Back to Work 50+: Women’s Economic Stability Initiative

Final Implementation Evaluation Report 

November 18, 2019

Authors 

Hannah Betesh

Renatta DeFever

Madeleine Levin

Debbie Kogan

Anne Paprocki
This page is deliberately left blank.
Acknowledgements

 

The authors of this report would like to thank: 1) 

the Back to Work 50+: Women’s Economic Stability 

Initiative team at AARP Foundation including (and 

especially) Joscelyn Silsby, Senior Evaluation 

Advisor, Lori Strauss, Manager, Workforce Programs

and Peg Walton with the American Association of 

Community Colleges; 2) the program’s job 

candidates, who took the time to share their 

experiences through focus groups and surveys; and 

3) the leadership and staff of the Back to Work 50+: 

Women’s Economic Stability Initiative subgrantees, 

for coordinating implementation study site visit 

schedules and sharing their perspectives on 

program implementation through site visits, 

telephone interviews, and a video focus group. 

Without the contributions from each of these 

individuals and organizations, this report would not 

have been possible.

At SPR, the authors are also grateful to many other 

individuals who supported the completion of this 

report: Marian Negoita, for his thoughtful quality 

assurance review; Karen Jarsky, for her expert 

editing; and Shelley Kuang, Sara Miller, and Yufei 

Wang, for their assistance with graphics and 

formatting.

“The 

The Social Innovation Fund (SIF) was a program that 

received funding from 2010 to 2016 from the Corporation 

for National and Community Service, a federal agency that 

engages millions of Americans in service through its 

AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and Volunteer Generation Fund 

programs, and leads the nation’s volunteer and service 

efforts. Using public and private resources to find and grow 

community-based nonprofits with evidence of results, SIF

intermediaries received funding to award subgrants that 

focus on overcoming challenges in economic opportunity, 

healthy futures, and youth development. Although CNCS 

made its last SIF intermediary awards in fiscal year 2016, SIF 

intermediaries will continue to administer their subgrant 

programs until their federal funding is exhausted.
This page is deliberately left blank.
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report i 

Contents 

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... ES-1

What Is BTW50+: WESI? ........................................................................................................... ES-1

What Does the BTW50+: WESI Evaluation Entail? ................................................................... ES-2

What Questions Does the Report Answer?.............................................................................. ES-3

What Are the Key Findings in the Report? ............................................................................... ES-4

What’s Next for the Evaluation?............................................................................................... ES-6

Chapter I: Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1

How Did BTW50+: WESI Begin?..................................................................................................... 1

Why BTW50+: WESI? ..................................................................................................................... 2

How Does This Evaluation Build on Existing Evidence?................................................................. 4

Findings from Evaluations of Employment Programs for Aging Workers ................................ 4

Findings from Evaluations of Programs Using Career Pathways and Sectoral Employment 

Strategies.................................................................................................................................... 5

Findings from Research on Public Workforce System Services ................................................ 7

How Did BTW50+: WESI Plan to Support Older Women Workers?.............................................. 8

What Does the Evaluation Entail? ............................................................................................... 11

What Questions Does This Report Answer and How? ................................................................ 13

Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 13

Data Collection Methodology.................................................................................................. 14

What Has the Evaluation Found So Far? ................................................................................. 16

What Does This Report Cover?.................................................................................................... 17

Chapter II: Program Structure and Institutional Context................................................................ 19

How Did AARP Foundation Manage and Support the BTW50+: WESI Subgrantees? ................ 19

What Did BTW50+: WESI Look Like at the Local Level? .............................................................. 21

What Structural and Contextual Challenges Arose, and How Did Subgrantees Address Them?

...................................................................................................................................................... 24

What Worked Well for Program Administration?....................................................................... 25

How Will Subgrantees Incorporate the BTW50+: WESI Program Model Moving Forward?...... 26

What Do These Findings Mean? .................................................................................................. 27

Chapter III: BTW50+: WESI Job Candidates..................................................................................... 29

What Populations Did the Program Target? ............................................................................... 29

How Did Subgrantees Recruit Job Candidates?........................................................................... 30

How Were Job Candidates Selected? .......................................................................................... 31

How Successful Were Recruitment and Enrollment Efforts? ..................................................... 32

Who Were BTW50+: WESI Job Candidates? ............................................................................... 34
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report ii

What Do These Findings Mean? .................................................................................................. 36

Chapter IV: Service Design and Quality ........................................................................................... 38

How Did the Evaluation Measure Implementation Fidelity? ...................................................... 38

Was the Model Implemented as Intended?................................................................................ 40

Key Element 1: Career Coaching.............................................................................................. 40

Key Element 2: Computer Skills Training................................................................................. 43

Key Element 3: Financial Capability Building........................................................................... 46

Key Element 4: Job Search Skills Training................................................................................ 48

Key Element 5: Employer Engagement ................................................................................... 51

Key Element 6: Connections to Training.................................................................................. 53

What Do These Findings Mean? .................................................................................................. 55

Chapter V: Services Received By Job Candidates............................................................................ 57

How Did the Evaluation Measure Service Receipt? ................................................................ 57

What Services Did Job Candidates Receive? ........................................................................... 58

What Do These Findings Mean? .................................................................................................. 65

Chapter VI: Job Candidate Perspectives.......................................................................................... 66

How Did the Evaluation Solicit Job Candidate Perspectives? ..................................................... 66

Follow-Up Surveys.................................................................................................................... 66

Focus Groups............................................................................................................................ 67

Were Survey Respondents Satisfied With Their Experience in BTW50+: WESI?........................ 67

Did Satisfaction Vary by Respondent Characteristics?................................................................ 69

What Did the Survey Find About Attitudes and Behaviors? ....................................................... 70

Computer Use .......................................................................................................................... 71

Financial Capability .................................................................................................................. 75

Quality of Life ........................................................................................................................... 79

What Feedback Did Focus Group Participants Share?................................................................ 83

What Do These Findings Mean? .................................................................................................. 85

Chapter VII: Preliminary Outcomes ................................................................................................. 87

How Does This Chapter Measure Outcomes?............................................................................. 87

What Occupational Skills Training Outcomes Did Job Candidates Achieve?.............................. 88

What Employment Outcomes Did Job Candidates Achieve?...................................................... 91

What Do These Findings Mean? .................................................................................................. 93

Chapter VIII: Conclusion................................................................................................................... 95

What Were the Key Implementation Accomplishments?........................................................... 95

What Were the Key Implementation Challenges? ...................................................................... 96

What Do the Report’s Findings Mean for the Impact Study? ..................................................... 97
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report iii

What’s Next for the Evaluation?.................................................................................................. 98

Appendix A: References................................................................................................................. A-1

Appendix B: Fidelity Checklist.........................................................................................................B-1

Appendix C: Survey Methodology...................................................................................................C-1

Appendix D: Survey Instruments—Three, Six, and Twelve-Month............................................... D-1

Appendix E: Focus Group Sample .......................................................................................................... E-1 
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report iv

This page is deliberately left blank.
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report v 

Table of Exhibits

Exhibit I-1: BTW50+: WESI Program Logic Model ........................................................................... 10

Exhibit I-2: BTW50+: WESI Core Services ........................................................................................ 11

Exhibit II-1: Subgrantee Characteristics........................................................................................... 22

Exhibit II-2: Structure and Management Characteristics of BTW50+: WESI Programs.................. 23

Exhibit III-1: Standard BTW50+: WESI Outreach and Recruitment Model ..................................... 30

Exhibit III-2: AARP Foundation Job Candidate Selection Rubric...................................................... 32

Exhibit III-3: Total Job Candidate Enrollment by Subgrantee (N=1,868)......................................... 34

Exhibit III-4: Age, Gender, Race, and Ethnicity of BTW50+: WESI Job Candidates......................... 35

Exhibit III-5: Income, Education, and Employment of BTW50+: WESI Job Candidates.................. 36

Exhibit IV-1: Key Elements of the BTW50+: WESI Model (Fidelity Checklist) ................................. 39

Exhibit IV-2: Coaching Fidelity Over Time........................................................................................ 42

Exhibit IV-3: Computer Skills Training Fidelity Over Time ............................................................... 45

Exhibit IV-4: Financial Capability Building Fidelity Over Time ......................................................... 47

Exhibit IV-5: Job Search Skills Training Fidelity Over Time .............................................................. 50

Exhibit IV-6: Employer Engagement Fidelity Over Time.................................................................. 52

Exhibit IV-7: Connections to Training Fidelity Over Time................................................................ 55

Exhibit V-1: Individual Coaching Session Attendance and Duration ............................................... 58

Exhibit V-2: Thematic Content of Individual Coaching Sessions ..................................................... 59

Exhibit V-3: Thematic Content of Group Coaching Workshops...................................................... 60

Exhibit V-4: Job Search Skills Workshops Attendance..................................................................... 62

Exhibit V-5: Career Coaching Workshop Attendance...................................................................... 62

Exhibit V-6: Connections to Training Workshops Attendance ........................................................ 63

Exhibit V-7: Employer Engagement Activity Participation............................................................... 63

Exhibit V-8: Financial Capability Building Attendance..................................................................... 64

Exhibit V-9: Computer Skills Training Courses and Workshops Attendance .................................. 65

Exhibit VI-1: Job Candidates’ Satisfaction with Key Program Elements.......................................... 69

Exhibit VI-2: Percentage of Job Candidates Satisfied with Coaching on Career Choices, Three 

Months After Enrollment, by Educational Attainment ................................................................... 70

Exhibit VI-3: Percentage of Job Candidates Satisfied with Support on Learning How to Search for 

Jobs, by Age Group........................................................................................................................... 70

Exhibit VI-4: Job Candidates’ Means on Computer Difficulty Items (Set 1).................................... 71

Exhibit VI-5: Job Candidates’ Means on Computer Difficulty Items (Set 2).................................... 72

Exhibit VI-6: Distribution of Job Candidates’ Computer Difficulty Scores....................................... 73

Exhibit VI-7: Job Candidates’ Mean Computer Difficulty Scores, by Subgroups............................. 74

Exhibit VI-8: Distribution of Job Candidates’ Mean Computer Difficulty Scores, Three and Six 

Months After Enrollment................................................................................................................. 75
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report vi 

Exhibit VI-9: Job Candidates’ Mean Scores on Financial Capability Items (Set 1), Three Months 

After Program Enrollment................................................................................................................ 76

Exhibit VI-10: Job Candidates’ Means Scores on Financial Capability Items (Set 2), Three Months 

After Program Enrollment................................................................................................................ 76

Exhibit VI-11: Distribution of Job Candidates’ Financial Capability Mean Scores, Three Months 

After Program Enrollment................................................................................................................ 77

Exhibit VI-12: Job Candidates’ Mean Financial Capability Scores by Subgroups............................ 78

Exhibit VI-13: Distribution of Job Candidates’ Mean Financial Capability Scores, Three and Six 

Months After Enrollment................................................................................................................. 79

Exhibit VI-14: Job Candidates’ Mean Scores on Quality of Life Items, Three Months After 

Enrollment........................................................................................................................................ 80

Exhibit VI-15: Distribution of Job Candidates’ Mean Quality of Life Scores, Three Months After 

Enrollment........................................................................................................................................ 81

Exhibit VI-16: Job Candidates’ Mean Quality of Life Scores, Three Months After Enrollment, by 

Subgroups......................................................................................................................................... 82

Exhibit VI-17: Distribution of Job Candidates’ Mean Quality of Life Scores, Three and Six Months 

After Enrollment...............................................................................................................................83

Exhibit VII-1: Job Candidates’ Enrollment in and Subjects of Occupational Skills Training Courses

.......................................................................................................................................................... 89

Exhibit VII-3: Job Candidates’ Completion of Occupational Skills Training Courses....................... 89

Exhibit VII-4: Likelihood of Job Candidates Completing Occupational Skills Training Course, by 

Subgroups......................................................................................................................................... 90

Exhibit VII-5: Job Candidates’ Self-Reported Employment Status, at Three, Six, and 12 Months 

After Program Enrollment................................................................................................................ 92

Exhibit VII-6: Job Candidates’ Self-Reported Employment Status Three Months After Program 

Enrollment, by Subgroups................................................................................................................ 92

Exhibit C-1: Survey Response Rates................................................................................................C-2

Exhibit C-2: Comparison Between 3-Month Survey Respondents and Universe ..........................C-3

Exhibit C-3: Comparison Between 6-Month Survey Respondents and Universe ..........................C-4

Exhibit C-4: Comparison Between 12-Month Survey Respondents and Universe ........................C-5

Exhibit C-5: Survey Items Measuring Attitudes Towards Computer Use.......................................C-7

Exhibit C-6. Assessment of Survey Items Measuring Attitudes Towards Computer Use ..............C-8

Exhibit C-7: Survey Items Measuring Financial Capability..............................................................C-9

Exhibit C-8: Assessment of Financial Capability Survey Items..................................................... C-10

Exhibit C-9: Survey Items Measuring Quality of Life ................................................................... C-11

Exhibit C-10: Assessment of Quality of Life Survey Items........................................................... C-12
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report ES-1 

Executive Summary 

In 2014, the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) selected AARP Foundation 

to receive a three-year grant under the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) to operate and evaluate the 

Back to Work 50+: Women’s Economic Stability Initiative (BTW50+: WESI) in multiple locations 

between 2015 and 2018. Using this funding, AARP Foundation sought to build the capacity of 

local education and training institutions to address the needs of older women workers between 

50 and 64 years of age with incomes between 130 percent and 200 percent of poverty level. 

They sought to do so by helping them prepare for employment in high-growth sectors in their 

local economies. 

AARP Foundation awarded Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) a contract to evaluate the 

overall effectiveness of the BTW50+: WESI program and to identify lessons from its 

implementation that might inform future programming. The evaluation includes an 

implementation study, an outcomes study, and an impact study. This report presents final 

findings from the implementation study as well as preliminary findings from the outcomes study. 

Data collection activities that informed the report include three rounds of site visits to each 

BTW50+: WESI subgrantee and additional remote data collection with program managers after 

the final site visit; analysis of records on demographics and program services from the 

Foundation Impact System (FIS) database; and follow-up telephone surveys with BTW50+: WESI 

participants three, six and 12 months after program enrollment. 

What Is BTW50+: WESI? 

BTW50+: WESI built on the prior experiences of 20 AARP Foundation partners in the Back to 

Work 50+ Classic program, which also supported local education and training institutions to 

meet the needs of low-income workers between 50 and 64 years of age. The BTW50+: WESI 

program model differed in some important ways from the previous BTW50+ Classic program, 

however. It included an increased focus on recruiting and serving women, with priority given to 

unemployed and underemployed women with at least a high school diploma and some prior 

work experience. In addition, program funding provided to subgrantees under the BTW50+: 

WESI subgrants was substantially greater than previous grants under BTW50+ Classic, thus 

allowing participating subgrantees to increase the number of program staff members and build 

capacity to serve larger numbers of participants. 

The six subgrantees included in the implementation study were: 

• Austin Community College (ACC), Austin, Texas; 

• Eastern Florida State College (EFSC), Cocoa, Florida, which transferred subgrantee 

responsibilities to Career Source Brevard, the local workforce development agency, 

during the final 12 months of the grant;

• Jefferson State Community College (JSCC), Birmingham, Alabama; 
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report ES-2 

• Miami Dade College (MDC), Miami, Florida; 

• Santa Fe College (SF-FL), Gainesville, Florida; and

• Santa Fe Community College (SFCC-NM), Santa Fe, New Mexico.

In developing their BTW50+: WESI programs, each subgrantee was required to develop 

partnerships with local American Job Centers and employers, recruit and train staff, and 

implement marketing and outreach strategies. Furthermore, they were required to conduct 

group information sessions for prospective participants and elicit applications for participation, 

design and launch a sequence of core services, offer appropriate training options for individuals 

interested in participating in occupational skills training, support them during the transition to 

training or employment, and track services and outcomes.

For individual participants—referred to as job candidates—the most essential features of 

BTW50+: WESI included the delivery of six key program elements during a “core services” 

period: career coaching, computer skills training, financial capability building, job search skills, 

employer engagement, and connection to training. Job candidates moved through BTW50+: 

WESI core services in cohorts, referred to as waves. The duration of core services ranged from

four days to three weeks. Following completion of core services, some job candidates enrolled in 

short-term occupational skills training, while others sought immediate employment in their 

chosen occupational fields. Intended impacts included increased post-program employment and 

increased post-program average earnings relative to a matched comparison group. 

What Does the BTW50+: WESI Evaluation Entail?

AARP Foundation engaged SPR to design and implement a unified subgrantee evaluation across 

all of the participating community colleges. The evaluation comprises three components: 

• The implementation study is designed to describe and assess the program’s fidelity to the 

prescribed model, implementation challenges, and best practices. Data collection for the 

implementation study occurred during three annual site visits to each participating 

college and through additional remote data collection—telephone interviews and a video 

focus group with program managers—conducted just prior to the close of the 

implementation study period. 

• The outcomes study is designed to measure service intensity and participant outcomes 

using two data sources: the program’s electronic client profile and FIS database and 

telephone surveys of job candidates at three months, six months and 12 months after 

program enrollment. Specific self-reported outcome measures include post-program 

employment rate, changes in financial capability, computer use attitudes, and quality of 

life. For job candidates who enrolled in training, it also includes completion of training. 

• The impact study, whose findings will be reported in the evaluation’s final impact report, 

will use propensity score matching to create a quasi-experimental comparison group 

using administrative data from Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) 
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report ES-3 

program data maintained at the state level.1 The members of the matched comparison 

group will have access to standard job search support services available through the 

public workforce system’s American Job Centers.

2 Using data obtained from state 

Unemployment Insurance quarterly earnings records, comparison group members will be 

compared with BTW50+: WESI job candidates on three key measures: post-program 

employment rate, post-program average earnings, and, for training participants, 

completion of training. Overall, the expected sample size for the impact study is 

approximately 2,200, which includes 1,100 BTW50+: WESI job candidates and 1,100 

individuals in the matched comparison group. 

What Questions Does the Report Answer? 

One of the important functions of the implementation study is to document the key features of 

the program model being tested in the impact study. This will allow the evaluation team to 

interpret and identify lessons from the impact study findings. To understand program 

implementation, the report addresses research questions on implementation experiences and 

features, implementation variations, and job candidate characteristics and perspectives:

Implementation Experiences and Features 

• How do subgrantees develop local partnerships that allow the project to leverage 

community resources to connect candidates with supportive services and job 

opportunities?

• What skills and experience do BTW50+: WESI staff members need to be effective in 

serving older workers? 

• What challenges have the participating colleges encountered as they have implemented 

the BTW50+: WESI model? 

• What do subgrantees identify as their greatest accomplishments and strengths, and what 

do they describe as their greatest challenges in achieving the goals of BTW50+: WESI?

• To what extent do subgrantees have the internal capacity and commitment to offer 

effective training services to the 50+ population after the conclusion of the program

period?

 

 

1 To ensure that the subgrantees had reached a mature state of implementation, enrollment of job candidates 

into the impact study did not begin until August 2016, about one year after the launch of services for the 

original five subgrantees. 

2 The WIOA services received by comparison group members may, in some cases, include career and labor 

market information, referral to available support services, job search workshops, and/or access to occupational 

skills training. However, these services are not expected to replicate the intensive sequence of core services 

provided to BTW50+: WESI job candidates nor to be customized for the needs of older workers or women. 
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report ES-4 

Implementation Variations 

• What are the key features of the BTW50+: WESI program model as intended by AARP 

Foundation, and to what extent have subgrantees achieved fidelity to this model, as 

measured through a standardized fidelity assessment checklist?

• How does BTW50+: WESI, as implemented by subgrantees, differ from the services 

available to comparison group members through the public workforce system and other 

available resources? 

• How do the different colleges vary in their service designs, community partnerships, and 

institutional commitment to providing “generationally relevant” services to individuals 50 

and older?

Job Candidate Characteristics and Perspectives 

• To what extent do subgrantees target different subsets of job candidates, such as women 

who have experienced economic hardship as a result of limited work experience or long 

spells of unemployment, women with limited English language or literacy skills, or 

women over 60 years of age?

• How have BTW50+: WESI job candidates responded to the program?

• What do job candidates identify as the most valuable components of BTW50+: WESI 

services? 

This report also answers a subset of questions from the outcomes study, listed below. The final 

impact and outcomes report, due in 2020, will delve more deeply into job candidate outcomes.

• What are the characteristics of the individuals who decide to participate in the 

program, and how do these characteristics vary across subgrantees?

• What changes in attitudes and behavior (related to quality of life, financial 

management, and computer use) do job candidates exhibit during the year after 

enrollment?

• What percentage of job candidates obtain and retain employment?

• What percentage of job candidates who elect to enter training complete the 

planned training?

What Are the Key Findings in the Report? 

Key findings on program implementation indicate that BTW50+: WESI has largely operated as 

intended in terms of the number and types of job candidates enrolled, as well as the design, 

delivery, and receipt of services:

• Subgrantees enrolled enough job candidates to exceed the overall target set by AARP 

Foundation and create a sufficient sample for the impact study. In its initial application for 
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report ES-5 

the SIF grant, AARP Foundation anticipated serving 1,400 job candidates; subgrantees 

ultimately enrolled 1,868 individuals across the entire program implementation period. 

Enrollment into the impact study, which began approximately one year into program 

implementation for most subgrantees, yielded a sample of 1,163 female job candidates 

who consented to participate in the impact study. 

• Job candidates’ demographic characteristics align with the program’s target population in 

terms of age, gender, education level, income, and employment status. Overall, 

subgrantees were successful in reaching and enrolling the target population. Most job

candidates were female (87 percent), unemployed (74 percent), aged 50–64 (80 

percent), and had annual incomes under $40,000 (87 percent). 

• Over the course of the program implementation period, subgrantees made significant 

progress implementing all components of the BTW50+: WESI model. The highest levels of 

implementation fidelity were in computer skills training, which all subgrantees had fully 

implemented by the final site visit in 2017, and in career coaching. Consistent with 

findings in previous reports, the employer engagement component of the model 

continued to be the most challenging for subgrantees to implement. As might be 

expected, subgrantees that closely involved their workforce development system (which 

has expertise in engaging with employers) from the start of the program period were 

most successful in this regard. 

• There was some variation in the details of how program components were provided, but 

subgrantees generally coalesced on a replicable BTW50+: WESI model. The components 

with the least variation in implementation fidelity tended to be those for which AARP 

Foundation had provided additional guidance. The subtle variations that remained 

indicate that the model allowed for flexibility that considered the needs of subgrantees’ 

specific job candidate populations and institutional contexts. 

• Job candidates’ individual service records indicate that they generally received services at 

the targeted level of intensity and covering intended content. Recorded levels of service 

delivery and intensity for most core services elements in the FIS are consistent with 

subgrantees’ reported implementation practices and, generally, with AARP Foundation 

guidance. 

Job candidate feedback largely supports the above findings on the success of implementation. 

Follow-up surveys and focus groups surfaced the following findings:

• Job candidates who completed surveys and participated in focus groups gave high 

satisfaction ratings on all core components of the BTW50+: WESI program. In particular, 

computer training courses and career coaching services were especially valued. Job 

candidates also placed a high value on the peer support they received through the 

program. Consistent with overall implementation findings, however, many job candidates 

felt that connections with employers needed to be stronger. 

• Attitudes and behaviors as measured on three dimensions—difficulty using computers, 

financial capability, and quality of life—varied depending on respondent characteristics, 
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report ES-6 

particularly age, income, and education. Respondents who were older, had incomes under 

$40,000 per year, and had lower levels of education had more difficulty with computers. 

Respondents who were older, had incomes over $40,000 per year, and higher levels of 

education had higher financial capability scores. Older candidates, those with incomes 

over $40,000 per year, and who were employed full time had higher quality of life scores

after completing the program. 

Preliminary outcomes, similarly, show job candidates achieved targeted milestones in training 

enrollment, training completion, and employment. There was some expected variation:

• Most job candidates did not enroll in occupational skills training, preferring instead to 

immediately begin their job searches upon completion of core services. Occupational skills 

training was an optional pathway that allowed job candidates to access scholarship 

funding from AARP Foundation to finance their training. Just over one quarter of job 

candidates ultimately participated. 

• For job candidates who did enroll in training, FIS data indicate that most (about seven in 

10) completed the courses they enrolled in; about one quarter continued on to additional 

courses. Career coaches reported that job candidates who went on to occupational skills 

training sometimes struggled due to lack of academic preparation and did not complete 

the training. Multivariate analyses using FIS data illuminate that job candidates 66 and 

older, in particular, were less likely to enroll in training in the first place and to complete 

training once enrolled. 

• Self-reported employment rates increased over time. While nearly half (47.5 percent) of 

candidates reported being employed full or part time three months after enrollment, a 

solid majority reported they were employed by the six (55.8 percent) and 12-month 

surveys (61.5 percent). While it is not possible at this stage of the evaluation to 

definitively attribute employment to program participation, it may be that the 

confidence-building that was prioritized in coaching sessions enabled job candidates to 

persist during the lengthy job searches often experienced by older workers.

What’s Next for the Evaluation? 

With the completion of this report, the implementation study draws to a close. Remaining 

activities for the outcomes and impact studies include the following:

• SPR will continue to conduct follow-up surveys with job candidates at three, six and 12 

months after enrollment. These surveys will continue until October 2019, 12 months 

after the end of enrollment under the BTW50+: WESI subgrants.

• SPR will obtain data needed to conduct the impact analysis, including Unemployment 

Insurance quarterly earnings records from state workforce agencies and Participant 

Individual Record Layout data with which to create a matched comparison group.

• SPR will provide the results of this analysis in a final impact and outcomes report to AARP 

Foundation in the spring of 2020.
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report ES-7 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 1 

Chapter I: Introduction 

This report by Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) documents the implementation of the Back 

to Work 50+: Women’s Economic Stability Initiative (BTW50+: WESI), a program funded by the 

Social Innovation Fund (SIF), administered by AARP Foundation, and carried out by six 

subgrantees between 2015 and 2018. This introductory chapter reviews and updates the current 

evidence on the labor market status of older women (which provided the foundation for 

BTW50+: WESI) and on relevant job training models, describes the BTW50+: WESI program 

model, and summarizes the research questions and research methods that inform this report. 

The chapter also summarizes findings reported in the previous interim implementation report 

(Betesh et al., 2017) and provides a roadmap for the remainder of the report. 

How Did BTW50+: WESI Begin? 

From 2010 to 2016, SIF was a program of the Corporation for National and Community Service 

(CNCS), a federal agency that engages millions of Americans in service through its AmeriCorps, 

Senior Corps, and Volunteer Generation Fund programs, and leads the nation’s volunteer and 

service efforts. Using public and private resources to find and grow community-based nonprofits 

with evidence of results, SIF intermediaries received funding to award subgrants focused on 

overcoming challenges in economic opportunity, healthy futures, and youth development.3

In 2014, CNCS selected AARP Foundation as the intermediary to receive a three-year grant under 

SIF’s economic opportunity priority area to operate the Women’s Economic Stability Initiative 

(WESI) in multiple locations. Using this funding, AARP Foundation sought to build the capacity of 

local education and training institutions to address the needs of older women workers between 

50 and 64 years of age with incomes between 130 percent and 200 percent of the federal 

poverty level by helping them prepare for stable employment at a living wage in high-growth 

sectors in their local economies. Acknowledging the origins of the SIF program model in AARP 

Foundation’s pre-existing Back to Work 50+ program, the SIF-funded initiative was referred to as 

the Back to Work 50+: Women’s Economic Stability Initiative, or BTW50+: WESI. In the 

terminology used by the program, participants were referred to as job candidates. 

AARP Foundation initially awarded subgrants to five community colleges to implement BTW50+: 

WESI. In late 2015, at the end of the first year of the SIF program, the Foundation determined 

that one of the original five subgrantees would no longer be part of the initiative. The 

Foundation then awarded an additional two subgrants in the winter of 2016, for a total of six 

subgrantees in its SIF portfolio. 

The six subgrantees included in the implementation study include:

 

3 Although CNCS made its last SIF intermediary awards in fiscal year 2016, SIF intermediaries will continue to 

administer their subgrant programs until they exhaust their federal funding and complete their planned 

process, outcome, and impact evaluations.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 2 

• Austin Community College (ACC) in Austin, Texas; 

• Eastern Florida State College (EFSC) in Cocoa, Florida, with CareerSource Brevard (CSB) as 

a major partner in subgrant operations;4 

• Jefferson State Community College (JSCC) in Birmingham, Alabama; 

• Miami Dade College (MDC) in Miami, Florida; 

• Santa Fe College (SF-FL) in Gainesville, Florida; and

• Santa Fe Community College (SFCC-NM) in Santa Fe, New Mexico.5 

Under the SIF program, subgrantees planned to serve a total of 1,400 job candidates between 

August 2015 and September 2018. At each participating subgrantee, job candidates were 

anticipated to move through the program in eight or more cohorts or “waves” of about 30 

participants each.

AARP Foundation engaged SPR to design and implement a unified evaluation across all 

participating subgrantees. The evaluation is anticipated to yield a moderate level of evidence 

about the impacts of the BTW50+: WESI program model, based on SIF’s evidence tiers

(Zandniapour & Deterding, 2017). The evaluation comprises three components: an 

implementation study, an outcomes study, and an impact study. This report summarizes the final 

results from the implementation study, along with initial findings from the outcomes study. 

Why BTW50+: WESI? 

Over the last decade, older workers have steadily become a larger share of the U.S. workforce, 

and this trend is expected to continue into the future (Gendell, 2008; National Institute on Aging, 

2007; Toossi, 2012). By 2024, nearly one in four people in the labor force is projected to be age 

55 or over (Toossi & Torpey, 2017). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, workers 55 and

older have an unemployment rate that is lower than that of other groups (Schwartz Center for 

Economic Policy Analysis, 2017), but the official unemployment rate for older workers is likely to 

hide a number of discouraged and involuntary part-time workers that is much higher than in 

other age cohorts. This is because the official rate only takes into account individuals who have 

looked for work during the past month; one estimate of a more accurate measure of involuntary 

unemployment among older workers is over eight percent (Schwartz Center for Economic Policy 

Analysis, 2017). 

Further, it is well documented that workers over 55 remain out of work longer than their 

younger peers when they lose a job. This trend started before the Great Recession and has 

continued during the economic recovery. Long-term unemployment, which refers to people who 

 

4 In January 2018, CareerSource Brevard took over from EFSC as the official subgrantee. CareerSource Brevard is 

the administrator of publicly funded workforce programs in Brevard County and had served as a key partner on 

the local subgrant since its inception. 

5 Santa Fe Community College only participated in the first two years of the initiative.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 3 

have been looking for work for at least 27 weeks, was documented at 32.9 percent for the 55+ 

age group in July 2017, about ten percentage points higher than for the labor force as a whole

(Schram, 2017).

While living longer and healthier lives has meant that older people can continue to work past 

traditional retirement age if they want to, involuntary loss of employment has taken a toll on the 

economic well-being of older workers; unexpected loss of retirement savings during economic 

downturns has forced many older workers to keep working (or looking for work) past when they 

had planned to retire. Research has shown that, in addition to the direct financial impact of 

unemployment, the unemployed person suffers lower self-esteem, poorer overall well-being, 

increased isolation, and negative health outcomes as a result of these struggles (Belle & Bullock, 

2009). Moreover, nearly one third of older Americans have seen the value of their homes decline 

substantially, and a sizable proportion have fallen behind on credit card payments or 

accumulated additional credit card debt (Traub, 2013). 

In addition to struggling to pay current living costs, individuals approaching traditional 

retirement age are woefully unprepared to maintain their current standard of living in 

retirement. In describing “the retirement savings crisis,” the National Institute on Retirement 

Security (Boivi & Rhee, 2015) recently reported that 62 percent of working households with 

adult members age 55 to 64 have retirement savings less than the amount of their annual 

income, suggesting that most older workers will be unable to retire and many will be living in 

poverty. A recent survey published by Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies (Collinson, 

2017) reported that only 26 percent of baby boomers plan to immediately stop working and 

retire when they reach a certain age or savings goal. Two thirds plan to work (or are already 

working) past age 65 or do not plan to retire for a variety of reasons that include financial needs 

and a continued capacity to work associated with healthy aging. 

Compared to men, women are increasing as a percentage of the aging workforce. They face 

particular challenges in achieving stable employment, earnings sufficient to support basic needs, 

and a strategy to achieve economic security in retirement. Recent research shows that women 

age 50 and older face substantially more age discrimination in the workplace than do older men 

(Button, Burn, & Neumark, 2015; Farber, Silverman, & von Wachter, 2015). Older women 

workers were also the group hardest hit by the Great Recession in terms of rate of long-term 

unemployment. Between 2007 and 2013, the incidence of long-term unemployment among all 

women workers over 65 who had lost their jobs surged from 14 percent to 50 percent (MongeNaranjo & Sohail, 2015). Data also show that women age 55 years and older are more likely than 

other women to work in part-time and low-skill jobs—jobs that are much less likely to offer 

benefits such as paid sick leave, retirement plans, or health insurance (USDOL Women’s Bureau, 

2013). As the result of a lifetime of reduced income due to multiple factors, including genderand age-based employment discrimination and employment in lower-skilled and lower-wage 

jobs, women have less in savings and retirement benefits than men. In fact, almost twice as 

many retired women as retired men currently live in poverty (Older Women’s League, 2012). 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 4 

Although the public workforce investment system has a mandate to respond to the needs of 

disadvantaged job seekers, it has a mixed record of accomplishment to date in meeting the 

needs of older workers and women. The Senior Community Service Employment Program 

(SCSEP)—the only federal workforce program targeted specifically to older workers—serves only 

very low-income workers age 55 or older, and is estimated to serve less than 1 percent of those 

eligible for participation (Kogan et al., 2012). Under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), adult 

and dislocated worker training programs have been increasing their enrollment of workers age 

55 or older, measured as a percentage of all enrollees over time. However, studies suggest that 

older workers are less likely than other enrollees to receive training services (Stevens, 2004). 

Gender is also associated with differences in the services received from the workforce system 

and the outcomes achieved by those who exit from those services. A study of women served 

under WIA’s Adult and Dislocated Worker programs noted that although women received 

training more often than men, that training was concentrated in sales, clerical, and 

administrative support jobs that led to relatively low average earnings after program exit. In 

contrast, training for men was concentrated in managerial, administrative, professional, or 

technical jobs that tended to have higher post-program earnings (Hock et al., 2012).

How Does This Evaluation Build on Existing Evidence? 

The design of the BTW50+: WESI program model was influenced by findings from previous 

studies of employment programs for aging workers, as well as by previous evaluations of 

programs that encourage participants to prepare for and seek employment in high-growth 

sectors of the local economy and to progress along career pathways in targeted fields. Previous 

findings from rigorous evaluations of the public workforce development system’s core and 

intensive services are also relevant to the evaluation of the BTW50+: WESI program model. 

Findings from Evaluations of Employment Programs for Aging Workers 

The design and evaluation of the BTW50+: WESI program model were informed by findings from 

two previous evaluations of employment programs for older workers. Although both of these 

studies were based on data collected from multiple program sites, neither evaluation used a 

control or comparison group to assess program impacts. 

First, an evaluation of a U.S. Department of Labor program targeted to older workers described 

features that appeared to be best practices in serving older workers (Kogan et al., 2013; see

sidebar on the next page). Second, AARP Foundation’s preliminary observations of the 

experiences of participants served during initial pilots of the BTW50+ model in 11 community 

colleges during 2014 and 2015—referred to as the BTW50+ Classic program model—suggest 

that more intensive career coaching increases the rate of post-program employment.6 

 

6 These findings were from early analyses of unpublished data from the Foundation Impact System (FIS) for the 

first round of BTW50+ Classic partners. In the 11 BTW50+ Classic pilot sites, only 30 percent of job candidates 

who had received coaching services had been hired into full- or part-time jobs by April 2015, three months 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 5 

The SIF program provided the 

opportunity for AARP Foundation to 

develop the BTW50+: WESI initiative by 

investing in a more highly specified 

program model, with strong technical 

assistance and support for subgrantees 

by the Foundation, along with increased 

levels of subgrant funding. In addition, 

the SIF program enabled AARP 

Foundation to fund an independently 

conducted evaluation that would 

provide evidence of the effectiveness of 

the service model by comparing 

outcomes for job candidates to 

outcomes for a matched comparison 

group. 

The BTW50+: WESI program model 

builds on earlier research that has 

identified the challenges facing older 

women workers. The service model that 

emerged from this research placed a 

strong emphasis on individual 

counseling, peer support, and basic 

computer skills training to address their 

needs. 

Findings from Evaluations of 

Programs Using Career Pathways 

and Sectoral Employment 

Strategies 

The BTW50+: WESI program model, as 

originally designed, emphasized using 

sectoral strategies to help participants prepare for employment in high-demand occupations in 

higher-wage industries to achieve increased rates of employment and increased wages (The 

Workforce Alliance, 2008). Like the sectoral employment model, the BTW50+: WESI program 

model originally called for program operators to target occupations with opportunities for high 

 

after the end of the first year of implementation. However, employment rates were substantially higher (47 

percent) for those who received at least five coaching sessions and substantially lower (20 percent) for those 

who attended just one coaching session. 

Relevant Previous Work 

The Evaluation of the Aging Worker Initiative

(Kogan et al., 2013) identified five program 

features effective with older workers, all of 

which were incorporated in the BTW50+:WESI 

program model:

• Personalized attention and 

encouragement using peer-group or 

individualized coaching to build 

participant self-confidence.

• Individualized service plans that build 

on prior work and life experience, 

transferable skills, and personal 

interests and income needs to identify 

employment and career goals.

• Opportunities to prepare for rapid 

employment using short-term intensive 

training programs.

• Training that emphasizes hands-on 

learning, a supportive classroom 

environment, and the use of 

competency-based assessments rather 

than formal academic testing.

• Opportunities to learn and practice 

using computer applications relevant 

for job search and on-the-job work 

tasks.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 6 

wages and career advancement in expanding sectors of the local economy and to engage other 

partners, such as workforce development boards and community colleges.

Impact evaluations of programs that have used sectoral strategies to improve employment rates 

and earnings for low-income individuals have generally found that such models improve 

employment and earning outcomes (Fein & Hamadyk, 2018; Hendra et al., 2016; Maguire et al., 

2010; Michaelides et al., 2015; Peck et al., 2018; Schaberg, 2017). Findings from evaluations of 

previous sectoral employment programs have emphasized several findings that may be relevant 

for BTW50+: WESI. These include:

• The importance of program maturity. The evaluations indicated that programs benefited 

from having been in place long enough to work through initial challenges and build 

strong relationships with local partners. The evaluation of BTW50+: WESI incorporated 

this lesson by allowing for a full year of program implementation at most subgrantees 

prior to enrolling job candidates in the impact study.

7

• The importance of strong links to local employers. Several studies noted that connections 

to local employers cannot be superficial. The Sectoral Employment Impact Study

identified the need to include employer partners from the beginning of program design 

(Maguire et al., 2010), and a report on effective government/business partnerships 

suggested that businesses be given a “lead role” in defining job training (Duke et al., 

2006). Individual BTW50+: WESI subgrantees developed a variety of ways to involve 

employers but generally did not involve them in the design phase.

• The importance of effective screening of potential participants. Multiple studies 

mentioned the importance of effective screening of potential participants to ensure a 

good fit with the program (Maguire et al., 2010; Oertle et al., 2010; Taylor & Rubin, 

2005). AARP Foundation provided BTW50+: WESI subgrantees with a rubric to assess fit 

for the program; as noted later in the report, most job candidates met the rubric criteria. 

The BTW50+: WESI program differed from many of the sectoral employment programs studied 

to date in two important ways:

• BTW50+:WESI emphasized designing program services to meet the needs of job candidates 

rather than designing program intake and design around the needs of particular 

employers. This suggests that BTW50+: WESI subgrantees faced a slightly different 

challenge: rather than ensuring that applicants were a good fit for the targeted 

occupation, BTW50+: WESI subgrantees had to figure out how to refine program 

components, including occupational skills training offerings, to fit the needs of the job 

candidates who had enrolled in the program. Thus, whereas most sectoral strategies 

 

7 Two of the six subgrantees received later grants and only operated their BTW 50+:WESI programs for one wave

before the start of impact study enrollment.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 7 

have tried to balance the interests of job candidates and employers as dual customers, 

the BTW50+: WESI model emphasized job candidates as the primary customers. 

• BTW50+: WESI leveraged existing training programs at subgrantee institutions rather than 

creating new sectoral training programs. Subgrantees developed an individualized 

training plan for each participant and drew on available training programs rather than 

screening and referring individuals into a training pipeline developed specifically for a 

specific industry sector. 

Findings from Research on Public Workforce System Services 

Because of the individualized assessment and service planning approach used by BTW50+: WESI, 

as well as the fact that most WESI job candidates did not select occupational skills training as 

part of their service plan, previous research findings on the effectiveness of career pathway 

programs and programs that train participants for work in high-growth sectors of local 

economies may not be accurate as predictors of the impacts of the BTW50+: WESI model.

Perhaps more relevant to the services received by most of the BTW50+: WESI job candidates are 

the findings from recent research into the effectiveness of the career counseling and job search 

support services offered by local American Job Centers (AJCs). These studies have found that 

women tend to benefit more than men from public workforce development services. The first 

rigorous study (Decker, 2011) to assess the impact of Job Partnership Training Act services found 

moderate but statistically significant positive impacts of participation for economically 

disadvantaged men and women on employment rates and earnings over the 10 quarters 

following random assignment, with substantially larger earnings increases for women than for 

men. Of particular relevance for the BTW50+: WESI job candidates was the finding that career 

support services (other than classroom training or on-the-job training) improved employment 

and earnings outcomes for women, though not for men. 

A recently released report from a random assignment evaluation of the WIA Adult and 

Dislocated Worker programs similarly shows that “intensive” personal career counseling, labor

market information, and job search support services—similar to the core services received by 

BTW50+: WESI job candidates—had positive impacts on employment and earnings (Fortson et 

al., 2017). These positive impacts from WIA intensive services were higher than the impacts 

documented for the subgroup that had access only to the core (self-service) information services 

available to the general public, as well as higher than the impacts for a study subgroup that also 

had access to training services. 

Thus, previous research on services that are similar to those received by the BTW50+: WESI job 

candidates suggests that these services have generally positive impacts on employment and 

earnings. However, the comparison group for the BTW50+: WESI study comprises individuals 

who were enrolled in public workforce services in the same local areas in which the BTW50+: 

WESI projects were operating, and who presumably had access to similar services (with the 

exception of computer skills training and financial competency training, which were provided to 

WESI job candidates but were not generally offered within local American Job Centers). 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 8 

How Did BTW50+: WESI Plan to Support Older Women Workers? 

The BTW50+: WESI program model emphasized individual choice of employment and service 

goals, confidence building through coach and peer group support, job search skills training, 

computer skills training, employer access, and short-term training in occupations in high-growth, 

high-wage sectors of the local economy. The goal was to prepare job candidates for stable 

employment at a living wage and opportunities for career advancement. 

At the system level, the objectives of BTW50+: WESI were to increase the sensitivity of 

community colleges and public workforce development systems to the needs of low-income 

women workers age 50 years and over and to increase the development of local partnerships to 

provide generationally relevant services to this target population. At the individual job candidate 

level, the objectives of BTW50+: WESI were to produce measurable increases in employment 

and income for job candidates during the 12 months after enrollment in the program, to 

improve their economic stability, and to increase their financial management skills8 and quality 

of life. 

The long-term objectives of the initiative at the system and individual job candidate level were to 

(1) systematize these system- and individual-level gains into the future through a sustained 

commitment to the needs of older women workers by local education and workforce 

development entities, and (2) create communities within which low-income women age 50 years 

and older are able to obtain stable employment in high quality jobs and develop the financial 

capacity to manage their incomes effectively.

Exhibit I-1 on the following page shows the logic model developed for the program and included 

in the SIF evaluation plan (Betesh et al., 2016). As shown in the second column, the BTW50+: 

WESI logic model called for each subgrantee to implement a series of program-level activities 

that include:

• Developing partnerships with local resource networks and employers;

• Recruiting and training subgrantee staff;

• Implementing marketing and outreach strategies;

• Conducting group information sessions for prospective job candidates and eliciting 

applications for participation in the program;

• Designing and launching a sequence of core services for job candidates;

 

8 Financial capability training (combining both financial knowledge and skill building) was included in the 

program model, in part in response to feedback from BTW50+ Classic partners on the need for such training 

within this population. Subsequent evidence emphasizes the importance of the applied practice of financial 

skills, which supports informed financial decision making more than factual financial education by itself (Walker 

et al., 2018).
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 9 

• Offering appropriate training options for job candidates interested in participating in 

occupational skills training; and

• Supporting job candidates during the transition to training or employment, tracking job 

candidate progress, and entering service and outcome data into the Foundation Impact 

System (FIS) database.

For job candidates, in addition to job search skills training and support, and ongoing coaching as 

needed throughout the participation period, the essential features of BTW50+: WESI shown in 

Exhibit I-1 include assessment, referrals to supportive services, guidance and information about 

local jobs, employer contact, financial capability training, and computer skills upgrade training. 

Job candidates moved through BTW50+: WESI services in cohorts or “waves.” Generally, waves 

included between 15 and 30 job candidates. They entered the program at the same time and 

completed core services—including coaching, computer skills instruction, job search skills 

training, and financial capability training—in the same time frame. Most subgrantees had only 

one active wave moving through core services at one time. Following completion of core 

services, some job candidates enrolled in short-term occupational skills training; others sought 

immediate employment in their chosen occupational fields.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 10

Exhibit I-1: BTW50+: WESI Program Logic Model 
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 11

Using color coding for each element which will appear throughout the report, Exhibit I-2 

illustrates graphically how the elements of the BTW50+: WESI program model (denoted with 

colors used throughout this report for each element) were woven together by the delivery of 

individual coaching throughout the program period. Initially, the core services phase of program 

participation (services received prior to entry into any occupational skills training) was designed 

to be completed within 10 weeks of program enrollment. Ultimately, most subgrantees targeted 

completion of core services in a shorter time frame (approximately one to three weeks).9

Exhibit I-2: BTW50+: WESI Core Services 

Cohort 

Coaching and 

Supportive 

Service 

Referrals

What Does the Evaluation Entail? 

AARP Foundation engaged SPR to design and implement a unified evaluation across all 

participating subgrantees. The evaluation is anticipated to yield a moderate level of evidence 

about the impacts of the BTW50+: WESI program model (based on SIF’s evidence tiers). The 

evaluation comprises three components: 

9 About half the subgrantees shortened the duration of core services—for example, from six to two or three 

weeks—partway through the program period. This was in response to the desire of many job candidates to find 

employment as soon as possible, as well as to encourage a larger percentage of participants to stay engaged 

with the program until the completion of core services.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 12

• The implementation study, the primary subject of this report, was designed to describe 

key program features, assess the program’s fidelity to the prescribed model, and identify 

implementation challenges and lessons learned during the implementation period. Much 

of the data collection for the implementation study was conducted during three site visits 

in the first, second, and third subgrant years to each participating college. As the end of 

the implementation period approached, these data were supplemented with a follow-up 

telephone discussion with each subgrantee and a telephone focus group with the grant 

managers for each subgrantee. This provided an opportunity for program managers and 

key program staff to compare notes about their individual implementation experiences 

and effective program features.

• The outcomes study measures service intensity and participant outcomes using two data 

sources: AARP Foundation’s FIS database and telephone surveys of job candidates 

conducted at three months, six months, and 12 months after program enrollment. 

Specific self-reported outcome measures collected in the telephone surveys include postprogram employment rate, post-program average earnings, changes in financial 

capability, computer use attitudes, and quality of life. For job candidates who enrolled in 

training, the outcomes study also measures whether training was completed and the 

anticipated credentials earned. Early results from the outcomes study are included in this 

report.

• The impact study, whose findings will be reported in the evaluation’s final impact report, 

will use propensity score matching to create a quasi-experimental comparison group 

using administrative data from Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) 

program data maintained at the state level.10 The members of the matched comparison 

group will have access to standard job search support services available through the 

public workforce system’s One-Stop Career Centers.11 Using data obtained from state 

Unemployment Insurance quarterly earnings records, the comparison group members 

will be compared with BTW50+: WESI job candidates on three key measures: postprogram employment rate, post-program average earnings, and, for training participants, 

completion of training. Overall, the expected sample size for the impact study is 

approximately 2,200. This includes approximately 1,100 BTW50+: WESI job candidates 

and approximately 1,100 individuals in the matched comparison group. 

 

10 To ensure that the subgrantees had reached a mature state of implementation, enrollment of job candidates 

into the impact study did not begin until August 2016, about one year after the launch of services for the 

original five subgrantees. 

11 The WIOA services received by comparison group members may in some cases include career and labor market 

information, referral to available support services, job search workshops, and/or access to occupational skills 

training. However, these services are not expected to replicate the intensive sequence of core services 

provided to BTW50+: WESI job candidates or to be customized for the needs of older workers or women. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 13

What Questions Does This Report Answer and How?

The implementation study was designed to describe and assess the program’s fidelity to the 

prescribed model, as well as to document implementation challenges and emerging best 

practices. One of the most important functions of the implementation study was to document 

the key features of the program model being tested in the impact study so that the evaluation 

team could interpret and identify lessons from the impact study. For example, if the impact 

study, when completed, shows that the program has (or does not have) statistically significant 

impacts for BTW50+: WESI participants compared to members of the matched comparison 

group sample, understanding how the subgrantees implemented the program will be important 

to assessing what the findings mean and how the goals of the program were or were not 

achieved. 

Research Questions 

To understand program implementation, the report addresses research questions on 

implementation experiences and features, implementation variations, and job candidate 

characteristics and perspectives: 

Implementation Experiences and Features 

• How do subgrantees develop local partnerships that allow the project to leverage 

community resources to connect candidates with supportive services and job 

opportunities?

• What skills and experience do BTW50+: WESI staff members need to be effective in 

serving older workers?

• What challenges have the participating colleges encountered as they have implemented 

the BTW50+: WESI model? 

• What do subgrantees identify as their greatest accomplishments and strengths, and what 

do they describe as their greatest challenges in achieving the goals of BTW50+: WESI?

• To what extent do subgrantees have the internal capacity and commitment to offer 

effective training services to the 50+ population after the conclusion of the program

period?

Implementation Variations 

• What are the key features of the BTW50+: WESI program model as intended by AARP 

Foundation, and to what extent have subgrantees achieved fidelity to this model, as 

measured through a standardized fidelity assessment checklist?

• How does BTW50+: WESI, as implemented by subgrantees, differ from the services 

available to comparison group members through the public workforce system and other 

available resources? 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 14

• How do the different colleges vary in their service designs, community partnerships, and 

institutional commitment to providing “generationally relevant” services to individuals 50 

and older?

Job Candidate Characteristics and Perspectives 

• To what extent do subgrantees target different subsets of job candidates, such as women 

who have experienced economic hardship as a result of limited work experience or long 

spells of unemployment, women with limited English language or literacy skills, or 

women over 60 years of age?

• How have BTW50+: WESI job candidates responded to the program?

• What do job candidates identify as the most valuable components of BTW50+: WESI 

services? 

This report also answers a subset of questions from the outcomes study, listed below. The final 

impact and outcomes report, due in 2020, will delve more deeply into job candidate outcomes.

• What are the characteristics of the individuals who decide to participate in the program, 

and how do these characteristics vary across subgrantees?

• What changes in attitudes and behavior (related to quality of life, financial management, 

and computer use) do job candidates exhibit during the year after enrollment?

• What percentage of job candidates obtain and retain employment?

• What percentage of job candidates who elect to enter training complete the planned 

training?

Data Collection Methodology 

To answer the research questions, the implementation study drew on four data sources: site 

visits, telephone interviews and a video focus group, surveys, and administrative data. Each of 

data source is described below.

Site Visits to Subgrantees 

SPR conducted three annual on-site visits to each subgrantee. When possible, the same SPR site 

visitor conducted all visits to a given subgrantee so that they could better gauge program 

progress over time. One or two site visitors conducted each visit, and over the course of the 

evaluation, there were a total of nine site visitors. All site visitors had graduate level training 

(master’s degree or higher) in fields including public policy, public health, and education. Prior to 

each round of visits, site visitors received training on BTW50+: WESI, the evaluation, the goals of 

the visit, and the relevant tools and protocols. These trainings were facilitated by the evaluation 

director and the qualitative data collection task lead. 

Each visit included the following data collection activities to document program implementation: 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 15

• Semi-structured interviews with program staff and partners. Each visit included five 

interviews with program staff that covered program management; core services; 

coaching and supportive services; recruitment and enrollment; and training. Respondents 

included program directors, program coordinators, career coaches, and other subgrantee 

administrators involved with BTW50+: WESI as well as partner organizations that served 

job candidates. 

• Observations of program activities. Site visitors conducted program observations during 

each site visit to achieve a clearer picture of program activities. Observations varied by 

visit, subgrantee, and schedule but included core coaching workshops and individual 

coaching sessions. Site visitors used a standardized observation tool to collect this data. 

The tool prompted site visitors to record information about setting, pace, the 

interactions between job candidates and staff, and the level of tailoring taking place to 

meet individual job candidate needs. 

• Focus groups with selected job candidates. Each visit included one focus group with 

selected job candidates. Across the three rounds of visits, focus groups with job 

candidates ranged in size from one to eight job candidates, with an average of six job 

candidates participating in each focus group (see Appendix E for details). SPR trained 

BTW50+: WESI career coaches to purposively select job candidates to participate in the 

focus groups. Career coaches received guidance, a recruitment script, and focus group 

consent forms to complete this task. For each round of site visits, the evaluation team 

targeted job candidates in different stages of the program to get a more complete 

understanding of services and outcomes. For the first round of site visits, career coaches 

were asked to select focus group participants who were then receiving coaching services, 

for the second round of site visits, career coaches were asked to select focus group 

participants who were then receiving training services, and for the final round of site 

visits, career coaches were asked to select focus group participants who had completed 

BTW50+: WESI services and who were either employed or looking for work. Site visitors 

moderated the focus groups during each site visit using the same series of questions at 

each subgrantee.

• Discussion with staff at an AJC. Site visitors conducted discussions with staff at an AJC 

within the program’s service area to document the services available to comparison 

group members through the public workforce system. Such discussions were guided by a 

semi-structured protocol. 

• Use of a standardized fidelity assessment tool. During each visit, site visitors used a 

standardized fidelity assessment checklist to assess the extent of fidelity to the intended 

program model. This activity was completed in conversation with the BTW50+: WESI 

program director and took into account site visit interviews and observations. More 

details about this activity are described in Chapter IV (the tool is also included as 

Appendix B). The sample for the fidelity assessment was the universe of subgrantees. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 16

Remote Data Collection with Subgrantees 

Because the third round of site visits occurred at the end of 2017, when subgrantees still had 

nearly a year of implementation left, SPR conducted two additional remote data collection 

activities in the summer of 2018. First, telephone interviews with the project director and 

additional key staff at each of the individual subgrantee sites provided an opportunity for 

updates on program implementation during the final year and plans for sustainability after the 

SIF subgrant. Then, a video focus group with the directors of subgrantee programs provided an 

opportunity to compare their implementation experiences and identify key factors that 

influenced implementation and effectiveness of the BTW50+: WESI program model for job 

candidates enrolled in the program. 

Surveys of Job Candidates 

The report also draws on information gathered from telephone surveys with BTW50+: WESI 

participants three months, six months, and one year after program enrollment. The findings 

included in this report draw most heavily from the three-month surveys. Topics covered include 

information on program services received, changing status on a quality of life indicator and a 

measure of financial capacity, and information on employment and training outcomes at the 

time of each survey. The survey instrument is included in Appendix C of this report, and the full 

survey methodology is included in Appendix D.

Administrative Data from the Foundation Impact System 

Finally, this report documents participant characteristics and service delivery using an extract of 

individual-level participant data secured from AARP Foundation’s FIS, a SalesforceTM database 

used by subgrantees. Data presented in this report are based on analysis of an extract from the 

FIS obtained in November of 2018, which covers the implementation period from August 2015 

to October 2018. This system contains data about characteristics of job candidates enrolled in 

the program and the flow of job candidates through services. In this report, FIS data were 

particularly important in providing information about the patterns of services used by individual 

job candidates, including the types and doses of services received, as well as information on 

training and employment outcomes documented by BTW50+: WESI program staff members for 

individual job candidates.

What Has the Evaluation Found So Far?

The evaluation’s interim implementation report (Betesh et al., 2017) presented preliminary 

findings from the implementation study based on the first two annual site visits, as well as initial 

findings from the ongoing three-month follow-up telephone surveys of job candidates described 

above. The interim report described the key role played by AARP Foundation in providing 

technical assistance to subgrantees and pointed out ways that individual subgrantees delicately 

balanced conformity to program guidelines with refinements that recognized their individual 

program contexts. Findings included the following:

• Subgrantees had fully or partially implemented most elements of the program model. 

Implementation of the career coaching, computer skills training, and job search skills 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 17

training elements—on which AARP Foundation provided updated guidance and technical 

assistance between the first and second implementation study visits—showed the 

highest fidelity to the intended model. 

• Subgrantees struggled most to realize full implementation of the employer engagement 

component of the program model. This represented a key area in which the public 

workforce development system services available to comparison group members might 

have been as strong or stronger than what was offered through BTW50+: WESI.

• Even within elements of the program that were implemented with fidelity, subgrantees 

showed notable variations in their service delivery strategies. For example, the format and 

intensity of computer skills training options varied across sites, and only half of 

subgrantees offered intermediate-level computer skills training classes. Similarly, the 

proportion of job candidates who went on to occupational skills training and the number 

and types of occupational skills trainings offered also varied. 

• Subgrantee familiarity with the target population and with providing similar services was 

correlated with fidelity of implementation. Prior staff experience with the BTW50+ Classic 

program model and/or working in the public workforce system appeared to have 

strengthened the fidelity with which subgrantees implemented the program model, both 

overall and for specific components.

• Job candidates were moderately satisfied with the core components of the program, 

though feedback from focus groups indicated that more interactive and personalized 

delivery would have been appreciated. Additionally, focus group feedback showed wide 

variation in the strength of connection to training opportunities across subgrantees.

• Although follow-up survey respondents reported positive attitudes and behaviors three 

months after enrollment, self-reported employment rates were somewhat lower than 

anticipated. Most respondents were no longer receiving core services at the time of the 

three-month follow-up, yet just under half reported being employed either full or part 

time.

What Does This Report Cover? 

This final implementation report updates the above findings using data from site visits, 

telephone discussions, and surveys, and provides information from the FIS on the types and 

levels of services received by individual job candidates, as well as their demographic 

characteristics. 

The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

• Chapter II describes the structure of the initiative at the intermediary and subgrantee 

level, as well as key challenges and accomplishments in program management.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 18

• Chapter III describes subgrantee recruitment and enrollment approaches, and 

summarizes the characteristics of the individuals enrolled in the program across all 

subgrantees. 

• Chapter IV describes the services provided to BTW50+: WESI job candidates and assesses 

whether the services were implemented with fidelity to the program model.

• Chapter V documents the types and dosage of services received by individuals enrolled in 

BTW50+: WESI.

• Chapter VI provides the participant perspective, including satisfaction with services 

received and shifts in attitudes and behaviors. 

• Chapter VII presents preliminary outcomes, based on FIS and survey data, for job 

candidates’ enrollment in training and placement in employment.

• Chapter VIII discusses the implications of the report’s findings in general and with respect 

to outcome and impact evaluation findings.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 19

Chapter II: Program Structure and Institutional Context 

This chapter describes the structure and management of BTW50+: WESI at the intermediary and 

subgrantee levels throughout the initiative. It includes details on the local context at the 

subgrantee level, the challenges subgrantees faced and the promising practices they reported, 

and, finally, how the subgrantees anticipated retaining aspects of the BTW50+: WESI model after 

the end of the grant. 

How Did AARP Foundation Manage and Support the BTW50+: WESI 

Subgrantees? 

As the intermediary for the SIF grant, AARP Foundation selected subgrantees using a competitive 

proposal process, and provided oversight and technical assistance to subgrantees on program 

implementation. The Foundation selected subgrantees using an internal review panel, site visits 

to finalists to assess their institutional capacity and commitment, and input from SPR on 

subgrantees’ readiness and ability to participate in the evaluation. Once subgrantees were 

selected, AARP Foundation provided guidance on the key features of program design and 

Key Findings 

• The challenges reported by subgrantees generally concerned issues common to 

grant-funded workforce development programs. Specifically, they reported 

issues such as limitations in the types of jobs available in the local labor market, 

difficulty maintaining a stable staff given time-limited grant funding, difficulty 

tracking job candidate outcomes over time, and limited financial capacity to 

take over funding the program when the grant ended.

• Key accomplishments reported by subgrantees focused program staff developing 

effective relationships. For example, they were proud of being able to hire 

career coaches skilled in developing trusting relationships with job candidates. 

They were also proud of institutional relationships that supported 

implementation, both with key college administrators who acted as 

“champions” for BTW50+: WESI and with other college divisions that could 

offer additional support and resources to job candidates.

• Subgrantees reported two distinct models for sustaining the program, largely 

contingent on their ability to secure additional funds. Three subgrantees 

anticipated sustaining BTW50+: WESI through cohort programs targeted to 

older workers, notably intensive coaching. In contrast, two others planned to 

integrate core services components, such as the computer skills upgrade, into 

existing supports available through continuing education departments that

served—but did not exclusively target—individuals over 50. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 20

implementation practices using a BTW50+: WESI “Playbook” that described the program goals 

and philosophy, key features of the program, expectations for program design, and operations 

and best practices. The Playbook was updated several times as the growing experience of AARP 

Foundation and the subgrantees yielded refinements to the model.12 

While AARP Foundation was the recipient of the SIF grant and managed its operation, the 

Foundation engaged the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) as a strategic 

partner. AACC’s primary day-to-day involvement in the initiative was by the program manager 

for BTW50+ (both BTW50+: WESI and BTW50+ Classic), who was employed by AACC. The 

program manager conducted regular one-on-one calls with subgrantees to stay abreast of 

concerns and troubleshoot program management and service delivery issues. These calls 

occurred weekly during the first several months of each subgrantee’s implementation, and

monthly thereafter. The program manager also conducted annual monitoring visits to each 

college to ensure that subgrantees were following required procedures for AARP Foundation and 

the SIF grant as documented in the Playbook, as well as to observe program operations and 

address any challenges with enrollment, service delivery, or partnerships.

In addition to these targeted technical assistance activities, AARP Foundation facilitated activities 

aimed at promoting cross-site learning and sharing. For the first two years of the grant, AARP 

Foundation also held a monthly call for BTW50+: WESI subgrantees, as well as one for the entire 

BTW50+ network (both BTW50+: WESI and BTW50+ Classic). The BTW50+: WESI calls were 

discontinued at the end of 2016 based on feedback from subgrantees that such frequent calls 

were no longer necessary, with the larger network calls being sufficient. The monthly ongoing 

BTW50+ network calls for all BTW50+ partners allowed the Foundation to continue to provide 

updates on new forms, procedures, and resources, as well as time for local programs to share 

best practices in areas such as recruitment and engaging employers and community partners. 

In response to subgrantee requests for more opportunities for peer sharing and collaboration, 

AARP Foundation created an online site for all BTW50+ programs on BaseCamp, a collaboration 

platform that allowed members to communicate with each other, share links and files, and 

access key documents such as the program Playbook, a PowerPoint presentation for the 7 Smart 

Strategies workshop (an information session for interested individuals), recordings of conference 

calls, and recordings of SPR’s evaluation trainings on data quality and informed consent. 

During the program period, the BTW50+: WESI subgrantees gathered each January for an inperson Learning Exchange, timed to occur just before AACC’s annual Workforce Development 

Institute. This daylong meeting enabled subgrantees to discuss evaluation findings (from site 

visits and participant surveys) and strategize on program implementation plans for the year 

ahead. For example, during the first Learning Exchange, after reviewing evaluation findings on 

 

12 One such refinement was the requirement that each job candidate would receive at least two individual faceto-face coaching sessions; another was that each job candidate would have at least three opportunities for 

employer contact.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 21

variations in the use of assessments to inform computer skills upgrade training, subgrantees 

discussed their approaches to finding and customizing curriculum resources. 

Another program management function executed by AARP Foundation was training and support 

on data entry and data management practices. Subgrantees entered participant service and 

outcome data into the FIS database, which was designed and maintained by AARP Foundation. 

These data—discussed and analyzed in more detail in later chapters of this report—included 

attendance at workshops and coaching sessions, completion of core services, and achievement 

of key milestones such as enrollment in occupational skills training and placement into 

employment. The FIS used a data visualization add-on called Birst to produce performance 

measure reports by subgrantee that showed progress towards key goals in recruitment, 

enrollment, completion of core services, connection to training, and placement in employment. 

To assist subgrantees with data entry and navigation of the system, AARP Foundation assigned 

dedicated FIS analyst staff to provide technical assistance on data quality issues. AARP 

Foundation also provided FIS technical assistance through a user guide, in-person training 

(during monitoring visits), and a webinar for subgrantees, including recorded modules developed 

in response to subgrantees’ feedback on the need for such assistance. 

What Did BTW50+: WESI Look Like at the Local Level? 

At the subgrantee level, BTW50+: WESI programs varied in their institutional and local contexts 

and in their program structures. As shown in Exhibit II-1, the subgrantees to which AARP 

Foundation made the initial awards for the BTW50+: WESI initiative were all community 

colleges.13 This was in keeping with the system-level objective of the initiative to increase the 

sensitivity of community colleges and their local public workforce development system partners 

to the needs of low-income jobseekers 50 years of age and over. It was anticipated that 

community colleges would be the local entities best able to develop partnerships with other 

agencies to provide generationally relevant education and training services to this target 

population as well as to engage employers in program design and operation.

The community colleges participating in BTW50+: WESI shared some characteristics and varied

on others. As community colleges, all of the schools offered a mix of academic programs 

designed for students interested in transferring to four-year colleges and technical programs 

leading to an associate degree or credit-bearing certificate. As noted in Exhibit II-1, most of the 

colleges also offered not-for-credit vocational programs and continuing education programs, and 

most served a mix of full- and part-time students. 

Three of the colleges were located in small urban areas (JSCC in Birmingham, Alabama; SF in 

Gainesville, Florida; SFCC-NM in Santa Fe, New Mexico), one college was in a medium-sized 

urban area (EFSC/CSB in Cocoa, Florida), and two colleges were located in major urban areas 

with large central cities (ACC in Austin, Texas; MDC, in Miami, Florida). The community setting 

 

13 In the final year of the grant, one of the community college subgrantees, Eastern Florida State College, 

arranged to hand over administration of the grant to the local American Job Center. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 22

affected the diversity and number of jobs in the local economy as well as the extent of public 

transportation available for travel to the college and to jobs. The setting also affected the size of 

the population pool from which job candidates could be recruited. 

The number of students attending each of these institutions was strongly influenced by the 

population of the local service area. In addition, colleges that served a larger population or an 

extended geographic area tended to use multiple campuses to make programs accessible to

students throughout the service area. The participating colleges ranged from the very large 

MDC, which had over 165,000 students enrolled at seven campuses, to the more modestly sized 

JSCC, which, with an enrollment of 8,000 students served by four campuses, was the second 

largest community college in the state of Alabama.

Exhibit II-1: Subgrantee Characteristics 

Subgrantee Type of Community 

Served Size of School Targeted Industries or Occupations for BTW50+: WESI 

Austin Community 

College (TX) Large city/ urban area

Large: 43,000 for-credit 

students, 15,000 noncredit students

Technology; health care; 

business services

Eastern Florida State 

College (FL)* 

Medium-sized urban/ 

suburban area

Medium: 23,000 

students across four 

campuses

Advanced manufacturing; 

Machining; aviation, 

aerospace and emerging 

technology; construction; 

health care; leisure and

hospitality

Jefferson State 

Community College (AL) 

Small city/ urban and 

suburban/ rural

Small: 8,000 for-credit 

students, 2,000 noncredit students at four 

campuses across four 

counties

Health care; office 

occupations

Miami Dade College (FL) Very large city/urban 

area

Very large: Over 

165,000 students across 

seven campuses

Hospitality; health care; 

finance; information 

technology; logistics

Santa Fe College (FL) Small city/ urban area

Medium: 18,000

students across seven 

campuses

Health care; marketing; office 

occupations

Santa Fe Community 

College (NM) 

Small city with rural 

fringe areas

Small: 15,000 students 

including credit, noncredit, and continuing 

education

Health occupations; secondary 

and elementary education; 

accounting specialist; 

computer support/network 

specialist; culinary arts

Because of variations in the population size and demographics of each service area, the number 

of job candidates expected to be interested in the program, the level of funding available to each 

college from the SIF grant and other funding streams, and the expected capacity of the program, 

the subgrantees anticipated enrolling differing numbers of job candidates during the program 

period (and subsequently adjusted their enrollment targets based on actual demand and 

capacity). Despite these variations in local context, all of the subgrantees were selected by AARP 

Foundation for funding because they were assessed as having a strong commitment to the goals 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 23

of BTW50+: WESI at the highest levels of college administration, and as having the capacity to 

both successfully serve the target population and partner with the Foundation to realize the 

program model. 

In addition to broader contextual differences, subgrantees also varied in the structure and 

management of their BTW50+: WESI programs. As shown in Exhibit II-2, they varied in the 

location of the program within the subgrantee institution as well as in the leadership structure 

and division of labor for program management. 

Exhibit II-2: Structure and Management Characteristics of BTW50+: WESI Programs 

Subgrantee Location of BTW50+: WESI 

Within Subgrantee Institution 

Leadership Structure and 

Division of Labor 

ACC 

College academic support division A grant lead provided strategic 

guidance and monitored spending; a 

program director provided daily 

oversight of coaches and ensured the 

quality of core services delivery.

EFSC/CSB 

2015–2017: College career 

planning and development center

2018: American Job Center

2015–2017: One program manager

provided oversight of the program and 

collaborated with a program manager

at the AJC to implement WESI across 

the two organizations. 

2018: A program manager at the AJC 

provided oversight of program 

activities.

JSCC College workforce and continuing 

education division

One project director provided 

oversight of program activities.

MDC 

College academic affairs division One to two grant leads shared 

oversight of spending and strategic 

guidance; a program manager oversaw

daily program implementation.

SF-FL 

College student affairs division A project director provided strategic 

direction and oversaw the program; a 

project manager oversaw daily 

program implementation. 

SFCC-NM 

College academic support division A project director was responsible for 

administrative oversight and staffing; a 

program manager led core services 

delivery and oversaw coaches. 

As shown in the first column, one program (JSCC) was located within the workforce and 

continuing education division of its subgrantee community college, and three (MDC, ACC and 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 24

SFCC-NM) operated within academic support divisions. The remaining programs, EFSC/CSB and 

SF-FL, were initially housed in the career planning and development center and student affairs 

division of the colleges, respectively. EFSC/CSB’s program also had career coaches stationed at 

its local AJC, which ultimately took over the program during the final year of implementation. 

The student affairs division at SF-FL had strong relationships with both the academic support and 

workforce and continuing education divisions of the college. The program’s location had 

important implications for staff experience and skills, as discussed in more detail later in the 

chapter. In particular, coaches in academic support divisions brought their experience in 

providing guidance on training and connections to campus resources, while those in workforce 

and continuing education divisions brought experience with career interest assessments and job 

search assistance. 

In terms of leadership structure and division of labor, most subgrantees used a shared approach, 

wherein multiple individuals split management responsibilities. This setup enabled them to have 

separate individuals responsible for strategic direction and daily program management. At 

EFSC/CSB, program leadership was initially shared to ensure there were key liaisons at both the 

community college and the AJC, which assisted with the provision of core services. However, 

during the final year of implementation, as noted in the previous chapter, CSB was the sole 

subgrantee and no longer used this shared leadership approach.

What Structural and Contextual Challenges Arose, and How Did 

Subgrantees Address Them? 

Subgrantees noted several challenges related to program structure and local context:

• Local labor market contexts posed challenges in connecting job candidates to desirable 

employment opportunities. Two of the community colleges were located in small urban 

areas that had limited employment opportunities. This created a substantial challenge in 

helping candidates find stable employment that paid enough to cover their household 

expenses. As a number of respondents from one subgrantee explained, while the 

employment rate in their county was at a record low, many of the available jobs were in 

retail and customer service, which did not pay the wages job candidates needed for 

financial stability. Similar labor market limitations existed in another area where the local 

economy lacked a sufficient number of jobs paying living wages. In both of these 

locations, career coaches encouraged job clients to aim for higher paying jobs and to be 

aware of how much they would need to meet their basic financial needs. 

In a region where the labor market was experiencing an influx of younger workers in the 

technology industry, subgrantee staff also identified age discrimination in the local labor 

market as a serious problem in placing job candidates. To address this challenge, the 

program was working with other local agencies to research and publicize results on the 

extent of age discrimination in the local job market, educate employers about the 

potential benefits of hiring older workers, and encourage businesses to assess the extent 

to which they met criteria for being “age friendly.”
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 25

• As time-limited projects, some subgrantees found it difficult to retain a stable staff 

throughout the program period. In general, the subgrantees were very successful in hiring 

staff members with experience and skills relevant to the BTW50+: WESI initiative and 

retaining staff throughout the program period. However, two subgrantees reported that 

staffing was particularly challenging. One experienced substantial turnover of 

management and coaching staff during the first two years of the program and was thus 

delayed in reaching the staffing stability needed to finalize and clarify the model until the 

middle of the program period. Another was also slow to finalize its management and 

coaching staff, and experienced understaffing again late in the program period. The 

program director stepped in to help provide coaching services to job candidates toward 

the end of the program period.

• Subgrantees found it challenging to document employment outcomes after job candidates 

completed core services. Most subgrantees maintained frequent contact with job 

candidates throughout the core services period, but in most cases the frequency of 

contact was reduced after individuals completed core services and entered occupational 

skills training or as they continued to work on their job search efforts. Staff from one 

subgrantee indicated that they made an effort to follow up regularly with all former 

participants but had no ability to require program completers to stay in touch with them 

after they had completed core services. These staff suggested that an incentive payment 

to participants for maintaining contact with the project over time might improve their 

ability to track outcomes for former participants. Alternatively, staff from another 

subgrantee reported that they had increased the amount of time staff spent trying to 

contact former participants and had significantly increased the number of employment 

outcomes they were able to document.

What Worked Well for Program Administration? 

The following features of program structure and staffing appeared to support effective 

implementation and sustainability of BTW50+: WESI. 

• Subgrantees were proud that their staff members were representative of the target 

population and could develop trusting relationships with job candidates. Most subgrantees 

recruited career coaches who were themselves older women or who had experiences 

similar to the life transitions that many job candidates had experienced before enrolling 

in the program. In addition, subgrantees often hired individuals with professional training 

and experience in counseling or mental health services and, less often, job placement 

services. 

• Subgrantees benefited from the support of key college administrators. Respondents from 

two of the subgrantees indicated that it was tremendously helpful to them that they had 

project “champions” from the higher echelons of their institution’s management. 

Program managers from one subgrantee reported that access to upper management at 

the college not only increased project visibility within the college but also provided 

champions who were able to advocate for the project’s long-term sustainability. Another 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 26

subgrantee found it extremely helpful that the project director was an associate dean 

and a member of the college leadership team. This individual was able to see how the 

college—and all of its students—could benefit from an enhanced student guidance and 

support system.

• Subgrantees that developed strong connections with other college resources were able to 

provide enriched services to job candidates. Two subgrantees offered examples of the 

benefits of developing strong partnerships with other programs within the college. 

BTW50+: WESI project staff at one community college were able to use its dual role as a 

WESI subgrantee and operator of an on-campus career center to access an expanded set 

of job listings and make individualized job referrals to job candidates within the project. 

Of equal or greater importance, this college implemented its WESI program in close 

partnership with the institution’s not-for-credit workforce development division, which 

enabled a large number of job candidates to access existing short-term occupational skills 

training programs developed with strong employer input. Another subgrantee located its

BTW50+: WESI project within an existing community college outreach center that already 

offered an array of services, including connections to supportive services (such as 

housing and transportation assistance) and academic support, in one place to maximize 

convenience for job candidates and coaches. It also had a computer lab, food pantry, and 

clothing closet that job candidates could utilize. A further advantage enjoyed by both of 

these subgrantees was the ability to draw on strong computer training offerings that 

already existed within the colleges prior to BTW50+: WESI. This made it possible to 

sustain the computer skills training after the end of the program period. 

How Will Subgrantees Incorporate the BTW50+: WESI Program Model 

Moving Forward? 

In telephone interviews conducted near the end of program implementation, the five 

subgrantees who were still active (all but SFCC-NM) highlighted two different ways their 

institutions might apply the lessons learned from their BTW50+: WESI implementation 

experience. These were not mutually exclusive. 

First, all five of the subgrantees hoped they would be able to continue supporting the reemployment needs of older women. Three planned to do so through additional funding; two of 

these subsequently won smaller continuation grants of $75,000 each from AARP Foundation 

under the BTW50+ Classic program model. Using this lower level of funding, these subgrantees 

planned to offer an abridged version of career coaching and core services workshops (perhaps 

one-day workshops) and piece together additional program components as possible using other 

resources available through their institutions. The third of these subgrantees was seeking 

substantial funding ($175,000) from the college to develop a “Senior Institute” that would 

continue to serve older students; this subgrantee had secured strong institutional support for its 

proposal. The remaining two subgrantees hoped to offer one-time or lighter-touch services, such 

as a workshop or job club, but were not planning to secure specific additional funding to do so.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 27

Beyond sustaining specific services for women age 50 and older, three of the five subgrantees 

also planned to adopt some of the strategies and services tested as part of the BTW50+: WESI

grants for dissemination to a broader group of students at their colleges. For example, one 

subgrantee hoped to replicate some of the core services workshops within the college’s 

continuing education department. Another hoped to support enriched career services for all 

students at the college. A third planned to continue to offer short-term computer skills training 

and occupational skills training courses to all students through its workforce education division, 

although it had not yet secured any funding to provide tuition scholarships for students enrolled 

in these courses.

Subgrantee respondents also indicated that, as a result of their participation in the BTW50+: 

WESI grant, their institutions had been sensitized to the needs of older women and to the 

opportunities associated with serving them. These respondents anticipated that the college 

career coaches would “look at the population of older students totally differently now” when 

they interacted with them as career center managers; a program manager at CSB noted similar 

potential for the workforce development system, reporting that the program (and working with 

AARP Foundation to implement it) “definitely opened our eyes to a group of customers that we 

weren’t servicing before,” and surfaced the value that mature workers have for employers. 

Regardless of sustaining specific program elements, then, subgrantees felt that they could 

sustain the program’s broader message about the importance of serving older women due to 

this heightened awareness of the population’s needs and potential.

What Do These Findings Mean? 

BTW50+: WESI subgrantees operated their programs in diverse contexts and had access to 

significant implementation support from AARP Foundation to do so. Subsequent chapters 

explore how these subgrantees drew on their unique local contexts to attract and enroll job 

candidates and to customize the program model to be appropriate for their institutions. 

Additionally, because subgrantee institutions plan to sustain elements of the program model 

moving forward, understanding the essential features of implementation under the SIF program 

and the extent to which job candidates were satisfied with these services is of particular 

relevance, as it will help these institutions prioritize which components to continue with more 

limited funding. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 28

This page is deliberately left blank.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 29

Chapter III: BTW50+: WESI Job Candidates 

To provide context for findings on both program implementation and participant experiences, 

this chapter describes BTW50+: WESI subgrantees’ experiences recruiting job candidates for the 

program, including the challenges they faced in doing so. The chapter also presents the 

demographic characteristics of the job candidates who participated in the program. Taken 

together, this information provides an understanding of how the subgrantees recruited and 

enrolled individuals who closely matched the population for which the program was designed, 

providing context for later chapters on their satisfaction, attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes. 

What Populations Did the Program Target?

As reported in the interim implementation report, AARP Foundation designed the BTW50+: WESI

program to meet the needs of low-income women aged 50 to 64 who were unemployed or 

underemployed and seeking full-time work. AARP Foundation defined the ideal job candidate as 

having prior work experience but needing skill upgrades or computer training to compete in the 

current job market. For example, job candidates were required to hold a high school diploma or 

GED so that they already had a basic educational foundation. AARP Foundation also advised 

subgrantees that job candidates who were homeless or had serious mental health challenges 

were expected to be referred to other programs, to meet their immediate needs, until they 

could fully engage in training or a job search. In addition, while BTW50+: WESI was designed to 

Key Findings 

• Subgrantees used AARP Foundation guidance and communication materials as the 

core of their outreach. They also implemented various customized recruitment

strategies, from community outreach to more sophisticated social media 

advertising. 

• Collectively, subgrantees enrolled more than the original target set by AARP 

Foundation, and generally enrolled most applicants. Because of this, a selection 

rubric provided by AARP Foundation was used more as a general guide than a 

determining factor for accepting job candidates into the program.

• Job candidates’ demographic characteristics align with the program’s target 

population in terms of age, gender, education level, income, and employment status. 

Overall, program data show that subgrantees were successful in reaching and 

enrolling the target population. Most enrolled candidates were female (87 

percent), unemployed (74 percent), aged 50–64 (80 percent), and had annual 

incomes under $40,000 (87 percent). 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 30

focus on the needs of women aged 50–64, the program did not exclude men or those outside 

the target age range who were otherwise qualified for participation.14 

How Did Subgrantees Recruit Job Candidates?

As described in the interim implementation report, to assist in attracting the target population, 

AARP Foundation offered extensive marketing guidance and tools, administered a call center 

that represented the first point of contact with the program for most interested job candidates, 

and provided a standard PowerPoint template for the introductory 7 Smart Strategies workshop. 

These resources leveraged the AARP Foundation brand and experience with the eligible 

population and reduced the burden on individual subgrantees to develop appropriate 

recruitment and outreach models from scratch. Exhibit III-1 illustrates the basic BTW50+: WESI

outreach and recruitment model from the perspective of a potential job candidate. 

Exhibit III-1: Standard BTW50+: WESI Outreach and Recruitment Model 

Learn of program 

(e.g., through 

newspaper ad, 

flyer, social media)

Contact call center 

via toll-free 

number

Receive 7 Smart 

Strategies guide in 

the mail

Attend 7 Smart 

Strategies 

workshop

In each subgrantee location, job candidates first learned about the program from outreach 

materials, word of mouth, or a referral. To get connected to the program, they called an AARP 

Foundation call center via a toll-free number, and operators screened for initial eligibility and 

signed potential job candidates up for the next local 7 Smart Strategies workshop. The call center 

also mailed potential applicants a 7 Smart Strategies guide, which included program information 

and advice about the job search process. 

As part of the standardized recruitment and outreach approach, AARP Foundation provided 

subgrantees with detailed marketing and communications guidance and tools. These included 

suggested messaging, marketing copy, a radio ad script, approved social media posts, grassroots 

marketing ideas, and a variety of flyers, posters, postcards, and other outreach materials. 

Messaging highlighted the resiliency and strength of the target applicant group by featuring 

pictures of diverse older women at work and in classroom settings. 

In addition to providing this messaging, AARP Foundation recommended that subgrantees 

contextualize these tools in their own communities, such as by conducting outreach with local 

partners. For the most part, subgrantees adhered closely to this model and used AARP 

Foundation guidance and materials as the core of their outreach. 

 

14 After the award of the SIF grant, AARP Foundation and CNCS determined that, because the program received 

federal funding, it could target women within the desired age group but had to be open to all applicants. 

Marketing materials therefore included a standard disclaimer: “This program is available to all, without regard 

to race, color, national origin, disability, sex, age, political affiliation, or religion.” 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 31

Various customized outreach strategies were implemented by subgrantees, from community 

outreach to more sophisticated social media advertising. Most subgrantees also recruited 

candidates from other programs within their community colleges. For instance, SF-FL drew a few 

applicants in each wave from its Displaced Homemaker Program, and EFSC/CSB sent postcards 

to older women who had been previously connected to the community college, such as women 

who enrolled in a program or course but subsequently dropped out.

In addition to the considerable support they received from AARP Foundation, some subgrantees 

also relied on assistance from their institution’s own marketing departments. For example, MDC 

worked with its marketing department to purchase interior bus ads and advertisements on 

Pandora online radio to promote BTW50+: WESI. The program director 

reported that the marketing department helped them think through 

and fine tune their existing outreach and recruitment strategies. For 

example, while they were already promoting BTW50+: WESI on radio 

stations, the marketing department advised them to run their 

advertisements at 7am and 5pm, during the morning and afternoon 

commutes. 

All subgrantees hosted websites and Facebook pages promoting their 

programs. For example, JSCC advertised the 7 Smart Strategies 

workshop on its website home page as "Free Job Seeker Workshops 

for Ages 50 and Over," with links to the AARP Foundation call center 

number and a web page that described the BTW50+: WESI coaching 

and training program. Staff explained that these initial information 

sources were “shared like crazy” online. They were proud that a recent 

post on Facebook had 460 likes and 147 shares. ACC designed a 

BTW50+: WESI website that was mobile friendly and included a “call 

now” button for the call center, as well as short videos of participants’ 

success stories. 

How Were Job Candidates Selected?

In order to select job candidates who fit the target criteria, subgrantees relied mostly on the 

application for coaching, which interested individuals completed at the end of the 7 Smart 

Strategies workshop. This application contained information such as occupations of interest, 

highest level of education completed, current employment status, work experience, 

employment goals, interest in BTW50+: WESI program services, and whether their self-reported 

income was under or over $40,000 a year. To complement this application, career coaches at 

two subgrantees also conducted one-on-one interviews to get a more complete picture of 

applicants’ strengths and needs. One subgrantee’s career coaches used a prescreening checklist 

to help assess these potential challenges. Beyond this checklist, no subgrantees used additional 

suitability assessments to select job candidates. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 32

Program administrators and career coaches from all subgrantees met to select wave members 

together, and they used a rubric developed by AARP Foundation to do so. This rubric awarded 

one point for each of the preferred criteria listed below in Exhibit III-2. 

Exhibit III-2: AARP Foundation Job Candidate Selection Rubric 

• Interest in in-demand jobs highlighted by this subgrantee

• Educational level between high school diploma/GED and bachelor’s degree

• Unemployed or underemployed 

• Income below $40,000

• Seeking full-time work

• Not currently receiving job search training

• Previous long-term work experience

• Expressed interest in skills training provided through BTW50+: WESI

Subgrantees varied somewhat as to how flexible they were with the criteria and whether they 

made exceptions. One program administrator said, for example, that she preferred job 

candidates who met at least three of the criteria. Two subgrantees made exceptions to the 

requirement that candidates were looking for full-time employment; at one subgrantee, staff 

found that, although full-time employment was always the preferred goal, part-time 

employment was sometimes a stepping stone toward the goal of full-time employment. The 

project director remarked that several participants needed to work part time because of 

responsibilities caring for children living in the home (either their own or their grandchildren), as 

well as caregiving responsibilities for older relatives. 

How Successful Were Recruitment and Enrollment Efforts? 

Overall, subgrantees reported that they received sufficient applications from individuals who fit 

the age range and who had strong educational backgrounds and work histories, though not in 

such large numbers as to necessitate turning qualified candidates away. Most subgrantees 

enrolled all applicants who met the selection rubric criteria and completed a 7 Smart Strategies 

workshop. 

Typical candidates were well educated yet still had trouble securing employment due to 

outdated skills, age discrimination, or efforts to make a career change. For example, at one 

subgrantee, coaches described the ideal applicant as someone with a desire to get into the 

workforce, who needed to “update her job search skills and develop more confidence.” Staff 

from another subgrantee described the ideal job candidate as someone who had worked part

time and needed a full-time job for economic stability, or someone who had worked for a single 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 33

employer for a long time, became unemployed, and needed training to expand her narrow jobspecific skills to find a new job. 

Notably, one concern was reported early in the evaluation and did not ultimately materialize: 

Multiple subgrantee respondents were initially concerned about cohort cohesion when they 

learned that they were required by law not to turn away qualified men who wanted to enroll in 

the program, which was designed and advertised for women specifically; they ultimately found 

that the few men who enrolled were able to integrate socially into their waves and that they did 

not require programming changes.

Subgrantees noted several challenges related to recruiting and serving their target populations: 

reaching subpopulations, serving the long-term unemployed, and competition for applicants.

• Reaching subpopulations. As described in the interim report, some program 

administrators and career coaches said that their ability to enroll certain targeted 

subpopulations—such as women from rural, Spanish-speaking, or Native American 

communities—had been limited, perhaps because the program did not always meet their 

needs. For example, transportation posed a significant barrier to participation for those 

living farther away from campus. Language barriers were also a challenge: Staff members 

from two subgrantees noted they tried to reach women in the Hispanic community

through community outreach and Spanish radio ads, but neither of these subgrantees 

offered fully bilingual services, which limited the program’s relevance for monolingual 

Spanish-speaking women. Program staff from another subgrantee questioned whether 

the program was culturally appropriate for Native American women in the area, citing 

that fewer were looking for full-time work due to caretaking and other community 

responsibilities. 

• Serving the long-term unemployed. Program staff reported that they found it more 

challenging to serve candidates who had been out of the job market for longer periods, 

preferring to work with those who were underemployed or had recently become 

unemployed. At one college, for example, career coaches thought that the ideal job 

candidate was one who had been unemployed for six months or less. They noted that the 

longer someone had been out of the labor force, the longer it would take to reconnect.

They also noted that job candidates faced competitive job markets and sometimes had 

unrealistic salary expectations. This was especially noted when candidates were trying to 

move into a new fields or specializations. One coach expressed that sometimes 

candidates had unrealistic expectations about how hard it is to change fields, explaining 

that “[t]hey often don’t want to take a step back in salary or hours to get a foot in the 

door for a new career area.” 

• Competition for applicants. One college struggled with enrollment throughout the 

implementation period because a nearby AJC was operating a BTW50+ Classic program. 

Despite encouragement and support from AARP Foundation, the two programs were 

unable to coordinate timing of their enrollment or develop a partnership to triage 

candidates in support of both programs’ enrollment goals.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 34

Who Were BTW50+: WESI Job Candidates? 

As noted in Chapter I, AARP Foundation’s SIF grant application specified that subgrantees would, 

collectively, enroll 1,400 individuals. As shown below in Exhibit III-3, by the end of program 

implementation, subgrantees were able to surpass that target and enroll 1,868 individuals 

collectively. There was, however, wide variation with respect to how many job candidates each 

subgrantee enrolled.

Exhibit III-3: Total Job Candidate Enrollment by Subgrantee (N=1,868), 2015-2018 

ACC

EFSC

JSCC

SFC-FL

MDC

SFCC-NM 125

172

326

354

406

485

Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018

Subgrantees enrolled job candidates who closely matched the criteria in the selection rubric for 

participation in BTW50+: WESI. Exhibit III-4 displays the data for age, gender, and race/ethnicity. 

As targeted by the program’s focus on the needs of older women, the vast majority of job 

candidates were female (86.6 percent) and over the age of 50 (96.4 percent). In keeping with the 

program’s eligibility criteria, 80 percent (denoted with darker shading) were in the target age 

range of 50 to 64 years old. The average age of the job candidates was 58, with ages ranging

from 34 to 83 years old. Exhibit III-4 also displays the breakdown of job candidates by 

race/ethnicity, though subgrantees did not have any specific goals or targets for these 

characteristics. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 35

Exhibit III-4: Age, Gender, Race, and Ethnicity of BTW50+: WESI Job Candidates 

Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018 

Overall, subgrantees also generally enrolled candidates who met the criteria in the selection 

rubric for income and employment, as shown in Exhibit III-5. For example, most job candidates 

(87.1 percent) reported having an income under $40,000 at the time of enrollment; similarly, 

almost three quarters of all job candidates were unemployed. One quarter were working part 

time (15.2 percent) or full time (10.5 percent), but they were often in less skilled jobs in order to 

make ends meet while they tried to find better-paying full-time work. Finally, consistent with 

anecdotal reports from subgrantee staff, job candidates had sufficient educational attainment to 

succeed in the workforce: most (86.5 percent) met the criteria of having an educational 

attainment level between a high school diploma or GED and a bachelor’s degree. Of the 

remainder, less than 1 percent lacked a high school diploma or GED, and 13.1 percent had a 

postgraduate degree. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 36

Exhibit III-5: Income, Education, and Employment of BTW50+: WESI Job Candidates 

Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018

What Do These Findings Mean? 

Subgrantees used AARP Foundation’s materials and guidelines to conduct targeted recruitment 

of job candidates, resulting in enrollment levels that exceeded the Foundation’s initial target and 

job candidates who closely matched the selection criteria established for the program in terms 

of age, gender, previous educational attainment, income, and employment status. Given that the 

initiative was able to successfully recruit and enroll its target population, subgrantees were in an 

ideal position to deliver a model designed specifically for women age 50 and older. The next 

chapter explores the extent to which that model was implemented as intended.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 37

This page is deliberately left blank.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 38

Chapter IV: Service Design and Quality 

This chapter describes the design of subgrantees’ BTW50+: WESI services, including individual 

elements of services, how services evolved over the course of the program implementation 

period, how they varied by subgrantee, and the extent to which service elements were 

implemented with fidelity to the program model. These findings provide context for later 

chapters that address service intensity and dosage, as well as job candidates’ satisfaction with 

services received. 

Key Findings 

• Over the course of the implementation period, subgrantees made significant 

progress implementing all components of the BTW50+: WESI model. For the most 

part, subgrantees demonstrated growth in the strength of their models as 

implementation went on, with the exception of some limited reductions in fidelity 

between the second and third implementation site visits. The highest levels of 

implementation fidelity were seen for the computer skills training and career 

coaching. 

• There was some variation in the details of how program components were provided, 

but subgrantees generally coalesced on a replicable BTW50+: WESI model. The 

components with the least variation tended to be those for which AARP 

Foundation had provided additional guidance. The model still allowed for flexibility 

that took into account the needs of subgrantees’ specific job candidate populations

and institutional contexts. 

• Consistent with previous findings, employer engagement remained the most 

challenging component of the model for subgrantees to implement. As might be 

expected, subgrantees that closely involved their workforce development system 

with the program from the start of the implementation period were most 

successful in engaging employers. 

How Did the Evaluation Measure Implementation Fidelity? 

As noted in the introduction, the evaluation team developed a fidelity assessment checklist

(included in this report as Appendix B) to document subgrantee progress toward fidelity to the 

BTW50+: WESI program model. The fidelity assessment checklist specified six critical elements of 

the model: career coaching, computer skills training, financial capability building, job search 

skills, employer engagement, and connections to training. For each of these key elements, the 

checklist described what particular practices needed to be in place in order for a subgrantee

program to achieve fidelity (shown in Exhibit IV-1 below). 

The checklist was used as a formal guide at each site visit to ensure consistency in how site 

visitors evaluated the colleges’ progress toward required core elements. To help ensure this 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 39

consistency, prior to each round of implementation study site visits, site visitors received training 

in how to use the fidelity assessment checklist to promote inter-rater reliability. Where possible, 

the same site visitor (or pair of site visitors) conducted all three visits to a particular college in 

order to promote understanding of the subgrantee’s program and progress. 

Exhibit IV-1: Key Elements of the BTW50+: WESI Model (Fidelity Checklist) 

Key Element 1: Career Coaching

1.1 Coaching provides a sequence of activities that help job candidates assess their skills and 

interests, identify transferable skills, and focus on career paths they want to pursue. 

1.2 Coaching provides the support necessary to build job candidate confidence. 

1.3 Coaches link candidates to appropriate supportive services and outside resources to help them 

achieve their employment and training goals. 

Key Element 2: Computer Skills Training

2.1 Computer skills training is tailored to the needs of each job candidate specifically and older 

workers generally. 

2.2 The curriculum of the computer skills upgrade is flexible and geared towards both job search and 

workplace needs.

Key Element 3: Financial Capability Building

3.1 The financial capability building component includes best practices from Finances 50+, such as 

being interactive, and is geared towards the needs of job candidates who are 50 or older.

3.2 The financial capability building component is contextualized within the local community and 

takes advantage of its resources.

Key Element 4: Job Search Skills Training 

4.1

Career coaches are able to provide job candidates with targeted advice about job searching, have 

developed relationships with local employers, and are knowledgeable about recruitment, 

screening, and hiring practices of local employers in the occupations of interest to job candidates.

4.2 The program provides its own targeted support for job placement/job search skills training that is 

tailored to the needs of job candidates.

Key Element 5: Employer Engagement 

5.1

The program engages in employer outreach and education activities to inform local employers of 

the value of the 50+ workforce and BTW50+: WESI job candidates and provides opportunities for 

job candidates to have contact with local employers.

Key Element 6: Connections to Training 

6.1 Training options are both tailored to the needs of the job candidate population and broad

enough to give them adequate choice.

6.2 Support is provided to job candidates in training and is tailored to their needs. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 40

Was the Model Implemented as Intended? 

Subgrantees had some flexibility in designing their services. However, over the course of the 

grant and after receiving guidance from AARP Foundation, most began offering services during a 

condensed but intensive core services period of coaching and workshops that lasted from one to 

three weeks. Subgrantees reported that a shorter core services period increased job candidate 

retention in BTW50+: WESI and could be supplemented with additional support as needed. 

In addition to core services, the other major element of the BTW50+: WESI model involved 

connecting interested job candidates to occupational skills training and providing them with 

support throughout their time in training. The model assumed that only a subset of job 

candidates who needed to upgrade existing skills or to develop new skills to prepare for their 

employment goals would enroll in training. Subgrantees were expected to develop or connect 

job candidates to a range of training options that would be of interest to them and that would

prepare them for employment in local, in-demand jobs that could offer economic stability. 

Based on data collected during the site visit 

interviews, observations, and focus groups, 

site visitors rated each subgrantee as having 

“fully implemented,” “partially implemented,” 

or “not yet implemented” each element of the 

program model. The checklist and fidelity 

ratings did not contain specific thresholds, but 

rather allowed the site visitor to indicate 

progression over the course of program

implementation. After each visit, the study 

team analyzed fidelity checklist data to rank 

the implementation progress of each program 

element. The analysis below illustrates the 

evolution of fidelity to specific elements and 

to the overall BTW50+: WESI program model, 

and notes variations across subgrantees within 

the parameters of implementation fidelity. 

How to Interpret Fidelity Scores in This 

Chapter 

Numerical scores in graphs for each element 

indicate the extent of implementation 

fidelity, where “not yet implemented” has a 

value of 0, “partially implemented” has a 

value of .5, and “fully implemented” had a 

value of 1. For example, if an element is 

rated as .75, it falls between partially and 

fully implemented. 

Key Element 1: Career Coaching 

The career coaching component of the model involved career coaches working directly with job 

candidates to help them achieve their training and employment goals. This was conducted 

through a series of one-on-one and group coaching sessions where confidence building was a 

major focus. Career coaches also developed opportunities for job candidates to learn from and 

support each other, such as during brown bag sessions or job clubs. The coaching component of 

BTW50+: WESI was well defined by AARP Foundation. Across subgrantees, adherence to the 

coaching model was very high, nearly fully implemented by most subgrantees. Each of the three 

recommended elements of the career coaching model is described below. 
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 41

1 

The BTW50+: WESI career coaching model offered a sequence of activities to help job 

candidates assess their skills and interests, identify transferable skills, and focus on the 

career paths they wanted to pursue. In assessing whether a subgrantee met this 

model element, site visitors reviewed program design and operations to determine 

whether: 

• Career coaches conducted assessments and skill-and-interest inventories of job

candidates starting from the first one-on-one coaching session.

• Job candidates created realistic service plans with achievable goals and updated

these plans as needs changed.

• Career coaches used labor market information to make recommendations for

appropriate career paths.

• Career coaches encouraged job candidates to apply for scholarship support or

other programs that could help them achieve their goals.

By the third implementation site visit, all of the subgrantees had achieved full fidelity to this first 

element of the career coaching model. 

The BTW50+: WESI career coaching model provided job candidates with the support 

necessary to build confidence. In assessing whether a subgrantee met this model 

element, site visitors reviewed program design and operations to determine whether: 

2 

• Career coaches completed at least one coaching session with each cohort or job

candidate.

• Career coaches had experience working with older workers or had training on

how best to serve this population.

• Career coaches conducted case conferencing with other career coaches or staff

who worked with job candidates.

• Job candidates met one-on-one with career coaches to address sensitive issues.

• Job candidates had access to peer support groups to learn from each other.

By the third implementation site visit, all of the subgrantees had achieved full fidelity to the 

second element of the coaching model. 

In the BTW50+: WESI career coaching model, career coaches linked job candidates to 

supportive services and outside resources to help them achieve their employment and 

training goals. In assessing whether a subgrantee met this model element, site visitors 

reviewed program design and operations to determine whether: 

3 

• Career coaches conducted supportive services assessments so that they

understood job candidates’ unique situations and needs.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 42

• Career coaches worked with job candidates to develop plans to address barriers 

to training and work including transportation, child care, work clothing, books, 

and uniforms.

• Career coaches established relationships with primary referral agencies and 

conducted warm referrals for job candidates to these agencies.

Subgrantees were less complete in their implementation of this element, with only one 

subgrantee achieving full fidelity. All of the other subgrantees only partially implemented this 

element. The reason they were rated as less than fully successful on this element is that they did 

not tend to follow up on the referrals they made for job candidates to outside organizations; in 

fact, career coaches did not report making many outside referrals. Subgrantee staff tended to 

think that this element of the model was not necessary, given the needs of the job candidate 

population. Either job candidates did not need many supportive services or career coaches 

thought that having them follow up with a referral better protected job candidate privacy and 

gave them an important opportunity to practice self-advocacy. As a result, by the final site visit in 

2017, subgrantee staff members were not actively trying to increase fidelity to this coaching 

element. 

Evolution of Career Coaching 

Subgrantee fidelity to BTW50+: WESI’s coaching component rose steadily across the three 

rounds of implementation site visits. As seen in Exhibit IV-2, it approached full implementation 

by the 2017 visit. 

Exhibit IV-2: Career Coaching Fidelity Over Time 

Source: Fidelity Checklist Data Analysis, 2018

To achieve this higher level of fidelity, across the program implementation period subgrantees 

generally increased their number of one-on-one coaching sessions, began incorporating labor 
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 43

market information into coaching, and paid more attention to developing individualized service 

plans for job candidates. These improvements occurred organically, as subgrantees had more 

time to develop a mature program model, as well as in response to clarification about the 

required elements and the desired intensity of career coaching provided by AARP Foundation in 

early 2016. 

Variations in Career Coaching 

For the most part, subgrantees used similar designs for delivering coaching services that tended 

to emphasize one-on-one support, confidence building, and opportunities for job candidates to 

learn from each other. Less attention was paid to referrals to off-campus supportive services 

organizations. By the final implementation site visit, there was little significant variation across 

subgrantees in the fidelity ratings of coaching and cohort-building services. The one exception 

was the aforementioned warm referrals one subgrantee provided to an on-campus resource 

center; this enabled them to achieve full implementation of the third element.

Key Element 2: Computer Skills Training 

Across subgrantees, training was provided to help job candidates develop computer skills, with 

an eye toward achieving the level of competency required for a successful job search and 

employment in a desired occupation. Career coaches and program administrators indicated that 

helping job candidates improve their computer confidence and expertise was critical for 

employment. They also noted, however, that the component was challenging to design, given 

the substantial variation in job candidates’ computer experience and preexisting knowledge. 

Despite these inherent challenges, all subgrantees achieved full fidelity to the desired computer 

skills training model by the final implementation site visit, making it the most fully implemented 

component. The two elements of the computer skills training fidelity are described below. 

Computer skills training was tailored to the needs of each job candidate specifically, 

and older workers generally. In assessing whether a subgrantee met this model 

element, site visitors reviewed program design and operations to determine whether: 

1 

• The college conducted an assessment of each job candidate’s current level of

experience, knowledge, and skills using computers in order to place them in an

appropriate skills upgrade class. This assessment covered a broad range of

computer skills, including those needed for job searching, employment, and

training.

• The level of computer skills training targeted for a job candidate was matched to

the job skills required in the occupations the job candidate was targeting.

• The design and delivery of computer skills training took into account the

particular needs of job candidates for confidence-building exercises, extra time

for questions, extended time for hands-on practice, one-on-one instruction as

needed (through instruction or tutoring), and a choice of the mode of training

(e.g., online, blended, classroom-based).
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 44

• Several levels of instruction could be arranged to meet the varying needs of job

candidates, starting at a basic skills computer literacy workshop and working up

to more advanced software classes.

By the final implementation site visit, all five subgrantees had fully implemented this element of 

the computer skills training. 

The curriculum of the computer skills training was flexible and geared toward both job 

search and workplace needs. In assessing whether a subgrantee met this model 

element, site visitors reviewed program design and operations to determine whether: 

2 

• The computer skills training provided appropriate breadth to each job candidate,

including instruction in at least three areas (e.g., web browsing, social media,

online job search sites and tools, completing online job applications) in order to

support job searching, promote success in training, and ensure facility with

software most frequently used in the workplace.

• Trainings on special computer skills needed for specific occupations were

available to candidates who needed them.

• The computer skills training allowed for progress over time and built on a

stackable model. Job candidates could build on current skills and continue

learning beyond the 10-week core services program, if interested.

• Whenever possible, the program adapted and drew on existing computer training

resources available in the community.

• The program identified other resources for computer skills trainings as needed—

for example, through an Individual Training Account or other community

resources.

As with the first element of the computer skills training, all subgrantees had achieved full fidelity 

to this second element by the final round of site visits.

Evolution of Computer Skills Training 

As seen in Exhibit IV-3, subgrantee fidelity to BTW50+: WESI’s computer skills training 

component rose greatly over the three visits, with an especially big jump between the 2015 visit 

and the 2016 visit. All subgrantees had achieved full implementation fidelity by the 2017 visit. 

There were several reasons for the progress in computer skills training implementation. First, 

subgrantees became increasingly aware of the importance of computer skills for job candidate 

success as they heard more about employer needs and job candidate confidence levels with 

computers. Second, AARP Foundation provided more guidance and support about this element 

after the first site visit. At that time, they emphasized the value of using the NorthStar Digital 

Literacy Assessment to ensure job candidates received the type of upgrade that matched their 

needs; they also provided subgrantees with licenses for Lynda.com, an online platform that 

provides training in a variety of areas, including computer skills, and that can be used for 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 45

independent, online computer training. In addition, subgrantees noticed the variation in job 

candidate computer skill levels and began to develop multiple levels of training, including 

intermediate and advanced options.15 

Exhibit IV-3: Computer Skills Training Fidelity Over Time 

Source: Fidelity Checklist Data Analysis, 2018

Variations in Computer Skills Training 

Even though all subgrantees achieved full fidelity to the computer skills training element, there 

was a fair amount of variation in how it was provided. This reflected both the different ways the 

subgrantees approached the service and the differing computer skills needs within the job 

candidate population. One major variation was whether subgrantees created dedicated 

computer skills programming for BTW50+: WESI, connected job candidates to existing college or 

online resources, or did a combination of both. 

The majority of subgrantees used a combination of instructional sources. In these cases, they 

provided dedicated computer skills training to BTW50+: WESI job candidates during the core 

services period and also connected them to Lynda.com, GCF Learn Free, or college courses for 

more advanced instruction. There was variation in whether subgrantees used online, in-person, 

or a blended online/in-person format for the delivery of computer skills training, with most using 

a blended approach. 

 

15 Even after the third site visit, subgrantees continued to add additional computer skills options. For example, 

during the final phone calls in the summer of 2018, ACC reported adding a Google Suite certificate and short, 

supplemental “lunch and go” classes. In contrast, reliance on Lynda.com lessened over time, with some 

subgrantee staff members reporting that job candidates struggled to use the platform without in-person 

support. 
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 46

Key Element 3: Financial Capability Building 

The BTW50+: WESI model also included support for financial capability building to help job 

candidates manage their finances and think about their future stability. Toward this end, AARP 

Foundation provided subgrantees with a fully developed curriculum, including a workbook and 

recorded modules for Finances 50+, “a financial capability program designed to motivate and 

empower participants...to take charge of their financial future and make the most of the financial 

resources that they have.”16 The course included budgeting and goal setting, taking charge of 

credit and debt, developing a savings plan, and protecting assets.

As this was a very standardized program component, it is not surprising that, by the final site visit 

in 2017, all subgrantees had achieved the same overall level of fidelity, between partially and 

fully implemented. The two elements of the fidelity measure are described below. 

The financial capability building component included best practices from Finances 50+, 

such as being interactive and geared towards the needs of job candidates who were 50 

or older. In assessing whether a subgrantee met this model element, site visitors 

reviewed program design and operations to determine whether: 

1 

• The curriculum mapped onto Finances 50+, which could be adapted to the local

context as needed. It included the recommended depth of instruction on:

− setting goals and making a plan to achieve them,

− creating a budget and prioritizing needs and wants,

− understanding and managing debt and credit as well as consumer rights,

− maximizing credit scores,

− saving money by increasing income or reducing spending,

− recognizing the signs of a scam,

− knowing where to turn with concerns about financial fraud or a scam, and

− having the motivation and opportunity to put knowledge gained into action

immediately to increase financial stability.

• Real life financial examples relevant to those age 50+ (e.g., retirement goal

setting, social security, financial planning for health needs) were included.

• The program included interactive activities.

All subgrantees had achieved full fidelity to this element of the financial capability building 

component by the second site visit and had maintained this score at the final site visit in 2017. 

This fidelity was due to consistent use of the Finances 50+ curriculum.

The financial capability building component was contextualized within the local 

2 community and took advantage of its resources. In assessing whether a subgrantee 

16 From AARP Foundation’s Back to Work 50+: WESI Playbook, revised April 2016.
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 47

met this model element, site visitors reviewed program design and operations to 

determine whether: 

• The program referred job candidates to resources in the community that assisted

with building savings and reducing debt.

• The program provided information about income supports and financial aid that

were available to job candidates.

As of the third implementation study site visit, all of the subgrantees had partially achieved 

fidelity to this second element of the component. While subgrantees provided information about 

income supports and financial aid, they chose not to connect job candidates to local community 

resources (including those designed to assist with building savings and reducing debt). Some 

subgrantee staff members explained that this was because they did not want to be seen as 

promoting specific financial products or institutions. 

Evolution of Financial Capability Building 

As seen in Exhibit IV-4, subgrantee fidelity to the financial capability training component was 

nearly stable across all three study visits, with just a very slight dip during the fall 2016 visit. No 

subgrantees achieved full fidelity to the element because, as described above, they decided that 

involving outside financial institutions did not align with their goals for the program. 

Exhibit IV-4: Financial Capability Building Fidelity Over Time 

Source: Fidelity Checklist Data Analysis, 2018

The lower level of fidelity in the second year was due in part to the fact that two subgrantees did 

not yet provide information about income supports or financial aid, but later added on more 
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 48

services in this area.17 Staff members from one subgrantee noted that they worried at first that it 

would be an invasion of job candidate privacy to do an assessment to see if income supports 

were needed. By the final site visit in 2017, however, this subgrantee was directing job 

candidates to an online self-assessment to educate them about their income and savings needs 

in a more confidential way.

Another evolution in the provision of financial capability training was that several subgrantee 

staff grew to appreciate the component more as time went on. Some expressed initial concern 

that the component was less engaging than others or that the content was difficult for job 

candidates without an income to put into practice. Over time, however, these subgrantees 

added supplemental content (described below) to make the component better suited to the 

needs of the job candidates they served. 

Variations in Financial Capability Building 

All subgrantees achieved the same fidelity score for the financial capability training component, 

and overall there was little significant variation in its timing or intensity. However, as noted 

above, some subgrantees added their own additional content beyond the set curriculum to 

enrich the material. For example, ACC and JSCC added videos on topics like credit scores, identify 

theft, or personal finance to liven up the sessions; at EFSC/CSB, a coach modeled affordable 

interview outfits she had purchased at local thrift stores. 

Key Element 4: Job Search Skills Training 

Per the program model, job search skills training was a critical element of BTW50+: WESI. This 

service was provided both during the initial delivery of core services and as a continuing support, 

as needed, to individual job candidates during their search for employment after core services 

ended. It included workshops on topics like crafting resumes and conducting a job search as well 

as activities like mock interviews, all offered in close alignment with career coaching.

By the final site visit in 2017, implementation of the job search skills component fell between 

partially and fully implemented. The component consisted of two elements, described below. 

Staff members were familiar with local labor market trends and opportunities and were 

knowledgeable about local hiring practices in the targeted occupations. In assessing 

whether a subgrantee met this model element, site visitors reviewed program design 

and operations to determine whether:

1 

• Program staff members used up-to-date labor market information and provided

job candidates with details about training needed, working conditions, wages at

17 One subgrantee that was participating in BTW50+: WESI during the first visit had invited a representative from 

a local credit union, and therefore achieved a higher fidelity score for the second element of this component. 

This subgrantee was no longer receiving grant funds during the second and third visits, and so scores for these 

visits are lower than they might otherwise have been.
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 49

entry level, and opportunities for advancement for the careers in which they were

interested. 

• Program staff members had established relationships with local employers in the

fields of interest to job candidates and could describe employer hiring practices.

• The program had established connections to the local workforce development

system and connected job candidates to the resources available from local AJCs.

Subgrantee fidelity varied on this element, with two of the institutions achieving full fidelity and 

three only partially implementing the element. All subgrantees used up-to-date labor market 

information and training details; even as of the third visit, however, those that failed to fully 

implement this element either lacked a strong connection to their local AJC, lacked a strong 

connection to local employers, or both. 

The program provided job search skills training and job placement support that was 

tailored to the needs of job candidates. In assessing whether a subgrantee met this 

program element, site visitors reviewed program design and operations to determine 

whether:

2 

• The program offered workshops dedicated to project participants covering the

job search skills topics that incorporated the 7 Smart Strategies provided by the

AARP Foundation.

• Job candidates received instruction in current job search skills, including online

applications and job search websites, social media, and current resume, cover

letter, and interviewing methods (either in the above workshops dedicated to

BTW50+: WESI job candidates or through other programming offered by the

subgrantee).

• Job candidates had access to peer support during their job searches, for example

through participation in a job club or group coaching sessions.

• Job candidates in both the core services and training subgroups had access to job

search skills training and placement support, though they may have received it at

different times or through different channels.

Overall fidelity to this element was rated as high, with four of the subgrantees rated as achieving 

full implementation, and the fifth rated as having partially implemented the job search skills 

element. The subgrantee that was rated lower on fidelity to this element provided everything 

but peer support for job candidates during the job search process. 

Evolution of Job Search Skills Training 

As seen in Exhibit IV-5 on the next page, subgrantee fidelity to BTW50+: WESI’s job search skills 

component increased over time, with a slight dip between the 2016 and 2017 visits. This dip is 

mostly due to the fact that one subgrantee piloted an employer-based training internship but 

then had to stop it due to lack of funds. 
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 50

In general, subgrantees demonstrated significant progress towards the job search skills 

component over the course of the program implementation period, especially with regards to 

using labor market information (particularly after AARP Foundation provided some clarification 

around this after the 2015 site visit) and developing relationships with workforce system

partners. While two subgrantees employed AJC staff as career coaches from the beginning of the 

program implementation period, the others needed time to develop strong relationships with 

these outside organizations. Communication and coordination between BTW50+: WESI and local 

AJCs tended to improve over the course of the program implementation period, with later job 

candidates more likely to receive additional services (such as one-on-one AJC counseling sessions 

and employer panels) that program staff believed led to increased job opportunities. 

Exhibit IV-5: Job Search Skills Training Fidelity Over Time 

Source: Fidelity Checklist Data Analysis, 2018

Over time, most subgrantees identified working with job candidates on resumes as increasingly 

important. As they came to this realization, they added new resume workshops and provided 

more one-on-one resume support. As the job search skills component evolved, most 

subgrantees also increased training content on how to use computers to conduct job searches. 

Variations in Job Search Skills 

By the final site visit in 2017, the biggest variation the provision of this component was that two 

subgrantees which fully implemented the component earlier than other subgrantees had 

particularly close relationships with their local AJCs: In one case, career coaches were also AJC 

staff, and in another case, the local AJC took over complete management of BTW50+: WESI. Due 

to these preexisting relationships, and the extensive prior experience of staff in providing job 

search skills, these subgrantees had an easier time developing strong job search skills training.
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 51

Key Element 5: Employer Engagement 

Connecting job candidates to employment was perhaps the most important goal of BTW50+: 

WESI, so engaging employers throughout and after core services was an important component 

of the program model. Across subgrantees, related services included staff members reaching out 

to potential employers; employers connecting with job candidates during panels, job fairs, and 

mock interviews; and the occasional provision of work-based learning opportunities. Rather than 

being unique to BTW50+: WESI, such engagement was often arranged through an outside 

organization (such as an AJC) or another existing workforce-related division at the college. 

By the final site visit in 2017, employer engagement had the lowest fidelity score of any program 

component, though it still fell between partially and fully implemented overall. This component 

only had one element, described below. 

Programs arranged for employer engagement in the design and delivery of core 

services and created opportunities for employer contact with job candidates during the 

individual job search phase. To assess the level of fidelity to this program element, site 

visitors reviewed program design and operations to determine whether:

1 

• The program developed relationships with local employers in the targeted

occupations.

• Employers helped the program planners identify unmet labor market and training

needs.

• The program created opportunities to involve employers in work-based training

(e.g., internships, on-the-job training).

• Employers participated in job fairs at which BTW50+: WESI job candidates were

featured.

Subgrantee fidelity varied on the employer engagement element, with two achieving full fidelity, 

but the other three only partially achieving it. Those that did not reach full fidelity either did not 

provide internship or on-the-job training opportunities or did not provide support to job 

candidates in attending job fairs. 

Evolution of Employer Engagement 

While subgrantees struggled most with full implementation of the employer engagement 

component, they still made significant progress over time. As seen in Exhibit IV-6, subgrantees 

made a large leap in fidelity between the 2015 and 2016 visits (which may be due to AARP 

Foundation amending the Playbook, after discussion of findings from the first visit at the 

Learning Exchange, to specify that all job candidates should have three employer contacts), but 

then remained at the same level of fidelity for the third visit. 
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 52

Exhibit IV-6: Employer Engagement Fidelity Over Time 

Source: Fidelity Checklist Data Analysis, 2018

At the time of the final site visit in 2017, employer engagement was strongest for the two 

subgrantees that shared staff with their local AJCs and thus had access to those organizations’ 

longstanding employer relationships and existing services, such as job fairs and employer 

advisory panels. At that time, the other three subgrantees were still working to develop 

relationships with employers; they reported that doing so could be difficult, especially when the 

staff responsible for this work had not previously been involved in their college’s employer 

engagement efforts.

Program administrators hoped to prioritize building relationships with companies that offered

higher-wage jobs in their communities in order to support not just connection to employment, 

but employment at a living wage. This meant they had to be more careful about which 

employers to build relationships with and could not necessarily rely on the largest employers or 

those with frequent openings to meet job candidates’ needs for adequate income. These 

program administrators reported that job candidate employment rates increased near the end 

of the program, which they attributed partly to BTW50+: WESI programming enhancements, 

such as keeping in contact with job candidates longer after core services or engaging employers 

to participate in panels, mock interviews, and internships. 

Variations in Employer Engagement 

Not surprisingly, the two subgrantees that were most connected to their local AJCs were able to 

achieve the highest fidelity to the employer engagement component and were the only ones to 

fully implement it. Other than the extent to which subgrantees could rely on preexisting 

employer relationships, other variation across the employer engagement component included 

(1) the local labor market context (two subgrantees felt that their labor markets did not have

many higher wage opportunities); (2) whether work-based learning, such as internships and on-
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 53

the-job trainings, were available; and (3) the extent to which employers were involved in core 

services, for example by participating in employer panels or mock interviews. 

Key Element 6: Connections to Training 

When they initially created their BTW50+: WESI program designs, all subgrantees decided to 

connect job candidates to existing training offerings available at the participating colleges, either 

through credit-bearing or non-credit-bearing courses. Consequently, training services were 

focused on helping job candidates choose and succeed in appropriate trainings rather than on 

training development. Connections to training consisted of two key elements, described below. 

Across subgrantees, overall adherence to this component varied, ranging from partially 

implemented at one subgrantee to fully implemented at two others, with the remaining two

falling in between fully and partially implemented. 

The program offered a range of training options tailored to the needs of job 

candidates. In assessing whether a subgrantee implemented this model element, site 

visitors reviewed program design and operations to determine whether: 

1 

• Training options targeted local, in-demand occupations.

• Career coaches were familiar with the available training offerings across a wide

variety of occupational areas and parts of the college.

• Job candidates received individual coaching from the career coach or other

college staff to help them select training relevant to their employment goals.

• The recommended training options were of interest to older workers and

targeted towards their skill levels (building on skills they might already have).

• Short-term training was available to job candidates who wanted to get back to

work quickly.

Subgrantee fidelity to the first element of the connections to training component varied from 

partially to fully implemented. All career coaches were familiar with training options, provided 

individual coaching to help job candidates select training, and connected job candidates to 

training options that targeted locally in-demand occupations. Not all subgrantees offered shortterm trainings (eight weeks or less) or connected job candidates to training options that built on 

their existing skills. 

Providing support to job candidates during and after training. In assessing whether a 

subgrantee realized this model element, site visitors reviewed program design and 

operations to determine whether:

2

• BTW50+: WESI career coaches or other support persons checked in regularly with

training job candidates to ensure that their needs were being met during training.
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 54

• Job candidates in training received support from their peers (e.g., through peer

study groups or other activities involving contacts with other BTW50+: WESI

program participants).

• Job candidates identified with and felt supported by the BTW50+: WESI program

after completing core services and entering training.

Subgrantee fidelity to the second element of the connections to training component also varied 

from partially to fully implemented. The two subgrantees that were not assessed as reaching full

fidelity to this element did not create opportunities for job candidates in training to receive 

support from their peers, or they failed to have career coaches check in regularly with job 

candidates who were in training. 

Evolution of Connections to Training 

As displayed in Exhibit IV-7, subgrantees made steady progress with the implementation of the 

connections to training program component. Even those subgrantees that were slow to get 

training options off the ground provided job candidates with multiple choices by the final site 

visit in 2017. At the same time, for many subgrantees, the program’s emphasis on training (and 

subsequently on job candidate enrollment in training) also declined over time. This seemed to 

stem both from job candidates’ desire to get back to work as quickly as possible (and to forgo 

training) and a shift in the program’s focus to align more with that goal. Enrollment in training 

remained highest for subgrantees that offered very short-term training options. Nevertheless, 

fidelity to the component continued to rise because subgrantees provided the training 

connections and support outlined in the model, even if fewer job candidates than expected 

chose to follow this path. 

Program administrators reported that connecting job candidates to occupational skills training 

was complex because many were simply not prepared for it, despite the increased confidence 

they had gained from the program. Often, interest in and readiness for training did not align. 

According to program administrators, job candidates with more formal education (who might 

therefore be ready for community college coursework) did not always find it necessary to pursue 

additional training and preferred to get back to work quickly. By contrast, job candidates who 

were interested in training generally were not as prepared for community college programming 

and had trouble successfully completing it. Program administrators therefore found connections 

to training more challenging than anticipated, because job candidates who actually pursued 

training tended to need more support to do well. Some subgrantees began assessing or 

providing basic skills to job candidates going into training to ensure they would be able to 

succeed. 
BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 55

Exhibit IV-7: Connections to Training Fidelity Over Time 

Source: Fidelity Checklist Data Analysis, 2018

Variations in Connections to Training 

Subgrantees achieved different levels of fidelity to the connections to training component 

depending on whether they connected job candidates to appropriate trainings for their needs 

and whether they continued to offer BTW50+: WESI-specific support to job candidates 

throughout their time in training. While the support offered to job candidates in training tended 

to be fairly similar across subgrantees, there was variation in the types of training available. For 

example, all subgrantees required that training be in locally in-demand fields, but some offered 

access to a streamlined list of training options, while others were more flexible in the number of 

training opportunities available to job candidates. In addition, two subgrantees added additional 

training options even after the final site visit, with job candidates at JSCC given access to a new 

automotive manufacturing training program developed by the college’s workforce education 

division and EFSC/CSB connecting job candidates to new information technology trainings 

available through a for-profit provider. 

What Do These Findings Mean? 

During the program implementation period, subgrantees made clear gains in fidelity to the six 

elements of the model. They achieved between partial and full implementation on each program 

component, tending towards full implementation on most elements. They also offered a similar 

model with fairly minimal variation in their provision of services across subgrantees. The 

employer engagement component remained the most difficult for subgrantees to implement, 

which may have implications for the impact study if challenges with employer engagement made 

it harder for job candidates to find jobs offering economic stability. Because only some job 

candidates chose to enroll in occupational skills training, the impact study will also provide an 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 56

opportunity to assess whether participation in such training provided any additional benefit to 

those job candidates.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 57

Chapter V: Services Received By Job Candidates 

This chapter documents job candidates’ enrollment in and completion of BTW50+: WESI

services, both overall and for each of the six elements whose implementation was detailed in the 

previous chapter. Here, the discussion is extended to describe the frequency and intensity of 

services at the participant level utilizing FIS data, the individual-level participant data collected by 

subgrantees in AARP Foundation Impact System. 

Key Findings

• FIS data were not consistently populated across the implementation period. 

Inconsistencies in the data are likely due to a combination of variability in data 

collection and data entry practices across coaches, and changes in data collection 

procedures during implementation.

• Nearly all job candidates (over 96 percent) received individual coaching, primarily on 

job searches and career planning. Across and within subgrantees, on average, job 

candidates received more than the required two sessions of individual coaching.

• Service delivery and intensity for core services delivered in a group format were largely 

consistent with subgrantees’ reported implementation practices. The exception to this 

pattern was computer skills upgrade training, which was implemented with high 

fidelity but showed lower uptake than expected; it may be that job candidates with 

more advanced computer skills pursued self-directed, online trainings that coaches 

did not record.

How Did the Evaluation Measure Service Receipt? 

This chapter uses data from the FIS, a Salesforce database designed and maintained by AARP 

Foundation for its local programs, including BTW50+: WESI. At each subgrantee, coaches were 

instructed and trained to enter participant service and outcomes data into the FIS. They

recorded job candidates’ attendance at individual and group coaching sessions as well as their 

participation in workshops and classes on financial capability, computer skills upgrade training, 

and occupational skills training. Data included short descriptions of types of training, date(s) of 

participation, and whether the activity was completed. In presenting these data on receipt of 

each of these elements of core services, this chapter uses the color coding presented in earlier 

chapters for each element.

As with any multi-user, multi-site database, a key limitation of FIS data is that not all fields were 

consistently populated. This is likely due to a combination of the challenges subgrantees 

reported in the first year of using the FIS (described in more detail in the interim implementation 

report), variability in data collection and data entry practices across coaches, and changes in data 

collection procedures over the course of program implementation. For example, subgrantees did 

not start recording whether job candidates completed core services until 2017, and even then 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 58

they developed their own site-specific definitions of what completing core services meant. These

types of inconsistencies limit the types of analyses that can be conducted. For example, given 

missing data, it is not possible to present analyses by job candidate characteristics or timing of 

enrollment. As discussed in this chapter, however, FIS data are largely consistent with the

patterns reported by subgrantees during site visit interviews and the features of program 

implementation described in the previous chapters. 

What Services Did Job Candidates Receive? 

As described in Chapter II, subgrantees enrolled and provided at least some services to 1,868 job 

candidates in core services from July 2015 through the end of October 2018. Job candidates 

were considered enrolled if they were selected for coaching services, attended individual or 

group coaching sessions, and had a core services start date. Once enrolled, job candidates 

participated in individual and group coaching sessions focused on four of the elements of the 

model (career coaching, job search skills, connection to training, and employer engagement), as 

well as separate, dedicated workshops on financial capability building and computer skills 

upgrade training. 

Coaching 

Individual coaching was a central feature of BTW50+: WESI. After the first year of 

implementation, AARP Foundation specified that each job candidate should receive at least two 

individual coaching sessions during the core services period. FIS data indicate that nearly all job 

candidates (96 percent) received this service (Exhibit V-1). Coaching receipt was consistently 

high across and within subgrantees, ranging from 91 percent to 99 percent of job candidates. Job 

candidates also received individual coaching at or above the level of intensity specified by AARP 

Foundation: On average across all subgrantees, each job candidate received three individual 

coaching sessions, exceeding the prescribed minimum of two. While AARP Foundation did not 

specify a session length for coaching sessions, on average they lasted more than 45 minutes and, 

at some subgrantees, up to or over an hour. 

Exhibit V-1: Individual Coaching Session Attendance and Duration 

 

Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 59

Individual coaching sessions varied in thematic content but were focused primarily on four key 

program elements: 1) job search skills (job search plans, initial assesements, interview 

preparation); 2) career coaching (advice on resumes, cover letters, personal presentation, and 

job applications); 3) connection to training (career assessments and discussion of training 

options); and 4) employer engagement (work/volunteer experience and meeting employers). As 

shown below in Exhibit V-2, content analysis of individual coaching session topics (color coded by 

key element) indicated they largely focused on career coaching, followed by job search skills, 

connections to training, and employer engagement. 

Exhibit V-2: Thematic Content of Individual Coaching Sessions 

Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018 

Notes: The size of each bubble corresponds to the number of sessions recorded on that topic; larger bubbles represent topics 

covered more frequently. Color codes by key element: Connection to occupational skills training (lavender); employer 

engagement (orange); individual coaching (turquoise); job search skills (purple). 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 60

Some core services were delivered in group workshops and recorded as “group coaching 

sessions.” Career coaches often led coaching workshops focused on delivery of key elements of 

the program (career coaching, job search skills, employer engagement, and connection to 

training). As shown below in Exhibit V-3, over 90 percent of job candidates attended at least one 

such group coaching session, and on average—in keeping with the fact that most core services 

were delivered in this format—job candidates attended more than 12 group coaching sessions 

covering a range of topics. Exhibit V-4 shows that the group coaching workshops largely focused 

on job search skills and, to a lesser degree, on career coaching, connections to training, and 

employer engagement. The subsections that follow describe the frequency and intensity of 

group workshops related to these key program elements.18 

Exhibit V-3: Group Coaching Session Attendance 

Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018

 

18 Participation data on group coaching workshops had some gaps but, due to the large variability of the number 

of workshops per job candidate recorded on each of the four elements (n=21,239 workshop records), the 

missing percentage for each type of element tends to be low. About a quarter of observations either were 

missing information or indicated that job candidates did not attend one of the sessions. In general, most job 

candidates attended several group coaching sessions.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 61

Exhibit V-4: Thematic Content of Group Coaching Workshops 

Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018

Notes: The size of each bubble corresponds to the number of sessions recorded on that topic; larger bubbles represent topics 

covered more frequently. 

Job Search Skills 

As Exhibit V-5 shows, consistent with the implementation fidelity findings in the previous 

chapter, levels of service receipt for this element were high, with 85 percent of job candidates 

attending at least one job search skills group workshop; on average, each job candidate attended

about eight. Some subgrantees relied more than others on this format for the delivery of this 

program element and had higher averages of job search skills workshops per job candidate—

from 6 to 10, depending on the subgrantee. At these workshops, job candidates strengthened

skills to pursue new job opportunities. The workshops focused on three main aspects: deeper 

exploration of job search tools available; discussion of crafting effective resumes and cover 

letters; and practice interviewing and networking. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 62

Exhibit V-5: Job Search Skills Workshops Attendance 

 Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018

Career Coaching 

Seventy percent of job candidates attended career coaching workshops. These workshops were

focused mainly on initial assessment of skills, interests, and abilities, and on self-care strategies 

during the job search process, including understanding how to address any discrimination they 

might face as older jobseekers. Exhibit V-6 shows that, on average, job candidates attended one 

career coaching group workshop, though this varied by subgrantee. Those with larger waves and 

fewer coaches relied more heavily on group coaching, and therefore had an average of three or 

more group career coaching workshops per job candidate. 

Exhibit V-6: Career Coaching Workshop Attendance 

Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018

Connection to Training 

Because of the optional nature of this element, less than one quarter of job candidates 

participated in group workshops focused on connections to training. When available, these 

workshops focused mostly on reviewing course options, with a smaller portion focused on

financial aid and scholarship options. As shown in Exhibit V-7, on average, each job candidate 

attended fewer than two workshops in order to plan for their individual training needs. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 63

Exhibit V-7: Connections to Training Workshops Attendance 

Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018

Employer Engagement 

About 40 percent of job candidates participated in employer engagement activities. These 

activities were varied and included employer panels, job/hiring events, review of transitional job 

options, and information about how to utilize local AJCs. on average, they attended between one 

and two (Exhibit V-8). This relatively low uptake aligns with the finding in Chapter IV that 

subgrantees struggled most to implement this element of the model, just under 40 percent of 

job candidates had at least one employer engagement activity. AARP Foundation specified that 

each job candidate should have three employer engagement opportunities, but no subgrantee 

had an average this high, with averages between 1 and 2.5.

Exhibit V-8: Employer Engagement Activity Participation 

 Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018

Financial Capability Building 

Financial capability building activities included Finances 50+ sessions and workshops to delve more 

deeply into the material and to learn how to set goals and achieve them, as well as how to create 

budgets and manage debt and credit. As shown in Exhibit V-9, across subgrantees, nearly all job 

candidates (94 percent) who enrolled in the program participated in financial capability building. 

Within subgrantees, consistent with Chapter IV’s findings on subgrantees’ fairly uniform approach to 

delivering this element of the model, nearly all subgrantees recorded that more than 90 percent of 

job candidates received this service. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 64

Exhibit V-9: Financial Capability Building Attendance 

Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018

Notes: Average number of sessions attended is not included in this exhibit because of variations, described in the prior chapter, 

in how many sessions subgrantees held to cover the same timed Finances 50+ recorded webinars.

Computer Skills Upgrade Training 

Computer skills upgrade training was the only element of the model where fidelity scores in the 

prior chapter—which focused on what subgrantees offered and how—did not align with data 

from the FIS on whether and how often job candidates received that service. Exhibit V-10

illustrates the rate of job candidates’ participation in a variety of computer skills trainings and 

workshops. Overall, just under 60 percent participated in at least one computer skills upgrade 

training course or workshop. 

It is possible that this lower-than-expected level of participation is because job candidates 

pursued self-directed activities not recorded by their coaches (for example, on Lynda.com) or 

“placed out” of computer skills upgrade training based on their Northstar Digital Literacy 

assessment score, or that delivery of this element was inconsistent in early waves of the 

initiative.

19 On average, each job candidate participated in nearly eight computer skills trainings, 

with a range from one to 10 sessions. 

As described in earlier chapters, job candidates enrolled in the program with varying levels of 

computer proficiency, and subgrantees ultimately offered a range of levels of instruction and 

opportunities for them to upgrade their skills according to needs and interests. However, as 

Exhibit V-10 also shows, more than three quarters of job candidates who received this service 

attended sessions focused on gaining basic computer skills, as opposed to more advanced 

options such as Microsoft Office basics (9.7 percent) and Microsoft Office intermediate (6.3 

percent).

20 The content of these sessions supports the hypothesis that job candidates with more 

advanced skills either placed out of computer skills upgrade training or pursued individualized 

online programs that were not recorded in the FIS as consistently as in-person, group trainings.

 

19 For example, one subgrantee did not offer computer skills upgrade training consistently during the first year of 

implementation due to lack of adequate staffing, and several subgrantees took longer to develop intermediate 

and advanced training options. As such, job candidates at higher levels in earlier waves did not always receive 

computer skills upgrade training.

20 Computer basics included courses on computer competencies, keyboarding, beginning computer skills, 

computers for beginners, and digital literacy. Microsoft Office basics included general introductory courses and 

introductions to Word, Excel, and Power Point. Job search basics included courses introducing job candidates to 

LinkedIn or using Microsoft Office software to tailor resumes. Internet basics included courses focused on 

internet navigation, Google, or email basics, among other topics. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 65

Exhibit V-10: Computer Skills Training Courses and Workshops Attendance 

 Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018

What Do These Findings Mean? 

Previous chapters described the “who,” “how,” and “what” of program implementation; FIS data 

presented in this chapter illustrate “whether” and “how much.” Overall, FIS and site visit data 

show a high degree of alignment in their portrayals of how services were delivered. Subgrantees 

implemented coaching, job search skills, connections to training (through group workshops), and 

financial capability building with the expected service elements (as reported in Chapter IV) and at 

expected levels of intensity, as reported in this chapter. Similarly, consistent with Chapter IV’s 

findings that subgrantees had the most difficulty implementing employer engagement, FIS data 

show that job candidates did not receive the recommended level of service for this element. For 

computer skills upgrades, FIS data show lower participation, despite high ratings for fidelity to 

the program model. Recorded participation was largely for basic types of training, which aligns 

with site visit data showing that subgrantees developed more advanced training later in 

implementation, and delivered it more frequently through individualized, online formats. 

Essentially, then, the evaluation can assume a fairly consistent understanding of how the 

program was operated based on multiple sources of implementation data. This can form the 

basis for understanding, at the impact study stage, whether and how these services relate to any 

changes in employment and earnings outcomes
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 66

Chapter VI: Job Candidate Perspectives 

This chapter presents the perspectives of job candidates in BTW50+: WESI as measured through 

follow-up surveys and focus groups conducted during the final round of site visits. The chapter

begins with an overview of the survey sample and then reviews survey respondents’ satisfaction 

with key elements of the program by key subgroups. It then describes survey findings on 

participants’ attitudes around computer use, financial capability, and quality of life at three and 

six months after enrollment, including by different subgroups. The chapter concludes with a 

summary of feedback gathered through focus groups, which largely aligns with findings from the 

surveys.

Key Findings 

• Job candidates expressed satisfaction—through surveys and focus groups—with the 

individual components of the BTW50+: WESI program and with their overall 

experience. Overall, surveys and focus groups point to high levels of satisfaction 

with core services, especially computer training courses and career coaching 

services, as well as with peer support received through the program.

• Satisfaction levels, attitudes, and behaviors varied somewhat by respondent 

characteristics, generally in relation to their expectations of and experiences in the 

labor market. Satisfaction varied, for certain components, by key characteristics 

such as education, income level, age, and current employment status.

• Job candidates struggled to find employment despite their qualifications and the 

confidence they gained in the program. While expressing relatively high levels of 

satisfaction with the job search skills elements of the program, focus group 

respondents perceived age discrimination and also noted a need for stronger 

connections to employers. This is consistent with findings described in earlier 

chapters indicating that subgrantees experienced the most challenges in 

implementing the employer engagement component of the program.

How Did the Evaluation Solicit Job Candidate Perspectives? 

As noted in the introduction, SPR used two methods to capture job candidate perspectives: 

follow-up surveys administered at three, six, and 12 months after enrollment, and focus groups 

during each implementation study site visit.

Follow-Up Surveys 

SPR’s subcontractor, the Social and Economic Science Research Center (SESRC) at Washington 

State University, was hired to conduct telephone surveys with job candidates at three, six, and 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 67

12 months after enrollment. Surveys began in November of 2015, at the three-month mark for 

those who enrolled in August of 2015, and will continue through October of 2019, 12 months 

after the end of enrollment. 

Results in this chapter draw from surveys administered at three and six months after enrollment, 

between November of 2015 and August of 2018. Because longitudinal analyses require a 

minimum of three waves of data and these data only include three and six-month follow-ups, 

analyses presented here are cross-sectional in nature (Singer & Willet, 2003; Rogosa, Brandt, & 

Zimowski, 1982). The three-month sample includes 574 out of 1,291 contacts eligible for the 

survey—an overall response rate of 44.5 percent. Respondents who completed these surveys 

had already completed core services. The six-month sample included 389 out of 1,128 job 

candidates eligible for the survey, with an overall response rate of 34.5 percent. Cases 

determined ineligible in the 3-month follow-up were not included in the six-month follow-up. 

Ineligible cases were largely comprised of disconnected telephone numbers, numbers where no 

one answered, or numbers that had busy signals on all call attempts. Few cases were ineligible

because contacts reported they had not participated in the program, or because respondents 

had health impediments or were deceased. 

All results in the report are weighted to account for non-response bias based on observable 

characteristics. However, this does not preclude the existence of other sources of non-response 

bias. It is still possible that potential and actual survey respondents differ based on 

characteristics that were unmeasured (e.g., level of motivation and commitment to the program) 

and that these characteristics were associated with the likelihood of responding to the survey. 

Appendix C of this report provides more details on survey methodology, including descriptions of 

the characteristics of those who responded to the survey information and the process for 

computing weights. 

Focus Groups 

SPR site visitors conducted focus groups during each implementation study site visit to learn 

about the job candidate experience. This chapter presents findings from focus groups conducted 

during the third round of implementation study site visits in the fall of 2017. SPR site visitors 

asked coaches to invite eight people to each focus group, with a goal of having 4 to 6 focus 

group participants at each subgrantee. Ultimately, between one and eight people attended each 

of the five focus groups in the fall of 2017. Site visitors spoke with a total of 29 job candidates

who had recently completed core services and were either already employed or actively looking 

for work. (See Appendix E for focus group sample details.)

Were Survey Respondents Satisfied With Their Experience in BTW50+: 

WESI? 

The three-month survey instrument (included in Appendix D of this report) asked respondents 

about their satisfaction with the key elements of the BTW50+: WESI model: coaching, computer 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 68

skills, financial capability building, job search skills, employer engagement, and connection to 

training. This section presents results from satisfaction questions on each of these elements.

As shown in Exhibit VI-1, candidates reported high levels of satisfaction on all key elements of 

the BTW50+: WESI model. At least 80 percent said they were either very satisfied or somewhat 

satisfied with all elements. Close to or over 90 percent were very or somewhat satisfied with 

support in three areas: setting goals for themselves, opportunities to meet and get support from 

other people like them, and learning how to search for jobs. 

One particular item is notable for the percentage of respondents who were not satisfied: While 

more than three-quarters were either satisfied (53 percent) or somewhat satisfied (29.6 percent) 

with referrals to other services in the community, respondents were more likely to be somewhat 

dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with this support than with other elements. This is not surprising 

given findings on fidelity to and frequency of this aspect of the model. 

Other items are notable for the percentage of respondents who reported not receiving the 

service: Close to 90 percent reported they were either very satisfied (51.6 percent) or somewhat 

satisfied (36 percent) with the support they received in learning how to manage their finances; 

however, about 8 percent said they had not received any support in this area. This may be 

because of variations in when this component was offered by different subgrantees (discussed in 

Chapter IV)—some job candidates may have dropped out of the program prior to this workshop. 

Similarly, nearly 8 percent said they had not received referrals to other services in the 

community.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 69

Exhibit VI-1: Job Candidates’ Satisfaction with Key Program Elements 

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018

Additionally, differences in satisfaction between related services are also worth noting. In 

particular, respondents’ levels of satisfaction with the support they received in learning how to 

search for jobs and in learning about available jobs in the area were both high. Satisfaction with

the former was higher than with the latter, however. This is consistent with earlier chapters’ 

findings that job search skills focused more on the process than on connection to specific 

opportunities. 

Did Satisfaction Vary by Respondent Characteristics? 

To provide insight on whether levels of satisfaction varied significantly by respondent 

characteristics, this section reports the results of analyses conducted using a multivariate 

modeling framework. The main advantage of using multivariate modeling is the ability to 

estimate association between levels of satisfaction and respondent characteristics that may be 

associated with it while holding all the other variables constant. Overall, there were only two 

satisfaction items on which the multivariate analysis found significant demographic differences: 

coaching on career choices and support received in learning to search for jobs.21 

 

21 Satisfaction was examined using weighted logistic mixed-level models with a 0/1 dependent variable, where 1 represents 

either “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied,” and 0 represents “dissatisfied” or “somewhat dissatisfied.” Independent 

variables included in the models were gender, age, race/ethnicity, educational background, and employment status. 

Descriptive differences are presented in the chapter for statistically significant differences detected in multivariate models 

Setting goals for yourself

Coaching on career choices

Referrals to other services in

the community

Support with learning how to

search for jobs

Meeting and getting support

from other people like you

Support making decisions on

additional training

Support with learning about

available jobs in area

Support with learning or

improving computer skills

Support with learning how to

manage your finances

55.8%

54.8%

53.0%

66.9%

60.9%

54.0%

58.2%

57.8%

51.6%

37.8%

31.2%

29.6%

25.6%

27.4%

28.8%

28.1%

26.9%

36.0%

7.4%

6.4%

8.4%

8.3%

5.2%

7.5%

5.0%

5.7%

8.3%

Did not experience Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 70

Levels of satisfaction with coaching on career choices varied by educational attainment: As 

shown in Exhibit VI-2, respondents with postgraduate education—who may have had a clearer 

idea of target careers or higher expectations for types of jobs they could obtain—were less likely 

to be satisfied with coaching on career choices than respondents with less education. 

Exhibit VI-2: Percentage of Job Candidates Satisfied with Coaching on Career Choices, 

Three Months After Enrollment, by Educational Attainment 

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018

On learning how to search for jobs, survey respondents who were 66 years or older were less 

satisfied with the support they received with learning how to search for jobs than younger 

respondents (Exhibit VI-3). As discussed later in the chapter, older job candidates struggled to 

use computers and therefore may have had difficulty with the online job search process.

Exhibit VI-3: Percentage of Job Candidates Satisfied with Support on Learning How to Search for 

Jobs, by Age Group 

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018

What Did the Survey Find About Attitudes and Behaviors? 

In addition to questions about program experiences, the survey measured respondents’ 

attitudes and behaviors on three constructs: computer use, financial capability, and quality of 

life. The following subsections describe the survey items used in developing the scales that

measured each of these constructs. These descriptions include a summary of the initial 

questions included in the scales, a note about the results of the reliability analyses, and a 

histogram to illustrate the distribution of survey respondents along different values in each of 

the scales. (Appendix C provides additional detail on these analyses.) 

 (p= < 0.10). The overall effect and differences in categorical variables were examined after each statistical procedure using 

postestimation tests. Results of logistic regressions are available upon request.

80.6

90.4

90.9

93.2

Postgraduate degree

BA degree

Some college/AA degree

Less than HS/HS/GED

87.3

94.6

94.9

93.7

98.2

66 and older

63–65

59–62

56–58

55 or younger
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 71

Computer Use 

Because computer skills upgrade training is a key component of the BTW50+: WESI model, the 

survey included several items designed to better understand respondents’ attitudes toward 

computer use. The items included in the survey were based on a scale that has been used and 

validated by prior research (Wild et al., 2012). Exhibits VI-4 and VI-5 below list these 16 items 

and their respective means.

The first nine survey items were statements indicating difficulty with computers; the response 

choices were (1) = strongly disagree, (2) = disagree, (3) = neither agree or disagree, (4) = agree, 

and (5) = strongly agree. Lower values (less agreement) indicate that respondents felt more at 

ease using computers, meaning they experienced less difficulty. Mean scores for these items 

(shown in Exhibit VI-4) show moderate (2.7) to low (1.6) agreement with the statements, 

indicating that respondents felt at least somewhat at ease using computers. 

Exhibit VI-4: Job Candidates’ Mean Scores on Computer Difficulty Items (Set 1) 

 Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018 

Notes: Response choices were (1) = Strongly disagree; (2) = Disagree; (3) = Neither agree nor disagree; (4) = Agree; (5) = 

Strongly agree.

The remaining seven items related to computer use were statements indicating comfort with 

using computers; for these items, the scale was reversed: (1) = strongly agree; (5) = strongly 

disagree. As is the case for the nine items described above, lower values (in this case, more 

agreement) reflect participants feeling more at ease using computers. Exhibit VI-5 shows that 

the means for these items were between 1.7 and 3.0.

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.8

2.0

2.0

2.1

2.3

2.7

 You are frightened by computers

 You try to avoid using computers whenever possible

 You experience anxiety whenever you sit in front of a computer

 You feel overwhelmed when working on a computer

 You are confident in your ability to use computers

 You feel anxious whenever you are using computers

 You feel tense whenever working on a computer

 You worry about making mistakes on the computer

 You wish you could be as calm as others when using computers
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 72

Exhibit VI-5: Job Candidates’ Mean Scores on Computer Difficulty Items (Set 2) 

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018 

Notes: Response choices were (1) = Strongly agree; (2) = Agree; (3) = Neither agree nor disagree; (4) = Disagree; (5) = Strongly 

disagree.

Attitudes towards computers as a construct were measured by computing a scale based on 

these 16 survey items. They were coded such that lower values indicate that respondents 

experienced less difficulty using computers, and thus were more at ease using them. The total 

sum of individuals’ responses to the 16 items makes up their overall computer use scale score.22

As shown in Exhibit VI-6, the distribution of respondents along the values of the scale is skewed 

to the right with some respondents scoring high on the difficulty scale and denoting more 

difficulty using computers. It also shows many more respondents scoring low on the scale, which 

means they experienced less difficulty using computers and felt at ease using them in general. 

 

22 Scores for difficulty with computers had an average of 32.8 (SD=11.138) and ranged from 16 to 76 points. 

When information was available, missing scores were imputed with their predicted value according to 

candidates’ demographic characteristics (gender, age, race/ethnicity, and educational background). See 

Appendix C for more details on this scale. 

2.0

2.2

2.0

2.2

2.0

1.7

3.0

 You enjoy working with computers

 You feel relaxed when you are working on a computer

 You feel at ease with computers

 You feel content when you are working on a computer

 You feel comfortable with computers

 You would like to continue working with computers in the future

 You wish that computers were not as important as they are
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 73

Exhibit VI-6: Distribution of Job Candidates’ Mean Computer Difficulty Scores 

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018

Difficulty with computer scores varied across subgroups, as shown in Exhibit VI-7.23 Holding 

other respondent characteristics constant and accounting for differences across subgrantees, 

respondents who were 63 years or older, those with incomes under $40,000 per year, and those 

with lower levels of education also had more difficulty using computers. There were no 

differences in computer difficulty scores by race/ethnicity or by employment status.

 

23 Differences were examined in a weighted multivariate regression framework where the dependent variable

was the computer difficulty score. The independent variables included in the model were gender, age, 

race/ethnicity, income, educational background, and employment status. Fixed effects were included in the 

individual models to account for variation at the subgrantee level. Overall effects and differences were 

examined after each statistical procedure using postestimation tests. 

M=32.8

0 .02 .04 .06 .08

Density

20 40 60 80

Difficulty Using Computers (3 months)
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 74

Exhibit VI-7: Job Candidates’ Mean Computer Difficulty Scores, by Subgroups 

 

Computer 

Difficulty Score 

Overall 32.8

Age 

55 or younger (R) 30.9

56–58 33.8

59–62 31.2

63–65 34.5*

66 and older 36.1*

Race/Ethnicity 

Black or African American 33.9

Hispanic/Latino 33.6

White/Caucasian (R) 32.0

Other race/ethnicity 32.6

Education 

Less than HS/HS/GED (R) 35.6 *

Some college/AA degree 33.5

BA degree 31.2

Postgraduate degree 30.9

Income under 40K No 30.3

Yes 33.1*

Employment Status

Employed-FT 32.3

Employed-PT 32.0

Unemployed (R) 33.1

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018

Notes: (*) Denotes differences in scores associated with participant characteristics (p < 0.10). (R) Denotes group was 

used as reference category in the multivariate models. Scores ranged from 16 to 76 points.

These computer difficulty scores generally remained constant between the three-month survey 

and the six-month survey (Exhibit VI-8).24 This may reflect respondents’ lack of opportunities to 

sufficiently practice what they learned, as subgrantee staff reported that some job candidates 

did not have computers in their own homes. 

 

24 As mentioned earlier, an important limitation of the survey data available is that they do not provide baseline 

measures to allow estimation of the effect on computer difficulty scores of completing the program’s core 

services components. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 75

Exhibit VI-8: Distribution of Job Candidates’ Mean Computer Difficulty Scores, 

Three and Six Months After Enrollment 

Source: Three- and Six-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018

Financial Capability 

A key element of the BTW50+: WESI model was providing financial capability training for job 

candidates. As such, the survey asked about the frequency (never, seldom, sometimes, often, or 

always) with which respondents engaged in 11 different financial behaviors. To measure financial 

capability, SPR used the Financial Management Behavior Scale (Dew & Xiao, 2011), which was 

psychometrically validated in a large nationally representative sample of adults. Exhibit VI-9 and 

VI-10 show the items SPR used to compute the financial capability scale. 

As shown below in Exhibit VI-9, most respondents said they often or always engaged in positive

behaviors related to short-term planning: paying their bills, comparison shopping, keeping track 

of expenses, and staying on budget. However, the more long-term a behavior was and the more 

assets it required, the less frequently respondents reported engaging in it. In particular, they 

reported only sometimes saving money from each paycheck or contributing money to a 

retirement account; they reported seldom investing in retirement or stocks and bonds. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 76

Exhibit VI-9: Job Candidates’ Mean Scores on Financial Capability Items (Set 1), 

Three Months After Program Enrollment 

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018 

Notes: Response choices were (1) = Never; (2) = Seldom; (3) = Sometimes; (4) = Often; (5) = Always. 

Exhibit VI-10 shows the remaining two items from this scale related to negative financial 

behaviors, with the scale reversed for ease of comparison.25 Similar to results in Exhibit VI-9, in 

the short term, respondents demonstrated financial capability: On average, they sometimes

made just the minimum payment on a loan, and they almost never maxed out the limit on their 

credit cards.

Exhibit VI-10: Job Candidates’ Means Scores on Financial Capability Items (Set 2), 

Three Months After Program Enrollment 

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018 

Notes: Response choices were (1) = Always; (2) = Often; (3) = Sometimes; (4) = Seldom; (5) = Never. 

The total sum of a respondent’s answers on these 11 items made up the overall financial 

capability score, where a higher financial capability score indicated greater financial capability.26

Exhibit VI-11 shows that the distribution of respondents along the scale looks more normally 

distributed, with most respondents obtaining scores near the mean. It also shows that some 

respondents had scores in the extremes of the scales, either very low or very high with respect 

to others. 

 

25 When candidates’ financial capability scores were calculated, “never” received a value of 5 and “always” 

received a value of 1, denoting that less frequency of these behaviors indicates more financial capability. For all 

other items, “never” received a value of 1.

26 Financial capability scores had an average of 35.4 (SD=7.311) and ranged from 13 to 55 points. When 

information was available, missing scores were imputed with their predicted value according to candidates’ 

demographic characteristics (gender, age, race/ethnicity, and educational background). See Appendix C for 

more details.

1.5

2.1

2.5

2.8

2.9

3.8

3.8

4.0

4.4

Bought bonds, stocks, or mutual funds

Contributed money to a retirement account

Saved money from every paycheck

Began or maintained an emergency savings fund

Paid off credit card balance in full each month

Stayed within budget

Kept a record of monthly expenses

Comparison shopping

Paid your bills on time

3.6

4.5

Made only minimum payments on a loan

Maxed out the limit on one or more credit cards
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 77

Exhibit VI-11: Distribution of Job Candidates’ Mean Financial Capability Scores, 

Three Months After Program Enrollment 

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018

 

Financial capability scores varied by demographic characteristics.27 As shown in Exhibit VI-12, 

holding other characteristics constant and accounting for differences across subgrantees, 

financial capability scores were lower for respondents who were younger than 66, AfricanAmerican, and/or had incomes under $40,000 per year. These analyses also indicate that 

financial capability varied by educational attainment: respondents with a high school diploma,

GED, or less had lower financial capability scores compared to respondents who had completed 

at least some college; respondents with a postgraduate degree had higher scores than those

with a bachelor’s degree or less.

 

27 Differences were examined in a multivariate OLS regression framework where the dependent variable was the 

financial capability score. The independent variables included in the model were gender, age, race/ethnicity, 

income, educational background, and employment status. Fixed effects were included in the individual models 

to account for variation at the subgrantee level. Overall effect and differences were examined after each 

statistical procedure using postestimation tests. 

M=35.4

0 .02 .04 .06 .08

Density

10 20 30 40 50 60

Financial Scale Scores (3-month)
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 78

Exhibit VI-12: Job Candidates’ Mean Financial Capability Scores by Subgroups 

 Financial Capability Scale 

Overall 35.4

Age 

55 or younger (R) 34.6

56–58 34.8

59–62 35.6

63–65 35.8

66 and older 37.3*

Race/Ethnicity 

Black or African American 32.4*

Hispanic/Latino 37.9

White/Caucasian (R) 36.5

Other race/ethnicity 36.7

Education 

Less than HS/HS/GED (R) 32.4

Some college/AA degree 34.7

BA degree 36.8

Postgraduate degree 38.6

Income under 40K No 38.5

Yes 35.1*

Employment Status

Employed-FT 35.2

Employed-PT 36.1

Unemployed (R) 35.3

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018

Notes: (*) Denotes differences in scores associated with participant characteristics (p < 0.10). (R) Denotes 

group was used as reference category in the multivariate models. Scores ranged from 13 to 55 points.

Financial capability scores generally remained constant between the three-month survey and the 

six-month survey. Exhibit VI-13 shows that respondents who completed the three- and sixmonth survey had no significant changes in their scores between the two surveys. This may be 

because it can be difficult to implement new financial behaviors in the short term, even if 

circumstances change; prior levels of financial experience may matter more than the extent of 

formal instruction (Kaiser & Menkhoff, 2017; Wagner, 2015; Lyons, Chang, Scherpf, 2016).28

 

28 An important limitation of the survey data available is that they do not provide baseline measures to allow for 

estimation of the effect of core services components on attitudes and behaviors. At the outset of the 

evaluation, it was determined that due to subgrantees’ enrollment timelines, provision of initial job search 

skills training during the 7 Smart Strategies workshop, and variations in the sequencing of core services 

elements, it was not feasible to administer a baseline survey to job candidates prior to beginning core services.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 79

Exhibit VI-13: Distribution of Job Candidates’ Mean Financial Capability Scores, Three and Six 

Months After Enrollment 

Source: Three and Six-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018 

Quality of Life 

The BTW50+: WESI model encourages job candidates to develop strategies for self-care to 

promote higher quality of life. To measure changes in quality of life, the survey instrument 

included items from the Older People’s Quality of Life Questionnaire (OPQOL-brief), a scale that 

has been used in prior research to measure the construct (Bowling, Hankins, Windle, Bilotta, & 

Grant, 2013). The survey included 13 items on the topic, listed below in Exhibit VI-14. For each of 

the 13 items, respondents were asked to select among the following five choices: (1) = strongly 

disagree, (2) = disagree, (3) = neither agree nor disagree, (4) = agree, or (5) = strongly agree. 

M=35.4 M=35.7

0 .02 .04 .06 .08

10 20 30 40 50 60

Financial Capability Scale

3-months 6-months
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 80

Exhibit VI-14: Job Candidates’ Mean Scores on Quality of Life Items, 

Three Months After Enrollment 

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018

Note: Response choices were (1) = Strongly disagree; (2) = Disagree; (3) = Neither agree nor disagree; (4) = Agree; (5) 

= Strongly agree. 

The total sum of respondents’ answers to those 13 items makes up their overall quality of life 

score. Across all items, greater agreement—reflected by a higher score—indicates a higher 

perceived level of quality of life.29 As Exhibit VI-15 shows, respondents had high scores on quality 

of life. 

 

29 Quality of life scores had an average of 54.9 (SD=7.234) and ranged from 13 to 65 points. When information 

was available, missing scores were imputed with their predicted value according to candidates’ demographic 

characteristics (gender, age, race/ethnicity, and educational background). See Appendix C for more details on 

this scale. 

3.6

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.4

4.4

4.4

4.5

4.5

 You have enough money to pay for household bills

 You enjoy your life overall

 Your family, friends, or neighbors would help you if needed

 You have social or leisure activities or hobbies that you enjoy doing

 You look forward to things

 You feel lucky compared to most people

 You get pleasure from your home

 You try to stay involved with things

 You can do things that please you

 You feel safe where you live

 You take life as it comes and make the best of things

 You are healthy enough to get out and about

 You are healthy enough to have your independence
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 81

Exhibit VI-15: Distribution of Job Candidates’ Mean Quality of Life Scores, 

Three Months After Enrollment 

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018

Quality of life scores varied across subgroups.30 As shown in Exhibit VI-16, holding other 

characteristics constant and accounting for differences across subgrantees, respondents who 

were older, had higher incomes, and were employed at the time of the survey had higher quality 

of life scores. These differences were statistically significant.

 

30 As before, differences were examined in a multivariate regression framework where the dependent variable

was the quality of life score. The independent variables included in the model were gender, age, race/ethnicity, 

income, educational background, and employment status. Fixed effects were included in the individual models 

to account for variation at the subgrantee level. Overall effects and differences were examined after each 

statistical procedure using postestimation tests. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 82

Exhibit VI-16: Job Candidates’ Mean Quality of Life Scores, 

Three Months After Enrollment, by Subgroups 

 Quality of Life Scale 

Overall 54.9

Age

55 or younger (R) 54.1

56–58 54.8

59–62 55.4

63–65 55.4

66 and older 55.9*

Race/Ethnicity 

Black or African American 54.0

Hispanic/Latino 55.3

White/Caucasian (R) 55.5

Other race/ethnicity 55.6

Education 

Less than HS/HS/GED (R) 54.8

Some college/AA degree 54.5

BA degree 56.0

Postgraduate degree 54.7

Income under 40K No 56.6

Yes 54.8*

Employment Status

Employed-FT 56.8*

Employed-PT 54.9

Unemployed (R) 54.7

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018

Notes: *Denotes differences in scores associated with participant characteristics (p < 0.10). 

(R) Denotes group was used as reference category in the multivariate models. Scores 

ranged from 13 to 65 points.

As with the other attitude and behavior constructs measured in the survey, quality of life scores 

remained largely similar between the three- and six-month surveys (see Exhibit VI-17). 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 83

Exhibit VI-17: Distribution of Job Candidates’ Mean Quality of Life Scores, 

Three and Six Months After Enrollment 

Source: Three and Six-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018

What Feedback Did Focus Group Participants Share? 

Consistent with previous focus group findings from earlier site visits, and consistent with the 

survey results discussed above, focus group participants expressed that program staff cared 

about them as individuals and that they were grateful for the support they received from the 

program, especially from the career coaches. They also commonly discussed the social capital 

they had built with their peers, including through lasting relationships formed with other job 

candidates they met in the program. 

Focus group participants said they were more confident in their abilities to find employment. 

One noted that the program “gave me confidence that I can go out [and find] my dream job”; 

another highlighted the value of learning about the need to customize one’s resume for each 

opportunity, since “there’s not a master resume that represents yourself.” Focus group 

participants said the program helped improve their resumes and interview techniques through 

one-on-one practice and feedback. One woman stated, “I’m doing a job in an area I had never 

worked in before; they’ve helped me get the skills I needed.”

Computer skills upgrade training was cited as essential to the job search process: one woman 

appreciated that, due to the program, she was able to tell recruiters exactly what she knows how 

to do (e.g., use Excel 2016 to create and manipulate formulas, or use Word 2016 to embed 

hyperlinks); another agreed that it was helpful to “name-drop specific programs.” Several focus 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 84

group participants were already enrolled in or had completed short-term trainings to improve 

computer skills, including QuickBooks, Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. 

Despite their appreciation of the program and its support, focus group participants—who were 

all either on the job market or employed in recently obtained positions—expressed that they 

found their job searches challenging due to age discrimination. The following are illustrative 

examples:

• One focus group participant noted that millennial interviewers “don’t want to hire their 

mother.” 

• Another, who had recently accepted a new job after a long search, said that she was 

concerned that employers reading her resume were “picturing a little old lady who could 

barely walk, so I started adding my picture and did lowlights so my hair is more black than 

grey.” She also watched tutorials on how to use makeup to look younger. 

• A third focus group participant shared that when she was inquiring about a position over 

the phone: The representative abruptly hung up after learning how old she was. 

In addition to age discrimination, focus group participants noted other challenges for finding 

employment, such as lack of quality job opportunities. Low wages and part-time work with poor 

or no benefits were cited frequently as challenges. This was especially true for those who were 

trying to move into new career areas. For instance, one focus group participant who hoped to do 

administrative work had had previous careers earning a middle-class income as a textile designer

and landscape designer; she ended up employed at a Lowe’s garden center, making $11.30 an 

hour, with only 25 hours of work a week—a salary she could not live on. Another said that she 

was reluctant to respond to job application questions about her previous salary, because it was 

so much higher than some of the positions she was applying for. Benefits were a common 

concern; a focus group participant shared that she was offered a part-time job as an 

administrative assistant but declined it because it didn’t come with any health benefits. Despite 

support and guidance on the job search process, then, focus group participants still struggled to 

contend with the realities of the labor market in terms of both age discrimination and job 

quality.

Additionally, dovetailing with findings on implementation fidelity and service intensity, focus 

group participants felt that the employer engagement element of the model could have been 

stronger. They believed that if coaches had more rapport with local employers, then it would be 

easier for them to get interviews and possibly jobs. For example, one focus group participant 

reported that her wave included an “employer panel,” but it only had one employer 

representing a department at the college. Another focus group participant was recruited to the 

program by a coach who promised that “there are companies out there that want to hire women 

over 50”; ultimately, however, she felt the program hadn’t done much to make any connections 

to those employers. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 85

What Do These Findings Mean? 

Consistent with the findings in the interim report, candidates expressed high levels of 

satisfaction with key elements of the program: coaching, job search skills, and computer skills. As 

in the interim report, survey findings and focus group feedback both showed that job candidates 

were generally satisfied with the BTW50+: WESI program and they highly valued the peer 

support system built into it. However, feedback from focus groups indicates that job candidates 

struggled to find employment in a labor market where they felt at a disadvantage due to age 

discrimination, despite their qualifications and the confidence they had gained in the program. 

While expressing relatively high levels of satisfaction with the job search skills elements of 

BTW50+: WESI, focus group respondents noted a need for stronger connections to employers. 

This is consistent with findings in earlier chapters indicating that subgrantees experienced the 

most challenges in implementing the employer engagement component of the program. Overall, 

then, survey and focus group findings both align with and provide more nuance to prior 

chapters’ discussions of how services were delivered and how frequently they were received.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 86

This page is deliberately left blank.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 87

Chapter VII: Preliminary Outcomes 

This chapter documents BTW50+: WESI job candidates’ outcomes to date in occupational skills 

training enrollment and completion as well as in employment, both overall and for subgroups of 

interest. These outcomes findings are preliminary, as they do not capture a full year after 

enrollment for most job candidates. Additionally, the chapter describes job candidates’ 

outcomes using data from the FIS and follow-up surveys, both of which have data limitations. As 

such, the findings should be interpreted with caution. 

Key Findings 

• Most job candidates did not enroll in occupational skills training, preferring instead to 

immediately begin their job searches upon completion of core services. Occupational 

skills training was an optional pathway, and just over one quarter of job candidates 

ultimately participated. 

• Among job candidates who did enroll in training, 71 percent completed at least one 

course; with one quarter of them completing two courses or more. Less than 10 

percent struggled due to lack of academic preparation and therefore did not complete 

the training. Older job candidates, in particular, were less likely to enroll in training in 

the first place and to complete training once enrolled. 

• Employment rates increased as time since enrollment elapsed. While 47.5 percent of 

candidates reported being employed full or part time in the three-month survey, a 

solid majority did so in the six- (55.8 percent) and 12-month surveys (61.5 percent). 

While it is not possible at this stage to definitively attribute employment to program 

participation, the confidence-building prioritized in coaching sessions may have 

enabled job candidates to persist during the lengthy job searches often experienced 

by older workers.

How Does This Chapter Measure Outcomes? 

The chapter examines two types of outcomes: training and employment. To measure training 

outcomes, the chapter presents FIS data on the unadjusted proportion of candidates who 

enrolled in trainings and the average number of courses they enrolled in, as well as results of 

exploratory analyses on the likelihood of completion of one occupational course in a multivariate 

framework. As noted in the previous chapter, the main advantage of using multivariate modeling 

is the ability to estimate association between completion and candidate characteristics (age, 

gender, race/ethnicity, educational background, income level, and employment status) that may 

be associated with it, while holding all the other variables constant. These analyses provide 

insight on whether outcomes varied significantly by subgroups.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 88

To measure employment outcomes, the chapter presents cross-sectional data from the three-, 

six- and 12-month surveys. Cross-sectional results were weighted to account for non-response 

bias. However, candidate employment trajectories were not estimated due to the high nonresponse rate in the 12-month survey (described in Appendix C). Likewise, not enough time had 

elapsed to be able to include self-reported employment status for candidates who enrolled in 

later waves, when subgrantees were implementing more mature iterations of the model (and, in 

particular, had made more progress connecting job candidates to employers, as noted in 

Chapter IV). 

Results only draw on survey data because, records in the FIS are insufficient for use in outcome 

analysis. While coaches conducted follow-up with job candidates after core services, 

employment status was mostly recorded for candidates who reported being employed; for 

records with no information, it is unclear whether individuals were unemployed or simply could 

not be reached for follow-up. (See coaches’ reports of challenges with follow-up contacts, 

described in Chapter II.)31 It is also important to note, as detailed in Chapter IV, that coaches 

anecdotally reported that job candidate employment rates increased near the end of the 

program, which they attributed partly to attempts to keep in contact with job candidates longer 

after core services.

What Occupational Skills Training Outcomes Did Job Candidates Achieve? 

As described in earlier chapters, occupational skills training was an optional avenue. It was

available to job candidates after completion of core services to upgrade their existing skills or 

develop new skills in order to prepare for their selected employment goals. Only a subset of 

candidates enrolled in occupational skills training; this is consistent with findings in Chapter IV on 

the optional nature of this component and with how some subgrantees reduced their emphasis 

on training as implementation progressed. As shown in Exhibit VII-1 on the next page, only about 

one quarter of job candidates (27.1 percent) enrolled in occupational skills training across 

subgrantees; the majority of job candidates did not pursue this option. 

For those job candidates who did enroll in occupational skills training, chosen courses reflect 

their variety of career interests and the individualized approach most subgrantees took to 

connecting job candidates to training. As shown in Exhibit VII-1, the most common courses were 

related to health (26.4 percent), business (14.9 percent), and accounting (9.5 percent). The rest 

include not only other occupations (e.g., specialized computer training, information technology

customer service, administrative support, human resources), but also some pre-employment 

skills trainings (e.g., soft skills and general education). 

 

31 In addition to completeness issues, follow-up information was collected at multiple points in time for some 

candidates, but others only had one follow-up contact recorded. For this reason, consistent estimates of 

employment status changes in the long term were not possible.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 89

Exhibit VII-1: Job Candidates’ Enrollment in and Subjects of Occupational Skills Training Courses 

Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018

In terms of the intensity of occupational skill training, Exhibit VII-2 shows that, on average, 

candidates enrolled in about two occupational skills training courses. Among those who chose to 

enroll, just under three quarters completed at least one course; about one quarter completed 

two or more courses, and less than 10 percent did not complete any courses.

32 

Exhibit VII-2: Job Candidates’ Completion of Occupational Skills Training Courses 

Source: FIS Extract Data Analysis, 2018

 

32 Job candidates without completion data recorded could represent either those still in training who could not be 

reached for follow-up, or cases where the coach did not enter information because the job candidate did not 

complete the course. Based on review of missing data and discussions with FIS analysts, data collection 

practices on recording non-completion appear to be inconsistent across subgrantees and across the 

implementation period.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 90

Multivariate analyses provide additional insight on occupational skills training outcomes, 

examining the likelihood that candidates who chose to enroll in training would complete one 

course.33 Exhibit VII-3 shows the results of an exploratory model estimating this likelihood; it 

offers a snapshot of candidates’ initial progress in their additional training goals.34 Associations 

between job candidate characteristics and course completions include:

• Older job candidates were less likely to complete one course. Holding other characteristics 

constant, those who were 66 years or older had 12.8 percent lower probability of 

completing one course. Based on reports from career coaches, a frequent reason for not 

completing training across all job candidates was unexpected health issues, which may 

have been a more frequent issue for older job candidates.

• Job candidates who reported being employed at intake had about 8 percent lower 

probability of completing one course compared to their peers who were unemployed.

These candidates may have continued to be employed part time throughout core 

services and training, or simply had better employment prospects and found new jobs 

midway through training. In either scenario, completing an entire course would have had 

a higher opportunity cost.

Exhibit VII-3: Likelihood of Job Candidates Completing Occupational Skills Training Course, by 

Subgroups 

 

Likelihood of 

completing 

one course

Individual-level Characteristics

Female (vs. male) -4.4%

Age (55 years old - reference category)

56–58 years old 2.7%

59–62 years old -4.8%

63–65 years old -7.5%

66 and older -12.8%*

Race / Ethnicity (White/Caucasian - reference category)

Black or African American 1.2%

Hispanic or Latino -3.5%

Other 5.5%

Income under 40K 4.7%

Education (High School - reference category) 

 

33 Outcomes analyses on occupational skills training are limited in nature because data do not show whether job 

candidates enrolled in courses that led to specific credentials or certificates. Without this information, it is not 

possible to assess completion of a training program, only completion of individual courses. 

34 Likelihood of completing one course was examined using logistic level models with a 0/1 dependent variable, 

where 1 represents completion and 0 represents a course that was not completed. Independent variables 

included in the models were gender, age, race/ethnicity, educational background, income level, and 

employment status. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 91

Some college/AA degree 0.2%

BA degree 0.3%

Postgraduate degree 4.6%

Employed -8.2%** 

Constant included Yes

Fixed effects- Subgrantees Yes

Pseudo-R-Square 0.0501

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018

Notes: Numbers represent percentage point changes in predicted probability of reporting being employed 

associated with category of a variable.

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.10

What Employment Outcomes Did Job Candidates Achieve? 

Unlike occupational skills training, which was optional, employment was the primary goal of 

BTW50+: WESI. As noted earlier in this chapter, preliminary employment outcomes were limited 

to employment status questions on the three-,six-, and 12-month follow-up surveys, which have 

important limitations. The surveys rely on job candidates’ self-reports and, as such, may be 

prone to measurement error originated by possible effects of social desirability bias and nonresponse.

35 In addition, the 12-month survey sample does not include those who enrolled in the 

final year of implementation when subgrantees were implementing more mature iterations of 

the program model, including stronger employer engagement (per fidelity scores in Chapter IV). 

The only other potential option for assessing employment outcomes at this time are records of 

follow-up contacts in the FIS. However, these records do not have sufficient data for use in this 

type of analysis, as explained at the beginning of this chapter. Employment outcomes should 

therefore be considered cautiously; at a later point in the evaluation, the impact study will use 

Unemployment Insurance earnings records to provide more precise and reliable estimates of 

employment status. 

In the interim implementation report, three-month survey data show just under half of survey 

respondents were employed; as shown in Exhibit VII-4, that trend remains constant. However, 

the proportion who reported being employed was higher in the six- and 12-month surveys. This 

could be due to the fact that, as noted in the introduction to this report, older workers and older 

women in particular tend to have longer job search periods. Additionally, it could reflect that 

those who were still in training at the three-month mark had completed their courses and were 

ready for employment at six and/or 12 months after enrollment. Finally, while it is not possible 

at this stage of the evaluation to definitively attribute employment to program participation, it 

may be that the confidence-building prioritized in coaching sessions enabled job candidates to 

persist during the lengthy job search periods often experienced by older workers.

 

35 Social desirability bias is a tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed 

more favorably to themselves and others (Groves et al., 2009; Holgraves, 2004).
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 92

Exhibit VII-4: Job Candidates’ Self-Reported Employment Status, 

at Three, Six, and 12 Months After Program Enrollment

 Source: Three, Six, and Twelve-Month Survey Data, 2018 

Notes: Figure reflects weighted averages for cross-sectional results.

Exhibit VII-5 presents the results of a multivariate analysis that examined subgroup differences in 

the likelihood of a respondent reporting being employed on the three-, six-, and 12-month 

surveys. As shown below, those who had postgraduate education were nearly 20 percent less 

likely to report being employed on the three-month survey. This aligns with findings presented in 

Chapter VI that showed survey respondents holding a postgraduate degree were less likely to be 

satisfied with the job search component of the program on the three-month survey. Echoing 

findings from the focus groups, candidates with higher levels of education may be more sensitive 

to the lack of quality job opportunities in their local labor markets, given the types of jobs they 

had earlier in their careers. It may also be that the job search skills component was most 

effective for candidates with less specialized employment goals. Respondents over 66 were also 

5 percent less likely to report being employed on the three-month survey, consistent with 

findings in Chapter VI that this group was less satisfied with support received on how to search 

for jobs. 

There were no other statistically significant subgroup differences in the likelihood of reporting 

being employed on the three, six or twelve month surveys. 

 

Exhibit VII-5: Job Candidates’ Self-Reported Employment Status 

Three Months After Program Enrollment, by Subgroups 

 Likelihood of 

Being Employed 

Individual-Level Characteristics

Female (Male- reference category) -1.4%

38.6

41.3

52.5

32.3

34.1

30.4

29.1

24.7

17.0

12 Months (n=179)

6 Months (n=326)

3 Months (n= 476)

Unemployed Employed Part Time Employed Full Time

47.4

61.4

58.8
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 93

Age (55 years old and younger- reference category)

56-58 years old -2.8%

59-62 years old -0.9%

63-65 years old -3.4%

66 and older -5.3%*

Race / Ethnicity (White/Caucasian - reference category)

Black or African American -2.7%

Hispanic or Latino 6.6%

Other -9.4%

Income under 40K -3.7%

Education (High School) 

Some college/AA degree -3.8%

BA degree -0.1%

Postgraduate degree -18.5%**

Constant included Yes

Fixed effects- Subgrantees Yes

Pseudo-R-Square 0.203

Source: Three-Month Survey Data Analysis, 2018

Notes: Numbers represent percentage point changes in predicted probability of reporting being employed 

associated with category of a variable.

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.10

What Do These Findings Mean? 

Findings on preliminary outcomes largely align with information reported in prior chapters on 

how subgrantees delivered services, what services job candidates received, and how satisfied 

survey respondents were with program elements. For example, preliminary findings on 

occupational skills training showed that candidates enrolled in a wide range of training options 

depending on their interests; this is consistent with findings in Chapter IV on how subgrantees 

relied primarily on individual choice and preferences in recommending training pathways. 

Employment outcomes reported on the surveys also align with other survey findings reported in 

the previous chapter. In particular, those less likely to be employed at the three-month mark 

(older job candidates and those with more education) also reported lower satisfaction with job 

search skills instruction at that same point. 

However, as noted at the beginning of this chapter, the employment and occupational skills 

training outcomes presented here are subject to the limitations of the data from which they are 

derived. In particular, survey data used to measure employment outcomes rely on self-reported 

employment; despite correcting for non-response biases on observable characteristics, it is 

possible that data presented on employment status overestimate employment rates for the full 

universe of job candidates. Specifically, survey answers are prone to social desirability bias such 

that those who were unemployed may have been less likely to answer the survey due to 

unobservable characteristics such as motivation and commitment to the program. The impact 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 94

study will provide a more complete picture of employment outcomes and address this limitation 

by using Unemployment Insurance earnings records to independently measure employment in 

the year after enrollment. Additionally, the impact study will be able to isolate the effect of 

attending the program on employment outcomes by assessing these outcomes relative to 

people who share similar characteristics but who did not enroll in the program.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 95

Chapter VIII: Conclusion 

This chapter synthesizes key themes from the analysis of data concerning implementation of 

BTW50+: WESI that was presented in earlier chapters. It reviews key accomplishments and 

challenges of implementation and concludes with a discussion of what the implementation study 

findings mean for the upcoming impact study phase of the evaluation. 

What Were the Key Implementation Accomplishments? 

As reported in prior chapters, BTW50+: WESI subgrantees were successful in realizing most of 

the plans for the program model. Specific accomplishments include:

• Subgrantees enrolled enough job candidates to exceed the overall target set by AARP 

Foundation and to create a sufficient sample for the impact study. In its initial application 

for the SIF grant, AARP Foundation anticipated serving 1,400 job candidates. Subgrantees 

ultimately enrolled 1,868 individuals. Enrollment into the impact study, which began 

approximately one year into program implementation for most subgrantees, yielded 

1,163 female job candidates who consented to participate in the impact study.

• Outreach efforts successfully attracted job candidates who matched the desired target 

population. Most job candidates, consistent with AARP Foundation’s priorities, were 

unemployed and/or underemployed women between the ages of 50 and 64 with 

incomes below $40,000 per year and education between a high school diploma and a 

bachelor’s degree.

• With substantial guidance and technical assistance from AARP Foundation and AACC, the 

subgrantees ultimately implemented services that were consistent with the desired 

program model. The learning community formed by AARP Foundation, AACC, and the 

subgrantees themselves enabled program managers to learn about effective service 

designs and practices as the BTW50+: WESI initiative evolved. For example, dissemination 

and discussion of program implementation in this forum led to guidance that supported 

model fidelity, including AARP Foundation’s recommendations that subgrantees offer at 

least two individual coaching sessions, use the NorthStar Computer Literacy Assessment 

to assess computer skills at intake, and leverage online computer skills training modules 

available from Lynda.com. By the end of the grant, due in part to this iterative technical 

assistance, subgrantees had collectively achieved full fidelity to the model for most 

program elements (coaching, computer skills upgrade, financial capability building, and 

job search skills training). While employer engagement and connection to training were 

not fully implemented across all subgrantees, they made progress on these elements 

over the program period. 

• Key strengths of service delivery at the subgrantee level were sensitivity to the needs of 

older women and a pre-existing orientation towards employment coaching. Subgrantees 

identified the personalized guidance and support provided by career coaches and the

peer support provided by other job candidates as one of the primary strengths of 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 96

BTW50+: WESI. Subgrantees helped develop trust and confidence in many different 

settings, including during individual job search skills workshops, individual coaching 

sessions, peer networking, and mock interviews. Although they agreed that confidence 

building was not sufficient to ensure successful outcomes for participants, job candidates 

noted that the sensitivity and support of project staff members and the trust and feeling 

of safety were key to their success. Unsurprisingly, prior work experience among staff 

with the BTW50+ Classic program model and/or the public workforce system appears to 

have strengthened the fidelity with which subgrantees implemented the program model, 

both overall and for specific elements. 

• Reflecting these implementation successes, most job candidates reported positive 

experiences in the program. Data from follow-up surveys and focus groups both indicate 

high levels of satisfaction with most program elements. Likewise, these data sources 

indicate that job candidates had appreciation for the supportive environment and 

relationships to which subgrantees enabled access. 

• Self-reported employment rates increased over time. The interim implementation report 

only analyzed data from the three-month surveys, finding that just under half of 

respondents were employed. This report includes data from across the three-, six-, and 

12-month surveys; it therefore captures not just a larger sample of job candidates but 

also an increasing number of those who enrolled later in implementation and therefore 

participated in a more mature iteration of BTW50+: WESI services. At the three-month 

mark, results were similar to those previously reported, with just under half of 

respondents employed. Employment rates increased, however, by the six- and 12-month 

marks. While it is not possible at this stage of the evaluation to definitively attribute 

employment to program participation, it may be that the confidence building prioritized 

in coaching sessions enabled job candidates to persist during the lengthy job searches 

often experienced by older workers.

• Through BTW50+: WESI, subgrantees were able to build awareness of the needs of older 

women, which has the potential to last beyond the program period. In most cases, 

subgrantees were able to generate funding to continue to provide at least some form of 

the services offered under BTW50+: WESI. At an institutional level, subgrantees built the 

capacity of their staff and institutions to understand the value of and need for services 

for older women.

What Were the Key Implementation Challenges? 

Two common challenges to implementing the model, and to successful achievement of 

employment and training outcomes, emerged from site visits and surveys (and were reflected in 

the FIS data on service receipt and outcomes):

• Some job candidates who chose to enroll in occupational skills training had a hard time 

completing these courses successfully. Occupational skills training was an optional 

pathway that allowed job candidates to access scholarship funding from AARP 

Foundation to finance their training. However, career coaches reported that job 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 97

candidates who went on to this training sometimes struggled due to lack of academic 

preparation and did not always complete it. Multivariate analyses using FIS data 

illuminated that older job candidates in particular were less likely to enroll in training in 

the first place, and less likely to complete training once enrolled. 

• Connecting job candidates to employers and to employment opportunities was more 

challenging for subgrantees than realizing other elements of the model. According to 

subgrantee staff, factors including local labor market conditions, age discrimination, and 

job candidates’ varying employment interests and needs made it difficult for subgrantees 

to develop strong relationships with employers. Employer engagement was the element 

of the model with the lowest level of fidelity by the end of the implementation period. FIS 

data confirm that job candidates did not consistently experience a high level of employer 

connections: on follow-up surveys, job candidates reported a lower level of satisfaction 

with this element than with any other feature of the model. Not surprisingly, the 

subgrantees that were not able to achieve full fidelity to this element also struggled to 

connect to their local AJCs. This underscores the importance of AARP Foundation’s 

guidance to subgrantees to develop and strengthen relationships with the workforce 

development system.

What Do the Report’s Findings Mean for the Impact Study? 

The findings presented in this final implementation report have the following implications for the 

impact study:

• Implementation study findings provide a clear and relatively consistent picture of how 

services were delivered, which will facilitate identifying how and why the BTW50+: WESI 

program facilitated any observed impacts. By the end of implementation, model fidelity 

was generally high and consistent across sites, indicating that it is appropriate to pool 

impacts for job candidates across all subgrantees. As described in the SIF evaluation plan, 

pooling is necessary because individual subgrantees do not have adequate sample sizes 

for the evaluation to estimate impacts for each one individually.

• Subgrantees were able to enroll most interested applicants who met the selection criteria, 

thus validating the decision to use a quasi-experimental evaluation design. Prior to 

finalization of the impact study design, subgrantee staff said they would likely not have 

enough applicants to randomly assign them to treatment and control groups. SPR 

therefore designed the evaluation to use propensity score matching for the impact study 

rather than implement a randomized control trial. The applicant yield rate validated the 

subgrantees’ understanding of the local demand for their services and the decision to use 

a quasi-experimental design. 

• Using a matched comparison group created with public workforce system data will be an 

important test of the value of population-specific services. The demographics of the final 

sample pool of job candidates—primarily women ages 50–64—are consistent enough to 

facilitate easy identification of a comparison group within public workforce system data. 

However, other than financial capacity building and basic computer training services, 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report 98

which were not generally available to comparison group members, the services included 

in the BTW50+: WESI model may not have been very different from those available to 

comparison group members served by the public workforce system. In fact, in the areas 

of employer engagement and connection to training, the public workforce system’s 

services may have been more intensive. The main advantage of the BTW50+: WESI 

coaching is that it was customized to their needs and experiences as women age 50 and 

older; the workforce development system, as noted in the introduction to this report, has 

not provided much targeted support to this population nor has it seen such jobseekers 

succeed in their general programming at levels observed for younger and/or male 

jobseekers. The impact study, then, will be an important test of whether a customized 

approach can yield better outcomes for this population.

• Assessing employment impacts using Unemployment Insurance earnings records will 

provide the most precise estimate to date of long-term employment outcomes. Given 

subgrantees’ reported difficulties tracking employment outcomes—and the limitations of 

the available data from the FIS and survey—the impact study’s use of Unemployment 

Insurance earnings records will be important to address questions about whether and for 

how long job candidates were employed after completing BTW50+: WESI. (This is in 

addition to the impact study’s specific purpose of ascertaining whether any changes in 

employment outcomes are due to participation in BTW50+: WESI.)

What’s Next for the Evaluation? 

With the completion of this report, the implementation study draws to a close. Remaining 

activities for the outcomes and impact studies include the following:

• SPR will continue to have its subcontractor, SESRC, conduct follow-up surveys with job 

candidates at three, six and 12 months after enrollment. These surveys will continue until 

October 2019, 12 months after the end of enrollment under the BTW50+: WESI 

subgrants.

• SPR will obtain data needed to conduct the impact analysis, including Unemployment 

Insurance earnings records from state workforce agencies and Participant Individual 

Record Layout data with which to create a matched comparison group.

• SPR will provide the results of this analysis in a final impact and outcomes report to AARP 

Foundation in the spring of 2020.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report A-1 

Appendix A: References 

Belle, D., & Bullock, H. B. (2014) The psychological consequences of unemployment. SPSSI Policy 

Statement. Retrieved from: 

http://www.spssi.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpageid=1457

Betesh, H., Kogan, D., Negoita, M. & Paprocki, A. (2016) Back to Work: 50+ Evaluation Plan. 

Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates.

Betesh, H., et al. (2017) Providing Job Search Support for Women Over 50: Interim Report on the 

Implementation of AARP Foundation’s Back to Work 50+: Women’s Economic Stability 

Initiative, Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates.

Bilotta, C., Bowling, A., Grant, R., Hankins, M., & Windle, G. (2012) A short measure of quality of 

life in older age: The performance of the brief Older People’s Quality of Life 

questionnaire (OPQOL-brief). Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 56(1),181-187.

Boivie, I., &. Rhee, N. (2015) The continuing retirement savings crisis. National Institute on 

Retirement Security. Retrieved from: 

http://www.nirsonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=882. 

Bragg, D. (2017) What Works for Adult Learners. Seattle, Washington: Bragg and Associates,. 

https://www.allies4innovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AECF-FindingsBrief_120717FINAL.pdf

Bryk, A., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992) Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 

Publications.

Button, P., Burn, I., & Neumark, D. (2015) Is it harder for older workers to find jobs? New and 

improved evidence from a field experiment (No. w21669). National Bureau of Economic 

Research. Retrieved from:

https://www.banquefrance.fr/sites/default/files/13_neumark.pdf

Christian, L. M., Dillman, D. A., & Smyth, J.D. (2014) Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode 

surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Clymer, C., Roder, A., & Wyckoff, L. (2010) Targeting industries, training workers and improving 

opportunities: Final report from the sectoral employment initiative. Philadelphia, PA: 

Public/Private Ventures.

Collinson, C. (2017) Wishful Thinking or Within Reach? Three Generations Prepare for 

“Retirement.” 18th Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey of Workers, Transamerica 

Center for Retirement Studies, December 2017. Retrieved from: 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report A-2 

https://www.transamericacenter.org/docs/default-source/retirement-survey-ofworkers/tcrs2017_sr_three-generations_prepare_for_retirement.pdf

Conway, M., Clymer, C., Freely, J., Maguire, S., & Schwartz, D. (2010) Tuning in to local labor 

markets: findings from the sectoral employment impact study. Oakland, CA: 

Public/Private Ventures.

D’Amico, R. (2006) What’s known about the effects of publicly-funded employment and training 

programs. Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates.

Decker, P. (2011) Ten Years of WIA Research. In The Workforce Investment Act: Implementation 

Experiences and Evaluation Findings, edited by D. Besharov and P. Cottingham. 

Kalamazoo, Michigan: W.E. Upjohn Institute, 2011.

Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (1999) Causal Effects in Non-Experimental Studies: Re-Evaluating the 

Evaluation of Training Programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94 (448), 

1053-1062.

Dew, J. P., & Xiao, J. J. (2011) The Financial Management Behavior Scale: Development and 

validation. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 22 (1), 19–35.

Dodge, H. H., Wild, K. V., Mattek, N. C., Maxwell, S. A., Jimison, H. B., & Kaye, J. A. (2012) 

Computer-related self-efficacy and anxiety in older adults with and without mild 

cognitive impairment. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 8(6), 544-552. 

Duke, A., Martinson, K., & Strawn, J. (2006) Wising-up: How government can partner with 

business to increase skills and advance low-wage workers. Washington, DC: Center for 

Law and Social Policy.

Farber, H. S., Silverman, D., & Von Wachter, T. (2015) Factors determining callbacks to job 

applications by the unemployed: An audit study (No. w21689). National Bureau of 

Economic Research. Retrieved from: 

http://www.econ.ucla.edu/tvwachter/papers/audit_study_FarberSilvermanVonWachter.

pdf

Fein, David and Jill Hamadyk (2018) Bridging the Opportunity Divide for Low-Income Youth: 

Implementation and Early Impacts of the Year Up Program, OPRE Report #2018-65, 

Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for 

Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from 

https://www.yearup.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Year-Up-PACE-Full-Report2018.pdf

Fortson, K. et al., (2017) Providing Public Workforce Services to Job Seekers: 30 Month Impact 

Findings on the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs. Mathematica Policy 

Research and Social Policy Research Associates. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report A-3 

Gendell, M. (2008) Older workers: Increasing their labor force participation and hours of work. 

Monthly Labor Review, 131(1):41–54. 

Giacomini, M. K., & Cook, D. J. (2000) User’s guide to the medical literature xxii: Qualitative 

research in health care. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-based medicine 

working group. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284: 357-362.

Greenberg, D. H., Hamilton, G., Hendra, R., Oppenheim, A., Pennington, A., Schaberg, K., & 

Tessler, B. L. (2016) Encouraging evidence on a sector-focused advancement strategy: 

Two-year impacts from the WorkAdvance demonstration. MDRC. Retrieved from: 

http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/2016_Workadvance_Final_Web.pdf

Groves, R. M., Fowler, F.J., Couper, M.P., Lepkowski, J.M., Singer, E., Tourangeau, R. (2009) 

Survey Methodology. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Harmon, T. (2018) Measuring Success: Career Pathways Research. Center for Law and Social 

Policy, October 2018. Retrieved from:

https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/publications/2018/10/2018.10.3%20Measuring

%20Success.pdf

Heckman, J., LaLonde, R., & Smith, J. (1999) The economics and econometrics of active labor 

market programs. Handbook of Labor Economics. Ashenfelter, O., &Card, D (Eds.). New 

York: Elsevier, 3: 1865–2097.

Hendra, R., D.H. Greenberg, G. Hamilton, A. Oppenheim, A. Pennington, K. Schaberg, and B.L. 

Tessler (2016) Encouraging Evidence on a Sector-Focused Advancement Strategy: TwoYear Impacts from the WorkAdvance Demonstration. New York: MDRC. Retrieved from: 

https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/2016_Workadvance_Final_Web.pdf

Hock, H., Maxwell, N., Reed, D., & Verbitsky-Savitz, N. (2012) How are women served by the WIA 

Adult and Dislocated Worker programs? Findings from administrative data. Mathematica 

Policy Research, Retrieved from: http://www.mathematicampr.com/~/media/publications/pdfs/labor/womenservedwia.pdf 

Holgraves, T. (2004) Social Desirability and Self-Reports: Testing Models of Socially Desirable 

Responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30: 161-172.

Kogan, D., Betesh, H., Negoita, M., Paulen, L., & Salzman, J., et al. (2012) Evaluation of the Senior 

Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP): Process and Outcomes Study Final 

report. Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates and Mathematica Policy Research. 

Kogan, D., Khemani, D., Laird, E., Leufgen, J., & Moazed, T. et al. (2013) Evaluation of the Aging 

Worker Initiative, Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates and Mathematica Policy 

Research. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report A-4 

Krepcio, K., Ridley, N., & Van Horn, C. E. (2008) Public and private strategies for assisting older 

workers. Older and Out of Work: Jobs and Social Insurance for a Changing Economy. 

Maguire, S., et al. (2010) Tuning into Local Labor Markets: Findings from the Sectoral 

Employment Study, Public/Private Ventures, Retrieved from: 

http://ppv.issuelab.org/resources/5101/5101.pdf

McKenna, Claire. (2012) Economy in focus: Long road ahead for older unemployed workers 

(Issue Brief). National Employment Law Project. 

Michealides, M., Mueser, P., Mbwana, K. (2014) Quasi-Experimental Impact Study of NFWS/SIF 

Workforce Partnership Programs Evidence on the Effectiveness of Three Workforce 

Partnership Programs in Ohio, Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International. Retrieved from 

https://www.impaqint.com/sites/default/files/files/NFWS%20QuasiExperimental%20Impact%20Study%20-%20March%202014%20-%20Release%20Copy1.pdf

Monge-Naranjo, A., & Sohail, F. (2015) Age and gender differences in long-term unemployment: 

Before and after the Great Recession. Age, 2015(26). Retrieved from: 

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2015/11/06/age-andgender-differences-in-long-term-unemployment-before-and-after-the-great-recession/

Morisi, T. (2016) Why More People Age 55+ are Working, U.S. Department of Labor, November 

18, 2016. Retrieved from https://blog.dol.gov/2016/11/18/why-more-people-ages-55-

are-working

Mortrude, J. (2018) Better Together: Career and Guided Pathways, Center for Law and Social 

Policy, September, 2018. Retrieved from: 

https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/publications/2018/09/2018careerandguidedpat

hways.pdf

National Financial Capability Study. (2015) FINRA. Investor Education Foundation. Retrieved 

from: http://www.usfinancialcapability.org/

National Institute on Aging. (2007) Growing older in America: The Health and Retirement Study.

Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Aging. 

Oertle, K. M., Sujung, K., Jason Taylor, Debra Bragg, Timothy Harmon (2010) Illinois adult 

education bridge evaluation: Technical report. Champaign, IL: Office of Community 

College Research and Leadership, University of Illinois.

Older Women’s League. (2012) Women and the workforce: Challenges and opportunities facing 

women as they age. Retrieved from: http://www.ncdsv.org/images/OWL_Mother's-DayReport_2012.pdf
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report A-5 

Peck, L., A. Werner, E. Harvill, D. Litwok, S. Moulton, A.R. Fountain, and G. Locke. (2018) Health 

Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG 1.0) Impact Study Interim Report: Program 

Implementation and Short-Term Impacts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved from 

https://www.abtassociates.com/sites/default/files/2018-

06/hpog_interim_report_final_5_11_18_b508.pdf

Popay, J., Rogers, A., & Williams, G. (1998) Rationale and standards for the systematic review of 

qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research 8(3):341-

351.

Rix, S., Baer, D., & Figueredo, C. (2012) Boomers and the Great Recession: Struggling to 

Recover. AARP Public Policy Institute. 

Rogosa, D.R., Brandt, D., & Zimowski, M. (1982) A growth curve approach to the measurement of 

change. Psychological Bulletin 90:726-748.

Sarna, N., and Strawn, J. (2018) Career Pathways Implementation Synthesis. Career Pathways 

Design Study. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates, February 2018.

Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis (2017) Jobs Report, December 2017: With Hidden 

Unemployed, 3.2 Million Older Workers Trapped in Unemployment, The New School. 

Retrieved from https://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/jobs-report/december-2017-

unemployment-report-for-workers-over-55

Schaberg, K. (2017) Can Sector Strategies Promote Longer Term Effects? Three Year Impacts from 

the Work Advance Demonstration. New York: MDRC.

Schram, J. (2017) Thinking Policy: Long-Term Unemployment Down for People Ages 55+. AARP 

Blog, 8/04/2017, Retrieved from https://blog.aarp.org/2017/08/04/long-termunemployment-down-for-people-ages-55-in-july/

Schwartz, D., Strawn, J., and Sarna, M., (2018) Career Pathways Research and Evaluation 

Synthesis. Career Pathways Design Study. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates, February 2018.

Retrieved from: https://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/completed-studies/CareerPathways-Design-Study/2-Career-Pathways-Research-and-Evaluation-Synthesis.pdf

Singer, E., & Bossarte, R. M. (2006) Incentives for survey participation: When are they 

“coercive”? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31(5), 411-418.

Singer, J.D., & Willet, J.B. (2003) Applied Longitudinal Analysis: Modeling change and event 

occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stevens, D. W., (2004) Workforce Investment Act Title 1-B Adults and Dislocated Workers, July 

2002-June 2003: Older worker flows through core, intensive, and training services and 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report A-6 

employment status and earnings first quarter after exit. University of Baltimore, Jacob 

France Institute.

Taylor, J. C., & Rubin, J. (2005) Engaging employers to benefit low-income job seekers: Lessons 

from the Jobs Initiative. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Toossi, M. (2012) Employment outlook: 2010–2020, in Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Department 

of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Toossi, M. and Torpey E. (2017) Older workers: Labor force trends and Career Options, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Career Outlook. Retrieved from 

https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2017/article/older-workers.htm

Traub, A. (2013) In the Red: Older Americans and Credit Card Debt, AARP Public Policy Institute, 

Middle Class Security Project, January 2018. Retrieved from: 

https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/security/2013

/older-americans-and-credit-card-debt-AARP-ppi-sec.pdf

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008) BLS spotlight on statistics: Older 

workers and work. Retrieved from: 

http://www.dol.gov/wb/media/reports/WB_OlderWomen_v10%20WEB.pdf

Walker, J., Bocian, D.G., DeMarco, D., Freeman, B., and Warmath, D. (2018) Understanding 

Pathways to Financial Well-Being. Washington, DC: Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau. https://www.abtassociates.com/sites/default/files/2018-

09/FWB%20Report%202_Final_180709.pdf

Women’s Bureau, the U.S. Department of Labor (2013) Fact Sheet: Older Women and Work, 

Retrieved from: https://www.dol.gov/wb/resources/older_women_and_work.pdf

The Workforce Alliance (2008) New Federal Investments in Sector Partnerships: Establishing 

Industry-Wide Capacity to Grow Businesses and Advance Workers Utilizing Existing 

Workforce and Education Policies. Washington, DC: The Workforce Alliance.

Zandniapour, L. and Deterding, N. (2017) Lessons From the Social Innovation Fund: Supporting 

Evaluation to Assess Program Effectiveness and Build a Body of Research Evidence.

American Journal of Evaluation, October 2017, pp. 1- 15. Retrieved from 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320733330
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report B-1 

Appendix B: Fidelity Checklist 

Fidelity Checklist (College Name/Site Visit Date: )

Site visitor instructions: Insert name of college and date of visit above, and print out two versions prior to your visit. Fill this form out with the 

program manager while on site. Provide the BTW50+ WESI program manager with a version so he or she can look at it also as you fill it out. 

This tool tracks fidelity to best practices for employment and training programs designed for older workers as well as to the BTW50+ WESI model as 

outlined by the AARP Foundation. The key elements include (1), assessment and career coaching (2), computer skills training (3), financial capability 

building (4), job search skills training (5),arranging employer access , and (6) providing academic advising and arranging occupational skills training.

The assumption of the tool is that in the beginning stages most of these elements will either not be implemented, or they will be partially 

implemented, but that over time implementation of required or best practices will increase. Results will be used to inform peer learning and 

technical assistance efforts, including for the project learning community. 

Core Element 1: Initial Assessment and Career Coaching 

1.1 Coaching provides a sequence of activities that help job candidates assess their skills and interests, identify transferable skills, and 

focus on career paths they want to pursue. 

How are they meeting this goal?

Career coach conducts assessments and skill and interest inventories of job 

candidates starting at the first individual coaching session. These assessments 

and inventories are used to determine occupations of interest as well as 

appropriate training and job search skills services. 

Using the above assessments and inventories, the job candidate creates an 

activity plan that includes realistic, achievable goals. This plan is revisited and 

updated as job candidate needs change.

Career coach offers recommendations for appropriate 

career paths using up-to-date labor market information 

and suggests career paths that are in-demand, appropriate 

for older workers, and that provide the level of income 

needed by the job candidate. 

Career coaches encourage job candidates to apply for 

scholarship support or other programs (such as WIOA) that 

may help them achieve their career goals. 

 Other. Specify: 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report B-2 

Rating: Fully 

Implemented

College has procedures in place to ensure that each job candidate is assessed for training and job 

search skills needs, that career coaches help job candidates create activity plans to reach their 

employment goals, and that job candidates are linked to appropriate additional programming and 

supportive services as needed. The college can provide examples of how these procedures have 

been implemented. 

Partially 

Implemented

College can identify plans for how they will provide a sequence of activities to link job candidates 

to their desired career path, but they do not yet have processes for all steps or have not yet 

started offering everything that is planned. 

Not Yet 

Implemented

College is still working through their plans for how they will offer these services. 

Explanation of Rating: 

1.2 Coaching provides the support necessary to build job candidate confidence.

How are they meeting this goal?

Career coaches complete at least one coaching session with each cohort (for group coaching) or job candidate (for individual coaching). The 

intensity and duration of coaching is matched to the job candidates needs. 

Career coaches have experience working with older workers and/or have received training on how to best serve this population.

Career coaches encourage job candidates to consider careers in fields that are nontraditional for women and provide the support and 

information necessary to make such a choice. [Note that this criterion is optional]

Career coaches have the opportunity to conduct case conferencing with other career coaches or staff who have contact with candidates.

Job candidates can meet individually with coaches for one-on-one support or to address sensitive/personal issues.

Job candidates also have access to peer support groups/cohorts to learn from each other, share experiences, build their network, and gain 

confidence. 

 Other. Specify: 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report B-3 

Rating:

Fully 

Implemented

College has procedures in place to ensure a minimum number of coaching sessions for each job 

candidate, job candidate has access to both individual and peer based support, and career 

coaches are experienced working with the older worker population. The college can also provide 

examples of how these procedures have been implemented. 

Partially 

Implemented

College has plans in place to implement some of the above ways to build job candidate 

confidence, but has not yet implemented all steps or has not yet met all checkboxes. 

Not Yet 

Implemented

College is working through how to best articulate how the coaching program provides the 

support job candidates need to build confidence and is still thinking through possible plans. 

Explanation of Rating: 

1.3 Coaches link candidates to appropriate supportive services and outside resources to help them achieve their employment and 

training goals. 

How are they meeting this goal?

Career coaches conduct assessments to determine candidates’ supportive service needs, including for housing, food, health, legal 

assistance, mental health needs, and financial credit, and continue to look for opportunities to meet supportive service needs as they learn 

more about the job candidate’s situation and barriers faced.

Career coaches are able to identify and work with the job candidate to develop strategies to address barriers to training and work, including 

transportation, child care, work clothing, books, uniforms, etc.

Coaches have established relationships with primary referral agencies (the career coach contacts the organization to let staff there know 

that the candidate is coming and then follows up with either that organization or the participant to ensure needed services were procured).

 Other. Specify: 

Rating:

Fully 

Implemented

College has procedures in place to ensure candidates are assessed for any supportive services 

needs, as well as appropriate connections in place to provide candidates with warm referrals to 

meet these needs. The college can also provide examples of how these procedures have been 

implemented.

Partially 

Implemented

College has plans in place to implement some of the above ways to meet candidate supportive 

services needs, but has not yet implemented all steps or has not yet met all checkboxes. 

Not Yet 

Implemented

College is working through how to best implement their supportive services vision and is still 

thinking through possible plans.

Explanation of Rating: 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report B-4 

Core Element 2: Assessing Baseline and Upgrading Computer Skills 

2.1 The computer skills training is tailored to the needs of each job candidate specifically and older workers generally. 

How are they meeting this goal?

College conducts an assessment of job candidate’s current level of experience, knowledge, and skills using computers in order to place 

them in an appropriate skills upgrade class. This assessment covers a broad range of computer skills, including those needed for job searching, 

employment, and training. 

The level of computer skills training targeted for a job candidate is matched to the job skills required in the occupations the job candidate is 

targeting. 

The design and delivery of computer skills training takes into account the particular needs of job candidates for confidence building 

exercises, extra time for questions, extended time for hands-on practice, one-on-one instruction as needed (through instruction or tutoring), 

and a choice of the mode of training (e.g. online, blended, classroom based).

Several levels of instruction can be arranged to meet the varying needs of job candidates, starting at a basic skills computer literacy 

workshop and working up to more advanced software classes. 

 Other. Specify: 

Rating: Fully 

Implemented

College has procedures in place to ensure that job candidates are fully assessed to determine 

their computer skill level, that there is a computer skills upgrade class that corresponds to their 

background and experience, and that such classes are tailored toward the needs of older 

workers. The college can also provide examples of how these procedures have been 

implemented. 

Partially 

Implemented

College has plans to assess students and ensure they are placed in an appropriate computer skills 

upgrade, but they have not yet formalized the procedure and/or started the classes.

Not Yet 

Implemented

College is working through how to articulate clear plans for assessing students and putting them 

into an appropriate computer skills upgrade. 

Explanation of Rating:
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report B-5 

2.2 The curriculum of the computer skills upgrade is flexible and geared towards both job search and workplace needs.

How are they meeting this goal?

The computer skills upgrade provides appropriate breadth to each job candidate, including instruction in at least three areas: to support job 

search (web browsing, social media, online job search sites and tools, and completing online job applications), to ensure success in training, 

and for use in the workplace (software most frequently used in the workplace). 

Trainings on special computer skills needed for specific occupations are available for candidates who need them. 

The computer skills upgrade allows for progress over time and builds on a stackable model. Job candidates can build on current skills and 

continue learning beyond the ten week core services program, if interested. 

Whenever possible, the program adapts and draws on existing computer training resources available in the community.

The program identifies other resources for computer skills upgrades as needed (for example, through an ITA or other community resource).

 Other. Specify: 

Rating: Fully 

Implemented

College has procedures in place to provide a computer skills upgrade with the kind of flexible, 

stackable curriculum described above. The college can also provide examples of how these 

procedures have been implemented.

Partially 

Implemented

College has plans to provide computer skills upgrades with the kind of flexible, stackable 

curriculum described above, but has not yet started the classes or fully implemented their plans.

Not Yet 

Implemented

College is working through how to articulate clear plans for providing the kind of flexible, 

stackable curriculum described above. 

Explanation of Rating: 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report B-6 

Core Element 3: Financial Capability Building

3.1 The financial capability building component includes best practices from Finances 50+, such as being interactive and geared 

towards the needs of job candidates who are 50 or older. 

How are they meeting this goal?

The curriculum maps to Finances 50+, adapted to the local context as needed. It includes the recommended depth of 

instruction on:

• Setting goals and making a plan to achieve them

• Creating a budget and prioritizing needs and wants

• Understanding and managing debt and credit and consumer rights

• Maximizing credit scores

• Saving money through increasing income or reducing spending

• Recognizing the signs of a scam

• Where to turn with concerns about financial fraud or a scam

• Motivation and opportunity to put knowledge gained into action immediately to increase financial stability 

Real life financial examples relevant to those 50+ (retirement goal setting, social security, financial planning for health needs) 

are included.

The program includes interactive activities. 

Other. Specify 

Rating: Fully 

Implemented

College has procedures in place to provide Finances 50+ as described above or a curriculum of 

equivalent scope and depth and can give examples of how it has been implemented. 

Partially 

Implemented

College has plans to provide Finances 50+ as described above, but has not yet fully implemented 

the plan.

Not Yet 

Implemented

College is working through how to articulate clear plans for providing the Finances 50+ as 

described above.

Explanation of Rating: 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report B-7 

3.2 The financial capability building component is contextualized within the local community and takes advantage of its resources. 

How are they meeting this goal?

The program refers job candidates to resources in the community that assist with building savings and reducing debt.

There is participation (guest speaker, volunteer instructor) from a local finance professional.

The program provides information about income supports and financial aid that may be available to job candidate.

 Other. Specify: 

Rating: Fully 

Implemented 

College has procedures in place to provide Finances 50+ as described above 

and can give examples of how it has been implemented.

Partially 

Implemented

College has plans to provide Finances 50+ as described above, but has not yet 

fully implemented the plan.

Not Yet 

Implemented

College is working through how to articulate clear plans for providing the 

Finances 50+ as described above.

Explanation of Rating: 

Core Element 4: Enhancing Job Search Skills

4.1 Career coaches are able to provide job candidates with targeted advice about job searching, have developed relationships with

local employers, and are knowledgeable about recruitment, screening, and hiring practices of local employers in the occupations 

of interest to job candidates. 

How are they meeting this goal?

Career coaches or college have established relationships with local employers in the fields of interest to job candidates and can describe 

what these relationships entail. 

Career coaches use up-to-date labor market information, and provide job candidates with details about academic skill level needed, 

working conditions, wages at entry level, and opportunities for advancement for the careers in which they are interested. 

College is connected to its local American Job Center (demonstrated through active referrals, being an eligible training provider, and/or 

having an AJC on site) and refers job candidates to their services as needed.

Job candidates have the opportunity to connect with employers during the job search skills component through On-the-Job Training (OJT) 

positions, internships, presentations from employers, or job fairs. 

 Other. Specify: 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report B-8 

Rating: Fully 

Implemented

College has procedures in place to ensure career coaches are providing connections to employers 

as described above. College can give examples about how it has connected job candidates with 

employers in ways that benefit the job candidate’s job search.

Partially 

Implemented

College has plans to connect job candidates to employers as described above, but has not yet 

fully implemented the plan. 

Not Yet 

Implemented

College is working through its plans for connecting job candidates to employers as described 

above.

Explanation of Rating: 

4.2 The program provides its own targeted support for job placement/job search skills training that is tailored to the needs of job 

candidates. 

How are they meeting this goal?

Program offers a minimum number of dedicated workshops with job search skills topics. These workshops incorporate the “7 Smart 

Strategies” from the AARP Foundation: 

• Target local hot jobs

• Create your own personal marketing tools to impress employers

• Conquer the job application process

• Get new work experience and skills

• Meet people who know people

• Connect with organizations that find job candidates for employers

• Take time to focus on yourself 

Job candidates receive instruction in current job search skills, including online applications and job search sites, social media, and current 

resume, cover letter, and interviewing methods, either in the above workshops or through other programming offered by the college.

Job candidates have access to peer support while job searching (for example, a job club or group coaching). 

 Job candidates in both the core services and training groups have access to job search skills programming, though they may receive it at 

different times or through different channels. 

 Other. Specify: 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report B-9 

Rating: Fully 

Implemented

College has procedures in place to ensure tailored job search skills training support, as described 

above, is provided to all job candidates. College can give examples about how this 

implementation has occurred. 

Partially 

Implemented

College has plans to provide tailored job search skill training support to job candidates, but has 

not yet fully implemented the plan. 

Not Yet 

Implemented

College is working through how to articulate clear plans for providing job candidates with job 

search training as described above. 

Explanation of Rating: 

Core Element 5: Encouraging Employers to Engage with Job Candidates

5.1 The program engages in employer outreach and education activities to inform local employers of the value of the 50+ workforce

and BTW50+ WESI job candidates.

How are they meeting this goal?

Program staff have direct contact with employers in the fields into which job candidates hope to be hired. This includes, for example, the 

program hosting employer workshops, attending chamber of commerce events, and inviting employers to career fairs. 

The program engages with employers to help articulate skills-upgrading paths that make job candidates more likely to be considered for 

open positions and for direct placement into open positions (OJTs and internships are available).

The program hosts hiring fairs exclusively for BTW50+ WESI job candidates or provides support and coaching to candidates before and after 

they attend college-wide career fairs. 

 Other. Specify: 

Rating: Fully 

Implemented

College had procedures in place to ensure employer outreach. College can give examples about 

how this has occurred. 

Partially 

Implemented

College has plans to conduct employer outreach, but has yet to fully implement the plan. 

 Not 

Implemented

College is working through how to articulate clear plans for conducting employer outreach as 

described above. 

Explanation of Rating: 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report B-10

Core Element 6: Academic Advising and Arranging Occupational Skills Training

6.1 Training options are both tailored to the needs of the job candidate population and broad enough to give them adequate choice. 

How are they meeting this goal?

Job candidates receive individual coaching from the career coach or other college staff to help them select a training that leads to 

employment in a field that suits their needs.

Career coaches are familiar with training offerings in a wide variety of occupational areas.

Targeted trainings are of interest to older workers and targeted towards their skills (trainings build on skills they may already have).

Trainings target local in-demand occupations.

Short trainings (8 weeks or less, as is the SSA definition) are available for those job candidates that want to get back to work quickly. 

 Other. Specify: 

Rating: Fully 

Implemented

College has procedures in place to ensure that there is choice in training options, while still being 

tailored to the job candidate population. College can give examples about how this has been 

implemented. 

Partially 

Implemented

College has plans to provide training options as detailed above, but has yet to fully implement the 

plan. 

Not Yet 

Implemented

College is working through how to articulate clear plans for allowing choice in training options 

while still tailoring them to the job candidate population. 

Explanation of Rating: 

6.2 Support is provided to job candidates in training and is tailored to their needs. 

How are they meeting this goal?

Career coach or other support person (e.g. academic advisor) checks in with training job candidates to ensure that needs are met during 

training. 

Job candidates in training receive support from their peers (through study groups, by having training in a cohort model, by simultaneously 

attending cohort based coaching, etc).

Job candidates in training are still connected to the greater BTW50+ WESI program (through concurrent attendance of other workshops, 

peer support groups, continued meetings with career coaches, etc).

 Other. Specify: 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report B-11

Rating: Fully 

Implemented

College has procedures to ensure job candidates in training receive tailored support, as 

described above. College can give examples of how this support has been implemented. 

Partially 

Implemented

College has plans to provide training support as detailed above, but has yet to fully 

implement the plan. 

Not Yet 

Implemented

College is working through how to articulate clear plans for providing support during training. 

Explanation of Rating: 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report C-1 

Appendix C: Survey Methodology 

This technical appendix provides further details on the survey instrument and analysis process 

used to inform the findings presented in Chapter VI. 

About the Survey 

The list of individuals eligible for the survey is obtained from an automated query in the 

Foundation Impact System (FIS) based on participants’ date of enrollment in the program. Once 

a month, SPR reviews the query and generates a list of all individuals who have reached the 

three-month, six-month, and 12-month post-enrollment marks, yielding phone and email 

contact information for transmission to the Social and Economic Sciences Research Center 

(SESRC), SPR’s survey subcontractor. 

Each month, those who enrolled three, six, and 12 months prior were considered for the survey.

SESRC sends a personalized invitation letter to each potential respondent to be surveyed during 

the current month. The letter informs potential respondents about the survey and invites them 

to complete a telephone survey. The invitation letter includes a $1 bill as a token of appreciation 

for the time potential respondents would take to complete the survey. The survey 

questionnaires are installed on SESRC’s computer-assisted telephone interview system. SESRC 

attempts to contact each potential respondent by telephone. After five unsuccessful attempts to 

contact the person by phone, SESRC stops calling for that survey. Individuals who cannot be 

reached at the three-month mark will still be contacted for subsequent six- and 12-month 

surveys. 

Survey Response Rates 

Just under half of BTW50+: WESI participants responded to the follow-up survey three months 

after enrollment; the response rate is lower after six and 12 months (see Exhibit C-1). Response 

rates represent the number of program participants who completed or partially completed the 

survey divided by the number of participants SESRC attempted to contact minus those contacts 

considered ineligible. These include largely cases of unknow eligibility (e.g., disconnected 

telephones, busy signals, and no answers) after reaching the sixth attempt. Ineligible contacts 

also include a few cases where no interview was obtainable (e.g. contacts who reported not 

participating in the program, or contacts with health impediments or who were deceased). The 

interim report could not present results of the six- and 12-month surveys due to small samples 

sizes, and to improve response rates, beginning in the spring of 2017, colleges started receiving a

list of job candidates who were going be contacted for the survey during a given month so that 

they could encourage candidates to participate in the survey. Compared to the response rates in 

the interim report, response rates increased for the six-month survey (from 25.8% to 34.5%) and 

for the twelve-month survey (from 21.7% to 25.1%). The response rates for the three-month 

survey remained constant at about 44 percent. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report C-2 

Exhibit C-1: Survey Response Rates 

 3-month 6-month 12-month 

Eligible program participants 1,291 1,128 944

Completed surveys 574 389 237

Response rate 44.5% 34.5% 25.1%

Non-Response Bias 

Given the moderate response rates for all three surveys, the evaluation team considered the 

possibility of systematic differences between the survey respondents and the full pool of 

program participants, yielding bias in the survey findings. To estimate the extent of potential 

non-response bias, the evaluation team compared the characteristics of survey respondents to 

those of all program participants. The pool of program participants’ information on age, gender, 

race and ethnicity, college of attendance, and prior education was obtained from FIS data 

extracts. As shown below in Exhibits C-2, C-3, and C-4, there were statistically significant 

differences between actual and potential survey respondents on these characteristics. 

Therefore, results were weighted based on observable characteristics to correct for nonresponse. Importantly, this does not preclude the existence of other sources of non-response 

bias. It is still possible that potential and actual survey respondents differ based on 

characteristics that were unmeasured (e.g., level of motivation and commitment toward the 

program) and that these characteristics were associated with the likelihood of responding to the 

survey. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report C-3 

Exhibit C-2: Comparison Between 3-Month Survey Respondents and Universe 

Demographic 

Characteristics

Percentage of 

Survey 

Respondents

(n=574)

Percentage of 

All Job 

Candidates 

Contacted

(n= 1,868) Difference 

Age

55 or younger 33.8 37.1 3.3

56–58 22.4 20.8 -1.6

59–62 21.4 20.0 -1.4

63–65 9.8 9.4 -0.4

66 and older 12.6 12.8 0.2

Gender (1)

Male 9.4 13.4 4.0

Female 90.6 86.6 -4.0

Racial/Ethnic Background

Black or African American 30.9 30.6 -0.3

Hispanic/Latino 11.2 12.7 1.5

White/Caucasian 53.5 52.3 -1.2

Other Race/Ethnicity 4.3 4.4 0.1

Highest Degree Completed

Less than HS/GED 14.2 16.1 1.9

Some College/AA Degree 40.3 42.2 1.9

BA Degree 31.1 28.6 -2.5

Postgraduate Degree 14.4 13.1 -1.3

Master’s, JD, PhD, etc.

Subgrantee (2)

Austin Community College 26.0 26.0 0.0

Eastern Florida State College/Career Source Brevard 19.3 21.7 2.4

Sante Fe College, Gainesville, FL 19.0 17.5 -1.5

Santa Fe Community College Santa Fe, NM 9.2 6.7 -2.5

Jefferson State Community College 21.3 19.0 -2.3

Miami Dade College 5.2 9.2 4 

Note: Chi-square tests for equality of proportions between survey participants and the universe revealed 

significant differences between these two populations. (1) Differences were statistically significant, X2 (2, N 

= 573) = 7.3, p = .007; (2) Differences were statistically significant, X2 (6, N = 574) = 19.8, p = .001
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report C-4 

Exhibit C-3: Comparison Between 6-Month Survey Respondents and Universe 

Demographic 

Characteristics

Percentage of 

Survey 

Respondents 

(n=389)

Percentage of 

All Job 

Candidates 

Contacted

(n= 1,868)

Difference 

Age (1) 

55 or younger 29.2 37.1 7.9

56–58 22.7 20.8 -1.9

59–62 23.0 20.0 -3.0

63–65 12.3 9.4 -2.9

66 and older 12.8 12.8 0.0

Gender (2)

Male 8.7 13.4 4.7

Female 91.3 86.6 -4.7

Racial/Ethnic Background

Black or African American 27.8 30.6 2.8

Hispanic/Latino 12.1 12.7 0.6

White/Caucasian 55.4 52.3 -3.1

Other Race/Ethnicity 4.7 4.4 -0.3

Highest Degree Completed (3)

Less than HS/GED 12.8 16.1 3.3

Some College/AA Degree 37.5 42.2 4.7

BA Degree 37.5 28.6 -8.9

Postgraduate Degree 12.2 13.1 0.9

Master’s, JD, PhD, etc.

Subgrantee (4)

Austin Community College 27.8 26.0 -1.8

Eastern Florida State College/Career Source Brevard 13.4 21.7 8.3

Sante Fe College, Gainesville, FL 19.5 17.5 -2.0

Santa Fe Community College Santa Fe, NM 12.6 6.7 -5.9

Jefferson State Community College 22.4 19.0 -3.4

Miami Dade College 4.4 9.2 4.8

Note: Chi-square tests for equality of proportions between survey participants and the universe revealed 

significant differences between these two populations. (1) Differences were statistically significant, X2 (5, N = 

389) = 7.2, p = .007; (2) Differences were statistically significant, X2 (2, N = 383) = 19.8, p = .018; (3) Differences 

were statistically significant, X2 (4, N = 344) = 14.1, p = .003; (4) Differences were statistically significant, X2 (6, N 

=389) = 46.1, p = .001

 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report C-5 

Exhibit C-4: Comparison Between 12-Month Survey Respondents and Universe 

Demographic 

Characteristics

Percentage of 

Survey 

Respondents 

(n=237)

Percentage of 

All Job 

Candidates 

Contacted

(n= 1,868)

Difference 

Age

55 or younger 33.2 37.1 3.9

56–58 25.2 20.8 -4.4

59–62 21.0 20.0 -1.0

63–65 11.2 9.4 -1.8

66 and older 9.4 12.8 3.5

Gender (1)

Male 8.3 13.4 5.1

Female 91.7 86.6 -5.1

Racial/Ethnic Background

Black or African American 28.3 30.6 2.3

Hispanic/Latino 12.7 12.7 0.0

White/Caucasian 54.3 52.3 -2.0

Other Race/Ethnicity 4.7 4.4 -0.3

Highest Degree Completed

Less than HS/GED 11.0 16.1 5.1

Some College/AA Degree 43.5 42.2 -1.3

BA Degree 34.0 28.6 -5.4

Postgraduate Degree 11.5 13.1 1.6

Master’s, JD, PhD, etc.

Subgrantee (2)

Austin Community College 25.2 26.0 0.8

Eastern Florida State College/Career Source Brevard 18.4 21.7 3.4

Sante Fe College, Gainesville, FL 18.8 17.5 -1.3

Santa Fe Community College Santa Fe, NM 15.1 6.7 -8.4

Jefferson State Community College 17.9 19.0 1.1

Miami Dade College 4.6 9.2 4.6

Note: Chi-square tests for equality of proportions between survey participants and the universe revealed 

significant differences between these two populations. (1) Differences were statistically significant, X2 (2, N = 

237) = 4.8, p = .028; (2) Differences were statistically significant, X2 (6, N =237) = 28.5, p = .000
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report C-6 

Developing Scales Measuring Attitudes Towards Computer Use, Financial 

Capability, and Quality of Life 

The three-, six-, and 12-month surveys include items designed to measure three constructs of 

interest among BTW 50+: WESI job candidates: attitudes towards computer use, financial 

capability, and quality of life. Using results from the three-month survey, this section describes in 

more detail how the scales were developed. For each of the three scales, the section lists the 

survey items that made up each scale and describes the values given to candidates’ responses as 

well as the results of the reliability assessment on whether items included in the scales should be 

part of the overall scale measures.

Attitudes Towards Computer Use 

To understand BTW50+: WESI job candidates’ attitudes towards computer use, SPR included 16 

survey items measuring how they felt about using computers. SPR selected these 16 items based 

on previous research examining computer anxiety in older adults (Wild et al., 2012). The 

computer anxiety scale found in the literature appeared to be adequate for inclusion because it 

had a sufficient number and variety of items designed to capture respondents’ subjective 

experiences when using a computer and all items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale. In 

addition, the scale had been validated by prior research using a representative sample of older 

adults similar to the population participating in the BTW50+: WESI program in terms of age 

(Hinkin et al., 1997; Wild et al., 2012). 

The survey instruments include the following question: “I am going to read a series of 

statements about computer use. For each one please tell me how much you agree or disagree 

that the statement pertains to you. Do you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, 

disagree, or strongly disagree with this statement?” As shown in Exhibit C-5, the 16 statements 

elicit respondents’ feelings when using a computer. 

Because of the way statements were worded, the values assigned to individuals’ responses were 

different for items 1 through 8 and item 16. As Exhibit C-5 shows, for statements indicating 

unease with computer use, “strongly disagree” responses received a value of 1 and “strongly 

agree” responses received a value of 5. For the remainder of the statements—that is, those 

indicating ease with computer use—values were reversed so that “strongly agree” responses 

received a value of 1 and “strongly disagree” responses received a value of 5. The total sum of 

individuals’ responses to the 16 items makes up their overall computer use scale score.

Participants with lower computer use scale scores expressed less overall difficulty in using 

computers. In the sample used for these analyses, computer use scale scores had an average of 

32.8 (SD=11.138) and ranged from 16 to 76 points.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report C-7 

Exhibit C-5: Survey Items Measuring Attitudes Towards Computer Use 

Survey Items Measuring Attitudes 

Toward Computer Use Responses Assigned Values

1. You try to avoid using computers 

whenever possible (q14a)

Strongly 

disagree

[1] 

Disagree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3] 

Agree

[4] 

Strongly

agree

[5] 

2. You wish you could be as calm as 

others appear to be when they are 

using computers (q14b)

Strongly 

disagree

[1] 

Disagree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3] 

Agree

[4] 

Strongly

agree

[5] 

3. You feel tense whenever working 

on a computer (q14c)

Strongly 

disagree

[1] 

Disagree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3] 

Agree

[4] 

Strongly

agree

[5] 

4. You feel anxious whenever you are 

using computers (q14d)

Strongly 

disagree

[1] 

Disagree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3] 

Agree

[4] 

Strongly

agree

[5] 

5. You experience anxiety whenever 

you sit in front of a computer 

terminal (q14e)

Strongly 

disagree

[1] 

Disagree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3] 

Agree

[4] 

Strongly

agree

[5] 

6. You are frightened by computers 

(q14f) 

Strongly 

disagree

[1] 

Disagree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3] 

Agree

[4] 

Strongly

agree

[5] 

7. You feel overwhelmed when 

working on a computer (q14g)

Strongly 

disagree

[1] 

Disagree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3] 

Agree

[4] 

Strongly

agree

[5] 

8. You worry about making mistakes 

on the computer (q14h)

Strongly 

disagree

[1] 

Disagree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3] 

Agree

[4] 

Strongly

agree

[5] 

9. You are confident in your ability to 

use computers (q14i)

Strongly 

agree

[1] 

Agree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3] 

Disagree

[4] 

Strongly 

disagree

[5] 

10. You enjoy working with computers 

(q14j) 

Strongly 

agree

[1] 

Agree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3] 

Disagree

[4] 

Strongly 

disagree

[5] 

11. You feel relaxed when you are 

working on a computer (q14k) 

Strongly agree

[1] 

Agree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3] 

Disagree

[4] 

Strongly 

disagree

[5] 

12. You feel at ease with computers 

(q14l)

Strongly 

agree

[1] 

Agree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3] 

Disagree

[4] 

Strongly 

disagree

[5] 

13. You feel content when you are 

working on a computer (q14m)

Strongly

agree

[1] 

Agree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3] 

Disagree

[4] 

Strongly 

disagree

[5] 

14. You feel comfortable with 

computers (q14n)

Strongly 

agree

[1] 

Agree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree [3]

Disagree

[4] 

Strongly 

disagree

[5] 

15. You would like to continue working 

with computers in the future 

(q14o) 

Strongly 

agree

[1] 

Agree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree [3]

Disagree

[4] 

Strongly 

disagree

[5] 

16. You wish that computers were not 

as important as they are (q14p)

Strongly 

disagree

[1] 

Disagree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3] 

Agree

[4] 

Strongly

agree

[5] 

Note: The numbers in are the scores for the answers. The sum of these represents a participant’s overall score on 

the computer use scale. A higher score denotes greater difficulty using computers.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report C-8 

To determine whether the 16 items in the computer scale measured the same construct, we 

computed inter-item correlations for all the items, shown in Exhibit C-6. These analyses help 

detect low correlations of items in the scale. Low correlations, typically below .4, indicate that 

the item(s) may not be measuring the same domain as other items included the scale 

(Thorndike, 2005). The last row in Exhibit C-6 shows that the overall scale reliability coefficient, 

Cronbach’s alpha, is .9 (α=0.9392). Alpha coefficients range in value from 0 to 1 and the closer 

they are to 1, the more consistency there is among the items. The overall alpha for the scale of 

.9 suggests that all 16 items in the computer scale do reliably measure a single construct. 

To improve reliability and consistency of the overall scale, one can also examine how each of the 

items correlates with the overall scale. Column (a) in Exhibit C-6 shows the results of these single 

item correlations. All items were above the .4 threshold. As mentioned earlier, items that 

correlate at less than .4 may not be measuring the same construct as the other items in the 

scale. Column (c) in Exhibit C-6 shows how the overall alpha score for the scale would change if 

the item was dropped from the scale. After observing item 16, the decision was to retain it in the 

scale since removing it would only marginally improve reliability. 

Exhibit C-6. Assessment of Survey Items Measuring Attitudes Towards Computer Use 

Survey Items

Item-Test 

Correlation 

(a)

Interitem 

Covariance

(b) 

Alpha

(c) 

1. You try to avoid using computers whenever possible (q14a) 0.6208 0.521003 0.939

2. You wish you could be as calm as others appear to be when 

they are using computers (q14b) 0.6479 0.500931 0.9402

3. You feel tense whenever working on a computer (q14c) 0.7935 0.491212 0.9348

4. You feel anxious whenever you are using computers (q14d) 0.8387 0.491463 0.9335

5. You experience anxiety whenever you sit in front of a 

computer terminal (q14e) 0.7581 0.508097 0.9358

6. You are frightened by computers (q14f) 0.6875 0.527824 0.9377

7. You feel overwhelmed when working on a computer (q14g) 0.7989 0.501198 0.9347

8. You worry about making mistakes on the computer (q14h) 0.7648 0.488541 0.9359

9. You are confident in your ability to use computers (q14i) 0.8089 0.496715 0.9343

10. You enjoy working with computers (q14j) 0.7467 0.50896 0.936

11. You feel relaxed when you are working on a computer (q14k) 0.8276 0.493949 0.9338

12. You feel at ease with computers (q14l) 0.8592 0.495212 0.9332

13. You feel content when you are working on a computer (q14m) 0.8087 0.496504 0.9343

14. You feel comfortable with computers (q14n) 0.8671 0.497256 0.9331

15. You would like to continue working with computers in the 

future (q14o) 0.5474 0.534026 0.9403

16. You wish that computers were not as important as they are 

(q14p) 0.4128 0.535413 0.9468

Test scale 0.6208 0.521003 0.9392

Financial Capability 

Managing personal finances is an important training component of BTW50+: WESI. For this 

reason, the survey asked a series of questions to better understand financial capability. The 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report C-9 

survey included 11 items designed to measure a variety the Financial Management Behavior 

Scales (FMBS). The items appeared to be adequate to measure financial capability because they 

included a range of short-and long-term financial behaviors. In addition, previous research found 

that the FMBS scale displayed close to adequate reliability (α=0.8) in a nationally representative 

sample of adults (Dew & Xiao, 2011). 

Survey respondents were asked the following question: “I am now going to read a list of financial 

activities. Please tell me how often you engaged in each activity during the last three months. In 

the past three months, would you say you did this activity never, seldom, sometimes, often, or 

always?” Exhibit C-7 lists the 11 statements included in the financial capability scale score and 

the value assigned to each of the responses. The statements were designed to learn about the 

frequency with which respondents engaged in financial management behaviors. Apart from 

items 6 and 7, where less frequency of the behavior indicated more financial savviness, “never” 

received a value of 1 and “always” received a value of 5. The total sum of a respondent’s 

answers on these 11 items makes up her overall financial capability score, where a higher 

financial capability score indicates greater financial capability. In the sample used for this 

analysis, financial capability scores had an average of 35.4 (SD=7.311) and ranged from 13 to 55 

points.

Exhibit C-7: Survey Items Measuring Financial Capability 

Survey Items Measuring Financial Capability Responses Assigned Values

1. Comparison shopping (q11a) Never

[1] 

Seldom

[2] 

Sometimes

[3] 

Often

[4] 

Always

[5] 

2. Paid your bills on time (q11b) Never

[1] 

Seldom

[2] 

Sometimes

[3] 

Often

[4] 

Always

[5] 

3. Kept a record of monthly expenses (q11c) Never

[1] 

Seldom

[2] 

Sometimes

[3] 

Often

[4] 

Always

[5] 

4. Stayed within budget (q11d) Never

[1] 

Seldom

[2] 

Sometimes

[3] 

Often

[4] 

Always

[5] 

5. Paid off credit card balance in full each month (q11e) Never

[1] 

Seldom

[2] 

Sometimes

[3] 

Often

[4] 

Always

[5] 

6. Maxed out the limit on one or more credit cards (q11f) Always

[1] 

Often

[2] 

Sometimes

[3] 

Seldom

[4] 

Never

[5] 

7. Made only minimum payments on a loan (q11g) Always

[1] 

Often

[2] 

Sometimes

[3] 

Seldom

[4] 

Never

[5] 

8. Began or maintained an emergency savings fund 

(q11h) 

Never

[1] 

Seldom

[2] 

Sometimes

[3] 

Often

[4] 

Always

[5] 

9. Saved money from every paycheck (q11i) Never

[1] 

Seldom

[2] 

Sometimes

[3] 

Often

[4] 

Always

[5] 

10. Contributed money to a retirement account (q11j) Never

[1] 

Seldom

[2] 

Sometimes

[3] 

Often

[4] 

Always

[5] 

11. Bought bonds, stocks, or mutual funds (q11k) Never

[1] 

Seldom

[2] 

Sometimes

[3] 

Often

[4] 

Always

[5] 

Note: The numbers in are the scores for the answers. The sum of these represents a participant’s score on the financial 

capability scale. A higher score denotes greater financial capability.

As with the computer use scale described above, the evaluation team examined whether the 11 

items in the financial capability scale measured the same construct by computing correlations for 

all the items. These analyses helped detect low correlations of items in the scale. Exhibit C-8 

shows that the overall scale reliability coefficient, Cronbach’s alpha, is .7 (α=0.7615), suggesting 

that all 11 items in the scale reliably measure financial capability. While there were few 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report C-10

correlations of around .4 in the scale, removing any one item would not yield higher alpha scores 

for the overall scale. As alpha scores listed in column (c) in Exhibit C-8 show eliminating items do 

not improve the scale noticeably. 

Exhibit C-8: Assessment of Financial Capability Survey Items 

Survey Items

Item-Test 

Correlation 

(a)

Interitem 

Covariance

(b) 

Alpha 

(c) 

1. Comparison shopping (q11a) 0.4670 0.449763 0.7615

2. Paid your bills on time (q11b) 0.5844 0.396291 0.7223

3. Kept a record of monthly expenses (q11c) 0.4080 0.416937 0.7491

4. Stayed within budget (q11d) 0.5610 0.386772 0.7238

5. Paid off credit card balance in full each month 

(q11e) 0.6550 0.344191 0.7118

6. Maxed out the limit on one or more credit cards 

(q11f) 0.4366 0.416686 0.7385

7. Made only minimum payments on a loan (q11g) 0.4712 0.399472 0.7426

8. Began or maintained an emergency savings fund 

(q11h) 0.6961 0.334207 0.7023

9. Saved money from every paycheck (q11i) 0.6815 0.343473 0.7048

10. Contributed money to a retirement account 

(q11j) 0.5869 0.37048 0.722

11. Bought bonds, stocks, or mutual funds (q11k) 0.4960 0.407297 0.7315

Test scale 0.2670 0.449763 0.7615

Quality of Life 

The BTW50+: WESI program emphasizes the importance of self-care during and beyond the job 

search period, and the survey therefore included 13 items related to quality of life. SPR used 

items from the Older People’s Quality of Life questionnaire (OPQOL-brief), which was originally 

developed to understand the perspectives of older people about their lives. Previous research 

has assessed the items conceptually and has validated the scale utilizing samples of older adults 

(Bowling et al., 2012). 

All survey respondents were asked the following question: “I am going to read a series of 

statements about quality of life. For each one, please tell me how much you agree or disagree 

that the statement pertains to you. Do you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, 

disagree, or strongly disagree with this statement?” As shown in Exhibit C-9, the 13 statements 

were designed to learn about respondents’ overall sense of well-being in relation to their health, 

social relationships, leisure activities, and financial circumstances. 

Exhibit C-9 lists the 13 statements included in the quality of life scale. For all 13 items, “strongly 

disagree” received a value of 1 and “strongly agree” received a value of 5. The total sum of 

respondents’ answers to the 13 items makes up their overall quality of life, where higher scores 

indicate higher quality of life. In the sample used for these analyses, overall quality of life scale 

scores had an average of 54.9 (SD=7.234) and ranged from 13 to 65 points.
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report C-11

Exhibit C-9: Survey Items Measuring Quality of Life 

Survey Items Measuring Quality of Life Responses Assigned Values

1. You enjoy your life overall (q13a)

Strongly 

disagree

[1]

Disagree

[2]

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3]

Agree

[4]

Strongly 

agree

[5]

2. You look forward to things (q13b)

Strongly 

disagree

[1]

Disagree

[2]

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3]

Agree

[4]

Strongly 

agree

[5]

3. You are healthy enough to get out and 

about (q13c)

Strongly 

disagree

[1]

Disagree

[2]

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3]

Agree

[4]

Strongly 

agree

[5]

4. Your family, friends, or neighbors would 

help you if needed (q13d)

Strongly 

disagree

[1]

Disagree

[2]

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3]

Agree

[4]

Strongly 

agree

[5]

5. You have social or leisure activities or 

hobbies that you enjoy doing (q13e)

Strongly 

disagree

[1]

Disagree

[2]

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3]

Agree

[4]

Strongly 

agree

[5]

6. You try to stay involved with things 

(q13f)

Strongly 

disagree

[1]

Disagree

[2]

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3]

Agree

[4]

Strongly 

agree

[5]

7. You are healthy enough to have your 

independence (q13g)

Strongly 

disagree

[1]

Disagree

[2] 

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3]

Agree

[4]

Strongly 

agree

[5]

8. You can do things that please you (q13h)

Strongly 

disagree

[1]

Disagree

[2]

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3]

Agree

[4]

Strongly 

agree

[5]

9. You feel safe where you live (q13i)

Strongly 

disagree

[1] 

Disagree

[2]

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3]

Agree

[4]

Strongly 

agree

[5]

10.You get pleasure from your home (q13j)

Strongly 

disagree

[1]

Disagree

[2]

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3]

Agree

[4]

Strongly 

agree

[5]

11.You take life as it comes and make the 

best of things (q13k)

Strongly 

disagree

[1]

Disagree

[2]

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3]

Agree

[4]

Strongly 

agree

[5]

12.You feel lucky compared to most people 

(q13l)

Strongly 

disagree

[1]

Disagree

[2]

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3]

Agree

[4]

Strongly 

agree

[5]

13.You have enough money to pay for 

household bills (q13m)

Strongly 

disagree

[1]

Disagree

[2]

Neither agree 

nor disagree

[3]

Agree

[4]

Strongly 

agree

[5]

Note: The numbers in are the scores for the answers. The sum of these represents a participant’s score on the 

quality of life scale. A higher score denotes a higher quality of life.

Exhibit C-10 shows the information used to examine the correlations for all 13 items. The overall 

scale reliability coefficient, Cronbach’s alpha, is .8 (α=0.8851), suggesting that all 13 items in the 

scale reliably measure quality of life. After assessing the reliability and consistency of each of the 

items in the scale, shown in column (a) of Exhibit C-10 below, the evaluation team found no 

correlations below .4 in the scale. Thus, at this point there is no need to consider removing any 

quality of life survey items. 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report C-12

Exhibit C-10: Assessment of Quality of Life Survey Items 

Survey Items

Item-Test 

Correlation 

(a)

Interitem 

Covariance

(b) 

Alpha 

(c) 

1. You enjoy your life overall (q13a) 0.7515 0.285583 0.8851

2. You look forward to things (q13b) 0.7419 0.288277 0.8856

3. You are healthy enough to get out and about (q13c) 0.6273 0.308234 0.8914

4. Your family, friends, or neighbors would help you if 

needed (q13d) 0.5649 0.30155 0.8977

5. You have social or leisure activities or hobbies that 

you enjoy doing (q13e) 0.7390 0.286378 0.8859

6. You try to stay involved with things (q13f) 0.7652 0.289984 0.8845

7. You are healthy enough to have your independence 

(q13g) 0.6955 0.306969 0.8890

8. You can do things that please you (q13h) 0.7713 0.295759 0.8849

9. You feel safe where you live (q13i) 0.6903 0.300221 0.8885

10.You get pleasure from your home (q13j) 0.6747 0.294869 0.8895

11.You take life as it comes and make the best of things 

(q13k) 0.6566 0.308439 0.8903

12.You feel lucky compared to most people (q13l) 0.6256 0.30295 0.8917

13.You have enough money to pay for household bills 

(q13m) 0.5817 0.294113 0.9008

Test scale 0.7515 0.285583 0.8851
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-1 

Appendix D: Survey Instruments—Three, Six, and Twelve-Month 

Three-Month Survey Results 

This appendix shows the questionnaire items and skip logic for the 3-month follow-up survey, 

annotated with frequencies for the 574 survey responses included in Chapter VI. Percentages 

shown may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Q01 

How did you first hear about BACK TO WORK 50+at <COLNAME>?

27.3% From an AARP newspaper or radio ad

20.6% A friend, co-worker or family member

7.7% College staff

5.7% A church or other organization in the community

38.6% Other source

Q02 

We’d like to know more about your reasons for participating in BACK TO WORK 50+. One reason 

people enroll in programs like this is to get help with finding a job. In terms of finding a job, how 

important were each of the following reasons in your decision to enroll in BACK TO WORK 50+ at 

<COLNAME>?

(The first reason is/The next reason is . . .) 

(Was this reason very important, important, slightly important or not important in your decision 

to enroll in the program?)

Very Important Important Slightly Important Not Important 

A. Finding a job as soon as possible 47.7% 30.0% 17.3% 5.0%

B. Finding a better paying job 42.7% 23.1% 14.4% 19.8%

C. Finding a job with more hours 22.6% 18.3% 14.8% 44.3%

D. Learning about new 

opportunities 

for employment 

65.5% 28.5% 3.3% 2.7%
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-2 

Q03 

We’d also like to know about any other reasons you enrolled in the program. How important 

were each of the following reasons in your decision to enroll in BACK TO WORK 50+?

(The first reason is/The next reason is . . .) 

(Was this reason VERY IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT, SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT or NOT IMPORTANT in 

your decision to enroll in the program?)

 

Very 

Important Important 

Slightly 

Important 

Not 

Important 

A. Training for a new field 49.2% 19.5% 17.4% 14.0%

B. Upgrading skills gained from your 

previous jobs

50.8% 22.7% 12.3% 14.2%

C. Learning or improving computer 

skills 

53.5% 20.4% 8.3% 17.9%

D. Learning how to manage your 

finances

21.1% 20.5% 19.8% 38.7%

Q03E 

Are there any other reasons you enrolled in the BACK TO WORK 50+ program at <COLLNAME>? 

Yes  “What are those reasons?” ____________________________ 72.6%

No  GO TO Q04 27.4%

Q03F 

How important was this reason in your decision to enroll in the program? (n=424)

83.2% Very important

14.2% Important 

2.3% Slightly important

0.2% Not important

 {ALL CHOICES SKIP TO Q07} 

Q08 

What are your current employment goals?

_____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-3 

Q09 

How would you rate your current household’s financial situation today, compared to how it was 

before you started participating in the program? Would you say it is . . .

9.3% Much better

15.9% Somewhat better

64.4% About the same

7.3% Somewhat worse

3.1% Much worse

Q10 

Next, we would like to know more about your current financial situation. Remember, all of your 

responses will be kept confidential. I am going to read a list of financial concerns and for each 

one please tell me how concerned you are.

(The first one is/the next one is . . . )

Are you NOT AT ALL CONCERNED, A LITTLE CONCERNED, SOMEWHAT CONCERNED, or VERY 

CONCERNED about this aspect of your current financial situation?

Not at all 

Concerned 

A Little 

Concerned 

Somewhat 

Concerned 

Very 

Concerned 

A. Basic food and clothing 

needs

46.1% 18.8% 20.0% 15.2%

B. Monthly rent or mortgage 

payments

36.2% 17.4% 20.8% 25.7%

C. Transportation expenses 38.5% 16.7% 23.3% 21.5%

D. Monthly payments on loans 

or credit 

balance

40.1% 15.9% 21.9% 22.1%

E. Long-term savings 14.9% 13.6% 20.7% 50.8%

F. Retirement planning 16.2% 12.2% 18.9% 52.8%

G. Heath care costs 17.7% 11.4% 22.3% 48.6%

H. Education or career 

advancement costs

34.2% 15.8% 26.0% 24.0%

Q10I 

Are there any other concerns you have about your current financial situation?

Yes  “What are those concerns?” __________ 25.5%

No  GO TO Q11 74.5%
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-4 

Q10J 

How concerned are you about this aspect (Q10I) of your financial situation? (n=153)

0.0% Not at all concerned

5.3% A little concerned

14.6% Somewhat concerned

80.1% Very concerned

Q11

I am now going to read a list of financial activities. Please tell me how often you engaged in each 

activity during the last three months. 

(The first one/next one is . . .)

In the past three months would you say you did this activity NEVER, SELDOM, SOMETIMES, 

OFTEN or ALWAYS?

Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always 

A. Comparison shopping 6.3% 8.7% 16.8% 20.7% 47.5%

B. Paid your bills on time 1.9% 3.8% 10.7% 21.1% 62.5%

C. Kept a record of monthly expenses 12.9% 6.8% 15.7% 13.5% 51.1%

D. Stayed within budget 7.6% 7.7% 19.9% 26.2% 38.5%

E. Paid off credit card balance in full 

each month

35.3% 9.9% 15.4% 10.2% 29.2%

F. Maxed out the limit on one or more 

credit cards

74.9% 9.6% 7.6% 3.7% 4.3%

G. Made only minimum payments on 

a loan

48.2% 10.3% 13.6% 12.6% 15.3%

H. Began or maintained an emergency 

savings fund

36.5% 11.4% 16.3% 10.2% 25.6%

I. Saved money from every paycheck 40.9% 12.3% 18.3% 8.6% 19.9%

J. Contributed money to a retirement 

account

59.6% 10.4% 9.4% 4.5% 16.1%

K. Bought bonds, stocks, or mutual funds 77.8% 7.2% 6.3% 2.9% 5.9%

 

 

 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-5 

Q12

How would you rate your overall quality of life TODAY, compared to before participating in the 

BACK TO WORK 50+ program? Would you say it is . . .

16.6% Much better

32.5% Somewhat better

43.0% About the same

5.9% Somewhat worse

2.0% Much worse

Q13 

I am going to read a series of statements about QUALITY OF LIFE. For each one please tell me 

how much you agree or disagree that the statement pertains to you. 

(The first statement is/the next statement is . . . )

Do you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE, DISAGREE or STRONGLY 

DISAGREE with this statement?

 Strongly 

Agree 

Agree Neither Agree 

nor Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

A. You enjoy your life overall 34.3% 48.6% 8.8% 6.8% 1.7%

B. You look forward to things 41.6% 41.4% 10.7% 4.9% 1.4%

C. You are healthy enough to get out 

and about

60.4% 34.7% 1.7% 2.7% 0.5%

D. Your family, friends or neighbors 

would help you if needed

40.1% 43.5% 5.8% 6.3% 4.3%

E. You have social or leisure activities 

or hobbies that your enjoy doing

40.3% 44.9% 5.1% 7.7% 2.0%

F. You try to stay involved with things 39.6% 49.5% 5.1% 4.5% 1.3%

G. You are healthy enough to have 

your independence

58.2% 38.5% 1.1% 1.5% 0.6%

H. You can do things that please you 49.3% 44.5% 2.4% 3.2% 0.7%

I. You feel safe where you live 52.6% 39.6% 3.6% 2.8% 1.4%

J. You get pleasure from your home 42.4% 44.3% 6.7% 4.1% 2.6%

K. You take life as it comes and make 

the 

best of things

48.5% 45.6% 3.9% 1.8% 0.3%

L. You feel lucky compared to most 

people 

40.5% 44.2% 9.8% 4.8% 0.8%

M. You have enough money to pay for 

household bills

23.3% 42.9% 11.2% 15.2% 7.5%
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-6 

{IWR, IF R SAYS: “What do these questions have to do with evaluating the program” RESPOND 

WITH: “Although these questions are not direct evaluations of the program, AARP is also 

interested in how completing the program has affected your overall well-being as a result of the 

BACK TO WORK 50+ Program. “}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-7 

Q14

Next, I am going to read a series of statements about COMPUTER USE. For each one please tell 

me how much you agree or disagree that the statement pertains to you.

(The first statement is/the next statement is . . . )

Do you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE, DISAGREE or STRONGLY 

DISAGREE with this statement?

Strongly 

Agree 

Agree Neither Agree 

nor Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

A. You try to avoid using computers 

whenever possible 2.5% 5.6% 6.0% 35.3% 50.6%

B. You wish you could be as calm as 

others appear to be when they are 

using computers

9.1% 19.1% 24.9% 23.7% 23.3%

C. You feel tense whenever working 

on a computer

4.5% 10.4% 8.9% 41.8% 34.4%

D. You feel anxious whenever you are 

using computers 3.0% 10.5% 6.8% 45.1% 34.8%

E. You experience anxiety whenever you 

sit in front of a computer terminal 1.9% 6.1% 7.5% 40.0% 44.5%

F. You are frightened by computers 0.7% 2.5% 3.1% 39.2% 54.7%

G. You feel overwhelmed when working 

on a computer

1.7% 8.1% 6.4% 39.4% 44.4%

H. You worry about making mistakes 

on the computer 3.7% 21.3% 6.5% 38.3% 30.1%

I. You are confident in your ability to 

use computers

36.7% 43.1% 8.9% 9.2% 2.0%

J. You enjoy working with computers 31.1% 51.9% 8.2% 7.0% 1.7%

K. You feel relaxed when you are working 

on a computer

26.8% 44.5% 16.0% 10.2% 2.5%

L. You feel at ease with computers 30.2% 49.5% 11.0% 7.2% 2.1%

M. You feel content when you are 

working on a computer 23.4% 45.2% 19.2% 9.8% 2.4%

N. You feel comfortable with computers 31.2% 51.4% 9.3% 6.3% 1.9%

O. You would like to continue working 

with computers in the future 

41.1% 49.9% 4.3% 3.2% 1.5%

P. You wish that computers were not 

as important as they are 9.4% 32.2% 18.8% 25.7% 14.0%

 

 

 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-8 

Q15

We would like to know more about your experience as a participant in the program?

About how often do you interact with your BACK TO WORK 50+ coach at <COLLNAME>? Do you 

work with your coach . . .

7.1% More than once a week

17.4% About once a week

20.4% About 2-3 times a month

20.9% About once a month

18.4% Less than once a month

15.2% Or never  GO TO Q17

0.0% Don't know  GO TO Q17

0.0% Refused  GO TO Q17

0.6% R says they do not have a coach  GO TO Q17

Q16

How often do you interact with your coach in each of the following ways? (n=459)

(The first is/the next is . . . )

Do you interact with your coach in this way NEVER, SOMETIMES or OFTEN?

Never Sometimes Often 

A. Face to face meetings 18.8% 59.5% 21.7%

B. Phone calls 30.6% 55.4% 14.1%

C. Email messages 5.5% 45.1% 49.4%

D. Text messages 71.5% 19.9% 8.6%

E. Social media 79.0% 15.8% 5.2%

Q16F

Do you interact with your coach in any other way we haven’t mentioned? (n=37)

7.7% Yes  “In what other way do you interact with your coach?” _______________

92.3% No  GO TO Q17 

Q16G

How often do you interact with coach in this way (Q16F)? Is it . . . (n=37)

0.0% Never

72.9% Sometimes

27.1% Often
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-9 

Q17

Have you received information on any of the following topics from BACK TO WORK 50+ staff at 

<COLNAME>? 

(The first is/the next is . . . )

Have you received this type of information (from BACK TO WORK 50+ staff at <COLNAME>)?

Yes No 

A. Types of jobs available in your area 89.9% 10.1%

B. How to set realistic goals 82.2% 17.8%

C. Online job search strategies 91.4% 8.7%

D. How to market yourself to employers 92.3% 7.7%

E. How to care for yourself during the job search process 88.0% 12.0%

Q17F

Have you received any other types of information from BACK TO WORK 50+ staff at 

<COLNAME>?

62.0% Yes  “What kind of information did you receive?” _____________________

38.0% No

Q18

Have you done any online job searches while in the program? 

90.6% Yes

9.4% No

Q19

Have you applied for any jobs online while in the program? 

73.3% Yes

26.7% No

Q20A

Which of the following best describes the training you received in the program for skills you 

need to look for a job? 

Are you currently receiving training, have you already received training or have you not yet 

received training on the skills you need to look for a job?
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-10

23.1% Currently receiving training  GO TO Q21

55.0% Already received training  GO TO Q21

21.9% Not yet received training

Q20B

Do you plan to receive BACK TO WORK 50+ training in the future on the skills you need to look 

for a job? (n=111)

73.4% Yes  GO TO Q22A 

26.6% No  GO TO Q22A

Q21

Which of the following activities related to looking for a job have you engaged in while in the 

program? (n=424) 

(The first activity is/the next activity is . . .)

Have you engaged in this activity (while in BACK TO WORK 50+ at <COLNAME>)?

Yes No 

A. Creating or updating a resume 96.9% 3.1%

B. Learning about strategies for looking for a job 95.0% 5.0%

C. Learning about online job search tools 96.0% 4.0%

D. Getting individual assistance with your job search 85.7% 14.3%

Q21E

Have you engaged in any other activities related to looking for a job (while in BACK TO WORK 

50+ at <COLNAME>)? (n=415) 

51.7% Yes  “What are those activities?” _________________________

48.3% No

Q22A

Which of the following best describes the training you received in the program to learn or 

improve your computer skills? 

Are you currently receiving training, have you already received training or have you not yet 

received training to learn or improve your computer skills?

19.6% Currently receiving training  GO TO Q23

50.6% Already received training  GO TO Q23

29.8% Not yet received training
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-11

Q23

Is/was this computer training TOO ADVANCED, ABOUT RIGHT or TOO EASY for you? (n=363)

6.7% Too advanced

78.1% About right

15.2% Too easy

Q24

To what extent do you think this computer training has made you better prepared for your next 

job? Would you say . . . (n=363)

4.2% Not at all 

16.6% A little

32.3% Somewhat

46.9% Very much prepared

Q25A

Are you currently receiving training, have you already received training or have you not yet 

received training through BACK TO WORK 50+ on how to manage your finances?

2.9% Currently receiving training  GO TO Q26A

79.4% Already received training  GO TO Q26A

17.8% Not yet received training

Q25B

Do you plan to receive BACK TO WORK 50+ training in the future on how to manage your 

finances? (n=85)

32.6% Yes

67.5% No

Q26A

Are you currently receiving support, have you already received support or have you not yet 

received support through BACK TO WORK 50+ with deciding whether to pursue additional 

training at <COLNAME>? 

14.0% Currently receiving support GO TO Q27

59.8% Already received support GO TO Q27

26.2% Not yet received support

 

 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-12

Q27

Did BACK TO WORK 50+ at <COLNAME> provide you with a scholarship for your tuition for a 

college training program? 

46.5% Yes

53.5% No  GO TO Q34

Q28

What is the name of the college training program in which you enrolled? 

_________ Name of program

Q29

When did you enroll in the college training program? 

___ Month _______ Year

Q30

For what type of job <did/will> the college training program prepare you? 

_____________ Name of job

Q31

To what extent did the training meet your expectations? Did it . . . (n=202) 

38.9% Exceed your expectations

51.7% Meet your expectations

9.4% Not meet your expectations

Q32

How useful was the training in helping you find a job? Was it . . . (n=220) 

20.1% Very useful

12.2% Useful

5.6% Somewhat useful

0.8% Not useful

61.3% You have not yet found a job  GO TO Q34 

 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-13

Q33 

How useful was the training in helping you perform the job you are currently doing? Was it . . . 

(n=92)

44.1% Very useful

13.4% Useful

13.4% Somewhat useful

10.4% Not useful

18.8% You have not yet found a job  GO TO Q34 

Q34

Next, please tell me of how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with each of the following features of 

the BACK TO WORK 50+ program, and just let me know if you have not experienced the feature.

(The first one is/the next one is . . .)

Are you VERY SATISFIED, SOMEWHAT SATISFIED, SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED or VERY 

DISSATISFIED with this feature of the program?

Did Not 

Experience 

Very 

Satisfied 

Somewhat 

Satisfied 

Somewhat 

Dissatisfied 

Very 

Dissatisfied 

A. Coaching on career choices 4.0% 54.8% 31.2% 7.4% 2.6%

B. Support with learning 

about available jobs in 

your area

1.4% 58.2% 28.1% 8.3% 3.9%

C. Setting goals for yourself 1.3% 55.8% 37.8% 4.0% 1.1%

D. Referrals to other services 

in the

community

7.5% 53.0% 29.6% 6.4% 3.4%

E. Support with learning how 

to search

for jobs

1.7% 66.9% 25.6% 3.5% 2.3%

F. Support with learning or 

improving

computer skills

5.7% 57.8% 26.9% 5.2% 4.4%

G. Support with learning how 

to manage your finances

8.3% 51.6% 36.0% 2.1% 1.9%

H. Meeting and getting 

support from other people 

like you

4.2% 60.9% 27.4% 4.6% 3.0%

I. Support with making a 

decision about additional 

education or training

5.0% 54.0% 28.8% 8.4% 3.9%

 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-14

Q34J

Are there any other features of the BACK TO WORK 50+ program that you experienced and I 

haven’t already mentioned?

26.3% Yes  “What are they?” _________________________

73.7% No  GO TO Q35 

Q34K

How satisfied are you with <Q34J>? Are you VERY SATISFIED, SOMEWHAT SATISFIED, 

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED or VERY DISSATISFIED with this feature of the program? (n=136) 

81.0% Very satisfied

5.2% Somewhat satisfied

4.4% Somewhat dissatisfied

9.4% Very dissatisfied

Q38A {ASK IF Q27=1} 

Now I would like to ask a few questions about your current program and employment status.

Have you moved on to any additional education or training? (n=238)

31.7% Yes  “What is that training?” ________________  GO TO Q39

68.3% No  GO TO Q40

Q38B {ASK IF Q27<>1} 

Now I would like to ask a few questions about your current program and employment status.

Are you currently in school? (n=305)

13.3% Yes

86.7% No  GO TO Q40

Q39 

When do you expect to complete this additional education or training? 

_______ Month _____________ Year

 

 

 

 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-15

Q40

What is your current employment status? Are you . . .

17.0% Employed full-time

10.3% Employed part-time but not looking for full-time work

20.2% Employed part-time but looking for full-time work

37.3% Not employed but looking for work  GO TO Q50

6.9% Not employed and not looking for work  GO TO Q50

7.8% Retired  GO TO Q50

0.5% Or something else -->”What is that?” ___________________  GO TO Q50

Q41

What is your current job title?

 ______________________________ Job title

Q42

Who is your current employer?

 ______________________________ Employer name

Q43

What type of job is this? Can you describe it for me?

 ______________________________________________________________________

Q44

About how many hours per week do you work in an average month?

 ___________ Hours per week

Q45

What are your gross hourly/monthly/yearly earnings (before taxes)?

_____________________ $ per hour/month/year

 

 

 

 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-16

Q46

How secure or insecure is your current job? Would you say it is . . . (n=260)

28.7% Very secure

43.4% Somewhat secure

15.8% Somewhat insecure

12.1% Very insecure

Q47

Which of the following opportunities have been offered to you in your current job?

(The first one is/the next one is . . . )

Was this opportunity offered to you in your current job? (n=260)

Yes No 

A. Health insurance and other benefits 38.5% 61.5%

B. Wage increases since beginning of your job 32.0% 68.0%

C. Additional training 40.0% 60.0%

D. A promotion 14.2% 85.9%

Q47E

Were there any other opportunities offered to you in your current job? (n=262)

17.5% Yes  “What were those opportunities?” ___________________

82.5% No

Q48

How satisfied are you with your current employment? Are you . . . (n=257)

32.6% Very satisfied

36.6% Somewhat satisfied

18.3% Somewhat dissatisfied

12.5% Very dissatisfied

 

 

 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-17

Q49

How satisfied are you with your earnings? Are you . . . (n=260)

12.2% Very satisfied

32.1% Somewhat satisfied

23.3% Somewhat dissatisfied

32.4% Very dissatisfied

Q50

Now I would like to ask a few questions about your future plans.

Do you have plans for any additional education or training? (n=517)

66.2% Yes

33.8% No  GO TO Q53

Q51

What type of additional education or training do you plan to attend? Is it . . . (n=334)

27.9% A short-term program

36.9% A certificate program

21.7% A degree program  “Which degree program?” _____________________

13.5% Something else ”Could you describe this additional training for me?” ____________

Q52 

What is your main reason for planning additional education or training? Is it . . . (n=339)

29.6% Increase earnings potential

18.2% Requirement in your profession

14.1% Increase job stability

Personal development

0.0% Career change/enhancement

38.1% Some other reason  “What is that reason?” __________________

 

 

 

 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-18

Q53

How much longer are you planning to work? Would you say . . . (n=470)

0.6% Less than one more year

3.1% 1 to 3 more years 

11.9% 3 to 5 more years

29.9% 5 to 10 more years

31.2% 10 to 15 more years

23.4% More than 15 more years

Q54

That is my last question. I would like to thank you for taking the time to speak with me today.

You are one of the first program participants we have interviewed for this survey. I’d like to ask if 

you had any comments or concerns about the survey itself. Were there things you felt we may 

have missed or were there some questions that were worded awkwardly? Also, if you have any 

comments about the BACK TO WORK 50+ program or about this survey, I can note them now.

 ________________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________________
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-19

Six-Month Survey Results 

This appendix shows annotated with frequencies for the 389 survey responses included in 

Chapter VI for questions that were asked in the six-month survey. Percentages shown may not 

add to 100 due to rounding.

Q01- Q08 [Not asked] 

Q09 

How would you rate your current household’s financial situation today, compared to how it was 

before you started participating in the program? Would you say it is . . .

13.0% Much better

21.2% Somewhat better

53.6% About the same

8.1% Somewhat worse

4.1% Much worse

Q10 

Next, we would like to know more about your current financial situation. Remember, all of your 

responses will be kept confidential. I am going to read a list of financial concerns and for each 

one please tell me how concerned you are.

(The first one is/the next one is . . . )

Are you NOT AT ALL CONCERNED, A LITTLE CONCERNED, SOMEWHAT CONCERNED, or VERY 

CONCERNED about this aspect of your current financial situation?

Not at all 

Concerned 

A Little 

Concerned 

Somewhat 

Concerned 

Very 

Concerned 

A. Basic food and clothing 

needs 55.5% 18.0% 18.4% 8.2%

B. Monthly rent or mortgage 

payments 45.3% 20.9% 16.2% 17.6%

C. Transportation expenses 50.0% 22.1% 15.9% 12.0%

D. Monthly payments on loans 

or credit 

balance 42.9% 19.3% 20.0% 17.8%

E. Long-term savings 19.6% 18.7% 20.1% 41.6%

F. Retirement planning 16.7% 16.4% 24.2% 42.7%

G. Heath care costs 21.7% 14.5% 24.8% 38.9%

H. Education or career 

advancement costs 40.6% 17.7% 23.7% 18.0%
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-20

Q10I 

Are there any other concerns you have about your current financial situation?

Yes  “What are those concerns?” 26.8%

No  GO TO Q11 73.2%

Q10J 

How concerned are you about this aspect (Q10I) of your financial situation? (n=107)

0.9% Not at all concerned

7.9% A little concerned

17.1% Somewhat concerned

74.1% Very concerned

Q11 

I am now going to read a list of financial activities. Please tell me how often you engaged in each 

activity during the last three months. (The first one/next one is . . .)

In the past three months would you say you did this activity NEVER, SELDOM, SOMETIMES, 

OFTEN or ALWAYS?

Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always 

A. Comparison shopping 7.3% 11.6% 17.7% 21.1% 42.3%

B. Paid your bills on time 1.9% 3.3% 9.2% 22.1% 63.5%

C. Kept a record of monthly expenses 13.4% 9.4% 19.9% 10.9% 46.4%

D. Stayed within budget 10.2% 8.1% 23.4% 27.0% 31.3%

E. Paid off credit card balance in full 

each month

35.2% 12.7% 13.7% 8.8% 29.6%

F. Maxed out the limit on one or more 

credit cards

72.8% 9.1% 8.2% 6.9% 3.0%

G. Made only minimum payments on 

a loan

47.5% 10.4% 16.0% 11.3% 14.8%

H. Began or maintained an emergency 

savings fund

39.1% 10.4% 13.7% 10.2% 26.6%

I. Saved money from every paycheck 38.8% 11.9% 16.4% 12.1% 20.9%

J. Contributed money to a retirement account 53.5% 11.7% 9.6% 5.6% 19.7%

K. Bought bonds, stocks, or mutual funds 78.9% 4.1% 7.7% 3.9% 5.3%

Q12 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-21

How would you rate your overall quality of life TODAY, compared to before participating in the 

BACK TO WORK 50+ program? Would you say it is . . .

18.4% Much better

30.3% Somewhat better

44.0% About the same

4.5% Somewhat worse

2.9% Much worse

Q13

I am going to read a series of statements about QUALITY OF LIFE. For each one please tell me 

how much you agree or disagree that the statement pertains to you. 

(The first statement is/the next statement is . . . )

Do you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE, DISAGREE or STRONGLY 

DISAGREE with this statement?

 Strongly 

Agree 

Agree 

Neither Agree 

nor Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

A. You enjoy your life overall 40.1% 45.9% 6.6% 6.0% 1.3%

B. You look forward to things 43.2% 45.4% 7.5% 2.5% 1.4%

C. You are healthy enough to get out 

and about 62.4% 33.5% 2.7% 1.5% 0.0%

D. Your family, friends or neighbors 

would help you if needed 42.9% 39.9% 6.1% 7.2% 3.8%

E. You have social or leisure activities 

or hobbies that you enjoy doing 41.3% 46.8% 5.5% 4.9% 1.6%

F. You try to stay involved with things 39.9% 52.4% 4.0% 3.1% 0.7%

G. You are healthy enough to have 

your independence 61.8% 36.8% 0.8% 0.6% 0.0%

H. You can do things that please you 52.1% 43.0% 3.1% 1.1% 0.7%

I. You feel safe where you live 58.5% 35.9% 4.0% 1.4% 0.3%

J. You get pleasure from your home 46.6% 42.3% 6.5% 3.2% 1.4%

K. You take life as it comes and make 

the 

best of things 49.1% 44.6% 4.4% 1.7% 0.3%

L. You feel lucky compared to most 

people 42.6% 42.9% 9.2% 5.0% 0.3%

M. You have enough money to pay for 

household bills 22.9% 46.6% 9.2% 14.0% 7.3%
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-22

{IWR, IF R SAYS: “What do these questions have to do with evaluating the program” RESPOND 

WITH: “Although these questions are not direct evaluations of the program, AARP is also 

interested in how completing the program has affected your overall well-being as a result of the 

BACK TO WORK 50+ Program. “}

Q14

Next, I am going to read a series of statements about COMPUTER USE. For each one please tell 

me how much you agree or disagree that the statement pertains to you. (The first statement 

is/the next statement is . . . ) Do you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE, 

DISAGREE or STRONGLY DISAGREE with this statement?

Strongly 

Agree 

Agree Neither Agree 

nor Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

A. You try to avoid using computers 

whenever possible

3.6% 6.8% 4.4% 27.3% 58.0%

B. You wish you could be as calm as 

others appear to be when they are 

using computers

8.0% 21.5% 19.9% 24.6% 26.0%

C. You feel tense whenever working 

on a computer

4.1% 10.9% 9.8% 33.7% 41.5%

D. You feel anxious whenever you are 

using computers

3.7% 10.4% 7.3% 39.0% 39.6%

E. You experience anxiety whenever you 

sit in front of a computer terminal

2.5% 4.4% 5.9% 42.2% 45.0%

F. You are frightened by computers 0.9% 2.8% 4.3% 34.8% 57.1%

G. You feel overwhelmed when working 

on a computer

2.1% 8.4% 8.4% 34.5% 46.7%

H. You worry about making mistakes 

on the computer

4.5% 17.9% 7.9% 32.5% 37.1%

I. You are confident in your ability to 

use computers

40.5% 38.2% 9.1% 9.7% 2.4%

J. You enjoy working with computers 34.0% 50.8% 10.1% 4.6% 0.6%

K. You feel relaxed when you are working 

on a computer

30.1% 41.8% 17.8% 9.4% 0.9%

L. You feel at ease with computers 33.0% 49.6% 8.9% 7.4% 1.1%

M. You feel content when you are 

working on a computer

26.1% 41.3% 21.8% 9.6% 1.2%

N. You feel comfortable with computers 34.3% 52.6% 5.9% 6.6% 0.6%

O. You would like to continue working 

with computers in the future

47.4% 47.2% 3.4% 1.6% 0.5%

P. You wish that computers were not 

as important as they are

9.5% 34.8% 13.9% 26.6% 15.2%
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-23

Q15

We would like to know more about your experience as a participant in the program?

About how often do you interact with your BACK TO WORK 50+ coach at <COLLNAME>? Do you 

work with your coach . . .

8.9% More than once a week

12.6% About once a week

25.8% About 2-3 times a month

33.8% About once a month

17.7% Less than once a month

1.2% Never  GO TO Q17

Q16

How often do you interact with your coach in each of the following ways? (n=236)

(The first is/the next is . . . )

Do you interact with your coach in this way NEVER, SOMETIMES or OFTEN?

Never Sometimes Often 

A. Face to face meetings 32.0% 52.5% 15.5%

B. Phone calls 22.8% 62.9% 14.3%

C. Email messages 2.3% 45.2% 52.5%

D. Text messages 72.3% 19.4% 8.3%

E. Social media 78.3% 14.4% 7.2%

Q16F

Do you interact with your coach in any other way we haven’t mentioned? (n=235)

15.1% Yes  “In what other way do you interact with your coach?” 

____________________

85.0% No  GO TO Q17 

Q16G

How often do you interact with coach in this way (Q16F)? Is it . . . (n=31)

5.3% Never

66.0% Sometimes

28.8% Often
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-24

 

Q17 - Q26A [Not Asked]

Q27

Did BACK TO WORK 50+ at <COLNAME> provide you with a scholarship for your tuition for a 

college training program? 

43.7% Yes

56.3% No  GO TO Q34

Q28

What is the name of the college training program in which you enrolled?

_________ Name of program

Q29

When did you enroll in the college training program? 

___ Month _______ Year

Q30

For what type of job <did/will> the college training program prepare you? 

_____________ Name of job

Q31

To what extent did the training meet your expectations? Did it . . . (n=155)

38.8% Exceed your expectations

51.2% Meet your expectations

10.0% Not meet your expectations

 

 

 

 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-25

Q32

How useful was the training in helping you find a job? Was it . . . (n=63)

21.1% Very useful

9.0% Useful

8.2% Somewhat useful

4.8% Not useful

56.9% You have not yet found a job  GO TO Q34 

Q33

How useful was the training in helping you perform the job you are currently doing? Was it . . .

(n=63)

36.2% Very useful

16.9% Useful

23.8% Somewhat useful

15.0% Not useful

1% You have not yet found a job  GO TO Q34 

Q34- Q34K [Not Asked]

Q38A {ASK IF Q27=1} 

Now I would like to ask a few questions about your current program and employment status. 

Have you moved on to any additional education or training? (n=163) 

44.7% Yes  “What is that training?” ________________  GO TO Q39

55.4% No  GO TO Q40

Q38B {ASK IF Q27<>1} 

Now I would like to ask a few questions about your current program and employment status. 

Are you currently in school? (n=217) 

10.7% Yes

89.7% No  GO TO Q40

Q39 

When do you expect to complete this additional education or training? 

_______ Month _____________ Year
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-26

Q40

What is your current employment status? Are you . . .

24.7% Employed full-time

15.2% Employed part-time but not looking for full-time work

18.9% Employed part-time but looking for full-time work

29.8% Not employed but looking for work  GO TO Q50

6.5% Not employed and not looking for work  GO TO Q50

4.9% Retired  GO TO Q50

Q41

What is your current job title?

 ______________________________ Job title

Q42

Who is your current employer?

 ______________________________ Employer name

Q43

What type of job is this? Can you describe it for me?

 ______________________________________________________________________

Q44

About how many hours per week do you work in an average month?

 ___________ Hours per week

Q45

What are your gross hourly/monthly/yearly earnings (before taxes)? 

_____________________ $ per hour/month/year

Q46

How secure or insecure is your current job? Would you say it is . . . (n=177)

26.4% Very secure

49.8% Somewhat secure

13.7% Somewhat insecure

10.1% Very insecure

Q47
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-27

Which of the following opportunities have been offered to you in your current job?(The first one 

is/the next one is . . . )

Was this opportunity offered to you in your current job? (n=174)

Yes No 

A. Health insurance and other benefits 44.0% 56.0% 

B. Wage increases since beginning of your job 29.0% 70.8% 

C. Additional training 44.0% 56.0%

D. A promotion 11.0% 89.1% 

Q47E

Were there any other opportunities offered to you in your current job? (n=174)

15.3% Yes  “What were those opportunities?” __________________________

84.7% No

Q48

How satisfied are you with your current employment? Are you . . . (n=175)

27.5% Very satisfied

43.8% Somewhat satisfied

19.4% Somewhat dissatisfied

9.2% Very dissatisfied

Q49

How satisfied are you with your earnings? Are you . . . (n=175)

11.1% Very satisfied

37.3% Somewhat satisfied

23.3% Somewhat dissatisfied

28.3% Very dissatisfied

Q50

Now I would like to ask a few questions about your future plans.

Do you have plans for any additional education or training? 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-28

66.7% Yes

33.3% No  GO TO Q53

Q51

What type of additional education or training do you plan to attend? Is it . . . (n=232)

25.5% A short-term program

30.2% A certificate program

28.2% A degree program  “Which degree program?” _____________________

16.1% Something else ”Could you describe this additional training for me?” ____________

Q52

What is your main reason for planning additional education or training? Is it . . . (n=237)

31.8% Increase earnings potential

10.7% Requirement in your profession

13.4% Increase job stability

44.0% Some other reason  “What is that reason?” __________________

Q53

How much longer are you planning to work? Would you say . . . (n=334)

0.1% Less than one more year

5.2% 1 to 3 more years 

16.5% 3 to 5 more years

26.9% 5 to 10 more years

28.7% 10 to 15 more years

21.8% More than 15 more years

Q54

That is my last question. I would like to thank you for taking the time to speak with me today.

You are one of the first program participants we have interviewed for this survey. I’d like to ask if 

you had any comments or concerns about the survey itself. Were there things you felt we may 

have missed or were there some questions that were worded awkwardly? Also, if you have any 

comments about the BACK TO WORK 50+ program or about this survey, I can note them now.

 ________________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________________

 _______________________________________________________________
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-29

Twelve-Month Survey Results 

This appendix shows annotated with frequencies for the 237 survey responses included in 

Chapter VI for questions that were asked in the 12-month survey. Percentages shown may not 

add to 100 due to rounding.

Q01- Q08 [Not asked] 

Q09 

How would you rate your current household’s financial situation today, compared to how it was 

before you started participating in the program? Would you say it is . . . 

20.7% Much better

20.1% Somewhat better

52.1% About the same

5.6% Somewhat worse

1.5% Much worse

Q10 

Next, we would like to know more about your current financial situation. Remember, all of your 

responses will be kept confidential. I am going to read a list of financial concerns and for each 

one please tell me how concerned you are.

(The first one is/the next one is . . . )

Are you NOT AT ALL CONCERNED, A LITTLE CONCERNED, SOMEWHAT CONCERNED, or VERY 

CONCERNED about this aspect of your current financial situation? 

Not at all 

Concerned 

A Little 

Concerned 

Somewhat 

Concerned 

Very 

Concerned 

A. Basic food and clothing 

needs 60.7% 17.2% 17.0% 5.2%

B. Monthly rent or mortgage 

payments 44.2% 24.4% 15.7% 15.8%

C. Transportation expenses 55.0% 17.4% 18.8% 8.8%

D. Monthly payments on loans 

or credit 

balance 39.9% 25.1% 18.6% 16.4%

E. Long-term savings 16.6% 19.1% 25.1% 39.2%

F. Retirement planning 14.8% 17.9% 24.0% 43.3%

G. Heath care costs 25.3% 15.2% 20.2% 39.4%

H. Education or career 

advancement costs 43.9% 13.3% 22.2% 20.6%
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-30

Q10I 

Are there any other concerns you have about your current financial situation? 

Yes  “What are those concerns?” ______________________ 29.8% 30.6%

No  GO TO Q11 70.2% 69.4%

Q10J 

How concerned are you about this aspect (Q10I) of your financial situation? (n=66) 

0.0% Not at all concerned

10.6% A little concerned

28.9% Somewhat concerned

60.5% Very concerned

Q11 

I am now going to read a list of financial activities. Please tell me how often you engaged in each 

activity during the last three months. (The first one/next one is . . .)

In the past three months would you say you did this activity NEVER, SELDOM, SOMETIMES, 

OFTEN or ALWAYS? 

Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always 

A. Comparison shopping 5.4% 6.1% 16.5% 28.5% 43.5%

B. Paid your bills on time 0.5% 2.4% 11.2% 23.0% 63.0%

C. Kept a record of monthly expenses 10.5% 8.6% 16.3% 17.5% 47.1%

D. Stayed within budget 6.1% 5.6% 27.3% 30.3% 30.7%

E. Paid off credit card balance in full 

each month

29.1% 11.8% 15.2% 12.5% 31.5%

F. Maxed out the limit on one or more 

credit cards

66.6% 15.0% 10.6% 4.7% 3.1%

G. Made only minimum payments on 

a loan

42.2% 12.5% 15.6% 11.9% 17.8%

H. Began or maintained an emergency 

savings fund

33.0% 11.3% 22.1% 9.9% 23.8%

I. Saved money from every paycheck 35.0% 9.1% 18.5% 15.8% 21.5%

Contributed money to a retirement account 55.0% 8.6% 8.4% 6.2% 21.7%

Bought bonds, stocks, or mutual funds 81.2% 4.6% 7.9% 1.7% 4.6%

 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-31

Q12 

How would you rate your overall quality of life TODAY, compared to before participating in the 

BACK TO WORK 50+ program? Would you say it is . . . 

27.3% Much better

29.3% Somewhat better

39.5% About the same

3.5% Somewhat worse

0.5% Much worse

Q13

I am going to read a series of statements about QUALITY OF LIFE. For each one please tell me 

how much you agree or disagree that the statement pertains to you. 

(The first statement is/the next statement is . . . ) 

Do you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE, DISAGREE or STRONGLY 

DISAGREE with this statement? 

 Strongly 

Agree 

Agree 

Neither Agree 

nor Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

A. You enjoy your life overall 37.0% 49.7% 6.1% 6.7% 0.5%

B. You look forward to things 44.7% 44.0% 6.7% 4.6% 0.0%

C. You are healthy enough to get out 

and about 65.8% 29.1% 2.0% 3.1% 0.0%

D. Your family, friends or neighbors 

would help you if needed 47.2% 34.7% 8.4% 6.8% 3.0%

E. You have social or leisure activities 

or hobbies that your enjoy doing 47.5% 41.2% 4.5% 5.7% 1.0%

F. You try to stay involved with things 41.5% 50.4% 3.6% 4.6% 0.0% 

G. You are healthy enough to have 

your independence 63.3% 34.0% 2.1% 0.6% 0.0%

H. You can do things that please you 53.0% 38.9% 3.6% 4.1% 0.4%

I. You feel safe where you live 56.2% 37.1% 3.5% 3.2% 0.0% 

J. You get pleasure from your home 46.3% 42.9% 6.6% 2.5% 1.7%

K. You take life as it comes and make the 

best of things 53.2% 41.6% 5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 

L. You feel lucky compared to most 

people 42.5% 47.7% 4.8% 5.0% 0.0% 

M. You have enough money to pay for 

household bills 27.7% 46.1% 7.9% 12.9% 5.4%
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-32

{IWR, IF R SAYS: “What do these questions have to do with evaluating the program” RESPOND 

WITH: “Although these questions are not direct evaluations of the program, AARP is also 

interested in how completing the program has affected your overall well-being as a result of the 

BACK TO WORK 50+ Program. “}

Q14

Next, I am going to read a series of statements about COMPUTER USE. For each one please tell 

me how much you agree or disagree that the statement pertains to you. (The first statement 

is/the next statement is . . . ) Do you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE, 

DISAGREE or STRONGLY DISAGREE with this statement? 

Strongly 

Agree 

Agree Neither Agree 

nor Disagree 

Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

A. You try to avoid using computers 

whenever possible

2.3% 6.6% 7.3% 30.9% 53.0%

B. You wish you could be as calm as 

others appear to be when they are 

using computers

12.1% 19.2% 21.0% 19.2% 28.5%

C. You feel tense whenever working 

on a computer

5.6% 11.3% 6.1% 36.4% 40.7%

D. You feel anxious whenever you are 

using computers

3.7% 11.0% 7.7% 39.3% 38.3%

E. You experience anxiety whenever you 

sit in front of a computer terminal

2.4% 8.3% 8.0% 36.2% 45.1%

F. You are frightened by computers 2.4% 1.9% 4.8% 39.3% 51.5%

G. You feel overwhelmed when working 

on a computer

2.7% 10.4% 3.6% 40.9% 42.4%

H. You worry about making mistakes 

on the computer

4.9% 22.1% 5.7% 33.2% 34.1%

I. You are confident in your ability to 

use computers

35.8% 41.3% 10.3% 10.9% 1.7%

J. You enjoy working with computers 32.1% 48.0% 14.4% 4.4% 1.1%

K. You feel relaxed when you are working 

on a computer

28.1% 41.0% 18.2% 7.9% 4.7%

L. You feel at ease with computers 31.8% 42.8% 12.9% 8.5% 4.1%

M. You feel content when you are 

working on a computer

22.7% 40.5% 21.9% 13.3% 1.6%

N. You feel comfortable with computers 31.6% 49.9% 8.7% 8.5% 1.3%

O. You would like to continue working 

with computers in the future

43.6% 47.8% 4.8% 3.8% 0.0%

P. You wish that computers were not 

as important as they are

10.3% 32.1% 16.3% 29.8% 11.6%
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-33

Q15

We would like to know more about your experience as a participant in the program?

About how often do you interact with your BACK TO WORK 50+ coach at <COLLNAME>? Do you 

work with your coach . . 

2.4% More than once a week

14.3% About once a week

21.7% About 2-3 times a month

35.5% About once a month

19.1% Less than once a month

7.1% Never  GO TO Q17

Q16

How often do you interact with your coach in each of the following ways? 

(The first is/the next is . . . )

Do you interact with your coach in this way NEVER, SOMETIMES or OFTEN? (n=88) 

Never Sometimes Often 

A. Face to face meetings 35.6% 56.1% 8.4%

B. Phone calls 29.4% 49.6% 21.0%

C. Email messages 6.0% 41.5% 52.5%

D. Text messages 70.2% 17.1% 12.7%

E. Social media 75.1% 18.8% 6.1%

Q16F

Do you interact with your coach in any other way we haven’t mentioned? (n=88)

8.6% Yes  “In what other way do you interact with your coach?” 

____________________

91.4% No  GO TO Q17 

Q16G

How often do you interact with coach in this way (Q16F)? Is it . . . (n=37)

0.0% Never

86.0% Sometimes

14.0% Often
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-34

 

Q17 - Q26A [Not Asked]

Q27

Did BACK TO WORK 50+ at <COLNAME> provide you with a scholarship for your tuition for a 

college training program? 

34.3% Yes

65.7% No  GO TO Q34

Q28

What is the name of the college training program in which you enrolled?

_________ Name of program

Q29

When did you enroll in the college training program? 

___ Month _______ Year

Q30

For what type of job <did/will> the college training program prepare you? 

_____________ Name of job

Q31

To what extent did the training meet your expectations? Did it . . . (n=72) 

34.0% Exceed your expectations

55.4% Meet your expectations

10.7% Not meet your expectations

 

 

 

 
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-35

Q32

How useful was the training in helping you find a job? Was it . . . (n=70) 

23.7% Very useful

10.4% Useful

12.5% Somewhat useful

5.3% Not useful

48.1% You have not yet found a job  GO TO Q34 

Q33

How useful was the training in helping you perform the job you are currently doing? Was it . . .

(n=32)

43.7% Very useful

18.3% Useful

23.7% Somewhat useful

9.1% Not useful

5.2% You have not yet found a job  GO TO Q34 

Q34- Q34K [Not Asked]

Q38A {ASK IF Q27=1} 

Now I would like to ask a few questions about your current program and employment status. 

Have you moved on to any additional education or training? (n=71) 

35.8% Yes  “What is that training?” ________________  GO TO Q39

64.2% No  GO TO Q40

Q38B {ASK IF Q27<>1} 

Now I would like to ask a few questions about your current program and employment status. 

Are you currently in school? (n=144) 

14.2% Yes

85.8% No  GO TO Q40

Q39 

When do you expect to complete this additional education or training? 

_______ Month _____________ Year
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-36

Q40

What is your current employment status? Are you . . . 

29.1% Employed full-time

12.7% Employed part-time but not looking for full-time work

19.6% Employed part-time but looking for full-time work

25.4% Not employed but looking for work  GO TO Q50

6.7% Not employed and not looking for work  GO TO Q50

5.9% Retired  GO TO Q50

0.6% Something else

Q41

What is your current job title?

 ______________________________ Job title

Q42

Who is your current employer?

 ______________________________ Employer name

Q43

What type of job is this? Can you describe it for me?

 ______________________________________________________________________

Q44

About how many hours per week do you work in an average month?

 ___________ Hours per week

Q45

What are your gross hourly/monthly/yearly earnings (before taxes)? 

_____________________ $ per hour/month/year

50.7% Hourly 

16.3% Monthly

33.1% Yearly 

Q46
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-37

How secure or insecure is your current job? Would you say it is . . . (n=111) 

41.5% Very secure

43.1% Somewhat secure

7.2% Somewhat insecure

8.2% Very insecure

Q47

Which of the following opportunities have been offered to you in your current job?(The first one 

is/the next one is . . . (n=111) 

Was this opportunity offered to you in your current job? 

Yes No 

A. Health insurance and other benefits 54.9% 45.1%

B. Wage increases since beginning of your job 45.8% 54.2%

C. Additional training 63.4% 36.6%

D. A promotion 14.3% 85.7%

Q47E

Were there any other opportunities offered to you in your current job? (n=110) 

17.3% Yes  “What were those opportunities?” __________________________

82.8% No

Q48

How satisfied are you with your current employment? Are you . . . (n=111) 

10.7% Very satisfied

42.2% Somewhat satisfied

30.1% Somewhat dissatisfied

17.0% Very dissatisfied

Q49

How satisfied are you with your earnings? Are you . . . (n=110) 

12.7% Very satisfied
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-38

41.8% Somewhat satisfied

30.9% Somewhat dissatisfied

14.6% Very dissatisfied

Q50

Now I would like to ask a few questions about your future plans.

Do you have plans for any additional education or training? 

62.6% Yes

37.4% No  GO TO Q53

Q51

What type of additional education or training do you plan to attend? Is it . . . (n=128) 

31.2% A short-term program

36.1% A certificate program

20.7% A degree program  “Which degree program?” _____________________

11.9%

Something else ”Could you describe this additional training for me?” ____________

Q52

What is your main reason for planning additional education or training? Is it . . . (n=131) 

34.9% Increase earnings potential

12.1% Requirement in your profession

15.1% Increase job stability

37.9% Some other reason  “What is that reason?” __________________

Q53

How much longer are you planning to work? Would you say . . . (n=195) 

1.0% Less than one more year

4.6% 1 to 3 more years 

14.2% 3 to 5 more years

31.0% 5 to 10 more years

28.9% 10 to 15 more years

20.3% More than 15 more years

Q54
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report D-39

That is my last question. I would like to thank you for taking the time to speak with me today.

You are one of the first program participants we have interviewed for this survey. I’d like to ask if 

you had any comments or concerns about the survey itself. Were there things you felt we may 

have missed or were there some questions that were worded awkwardly? Also, if you have any 

comments about the BACK TO WORK 50+ program or about this survey, I can note them now. 

 ________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________________
 BTW50+: WESI Final Implementation Report E-1 

Appendix E: Focus Group Sample 

Exhibit E-1: Site Visit Focus Group Sample Details 

 

Subgrantee 

Number of 

Job 

Candidates in 

First Focus 

Group 

Date(s) of 

First Round 

Site Visit 

Number of 

Job 

Candidates in 

Second Focus 

Group 

Date(s) of 

Second 

Round Site 

Visit 

Number of 

Job 

Candidates in 

Third Focus 

Group 

Date(s) of 

Third Round 

Site Visit 

Austin 

Community 

College (TX) 

7 12/3, 2015 4 11/30-12/1, 

2016

6 11/30-12/1, 

2017

Eastern 

Florida State 

College (FL) 

3 12/2-12/3, 

2015

6 12/6-12/7, 

2016

1 11/6-11/7, 

2017

Jefferson 

State 

Community 

College (AL) 

N/A (not yet 

participating 

at time of 

first round of 

site visits)

N/A 6 12/5-12/6, 

2016

8 11/30-12/1, 

2017

Miami Dade 

College (FL) 

N/A (not yet 

participating 

at time of 

first round of 

site visits)

N/A 6 1/18-1/19, 

2017

6 12/11-12/12, 

2017

Santa Fe 

College (FL) 

8 12/8-12/9, 

2015

6 11/29-11/30, 

2016

8 11/15-11/16, 

2017

Santa Fe 

Community 

College (NM) 

6 12/3-12/4, 

2015

2 11/18-11/19, 

2016

N/A (no 

longer 

participating 

at time of 

third round 

of site visits)

N/A