001 1%

Job Knowledge 22.04 22.78 .001 1%

Job Holding Skills 30.36 31.32 .001 5%

Work Relevant Attitudes 47.77 49.07 .001 0%

Job Seeking Skills 11.86 12.96 .001 3%

Sex Stereotyping 44.05 47.63 .001 5%

Self Esteem 36.30 36.78 .001 0%

STEP 14.90 16.14 .001 22

27

0' ,) %ds,
TABLE XIV

MEAN SCORE PRETEST COMPARISON

BY RACE/ETHNICITY

Subscale White

(N.524)

Black

(N1,291)

Hispanic

(N114)

American

Indian

(N 22)

Asian

(N'8)

Significance

Explained

Variation

Vocational Attitudes 22.20 20.11 19.24 22.38 16.25 .001 6%

Job Knowledge 23.98 21.84 21.63 24.27 21.00 .001 7%

Job Holding Skills 31.33 30.76 29.97 30.59 31.00 .01 2%

Work Relevant Attitudes 50.62 47.68 47.10 51.09 42.87 .001 4%

Job Seeking Skills 12.99 12.34 11.22 12.91 10.62 .01 2%

Sex Stereotyping 47,84 45,37 44.74 45.91 42.75 .001 2%

Self Esteem 35.81 36.93 36.04 35.54 35.25 .001 3%

STEP 17.19 15.03 14.23 17.10 13.33 .001 5%

lUi .

I.
TABLE XV

MEAN SCORE PRETEST COMPARISON

BY AGE

Subscale 16 yrs. 17 yrs. 18 yrs. 19 yrs. 20 yrs. 21 yrs. Significance

Explained

Variation

Vocational Attitudes 21.03 20.83 20.62 20.22 20.18 20.76 NS 0

Job Knowledge 22.52 22.00 22.45 22.36 22.67 22.58 NS 0

Job Holding Skills 30.65 30.61 30.98 30.89 30.86 31.09 NS 0

Work Relevant Attitudes 47.50 47.86 48.88 48.43 48.62 48.91 NS 0

Job Seeking Skills 11.70 11.70 12.43 12.55 12.96 12.93 NS 0

Sex Stereotyping 44.73 45.75 45.90 46.12 46.30 46.63 NS 0

Self Esteem 35.83 35.72 36.75 36.71 36.87 36.90 .31 2%

STEP 15.25 15.08 15.91 15.34 15.82 15.74 NS 0

44)
TABLE XVI

MEAN SCORE PRETEST COMPARISON

BY SELECTABLE

Subscale High Medium Low Significance

Explained

Variation

Vocational Attitudes 22.12 19.75 16.66 .001 17X

Job Knowledge 23.78 21.67 18.56 .001 20X

Job Holding Skills 31.27 30.74 29.34 .001 6X

Work Relevant Attitudes 51.07 46.55 42.89 .001 17X

Job Seeking Skills 13.73 11.70 8.95 .001 27X

Sex Stereotyping 47.93 44.40 42.73 .05 6X

Self Esteem 36.89 36.47 35.15 .001 3X

STEP 17.84 14.26 9.33 .001 39X

30

.41 a.
skill. Individuals were scored High, Medium, or Low. As can be seen,

these scores show a moderate but inconsistent relationship to scores on

the pretest battery.

In summary, demographics (site, sex and race) appear only weakly

related to pretest score variations. Age shows no relationship at all to

pretest scores. Verbal and computational skills, as measured by the

SelectABLE, show only.a,moderate but inconsistent relationship to the

pretest.

31

"

4
IV. FLOW OF YOUTH THROUGH PROGRAM PHASES

Table XVII shows the flow of participants through the major program

phases. The percentages shown in each cell are based on the proportion

of youth (by sector) that have moved from the previous program phase.

For example, of the 256 youth matched for the public sector in New York

City, 231 or 90 42 started Orientation. Of the 231 youth Who started

orientation, 87.4% (202),began a worksite assignment. 'Of these; 36.11

(73) have terminated with fewer than 150 days on the worksite as of

March 21, 1980.

105 or 52% completed at least 151 days at the worksite (note: some youth were still on worksite assignments in the program so that the early

worksite terminators and completers will not add to the total starting

worksites or 100%).

From an examination of Table XVII, the following points stand out:

1. There was a wide variation by site in moving youth through

the various program phases.

2. As would be expected, sector assignment begins to exert more

influence on the propc.6ion of youth moving from orientation

to placement on a worksite. Sector continues its influence

when early termination: are examined.

3. With one exception (New York City), a smaller proportion of

youth were successfully placed on private sector worksites

than on public sector y rksites.

4. The difference between the public and private sectors is more

pronounced when early worksite terminations are examined, with

the private sector shoe di; a higher rate of early terminations

except in rural Minn(' ta.

5. The column on worksite completers indicates that in four of

the five sites youth completed worksite experience at a higher

rate in the public sector than in the private although in

Portland and St. Louis the differences are slight.

The worksite terminators and completers column will not be finalized until

data has been received on the youth remaining in the program.

33
TABLE XVII

FLOW OF YOUTH TlEOUGH PROGRAM PHASES

tY SECTOR FOR EACH SITE

City

Youth

Matched

Public Private

Youth Starting

Orientation

Public Private

Youth Starting

Workeite

Public Private

Early Workeite

Terminators

(150 days or less)

Public Private

Worksite Completers

(151 - 180+ days)

Public Private

New York 2!6 268 231 233 202 205 73 94 105 86 a moving to next

program phase)

(90,2X) (86.9) (87,4) (88.0) (36.1) (45.9) (52.0) (42.0)

Philadelphia 260 292 208 232 192 203 13 106 119 97 (80.0) (79.5) (92.3) (87,5) (38,0) (52.2) (62.0) (47,8)

St. Louis 308 330 209 218 188 166 86 115 42 34 (67.9) (66.1) (90.0) (76.1) (45.7) (69.3) (22.3) (20.5)

........k............

Rural Minnesota 248 281 187 201 165 173 107 108 53 61 (75.4) (71.5) (88.2) (86.1) (64.8) (62,4) (32.1) (35.3)

:mem ..mpopploppwilimlwmpopppimpoillIONNINIMMII

Portland 294 299 194 204 145 132 105 101 32 29 (66.0) (68.0) (74.7) (64,7) (72.4) (76.5) (22.1) (22.0)

Total 1366 1470 1029 1088 892 879 444 524 351 307 (75.3) (74.0) (86.7) (80.8) (49,8) (59.6) (39.3) (34.9)
While some variation by site and sector exist, Table XVIII indicates

that program terminations occur approximately equally over the first three

30-day increments. Generally, private sector terminations are higher although in some cases these youth had not been placed on a worksite. During

the first 90 days, the distribution of terminations for a 30-day period

ranged from 30.7 percent (Portland-Private - 31 to 60 days) to 7.2 percent

(Philadelphia-Public - 0 to 30 days). Terminations generally slow significantly in the 91-120 and 121-150 increments and, as expected, increase

for the completion phase (defined as 151-180 days in the program).

One would expect that if a youth was placed on a worksite, he/she

would be less likely to terminate from the program. Table XIX indicates

distributions of terminations for those youth placed on worksites (30-day

increments and worksite placement). Terminations before 90 days appear

relatively low in only two sites, New York and Philadelphia (St. Louis

is somehwat higher because more youth started the program later and had

not completed or been terminated). When complete data is available, analysis

of all worksite terminations will be undertaken to determine the relative

influence of program location factors and youth demographic characteristics.

In four of the five sites (Minnesota is the exception) youth are more

likely to complete at least 150 days at a public sector worksite than

to complete this amount of time at a private sector worksite.

35
TABLE XVIII PROGRAM TERMINATIONS BY DAYS IN PROGRAM

BY SITE, BY SECTOR

City 0 -30

Public Private

31 - 60

Public Private

61 - 90

Public Private

91

Public

- 120

Private

121 - 150

Public Private

151 - 180+

Public Private

Total

Public Private

New York

17 28 29 23 21 29 20 20 10 15 110 93 207 208 1 of Total

column, by

sector)

( 8.2%) (13.5) (14.0) (11,0) (10.1) (0,9) ( 9,6) ( 9,6) ( 4,8) (7,2) (53,1) (44.7)(100.0) (100.0)

Philadelphia 15 29 18 32 18 27 18 21 14 19 ,125 104 208 232 ( 7.2) (12.5) ( 8.6) (13.7) ( 8,6) (11.6) ( 8,6) ( 9.0) ( 6.7) ( 8,1) (60.1) (44.8)(100.0) (100.0)

La

a,St, Louia 24 39 21 44 30 37 16 23 13 10 43 41 147 194 (16.3) (20.1) (14.2) (22.6) (20,4) (19.1) (10.8) (11,8) ( 8.8) ( 512) (29.2) (21.1)(100.0) (100.0)

Rural Minnesota 25 32 20 40 23 29 30 14 24 16 60 66 182 197 (13,7) (16.2) (10.9) (20,3) (12.6) (14,7) (16.5) ( 7.1) (13.2) (8,1) (32.9) (33,5)(100.0) (100.0)

Portland 46 36 32 62 34 28 25 30 8 10 41 36 186 202 (24,7) (17.8) (17.2) (30.7) (18.3) (13,9) (13.4) (14.8) ( 4,3) ( 4,9) (22.0) (17,8);100,0) (100.0)

Total

128 161 120 201 126 150 109 108 69 10 379 338 931 1028 (13.7) (15.6) (12.8) (19.5) (13.5) (14,6) (11.7) (10.5) ( 7,4) ( 6.1) (40.7) (32,8)"100.0) (100.0)
TABLE XIX

WORKSITE TERMINATIONS BY DAYS ON WORKSITE

BY SITE, BY SECTOR

City 0-30

Public Private

31-61

Public Private

61-90

Public Private

91 - 120

Public Private

121 - 150 151 - 180+

Public Private Public Private

Total

Public Private

New York

(x of Total

column, by

sector)

14 14 ( 7.9%) ( 7.8) 16 21 ( 9.0) (11.7)

15 25 ( 8.4) (13.9)

18 16 (10.1) ( 8.9)

10 18 105 86 ( 5.6) (10.0) (59,0) (41.8)

118 180 (100.0) (100.0)

Philadelphia 10 20 ( 5.2) ( 9.9)

17 30 ( 8.9) (14.8)

14 21 ( 7.3) (10.3)

15 20 ( 7.8) ( 9.9)

17 15 119 91 ( 8.9) (1.4) (624 (47.8)

152 203 (100.0) (100.0)

IN St. Louie 24 36 (18.8) (24.2)

18 28 (14.1) (18.8)

22 26 (17,2) (17.4)

12 12 ( 9.4) ( 8.1)

10 13 42 34 ( 7.8) ( 8.7) (32.8) (22.8)

128 149 (100.0) (100.0)

Rural Minnesota

7 26

( 4,4) (15.4)

26 34

(16.3) (20.1)

21 15 (16.9) ( 8.9)

21 17 (16.9) (10.1) 20 16 53 61 (12.5) ( 9.5:(33.0) (36.1)

160 169 (100.0) (100.0

Portland 26 33 (19.0) (25.4)

35 26 (25.5) (20.0)

20 22 14.6) (16.9)

14 13 (10.2) (10.0)

10 7 32 29 ( 7.3) ( 544) (23.4) (22.3)

137 130 (100.0) (100.0)

Total 81 129 10.2) (15.5)

112 139

(14.1) (16.7)

98 109 12,3) (13.1)

86 78 (MO ( 9.4)

67 69 351 301 ( 8.4) (8.3) (44,2) (36.9)

795 831 (100.0) (100,)
Table XX uses information from the Flow of Youth Through Program

Phases (Table XVII) to focus on youth completing at least 150 days at a

worksite. Completion rates for these worksite completers were computed

by site and sector based on the total number of youth who began orientation

and on the total number of youth who actually began a worksite. In addition, Table XX present* preliminary post-program placement. data token from

the weekly monitc". reports. Both tables exclude youth atdll in the programs

An examin i ,t -able XX reveals that completion rates for worksite

statistics were higher for those in public sector work experience in

New York, Philadelphia, and St. Louis. In Portland the rates were approximately the same, while in Minnesota youth in the private sector complete at

a slightly higher rate. St, Louis' low rate of completion may reflect the

preliminary nature of the data. Completion rates at this time ranged from

a high of 62.0% (Philadelphia-Public) to a low of 20.5% (St. Louis-Private).

Overall, 39.3% of the youth starting a public sector worksite have completed

at least 150 days in the program compared to 34.9% of the youth in the

private sector.

As indicated in Table XVII on the Flow of Youth, a number of youth

were terminated from the program after they started orientation but before

they obtained a placement at a worksite. Therefore, the percentage of

program starters who complete 150 days or more (shown in column 4 of Table

XX) is lower than the corresponding site and sector rates for worksite

starters. The overall completion rates for program starters was 34.1% for

the public sector and 28.2% for the private sector.

Data on post-program placement is not available for complete analysis.

However, on-site monitors in cooperation with the local operators have

maintained weekly running totals of the major broad categories of post38
TABLE XX

PRELIMINARY DATA ON COMPLETION RATES BY SITE, BY SECTOR

Cit y

Youth Starting

Orientation

Pub Pri

Youth Starting

Worksite

Pub Pri

Worksite Completers

* (151-180+ days)

Pub Pri

Completion Rate of

Program Starters

Pub Pri

Completion Rate of

Worksite Starters

Pub Pri

New York 231 233 202 205 105 86 45.5: 36.9% 52.0: 42.02

Philadelphia 208 232 192' 203 119 97 57.2 41.8 62.0 47.8

St, Louis 209 218 188 166 42 34 20.1 15.6 22.3 20.5

Minnesota 187 201 165 173 33 61 28.3 30.3 32.1 35.3

........

Portland 194 204 145 132 32 29 16.5 14.2 22.1 22.0

TOTAL 1,029 1,088 892 879 351 307 34.12 28.2% 39.3: 34.9%

Excludes youth in the program or not terminated as of March 24, 1980.
TABLE Ea

PRELIMINARY POST-PROGRAM DATA

BY SITE, BY SECTOR*

New York

Pub Pri

Philadelphia

Pub Pri

-,

St. Louis

Pub Pri

Minnesota

Pub Pri

Portland

Pub Pri

Total

Pub Pri

Youth Starting

Program Worksite

202 205 192 203 188 166 165 173 145 132 892 879

Transitioned to

Unsubsidized Job

et Workeite

(Rate)

20

(9.9%)

51 (24,9)29 (15.1)

46

(22.7)

14 (7.5) 41

(24.7)

16

(9.7) 28 (16.2) 12

(8.3)

23 (17.4) 91

(10.2) 189

(21.5)

Transitioned to

Other Unsubsidized

Job (by Assigned

Sector)

49 22 20 13 14 5 31 23 12 4 126 67

Subtotal to

Unsubsidized Jobs

(Rate)

69

(34.2%)

73 (35.6) 49

(25.5)

59

(29.1) 28

(14.9)

46

(27.7) 47

(28.5)

.

51 24

(29.5) (16.6)

27

(20.5)

_

217

(24.3)

256

(29.1)

Transitioned to

Subsidized Activity

by Assigned Sector)

18 6 4 1 1 0 24

-

13 2

-

1 49 21

.. - ,.

Total Unsubsidized

Transitions by

Post-Program

Employing Sector

35 107 33 75 16 58 25 13 15

_

36 124 349

*Based on weekly monitor reports through March 24, 1980 (except St. Louis through March 17! 1980)vV
program placement. outcomes. Table XXI presents this information as of

March 24, 1980. For each site and sector, the table presents the total

number of youth who started a worksite. The number of youth transitioning

to unsubsidized employment at the worksite where they received their program

work experience is shown in row 2. The bracketed percentage in row 2 is the

transition rate to unsubsidized employment at the same site. Row 3 shows

the transitions to unsubsidized employment at ether Sites by the seczor of

the youth's program assignment. For example, in New York 20 youth (9.92)

assigned in the public sector were retained at their worksite in unsubsidized

employment and 49 others were placed in unsubsidized employment in any

sector. Row 6 presents the unsubsidized transitions by employing sector.

For example, of the 142 total unsubsidized transitions, 35 were in the

public sector and 107 in the private sector.

The data indicate that youth assigned to the private sector transition

more often to unsubsidized employment at the same worksite (21.5% versus

10.2%). This finding is consistent across all five sites. Private sector

youth also have higher rates of unsubsidized employment when all unsubsidized jobs are counted and the youth are categorized by program sector

assignment (Row 4 -- 29.1% compared to 24.3%).

As expected, when the final employing sector is considered, the private

sector provided 349 unsubsidized positions compared to 124 in the public

sector. This relationship held for all five sites.

41
V. ANALYSIS OF EARLY PROGRAM TERMINATORS

The Youth In Jobs Demonstration Project experienced relatively high

early termination rates. The rates by location were:

New York 27.2%

Philadelphia 65.2

St. Louis 61.7

Rural Minnesota 58.1

Portland 82.3

These relatively high early termination rates potentially limit the

generalizability of any findings on the influence of either public sector

or private sector work experience. If the population of youth who complete

the program is essentially different than the population terminating

early, then such differences must be taken into account when assessing

long-term outcomes.

Various demographic characteristics are related to early worksite

terminations. In order to carry out such an analysis, it was necessary

to collapse cells, thereby creating categories with sufficient cases for

the application of statistical procedures. Thus, the three categories

of race (White, Black, and Other) were combined to form two tegories

(White and Non-White) and Selectable scores (High, Medium, and Low) were

not differentiated. In interpreting these statistics, it should be noted

hat some individuals have terminated from the program in order to begin

unsubsidized employment on their own; therefore an early termination need

not necessarily be considered a negative outcome. Also, the criterion

which was employed in order to determine who terminated early was rather

stringent. Any participant who began working at either a public or private

sector worksite but who did not complete a full six months of subsidized

employment was considered an early terminator.

43
Initially, a chi-square test was performed to determine whether the

factors of sector, race, age, sex, and program location had any relationship to early termination rates. The results indicated statistically

significant relationships between all five factors and early terminations.

In order to determine the relative strength of relationships between

sector, race, age, sex, program location, and early termination rates,

coefficient phi* was calculated for each of the five factors and termination rates. As a result of these calculations, it was determined that

program location had the strongest relationship to early termination

(phi = .33794), and sex the weakest (phi = .08305). Intermediate between

these extremities is the relationship between race and early termination

rates (phi = .11011), sector and early termination rates (phi = .10021),

and age and early termination rates (phi = .09101).

In view of the relatively weak relationships between each of the

factors outlined above and early terminations, any interpretations to be

made from the data at hand have to be done with the utmost of caution.

However, there does appear to be a constellation of characteristics which,

at this time, bear some relationship to early termination rates.

In order to more precisely determine relationships of this nature,

a perusal of various cross-tabulations is instructive. (See tippendix

B for a more detailed presentation of the cross-tabulations). In

regard to sector, it is noted that a greater percentage of the participants

in the private sector terminated prior to completion of the subsidized

employment period than did those in the public sector (60.8 percent to

*In analyzing the strength of the relationship between location and early

terminations, Uamer's V was used as the equivalent of phi, since location

by program status is a five by two matrix.

44
50.8 percent). Such results may be confirmatory :.,-. assumptions concerning the nature of private and r0,11,11.-: c,

grams, inasmuch as private employers are generall! apsuor1.2 ;:z. 6r. mcv,

demanding of employees than public employers.

Terminators

Continuers

EARLY TERMINATORS AND CONTINUERS,

BY SECTOR

Private Public

396 479

(50.8X) (60.85)

382 314

(49.2%) (39.2%)

Chi-square = 15.334250:4(.05

Phi = .10021

In regard to race, it is noted that 52.7 percent of non-whites terminated

early as opposed to 65.3 percent of whites. These s..:atistics appear to have

been affected by the unique program circumstances in rural Minnesota and

in Portland, the two predominately white programs. Travel problems in

rural Minnesota and competing programs that paid higher than the minimum

wage in Portland are factors that seem to have contributed to high early

terminations rates at these two sites.

In regard to age, 67.6 percent of those in the 16-17 age category

terminated the program prior to completion, whereas only 52.8 percent of

those in the 18 -21 age category did so.

45
Terminators

Vontinuers

Chi-square = 19.49135,0< .05

EARLY TERMINATORS AND CONTINUERS,

BY RACE

Non-White White

619

(52.7%)

256

(65.3%)

556

(47.3%)

136

(34.7%)

Phi = .11011

Terminators

Continuers

EARLY TERMINATORS AND CONTINUERS,

BY AGE

16-17 18-21

217

(67.6%)

658

(52.8%)

104

(32.4%)

588

(47.2%)

Chi-square = 22.05299,4K-..05

Phi = .09101

Males had a greater likelihood of early termination than did females.

Preliminary interviews with program operators suggest that males were more

easily able to find higher paying jobs than were females. Confirmation

of this will, however, have to await the analysis of status at termination

data which is still being supplied by the program operators.

46
EARLY TERMINATORS AND CONTINUERS,

BY SEX

Terminators

Continuers

Male Female

432

(60.3%)

443

(52.1%)

284

(39.7%)

408

(47.9%)

Chi-square = 10.47453,a( ( .05

Phi = .08305

Finally, there is a somewhat strong degree of relationship between

program location and a youth's tendency to continue in, or terminate from

the program. The relationship between program location and a youth's tendency

to remain in the program is approximately three times stronger than the

relationship between any other variable and a youth's tendency to remain

in, or terminate from a program. This suggests that the manner in which

a program is operated in different sites, or conditions unique.to a particularsite, may have more influence on early terminations than either the demographic

characteristics of youth examined in this regard or sector placement.

47
Nec- "-Irk

TERMINATORS AND CONTINUERS

BY LOCATION

Philadelphia St. Louis Rural Minn. Portland

Drop Outs 100 259 214 192 107

(27.2%) (65.22) (61.7%) (58.12) (82.3Z)

Continuers 267 138

_I

133 133 23

(72.8%) (34.82) (38.3%) (40.9%) (17.7%)

Chi Square 178.84459 a 4C .5

Cramer's V . .33794

In order to examine this question further, aerefore, program terminators

were. compared with program completers on pretest scores. Tables XXII,

XXIII and XXIV report these comparison for varying lengths of time in the

program.
Table XXII compares those with minimum program exposure (defined as

being in the program less than thirty days) with those who were in the

program for a month or more. An examination of Table XXII shows that,

for the most part, the two groups did not differ significantly from each

other on pretest scores. Statistically significant associations emerge

TABLE XXII

MEAN PRETEST SCORES BY

MINIMUM PROGRAM PENETRATION

3ubscale Minimum In Program Significance Explained

Program Longer than (a.< .05) Variation

Penetration 30 Days

(1. -30 days)

Vocational

Attitudes

Job

Knowledge

Job Holding

Skills

Work Relevant

Attitudes

Job Seeking

Skills

Sex

Stereotyping

Self

Esteem

STEP

20.4971 20.6379 NS 0

21.8140 22.4914 S 0

30.5205 30.9051 S 0

47.2440 48.5779 S 0

12.2456 12.4661 NS 0

44.9941 46.0709 NS 0

36.1453 36.5985 NS 0

15.7075 15.5476 NS 0

on only three scales. Minimum program penetrators had significantly

lower pretest scores on the Job Knowledge scale, the Job Holding Skills

scale, and the Work Relevant Attitudes inventory. There were no statistically significant differences on the other five scales. Even on the

49
scales where statistically significant association between staying in

the program longer and a higher score is exhibited the association appears

to be extremely weak. Thus, an examination of the explained variation

column shows that pretest scores would not be helpful in determining who

is likely to terminate from the program within the first thirty days.

Table XXIII compares those who were in the program ninety days or

less with those who remained in the program more than ninety days. This

TABLE XXIII

MEAN PRETEST SCORES BY

EARLY PROGRAM TERMINATION

Subscale 90 Days or More than 90 Si3nificance Explained

Less Days (o< < .05) Variation

In Program In Program

Vocational

Attitudes 20.6018 20.6416 NS 0

Job

Knowledge 22.0126 .2.7157 S 1%

Job Holding

Skills 30.6299 31.0341 S 1%

Work Relevant

Attitudes 47.9309 48.8197 S 0

Job Seeking

Skills 12.1490 12.6474 S 1%

Sex

Stereotyping 45.2659 46.4549 S 1%

Self

Esteem 36.2176 36.7883 S 1%

STEP 15.1780 15.8007 S 1%

comparison shows that on all but one scale a statistically significant association exists between pretest scores and che likelihood of being in the

program more than ninety days. The only exception to this is the Vocational

50
Attitudes scale. Nevertheless, the association appears extremely weak,

as is shown by the explained variation column.

Finally, Table XXIV presents the comparison of pretest scores by

program completion. Program completers are defined as those who were in

the program one hundred and fifty-one or more days. Non-completers are

TABLE XXIV

MEAN PRETEST SCORES BY

PROGRAM COMPLETION

Subscale Non-Completers

(0-150 Days)

Completers

(151 Days

or More)

Significance

(a.< < .05)

Explained

Variation

Vocational

Attitudes 20.6299 20.6203 NS 0

Job

Knowledge 22.2901 22.6070 NS 0

Job Holding

Skills 30.7271 31.0488 S 1%

Work Relevant

Attitudes 47.9991 49.0309 S 1%

Job Seeking

Skills 12.2737 12.6595 5 0

Sex

Stereotyping 45.7607 46.2438 NS 0

Self

Esteem 36.3284 36.8405 S 1%

STEP 15.3626 15.7886 S 0

defined as anybody who was in the program one hundred and fifty days or

less. This comparison shows that there is significant statistical association between program completior and a higher pretest score on five of

the eight scales. Those likely to complete scored significantly higher

on:the Job Holding Skills scale, the Work Relevant Attitude inventory,

51
the Job Seeking Skills scale, the Self Esteem scale, and the STEP reading

test locator. No significant difference was found between the two groups

on Vocational Attitudes, Job Knowledge and Sex Stereotyping. The associations that do emerge, however, are again extremely weak.

These data, when combined v'th the demographic data on early terminators (sie appendix), suggest early termination is only weakly associated

with youth characteristics existing prior to program entry. Those statistically significant associat4ons thrst do emerge seem to be a result of

sample size. When sample sizes exceed three hundred, a statistically significant difference Letween groups is likely to emerge. Such differences,

however, are not usually of practical significance. The decision about

whether or not to continue in a program appears, therefore, to be largely

a situational one. For the most part, factors precipitating early termination seem to be alternative opportunities existing in the environment,

either recreational or work related. There is some qualitative evidence

offered for this interpretation in the case studies. For example, Portland,

which had the highest dropout rata, also had the most opportunities for

youth in other types of programs and in the non-subsidized job market.

Further, many of the program operators noted that even those who had

completed the program were, in some instances, likely to put off seeking

unsubsidized work because of the felt need for a rest from the marketplace.

Further investigation of this point is warranted, and will be undertaken

as reasons for program termination are analyzed. At this point, however,

it does not appear that early terminators are essentially different from

those who complete the program. Even when early terminators are compared

to completers within each sector, no clear differences emerge on pretest

scores. Tables XXV through XXX report such comparisons. Thus, from the

52
TABLE XXV

MEAN PRETEST SCORES BY

MINIMUM PROGRAM PENETRATION

(PRIVATE SECTOR)

Subscale Minimum Program

Penetration

(1-30 Days)

In Program

Longer Than

30 Days

Significance

(04 4.05)

Explained

Variation

Vocational

Attitudes 20.7692 20.6895 NS 0

Job

Knowledge 21.7582 22.4409 NS 0

Job Holding

Skills 30.5000 30.8355 NS 0

Work Relevant

Attitudes 47.9101 48.6895 NS 0

Job Seeking

Skills 12.5313 12.4503 NS 0

Sex

Stereotyping 44.8864 46.0791 NS 0

Self

Esteem 36.5055 36.5515 NS 0

STEP 15.6076 15.5910 NS 0

53
TABLE XXVI

MEAN PRETEST SCORES BY

MINIMUM PROGRAM PENETRATION

(PUBLIC SECTOR)

Subscale Minimum Program

Penetration

(1-30 Days)

In Program

Longer Than

30 Days

Significance

(oCe. .05)

Explained

Variation

Vocational

Attitudes 20.1875 20.5848 NS 0

Job

Knowledge 21.8765 22.5436 NS 0

Job Holding

Skills 30.5432 30.9773 NS 0

Work Relevant

Attitudes 46.4937 48.4622 S 1%

Job Seeking

Skills 11.9259 12.4828 NS 0

Sex

Stereotyping 45.1111 46.0624 NS 0

Self

Esteem 35.7407 36.6475 S 1%

STEP 15.8235 15.5023 NS 0

54
TABLE XXVII

MEAN PRETEST SCORES BY

EARLY PROGRAM TERMINATION

(PRIVATE SECTOR)

Subscale 90 Days or Less

In Program

More Than 90

Days In

Program

Significance

(c2( 4. .05)

Explained

Vaiiation

Vocational

Attitudes 20.7919 20.6193 NS 0

Job

Knowledge 21.9912 22.6975 S 1%

Job Holding

Skills 30.6541 30.9292 S 0

Work Relevant

Attitudes 48.1611 48.9945 NS 0

Job Seeking

Skills 12.1567 12.7047 S 1%

Sex

Stereotyping 45.1652 46.6327 S 1%

Self

Esteem 36.2306 36.8703 S 1%

STEP 15.2313 15.8668 S 1%

55
TABLE XXVIII

MEAN PRETEST SCORES BY

EARLY PROGRAM TERMINATION

(PUBLIC SECTOR)

Subscale 90 Days or Less More Than 90 Significance Explained

In Program Days In (o< 4. .05) Variation

Program

Vocational

Attitudes 20.3510 20.6613 NS 0

Job

Knowledge 22.0411 22.7319 S 1%

Job Holding

Skills 30.5976 31.1268 S 1%

Work Relevant

Attitudes 47.6239 48.6650 S 1%

Job Seeking

Skills 12.1386 12.5968 S 1%

Sex

Stereotyping 45.3994 46.2981 NS 0

Self

Esteem 36.2000 36.7715

STEP 15.1066 15.7404

56
TABLE XXIX

MEAN PRETEST SCORES BY

PROGRAM COMPLETION (PRIVATE SECTOR)

Subscale Non-Completers Completers Significance Explained

(0-150 Days) (151 Days (c70:4.05) Variation

or More)

Vocational

Attitudes 20.6800 20.7222 NS 0

Job

Knowledge 22.1980 22.6541 S 0

Job Holding

Skills 30.6871 30.9849 S 0

Work Relevant

Attitudes 48.1302 49.3620 S 1%

Job Seeking

Skills 12.2888 12.7143 S 1%

Sex

Stereotyping 45.6383 46.4799 NS 0

--if

Esteem 36.3184 36.8945 S 1%

STEP 15.3688 15.9118 S 0

57
TABLE XXX

MEAN PRETEST SCORES BY

PROGRAM COMPLETION (PUBLIC SECTOR)

Subscale Non-Completers Completers Significance Explained

(0-150 Days) (151 Days ( of < .05) Variation

or More)

Vocational

Attitudes 20.5669 20.5366 NS 0

Job

Knowledge 22.4063 22.5682 NS 0

Job Holding

Skills 30.7778 31.1012 S 1%

Work Relevant

Attitudes 47.8330 48.7583 S 1%

Job Seeking

Skills 12.2547 12.6144 NS 0

Sex

Stereotyping 45.9142 46.0496 NS 0

Self

Esteem 36.3411 36.7958 S 1%

STEP 15.3546 15.6852 NS 0

58
analysis to date, it would seem that the findings emerging from this

demonstration project can be much more easily generalized to the whole

population of youth likely to be served by such a program.

PRELIMINARY TRENDS IN SELECTED 90-DAY FOLLOW-UP DATA

Preliminary ninety day follow-up information was analyzed for approximately 329 youth. Of these, 45.6% reported that they were working fulltime. Twenty one and one-tenth percent reported that they were working

part-time, while 27.6% reported that they were in school or engaged in

another training program. The next three tables (XXXI through XXXIII)

report the associatiou between subsidized work experience in either the

private sector or the public sector and each of these three outcomes.

As can be seen, there does not appear to be at this time an association

emerging between sector placement and status at ninety days.

Ninety day follow-up also asks whether or not the program was helpful

in locating full-time employment. Table XXXIV reports the preliminary

analysis of this question for 157 respondents. (This question was asked

only to those Who had, in fact, found full-time employment.) As the

table shows, perception, of program helpfulness did not vary by sector

assignment. Further, most of those responding felt that the program was

helpful in locating full-time employment opportunities.

59
TABLE XXXI

FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR

Full-time

Not Fulltime

2 = NS

Public Private

79 71

94 85

TABLE XXXII

PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR

Full-time

Not Fulltime

.42 '2 NS

School

No School

Public Private

37 32

134 124

TABLE XXXIII

SCHOOL OR OTHER TRAINING

BY SECTOR

2

= NS

Public Private

50 41

121 118

60
TABLE XXXIV

PROGRAM HELPFULNESS IN LOCATING

FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR

Helpful

Not Helpful

Public Private

62 55

20 20

742 le NS
VI. AN OVERVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

Organization and Staffing

The Youth in Jobs Program operators were both prime sponsors and

community based organizations. In the latter case, the agencies were well

established in the community and had at least some experience with youth

employment and training programs. Because Youth in Jobs was presented as

a one-time demonstration project, all operators treated it as a quasiindependent program. There was some limited use of other agency support

personnel, but this was not the major thrust for staffing.

Local project directors were generally recruited from within the organization, or had worked previously with the YIJ program operator. Most other

project staff were recruited for the project using the operators usual hiring

procedures. Most staff had previous experience in some areas of human resources although individual experience levels varied widely.

The counselor/job developer position usually included the responsibility

for youth outreach and recruitment, worksite development and referral, participating in program orientation sessions, on-going counseling and post-program

placement activities. This multiplicity of roles created problems in several

cases,when time constraints required the counselors to do several tasks simultaneously. The situation was also exacerbated when hiring was done immediately

before or during program start -up orientation. This added to the counselors'

feeling that they were always behind. Counselors also appeared to want to

stress the service delivery aspect of this role. This created a certain

tension between the research goal of the demonstration and the service delivery

component.

63
Youth Outreach and Recruitment

Youth outreach did not present a problem in the larger cities in the

demonstration. Although program operators used a variety of outreach techniques, an ample number of eligible youth were recruited for the pool. In

Portland and rural Minnesota, more intensive recruiting methods were necessary. This appears to reflect the stronger local economy in Portland, and the

wide geographic area with its consequent transportation problem in Minnesota.

Sites reported losing some youth who wanted immediate service, since

they were out of school, and were not willing to wait for the matching process as required by the research design. These cases do not appear to be

substantial. However, operators suggested that there may have been some

instances of more motivated and job ready youth obtaining employment without

the assistance of the program. To the extent this "reverse creaming" occurred,

it tended to leave the demonstration with enrollees who were more difficult

to place than those typically found in on-going service programs. It should

be noted that any impact this would have had would have been equal between the

public and private sectors.

Orientation

The Youth in Jobs staff conducted the program orientation, including

the administration of the ETS pre-test except in Portland where this function

was subcontracted to the local community college. After some initial startup difficulties in several cities, all programs presented orientation in

approximately 21/2 days.

The orientation generally focused on interviewing procedures, filling

out job applications and necessary world-of-work attitudes. Additionally,

counselors used the orientation period to determine enrollees' interests

64
and any previ,aa work experience. This was particularly essential when

programs attempted to develop worksites to match enrollee interests.

Some youth terminated from the program during this phase. Occasionally,

this occurred because the youth did not like the random sector assignment

yield'd by the matching process. More often these early terminations reflected the youth's more complete understanding of the 25 week work experience

phase of the demonstration.

Worksite Development

Worksite development was conducted by the counselor/job developers

with varying degrees of additional support from the parent organization of

the program operator. Most of the sites attempted to use their organizational

contacts, but had to expand well beyond this effort in order to secure the

required 160 worksites in each sector. Only the St. Louis Urban League

seemed able to utilize their established base in the community for the development of a sizeable number of worksites. All sites used a variety of

additional techniques,including media announcements and cold calls to interest

prospective employers in the program.

The YIJ counselors found that public sector (including non-profit) agencies

were more responsive to the program. This was attributed to several factors.

First, the public sector had greater familiarity with government sponsored

employment and training programs, such as the Summer Youth Employment Program

or P°-. Second, public agencies were less concerned about government "red

tape" since they had often participated in similar programs. Third, budget

constraints for public and non-profit agencies made a subsidized worker

particularly attractive.

65
Private sector companies were more telu-tant to participate in Youth

in Jobs. Lack of familiarity with such programs, fear of "red tape," and

reluctance to hire relatively low skilled youth were reasons cited by counselors for the greater worksite development effort needed in the private

sector. Counselor/job developers achieved the greatest success with small

to medium sized businesses (less than 50 employees) where the owner or manager

was in a position to decide whether or not to participate. Larger companies

often already had commitments to other youth-related programs. Also,approvals

were required from several levels of the corporate structure,which usually

required too much time fot the six months demonstration project. For example,

one major corporation notified the site that they would in fact participate

one month after the last enrollees had been placed, and approximately eight

months after the initial request had been made.

Discussion with operators, participating employers and local monitors

made it clear that many employers who agreed to participate were attracted

by the 25 weeks of subsidized work experience. However, more importantly,

many seemed interested in having an opportunity to evaluate the potential of the

youth to become a suitable full-time employee. A number of employers expressed the view that they would not have taken a chance on the enrollee

without the program. With the subsidy and the YIJ counselors introduction,

employers were willing to provide work experience for the enrollees.

Several issues emerged during the worksite development phase. First,

employers with union representation usually did not want to participate.

This does not mean that unions would be uncooperative, merely that employers

would rather not ask the union for a concurrence for the program. The feeling

seemed to be that discussions with unions about something like this would

66
be too complex to explain without creating some current or L:Lure union

demands. Second, even with 100% subsidy for the 25 week work experience,

employers were primarily interested in providing basic, entry level positions.

These are used as the basis for judging whether to make a more substantial

investment in training the youth, after he/she has proved to be a stable

reliable worker. Third, some employers declined to participate because they

were not allowed to supplement the enrollees' wage to bring it up to their

entry level wages. While some employers were obviously pleased to have the

enrollee at no cost, others were concerned about the impact on morale, both

of existing workers and the enrollee, of different pay rates for the same

position.

Worksite Referral

Worksite referrals were generally provided by the YIJ counselors,

often from a central listing or job bank. Due to the number of youth being

processed through orientation and the limited time for assessment, referrals

were made based on the staff's judgment concerning enrollees' skills and

interests and the worksite requirements. This was in accord with the focus

of the demonstration project on work experience positions that would typiclly

be available to a similar program. Detailed screening and assessment was

not envisioned as necessary for these entry level positions.

The worksite referral generally worked satisfactorily, especially in

the public sector. The lack of more careful screening and the experimental

nature of random sector assignment created more difficulties in the private

sector, particularly for companies that expected participants to possess

a high skill level. The public and non-profit sectors have usually participated in employment andtraining programs without being overly selective,

67
particularly when providing work experience slots for youth. However, the

private sector was more selective before hiring the enrollee and was less

tolerant of erratic behavior or performance. In smaller private sector

family business, however, there appeared to be some effort at flexibility.

In many instances, the effort to accommodate youth in these type of firms

approached that of the public sector. This did not mean lack of supervision.

On the contrary, the interest shown combined work supervision with concern

for the youth's personal life.

Work Experience

Although five sites met the goal of placing 320 youth (fewer in Minnesota),

attritior from worksites was relatively high. Most of the programs actually

had more than 320 youth in work experience at their peak periods. The high

attrition, however, meant that the initial time table for placing all enrollees

by June 15, 1979 had to be substantially altered. Programs were permitted

to recruit and place enrollees through mid-September. This three month extension required that project staff continue recruiting youth and develop

worksites for longer than anticipated. The additional counselor/job developer

effort in these areas may have contributed somewhat to the high turnover in

work experience slots. However, there are several other factors concerning

the nature of the work experience which should be considered.

The work experience slots were primarily entry level positions. Some

program orientations that stressed careers had raised youth expectations

above what participating employers were willing to offer. Additionally,

the 16-._ year old out-of-school YIJ youth often had a range of personal

and env2.onmental factors w.ich made it difficult to perform adequately

at the worksite. These factors appeared to generate the bulk of terminations.

68
Counselors and, to a lesser extent, enrollees noted that the public

sector worksites, when compared with those in the private sector, did not

appear to offer as close supervision nor the opportunity to master marketable skills. Indications are that this stems from the nature of the jobs

available in those settings and the method the public sector had traditionally

used to provide work experience for youth.

Supportive Services and On-Going Counseling

As a demonstration work experience project, supportive services and

on-going counseling were to be provided at a relatively low level. Supportive

services could be provided by the program operator directly or through referrals to existing community resources. The most common supportive service

was assistance with transportation by issuing bus passes or tokens. Health

exams, work related clothing and day care were also provided, but for

relatively few enrollees. Generally, program operators provided supportive

services as they do for their continuing programs. Therefore,some provided.

services directly, while others used referrals as the primary source.

The number and approximate timing of on-going counseling contacts were

specified in the Standard Grant Plan. The ,-,urpose was two-fold: to ensure

a minimum level of contact between the enrollee and counselor, and to enable

the counselor to make an effort with the participating employer to transition

the youth at the worksite at the end of the 25 week subsidized work experience.

Most sites found it difficult to make counseling contacts during the summer

when youth recruiting and worksite development were still under way. An

exception was Philadelphia, where orksite development and youth recruitment

was essentially completed before Youth in Jobs began.

69
Transition and Post-Program Placement Activities

Youth in Jobs counselors approached worksites during the work experience

phase to determine whether enrollees would transition to unsubsidized employment at the worksite. These contacts were partially successful in the private

sector, but budget constraints and the availability of other subsidized

workers generally precluded transition in the public sector. Thom private

non-profit portion of the public sector was in between the other two sector::.

In those cases where the youth was not expected to transition, counselors

began to obtain referrals (a minimum of two was specified in the Standard

Grant Plan) for enrollees.

Two factors often complicated the final weeks of the ' xperience

portion of YIJ. First, enrollees who were not going to be crc.,i,ftioned

were very discouraged and often terminated. Youth who had de7.e veil on

the worksite were especially disheartened. Second, many youth were not

interested in continued employment. Their attitude was that they bad completed their six month progra:- -- now it was time for a vacation. Despite

these.circumstances,a number of youth transitioned at their worksite.

In addition, many enrollees were able to obtain unsubsidized employment

through referrals made by the counselors. Most jobs were in the private

sector. Counselors did note that the wPrk experience for enrollees in the

private sector, even when the youth not transitioned, seemed to prepar,:::

them better for other work. However, t'als feelino is not substantiated by

preliminary data.

70
VII. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES In ATE

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK

Organization and Staffing

United Neighborhood Houses (UNH), the program operator in New York, is

a private, non-profit federation of settlement houses. UNH provides technical

assistance, fund raising and other like services to its thirty-six member

houses. While UNH obtains and administers several types of grants and contracts,

it has no administrative control over the individual settlement nouses.

Youth In Jobs (YIJ) was administered centrally by UNH making use of its

members to provide some services and locations easily accessible to youth in

the New York area. While information regarding the program was disseminated to

all settlement houses, rot all thirty-six decided to participate. Approximately

fifteen houses, generally those with the larger youth populations, did participate in YIJ.

Staffing for YIJ initally consisted of one full-time director and five job

developer/counselors,in addition to support and clerical staff, Unfoiunately,

it was not until May, 1979 that these individuals were all on board. As late

as August, 1979,one job developer/counselor was moved into the positHn of

assistant director. An additional person war then hired to fill he li_cated job

developer/counselor slot. This brought the total number of staff to eight.

The staff members were all experienced in job development and tari,us other

types of employment programs. This previous experience ranged from three to

eight years. Most also had experience in working with youth, mainly through a

court referral program. Previous staff experience was helpful in implemen,;ng

certain phases of this demonstration project. However, there appeared to be a

lack of communication regarding several specific YIJ project requirements. The

addition of the assistant director seemed to improve staff communications with a

71
consequent improvement in data collection and information retrieval processes.

The job develupel/counselors were responsible for all phases of implementation except initial recruitment, eligibility verification, and processing

payroll. Late hiring, diverse staff responsibilities, and time line pressures

negatively impacted various phases of implementation.

Outreach and Recruitment

Each participating settlement house assigned a liaison to work with UNH in

recruiting youth for the program. The liaison was normally an individual who

specialized in youth programs and had considerable on-going contact with youth.

Information was disseminated by the liaisons through flyers, word of mouth, and

signs in the settlement houses. Youth, therefore, learned of YIJ on their home

territory from people generally familiar to them.

The liaisons:

1) took the youth's application;

2) gave a brief description of the program;

3) told the youth what documents were necessary

for eligibility verification;

4) received these documents;

5) forwarded the application and other paperwork

to the central office;

6) assisted in notifying youth of appointments at

at the central office.

Early meeting& with the liaison revealed some confusion regarding Y1J and some

dissatisfaction with the feedback on the status of individual youth. The

Center for Urban Programs, in conjunction with the project director,clarified the

research and demonstration nature of the project. Further, the project director

agreed to provide timely status reports to the liaisons.

72
The central office, once they reviewed applications and verifications,

called youth in for administration of the SelectABLE. The SelectABLE was

administered to various size groups generally at the central office. However,

when a large enough group was available in an area a counselor would go to

that settlement house to administer the test. UNH then forward,A the ap;ropriate information to CUP for the matching process. It seemed tl UNH was applying

stricter eligibility requirements than necessary for YETP, as the majority of

youth were receiving some type of welfare benefits. Also UNH developed its own

application form. This requested general information, but much of it was not

obtained in accordance with standard CETA definitions.

While recruitment levels varied over time there seemed to be no problem in

obtaining enough eligible applicants in New York.

Orientation

Orientations in New York began in mid-April prior to full staffing. One of

the first counselors hired did have experience in curriculum design and was on

board early enough to develop a structured orientation. The content and method

varied slightly since all counselors were responsible for conducting orientations.

Early planning helped to maintain basic consistency.

Areas covered included work habits, dress, appearance, attitude, interactive

behavior, and resume writing. Group interaction and role playi,:g were the basic tools for conveying the information along with seve'7a1 pape. and pencil

worksheets for individual self-assessment and planning.

While counselors sometimes had proSlems conducting orientation in conjunction with other duties, it was generally agreed that this time was valuable for

building a relationship with the youth. This later helped counselors in matching

youth to an appropriate worksite. While orientations consisted of about forty

73
to fifty youth, after additional staff came on board, the larger group was

able to be divided into smaller segments for parts of the orientation.

As with SelectitBLE testing, orientations were conducted at the central

office and at a few of the settlement houses when large enough numbers were

available.

There seemed to be no problems associated with administering the pretest

according to the guidelines. While there were no refusals, several youth

balked at the types of questions. In addition to ETS test instruments, UNH

administered a basic math test and some typing tests when youth expressed

interests in clerical positions.

Worksite Development

New York's strategy for worksite development involved a number of tactics.

These tactics included: notifying UNH community centers as to program needs,

placement of ads in local black and ethnic papers, contact with UNH local suppliers, contact with a Department of Commerce program working for economic

development in New York City, Youth In Jobs staff's personal contacts, and additional agency contacts. Some job developer/counselors also had success with cold

calls or visits. In a few instances employers spread the word and UNH was

contacted.

In attempting to develop worksites in the private sectox,UNH faced problems

with large businesses. Corporate headquarters shied away from placing disadvantaged youth in positions of public contact. Some larger firms required so many

levels of concurrence that time prohibited their participation, while still

others were participating in different employment programs.

Union shops presented problems in both sectors. Many declined participation

based on the wage level and/or the duration of the subsidized portion of the

74
program.

Coordination of worksite development activities was informal. However,

job developers were aware of certain individuals having more contacts or experience with particular industries. Other job developers concentrated on

exploring specific job areas as listed in the phone book.

Late staff hiring did result in some problems with worksite development.

It caused confusion over program priorities when there was an insufficient

bank of jobs available prior to.the completion of the first orientation. In

consultation with CUP, it was decided that future orientations were to be delayed, pending the development of e sufficient number of worksites.

Worksite Referral and Work Experiente

As with most other sites in the project, the majority of the youth were

hired on the first referral. The private sector did have a higher occurrence

of second and third referrals, reflecting their greater selectivity. Also,

private sector employers tended to want to interview more than one -south at a

time. ior the most part, youth were able to be referred out and hired within

two weeks after completing orientation. The one major exception was youth in

the early orientation group, who waited up to six weeks while counselors caught

up on worksite development.

Some problems did develop with youth who did not want certain types of

jobs, mainly those involving "dirty" or heavy work. Others did not want to work

in the public sector, primarily because of previous program experience. Counselors expressed a need for more screening in terms of youth who were or were

not ready for work experience.

One other issue that arose was an unwillingness of youth to venture out

of their own territory. Even though New York's transportation system is

75

9
relatively good and youth were provided with detailed directions to interviews,

the youth still expressed a strong desire to work on their "turf."

During the work experience itself,very few worksites were terminated.

For those that were the reasons varied:

1. the job description and duties differed considerably;

2. several lie detector tests were required;

3. racial or sexual conflicts arose.

In general the c,unselors reported good worksite supervision, although they

seemed to feel that the private sector worksite had consistently better supervision. Employers in the private sector, however, were more demanding and

therefore terminated youth quicker for poor attendance and work habits. On

the other hand, the public sector tended to be more lenient or laissez-faire

about work habits.

New York was the only site that reached the goal of 320 youth in work experience. This does not mean that they did not experience problems with both

terminations and drop outs from work experience, however. Counselors cited

attendance and punctuality as the most common recurring problems leading to

terminations.

Supportive Services and On-Going Counseling

Supportive services were not used to a great extent in New York. All

youth were provided with transportation allowance until their first paychecks

were received. Other supportive services seemed to have been minimal and provided on an as needed basis.

On-going cMlnseling took two forms, those requited by the Standard Grant

Plan and additional contacts. Early required contacts were delayed due to the

combination of time constraints and the wide v..riety of simultaneous counselor

76
responsibilities. However, couselors seemed to be readily accessible to both

the youth and the employers. Informal communications among the staff made it

possible for a counselor to be of assistance even if the assigned counselor

was unavailable.

Post-Program Placement Activities

While hampered by several factorsUNH was able to place youth and provide

two, if not more,referrals for youth who were interested in further employment.

Factors hampering post-program placement were:

1) YIJ wage made many youth ineligible for certification

under the Targeted Tax Credit Program.

2) These wages also made many youth ineligible for other CETA

service through the New York Prime Sponsor.

3) A number of youth were unwilling to cooperate with placement

activities.

In addition, job developer/counselors felt that youth suffered from basic

deficiencies in reading and writing skills. There was also a sense of discouragement when transitions did not occur at their worksite.

UNH did establish two outside resources for assisting youth who had finished

work experience and were still looking for work. The New York telephone company

coordinated a series of workshops in communications and the use of the telephone

in obtaining employment. Also, J.C. Penney conducted a ten hour seminar on the

World of Corporate Work.

UNH used a combination of methods to develop post-program placements:

1) job development with companie,3 previouJly contacted under

worksite development;

2) personal contacts of job developer/counselors with other

program personnel;

3) contacting potential employers on SBA loan lists;

4) helping youth use want ads.

77

(),Th Los.)
Counselors felt that a review session on job seeking and interviewing skills

would have improved post-program placement results.

78
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Organization and Staffing

The Council for the Revitalization of Employment and Industry was the

program operator in Philadelphia through a subcontract with the Philadelphia

CETA prime sponsor. The Council is a private, non-profit, economic development corporation which serves people in industry. It is a unique partnership

formed among business, labor, and government. Founded in 1974, the Council

has developed an approach to economic development which emphasizes a

strengthening of the inu'tstrial sector in the city of Philadelphia with

attention also 'irected toward the human side. The concerns .:)f business, human

resources, and industry have combined to provide an effective range of programs

to meet the needs of people in industry.

The YIJ program director was hired by February 19th with additional staffing taking place in early March. By March 7th an assistant director and six

counselor /job developers had been hired. Previous staff experience included

work with other CETA programs, teaching, counseling, industry affiliation and

administration. The staff was augmented by an administrative assistant/

secretary and a clerk typist, both hired at a later date.

The counselor/job developers were responsible for implementing all phases

of the program including recruitment, -ligibility confirmation, job development,

orientation activities, job referral, counseling and monitoring of job sites.

The assistant director was responsible to the director for testing, recruitment

and job placement schedules, and supervision of day-to-day activities of the

counselor /job developer. The administrative assistant/secretary was responsible

for coordination of record keeping and forwarding of all records to the appropriate parties. The clerk typist was responsible for typing, filing, and assisting

79
the administrative assistant with record keeping. A researcher was hired

by the Council in July to do some independent follow up investigation of program drop-outs.

Outreach and Recruitment

Recruitment efforts began in early April. Activities included sending,,

information packets, containing a letter from the President of the Council, a

copy of the YIJ brochure, and a copy of the fact sheet for participants, to

every community agency in the city. YIJ staff also spoke before a number of

community groups and newspaper ads appeared in three local papers. Newspaper

ads appeared to be the most effective method of informing youth of the YIJ

program.

Youth were directed to call or come to the YIJ office location. At the

interview, if an applicant appeared eligible, intake information was filled out

on the local prime sponsor's application forms. Documentation of eligibility

including proof of age, address, and a drop slip or diploma were copied and included in the applicant's file. The SelectABLE was administered at this time.

Youth were then informed they would be notified if selected for participation

in YIJ.

Orientation

Philadelphia held the first orientation during the week of April 23rd.

Youth who were matched by CUP were notified of acceptance into the program

by either a phone call or a letter.

The first orientation series ran for one full day with a break for lunch.

Two groups were precessed through this abbreviated orientation, with approximately forty youth per group. ETS tests were administered by le assistant

director in the morning. No additional tests were administered. Youth were

80
divided into six groups immediately after the tests to meet with the counselors.

During the short time before lunch, counselors attempted to find out interests,

experiences, and special skills the youth had in an attempt to match youth

interests with available worksites.

The afternoon session ran for four hours and was divided into four sections

dealing with the world-of-work: 1) interviewing techniques and self-presentation;

2) work relationships, behavior, and labor unions; 3) budgeting, banking and

money management; 4) individual meetings with counselors. The afternoon session

was led by the project director. All six counselors participated, with counselors assigned to each of the four sections. At the conclusion of the session,

youth were asked to return the next day for job referral.

After the first abbreviated orientation sessions, Philadelphia used the

following Standard Grant Plan. Two problems that emerged, physical space and

length of orientation, were solved. Arrangements were subsequently made at a

center city hotel to hold future orientations there. They were lengthened to

three days, and participants were provided with the full range of orientation

material as outlined in the standard grant plan. Each orientation had approximately forty youth participating. Six separate orientation sessions were held,

with the last session occurring in mid-June.

Worksite Development

Philadelphia's strategy for worksite development,which began six weeks prior

to the first orientation, gave them a definite advantage for placement compared

to the other demonstration sites.

The city was divided into six sectors according to zip codes, with each

sector being assigned to one of the counselor/job developers. Each counselor/

job developer was responsible for developing a list of potential employers in

81
their given area. Employer lists were developed through the use of the

Chamber of Commerce Directory, personal contacts, various lists of non-profit

agencies, community services in the area, the Whole City Catalog, directory

of available services for youth in the city, phone books, and referrals from

other employers.

After development of the lists, notice of the program was mailed to the

various companies and agencies. These notices included a cover letter from

the president of the Council, a copy of the YIJ brochure, and an employer

factsheet. Approximately 1800 notices were mailed as a result of these efforts,

in three groups of 500 and one group of 300. These notices were mailed on

Fridays as a means of facilitating the staff's initial contacts. The following Monday, a call was made to the perspective employer. It was hoped that

by the time a YIJ counselor/job developer contacted the employer, he/she would

be familiar with YIJ through the notices. However, in many cases the YIJ staff

found the notice went no further than the secretary's desk and that the person

in the position of making decisions actually knew nothing abouth the program.

This was particularly true in the private sector. In the public sector, a

large number of non-profit agencies contacted the program staff before the staff

could contact them.

Philadelphia found it much easier to contract with non-profit agencies than

private concerns. Within the first month of development, staff members had

commitments from non-profit agencies for well over the 160 required jobs slots.

Private sector employers seemed unwilling to become involved with the project.

Many potential employers refused to have anything to do with any CETA connected

program regardless of the advantages. Many commented on extensive paperwork,

even after staff members explained the small amount of paperwork involved in

82
this particular demonstration. Some employers' previous experience with youth

programs left them with negative feelings toward government sponsored employment programs. Others made it evident that CETA and youth programs were

oriented toward assisting a black population and they did not want to participate

in such programs. Despite these problems, Philadelphia secured more than the

required 160 slots in the private sector by mid April.

There were no jobs developed in the public governmental sector. Philadelphia's

understanding, oltlined in a memo from their federal representative, was that they

would not be ex _toted to develop jobs in this sector. A number of local conditions,

including a strong civil service system and public employee uniouc,dictated this

course of action.

Worksite Referral and Work Experience

Counselors initially conferred among themselves to ascertain the participant's

interests and what might be an appropriate worksite referral. Referrals were

set up by the job developer, who made an appointment for the interview. For the

most part, youth were hired on the first referral. As Philadelphia had used

the strategy of developing jobs first and recruiting youth second, youth did not

have to wait any appreciable period between orientation and referrals. By midJune Philadelphia had 295 participants in jobs and were optimistic regarding the

attainment of the program goal (320). However, during July, August and September,

the program began to experience a rapidly escalating early termination rate

By the end of August, Philadelphia had depleted its replacement pool witho,

reaching the goal of 320.

The heaviest early termination rate occurred in the private sector. The

staff felt there were specific reasons for that. First, nearly every placement

in the non-profit sector was with a social service agency. Many of these

agencies are in existence to deal with the type of people YIJ was targeted to

83
include and thus had people available on site to work with .he participant

and staff to resolve problems. In addition, given budget constraints and other

problems, YIJ provided these agencies with a much needed employee and they were

willing to be more patient and flexible in hopes of retaining the participants

for the entire length of the program.

Second, major problems concerning worksite assignment evolved from the

expectations of the participants and the demands of the employers. In the case

of the participants, many individuals had specific kinds of jobs in mind which

were either not available or beyond their ability. Some youth were also not

happy with their sector assignment, particularly if it was to the public sector.

In regard to employers, the:..r demands were out of line with the skills that

were available. Many participants were high school drop-outs with only minimal

skills and minimal job experience, making it difficult to provide many employers

with a participant. As a result, many youth in the private sector were either

terminated by the employer or quit on their own.

Third, those involved with the private sector were unaccustomed to the

"corporate environment," and found it strange and seemingly hostile. The few

days of orientation devoted to the "world-of-work" could not adequately prepare

them for this environment. This was less of a problem in the public sector,

since many youth were used to dealing with social service agencies.

Forty-three individuals were terminated after three referrals: nineteen

in the public; twenty-four in the private. In some cases, particularly in the

public sector, the youth was not satisfied with the sector assignment and continued to refuse placement even when a worksite was offered. In the private

sector, employers turned down youth because of the low quality of skills, or

the feeling that the participants' attitudes and responses were not acceptable.

Three worksires were dropped after receiving three referrals.

84
An additional problem emerged in Philadelphia, potentially affecting the

research design. Three youth were put in a sector opposite that assigned by

CUP. While these may have been accidental misplacements, it appeared that in at

least one or two instances they were a result of tension between the service

delivery component of the program and its research-demonstration goal. A

letter to the project director, indicating the serious nature of the misplacements

and their potential negative impact on the research design, solved the problem.

Supportive Services and On-Going Counseling

Supportive services provided by the program seemed to be minimal. All

participants received up to two weeks of transportation assistance until receipt

of their first pay check. Other services such as day care were referred out

to the appropriate agencies. The Council has on its staff a consultant who

provides counseling services on an as needed basis. A few of the participants

were referred to the counselor because of psychological problems that were manifesting themselves in poor work habits. Supportive services appeared to be

given on an as needed basis.

On-going counseling was in compliance with the Standard Grant Plan. Because

Philadelphia had jobs developed early, counselors did not have to play catch up

on counseling contacts. In addition, youth were calling counselors informally

regarding problems and/or seeking information.

Post-Program Placement Activities

Philadelphia participants began to complete their twenty-five weeks of

work in mid-October. While some were retained at their worksites, project staff

had a large number of youth for which they attempted to provide at least two job

referrals. During this time, staff not only made referrals, but they helped

participants put resumes together, answer job ads, call for interviews, secure

85
targeted tax credit documentation, and in some cases accompanied the individual

to the job interviews. In many instances, staff would arrange for interviews

(as many as five for some participants) only to have the participant fail to

show up.

The last working participants completed on February 15, 1980. From that

time to YIJ program termination date (April 15th) staff focused on getting as

many program participants as possible into job interviews or jobs. As of midApril, the program had 202 completers, with 66 hired at the worksite, 32 hired

elsewhere and 5 put into other subsidized programs. A total of 99 youth are

still looking for employment.

Due to the economic slowdown in the first quarter of 1980, the effectiveness

of post-program placement was severely limited. Staff found it very difficult

to place youth at entry level positions for which so many were now qualified.

It also appeared that many of the participants placed with a social service

agency for their twenty-five weeks of work experience had not developed any

marketable skills. They seemed to have a harder time finding jobs, showing

lack of job seeking skills.

Finally, a number of youth did not want a job after the twenty-five weeks

of work experience. They felt they had done ::heir part, and were looking forward to some time off.

86

102
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

Organization and Staffing

The organizational structure designed by the Urban League to implement

the program was two tier involving both the national and local office. The

Department of Labor contracted with the National Urban League for this

demonstration project. Their Standard Grant Plan described four national

level positions related to the project. National involvement occurred

primarily through their project monitor. The St. Louis Urban League subcontracted with the national organization to operate the YIJ project. St.

Louis Youth in Jobs staff prepared statistical and narrative reports

to keep the national monitor informed on project operations. The local

unit has had sixty-one years of experience in St. Louis, and operates six

employment related programs in addition to YIJ.

To implement the project at the local level, a project director, a

project associate, six employment specialists, and a secretary were hired.

The project director was an employee of the Urban League transferred to

YIJ. The project associate and employment specialists had educational

backgrounds in the social sciences and previous work experience in education

or so :ial work. Staffing was not completed until the latter part of Jun...

which presented a number of problems in the initial phases of implementation.

This full time staff was augmented by existing Urban League staff,

including the agency's director who helped in developing jobs and contacting

board members to enlist their aid; the Urban League receptionist who certified enrollees and administered the SelectABLE; the pre-employment program

instructors who assisted in orientation; and additional Urban League staff

87

103
who participated in worksite development.

Responsibilities were divided among the staff. The project director

was largely responsible for getting information to CUP -- names, tests,

replacement information -- in a timely fashion. The project associate maintained the required statistics, files on the youth, and generally assisted

the YIJ staff. The secretary prepared payroll information, while the employment specialists or Urban League van drivers picked up the timeshee-s at the

worksites. The employment specialists had multiple roles and operated on a

team basis. They were responsible for developing worksites, orientation

activities, job referrals, and counseling youth.

Project staff appeared to be confused regarding the goals of the demonstration effort. When the CUP research team conducted staff orientation,

only the project director and one employment specialist from the YIJ staff had

been hired and were present. Additional staff came on board after the orientation and consequently gained their understanding of the program through

reading the Standard Grant Plan. The lack of clarity on program goals was

further complicated by a lack of communication between staff members and

the local Urban League administration.

Recruitment and Selection

Recruitment methods included articles in two St. Louis daily newspapers

as well as in local black newspapers, radio spots, agency contacts, and word

of mouth. The Urban League also contacted agencies serving similar youth

including the League for Adequate Welfare, Boy's Club, Youth Center, and

one St. Louis County sponsored YETP program. The mass media blitz appeared

to be the biggest help in drawing youth to the program.

Recruitment began in early May. Youth came in person to the Urban League

88

10 -i
office. The receptionist gave them the application, income verification

forms, and administered the SelectABLE. Those youth who were out of

school for less tha'n ninety days were given Counselor Certification Forms

which, when returned by their school counselor, verified their non-school

status. Income verification was handled by the Urban League's receptionist

in the following manner. Normally a youth was given an income form to

complete and sign. In some instances, a youth was asked to bring an ADC

card or parents were called to check on income status, If the youth had no

idea of the amount of income earned and no ADC card, the receptionist asked

the number of people living in the household. If it was seven or under,

she assigned $1000 to each person. If there were more than seven, she

divided the $1000 in half. When questioned, the project director noted that

the majority of the youth were referred from other programs where they had

to be CETA eligible. No formal check was used.

The Urban League utilized a recruitment card which contained information

pertinent to matching. It was not until after youth were matched that a more detailed application was developed. The application, however, lackdd

information in accord with standard CETA definitions.

The Urban League had two recruitment phases. The second phase was

initiated due to a perceived need for higher skilled youth and fear of a higher than anticipated termination rate. This second phase did not generate

the anticipated numbers of higher skilled youth.

Youth were notified of their program selection by the project director.

Those not reached by phone were sent letters detailing the appropriate information.

89
Orientation

The initial orientation session, May 15-17, lasted three half days

with ETS testing comprising Day I activities. Enrollees were divided

into two groups of approximately fifty each, based upon their choice of

attending morning (9:00-11:00) or afternoon (1:00-3:00) sessions. Employment specialists, then only recently hired, conducted orientation with the

assistance of other Urban League staff. Content of the orientation

emphasized job application and interview skills. Activities included role

playing of interviews and conpletion of an employment application form.

Sessions were held in a large room at the Urban League's location. Because of the room's size, it was very easy to become distracted and haid

to concentrate on the activities,

Subsequent orientations were lengthened to comply with the Standard

Grant Plan. The general format remained the same, although the location

was changed to a smaller room. An additional day of orientation provided

an opportunity for the employment specialists to meet individually with

the enrollees and arrange job referrals at that time. While individual

meetings were hela, films relating basic job skills were shown to the

rest of the group. In another change, youth completed a lengthened resume,

complete with picture, to provide counselors with more pertinent information on individual skills and experience. A total of nine or'entations

were held with most sessions having approximately twenty-five participants

in attendance. Staff seemed to feel these small orientation groups were

somewhat counter productive in demanding staff time. Staff felt that their

time would have been better utilized in worksite development, placement and

recruitment of "more suitable" youth.

90

106
The major problem with orientation seemed to stem from the late hiring

of staff. They were at a disadvantage when conducting the first orientation

sessions since they had little opportunity to discuss strategies and ideas

for orientation. This resulted in a very disorganized first orientation.

In with the large numbers of youth participating in the first

orie\tation and the lack of jobs developed, many youth waited for a long

period of time before they were referred.

Worksite Development

The Urban League used a variety of methods to develop worksites. Staff

placed classified advertisements for employers in local newspapers. They

also telephoned area employers using personal or Urban League contacts,

classified ads, and the yellow pages. In the public sector, all United Way

agencies were contacted by mail to notify them of the program. Many of the

small, private sector companies which made up most of the private sector

placements responded to the newspaper ads. Employers who were called without

any previous contact were reluctant to participate, fearful of involvement

with a government sponsored youth employment program. Worksite development

in larger companies was also problematic.

Considerable staff time was diverted by attempting to locate the correct

contact person in the corporate structure who could make a judgment about

participating in the demonstration project. When such an individual was

finally located, cooperation was generally not forthcoming. Generally,

staff felt this program was much more attractive to the small and medium

size businesses.

As a result of the late hiring of staff, employment specialists had

little time available to do much worksite development before the first

orientation. While the first orientation had 119 participants, only 48

91

107
worksites had been developed by the orientation's end. Due to lack of

jobs developed, a large number of youth were not referred 'to a worksite for

a long period of time.

The Urban League staff wanted a large pool of youth to choose from for

worksite referrals and placement. The employers, particularly in the private sector, were requesting youth with higher skill lev, than available.

The project director seemed to create an environment which emphasized the

needs of employers as opposed to the needs of the program's youth population.

Counselors, on the other hand, were more oriented toward youth needs. These

differing staff perceptions complicated worksite development efforts.

An additional problem occurred because the YIJ program coincided with

summer vacation for high school and college youth. Many employers had

already filled their available slots and were unwilling to take on additional

youth.

As the initial June 15 deadline approached, additional Urban League

staff helped in worksite development. The public sector was divided into

federal, state, local and union categories with different developers working

on each. Urban League board members were contacted as well as employers

involved in previous placements. orksites were geographically limited to

the City of St. Louis and its immediate, surrounding county suburbs to

alleviate transportation difficulties.

The Urban League experienced problems in knowing some of the specifics

of worksite development. Specifically, the Standard Grant Plan stated that

no more than eight jobs were to be developed at any one place. There were

at least two instances where more than the alloted eight jobs were developed.

County Parks and Recreation had forty-seven jobs, and at the Di-State

92

os
Development Agency twenty-six jobs were developed.

Worksite Referral and Work Experience

Initially, job matching and work experience were handled by the project

associate, but as the deadline approached, all employment specialists

assisted. The process involved selecting an enrollee whose skills matched

those an employer was seeking for the job. An employment specialist contacted both the youth regarding his/her interest in the job, and the employer

to set up an interview: The Urban League provided transportation to the

interview from their office if youth needed it.

The project associate emphasized that they did not push a youth into a

job despite deadline pressures. The staff believed there was no advantage

in a poor match because the youth and employer would be unhappy, and the

whole effort repeated. Generally, youth was placed on first referral, with

few yoJth needing a second or third referral.

It appeared that the private sector was more selective, with some

employers requesting to interview as many as three youth before choosing

one to hire. When informed that this was not possible, several employers

withdrew from the program.

Despite staff efforts to secure wermatched placements, some youth

who left the program cited dissatisfaction with their worksite. Many

participants did not like the available jobs and refused to go to interviews. As terminations continued to increase, staff speculated that there

was often a discrepancy among job expectations, the reality of youth

skills, and the qualifications that certain jobs demanded. Consequently,

staff faced the dilemma of youth and employers with unrealistic expectations of each other.

93
Public sector employers were more realistic because of previous

employment programs Also, many public sector agencies exist to deal

with the same type of people who were placed on jobs with the agency.

In addition, the program provided the agencies with a much needed

employee and therefore were willing to be more flexible and tolerant.

On the other hand, private sector employers were not very tolerant of

such things as tardiness and absenteeism, and many initiated terminations.

Many were concerned about the negative effect of poor enrollee work

habits on other full-time staff members.

Staff noted that youth with previous work experience were doing

better on their worksite placements and appeared to have a lower termination rate than those without experience, Those without experience

appeared fearful of calling employers if they were going to be late or

ill. The St. Louis program also experienced a communication gap with

many employers. Many youth were terminated for a week or more before

counselors were notified.

Supportive Services and On-Going Counseling

The Urban League provided minimal supportive services to participants.

A total of 700 weekly bus passes were issued during orientation and job

referral. Grooming kits were also passed out during this period. Haircuts were provided at no cost. Eleven youth required physical examinations and seven needed special work clothes before they could start work.

Typing manuals were provided to two youth to help improve their skills

on the job. Other than those services mentioned, supportive services

were provided on an as needed basis.

On-going counseling took place at 30, 90, 120, 150, and 180 day

94

o
intervals during the work experience. Employers were asked to fill out

a form rating "work habits and attitudes." While the form was designed

to provide a uniform assessment of participant activities, quality of

the reports varied by counselor, worksite supervisor and youth. Employers

seemed to regard the high number of counselor visits as a nuisance.

After the discussion with employers, counselors spoke with youth to get

their general comments and feelings. Other counseling was provided on

an as needed basis.

The thirty and ninety day contacts were delayed because of the diverse

demands on counseling time, including worksite development and placement.

The Urban League has had to change office locations three times during

the life of the program. Even though all moves were in the same building,

this might have impacted on the youths' ability to contact their counselors.

For instance, during the third move, the entire YIJ staff was given a

week off with the exception of the receptionist.

Post Program Placement Activities

Post program placement has been difficult given the present economic

situation in St. Louis. Both the city and county have leveled a hiring

freeze on their respective offices. The unemployment rate has continued

to rise in St. Louis, partially as a result of the downturn in the car

industries. Given general economic conditions, there also appears to be

a low turnover rate in other entry level positions.

The St. Louis termination rate is very high; approximately 290 youth

who started work experience have quit, relocated or refused services.

Several youth were promised transitioning by their employers but refused

to work beyond the six months. Many were just not interested 111 another

95

1 1 1
job after the six months. They were ready for a vacation and a "don't

call us we'll call you" attitude prevailed.

Other environmental influences appear to affect post-program behavior.

Youth have cited a number of reasuns for not continuing with the program

or not desiring placement. These include seeking unemployment benefits,

maintaining ADC status, lack of interest, lack of available day care, etc.

Program personnel felt that the public sector did not provide youth

with marketable skills for obtaining unsubsidized employment.

Non-subsidized permanent pl,cements total twenty-five (seventeen public, two private-non-profit, six private). Two of these placements are

with the public sector and twenty-three in the private sector. Fifty-three

transitions were made at the worksite (fottr public, ten private). The combined total of currently employed, non-subsidized youth is seventy-eight.

Thirty-two youth were referred to subsidized activities which included

Job Corps, OIC, Street Academy, other CETA programs including the Arthur

J. Kennedy Skill Center, and Adult Education. Only one followed through

and applied. Sixteen youth enrolled in academic educational programs following work experience.

Several youth have been rehired by their worksite employer. Many of

these have been called back as temporary help and at least one case, the

youth has been working full-time "temporarily" for the past four months.

The St. Louis site had some difficulty in administering the post-test.

There seemed to be some confusion over who received the post-test and when

it was to be given. The d'iginal instructions specified that those participants who had been in the program for ninety days Would be post-tested. The

program operator felt that with the high termination rate St. Louis

96

112
was experiencing, coupled with confusion over what the ninety days

stood for, staff was instructed to interview all participants who they

thought were likely to be early terminators. Therefore, if a counselor

was administering the post -.test and someone else in the program was

there, they too were given a post-test. According to data received

at CUP, a moderately large number of youth were post-tested early.
RURAL MINNESOTA

Organization and Staffing

Rural Minnesota Concentrated Employment Program (RMCEP), a nongovernmental prime sponsor, was the YIJ program operator in rural

Minnesota. RMCEP's jurisdiction includes approximately 22,000 square

miles and 19 counties of primarily agricultural and resort land.

While the rural nature of this program site necessitated a unique organization, RMCEP was able to accomodate YIJ with few modifications of the

Standard Grant Plan.

Originally, there were eleven subsites scattered throughout the

jurisdiction. Fairly early in the programi:these were consolidated to

seven. This reduction was accomplished by dropping one site, Moorehead,

due to itrs inability to recruit enough youth for matching, and then

joinitg sites which were in close proximity for recruitment and orientation purposes. The resulting subsites were as follows: Bemidgi,

Brainerd, Detroit Lakes, Fergus Falls, Little Falls/Long Prairie,

Morris/Alexandria, and Staples/Wadena. As RMCEP uses a similar struc1. mUtiple sites in its normal programing, this did not disrupt the

orgamLation.

In each subsite there was at least one full-time staff member assigned

specifically '3 YIJ and responsible for all phases of YIJ implementation.

There were at least two sites that required two staff people because of the

large geographic area to be covered. In addition, each site was supplemented by existing RMCEP administrative, program and support staff

98

114
throughout the project. This will be evident in several implementation

areas discussed later.

In general, RMCEP attempted to begin the project with experienced

staff and simultaneously hire less experienced individuals to whom YIJ

operations would be transferred. New staff was a mixture of persons who

had previously worked for RMCEP in other programs, some who had other

experience working with youth, and a few recent college graduates. This

method of working in new staff resulted in a relatively smooth operation,

including data collection and paperwork transfer.

There was an overall project director, located at the central office

in Detroit Lakes, who coordinated all seven subsites in the operation of

YIJ. He was also responsible for communication of policy, research issues,

and other.administrative duties. This person was experienced in both the

RMCEP system and the operation of work experience type programs. There

was no assistant director. Center directors and team leaders in the

regular RMCEP system made this position unnecessary. The director also

had support staff in the central office for clerical, bookkeeping and

data collection functions.

Since most staff members were on board prior to the recruitment of

youth, RMCEP was able to provide them with early and relatively complete

training sessions including: research design, research requirements,

orientation-plans, paper and data requirements and special internal procedures. There appeared to be some tension between the desire for service

delivery and the needs of the research design. Nevertheless, staff

training prior to youth recruitment helped encourage cooperation and

participation with the research goals of the demonstration.

99
Outreach and recruitment

RMCEP initially used its normal channels of recruitment including

radio spots, newspaper ads and flyers posted in various community settings.

As recruitment lagged and dropouts increased, they supplemented these

methods with: (1) a heavy media campaign,(2) a concentrated effort to

obtain lists of dropouts an recent graduates from high school counselors,

and (3) stepped up referrals from other components of their youth programing.

YIJ staff experienced good cooperation from regular summer programs.

These programs, as a result of less funding, applied a stricter criteria

for eligibility and concentrated their efforts on in-school youth. A

number of youth who were not eligible for these programs were eligible

for YIJ and were therefore referred.

The rural setting presented some special problems in the recruiting

phase of the program. In many instances, for .xample, the distance from

home to the agency or recruiting center was considerable. In one notable

case, a youth had to ride his bicycle fourteen miles to the center one

way. Recruitment was also affected by the relative infrequency of various

local newspapers, some of which were only available weekly or every two

weeks. The rural Minnesota program also had to compete with jobs available in the tourist industry, most of which paid higher then the minimum

wage (especially when tips were included).

Initial application processing and intake (including administration of

the SelectABLE) was.done at most sites by the individual who performed

these tasks for other RMCEP programs. As a prime sponsor, RMCEP used its

standard application and eligibility verification methods.

100

Ir4
Orientation

Although orientation sessions were conducted by the job developer/

counselors at the various subsites, they were generally consistent in

content. Several counselors did, however, use different tools and

methods. Sessions usually included five to ten youth. Staff tended

to bring in other RMCEP staff members for specific segments, as appropriate. Orientation generally lasted three days. Toward the end of

the orientation phase, when the number of new program starters decreasel, individual subsite orientation sessions were consolidated.

Youth were transported to one centrally located site and, wh'n necessary,

lodged over night.

Orientation sessions included: introduction to program rules,

ice-breakers, interviewing, writing a resume, appropriate dress and

behavior,and barriers to job goals. Most counselors made use of some

excercises in self-assessment and career interests. Most also used a

combination of lecture, movies and role playing.

Orientation was also used to determine what jobs a youth would be

interested in and to pinpoint previous work experience. This was done ..n

both group and individual sessions.

RMCEP administered ETS teats but did not use any other testing.

Orientation began in late March, 1979 and continued through August 15, 1979.

Worksite Development

RMCEP used a worksite development strategy that fit the rural nature

of the area and its own organization particularly well. Prior to the

start of any youth in the program, RMCEP conducted a limited public relations campaign, primarily to let employers know what YIJ was. Simultaneously,

101

117
YIJ staff canvassed internal resources (i.e., job developers for other

programs) to identify which employers, public and private, would be

receptive to the program. This also served to alert counselors to the

types of jobs available. In addition, especially in the smaller rural

communities, job developer/counselors were able to utilize their personal

contacts. The combination of internal communication and personal contact provided a worksite development strategy unique to RMCEP.

Job developer/counselors developed very few worksites without having

specific y .h in mind. Even though many were developed in the two days

following orientation sessions, over 70% of the youth were placed in a

worksite within two weeks of completing orientation.

There were, however, a few problems developing worksites. Several

youth lived in out-of-the-way places where it was difficult to develop a

job. Certain communities were saturated by more youth from that area

than jobs available.

Finally, several areas were limited by the number of potential employers

in a particular sector.

RMCEP tended to develop worksites with smaller employers but this

seemed to be a result of the fact that there were very few large employers

in the jurisdiction.

Worksite Referral and Work Ex.erience

Due to the more individualized worksite development RMCEP experienced

few problems in placing a youth in a work experience slot. Most youth were

hired on the first referral and only A few were terminated for not being

hired in three referrals.

The problems that did exist were for the most part unique to RMCEP:

102

I s
1) Public transportation is essentially non-existent and youth

had difficulties getting to potential worksites;

2) travel distance was great if not prohibitive - (one youth

walked several miles each way from the nearest bus stop);

3) an undesirable family reputation , in certain of the small

towns, made it difficult for a youth to be placed in his/her home

community;

4) transportation for RMCEP's high school dropouts was negatively

impacted by a state law that prevents youth from obtaining a driver's

license until they are nineteen years old.

Two other problems with worksite referral were common to all five

sites. First, youth, through the matching process, were sometimes assigned

to a sector incompatible with their job interest. Second, there was a

stigma attached to high school dropouts that affected even subsidized

employment. RIICEP may have experienced more of this due to the fact that

their program population was comprised of 50% high school dropouts. Counselors observed that the stigma was stronger for more recent high school

dropouts.

Work experience itself tended to provide good experience and supervision, although counselors generally agreed that the private sector was

considerably better than the public sector In this regard. Further, private

sector employers, while providing a stricter work environment, consistently

notified job developers of problems and sought their assistance with solutiona. On the other hand, public employers were lax in such notification.

There were, however, few worksites dropped from use. Also, private sector

employers seemed to feel more obligated to train the youth for possible

103

119
retention. This may have accounted for youth assigned to the public

sector complaining of "boring" jobs (i.e. jobs with no training) more

frequently than those in the private sector. These "boring" jobs also

seemed to contribute to early terminations.

RMCEP experienced a fairly high dropout rate both prior to and

after starting work experience. Several factors were cited to account

for this:

1) delays associated with the research design';

2) the time of year (in general, the summer months are a good time

to find a job over minimum wage in the area) ;

3) youth leaving the area ( a common problem to the jurisdiction

as a whole);

4) negative peer pressure;

5) poor s(:it-:!me:.:

Supportive Services and On-Goinz CoPiLseling

RMCEP provljed the most diverse supportive services. In addition to

transportation allowance before the first pay check, youth received, on

an as needed basis, day care, special work clothes, tools and physicals.

Several youth also received assistance with rent, the purchase of a

vehicle and moving expenses. These latter were provided only in extreme

circumstances. Special training, required by state law for several youth

hired at hospitals,, was also provided.

Face to face contacts were limited by the distances counselors were

required to travel. Therefore, except with contacts required by the

Standard Grant Plan, most were conducted by telephone.

Counselors stated that youth who had problems at a worksite continued

104

.1 20
to have them even after counseling. The effort counselors exerted in

keeping a youth on a worksite, left little time for in-depth personal

problem solving.

Post Program Placement Activities

In addition to a relatively successful direct transition of youth

in the private sector, RMCEPts job developer/counselors made a concerted

effort to place youth after completion of work experience. Most youth

who were available for work did get two referrals and some received more.

Availability of the youth was,however,an issue. A significant number were

more interested in taking a vacation than in finding further employment.

The job development strategy paralleled worksite development. RMCEP

did however take advantage of the Targeted Tax Credit Program my meeting

with accounting firms in their jurisdiction to explain it. They considered

this more beneficial than attempting to explain it to private employers,

who might not realize the extent of the benefit.

RMCEP, because of its status as a prime sponsor, did not experience a

problem in facilitating additional subsidized activity for a youth where

attempts at unsubsidized placement had failed.

One significant factor cited by job developer/counselors regarding

direct transition in the private sector was that these employers felt

obligated to hire a youth who had stayed with them for the full six months

of the demonstration. Employers expressed a preference for keeping youth

on who they knew, had trained, and who had become productive. The public

sector, however, most often cited budget constraints as the reason for not

transitioning a youth. Public employers also seemed more interested in

obtaining. additional subsidized youth.

105

21
PORTLAND, OREGON

Organization and Staffing

The City of Portland Human Resources Bureau, a CETA prime sponsor, was

the Youth in Jobs (YIJ) program operator in Portland. The prime's jurisdiction encompasses the city of Portland itself.

For the duration of YIJ, the prime sponsor was undergoing a major reorganization. This contributed to the seeming isolation of YIJ from the rest

of the prime.

The staff consisted of a director and six counselors. During the

summer months several staff additions were made:

1) one person to take applications at the Central office;

2) one person to operate the job bank;

3) temporary assistance of three counselors from another program to

aid outreach and worksite development.

The project itself lacked clerical support staff during much of the

summer. Record keeping was therefore seriously impeded. When the project

finallr obtained clerical support, record keeping and data transmittal did

improve.

The director was previously employed by the prime sponsor and was

transferred to YIJ. The counselors, with one exception, were recent college

graduates with little previous experience. While the director was located

in the central administrative office, each counselor was assigned to one of

five area offices. The most populated area was assigned two counselors.

The decentralization of the staff was not supported by a strong sense of

coordination or.direction. As exhibited in various phases of implementation

the job developer/counselors generally seemed to be tinaware of both the

106

`)0
specifics of the YIJ project and where they fit in relation to the system

and each other.

Recruitment and Outreach

Recruitment activities focused initially on community-based organizations, other CETA programs, and the state employment service. Counselors

individually contacted area high schools to obtain lists of dropouts. An

attempt was then made to contact persons on the list and solicit their

interest in the program. None of these recruiting methods produced sufficient numbers of youth. Consequently, radio spots and newspaper advertisements were instituted during May. During the two week period these

were used, approximately thirty applicants a day applied for YIJ.

Initially, recruitment and intake forms were completed at each of the

five area field offices by the six YIJ counselors. This procedure was

utilized for approximately sixty to ninety days at which time an additional

staff member was hired to serve as an intake specialist at the central

office. Applicants were then referred to the central office where the

SelectABLE was administered and the list of names for submission to St. Louis

University's Center for Urban Programs (CUP) was compiled.

After matches were received from CUP, counselors contacted applicants

to schedule them for orientation sessions and issue bus passes. Counselors

reported they could not contact a number of youth after they had been matched.

In addition, many youth apparently obtained jobs on their own while awaiting

notification from the YIJ program.

Certain problems were associated with the recruitment phase. First,

a readily accessable pool of eligible youth were not available. After

the initial pool of youth was depleted it was extremely difficult and time

107

123
consuming to solicit additional applicants. Second, the time frames associated

with tne project did not allow for proper screening of applicants and therefore

many youth were recruited that were not appropriate for this program.

The third major problem Portland encountered was competition between

programs for youth. One program that particularly affected YIJ was a special

youth component under PSE which paid $3.50 an hour compared to YIJ $2.90 an

hour.

Finally, Portland did not cross check youth applications among the five

area offices. Therefore some youth reapplied at a different youth center

and were subsequently placed at a different worksite.

Orientation

Enrollee orientation was conducted under subcontract by Portland

Community College. The Youth in Jobs Orientation was essentially the same

as PCC's ongoing assessment program (Career Research Center) that was established earlier for other CETA programs and community based organizations.

PCC personnel indicated that the characteristics (education level, experience and expectations) of enrollees in this program were very similar to

enrollees of other programs.

Orientation was conducted at the college's Ross Island Center which is

located in Southwest Portland about five miles from the city center. The

center was relatively accessible by public transportation, although some

enrollees had to travel in excess of fifteen miles and make several bus

changes. Bus passes were provided to each enrollee for the days spent in

orientation.

Initially, orientation was conducted in three day cycles. It was later

condensed to two and one-half day cycles, allowing two groups of youth to

108
complete in one week, rather than extending a group into a new week. Each

session was designed to accomodate thirty enrollees. Time was divided

equally between career exploration and selection, and world-of-work attitudes.

The initial section, career exploration and selection, involved a great

deal of paperwork and testing. The remaining time was spent on the skills

needed to get and keep a job. This world-of-work information was presented largely

through lecture with minimal presented role playing. A summary of the career

assessment phase of the orientation for each enrollee was provided to counselors in the hope that this would facilitate match to the worksite. Counselors reported that since the instruments stressed career choices, they were

of little use in placing youth on entry level worksites. Therefore, enrollee

expectations negatively impacted worksite referral and placement due to the

higher level of specialization and training for their occupational preferences.

Testing and instrumentation included the following:

1) Pre-program Survey (ETS)

2) Step Locator (ETS)

3) Reading level test (GATES)

4) Math level test (WRAT)

5) Survey of career interests (California Occupational Preference

System (COPS)

6) Research of career interests. (Enrollees utilize Oregon's computer

based career information system to determine the entrance requirements, wages, demand, and general working conditions of careers

in which they are interested. At the completion of this activity,

enrollees completed a Career Handbook).

7) Completion of Career Research Center competency handbook. This

handbook enables enrollees to list the career development skills

they have acquired.

8) Completion of employment application and job resume.

The reading and math tests were instituted as a result of enrollees

experiencing difficulty with the COPS. Reading levels had been found to be

as low as second grade, with a majority at barely a sixth grade level, which

approach minimal corpetency necessary for COPS.

109

125
Portland's orientation presented a number of problems. Many enrollees

were led to view the intent of YIJ as technical/vocational training due to the

stress placed on career choice during the orientation sessions. Additionally,

little emphasis was placed on general work requirements and necessary work

habits and attitudes. Because of these problems, the drop out rate increased

significantly between the completion of orientation and the start of work

experience.

Worksite Development

Several methods were employed in wrksite development. The project

director made a presentation on the program to the Portland Rotary Club.

This presentation and subsequent follow-up produced 26 work experience

positions.

Counselors worked individually using both personal contacts and random

phone contacts with employers throughout the area. There appeared to be

little use of established agency contacts. As a result of enrollee expectations for more specialized and technical jobs a direct mail solicitation

and contacts with the National Alliance of Business were initiated late in

June in order to provide additional "desirable" worksites. The worksites

developed from all these methods were channelled to the central job bank

which was maintained at PCC.

The majority of worksites were developed by the end of May with some

additional development taking place in July and August. The need for this

later development effort arose because developed positions were not filled

in a timely fashion. Both lack of available youth and conflicting job

expectations contributed to this.

110
Development was performed by the YIJ counseling staff and was interspersed

with other program phases (i.e., recruitment, 0 and A, placement, etc.). This

presented numerous problems for the staff as the multitude of responsibilities

combined with the time frame were difficult to accomplish efficiently. From

all appearances, it seemed that there was little to no coordination between

the counselors regarding develc. -it. In many instances a counselor would

be soliciting the participation of an employer only to find another counselor

there to develop jobs. Consequently, more than one counselor developed jobs

at a given company or agency which resulted in continuous confusion and

duplication of efforts.

Worksite Referral and Work Experience

After enrollees completed the orientation at PCC, they were referred

back to their counselors. At this time, the counselor reviewed the available

openings in the job bank (this procedure was subsequently changed) and determined whether any positions matched enrollee interests. If an opening

existed which the enrollee indicated he/she would accept, the counselor then

contacted the potential worksite to inform them that the enrollee would call

to arrange for an interview. Although the enrollee was responsible for informing the counselor of bhe result of the interview, the counselors frequently

had to contact the enrollee or the employer to determine enrollee status.

As noted, a person was later hired to do the matching and keep track of

the job bank openings. Due in part to the level of coordination and communication required, the job bank system never worked as well in practice as the

concept of a centralized source of openings might indicate.

Most private sector worksites in Portland appeared to be in small to

medium sized firms. Enrollees assigned to the public sector were placed in

111
city government and non-profit agencies. As was the situation in other YIJ

sites, the previous experience of public agency personnel with low-income

out-of-school youth appears to have contributed to fewer difficulties in

placing and retaining youths at these sites.

Supportive Services and On-Going Counseling

Other than bus passes, supportive services seemed to be minimal and

were provided on an as needed basis.

During the entire duration of YIJ, there seemed to be a basic tension

exhibited by the counselors between their project responsibilities and the

perceived need to provide counseling. Portland in fact seems to have had

a high incidence of non-required counseling contacts.

Post Program Placement Activities

Similar to worksite development activities, post-program placement seemed

to lack a strategy. There also appeared to be some confusion on two key

issues, determining eligibility for unsubsidized referral and the effort

required for job development. Most referrals were limited to work experience

completers (twenty-five weeks). Further, a significant number of referrals

were limited to newspaper want ads and the employment service. Portland

made little use of its potential advantages as a CETA prime sponsor which

could more easily transition youth to further subsidized activities.

112

193
APPENDIX B

DOCUMENTS USED IN THE

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

113

1 23
GRANT PLAN

PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE SECTOR

JOBS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

NOTE: This grant plan is for a national

youth demonstration project being

implemented in five separate prime

sponsor jurisdictions. To facilitate comparable grant plans from

all five areas, a standard grant

plan is being utilized for the various projects. Only the attachments

to the standard grant plan provide

descriptions which necessarily vary

from one project to another.

115

, 1979

130
PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

OVERVIEW

The Public vs. Private Sector Jobs Demonstration Project is a discretionary

funded youth project (under CETA, Titl' _IV, Part A, Subpart 3 - YETP) which aims

to examine the relative benefits of serving youth through subsidized full-time

jobs (100 percent of the minimum wage) in the private sector as compared to

jobs in the public (and private nonprofit) sector. This special project is

designed to facilitate rigorous research for measuring the relative efficiency,

effectiveness and impact of subsidizing public vs. private jobs as a means of

aiding needy youth.

The demonstration will focus on 16-21 year old YETP eligible youth who

are out-of-school. It will involve random assignment of youth to public and

private sector jobs in a manner which assures comparability of youth in both

types of subsidized employment. The Department of Labor has specified various

other research controls to be. utilized to assure that (a) program operations

are designed to provide comparable manpower activities and services to Youth

in both subsidized employment groups, and (b) the five separate demonstration

project sites around the country (Portland, Oregon; St. Louis, Missouri; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York, New York; and rural Minnesota) have procedures

similar enough to facilitate multi-site research comparisons.

The national office of the U.S. Department of Labor has separately contracted for a central research agent (for the overall demonstration at the

five sites), St. Louis University's Center for Urban Programs, to be responsible for guiding the implementation of all research controls at project sites,

conducting post-program participant follow-up surveys, and completing data analysis to distill research findings for the demonstration project.

117
KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES OF PROJECT

The central knowledge development question to be answered by this demonstration project is:

What are the differences in post-program employment and earnings outcomes

for out-of-school youth who have participated in fully subsidized work

experience in the public sector as compared to similar youth in fully

subsidized work in the private sector?

The project has been designed to assure that comparable samples of youth

are enrolled in both public and private sector subsidized jobs. Also, other

program controls will be implemented to help the project in its aim to have

rigorous research analysis completed for measuring the relative effectiveness

of the two groups of subsidized jobs in increasing the employability of disadvantaged youth.

Other analytic objectives of this "knowledge development" discretionary

youth project are to determine (1) whether and how subsidized jobs in the

private sector are different and/or more difficult to develop than those in

the private sector, and (2) whether differential program outcomes are found

for varying participant characteristics/worksite locations/project jurisdictions.

118
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT PLAN

This plan for the "Public vs. Private Sector Jobs Demonstration Project"

to be implemented in

sections:

1. Project Organization

2. Youth Recruitment and Selection

3. Worksite Development

4. Worksite Assignment and Referral

5. Program Services

6. Placement Services

7. Participant Flow

8. Participant Wage Payment Processes

9. Research, Recordkeeping, and Reports

10. Budget

119

133

, is described in the following
1. Program Organization

The will implement the demonstration project

using the organization specified in Attachment 1. The attachment provides

a description of the overall project organization, including an identification

of the service deliverer organizations utilized and a delineation of the lines

of communication and authority for the project.

120
2. Youth Recruitment and Selection

Plans for recruiting project participants are described in Attachment 2.

Inclui.ad is an identification of the characteristics of the target population

based on the profile of youth served in in FY 1978 programs under YETP. Also described in the attachment is pertinent information concerning

eligibility determination and verification.

The process of selecting participants involves providing the St. Louis

University Center for Urban Programs (CUP) with the following information for

potential participants: age, sex, race, and results of the Select ABLE. CUP

will determine by matching and random assignment procedures which applicants

are to be provided full-time, minumum wage, public sector subsidized jobs, and

which are to be provided full-time, minimum wage, private sector subsidized

jobs. As noted in Attachment 2, applicants are notified of their selection for

program participation once this CUP determination is made.

Recruitment efforts will be geared to identify at least 425 eligible youth;

the exact number necessary will depend on how feasible it is for youth characteristics to be matched by CUP starting withan initial pool of at least 100

applicants.

Project youth will meet YETP eligibility requirements except that only

16-21 year olds will be enrolled who are (a) unemployed, (b) not currently

in a work experience or OJT program, (c) not "college bound," and (d) out

of school at least 90 days. Pertinent definitions and actions in this matter

are as follows:

(1) College bound youth are defined for the purposes of this project as

those youth who have definite plans for full-time enrollment in a post-secondary

education institution. The term "college bound" is used in its broadest sense,

121
and is meant to cover any post-secondary experience, including junior college

and technical school, as well as 4-year institutions. If the applicant has

been out of school for 1 year, it will be assumed that the person is not college bound. If the applicant is a recent high school graduate, a note from

the individual's hig. .c.bool counselor, identifying the person as non-college

bound, will be sufficient. It will be assumed that high school dropouts are

not college bound.

(2) Being out of school at least 90 days is defined as not havin: attended an educational institution for at least 90 days prior to applying for

the project. If a youth has not been out of school for 90 days, then either

a high school diploma or a letter from a high school counselor stating that

the individual was officially out-of-school prior to application for the project

will be sufficient to qualify the youth for project enrollment.

122
3. Worksite Development

Plans for worksite development are described in Attachment 3. Included

is a description of the process and procedures to be used. Also, provided

in the attachment is a timetable for having a total of 320 worksites which

will (a) be equally divided between private sector employers and public sector employers (public sector includes private nonprofit organizations -- use

of these organizations should approximate the proportional extent to which they

are now used in prime sponsor YETP work experience programs), (b) provide

full-time work experience (not to exceed 40 hours per week) at the Federal

minimum wage for a 25 week duration, (c) have been developed to accumulate

a worksite pool which will enable referrals to employers during the youth's

first week of program participation, and ,d) be filled by youth no later than

June 15, 1979.

The number of worksites an employer may provide cannot exceed 20 percent

of the employer's full-time work force, up to a maximum of Eight worksites.

However, more than two participants will not work in close proximity to each

other (e.g., in the same work area, work crew, etc.).

The same organizational unit will be responsible for developing worksites

in both the public and private sectors. Each member of the unit's staff who

conducts worksite development will develop equal numbers of jobs in both the

public and private sectors.

Staff who develop worksites will (a) provide all employers contacted with

the standard "Employer Fact Sheet" developed for the demonstration project,

(b) complete the demonstration project's standard "Worksite Agreement" and related job description(s) for the worksites to be included in the project, and

(c) complete the standard "Worksite Development Log" established for the demonstration project.

123

137
4. Worksite Assignment and Referral

Plans for assignment of participants to specific worksites are described

in Attachment 4. These plans include details on (a) the information and process used in conducting the participant-worksite match, (b) arranging participant referrals to employers, and (c) the timetable for placing youth in the

project's 320 worksites.

Each project participant will be assigned to a specific worksite in either

the public or private sector as designated by CUP. Each staff member responsible

for worksite assignment will serve e ual numbers of outh designated for the

public and private sectors. Worksite assignment and referral will take place

during the first week of,a youth's program participation.

If a youth referred to a particular worksite is not acceptable to the employer, no more than two additional referrals may be made for that worksite.

While an employer may receive a maximum of three referrals for each worksite,

the referrals are to be made.only one at a time only after specific rejection

of a previously referred youth. Any worksite not filled after three referrals

will be dropped from the demonstration project.

Each participant will be allowed a maximum of three worksite referrals. If

a youth fails to show up for an employer referral without good cause, it will be

counted as one of the three referrals. Any youth who is not placed on a worksite

after three referrals will be terminated from the demonstration project.

Worksite referral outcome will be determined by project staff as quickly as

possible. Each worksite referral and outcome will be entered in appropriate

project records.

Within the first 30 calendar days after being on a worksite, either the

worksite employer or youth participant can elect to terminate the participant's

124
assignment. In such cases, where the project staff determines that the worksite is still desirable, a replacement participant may be provided. Youth

who terminate due to poor working conditions (as verified by project staff)

may be reassigned to another worksite to complete their 25-week work experience. In such cases, the original worksite will be dropped from the project.

In no case will a youth have a second worksite reassignment.

Youth terminated from the project within the first 60 calendar days of

program participation may be replaced by a comparable youth as designated

by CUP. Termination of any participant will not affect any other participant.

If terminations occur, CUP will be notified and will assign a youth replacement

to fill the vacated worksite from the applicant pool. Youth replacements will

be provided employment for a full 6-month period. In no case will more than

one youth replacement be made at any particular worksite.

125

133
5. Program Services

Plans for program services for participants (i.e., manpower and supportive services) are described in Attachment 5. Included are details on procedures to be used in the first week of program participation in which the

youth is (a) administered the demonstration project's standard "Pre-Test

Battery" and "STEP Locator," (b) provided orientation to the demonstration

project and the world of work, (c) assessed with respect to information

needed for the participant-worksite match, (d) assigned and referred to a

specific worksite, and (e) provided extended orientation as time permits.

In addition, Attachment 5 describes other program services to be delivered during the entire duration of program participation, and how these

delivered services will be recorded.

Once an applicant pair has been matched and randomly assigned by CUP

to the public and private sectors, project staff will notify these youth of

their acceptance into the project. Youth are considered program participants

once they first attend the project's orientation activities.

The first week of program services will be organized as follows:

a. One day for:

(1) administration of the project's test batteries,

(2) dissemination of information about the project and about the

rules and requirements for participation, and

(3) assessment for the participant-worksite match.

b. Two days for providing participants with orientation to the world of

work.

c. Two days for:

(1) assignment to the worksite (participant-worksite match),

(2) referral and any re-referral to worksites, and

(3) extended orientation if time permits.

126
Every effort will be made to have a group setting in which the project

will provide youth orientation to the project and world of work, as well as

administer the project's standard "Pre-Test Battery" and "STEP Locator."

In any event, each staff member who conducts these program services will

serve an equal number of youth assigned to public and private sector worksites. Also, each staff member who assesses participants for the worksite

match will do so for an equal number of youth assigned to public and private

sector worksites.

Various support services as needed and available will be made equally

accessible to participants at public and private sector worksites. However, all

participants will receive up to two weeks of transportation assistance until

receipt of their first paycheck. Every effort will be made to have all program services provided when the participant is not working in order to avoid

job disruption at the worksite.

Each project counselor (or coach, coordinator, etc.) will:

(a) serve an equal number of participants at worksites in the public

and _private sectors,

(b) make worksite monitoring visits as follows:

1) during the first month of youth participation: to ascertain

whether the participant needs to be reassigned and/or the worksite needs to be dropped,

2) during the third month of youth participation: to assess the

likelihood of having the youth make the direct transition to an

unsubsidized job with the worksite employer, and

3) during the fourth-sixth months of youth participation: to reassess the possibility of transition to an unsubsidized job, and

127
(c) contact worksite employers concerning participant work hour time -

sheets and any specie/ employer reactions to the

Counselors will make other contacts with employers and as

needed. Each counselor contact and its outcome w1/1 be entered in appropriate

Project records.
6. Placement Services

Plans for placement services to assist participants in obtaining unsubsidized employment or other positive outcomes are described in Attachment 6.

Included are details on how placement services will be delivered and outcomes

recorded in appropriate project records. Each project staff member who is

responsible for delivering placement services will serve an equal number of

participants in public and private sector worksites.

In cases where on the basis of worksite monitoring it is anticipated

that the participant will obtain an unsubsidized job with the worksite employer, this commitment will be verified to establish that the youth has

completed appropriate job application processes, and has received official

employer notification of the job commitment.

In cases where it is not anticipated that the participant will obtain an

unsubsidized job with the worksite employer, placement services will be provided during the final 90 days of the worksite experience. These efforts

will be directed to transition youth to an unsubsidized job regardless of

whether it is in the public or private sector. Placement services for these

participants will be implemented to insure that each such youth receives at

least two referrals to unsubsidized job openings (at least one referral will

be made prior to the youth's completion of the 25 week work experience period,

and uther referrals will be made lefore the end of the 30 day period following

work experience completion).

In carJcw where the second referral to an unsubsidized job does not result

In placement, efforts will be made during the subsequent 30 day period to place

the youth into more advanced employment and training programs or to achieve

Other positive outcomes.

129
Each project staff person who provided placement services will record

all activities and outcomes in the standard "Job Development Log" established

for the demonstration project. During the anticipated final 2-3 weeks of the

youth's program participation, tha standard "Post-Test" and Program Completion

Instrument" for the demonstration project will be administered for all youth

who have been enrolled in the project for at least 90 calendar days. Further

details on this matter are provided in Attachment 7.

130
7. Participant Flow

Attachment 8 provides a description of the participant flow for the

demonstration project through February 15, 1980.
8. Participant Wage Payment Processes

Attachment 9 describes the methods to be utilized for (a) collecting

participant work hour timesheets, (b) preparing paychecks, and (c) delivering the paychecks to youth. The project will have centralized payroll processing and recordkeeping and youth payroll records will be identifiable and

readily accessible to CUP for research purposes of the demonstration project.

132
9. Research, Recordkeeping, and Reports

Project staff will be responsible for completing, maintaining, and providing CUP ready access to all financial and program activity and service records

and reports required of prime sponsors under YETP (e.g., participant record,

QSPC, PSS, FSR, etc.). Also, project staff will complete, maintain, and provide copies of the following special record instruments selected and developed

for the demonstration project: (a) Select ABLE, (b) STEP Locator, (c) Individual Participant Profile, (d) Pre and Post Program Tests, (e) 14orksite

Development Log, (f) Job Development Log, (g) Program Completion Instrument.

CUP staff will instruct project staff on how to administer anu otherwise utilize

these special record instruments for the demonstration project. CUP staff also

will computerize all data on these record instruments for use in conducting

multi-variate research analyses and preparing research reports, copies of which

will be forwarded to project staff.

In addition to CUP access tJ project records during the course of youth

participation, continued access will be provided to assist CUP in locating

youth in efforts to administer the standard "Program Follow-Up Survey," for

the demonstration projects by interviewing youth 3 and 8 months after they

terminate the project to identify their post-program employment and earnings

experience.

133

1 7
10. Budget

Attachment 10 provides a Program Planning Summary (completed only for

sections pertaining to enrollment in view of the demonstration research aspects of the project), and a Budget Information Summary (BIS). Also, the

project staffing plan is provided showing the number of staff, their job

titles, and a brief description of their duties. The full-time director

of the project will periodically make such information and data readily available to CUP to be used for research purposes of the project.

134
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THL WORKSITE DEVELOPMENT LOG

The worksite development log should be used to record all worksite development efforts for the Youth in Jobs Demonstration Program. Each developer should

complete a separate form(s) for each day HS each activity takes Mace. Each

Monday copies of all worksite development logs used in the previous calander

week should be mailed to:

Center for Urban Programs

St. Louis University

221 N. Grand Blvd.

St. Louis, Missouri 63103

Attn: Youth in Jobs Demonstration

Originals should be retained by the program operator.

The following sections explain how to complete each of the corresponding

items on the worksite development log.

Developer's Name: Each individual responsible for developing worksites for this

demonstration project will use the worksite development log

to record all contacts for this purpose. On each sheet used,

the name of the individual whose efforts are recorded below

should be written on this line. At no time should more than

one developer's efforts be shown on the same sheet.

Jurisdiction:

Date:

The worksite developer will fill in one of the following locations to indicate the jurisdiction of the appropriate program operator: Minnesota, New York, Philadelphia, Portland,

or St. Louis. This will be done for each page used.

Each worksite developer will use a separate sheet(s) to record

each day's efforts and will fill in on this line the date the

activity took place (month/day/year). At no time should efforts which occurred on different days be recorded on the same

sheet. However, if more than one page is needed to record all

activity for the same day simply recording the date (along with

the Developer's Name and Jurisdiction) at the top of another

page is sufficient.

Name of Compan /Agensy

Street Address, Zip, (A/C) Phone: There are two (2) lines alloted for each contact. On the first line fill in the full name of the company

or agency involved. Use the same name for the potential employer for all subsequent contacts. Do not abbreviate or use

initials unless that is the commonly accepted name (e.g., IBM).

On the second line write the full street address, the zip code,

the area code, and the phone number. This information should

135

19
also be included for all contacts with that company/agency.

This address should be the physical location of the company/

agency and not a Post Office Box or other type of mailing

address. If the address or phone number changes while contacts are still being made please enter the most current at

the time of the specific contact.

Initial/Follow-up: For the first contact with the company/agency regarding this

demonstration project "I" should be circled to indicate Initial. Any subsequent contacts regarding this demonstration

project are considered Follow-ups and "F" should be circled.

Note the lacit contact that could be considered a follow-up

is the point when a Worksite Agreement is signed.

Old/New: The worksite dev,.1 should complete this item only at the time

of the 1n1, .11 contact for this demonstration program.

The developer should circle Old (0) if this potential employer has been contacted prior to the demonstration project regarding some other program (e.g., PSE, OJT, placement).

Any employer is considered old whether or not the previous

contact was successful. If this particular company/agency

has not been contactei previously by the program operator

New (N) should be circled.

Public/Private Non-Profit/Private Profit: This item should only be completed

at the time of the initial contact. The developer should

circle whichever of the following that best indicates the

sector of the economy in which the potential employer operate;

Public (Pub), Private Non-Profit (PNP), Private Profit (PP).

Size of Employer: This item should be completed only at the time of the initial

contact. The developer should fill in the approximate number

of full-time employees of this company/agency. If there are

other offices, plants, etc. of this company please indicate

only the number that work within or closest to your jurisdiction (i.e., at those sites which youth from your jurisdiction

might be placed for the demonstration project.)

Employer Classification: This item should be completed only at the time of the

initial contact. The worksite developer will fill in the

number of the category listed below that best describes the

potential employer's type of business or work. One of the

first eight (8) classifications should be used for Private

Profit employers and the last eleven (11) for either Public

or Private Non-Profit employers.

Private Profit

1 = Agriculture, Forestry aid Fisheries

2 = Finance, Real Estate and Insurance

3 = Manufacturing

4 = Wholesale and Retail Trades

136
5 = Mining

6 = Construction

7 = Transportation and Public Utilities

8 = Services

Public or Private Non-Profit

9 = Education

10 = Highways

11 = Human Resources (including welfare)

12 = Health and Hospitals

13 - Police Protection

14 = Fire Protection

15 = Sewerage and Sanitation

16 = Parks and Recreation

17 = Housing and Urban Renewal

18 = Libraries

19 = General Administration

Method of Contact: For each contact the worksite developer should circle one

of the following methods: Phone (P), Letter (L), r)r Visit

(V).

Actual Length of Time (minutes): The worksite developer should fill in the

number of minutes spent making each contact. If the method

is a visit do not include the travel time.

Results: The worksite developer should circle one of the following

codes to indicate the results of each contact. If a letter

is the method of contact OL should be indicated and nothing

else. "Yes" (#2) should be used at two times, once when the

potential employer gives a verbal commitment Co provide work

experience slots and again when the Worksite Agreement is

finalized and signed with the employer (i.e., the last worksite.development contact). The only time more than one item

should be circled is if #6 is a result in addition to 1, 2,

3, 4, or 5.

Results

1 = No

2 = Yes or Worksite Agreement finalized with employer

3 = Need more information

4 = Need time to think/chery

5 = You should talk to someone else in the organization

6 = Referral to another organization for possible slot

OL = Only letter contact

137

151
Developer' Name

Na

St

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

WORXSITE DEVELOPMENT LOC

Jurisdiction Date m of Company/Agency,

met Address. Zip (A/C) Phone

Initial/ Pollowup

Old/New -----Fugra7-------

Private Non-Profit/

Private Profit

lire of Employer

Employer Classification

Method of

Contact Actual Length

nof Tine (min) Results

I P 0 N

P L V

1 2 3 4 '5 6 OL

( ) Pub PNP PP

Pub 0 NPNP 'PP

1 2 3 4

5 6 CL

( ) I P 0 N

P L V

1 2 3 4

5 6 OL

( ) Pub PNP PP

I P Pub

0 N

PNP PP ---- P L V 1.234

5 6 OL

( ) I F -__-_2___I

Pub PNP __ ----- -------------VP

-- p L I/ 1 2 3 4

5 6 01.

Pub

0 N

PNP PP

1 2 3 4

5 6 01

( ) I P

Pub

0 N

PNP PP

P L V

1 2 3

5 6 01

( ) I P Pub

0 N PNP PP

-- -- -- P L V

1 2 3 . 5 6 0! C ) L P Pub 4 Li PNP PP

-- P L V

1 2 3

5 6 Of

f ) ...ult.; (1 No; 2 Yes; 3 Need more information; 4 Need time to think /check; 5 You should talk to someone else in orgsnimstion;

4 Referral to another organization for possible lot; OL Only letter contact.)

1
DRAFT

Instructions for the Job Development

and Placement Activity Log

PURPOSE

The Job Development and Placement Activity Log will be used to record

efforts to develop post-program placements for youth who have participated

in the Youth in Jobs Program.

The Standard Grant Plan outlines three types of placement efforts.

The first starts in the third month of a youth's program participation and

is an integral part of the counseling and worksite monitoring activity,

Counselors begin in the third month to assess the possibility of the youth

making a direct transition to an unsubsidized job with his/her worksite

employer. This activity continues each month until the youth completes

work experience but is not considered to be job development. Therefore,

these contacts should not be recorded on this form but should be recorded on

the counseling contact record.

The second type of placement effort starts during the last 90 days of

work experience. If the counselor's initial attempt to assess the possibility of direct transition does not result in a definite commitment to retain

the youth, efforts to place the youth in an unsubsidized job may begin.

Each youth will receive at least two referrals to unsubsidized job openings.

Atleast the first job referral will take place prior to the completion of

the work experience component of the program. The second job referral must

occur withil the 30 days following the completion of work experience. All

efforts to develop unsubsidized jobs should be recorded on this log.

Note the following points:

1) A youth is not limited to two referrals, but each youth will

get at least two referrals.

139
2) While at least one of the referrals will occur during the last

90 days of work experience there is no prohibition against more than one

occuring in this same time period.

3) The random sector assignment provided by C.U.P. for the youth's

work experience does not determine the sector for referrals to unsubsidized

jobs (e.g.; a youth in the private sector for work experience may receive

referrals for an unsubsidized job in either or both sectors.)

The third type of placement effort is for a subsudized activity. This

may start only after a second unsuccessful referral to an unsubsidized job.

In no case, may a referral be made to a subsidized activity before two

referrals for unsubsidized jobs are made. Efforts to obtain a subsidized

placement (e.g., in an employment and training program) should be recorded

on this form.

As youth are hired or placed in the developed positions or when it has

been determined that the specific company/agency will not hire a youth, a

readable copy of this form should be sent to:

Center for. Urban Programs

St. Louis University

221 N. Grand Blvd.

St. Louis, Missouri 63103

Attn: Youth in Jobs Program

FORMAT

The format of the Job Development and Placement Activity Log requires

that the information be recorded by company/agency. Therefore each company/

agency will have its own log. All information in items 1 through 7 should be

completed even if t'e employer refuses to provide a job placement for the

youth:

Jurisdiction: The job developer will fill in one of the following

locations to indicate the jurisdiction of the appropriate operator:

Minnesota, New York, Philadelphia, Portland or St. Louis.

140

5 1
Developer: Each developer should keep his/her own log on each

company. If two different developers contact the same company

there would be two logs for that company. The developer should

enter his/her name on this line.

Name of Company/Agency: Enter the full name of the company or

agency on this line.

Street Address, ZIP: Enter the full address and zip code for this

company or agency.

(A/C) Phone: Enter the area code and telephone number on this line.

Sector: Circle the correct sector. Public (PUB), Private NonProfit (PNP), Private-for-Profit (PP).

Size of Employer: Enter the approximate number of full-time

employees of this company/agency. If there are other offices,

plants, etc. of this company, indicate only the number of employees at the site at which a youth would be placed. While this is

an approximate number, you should not give a range (e.g. 20 - 30).

You should give an integer. (e.g. 14)

Employer Classification: Enter the number of the category

listed below that best describes the potential employer's type of

business or work. One of the first eight classifications should

be used for Private-for-Profit employers and the last eleven for

either Public or Private Non-Profit employers.

Private Profit

1-= Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

2 = Finance, Real Estate and Insurance

3 = Manufacturing

4 = Wholesale and Retail Trades

5 = Mining

6 = Construction

7 = Transportation and Public Utilities

8 = Services

Public or Private Non-Profit

9 = Education

10 = Highways

11 = Human Resources (including welfare)

12 = Health and Hospitals

13 = Police Protection

14 = Fire Protection

15 = Sewerage and Sanitation

16 = Parks and Recreation

17 = Housing and Urban Renewal

18 = Libraries

19 = General Administration

141

155
Provided YIJ Work Experience: If the potential employer provided

a work experience slot for a Youth in Jobs participant (i.e., any

youth actually worked for this employer), circle Yes. If a youth

in YIJ did not work for this employer, circle No.

Unsubsidized Activity/Subsidized Activity (If subsidized, type):

If the potential employer is not providing a job through an

employment and training program paying at least a portion of the

wages then circle unsubsidized. Note: An employer that receives

some type of government funds, e.g. a contract from the Federal

Government for some goods or services and employs a youth to work

providing those goods or services is still considered unsubsidized.

If the placement is in an employment or training program paying

at least a portion or the wages, circle subsidized and indicate the

type of program. The following are possible types of programs:

Work experience, Training,and On-the-Job Training (OJT).

Contacts: In this section you should enter each contact (and all

the information) necessary to develop a job or to determine that

no job can be developed with this employer. A job is considered

developed when you can enter information under Positions Developed.

If you need to make more than six (6) contacts you should start a

second log for that company indicating the jurisdiction, developer,

name of company/agency and attach the two (or more) sheets together.

You should not record contacts that are made only to arrange

appointments for the youth's interviews. Follow the same procedure

for development efforts with companies/agencies providing subsidized

placements.

Date of Contact: Indicate the date the contact was made e.g.

5/10/79 for each contact.

Method of Contact: For each contact circle one of the lowing methods: Phone (P), Letter (L), or Visit (V).

Actual Length of Time: (Min.): Fill in the number of minutes

spent making each contact. If the method is a visit do nat

include the travel time.

Results: Circle one of the following codes to indicate the

result of each contact.

1 = No, this should be circled only if the answer is an

definite no.

2 = Yes, this may be circled at two times, first when you

have an iniial commitment and second when you have the

information required in Positions Developed.

3 = Need more information; this should be used when the

potential employer requests additional information from

you that is not provided at the time of the contact.

4 = Need time to think/check; this should be used if the

potential employer requests some time to think about the

142
job, check what might be available, check with a superior

or supervisors, etc.

5 = You should talk to someone else in the organizations

this should be used when the person you have contacted

refers you to a superior, the personnel department, etc.

6 = Referral to another organization for a possible job;

this should be used if the potential employer provides

you with company to contact other than his/her own that

may also be a potential employer. Also the only time more

than one result may be circled is if #6 is one of them.

OL = Only letter contact; tthis should only be circled

if the method of contact is a letter.

NC = No contact, busy, no answer, etc.; this should be

used in a number of situations: the phone is busy, there

is no answer, the phone has been disconnected, the person

you need to talk to is not available.

Positions Developed: In this section you will be recording

in detail the successful results of the development contacts.

Job Title: Enter the title of the job developed e.g. clerk

typist, food service helper, mechanics helper, laborer. If

this is the result of developing a subsidized placement

enter the job title for the subsidized job or the job the

youth will be trained for (e.g., if the youth will be in a

preapprenticeship program for electricians you would enter,

apprentice electrician.) You should enter each different

job title seperately (e.g. if you develop one custodial

position and one clerical eid, enter each on a seperate

ling.)

Number of Jobs: Enter next to each job title the number

developed. If there is one custodian, enter "1"; if there

are two clerical aids enter "2".)

Starting Wage (Hourly): Enter the hourly starting wage for

each position developed. If yo... are unable to determine the

hourly wage please indicate monthly, weekly after the amount.

If this is for a subsidized activity enter the wage per

hour for a subsidized job, or "allowance payment" for a

training program.

Hours Per Week: Enter for each job the Average number of

hours per week that the youth will work e.g. 40, 35, 20.

If this is for a subsidized activity ent r either the

number of hours per week.that the youth will work or the

number of hours that the youth will participate in the

training program.

143

157
Referrals: In this section you will record infolm%L.c.c

each youth who is referred to the job(s) devele,)d

Name of youth referred: Enter the full name crcil c. referred to this company/agency.

Date-of-referral: Enter the date that the youth being

referred is scheduled to meet with the potential employer

(fill out an application, interview, etc.).

Job Referred For: Enter the number for the job title the

youth is going to apply for. For example, clerical aid is

number one (1) under Positions Developed. The youth is

being referred for a clerical aid position, enter "1" in

this column.

Results: Circle Hired (H) or Not Hired (NH) whichever is

appropriate. If this is a training program,Accepted should

be recorded as Hired (H) and Not Accepted should be

recorded as Not Hired (NH).

Job Hired For: If the result is hired enter the number of

the job title listed in the Positions Developed. In most

cases it should be the same as the job referred for but in

some cases it won't. Also, if the potential employer

decides to hire a youth for a position that was not listed

under Positions Developed.please add this to the list in

the section with all necessary information.

Scheduled Start Date: If the youth is hired enter the day

the youth is scheduled to start the job or the subsidized

activity.
LO.ItOthe:d. AND PLACLMENT ACTIVITY LAC Developer

N.o..e C..1.1y/Aseatcy Address, Zip

(A /C) Phone ( ) 3) Sector: PUB/PNP/PP 4)Size of Employer: 5)Employer Classification

0) Provided YIJ wock experience: Yes No ); LvJubsidired Activity/Subsiai4ed Activity (If subsidised, type: CUN7J!rS

D.:* of Method of Actual Length Results

.lontzec Lontazt or TIM! min.:

1) P L V 1 2 3 4 5 6 OL NC

2) P L V 1 2 3 4 5 6 OL NC

3) P L V 1 2 3 4 5 6 OL NC

4) P L V 1 2 3 4 5 6 OL NC

5) P L V 1 2 3 4 5 6 OL NC

6) P L V 1 2 3 4 5 6 OL NC Results: (1No; 2Yes; 3Need more information; 4 -Need time to think/check;

5You should talk to someone she in organzation; 6Refetral to another organisation for a possible Job; OL -Only letter contact; NC-No contact, busy, no

&newer, etc.) POSITIONS DEVELOPED Job Title 0 Jobs Starting Wage (Hourly) Hours Per Week

1) 2)

3)

4)

5)REFERRALS

Nome of Youth Referred

Date of

Referral

Job Ref.

For

Results Job Ref.

For Scheduled

Start Date lk H NH

2) R NH

31 {I WM 4) H NH

5) H NH

to) H NH

145
Jurisdiction

Week ending

On Site Monitor's Worksheet

The following questions should be answered by the project

director in your jurisdiction.

1.) How many names have been submitted to CUP?

2.) How many youth have been removed from the pool prior to

being matched?

3.) How many youth have been matched by CUP in the Public Sector?

in the Private Sector?

4.) How many matched youth have been notified (or atleast attempts

have been made to notify these youth) to start orientation but

did not show up in the Public Sector?

in the Private Sector?

5.) How many youth have started orientation but failed to complete

in the Public Sector?

in the Private Sector?

6.) How many youth have completed orientation in the Public Sector?

in the Private Sector?

7.1 How many youth who have completed orientation have not been

accepted by a worksite after three referrals

in the Public Sector?

in the Private Sector?

8.) How many youth have started work experience during the

orientation week in the Public Sector?

in the Private Sector?

9.) How many youth have sta.rted work experience during the first

week after orientation in the Public Sector?

in the Private Sector?

10.) How many youth have started work experience during the second

week after orientation in the Public Sector?

in the Private Sectoi?

11.) How many youth have started work experience during the third

week after orientation or later in the Public Sector?

in the Private Sector?

146
On Site Monitor's Worksheet (coned)

12.) How many youth have been scheduled to start work experience

(i.e. been accepted by a worksite employer) but did not show

up to start in the Private Sector?

in the Public Sector?

13.) How many youth completed orientation but have never been

placed in a work experience slot (do not include those who

received three referrals (#7) or those who were accepted

but did not show up for work (#12) in the Public Sector?

in the Private Sector?

14.) How many youth are working at this time in the Public Sector?

in the Private Sector?

15.) How many youth have been terminated from the program after

starting work experience in the Public (Gov't) Sector?

in the Private Non Profit Sector?

in the Private for Profit Sector?

16.) How many youth have been transfered to a second work

experience slot in the Public (Gov't) Sector?

in the Private Non-Profit Sector?

in the Private for Profit Sector?

17.) How many youth have participated in work experience for 30

days or less in the Public (Gov't) Sector?

in the Private Non Profit Sector?

in the Private for Profit Sector?

18.) How many youth have participated in the program (in a paid

status) for at least 60 days in the Public (Gov't) Sector?

in the Private Non Profit Sector?

in the Private for Profit Sector?

19.) How many youth have participated in the program (in a paid

status) for at least 90 days in the Public (Gov't) Sector?

in the Private Non-Profit Sector?

in the Private for Profit Sector?

20.) How many youth have received the Pretest?

21.) How many youth have received the Step Locator?

22.) How many youth have received the Post Test?

23.) How many signed worksite agreements are there

in the Public (Gov't) Sector?

in the Private Non-Profit Sector?

in the Private for Profit Sector?

24.) How many work experience slots are Ancluded in the signed

worksite agreements in the Public (Gov't) Sector?

in the Private Non-Profit Sector?

in the Private for Profit Secto.r?

147
Jurisdiction:

Week ending:

ON SITE MONITOR'S. WORKSHEET

1.) How many youth are working at this time in the Public Sector?

in the Private Sector?

2.) How many youth have been terminated from the program after

starting work experience in the Public (Gov't) Sector?

in the Private Non Profit Sector?

in the Private for Profit Sector?

3.) How many youth have participated in the program (in a paid

status) for at least 60 days in the Public (Gov't) Sector?

in the Private Non Profit Sector?

in the Private for Profit Sector?

4.) How many youth have participated in the program ( in a paid

status) for at least 90 days in the Public ( Gov't) Sector?

in the Private Non Profit Sector?

in the Private for Profit Sector?

5.) How many youth have received the Post Test?

6.) How many youth have received the completion instrument?

7.) How many youth have been transitioned to an unsubsidized job with

the the company/agency that was their work experience site

in the Public (Gov't) Sector?

in the Private Non Profit Sector?

in the Private for Profit Sector?

8.) How many youth have transitioned to an unsubsidized job in a

company/agency other than the site of their work experience

(Note: the Sector here should reflect the sector of the Youth's

work experience assignment)

from the Public (Gov't) Sector?

from the Private Non Profit Sector?

from the Private for Profit Sector?

9.) Indicate how many youth transitioned to jobs from question 8

above by the sector of the placement

in the Public (Gov't) Sector?

in the Private Non Profit Sector?

in the Private for Profit Sector?

10.) How many youth have transitioned to a subsidized activity

(Note: the Sector here should reflect the sector of the Youth's

work experience assignment) from the Public (Gov't) Sector?

from the Private Non Profit Sector?

from the Private for Profit Sector?

11.) How many youth have completed the Program (i.e. 25 weeks of

work experience) but have not yet been transitioned

from the Public (Gov't) Sector?

fromthe Private N n Profit Sector?

148 00
12.) How many 90 day follow-up interviews have been completed with

youth in the Public Sector?

in the Private Sector?

13.) How many 240 day follow-up interviews have been completed with

youth in tl! Public Sector?

in the Private Sector?

149
APPENDIX C

MATCHING PROCEDURES AND

RANDOM ASSIGNMENT STRATEGY

151

1. C
MATCHING PROCEDURES AND THE RANDOM ASSIGNMENT STRATEGY

The process of selecting participants involves providing the St. Louis

University Center for Urban Programs (CUP) with the following information for

potential participants: age, sex, race, and -he results of the select ABLE.

CUP will determine by matching and random assignment procedures which applicants

are to be provided full-time, minimum wage, public sector subsidized jobs, and

which are to be provided full-time, minimom wage,, private sector subsidized jobs.

Recruitment efforts will be geared to identify at least 425 eligible youth; the

exact number necessary will depend upon how feasible it is for youth characteristics to be matched by CUP starting with an initial pool of at least 100 applicants.

When the initial pool of 100 applicants is received by CUP, individuals

will be selected and assigned using a two-step strategy. The first analysis will

display a distribution of the group by race and sex characteristics within a

six-cell table. The table is presented below.

TABLE t

BLACK WHITE OTHER

MALE

FEMALE

Percentages appearing in each cell will provide the researcher with an initial

guideline for determining the race and sex composition of each of the experimental groups. Once this initial determination is made, the first 100 applicants

ii 3

1 f; 5
will then be placed in one of 36 cells based on the possible combinations of

race, sex, age, and select ABLE characteristics. The 36-cell grid is presented

below.

TABLE 2

Black

MALE FEMALE

High Medium Low High Medium Low

16-17

1 2 3 4 5 6

18-21

7 8 9 10 11 12

White ///////////////////////////////t/M//////////////////// ///////////i/////////

16-17

13 14 15 16 17 18

18-21

r 19 go 21 22 23 24

pther ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////h///////////////////ri

16-17

25 26 27 28 29 30

18-21

31 32 33 34 35 36

Applications will be assigned a number between 1 and 36 based on specific

cell location. Those cells that have three or more people appearing in them will

be designated as the beginning pool from which public or private sector job assignments will be made. The decision for then determining which of these specific

cells will be drawn from will be based on the percentage distributions provided

by the initial six-cell table.

As groups of applicants are received by CUP, percentages within both the

six-cell and 36-cell tables will be updated, with the new distributions being

154
used as the guideline for determining the makeup of the public and private

sector work experience groups. The use of this two-step procedure will allow for the most efficient assignment of potential enrollees, and at tle 3bme

time provide the most rigorous sampling and assignment techniques for ..nsuring some kind of statistical representation within the experimental groups.

The maximum potential of this design, however, can only be realized if program operators send CUP fairly large groups of applicants. After the initial

100 potential enrollees are analyzed, groups of between 30 and 50 will be

necessary to make rigorous sampling possible.

Once appropriate cells are designated, a simply randomizing procedure

will be used to determine which individuals are assigned to the public sector, which to the private sector, and which remain in the cell for future

possible assignment.

155

' U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1900 0 - :.20759 t 01.