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

December 22, 2017

Prepared by:

Hannah Betesh

Mayte Cruz

Renatta DeFever

Jennifer Henderson-Frakes

Deborah 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, including (and especially) Joscelyn Silsby and Lori Strauss at AARP 

Foundation and Peg Walton at 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 six community college subgrantees, for 

coordinating implementation study site visit schedules and sharing their perspectives on 

program implementation. 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: Ron D’Amico, for his thoughtful review of this report; Karen Jarsky for her expert 

editing; Savannah Rae, Shelley Kuang and Diana Herrera for their assistance with graphics and 

formatting; and Antoinnae Comeaux and Miloney Thakrar, whose work on site visits earlier in 

the implementation period aided our understanding of the evolution of program services. 

About the Social Innovation Fund

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. 
Table of Contents

Table of Exhibits ................................................................................................. v

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

BTW50+: WESI Subgrantees and Program Model................................................................. ES-1

Overview of Prior Research ................................................................................................... ES-2

The BTW50+: WESI Evaluation............................................................................................... ES-3

Implementation Study Research Questions...................................................................... ES-4

Implementation Study Methods and Instruments............................................................ ES-5

Interim Implementation Evaluation Findings and Lessons Learned...................................... ES-5

Program Management, Funding, and Staffing .................................................................. ES-5

Recruitment, Eligibility, and Enrollment............................................................................ ES-6

Services Provided to Job Candidates................................................................................. ES-7

Job Candidate Perspectives............................................................................................... ES-7

Implications for the Impact Study.......................................................................................... ES-8

Next Steps for the Implementation Study............................................................................. ES-9

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

The Context: Women 50+ Years of Age and the Labor Market.................................................. 1

Overview of Prior Research ........................................................................................................ 3

The BTW50+: WESI Program Model ........................................................................................... 5

Characteristics of the Participating Colleges.......................................................................... 9

The BTW50+: WESI Evaluation.................................................................................................. 11

The Implementation Study ................................................................................................... 12

Report Roadmap....................................................................................................................... 18

Chapter II: Program Management, Funding, and Staffing..................................19

Program Management.............................................................................................................. 19

Intermediary-Level Management......................................................................................... 20

i 
Subgrantee-Level Management ........................................................................................... 21

Program Management Challenges and Successes ............................................................... 23

Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Funding Challenges and Successes....................................................................................... 25

Staffing ...................................................................................................................................... 25

Staffing Challenges and Successes........................................................................................ 26

Synthesis and Conclusions........................................................................................................ 27

Chapter III: Recruitment, Eligibility, and Enrollment..........................................29

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 29

Recruitment and Outreach ....................................................................................................... 29

Marketing and Communications Strategies and Tools......................................................... 30

Interaction with the AARP Foundation Call Center.............................................................. 32

7 Smart Strategies Workshops.............................................................................................. 32

Eligibility, Selection, and Enrollment Process........................................................................... 33

Eligibility and Selection Process............................................................................................ 34

Enrollment ............................................................................................................................ 36

Challenges and Best Practices in Recruitment, Outreach, and Enrollment ............................. 37

Challenges with Recruitment and Enrollment...................................................................... 37

Promising Practices in Recruitment and Enrollment............................................................ 37

Chapter IV: Services Provided to Job Candidates..............................................39

Findings on Overall Fidelity....................................................................................................... 39

Career Coaching........................................................................................................................ 40

Adherence to Career Coaching Model.................................................................................. 40

Evolution of Career Coaching ............................................................................................... 42

Variation Across Subgrantees in Career Coaching Model .................................................... 43

Career Coaching Challenges and Best Practices................................................................... 46

Computer Skills Training ........................................................................................................... 46

 ii
Adherence to Computer Skills Training Component............................................................ 47

Evolution of Computer Skills Training................................................................................... 48

Variation Across Subgrantees in Computer Skills Training................................................... 49

Computer Skills Training Challenges and Best Practices...................................................... 53

Financial Capability Building ..................................................................................................... 55

Adherence to Financial Capability Building .......................................................................... 55

Variation Across Subgrantees in Financial Capability Building............................................. 56

Finances 50+ Challenges and Best Practices......................................................................... 57

Job Search Skills and Employer Engagement............................................................................ 58

Adherence to Job Search Skills and Employer Engagement Model ..................................... 58

Variations Across Subgrantees in Job Search Skills and Employer Engagement Model ...... 60

Challenges and Best Practices............................................................................................... 61

Occupational Skills Training ...................................................................................................... 62

Adherence to Occupational Skills Training Model................................................................ 63

Variations Across Subgrantees in Occupational Skills Training Model................................. 64

Challenges and Best Practices............................................................................................... 66

Differentiation of BTW50+: WESI from Services Available in the Community......................... 67

Synthesis and Conclusions........................................................................................................ 69

Chapter V: Job Candidate Perspectives .............................................................71

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 71

Key Findings.............................................................................................................................. 71

Survey Background and Sample Characteristics....................................................................... 72

Survey Results........................................................................................................................... 74

Reasons for Enrollment......................................................................................................... 74

Computer Skills Upgrade ...................................................................................................... 75

Finances 50+ ......................................................................................................................... 76

Connection to Occupational Skills Training .......................................................................... 77

Job Search Skills .................................................................................................................... 78

iii
Career Coaching.................................................................................................................... 79

Supportive Services............................................................................................................... 80

Attitudes and Behaviors............................................................................................................ 80

Computer Use ....................................................................................................................... 81

Financial Capability ............................................................................................................... 83

Quality of Life........................................................................................................................ 85

Employment Status and Satisfaction........................................................................................ 86

Plans for Future Training and Employment.............................................................................. 88

Focus Group Feedback.............................................................................................................. 90

Focus Group Participants’ Assessment of BTW 50+: WESI................................................... 90

Focus Group Participants’ Recommendations to Improve BTW50+: WESI.......................... 91

Synthesis and Conclusions........................................................................................................ 92

Chapter VI: Conclusion......................................................................................93

Key Findings.............................................................................................................................. 93

Implementation Themes........................................................................................................... 94

Implications for the Impact Study............................................................................................. 95

Next Steps for the Implementation Study................................................................................ 95

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

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

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

Appendix D: Survey Instrument ...................................................................... D-1

iv
Table of Exhibits

Exhibit I-1: BTW50+: WESI Program Logic Model........................................................................... 6

Exhibit I-2: Core BTW50+: WESI Services....................................................................................... 9

Exhibit I-3: Characteristics of Participating Colleges ................................................................... 10

Exhibit I-4: Data Collection Methods and Selected Topics Across Implementation Site Visits.... 14

Exhibit I-5: Key Elements of the BTW50+: WESI Model: Fidelity Checklist .................................. 17

Exhibit II-1: Structure and Management Characteristics of BTW50+: WESI Programs............... 21

Exhibit II-2: Sources of Subgrant Cash Match, By Subgrantee .................................................... 25

Exhibit III-2: Facebook Post from EFSC partner AJC CareerSource Brevard................................ 31

Exhibit III-3: Bus Wrap from ACC .................................................................................................. 31

Exhibit III-4: Standard BTW50+: WESI Eligibility, Selection, and Enrollment Process................. 33

Exhibit IV-1: Career Coach Roles.................................................................................................. 44

Exhibit IV-2: Continuum of Lynda.com Usage ............................................................................. 52

Exhibit V-1: Job Candidates’ Enrollment by Subgrantee .............................................................. 73

Exhibit V-2: Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents.............................................. 74

Exhibit V-3: Reasons for Enrolling in BTW50+: WESI................................................................... 75

Exhibit V-4: Other Reasons for Enrolling in BTW50+: WESI......................................................... 75

Exhibit V-5: Opinions About Computer Skills Upgrade................................................................ 76

Exhibit V-6: Satisfaction with Financial Capability Training......................................................... 77

Exhibit V-7: Connections to Occupational Skills Training ........................................................... 77

Exhibit V-8: Job Search Skills........................................................................................................ 79

Exhibit V-9: Satisfaction with Career Coaching............................................................................ 80

Exhibit V-10: Satisfaction with Supportive Services .................................................................... 80

Exhibit V-11: Mean Scores for Unease with Computer Use ........................................................ 81

Exhibit V-12: Mean Scores for Ease with Computer Use............................................................. 82

Exhibit V-13: Attitudes Towards Computer Use.......................................................................... 83

Exhibit V-14: Mean Scores for Financial Capability ..................................................................... 84

v 

Exhibit III-1: Standard BTW50+: WESI Outreach and Recruitment Model................................... 30
Exhibit V-16: Financial Capability Scale........................................................................................ 84

Exhibit V-17: Mean Scores for Quality of Life .............................................................................. 85

Exhibit V-18: Quality of Life Scale ................................................................................................ 86

Exhibit V-19: Employment Status and Satisfaction...................................................................... 87

Exhibit V-20: Plans for the Future................................................................................................ 89

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

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

Exhibit C-3: Survey Items Measuring Attitudes Towards Computer Use ....................................C-5

Exhibit C-4. Assessment of Survey Items Measuring Attitudes Towards Computer Use ............C-6

Exhibit C-5: Survey Items Measuring Financial Capability...........................................................C-7

Exhibit C-6: Assessment of Financial Capability Survey Items.....................................................C-8

Exhibit C-7: Survey Items Measuring Quality of Life ....................................................................C-9

Exhibit C-8: Assessment of Quality of Life Survey Items ...........................................................C-10

vi

Exhibit V-15: Mean Scores for Financial Capability (Reverse Scale)............................................ 84
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 

Women’s Economic Stability Initiative (WESI) in multiple locations. Using this funding, AARP 

Foundation seeks 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 by helping them prepare for employment in highgrowth 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 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 summarizes 

observations from the implementation study, which so far has included two rounds of site visits 

to each community college implementing BTW50+: WESI. It also draws on 221 telephone 

surveys completed with BTW 50+: WESI participants three months after program enrollment as 

part of the outcomes study. 

BTW50+: WESI Subgrantees and Program Model 

BTW 50+: WESI started in 2015 with grants to five community colleges. It builds on the prior 

experiences of 20 AARP Foundation subgrantees in the Back to Work 50+ Classic program, 

which also supports local education and training institutions to meet the needs of low-income 

workers between 50 and 64 years of age. 

The BTW 50+: WESI program model differs in some important ways from the previous BTW 50+ 

Classic program, however, including an increased focus on recruiting and serving women, with 

priority given to unemployed and underemployed women with high school diplomas and some 

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

WESI subgrants is substantially greater than previous grants under BTW 50+ Classic, thus 

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

colleges’ capacity to serve larger numbers of participants. 

In late 2015, at the end of the first year of the SIF grant, AARP Foundation determined that one 

of the original five subgrantees would not continue to be part of the initiative. The Foundation 

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

college subgrantees in its SIF portfolio. The community colleges that continued to participate in 

BTW 50+: WESI and that are covered in this early implementation report are: 

• Austin Community College (ACC), Austin, Texas 

• Eastern Florida State College (EFSC), Cocoa, Florida 

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

• Miami Dade College (MDC), Miami, Florida 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report ES-1 
• Santa Fe College (SFC-FL), Gainesville, Florida 

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

For participants, referred to as job candidates, the BTW 50+: WESI program model emphasizes 

individual choice, confidence building through coach and peer group support, employer access, 

and short-term training in occupations in high-growth high-wage sectors of the local economy 

to prepare job candidates for stable employment at a living wage and opportunities for career 

advancement. 

The model requires the delivery of a continuum of core services delivered through group 

workshops and individual coaching sessions, including:

• career coaching,

• supportive services, 

• computer skills training, 

• financial capability building, and

• job search skills and employer engagement.

Following the completion of core services, some job candidates enroll in short-term 

occupational skills training, while others look for employment in their chosen occupational 

fields. Through the completion of this model, intended impacts include increased post-program 

employment, increased post-program average earnings, and, for training participants, higher 

rates of training completion compared to a matched comparison group. 

Overview of Prior Research 

Prior research relevant to BTW50+: WESI includes evaluations of programs targeted to older 

workers, as well as evaluations of the effectiveness of sectoral employment strategies to 

increase the employment and earnings of unemployed and underemployed workers. Previous 

studies of the effectiveness of programs developed for older workers have been very limited. 

These evaluations have used preliminary studies—the first tier of evidence under the SIF 

guidelines—of the outcomes of participants in programs targeted to older workers (without 

control or comparison groups) to identify service designs likely to be effective with older 

workers (Kogan et al., 2012; Kogan et al., 2013). 

The most robust research related to the proposed program design is on the effectiveness of 

sectoral approaches to prepare participants for high-quality jobs in high-growth fields. Because 

sectoral strategies target higher-wage industries with a demand for workers, participants are 

expected to achieve both increased rates of employment and increased wages as compared to 

individuals participating in other types of workforce development programs. Recent net impact 

evaluations of programs with a sectoral strategy have confirmed this hypothesis (Hendra et al., 

2016; Maguire et al., 2010). 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report ES-2 
The BTW50+: WESI Evaluation 

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

all participating community colleges. 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). BTW50+: WESI has not undergone any previous implementation, impact, or outcome 

evaluation. While AARP Foundation has been tracking a limited number of outputs for the 

existing Back to Work 50+ Classic sites, this activity has been for performance monitoring rather 

than evaluation. For example, outputs tracked for the previous cohort include the number of 

individuals who attend an information session and the percentage of those individuals who 

enroll in the program. This information is critical for program managers to monitor operations 

and is suggestive of the potential value of the program model. However, it does not constitute 

a formal evaluation of program outcomes, impacts, or implementation. Targeting moderate 

evidence of effectiveness by the end of the grant period thus represents an appropriate 

movement along the evidence continuum for this particular intervention.

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. Much of the data 

collection for the implementation study occurs during annual site visits to each 

participating college. 

• The outcomes study is measuring service intensity and participant outcomes using two 

data sources: the program’s electronic client profile and management system

(Foundation Impact System) 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, post-program average earnings, 

changes in financial capability, computer use attitudes, and quality of life. For job 

candidates who enroll in training, it also includes completion of training. 

• The impact study will use propensity score matching to create a comparison group using 

administrative data from state unemployment insurance (UI) data and Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) program data. To ensure that the projects and 

services had reached a mature state, enrollment of job candidates into the impact study 

did not begin until August 2016, about one year after the initial project start-up. The 

matched comparison group will have access to standard job search support services 

available through the public workforce system. Although WIOA services can include 

career information and guidance, referral to needed support services, and access to 

occupational skills training, comparison group members will not necessarily receive a 

comprehensive sequence of services and the services they do receive might not be 

customized for the needs of either older workers or women. This group will be 

compared with BTW 50+: WESI job candidates on three key measures: post-program 

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

completion of training. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report ES-3 
Overall, the expected sample size for the impact study is 2,800—1,400 BTW50+: WESI job 

candidates and 1,400 individuals in the matched comparison group. These estimates will be 

updated with exact numbers in subsequent deliverables. 

Implementation Study Research Questions

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 so that the evaluation team can interpret 

and identify lessons from the impact study findings. For example, if the impact study 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 

the following issues will be important to determining the implications of these findings: 

• 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? 

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

the BTW50+: WESI model? 

• 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?

• 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 BTW 50+: WESI staff members need to be effective in 

serving older workers?

• To what extent do sub-grantees 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 BTW 50+: WESI job candidates responded to the program?

Additional implementation study research questions specified in the evaluation plan approved 

by the Social Innovation Fund will inform later phases of implementation study research. By 

the end of program implementation, the evaluation will also be able to provide important 

information about challenges and promising practices, from which sites interested in replicating 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report ES-4 
the BTW 50+: WESI model can learn. Questions important to program improvement, 

sustainability, and replication include the following:

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

what do they describe as their greatest challenges in achieving the goals of BTW 50+: 

WESI?

• What do job candidates identify as the most valuable components of BTW 50+: WESI 

services? 

• 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 grant 

period? 

Implementation Study Methods and Instruments 

Annual site visits to each community college (two of which have been completed at the time of 

this interim implementation report) will document program implementation through (1) semistructured interviews with program staff and partners; (2) observations of program activities; 

(3) focus groups with job candidates; and (4) completion of a standardized assessment tool to 

track fidelity to the program model. The second implementation site visits also included visits 

to a local American Job Center within the program’s service area to document the services 

available to comparison group members through the public workforce system. 

Interim Implementation Evaluation Findings and Lessons Learned 

Key findings and lessons learned from the first two annual site visits, as well as initial findings 

from ongoing three-month follow up telephone surveys of job candidates, are summarized 

below across four topical areas: program management, funding and staffing; recruitment, 

eligibility, and enrollment; services provides to job candidates; and job candidate perspective. 

Program Management, Funding, and Staffing

The report describes the guidance, oversight, and management of BTW50+: WESI, both at the 

initiative level and at the subgrantee level through the six community colleges implementing 

the program. It also describes how subgrantees have funded and staffed their program. Key 

findings include: 

• AARP Foundation provides significant technical assistance to subgrantees and 

channels for facilitated communication among subgrantees on best practices. The 

foundation facilitates a learning community that includes regular one-on-one and group 

conference calls, regular monitoring visits, an online collaboration platform, and an 

annual in-person Learning Exchange. 

• The program’s database, the Foundation Impact System (FIS), has been challenging for 

subgrantees to use, despite technical assistance and attempts to streamline data 

entry. The FIS is used for both client tracking and for real-time monitoring of progress 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report ES-5 
towards grant goals. In response to subgrantee feedback on the need for guidance on 

FIS use, AARP Foundation has developed a user guide and webinars in addition to 

providing in-person technical assistance during site visits. However, subgrantees still 

struggle to use the FIS for internal program management and feel that the system could 

be more user-friendly. 

• At the subgrantee level, most programs use a shared leadership approach in which 

strategic oversight and daily program management are shared between two or more 

individuals. This setup enables subgrantees to have one person focus on compliance 

while a second focuses on program delivery and ensures overall program quality. 

• The SIF grant’s cash match requirement has been challenging for subgrantees. 

Subgrantees are required to provide a 1:1 cash match to their subgrant amount in order 

to receive reimbursement for grant expenses. This necessitates significant staff time 

and attention beyond what subgrantees had expected, despite all having prior 

experience operating federal grants. 

Recruitment, Eligibility, and Enrollment 

To meet their enrollment goals, subgrantees conduct recruitment and outreach with the target 

population of women ages 50 to 64. They then screen, select, and enroll eligible job candidates 

from the interested pool. Key findings about the recruitment, eligibility, and enrollment 

processes include:

• Subgrantees strive to achieve a balance between relying on AARP Foundation 

outreach materials and customizing materials to make them appropriate for the local 

context. Specific customization practices include targeted outreach to special 

populations in the community and experimenting with new modes of outreach such as 

bus wrap ads and short videos for social media sharing.

• Similarly, while all subgrantees adhere closely to workshop materials provided by 

AARP Foundation for their 7 Smart Strategies information sessions, they use their 

understanding of the communities they serve to choose times and locations for these 

sessions that will maximize attendance. Some subgrantees hold workshops on a 

regular monthly or quarterly basis, while others schedule them for just prior to new job 

candidate enrollment. Subgrantees have also varied the location of these workshops to 

ensure that applicants from all over the local area can attend. 

• Due to the smaller than expected number of applicants, most subgrantees report that 

BTW50+: WESI enrolls most applicants. Because of this, the selection rubric provided 

by AARP Foundation is used more as a general guide than a determining factor for 

program acceptance. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report ES-6 
Services Provided to Job Candidates 

The report describes subgrantees’ progress towards implementing the BTW50+: WESI model at 

the time of the second implementation study visit, the evolution of components during the 

implementation period, variations in program design and service delivery procedures across the 

subgrantees, challenges faced and addressed in program implementation, and differentiation 

of BTW50+: WESI from services available in the absence of the program. Key findings on these 

topics include: 

• Subgrantees have fully or partially implemented most elements of the program 

model. Implementation of the career coaching, computer skills training, and job search 

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

technical assistance between the first and second implementation study visits—show 

the highest fidelity to the intended model. 

• Subgrantees struggled most to realize full implementation of the employer 

engagement component of the program model. This represents a key area in which 

the public workforce development system services available to comparison group 

members may be as strong or stronger than what is offered through BTW50+: WESI. 

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

notable variations in how they deliver these services. For example, the format and 

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

subgrantees offer intermediate level computer skills training classes. Similarly, for 

occupational skills training, the proportion of job candidates who go on to occupational 

skills training, and the number and types of occupational skills trainings offered, also 

vary. 

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

correlated with fidelity of implementation. Unsurprisingly, prior staff experience with 

the BTW50+ Classic program model and/or working in the public workforce system

appears to strengthen the fidelity with which subgrantees have implemented the 

program model, both overall and for specific components.

Job Candidate Perspectives 

To contextualize findings about program implementation, the report reviews the perspectives 

of job candidates in BTW50+: WESI as measured through three-month follow up surveys and 

focus groups conducted during site visits. Key findings include: 

• Self-reported motivations for enrollment indicate that the program is providing 

accurate messaging in its outreach. Survey results show that most respondents were 

motivated to enroll in BTW50+: WESI in order to bolster their job searches, both 

through learning about new employment opportunities and upgrading their computer 

skills to be competitive in the job market.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report ES-7 
• While survey results indicate satisfaction with the content of most program 

components, focus group feedback suggests areas for improvement in service delivery 

and guidance. Survey responses show moderately high levels of satisfaction with core 

components of the program, though feedback from focus groups indicates more 

interactive and personalized delivery would be appreciated. Additionally, while a high 

proportion of job candidates expressed interest on the survey in continuing with

occupational skills training, focus group feedback points to wide variation in the 

strength of connection to and guidance on training across subgrantees. 

• Survey respondents report positive attitudes and behaviors at three months after 

enrollment, but self-reported employment rates are somewhat low. At three months 

after enrollment, job candidates report feeling relatively comfortable using computers,

say they engage in positive short-term financial behaviors, and are enjoying a relatively 

high quality of life. However, just under half (48.5 percent) report being employed 

either full or part time.

Implications for the Impact Study

Visits to local American Job Centers (AJCs) and interviews with BTW50+: WESI staff indicate a 

relatively strong distinction between the services available to program participants and the 

services available to the planned comparison group. Distinctive services available only to the 

BTW50+: WESI job candidates include assessment of computer skills and access to computer 

skills upgrade training and delivery of financial capability training. Further distinctions in the 

services available to job candidates in BTW50+: WESI are that services (a) have been tailored to 

meet the needs of women over 50, in terms of the content of career coaching and job search 

skills training, and (b) place an emphasis on peer support. 

Another feature that is intended to be distinctive for job candidates in the BTW50+: WESI 

model is employer engagement. To date, the subgrantees have not achieved full fidelity to the 

high level of employer engagement specified in the program model. Because this is an area in 

which AJCs are generally strong (with staff time specifically dedicated to business services and 

job development functions), this may reduce the differences between BTW50+: WESI and the 

services available to comparison group members—and, therefore, resulting employment and 

earnings outcomes. This underscores the importance of strengthening fidelity to (and technical 

assistance on) the employer engagement component of the BTW50+: WESI model. 

Additionally, information gathered as part of the implementation study on recruitment, 

enrollment, and participant perspectives indicates that there may be differences in the 

background and employment history of BTW50+: WESI job candidates and members of the 

comparison group who have sought services from the public workforce system. Career coaches 

reported that job candidates tend to have more employment experience and formal education 

than anticipated, and visits to local AJCs indicate that, at least for some subgrantees, the 

workforce system is serving a harder-to-employ population than BTW 50+: WESI. For this 

reason, it will be important for the impact analysis to present regression-adjusted estimates 

that control for these differences in background characteristics.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report ES-8 
Next Steps for the Implementation Study 

Upcoming activities for the implementation study will include the following: 

• Additional site visits will assess progress towards implementing the model with fidelity, 

explore subgrantee plans for sustaining the program beyond the SIF grant, and continue 

to document other services available on campus and in the community to ensure 

appropriate context for the impact study.

• Follow-up surveys at three, six, and 12 months after enrollment will continue for all job 

candidates who enroll through the end of program implementation.

• A final implementation study report will analyze all site visit and focus group data, 

follow-up survey data, and program dosage and outcome data from the FIS. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report ES-9 
Chapter I: Introduction 

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 

Women’s Economic Stability Initiative (WESI) in multiple locations. Using this funding, AARP 

Foundation seeks 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 by helping them prepare for employment in highgrowth 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 is referred to as Back to Work 50+: Women’s 

Economic Stability Initiative (BTW50+: WESI). In the terminology used by the program,

participants are referred to as job candidates. This report reviews the implementation of 

BTW50+: WESI, including the experiences of job candidates who completed it, at six community 

colleges selected to implement it through a competitive bid process.

This chapter provides context on the national status of older women as workers, offers a 

description of the BTW50+: WESI program model, and provides descriptive information about 

the local context of the six participating community colleges. Further, it presents an overview 

of the evaluation’s research questions and research methods as well as a roadmap for the 

remainder of the report. 

The Context: Women 50+ Years of Age and the Labor Market

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 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2008; Gendell, 

2008; National Institute on Aging, 2007; Toossi, 2012). At the same time, older workers are 

more likely than other workers to have difficulty getting re-employed after they lose a job (Van 

Horn, Krepcio, & Ridley, 2008). As a result, older workers are becoming a growing share of the 

long-term and very long-term unemployed, a trend that started before the Great Recession and 

has steadily advanced. In 2007, about 24 percent of older jobless workers (those age 50 and 

up) had been out of work for six months or more; this was a higher rate of long-term 

unemployment than was experienced by any other age group. In 2011, the proportion of older 

jobless workers out of work for six months or more had jumped to about 54 percent. 

Moreover, in 2011, older jobless workers were more likely than jobless workers in other age 

groups to be unemployed for one year or longer (McKenna, 2012).

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 her struggles (Belle & Bullock, 2009). The 

downward economic spiral beginning with job loss is magnified in its impact by the chain of 

consequences that subsequently reverberate through their families, homes, neighborhoods,

and communities. Moreover, nearly one-third of older Americans have seen their homes 

decline substantially in value and a sizable proportion have fallen behind on credit card 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 1 
payments or accumulated additional credit card debt (AARP Public Policy Institute, 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,” Rhee & Boivi (2015) 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. 

Compared to men, women are increasing as a percentage of the aging workforce, and 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 findings 

show that women over 50 face substantially more age discrimination in the workplace than do 

older men (Farber, Silverman, & von Wachter, 2015; Neumark, Burn, & Button, 2015).

Older women workers were also the group hardest hit by the Great Recession, in terms of the 

rate of long-term unemployment (over 27 weeks). Between 2007 and 2013, the incidence of 

long-term unemployment surged from 14 percent to 50 percent of all women workers over 65 

who lost their jobs (Monge-Naranjo & Sohail, 2015). Data also show that women 55 years of 

age and older are more likely to work part time than other women and in low-skill jobs that are 

much less likely than full-time jobs to offer benefits such as paid sick leave, retirement plans, or 

health insurance (USDOL Women’s Bureau, n.d.). As the result of a lifetime of reduced income 

due to multiple factors including gender- and 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 currently live in poverty as 

retired men (Older Women’s League, 2012). 

The public workforce investment system has a mixed record of accomplishment to date in 

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

Program (SCSEP), which is the only federal workforce program targeted specifically to older 

workers, serves only very low-income workers, and is estimated to serve less than 1 percent of 

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

(WIA)—which was replaced in July 2015 by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA)—adult and dislocated worker training programs have been increasing their enrollment 

of workers 55 or older, measured as a percentage of all WIA enrollees over time. However, 

studies suggest that older workers are less likely than other WIA enrollees to receive training 

services (Stevens, 2004). Gender is also associated with differences in the services received 

from WIA and the outcomes achieved by those who exit from WIA. A recent 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 (Maxwell, Hock, VerbitskySavitz, & Reed, 2012).

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 2 
Overview of Prior Research 

Prior research relevant to BTW50+: WESI includes evaluations of programs targeted to older 

workers, as well as evaluations of the effectiveness of sectoral employment strategies to 

increase the employment and earnings of unemployed and underemployed workers.

Evaluations of Services for Older Workers. Studies of the effectiveness of programs developed 

for older workers have been very limited. Previous evaluations have used preliminary studies—

the first tier of evidence under the SIF guidelines—of the outcomes of participants in programs 

targeted to older workers (without control or comparison groups) to identify service designs 

likely to be effective with older workers. For example, the Evaluation of the Aging Worker 

Initiative (Kogan et al., 2013) used a process study with multiple site visits to each of 10 project 

sites and feedback from program directors to identify the following program features that were 

important to or effective with older workers:

• 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 and transferable 

skills, as well as 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; and

• opportunities to learn and practice using computer applications relevant for job search 

and on-the-job work tasks.

AARP Foundation has developed its BTW50+: WESI model based in part on the above findings 

about effective practices in serving older workers. The approach has also been influenced by 

initial observations of the experiences of participants during the initial pilots of the BTW50+ 

model, referred to as the “Classic” model. Analysis of outcomes achieved by BTW50+ Classic 

participants across 11 community colleges that received grants in January 2014 to pilot the 

program indicates that 30 percent of the job candidates who received coaching services were 

hired into full- or part-time jobs as of April 2015. This initial analysis suggests the value of more 

intensive programming like the enhanced model offered under BTW50+: WESI—while 20 

percent of participants who were hired by April 2015 attended just one coaching session, 

almost half of those who became employed (47 percent), received at least five coaching

sessions, with 23 percent attending 11 or more sessions.1 The next step in analysis of outcomes 

for those programs will be to understand what “dosage” of the program is needed to achieve 

1

 These findings are from early analyses of unpublished data from the Foundation Impact System for the first 

round of BTW 50+: Classic subgrantees. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 3 

 
the best job placement and retention outcomes. However, like the previous aging research, 

these analyses did not use a control or comparison group to assess program impacts. 

Evaluations of Sectoral Approaches. The most robust research related to the proposed 

program design is on the effectiveness of sectoral approaches to prepare participants for highquality jobs in high-growth fields. In addition to employers, other partners, such as workforce 

development boards, unions, and community colleges, may also be involved in projects using 

sectoral models (The Workforce Alliance, 2008). 

Because sectoral strategies target higher-wage industries with a demand for workers, 

participants are expected to achieve both increased rates of employment and increased wages 

as compared to individuals participating in other types of workforce development programs. 

Recent net impact evaluations of programs with a sectoral strategy have confirmed this 

hypothesis. The Sectoral Employment Impact Study (Maguire et al., 2010) confirmed that over 

a two-year period after random assignment, program participants were more likely to be 

employed and earned more, on average, than members of the control group. An evaluation of 

the first two years of the WorkAdvance initiative also shows positive impacts on both 

employment and earnings, although the size of the impacts varies across the different providers 

and does not address the relative impact of different program components (Hendra et al., 

2016). 

Sectoral programs may differ from the BTW50+: WESI model in important respects, however. 

For example, whereas sectoral approaches balance the interests of job candidates and 

employers as dual customers of the program, the BTW50+: WESI model emphasizes job 

candidates as the primary customer. Furthermore, BTW50+: WESI program grantees have 

identified from two to six different economic sectors in which to focus their efforts, rather than 

a single industry. BTW50+: WESI also diverges from the sector employment model by 

developing an individualized training plan for each participant and drawing on existing training 

programs rather than screening and referring individuals into a new training pipeline developed 

for a specific industry sector.

Evaluations of sectoral employment programs provide several additional findings and 

implications 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 

incorporates this lesson in its design by allowing for a full year of program 

implementation at most subgrantees2 prior to enrolling job candidates in the impact 

study. 

2

 As detailed in the next section, two out of six subgrantees did not begin operating their programs until just 

prior to the start of impact study enrollment.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 4 

 
• The importance of flexibility to adapt to a changing labor market. The identification of 

multiple sectors by BTW50+: WESI subgrantees may enable the projects to be agile 

enough to shift training focus if a targeted sector experiences a downturn. 

• 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 grantees have developed a variety of ways 

to involve employers. It does not appear, however, that employers will be “driving” the 

BTW50+: WESI training designs. 

• 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). The BTW50+: WESI program differs from the sectoral employment model 

because of its emphasis on the needs of job candidates rather than employers as the 

determining factor in participant enrollment and program design. This suggests that 

BTW50+: WESI subgrantees face a slightly different challenge: rather than ensuring that 

applicants are a good fit for the targeted occupation, BTW50+: WESI subgrantees have 

had to figure out how to refine program components, including occupational skills 

training offerings, to fit the needs of job candidates who have enrolled in their program. 

Nevertheless, BTW50+: WESI’s intention to target participants with high school 

diplomas and prior employment histories will help to ensure that job candidates are 

similar enough that many of the planned program components will be appropriate. 

The BTW50+: WESI program model builds on an understanding of the challenges facing older 

women workers, as documented in previous research, and lessons learned from previous 

sectoral employment research efforts. The evaluation will test the efficacy of programs housed 

within community colleges that provide a continuum of services including job and career 

coaching, referral to needed support services, financial capability training, training to upgrade 

computer skills, and, if appropriate, connection to occupational skills training programs.

The BTW50+: WESI Program Model

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

program’s Social Innovation Fund Sugbrantee Evaluation Plan:

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 5 
Exhibit I-1: BTW50+: WESI Program Logic Model

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 6 
As described earlier, BTW50+: WESI builds on the prior experiences of local organizations that 

implemented the BTW50+ Classic program. Like BTW50+ Classic, the BTW50+: WESI program 

seeks 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. 

The BTW 50+: WESI program model differs in some important ways from the previous BTW 50+ 

Classic program, however, including an increased focus on recruiting and serving women, with 

priority given to unemployed and underemployed women with high school diplomas and some 

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

WESI subgrants is substantially greater than previous grants under BTW 50+ Classic, thus 

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

colleges’ capacity to serve larger numbers of participants. 

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 grant, AARP Foundation 

determined that one of the original five subgrantees would not continue to be part of the 

initiative. The Foundation then awarded an additional two subgrants in the winter of 2016, for 

a total of six community college subgrantees in its SIF portfolio. The community colleges that 

continued to participate in BTW 50+: WESI and that are covered in this early implementation 

report are: 

• Austin Community College (ACC), Austin, Texas

• Eastern Florida State College (EFSC), Cocoa, Florida

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

• Miami Dade College (MDC), Florida

• Santa Fe College (SFC-FL), Gainesville, Florida

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

Under the current SIF grant, subgrantees will serve a total of 1,400 job candidates. At each 

participating subgrantee, job candidates are anticipated to move through the program in eight 

or more cohorts or “waves” of about 30 participants each.

As described in Chapter 2, AARP Foundation has played an active role introducing the desired 

program model and providing technical assistance and support throughout the SIF grant period. 

To document the key features of the program design and implementation practices, AARP 

Foundation developed a BTW50+: WESI Playbook that describes the program goals and 

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

best practices. The Playbook has been updated several times, as the growing experience of 

AARP Foundation and the subgrantees has yielded new model refinements. The program 

description included in this report is based on the most recent version of the Playbook, updated 

in April 2016.

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 7 
At the system level, the essential elements of the BTW 50+: WESI model include:

• developing local partnerships led by community colleges and including employers, the 

public workforce development system, and other local programs serving older 

individuals;

• identifying sectors of the local economy and specific occupations within those sectors 

that offer opportunities for job growth and job stability; and 

• developing comprehensive sequences of services to build the capacity of local partners 

to address the needs of unemployed and underemployed women aged 50 and over. 

The BTW 50+: WESI program model emphasizes individual choice, confidence building through 

coach and peer group support, employer access, and short-term training in occupations in highgrowth high-wage sectors of the local economy to prepare job candidates for stable 

employment at a living wage and opportunities for career advancement. Successful 

implementation of the model at the individual service delivery level requires effective 

recruitment and outreach to potential participants (with support from a national call center 

operated by AARP Foundation). 

The model requires the delivery of a continuum of core services delivered through group 

workshops and individual coaching sessions, including:

• career coaching and cohort community building, 

• supportive services, 

• computer skills training, 

• financial capability building, and

• job search skills and employer engagement.

Following the completion of core services, some job candidates enroll in short-term 

occupational skills training, while others look for employment in their chosen occupational 

fields. Exhibit I-2 illustrates graphically how the critical components of the BTW50+: WESI 

program model are 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 occupational skills training) was designed to be completed within 10 weeks 

of program enrollment. In practice, as will be detailed later in the report, most subgrantees 

target completion of core services in a shorter timeframe.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 8 
Exhibit I-2: Core BTW50+: WESI Services

Characteristics of the Participating Colleges 

The community colleges participating in BTW50+: WESI share some characteristics and vary on 

others, as shown in Exhibit I-3. As community colleges, all the schools offer a mix of academic 

programs designed for students interested in transferring to four-year colleges as well as 

technical programs leading to an associate’s degree or credit-bearing certificate. As noted in 

Exhibit I-3, most of the colleges also offer not-for-credit vocational programs and continuing 

education programs, and serve a mix of full- and part-time students. 

Three of the colleges are located in small urban areas (JSCC in Birmingham, Alabama; SFC in 

Gainesville, Florida; SFCC-NM in Santa Fe, New Mexico), while one college is in a medium-sized 

urban area (EFSC in Cocoa, Florida); two colleges are located in large urban areas with major 

central cities (ACC in Austin, Texas; MDC, in Miami, Florida). Among other things, the 

community setting affects the diversity and number of jobs in the local economy as well as the 

extent of public transportation available to job candidates for travel to school and to jobs. It 

also affects the size of the population pool from which job candidates can be recruited.

The number of students attending each of these institutions is strongly influenced by the 

population of the local service area. In addition, colleges that serve a larger population or an 

extended geographic area tend to depend on multiple campuses to make programs accessible 

to students throughout the service area. The participating colleges range from the very large 

MDC, which has 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, is the second 

largest community college in the state of Alabama.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 9 
Exhibit I-3: Characteristics of Participating Colleges

Community College

Size of 

Community 

Served Size of School

Previous Experience 

Serving Older Students 

or Women

Special Characteristics of 

Targeted Population

Labor Market Conditions/ 

Targeted Sectors

Austin Community 

College (TX)

Large city/ 

urban area

Large: 43,000 students 

for-credit, 15,000 

students non-credit.

New staff members have 

experience with Women 

in IT Initiative. Not described.

Unemployment very low (2–3%). 

Targeted jobs in technology, 

health care, and business services, 

particularly high growth in tech 

sector.

Eastern Florida 

State College (FL)

Medium sized 

urban/ 

suburban area

Medium: 23,000 

students across four 

campuses.

Prior experience 

operating the WENDI 

program for displaced 

homemakers.

Women over 50 who had 

attended college in the last 

five years.

Unemployment around 4%, but 

many jobs pay low wages. Goal 

for participants is jobs that will 

enable self-sufficiency.

Jefferson State 

Community College 

(AL)

Small city/ 

urban and 

suburban/ rural

Smaller: 8,000 students 

for-credit, 2,000 

students non-credit at 

four campuses across 

four counties.

Substantial: Former 

short-term training 

program for single 

mothers and BTW50+ 

Classic.

Interested in reaching 

women in city as well as in 

less populated areas.

Unemployment around 5%, high 

poverty rate, particularly for older 

women. Targeted sectors in 

health care and office occupations.

Miami Dade College 

(FL)

Very large 

city/urban area

Very large: Over 

165,000 students across 

seven campuses.

Limited: WESI is the 

“signature program” of a 

new Women’s Institute.

North Campus serves high 

minority and substantial 

non-English speaking 

students; 61% of students 

are part time.

Unemployment slightly over 5%. 

Expanding sectors include 

hospitality, health care, finance, IT, 

logistics.

Santa Fe College 

(FL)

Small city/ 

urban area

Medium: 22,043 

students across seven 

locations.

Substantial experience 

serving displaced 

homemakers and 

BTW50+ Classic; was 

early member of AACC 

+50 Initiative.

About 500 students are 

over 50 years of age; most 

of these attend part time.

Unemployment around 4%. Slow 

recovery from recession, high rate 

of poverty. 50% of employment is 

in education or government

Santa Fe 

Community College 

(NM) 

Small city with 

rural fringe 

areas

Smaller: 15,000 

students including 

credit, non-credit, and 

continuing education.

Was a BTW50+ Classic 

site.

Targets Native American 

and Hispanic women with 

strong cultural ties; 30% of 

students are age 45+.

Unemployment rate around 5%, 

remains high for 50+ women of 

color (20%). Income disparity is 

pronounced, with high poverty 

rates in targeted communities.

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 10
Three of the six colleges had experience targeting services to older women students as a result 

of prior participation in the Back-to-Work 50+ Classic program. Three of these schools also had 

a track record of prior programs that targeted women students—EFSC, SFC-FL and JSCC had 

operated programs for displaced homemakers; JSCC also had experience operating a shortterm training program targeted to single mothers. This program led to the development of a 

non-credit workforce education division that provided a strong set of short-term training 

options on which BTW50+: WESI could draw for job candidates. 

Several of the participating colleges did not identify particular local target groups for their 

programs in advance. These schools were open to serving whatever students responded to the 

outreach and marketing for the program and met the enrollment priorities established by AARP 

Foundation. Local demographic and economic conditions led other schools to target particular 

subgroups they anticipated would particularly benefit from the program. These subgroups 

included underserved racial and ethnic groups, such as Native American and Hispanic women 

with strong cultural ties at SFCC-NM, and individuals at EFSC, SFC-FL, and SFCC-NM with a 

history of working in low-wage jobs and living under the poverty level.

The overall local economic situation for most sites has improved substantially since the Great 

Recession; most of the colleges are in local areas where the unemployment rate was around 4 

or 5 percent. The local economy in ACC’s location of Austin, Texas, was particularly vigorous, 

with a very low unemployment rate between 2 and 3 percent. The traditional wisdom is that 

demand for community college services declines substantially when the economy is tight, 

because the low unemployment rate puts upward pressure on wages, and most individuals can 

find employment. In the remaining areas, the economic recovery had not yet reached 

individuals with very low wages, and significant pockets of poverty remained, particularly 

among older women workers.

Despite these variations in the local college context, all the participating colleges were selected 

by AARP Foundation for funding because they were assessed as having a strong commitment to 

the goals of BTW50+: WESI at the highest levels of college administration, and as having the 

capacity to partner with the Foundation to realize the program model.

The BTW50+: WESI Evaluation 

AARP Foundation engaged Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) to design and implement a 

unified subgrantee evaluation across all participating community colleges. 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:

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

the prescribed model, implementation challenges, and best practices. Much of the data 

collection for the implementation study occurs during annual site visits to each 

participating college. Details on the research methods used in the implementation 

study are described on the following page. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 11
• The outcomes study is measuring service intensity and participant outcomes using two 

data sources: the program’s electronic client profile and management system

(Foundation Impact System) 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, post-program average earnings, 

changes in financial capability, computer use attitudes, and quality of life. For job 

candidates who enroll in training, it also includes completion of training. 

• The impact study will use propensity score matching to create a comparison group using 

administrative data from state unemployment insurance (UI) data and Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) program data. To ensure that the projects and 

services had reached a mature state, enrollment of job candidates into the impact study 

did not begin until August 2016, about one year after the initial project start-up. The 

matched comparison group will have access to standard job search support services 

available through the public workforce system. Although WIOA services can include 

career information and guidance, referral to needed support services, and access to 

occupational skills training, comparison group members will not necessarily receive a 

comprehensive sequence of services and the services they do receive might not be 

customized for the needs of either older workers or women. This group will be 

compared with BTW 50+: WESI job candidates on three key measures: post-program 

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

completion of training. 

The Implementation Study 

As the first phase of the evaluation, the implementation study is designed to describe and 

assess the program’s fidelity to the prescribed model, as well as to document implementation 

challenges and emerging best practices. 

The current report is an interim report of implementation findings from site visits conducted 

during the first two years of program implementation. This report also draws on ongoing 

telephone surveys completed with BTW50+: WESI job candidates three months after program 

enrollment. A final implementation report will discuss plans for sustaining the program model, 

analyze data on service receipt, and explore job candidate attitudes measured through three-, 

six-, and 12-month follow-up telephone surveys. 

Implementation Study Research Questions

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 so that the evaluation team can interpret 

and identify lessons from the impact study findings. For example, if the impact study 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 

the following issues will be important to determining the implications of these findings: 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 12
• 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? 3 

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

the BTW50+: WESI model? 

• 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?

• 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 BTW 50+: WESI staff members need to be effective in 

serving older workers?

• To what extent do sub-grantees 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 BTW 50+: WESI job candidates responded to the program? 4

Additional implementation study research questions specified in the evaluation plan approved 

by the Social Innovation Fund will inform later phases of implementation study research. By 

the end of program implementation, the evaluation will also be able to provide important 

information about challenges and promising practices, from which sites interested in replicating 

the BTW 50+: WESI model can learn. Questions important to program improvement, 

sustainability, and replication include the following:

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

what do they describe as their greatest challenges in achieving the goals of BTW 50+: 

WESI?

3

 This research question originally asked about services available “through the public workforce system and 

other on-campus resources,” but has been broadened to incorporate “other available resources” based on the 

fact that one subgrantee used a community partner to offer some elements of core services.

4

 This research question was added to the original list of implementation study research questions based on the 

Social Innovation Fund’s guidance on including responsiveness as a dimension of program implementation.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 13

 
• What do job candidates identify as the most valuable components of BTW 50+: WESI 

services? 5 

• 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 grant 

period? 

Implementation Study Methods

Annual site visits to each community college (two of which have been completed at the time of 

this report) will document program implementation through (1) semi-structured interviews 

with program staff and partners; (2) observations of program activities; (3) focus groups with 

job candidates; and (4) completion of a standardized assessment tool to track fidelity to the 

program model. The second implementation site visit also included a visit to a local American 

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

group members through the public workforce system. 

Issues addressed during the implementation study visits include project organization, 

operations, and fidelity to the intended program model, as well as challenges encountered and 

the refinement of the program model over time in different sites. Exhibit I-4 shows how the 

topics covered during the data collection will evolve over time as the project matures and job 

candidates move through different stages of program participation.

Exhibit I-4: Data Collection Methods and Selected Topics Across Implementation Site Visits

Early Implementation 

Site Visit

Mid-Implementation 

Site Visit

Late Implementation 

Site Visit

Semi-Structured 

Interviews 

College and local context, 

design and delivery of 

program, recruitment and 

enrollment

Core service, training, job 

placement services, 

successes and challenges 

with program 

implementation 

Lessons learned, program 

sustainability, and next 

steps

Focus Groups Discussion with 

participants in coaching

Discussion with 

participants in training

Discussion with 

participants who are now 

employed or job searching 

Program Observations Program orientation, if 

schedule allows

Core services (a coaching 

session or financial 

capability training, for 

example)

Job search skills training

5

 This research question originally asked about job candidates’ perspectives on both components of BTW50+: 

WESI and on other services received at the college. The research team modified this question to ask 

specifically and exclusively about BTW50+: WESI, as the actual implementation of the model focused less on 

enrollment in other community college programs than anticipated.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 14

 
Early Implementation 

Site Visit

Mid-Implementation 

Site Visit

Late Implementation 

Site Visit

Formal Assessment of 

Program Fidelity 

The same fidelity assessment tool will be used across visits, but sites will likely 

progress from earning the score “Not yet implemented,” to “Partially implemented,” 

to “Fully implemented” for various elements. 

To answer the research questions described earlier, the evaluation team developed a fidelity 

assessment tool to document subgrantee progress toward achieving fidelity to the BTW50+: 

WESI program model during each site visit. The fidelity assessment tool specifies the critical 

components of the model and describes what particular practices would have to be in place in 

order for a local program to achieve fidelity to these key components. The evaluation team did 

not expect all sites to meet all operational criteria at the time of the first site visit; instead, 

program fidelity was expected to increase over time, both overall and for specific components 

of the model.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 15
As described in Exhibit I-5 below, the fidelity 

assessment (included as Appendix B of this report) 

draws substantially on the key components 

described in AARP Foundation’s BTW50+: WESI 

Playbook. Chapter 4 of this report details the 

fidelity framework for each component of the 

program model and the progress toward achieving 

program fidelity as of the end of the second 

implementation study site visit. 

The fidelity assessment tool is used as a formal 

guide to ensure consistency in how site visitors 

evaluate each college’s progress towards achieving 

the required core elements. Prior to each round of 

implementation study site visits, site visitors receive 

training in how to use the fidelity assessment tool to 

promote inter-rater reliability. At the end of each 

visit, the site visitor meets with the program director 

to discuss how the college is addressing each of the 

criteria in the fidelity assessment tool. Based on 

data collected during the site visit, the site visitor 

rates the subgrantee as having “fully implemented,” 

“partially implemented,” or “not yet implemented” 

each element of the program model.

As used in the implementation study, the fidelity 

assessments are “point-in-time” ratings of the 

extent to which the colleges have achieved full 

implementation and fidelity with the BTW50+: WESI 

model. They are intended to identify program 

elements that AARP Foundation might need to pay 

attention to in providing technical assistance and 

training to the participating colleges. As such, the 

tool and fidelity ratings based on the tool do not 

contain specific thresholds, but rather allow the site 

visitor to indicate progression in a qualitative 

manner over the course of the implementation 

study. 

Measuring Fidelity Throughout 

the Implementation Study

In assessing program fidelity to 

prepare for impact studies, key 

considerations include: (1) 

overall adherence, or whether 

the program includes the key 

elements of the intended 

program model; (2) quality of 

intervention, or whether the 

program has developed and 

delivers “high quality” services; 

(3) dosage, or the level of 

participant exposure to 

program services; and (4) 

differentiation, or whether the 

intervention being studied 

differs substantially from 

baseline services or “business 

as usual.” 

This interim implementation 

report focuses on overall 

adherence and quality of 

intervention, and also 

documents differentiation as 

measured through visits to local 

American Job Centers. The final 

implementation report will also 

take into account the intensity 

and duration of services 

provided as part of the specific 

program design, as well as the 

level of participation of 

individual job candidates. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 16
Exhibit I-5: Key Elements of the BTW50+: WESI Model: Fidelity Checklist

Program 

Elements Criteria for Fidelity Checklist

Key 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. 

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: 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. 

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: 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.

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: 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 and provides opportunities for job 

candidates to have contact with local employers.

Key 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.

6.2 Support is provided to job candidates in training and is tailored to their needs. 

 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 17
Report Roadmap

To document program implementation experiences during the first two years of the grant, the 

next chapter of this report describes project management, staffing, and the development of 

local partnerships. Chapter III describes recruitment and enrollment, while Chapter IV provides 

a summary of the design and delivery of services to job candidates and the fidelity of these 

services to the intended model. Chapter V explores the job candidate perspective, and finally, 

Chapter VI summarizes lessons learned and future plans based on implementation experiences 

to date.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 18
Chapter II: Program Management, Funding, and Staffing

This chapter describes the guidance, oversight, and management of BTW50+: WESI, both at the 

initative level through AARP Foundation and the American Association of Community Colleges 

and at the subgrantee level through the six community colleges implementing the program. It 

also describes how subgrantees have funded and staffed their programs.

Key Findings

• AARP Foundation provides significant technical assistance to subgrantees and 

channels for facilitated communication among subgrantees on best practices. 

The foundation facilitates a learning community that includes regular one-on-one 

and group conference calls, regular monitoring visits, an online collaboration 

platform, and an annual in-person Learning Exchange. 

• The program’s database, the Foundation Impact System (FIS), has been 

challenging for subgrantees to use, despite technical assistance and attempts to 

streamline data entry. In response to subgrantee feedback, AARP Foundation 

has developed a user guide and webinars in addition to providing in-person 

technical assistance during site visits. However, subgrantees still struggle to use 

the FIS for internal program management and feel that the system could be more 

user-friendly. 

• At the subgrantee level, most programs use a shared leadership approach in 

which strategic oversight and daily program management are shared between 

two or more individuals. This setup enables subgrantees to have one person 

focus on compliance while a second focuses on program delivery and ensures 

overall program quality. 

• The Social Innovation Fund grant’s cash match requirement has been 

challenging for subgrantees. Subgrantees are required to provide a 1:1 cash 

match to their subgrant amount in order to receive reimbursement for grant 

expenses. This necessitates significant staff time and attention beyond what 

subgrantees had expected, despite all having prior experience operating federal 

grants. 

Program Management

BTW50+: WESI management occurs at two levels: guidance and oversight is provided by AARP 

Foundation at the intermediary level, and program leadership is provided at the subgrantee 

level.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 19
Intermediary-Level Management 

As the intermediary for the SIF grant, AARP Foundation (supported by the American Association 

of Community Colleges) provides oversight and technical assistance to subgrantees on program 

implementation. While AARP Foundation is the recipient of the SIF grant and manages its 

operation, the Foundation decided to engage the American Association of Community Colleges 

(AACC) as a strategic partner given AACC’s knowledge of the community college landscape. 

AACC’s primary day-to-day involvement in the initiative is through the program manager for 

BTW50+ (both BTW50+: WESI and Classic), who is employed by the American Association of 

Community Colleges. The program manager conducts 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 conducts annual 

monitoring visits to each college to ensure that subgrantees are 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, and 

partnerships. 

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

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

grant, AARP Foundation also held two monthly calls: one for BTW50+: WESI subgrantees only 

and one for the entire BTW50+ network (both BTW50+: WESI and Classic programs). The 

BTW50+: WESI calls were discontinued at the end of 2016 based on feedback from subgrantees 

that such frequent calls were no longer necessary. BTW50+ network calls still take place once 

per month; these calls provide opportunities for the Foundation 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. 

For cross-program sharing between calls, AARP Foundation maintains a site for all BTW50+ 

programs on BaseCamp, a collaboration platform that allows members to communicate with 

each other, share links and files, and access key documents such as the program Playbook, the 

7 Smart Strategies workshop PowerPoint presentation, recordings of conference calls, and 

recordings of SPR’s evaluation trainings on data quality and informed consent. This site was 

created in response to subgrantee feedback during the first implementation study site visit 

requesting more opportunities for peer sharing and collaboration. 

The subgrantees gather each January for an in-person Learning Exchange, timed to occur just 

before AACC’s annual Workforce Development Institute, and the Foundation subsidizes 

registration and conference attendance for two staff members from each subgrantee. This 

daylong meeting enables 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 variations in 

the use of assessments to inform computer skills upgrade training, subgrantees discussed their 

approaches to finding and customizing curriculum resources. Based on ACC’s experience using 

Lynda.com to develop video training playlists (discussed in more detail in Chapter IV), AARP 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 20
Foundation subsequently supported the purchase of 12 Lynda.com licenses for each 

subgrantee. 

Another program management function for AARP Foundation is training and support on data 

entry and data management practices. Subgrantees enter participant service and outcome 

data into the Foundation Impact System (FIS), a Salesforce database designed and maintained 

by AARP Foundation. These data include attendance at workshops and coaching sessions, 

completion of core services, and achievement of key milestones such as completion of training 

and placement into employment. The FIS uses a data visualization add-on called Birst to 

produce performance measure reports by subgrantee that show 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, each subgrantee has an 

assigned FIS analyst at AARP Foundation who provides technical assistance and reviews data for 

quality issues. AARP Foundation also provides FIS technical assistance through a user guide, inperson training (during monitoring visits), and a webinar to subgrantees, including recorded 

modules developed in response to subgrantees’ feedback on the need for such assistance. 

AARP Foundation created these video training modules in response to subgrantee feedback 

during the first implementation study site visit that the FIS was challenging to navigate. The 

modules cover topics such as recording coaching sessions and entering key milestones in 

training and employment. To facilitate use of this data for the evaluation, SPR has provided 

webinar trainings to both the FIS analysts at AARP Foundation and directly to subgrantees on 

best practices in data quality, emphasizing the importance of FIS data entry being accurate, 

complete, and timely.

Subgrantee-Level Management 

At the subgrantee level, BTW50+: WESI programs have several notable management and 

structural features. As shown in Exhibit II-1, subgrantees vary in (1) the location of the program 

within the college, and (2) the leadership structure and division of labor for program 

management.

Exhibit II-1: Structure and Management Characteristics of BTW50+: WESI Programs

Location of BTW50+: WESI 

Within Community College

Leadership Structure and 

Division of Labor

ACC

Academic support division A grant lead provides strategic guidance and monitors 

spending; a program director provides daily oversight 

of coaches and ensures the quality of core services 

delivery.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 21
Location of BTW50+: WESI 

Within Community College

Leadership Structure and 

Division of Labor

EFSC

Career planning and development 

center

One program manager provides oversight of the grant 

and collaborates with a staff member at the American 

Job Center to implement WESI across the two 

organizations. 

JSCC Workforce and continuing education 

division

One project director provides oversight of program 

activities.

MDC

Academic affairs division Two grant leads share oversight of spending and 

strategic guidance; a program manager oversees daily 

program implementation.

SFC-FL

Student affairs division A project director provides strategic direction and 

oversees the program; a project manager oversees 

daily program implementation. 

SFCC-NM 

Academic support division A project director is responsible for administrative 

oversight and staffing; a program manager leads core 

services delivery and oversees coaches.

As shown in the first column, one program (JSCC) is located within the workforce and 

continuing education division of its subgrantee community college, and three (MDC, ACC and 

SFCC-NM) operate within academic support divisions. The remaining programs, EFSC and SFCFL, are housed in the college’s career planning and development center and student affairs 

division, respectively. EFSC’s program also has close ties with their American Job Center, which 

houses some of the career coaches, while the student affairs division at SFC-FL operates out of 

the office of the college president and has strong relationships with both the academic support 

and workforce and continuing education divisions of the college. The program’s location has 

important implications for staff experience and skills, as discussed in more detail later in the 

chapter. In particular, coaches in academic support divisions bring experience in providing 

guidance on training and connections to campus resources, while those in workforce and 

continuing education divisions bring experience with interest assessments and job search 

assistance. 

In terms of leadership structure and division of labor, five out of six subgrantees use a shared 

approach, wherein multiple individuals split management responsibilities. For most of the 

subgrantees, this setup enables them to have separate individuals responsible for strategic 

direction and daily program management—an important distinction given the heavy 

administrative oversight requirements for the SIF grant (described in more detail below). At 

EFSC, however, some aspects of program leadership are shared primarily to ensure separate 

contacts at both the community college and the American Job Center, which assists with the 

provision of core services.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 22
Program Management Challenges and Successes

Both subgrantees and AARP Foundation noted that the initiative has been working hard to 

respond to subgrantee concerns. For example, they have increased the amount of and modes 

for FIS technical assistance, created the BaseCamp site to facilitate communication, and 

structured the in-person Learning Exchange to allow opportunities for conversations between 

subgrantees—moving, for example, from an all-day presentation to a series of shorter 

presentations followed by breakout discussions. This has enabled subgrantees to provide 

suggestions for program improvement and experience the application of their feedback while 

the program is still ongoing, thereby increasing commitment to the project learning community 

envisioned in AARP Foundation’s proposal to the SIF.

A key program management challenge for AARP Foundation has been keeping cross-program 

exchange and technical assistance relevant to subgrantees at very different points of 

implementation: Two of the subgrantees began implementing the program a full year later than 

the other four; half of the subgrantees had implemented BTW50+ Classic previously while half 

had not; and two subgrantees had leadership transitions partway through implementation. 

Subgrantees that are newer to implementing the program and/or have experienced leadership 

transitions have very different technical assistance needs than those with more experience and 

consistent staffing. This difference can make it hard to structure cross-program sharing in a 

way that resonates for all subgrantees. In particular, highlighting best practices to the network 

can be a sensitive issue when certain colleges are repeatedly noted for their best practices. 

Another challenge noted by both subgrantees and AARP Foundation is that despite increased 

technical assistance, the FIS is still not seen as a user-friendly system for tracking participant 

outcomes. According to a member of the leadership team at AARP Foundation, subgrantees 

“didn’t come in with the expectation of daily data entry, like other [organizations] we work 

with—like keeping track of individuals in an intensive case management way rather than 

keeping track of grades on a semester basis.” FIS data entry has therefore been more timeconsuming than anticipated by subgrantees, and it requires more technical assistance than 

anticipated by AARP Foundation. 

Subgrantees echoed that, despite AARP Foundation’s efforts to improve training on the system, 

the FIS remains “messy” and “not quite there.” One subgrantee even maintains its own 

database for participant tracking and re-enters data into the FIS in response to perceived 

inadequacies in the FIS. In particular, subgrantee staff do not have the right permissions to 

correct errors in participant names and contact information,6 which means they have to wait 

for an AARP Foundation analyst to do so and “the FIS isn’t reflecting reality” until that can

happen. 

Finally, despite efforts to create community via BaseCamp and the Learning Exchange, 

subgrantees are still eager for connections with one another outside of those arranged and 

facilitated by AARP Foundation. One program director wished she could visit other subgrantees 

6

 Names and contact information are populated by AARP Foundation’s call center. This is described in more 

detail in Chapter III.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 23

 
to “actually see another person’s program—we don’t want something glossy and beautiful, we 

want to know how people solve problems.” She noted that such visits have been helpful in her 

work as part of a Trade Adjustment Act Community College Career Training (TAACCCT) 

consortium, a grant program most subgrantees have been part of, where colleges get to visit 

one another’s programs for quarterly meetings and develop a better sense of local context and 

on-the-ground challenges. 

Funding 

To support the development and operation of BTW 50+: WESI, AARP Foundation received a $3 

million SIF grant (with a $3 million cash match from the Foundation’s unrestricted funds), with 

the expectation that $1 million would be spent in each of the three grant years, $800,000 of 

which would be distributed through annual subgrants to each of the six community college 

subgrantees.7 As part of the SIF subgrant agreement, subgrantees are required to provide a 1:1

cash match to their subgrant amount. As shown below in Exhibit II-2, subgrantees are providing 

this cash match primarily via staff salaries, for both college staff and partner agencies such as 

the local American Job Center for EFSC, and college resources, such as grants from colleges’ 

internal foundations. While leveraging community resources is a primary goal of the SIF grant, 

most subgrantees are not yet doing so, with the exception of SFC-FL, which has secured grants 

from a local foundation as well as a local scholarship fund. To help colleges meet the cash

match requirement, during the second year of the grant AARP Foundation offered the 

opportunity for subgrantees to receive a portion of a national Walmart Foundation grant for 

operating expenses that could be counted towards the cash match. Four of the subgrantees 

(ACC, EFSC, SFC-FL, and SFCC-NM) took advantage of this opportunity and used Walmart 

Foundation funding to support their programs.

7

 After the close of data collection for this report, AARP Foundation also released an application for continuation 

funding for the remainder of the implementation period through February 2019. Five of the six subgrantees 

chose to pursue this additional funding. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 24

 
Exhibit II-2: Sources of Subgrant Cash Match, By Subgrantee 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 25

Funding Challenges and Successes

A common theme of feedback from the intermediary and subgrantee level is that fulfilling the 

requirements of the SIF grant has been more time-intensive than planned. While subgrantees 

all had previous experience operating federal grants and meeting the associated compliance 

requirements, the particular requirements of the SIF cash match are a new experience for 

them. One AARP Foundation staff member reflected that “colleges didn’t truly understand 

what they were getting into because the [SIF] requirements are so unique.” One particularly 

challenging aspect of the grant structure for subgrantees is that they are reimbursed for actual 

expenses only after they have demonstrated the required cash match for these expenses. This 

means that they must (1) allocate significant staff time and attention to sustaining the program 

while implementing it, and (2) carefully organize spending of the grant funding to coincide with 

the availability of matched funding. One subgrantee program director explained, “the money is 

there, but how we account for it is hard.” 

The community college context has also posed a challenge for program funding and 

sustainability. Both subgrantees and AARP Foundation staff pointed out that many colleges 

have experienced or are anticipating budget cuts due to reductions in state funding, which 

translates into institutional resources being significantly more limited than they were when the 

grant was first awarded. This reduction in resources has implications for both availability of 

funds for staff salaries (a key source of the SIF cash match) and institutional support for the 

initiative, given the administrative and compliance requirements of the grant relative to its size.

Staffing 

Program staffing represents another important point of variation in the local implementation of 

BTW 50+: WESI. Key differences across subgrantees include:
• Number of coaches. The number of career coaches varies, as does whether the 

program manager also plays a coaching role. The number of BTW50+: WESI career 

coaches varies by subgrantee: At the time of the second implementation study site 

visits, subgrantees had between one and five dedicated individuals playing the career 

coach role. For subgrantees with only one dedicated coach, the program manager also 

carries a small caseload; subgrantees with more than one designated career coach 

generally have the program manager focus on program management rather than direct 

service provision. Because many career coaches also have other responsibilities—either 

for BTW50+: WESI or at the community college—the number of official full-time 

equivalent (FTE) staff providing coaching services is smaller than the total number of 

individual coaches, ranging from about 1.0 FTE to 3.0 FTE. However, career coaches 

from one subgrantee noted that, in reality, they spend more time on BTW50+: WESI 

than their formal FTE assignment would imply. 

• Career coach background. As discussed earlier, the BTW50+: WESI program is housed 

in different divisions within the subgrantee community colleges, which influences the 

different types of expertise and experience offered by career coaches. For example, 

career coaches in programs housed in academic support divisions tend to be especially 

familiar with tutoring and similar resources, while coaches at programs housed in 

workforce development divisions tend to have experience conducting interest 

inventories and connecting students to employment. Since EFSC and JSCC use career 

coaches who are employed by the local AJC, these staff members bring knowledge of 

the local workforce system, experience using labor market information, and an 

understanding of other local workforce development and training programs. 

Staffing Challenges and Successes

One success to note in program implementation to date is that, consistent with the program 

model described in Chapter I, subgrantees have worked hard to ensure that staff members are 

sensitive to the needs of and relatable to the target population. Most subgrantee staff 

members who work with job candidates are female, many are themselves are approaching or 

are over 50 years of age, and subgrantees in communities with large Spanish-speaking 

populations have at least one coach who is fluent in Spanish. Additionally, many of the career 

coaches noted that they feel a connection with job candidates due to their personal 

experiences with unemployment and re-careering at midlife. 

Subgrantees reported several challenges to staffing BTW50+: WESI. First, as a requirement of 

the SIF grant, all staff members working on the grant had to go through background checks 

prior to receiving a formal employment offer. This delayed onboarding of new staff due to 

limited capacity at the community college level to conduct such screenings. Additionally, 

because most subgrantee staff do not work full time on the BTW50+: WESI program, staff 

members find it challenging to balance their responsibilities to other programs with their 

responsibilities to the BTW50+: WESI grant. This is particularly challenging given the time 

requirements of managing grant compliance—such as daily data entry, performance reporting, 

and participation in monitoring activities—and, for career coaches, serving a population that 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 26
often requires more attention than traditional-aged students. Finally, several subgrantees have 

experienced staff turnover during early implementation, both at the leadership and coaching 

level. Turnover at the leadership level has enabled these subgrantees to re-examine and adjust 

their programming, but these programs now are pressed to achieve a well-developed and 

mature program model within the time limits of the subgrant period.

Synthesis and Conclusions

Early implementation of BTW50+: WESI has been defined by adjustment to the requirements of 

the initiative: subgrantees have had to screen and hire (and in some cases, replace) staff 

members, secure and sustain matched funding, and learn to use a database still evolving to be 

useful for on-the-ground program management. AARP Foundation has provided significant 

support during this period, some of which was developed in direct response to subgrantee 

feedback. During later phases of implementation, it will be important to document how 

technical assistance needs—specifically, the challenges of achieving compliance with a complex 

federal grant—evolve with more experience operating the program. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 27
This page is deliberately left blank.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 28
Chapter III: Recruitment, Eligibility, and Enrollment

Introduction

To meet their enrollment goals, subgrantees conduct recruitment and outreach with the target 

population of women ages 50 to 64. They then screen, select, and enroll eligible job candidates 

from the interested pool. This chapter first describes the BTW50+: WESI recruitment and 

outreach model, including marketing and outreach tools, interactions with the AARP 

Foundation call center, and the 7 Smart Strategies workshop. It then discusses the details of 

the program’s eligibility, selection, and enrollment processes. It concludes with overall 

challenges and best practices related to recruitment, eligibility, and enrollment.

Key Findings

• Subgrantees strive to achieve a balance between relying on AARP Foundation 

outreach materials and customizing materials to make them appropriate for 

the local context. Specific customization practices include targeted outreach 

to special populations in the community and experimenting with new modes of 

outreach such as bus wrap ads and short videos for social media sharing.

• Similarly, while all subgrantees adhere closely to workshop materials 

provided by AARP Foundation for their 7 Smart Strategies information 

sessions, they use their understanding of the communities they serve to 

choose times and locations for these sessions that will maximize attendance. 

Some subgrantees hold workshops on a regular monthly or quarterly basis, 

while others schedule them for just prior to new job candidate enrollment. 

Subgrantees have also varied the location of these workshops to ensure that 

applicants from all over the local area can attend. 

• Due to the smaller than expected number of applicants, most subgrantees 

report that BTW50+: WESI enrolls most applicants. Because of this, the 

selection rubric provided by AARP Foundation is used more as a general guide 

than a determining factor for program acceptance.

Recruitment and Outreach 

Subgrantees must conduct recruitment and outreach that reaches the intended BTW50+: WESI 

population. To assist with this process, which targets a different demographic than is typical for 

community colleges, AARP Foundation created a standardized recruitment and outreach 

framework. While subgrantees have some flexibility to customize certain components of the 

model, AARP Foundation offers extensive marketing guidance and tools, administers a call 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 29
center that represents the first point of contact with the program for most interested job 

candidates, and provides a standard PowerPoint template for the 7 Smart Strategies workshop, 

the BTW50+: WESI information session. This leverages the AARP Foundation brand and 

experience with the eligible population and reduces 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

Recieve 7 Smart 

Strategies guide in 

the mail

Attend 7 Smart 

Strategies 

workshop

In any location, job candidates first learn about the program from outreach material, word of 

mouth, or a referral. To get connected to the program, they call the toll-free AARP Foundation 

call center, through which operators screen for initial eligibility and sign potential job 

candidates up for the next local 7 Smart Strategies workshop. The call center also mails 

potential applicants a 7 Smart Strategies guide, which includes program information as well as 

advice about the job search process.

Marketing and Communications Strategies and Tools 

As part of the standardized recruitment and outreach approach, AARP Foundation provides 

subgrantees with detailed marketing and communications guidance and tools. The Playbook 

includes 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 highlights the resiliency and strength of the target applicant group and 

draws potential applicants in with the promise of “tips and tricks” at the 7 Smart Strategies 

workshop. 

In addition to providing this messaging, AARP Foundation also recommends that subgrantees 

contextualize these tools in their community, such as by conducting their outreach with local 

partners. For the most part, subgrantees adhere closely to this model and use AARP 

Foundation guidance and materials as the core of their outreach. Through the BaseCamp site 

discussed in the previous chapter, AARP Foundation also facilitates the sharing of marketing 

and communication best practices across subgrantees. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 30
Exhibit III-2: Facebook Post from EFSC partner AJC CareerSource Brevard

According to program administrators and career coaches, the most effective outreach tools so 

far include traditional methods, like newspaper and radio ads, as well as social media outreach, 

especially through Facebook. They noted that some members of the target population still read

newspapers and listen to the radio, but that many are also savvy social media users. Staff 

members from over half of the subgrantees credited word of mouth referrals from other job 

candidates, college instructors, and BTW50+ Classic participants with boosting their 

recruitment efforts. In addition, after SFC-FL program administrators reported their success 

with transit-based advertising on BaseCamp, MDC and ACC also decided to promote BTW50+: 

WESI using this method. Overall, program administrators and career coaches thought that 

flyers left at community based organizations had been a less successful recruitment method, 

perhaps because subgrantees did not always have strong relationships already built with such 

organizations. 

Subgrantee program administrators and career 

coaches reported mixed feelings about the 

program’s reliance on AARP Foundation 

messaging and material. On the one hand, some 

said that the AARP brand attracted people to the 

program and identified BTW50+: WESI as being 

connected to a powerful organization. On the 

other hand, one program administrator worried 

that the AARP brand could be unappealing to 

potential job candidates or employers who have 

negative feelings about aging or who hold 

stereotypes about older workers. Two program 

administrators also wished there was more 

variety in terms of available photographs for 

outreach and felt that flyers could be 

streamlined and updated to be “juicer” and 

more “attention-grabbing.” They also noted 

that by relying on standardized outreach 

material, it was harder to highlight the 

program’s local flavor. 

Exhibit III-3: Bus Wrap from ACC

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 31
Recruitment Efforts Targeted to Special Populations 

In addition to the broad outreach described above, most of the subgrantees experimented with 

targeted outreach to individuals they thought would be especially interested in the program. 

For example, EFSC sent a bulk mailing of program postcards to local women in the target age 

range who had accessed the AJC website looking for employment. Both EFSC and JSCC mailed 

postcards to former students in the target group who had dropped out of programs at their 

colleges before completing them. SFCC-NM initially tried to reach women in a nearby Native 

American community with a half time Native American outreach coordinator who conducted 

outreach in the pueblos. While program administrators feel that the targeted postcard mailings 

have been successful, SFCC-NM program administrators eliminated the Native American 

outreach coordinator position after it failed to yield many job candidates. They believe that 

cultural and logistic barriers, such as women needing to take care of grandchildren during the 

times core services and training are offered, make it difficult for this community to participate 

in the program or pursue full-time employment. 

Interaction with the AARP Foundation Call Center 

For the most part, program administrators are satisfied with the call center AARP Foundation 

administers for connecting interested job candidates to 7 Smart Strategies workshops, 

especially since it enables subgrantee staff members to focus on providing program services 

rather than conducting initial eligibility screenings. However, staff members from four 

subgrantees identified occasional data quality issues with the call center, such as misspelled 

names, individuals outside of the target age range being signed up for 7 Smart Strategies 

workshops, and interested individuals being funneled to the wrong 7 Smart Strategies 

workshops (including those offered by competing BTW50+ operators in the same region). Staff 

members reported that most of these challenges had resolved over time after they provided 

feedback to AARP Foundation. 

7 Smart Strategies Workshops 

As with other components of the BTW50+: WESI recruitment and outreach model, the content 

for the 7 Smart Strategies workshops is guided by resources from AARP Foundation and takes 

advantage of the organization’s experience providing services to the target population. For 

example, AARP Foundation provides the subgrantees with detailed planning steps in addition to 

the PowerPoint presentation to guide the workshops. The workshops are differentiated from 

many of the other information sessions hosted by the subgrantees or area AJCs in that they are 

also intended to be a standalone service. Subgrantees are encouraged to provide refreshments 

and information about local employers during the workshops, and the 7 Smart Strategies guide 

covers job search strategies that attendees can put into practice even if they do not end up 

enrolling in the program. 

While the subgrantees all adhere to this general structure, there is some variation in the 

frequency and location of 7 Smart Strategies workshops as well as the extent of the local 

customization. Four subgrantees schedule 7 Smart Strategies workshops so that they occur 

soon before the start of each new wave of the program, while the other two offer them on a 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 32
set monthly or quarterly schedule. Most subgrantees purposefully rotate the location of 7 

Smart Strategies workshops so that potential job candidates from different parts of the broader 

community can attend one that is convenient to them. For the most part, the program 

administrators and career coaches who lead the 7 Smart Strategies workshops say they closely 

follow the AARP Foundation PowerPoint. However, some local customization occurs, such as 

videos shown by EFSC and SFC-FL about manufacturing in the county and prior job candidate 

experiences in BTW50+: WESI, respectively. 

Program staff from most of the subgrantees said that for at least some waves, they have had 

fewer 7 Smart Strategies workshop attendees than expected. However, program 

administrators also report strong participant responsiveness, noting that most attendees who 

attend also complete the application for coaching, which serves as the BTW50+: WESI 

application. For example, half of the subgrantees reported that over 80 percent of attendees 

complete an application for coaching, and all of them estimated that over half indicate their 

interest in this way. 

Eligibility, Selection, and Enrollment Process

After filling out an application for coaching at a 7 Smart Strategies workshop, applicants go 

through an eligibility and selection process before enrolling in BTW50+: WESI. As with the 

outreach described above, AARP Foundation provides detailed guidance on these components 

of the program. The following sections describe the eligibility, selection, and enrollment 

processes including how closely subgrantees adhere to this guidance and where they vary. 

Exhibit III-4 illustrates the standard BTW50+: WESI eligibility, selection, and enrollment process. 

While some subgrantees have built in additional steps, such as holding a selection interview to 

supplement the information provided in the application for coaching, the three steps outlined 

below are consistent across programs. 

Exhibit III-4: Standard BTW50+: WESI Eligibility, Selection, and Enrollment Process

1

• Applicants complete application for coaching at close of 7 Smart Strategies 

workshop 

2 • Program administrators and career coaches select job candidates

3 • Selected job candidates are notified of status and invited for core services

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 33
Eligibility and Selection Process

AARP Foundation designed the BTW50+: WESI program to meet the needs of low-income 

women age 50 to 64 who are unemployed or underemployed and seeking full time work. 

According to AARP Foundation, the ideal job candidate has prior work experience but needs 

skill upgrades or computer training to compete in the current job market. Because the program 

is intended to prepare job candidates for employment or training in a relatively limited time 

span, AARP Foundation recommends targeting women who will be able to take advantage of 

program services right away. For example, job candidates are required to hold a high school 

diploma or GED so that they already have a solid educational foundation. The Playbook also 

notes that while job candidates may be facing recent major life changing events like a divorce 

or the death of a spouse, those with serious housing or mental health challenges are expected 

to be referred to other programs until they can fully engage in training or a job search. In 

addition, while BTW50+: WESI is designed to meet the needs of women with the above 

characteristics, the program cannot legally exclude men or those outside the target age range 

who are otherwise qualified for the program.8

In order to select job candidates who fit this description, subgrantees rely mostly on the 

application for coaching, which interested individuals complete at the end of the 7 Smart 

Strategies workshop. This application contains 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 personal income 

is under or over $40,000 a year. To complement this application, career coaches at ACC and 

EFSC also conduct one-on-one interviews to get a more complete picture of applicants’ 

strengths and needs. EFSC added this additional one-on-one interview during the fifth wave to 

gauge applicant commitment and to check in on potential challenges with transportation and 

schedules, two barriers that had historically led to attrition. EFSC career coaches use a prescreening checklist to help them assess these potential challenges. Beyond this checklist, no 

subgrantees use additional suitability assessments to select job candidates. 

Program administrators and career coaches from all subgrantees meet to select wave members 

together and use an AARP Foundation selection rubric to do so. This rubric awards one point 

for each of the preferred criteria listed in the box below.

8 After the award of the SIF grant, AARP Foundation and CNCS determined that, because the program receives 

federal funding, it can target women within the desired age group but must be open to all applicants. Marketing 

materials therefore include a standard disclaimer: “This program is available to all, without regard to race, color, 

national origin, disability, sex, age, political affiliation, or religion.” To date, across subgrantees, nearly all enrolled 

job candidates have been in the target age range and approximately 10 percent of enrolled job candidates have 

been men.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 34

 
AARP Foundation Selection Rubric Criteria 

• 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 

Generally, subgrantee staff members try to select job candidates with the highest scores from 

this rubric. One program administrator said, for example, that she prefers job candidates who 

meet at least three of the criteria.

Subgrantee staff members have mixed feelings about the BTW50+: WESI eligibility process. On 

the one hand, they all use the selection rubric and feel it is a helpful tool for selecting job 

candidates. However, staff members from two subgrantees indicated that they sometimes 

wish for more flexibility and feel that prioritizing applicants with a preference for full-time work 

excludes certain groups of otherwise suitable women who may only be able to work part time 

due to their life circumstances, such as needing to care for grandchildren. Program 

administrators from these two subgrantees admitted that they have sometimes accepted 

women who might not quite meet the criteria but who seem like they would otherwise benefit 

from the program, such as an individual who was above the target age range and another who 

was already working full time but wanted to transition to another field. 

Concerns about program eligibility criteria are somewhat theoretical given that BTW50+: WESI 

program selectivity is often limited. Staff members from four subgrantees said that for at least 

some waves, lower than expected number of applicants results in the program accepting most 

of them. As one program administrator said, “Basically, if someone is unemployed, they’re in.” 

The need for job candidates has forced some of these subgrantees to increase the flexibility of 

their selection process over time. Two subgrantees now enroll women interested in part-time 

employment since they would not otherwise have enough job candidates to meet their 

enrollment goals. 

On the other hand, program administrators from two subgrantees have experimented with 

increasing program selectivity to reduce attrition. Program administrators and career coaches 

from one such subgrantee explained that some of the women they selected for earlier waves 

had more intensive supportive service needs and may have been better suited for disability or 

other longer-term programs that provide additional support. Staff from this subgrantee have 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 35
since started prioritizing women who have been out of work for less than a year and who are 

clearly able to commit to attending core services. They believe such women are a better fit for 

the program since they can transition more quickly back into work or training. 

Perhaps because of this focus on those with fewer supportive service needs and those who 

need only limited time to be fully job- or training-ready, two subgrantees noted that their job 

candidates have been more educated and have had higher incomes than they initially 

envisioned. For example, one program administrator said that many job candidates already 

have postsecondary degrees. As discussed in more detail in Chapter VI, this pattern may have 

implications for the selection of the comparison group for the impact study, as those selected 

for the program ideally should have similar background characteristics to the comparison 

group, which will be composed of individuals enrolled in public workforce system programming 

in the same geographic area.

Enrollment 

Across subgrantees, enrollment into the BTW50+: WESI program is a straightforward process. 

The subgrantee program administrators and career coaches try to complete the selection 

process quickly so that accepted applicants do not have to wait long between attending the 7 

Smart Strategies workshop and officially enrolling in the program. All six subgrantees select job 

candidates, notify them of their acceptance via email or phone, and begin some form of 

program services within about a week of the 7 Smart Strategies workshop. According to 

program administrators and career coaches, most accepted job candidates end up enrolling in 

BTW50+: WESI, though a few might decline to participate due to unexpected caretaking 

responsibilities or health issues. 

Official enrollment in the program is complete when a job candidate fills out and signs the 

coaching agreement form, which lays out job candidates’ program responsibilities. Often, this 

is done at the first individual coaching session, though subgrantees may also initially pass out 

this form in a group coaching session, then have career coaches go over it with job candidates 

during their first individual coaching sessions. In addition, job candidates who enrolled in 

BTW50+: WESI in or after August of 2016 are also asked to sign an informed consent form to 

participate in the impact study. 

In addition to the coaching agreement form, ACC, MDC, and EFSC also have all job candidates 

enroll as students at the college. This involves filling out an additional application form for a 

continuing education class created with the main purpose of enabling the job candidates to 

become official students. The other subgrantees only require that job candidates apply for the 

college if they are enrolling in training there. The benefit of having all job candidates enroll is 

that they get access to college services and supports such as tutoring, libraries and computer 

labs, discounted software, and sometimes free public transportation. EFSC, which runs the 

BTW50+: WESI program in close partnership with its local AJC, also has job candidates register 

with the state job bank and get a user card for the AJC as part of its enrollment process. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 36
Challenges and Best Practices in Recruitment, Outreach, and Enrollment 

As described below, the subgrantees have all confronted challenges and identified best 

practices with the BTW50+: WESI recruitment, eligibility, and enrollment processes. 

Challenges with Recruitment and Enrollment 

• As implemented by the subgrantees, BTW50+: WESI may not offer services that meet 

the needs of all the women that staff originally hoped to target. This may affect both 

enrollment numbers and the demographics of who ultimately enrolls. Subgrantee 

program administrators and career coaches said that their ability to enroll certain 

women into BTW50+ WESI has been limited, perhaps because the program does not 

always meet their needs. For example, staff members from two subgrantees noted they 

have tried to reach women in the Hispanic community, with one using Spanish outreach 

material, such as radio ads, in an effort to attract them. However, neither subgrantee 

offers fully bilingual services, which may limit the program’s relevance for monolingual 

Spanish speaking women. Program staff from another subgrantee questioned whether 

the program was culturally competent for Native American women in their area, many 

of whom have caretaking responsibilities and are thus unable to participate in full-time 

work. Staff members from several subgrantees reported that a lack of good public 

transportation in their area can make it harder to reach potentially eligible women in 

more outlying or rural areas. 

• The local need for services may have been met in some areas. One subgrantee is 

facing competition for job candidates from a BTW50+: Classic program that is operating 

in the same city. Program staff report that the AARP Foundation call center sometimes 

sends potential applicants to information sessions for the other program even if they 

have received outreach materials from the subgrantee’s program, and the fact that 

there are two similar programs may be saturating the demand for services in the local 

area. Program staff from another subgrantee worry that the declining number of 

women attending each 7 Smart Strategies workshop could also mean that they have 

already met the local need for program services. 

• In general, subgrantee program staff noted that BTW50+: WESI is less selective than 

initially intended. This is in part because of the smaller than expected number of 

applicants, perhaps explained by the challenges described above. Because of this, 

subgrantee program staff cannot give as much weight to the AARP Foundation selection 

rubric as planned, since they end up accepting most applicants.

Promising Practices in Recruitment and Enrollment 

• For their recruitment and outreach processes, most subgrantees have achieved a 

balance between relying on AARP Foundation’s guidance and expertise and 

customizing material for the local context. While subgrantees generally appreciate the 

AARP Foundation call center and outreach material, they have also engaged in their own 

marketing activities, such as creating site-specific videos at ACC and SFC-FL and 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 37
recruiting through local AJCs at EFSC, JSCC, and SFCC-NM. EFSC and JSCC have also had 

success conducting targeted outreach to members of their communities who they think 

would be interested in BTW50+: WESI due to previous enrollment in other courses at 

the college. In addition, the subgrantees have shared successful outreach strategies 

with each other, leading to the use of bus wraps by several of them. 

• In an attempt to reach more applicants, subgrantees have experimented with the 

content and format of 7 Smart Strategies workshops. For example, EFSC, JSCC, MDC, 

and SFC-FL rotate the location of their workshops so that they are easy for women in 

different areas of the community to access. Additionally, SFC-FL and EFSC also hold 

some workshops at off-campus locations that may be more comfortable for applicants 

such as senior centers or the local AJC. EFSC and JSCC have also experimented with the 

time of day when they offer the workshop or plan to do so going forward. By offering 

refreshments, time for networking, and actual job search tips, the subgrantees have also 

made the workshops a positive experience for applicants, which is perhaps one reason a 

high percentage of attendees end up applying for BTW50+: WESI. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 38
Chapter IV: Services Provided to Job Candidates

This chapter describes subgrantees’ progress towards implementing the BTW50+: WESI model 

at the time of the second implementation study visit, the evolution of components during the 

implementation period, variations in program design and service delivery procedures across the 

subgrantees, challenges faced and addressed in program implementation, and differentiation 

of BTW50+: WESI from services available in the absence of the program.

Key Findings

• Subgrantees have fully or partially implemented most elements of the program 

model. Implementation of the career coaching, computer skills training, and job 

search skills training elements—on which AARP Foundation provided updated 

guidance and technical assistance between the first and second implementation 

study visits—show the highest fidelity to the intended model. 

• Subgrantees struggled most to realize full implementation of the employer 

engagement component of the program model. This represents a key area in 

which the public workforce development system services available to comparison 

group members may be as strong or stronger than what is offered through 

BTW50+: WESI. 

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

show notable variations in how they deliver these services. For example, 

subgrantees show variation in the format and intensity of computer skills training 

options, and only half of subgrantees offer intermediate level computer skills 

training classes. Similarly, for occupational skills training, the proportion of job 

candidates who go on to occupational skills training, and the number and types of 

occupational skills trainings offered, also vary. 

• Subgrantee familiarity with the target population and with providing similar 

services is correlated with fidelity of implementation. Unsurprisingly, prior staff 

experience with the BTW50+ Classic program model and/or working in the public 

workforce system appears to strengthen the fidelity with which subgrantees have

implemented the program model, both overall and for specific components.

Findings on Overall Fidelity

As described in Chapter I, key elements of the BTW50+: WESI program model include:

• career coaching, 

• computer skills training,

• financial capability training,

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 39
• job search skills and employer engagement, and

• occupational skills training. 

During implementation study site visits, as described in Chapter I, site visitors evaluated fidelity 

to the above elements of the model. They used a standardized fidelity assessment instrument 

(included as Appendix B to this report) to rate subgrantees as having fully, partially, or not yet 

implemented various subcomponents of each element. To ensure consistency in ratings, all site 

visitors participated in a training during which they evaluated a sample program and discussed 

any differences in understanding of how to rate fidelity. 

Across all subgrantees, average fidelity ratings at the time of the second implementation study 

site visit show that they have made substantial progress in implementing the key elements of 

the BTW50+: WESI model. Three of the six subgrantees have achieved close to full 

implementation of the model across all key program elements, and the remaining three 

subgrantees have achieved partial implementation of all key program elements. Across all six 

subgrantees, the highest fidelity ratings were given for career coaching, computer skills 

training, job search skills, and arranging occupational skills training. On average, subgrantees 

received slightly lower fidelity ratings on building financial capability and employer 

engagement. 

Remaining sections of this chapter describe in detail the implementation designs and practices 

used by the subgrantees to implement each of the six key elements, and explore the variations 

across sites and the challenges they have faced in realizing fidelity to the model. 

Career Coaching 

BTW50+: WESI career coaches work directly with job candidates to help them achieve their 

training and employment goals. While AARP Foundation provides overarching guidance, details 

of the coaching model, such as its staffing, format, and intensity, vary somewhat across 

subgrantees. For all of them, services are provided through required individual coaching 

sessions as well as additional group coaching. The component is also closely linked with the 

other core program services. Career coaches frequently lead cohort coaching workshops on job 

search skills and link job candidates to other required activities. 

Adherence to Career Coaching Model

The coaching component of the BTW50+: WESI model has been well defined by AARP 

Foundation; its fidelity measure consists of three main elements. Across subgrantees, 

adherence to the coaching model varies from partial to full implementation. The three 

elements of the career coaching model, including their subcomponents, are described in more 

detail below. 

The BTW50+: WESI career coaching model offers a sequence of activities to help job 

candidates assess their skills and interests, identify transferable skills, and focus on 

the career paths they want to pursue. In assessing whether subgrantees have met 

1 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 40
this model element, site visitors reviewed project design and operations to determine 

whether: 

• Career coaches conduct assessments and skill-and-interest inventories of job 

candidates starting from the first one-on-one coaching session. 

• Job candidates create realistic service plans with achievable goals and update 

these plans as needs change.

• Career coaches use labor market information (LMI) to make recommendations 

for appropriate career paths.

• Career coaches encourage job candidates to apply for scholarship support or 

other programs that could help them achieve their goals.

Three of the subgrantees have achieved full fidelity to this element of the career coaching 

model, while the other three have made progress toward fidelity but have not yet achieved it. 

Two of the three that have achieved full fidelity to this element have career coaches who are 

especially experienced with using LMI, connecting job candidates to other programs, and 

creating service plans as a result of dual work roles that also include working within the local 

AJC. 

Areas for development noted in the practices of the three subgrantees that have not yet 

achieved full fidelity include completing formal service plans with job candidates, using LMI to 

help job candidates make training and employment choices, interpreting assessments with job 

candidates, and referring job candidates to additional programs for scholarship support. 

The BTW50+: WESI career coaching model provides job candidates with the support 

necessary to build confidence. In assessing whether subgrantees have met this 

model element, site visitors reviewed program design and operations to determine 

whether: 

2 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 41

• Career coaches complete at least one coaching session with each cohort or job 

candidate. 

• Career coaches have experience working with older workers or have had training 

on how best to serve this population.

• Career coaches conduct case conferencing with other career coaches or staff 

who work with job candidates.

• Job candidates can meet one-on-one with career coaches to address sensitive 

issues.

• Job candidates have access to peer support groups to learn from each other.

All but one of the subgrantees have achieved full fidelity to the second element of the coaching 

model. The sixth subgrantee has met every subcomponent of this element except two: that the 
program develop peer support groups for job candidates and that all career coaches be 

experienced in serving older workers or trained on how to work with this group. 

In the BTW50+: WESI career coaching model, career coaches link job candidates to 

supportive services and outside resources to help them achieve their employment 

and training goals. In assessing whether programs have met this model element, the 

site visitors reviewed program design and operations to determine whether: 

3 

• Career coaches conduct supportive services assessments so that they

understand job candidates’ unique situations and needs.

• Career coaches work with job candidates to develop plans to address barriers to

training and work including transportation, childcare, work clothing, books, and

uniforms.

• Career coaches have established relationships with primary referral agencies and

conduct warm referrals for job candidates to these agencies.

Across subgrantees, fidelity to the supportive services element of the career coaching model 

varies from not yet implemented to fully implemented, with half of subgrantees falling between 

those extremes. The three subgrantees that demonstrate partial fidelity to this element have 

not yet achieved strong referral relationships with supportive services providers. While these 

three subgrantees do refer job candidates for supportive services, they do not generally have 

strong enough relationships with outside service providers to check in with them to inform 

them that a job candidate has been referred or to follow up to see if the job candidate actually 

received services. The staff of some programs indicated that they do not think such level of 

scrutiny about referrals is appropriate or necessary; they worry it infringes on job candidate 

privacy, believe job candidates have fewer supportive service needs than expected and/or have 

no trouble accessing the services they do need on their own, or think that contacting 

supportive service agencies on their own is a good learning experience and confidence booster 

for job candidates. 

Evolution of Career Coaching

In response to findings from the first implementation study site visit, in early 2016 AARP 

Foundation provided clarification on the required elements and intensity of the BTW50+: WESI 

career coaching model. Under this updated coaching model, subgrantees are now required to 

offer at least two coaching sessions with each job candidate. AARP Foundation also explained 

that the two required coaching sessions must be provided to job candidates in a one-on-one 

format. Most subgrantees have chosen to provide one required individual coaching session 

near the beginning of core services and one at the end. In this way, job candidates receive 

personal support in planning their course through the program and then in determining their 

next steps. One subgrantee invites job candidates to sign up for coaching sessions during core 

services as needed. 

At the beginning of 2016, in addition to clarifying the desired intensity of the coaching model, 

AARP Foundation also offered additional guidance about how to use LMI when developing job 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 42
candidate service plans. As noted above, while two subgrantees have career coaches who also 

work in local AJCs and are thus very familiar with LMI, other subgrantees do not have as much 

familiarity with it. (As noted in Chapter II, some coaches have an academic advising background 

but not necessarily a workforce development background.) At least one subgrantee is still 

working on how to incorporate LMI into service planning, though most subgrantees reported 

that they now prompt job candidates to think about “hot jobs” with living wages and trainings 

that lead to jobs that are locally in demand. 

Together, these changes to the coaching model were intended to improve the quality of the job 

candidate experience in BTW50+: WESI. For some subgrantees, AARP Foundation’s 

clarifications on required elements and intensity necessitated significant changes to the 

coaching model (e.g., to add more individual coaching sessions), while for other subgrantees, it 

simply codified what they were already doing. 

Now that the career coaching model has been clarified, it generally involves two individual 

coaching sessions bookending the core services period. The first individual coaching session is 

usually used to review assessments and prepare a service and/or employment plan. The 

second coaching session is used at the end of core service workshops to identify the next steps 

for training or job search. Various cohort coaching workshops on topics such as computer skills, 

financial capability, and effective job search techniques usually occur in between the two 

meetings with the career coaches. (Later sections of this chapter detail the elements and 

delivery of these cohort coaching topics.) 

Variation Across Subgrantees in Career Coaching Model 

While aspects of the career coaching model are clearly defined by AARP Foundation, 

subgrantees also have some flexibility to shape the implementation of the component. This 

flexibility has led to variations in coaching services. Elements of the career coaching model that 

vary across subgrantees are described in more detail in this section. 

Assessments and Service Plans. Per the BTW50+: WESI 

model, job candidates start the coaching component by 

completing assessments and interest inventories. They then 

go over the results with career coaches during goal setting 

and service planning. Career coaches are also instructed to 

use local labor market information during this process. Four 

subgrantees have job candidates take two assessments 

during the beginning of career coaching:

• the interest inventory from AARP Foundation’s Virtual 

Career Network (VCN) and

• the Northstar Digital Literacy Assessment. 

VCN Interest Inventory 

Occupational Themes

• Realistic

• Investigative 

• Artistic

• Social

• Enterprising 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 43

The interest inventory allows job candidates to determine which occupations would be a good 

fit for their personality. Informed by these assessment results, job candidates fill out a “Jobs 

that Match My Interest” form with the career coach. The form organizes information about the 
selected jobs, including the type of education and computer skills needed, projections for job 

growth, typical wages, and local employers. It also prompts job candidates to think about the 

next steps they would need to take to prepare for employment in this occupation, like enrolling 

in related training or researching a certain employer. Only one subgrantee did not report using 

any formal assessments with job candidates. (Information about the Northstar Digital Literacy 

Assessment, which is used to assess need for computer skills training, is described in more 

detail in another section of this chapter.) 

In addition to going over interest inventory results and discussing potential supportive service 

needs, career coaches from three of the subgrantees also use the first coaching session to 

prepare a written service plan. The level of formality of this document varies by subgrantee, 

but career coaches in two programs use the Foundation Impact System (FIS) to track job 

candidate goals and plans. In general, service plans include tasks such as developing a resume, 

enrolling in training, or reaching out to a community organization for supportive services, as 

well as a deadline by which the goal should be met. The subgrantees that do not develop a 

formal individualized service plan during the first coaching session do this later, once a job 

candidate’s goals have crystalized, or they have less formal ways of tracking a job candidate’s 

goals, (e.g., by listing them in a Word document). Career coaches from one subgrantee simply 

discuss the job candidate’s plans for the program as she signs the job candidate/coach 

agreement form. 

Coaching Content. Beyond the initial service planning typically accomplished in the first 

individual coaching session, BTW50+: WESI career coaches stay in touch with job candidates 

throughout core services to boost their confidence and connect them to training, employment 

opportunities, and supportive services. As of the second round of implementation study site 

visits, career coaches from most subgrantees said they often meet individually with job 

candidates more than the two times required in the service model. A career coach from one 

subgrantee suggested that six individual sessions seems more appropriate given job candidates’ 

needs. 

Exhibit IV-1 below illustrates the roles career coaches most commonly play. 

Exhibit IV-1: Career Coach Roles

Service 

Planning 

• Assessments 

• Interpreting LMI

• Documenting 

goals for training 

and 

employment 

Confidence 

Boosting 

• Sharing success 

stories

• Offering 

encouragement 

Enhancement of 

Job Search Skills 

• Mock interviews

• Resume 

assistance

• Job application 

tips

Connections to 

Other Services

• Scholarships

• Referrals for 

supportive 

services

• Creating cohort 

building activities 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 44
Career coaches emphasized that they see boosting job candidate confidence as one of their 

major functions. For example, one said that job candidates often do not believe they can get 

full-time jobs, so sharing success stories of other women who have achieved this goal can be 

inspiring. Another added that job candidates can be “totally baffled and discouraged” by 

today’s job search process, especially if they have been out of the labor market for a long time. 

However, she can provide them with encouragement to complement the more practical 

BTW50+: WESI services like computer skills training. 

Career coaches also help job candidates develop job search skills during individual coaching 

sessions by conducting mock interviews and assisting them with resume development. Often, 

these topics are introduced during group job search skills component workshops, and then 

revisited in more depth as needed during individual coaching sessions. Individual career 

coaching sessions are also an opportunity for job candidates to check in about their specific job 

search strategies, such as researching employers they might want to contact. 

Finally, career coaches also connect job candidates to 

supportive services and try to build community among job 

candidates in each wave to strengthen peer support 

systems. Three subgrantees are making special efforts to 

maintain job candidate contact with the program after the 

end of core services by arranging social events to bring 

participants together. SFCC-NM, for example, is 

experimenting with ways to increase social cohesion after 

the end of core services by creating casual social support 

gatherings to bring job candidates together. These have 

included a coffee club and a Thanksgiving dinner. The 

career coach there said, “Sometimes the people in training 

have drifted away from their cohort, so [arranging social 

events] is a way to bring them back in.” At EFSC, career coaches are trying to develop 

programming to make job candidates feel that they are a part of the larger BTW50+: WESI 

community. They have set up a private Facebook page that job candidates can use to network 

with each other, although coaches are not sure how much use it gets. 

Need for Supportive Services. Rather than using formal supportive services assessments, all 

subgrantees inquire about potential supportive service needs in a more conversational manner. 

While career coaches emphasized that job candidates need guidance about employment and 

training, program staff from most subgrantees feel that job candidates do not need much 

assistance from career coaches to address supportive service needs. In addition to providing 

financial support to pay for training costs (e.g., tuition and books), career coaches said that the 

most commonly needed supports include interview clothes, counseling to boost confidence, 

assistance with transportation, and computer access. Sometimes, subgrantees provide a 

general resource and referral list that lays out information about all the services available in the 

community, rather than discussing supportive service needs with each job candidate in an 

individual coaching session. 

“It’s their goals. 

I listen and help 

them navigate.”

- BTW50+: WESI career coach

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 45
Career Coaching Challenges and Best Practices 

As described below, the subgrantees have all confronted challenges and identified best 

practices with the career coaching component of the BTW50+: WESI model. 

Challenges 

Subgrantees do not always have the staffing resources to provide the intensity of services 

that the updated BTW50+: WESI model requires. This is due both to the small number of 

career coaches at some subgrantees and to the fact that some career coaches also have other 

program responsibilities. Over half of the subgrantees have given program administrators 

some coaching responsibilities as a temporary or permanent way to manage the caseload when 

there are not enough career coaches to take on this work. 

Some subgrantees have struggled to incorporate formal service planning and LMI into career 

coaching. The service planning and LMI subcomponents of the model are more challenging for 

the subgrantees that do not have close connections with their local AJCs or are housed in 

academic rather than workforce development divisions of their colleges. 

Across subgrantees, fidelity to the supportive services model is limited by the fact that career 

coaches do not usually follow up on referrals to outside organizations to ensure that job 

candidates’ needs have been met. This is in part because job candidates have had fewer 

supportive service needs than expected, however, and because career coaches do not want to 

violate job candidate privacy about sensitive issues. One career coach added that most job 

candidates are “pretty savvy” and already familiar with how to access community resources like 

utility assistance.

Best Practices

Enrolling all job candidates as students at the community college affords access to additional 

student resources. As described in the previous chapter, at ACC, MDC, and EFSC, all job 

candidates enroll in a non-credit continuing education “shell” class, which enables them to be 

considered students. The benefit is that they get access to college services and supports such 

as tutoring, libraries and computer labs, discounted software, and sometimes free public 

transportation (e.g., bus passes). 

In addition to leveraging campus supports, some subgrantees have relationships with outside 

organizations that provide job candidates with additional coaching and assistance. Most 

notably, EFSC and JSCC connect job candidates to their AJC partners for coaching and 

supportive services, and MDC has an on-campus Single Stop location where job candidates can 

be screened for benefits and connected to other resources. These approaches take advantage 

of the knowledge and expertise that others have already developed and uses the coaching 

relationship to make connections to these services.

Computer Skills Training

Computer skills training became part of the BTW50+: WESI model because it was identified as 

an area of need based on subgrantee experience during the BTW50+: Classic model. Its 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 46
inclusion also reflected research indicating that computer skills training is a critically needed 

support among the older jobseeking population (Kogan et al., 2013). Across subgrantees, 

various staff members work with job candidates to develop their computer skills with an eye 

toward achieving the level of competency required for a successful job search and gainful 

employment. Because job candidates come in with widely varying levels of proficiency, 

subgrantees must work to provide computer training that is well matched to individual 

computer experience and occupational goals. To accomplish this, subgrantees conduct an 

initial assessment of job candidates’ computer skills, and—based on results—work to provide 

individualized training options that range in format and intensity. 

Adherence to Computer Skills Training Component

Across subgrantees, overall adherence to the computer skills training component is very high, 

with two programs fully implementing this component as of the second implementation study 

site visit, and the remaining four fairly close to full implementation.

The two elements of the computer skills training fidelity measure, including their 

subcomponents, are described below. 

The computer skills training is tailored to the needs of each job candidate 

specifically and older workers generally. In assessing whether subgrantees have met 

this model element, site visitors reviewed program design and operations to 

determine whether: 

1 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 47

• The college conducts 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 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.

Half of the six subgrantees have fully implemented this element of the computer skills training, 

while the other half have partially implemented it. Among the latter group, the reasons for not 

achieving full implementation include: (1) the need to develop intermediate-level computer 

courses that allow job candidates to successfully complete occupational skills training 
programs; and (2) the need to articulate links between computer skills training and specific job 

occupations. 

The curriculum of the computer skills training is flexible and geared toward both job 

search and workplace needs. In assessing whether programs have met this model

element, site visitors reviewed program design and operations to determine whether: 

2 

• The computer skills training provides 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 are available

to candidates who need them.

• The computer skills training allows for progress over time and builds on a

stackable model. Job candidates can build on current skills and continue

learning beyond the 10-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 trainings as needed—

for example, through an Individual Training Account or other community

resources.

As of the second implementation study site visit, all but one of the six subgrantees have 

achieved full implementation of the second element of the computer skills training. The sixth 

subgrantee has achieved partial implementation of this subcomponent of the element, but still 

needs to identify additional community resources for computer skills training as appropriate 

(the last subcomponent listed above). 

Evolution of Computer Skills Training 

At the time of the first implementation study site visit, the computer skills training was still in 

relatively early stages of planning or implementation. Findings from that first round of visits 

informed AARP Foundation’s additional guidance to subgrantees on how to design and 

implement computer skills training. Specifically, SPR found that not all subgrantees were 

consistently using a formal assessment tool. In some cases, they relied on informal observation 

of job candidates’ computer use (e.g., to complete initial program activities). After some 

discussion at the 2016 Learning Exchange about subgrantees’ experiences with various 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 48
assessment tools, AARP Foundation formally recommended use of the Northstar Digital Literacy 

Assessment.9 All subgrantees except one are currently using Northstar.

Additionally, during the second year of the implementation study, AARP Foundation provided 

each subgrantee with 12 licenses to the Lynda.com online training platform,10 the use of which 

had been piloted at ACC. Lynda.com allows users to browse and complete recorded training 

modules on a variety of technical skills, which has several benefits. For example, individual job 

candidates can focus on the computer skills training topics they need to learn and can progress 

through the course material at their own pace. AARP Foundation decided to make Lynda.com 

training available to all subgrantees after discussions at the 2016 Learning Exchange on how 

ACC had been using the site to develop customized playlists of training videos and had found it

to be effective in providing a range of training options, provided that job candidates possessed 

a minimum threshold of capacity (e.g., being able to operate a computer and use a search bar). 

Overall, AARP Foundation’s additional guidance and support about using Northstar and 

Lynda.com have been designed to allow job candidates to access computer skills training 

appropriate to their individual proficiency levels and employment goals. As discussed below, 

subgrantees are making use of the Northstar Digital Literacy Assessment in different ways and 

still experimenting with the potential and limitations of Lynda.com.

Variation Across Subgrantees in Computer 

Skills Training 

Subgrantees vary in their specific uses of the initial 

computer skills assessment, the format and intensity of 

different-level computer skills training options, and use 

of online lessons from Lynda.com. These points of 

variation are discussed in more detail below. 

Assessment of Computer Skills

All but one of the six subgrantees uses the Northstar 

Digital Literacy assessment to gauge job candidates’ 

baseline computer skills. Only one subgrantee has 

used Northstar since the beginning of program 

implementation, while the others generally 

incorporated the assessment between the first and 

second implementation study site visits as part of their 

9

 Northstar Digital Literacy assessments can be taken online without cost at 

https://www.digitalliteracyassessment.org/ and at sponsoring sites. If an organization wants to offer Northstar 

Digital Literacy Certificates it can complete a process to become an approved site.

10 Lynda.com is a registered trademark for online training services offered by LinkedIn at www.lynda.com. 

Northstar Digital Literacy Project

The Project has computer digital 

literacy standards and modules in 

five main areas:

• Basic computer use

• Internet

• Microsoft Windows

• Mac OS

• Email

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 49
refinement of the computer skills training component. Northstar has basic computer digital 

literacy standards and modules in eight main areas (shown in the text box on the right). 

The Northstar Digital Literacy Assessment covers topics such as saving files and identifying 

memory devices, and the time required for administering it varies depending on the skill level 

of job candidates being assessed11. Subgrantees were satisfied with the Northstar assessment 

and one program manager specifically praised it not only for its assessment function, but also 

for its tailored computer skills training resources for job candidates. The only subgrantee not 

using Northstar has been satisfied with a customized assessment tool developed by program 

staff, which asks job candidates to complete a series of exercises including opening and editing 

Microsoft Word files, copying and pasting, conducting online searches, and sending emails with 

attachments. 

In most cases subgrantees use the computer skills assessment to place job candidates in 

appropriate training options. For example, one subgrantee requires a score of 85 percent on 

the Northstar assessment for a job candidate to be assessed as already having basic computer

skills; typically, half of job candidates fail and are directed to the basic computer skills 

workshop. However, two subgrantees instead use the assessment to: (1) allow a job candidate 

to potentially opt out of any computer skills training as part of the program, or (2) assess a job 

candidate’s computer skills at the start of a one-time computer skills training workshop (rather 

than as part of a placement strategy for longer-term training). Apart from the last example, 

subgrantees generally administer the assessment not during the computer skills training but 

earlier, for example after a 7 Smart Strategies workshop or during the first individual or group 

coaching session. 

Computer Skills Training Levels/Paths

Results from the Northstar Digital Literacy Assessment have guided subgrantees’ training 

options for computer skills training at the beginner, intermediate, or advanced proficiency 

levels.

Beginner Proficiency

All subgrantees described a subgroup of job candidates who need a very basic computer skills 

training class—one that covers the most rudimentary of operations, including turning on a 

computer and using a mouse. In some cases, subgrantees were surprised and challenged by 

the level of need in this area, as it required program staff to re-think their approach and/or 

dedicate a considerable amount of individual time to job candidates. For example, one career 

coach described some job candidates who are exceedingly intimidated by their own lack of 

computer proficiency, and require the career coach’s one-on-one reassurance and mentoring 

on the very basics (e.g., turning on a computer) before they are comfortable going to an 

introductory computer course. While subgrantees described job candidates who lack 

confidence in their computer skills and capacity to learn, they also described job candidates 

11 For example, while some individuals can complete the assessment in 15 minutes, one subgrantee reported that 

it can take up to two hours to administer.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 50

 
who are overly confident and ultimately struggle without the basic skills instruction they have 

turned down. 

For the subgroup of job candidates who have the most intense and basic computer skills needs, 

all but one subgrantee offer training via face-to-face instruction in a classroom setting from a 

computer skills instructor, perhaps reflecting the need for considerable individual attention and 

support at this level. The subgrantees that offer classroom-based training provide basic-level 

computer skills training through workshops or classes, ranging in intensity from a single threehour workshop to a four-week, 24-hour class. The remaining subgrantee offers online training 

in basic computer skills in a self-paced format. 

Basic skills classes are offered on the college campus, mostly by college faculty including 

adjunct, continuing education, and workforce education division instructors. Only two 

subgrantees rely on BTW50+: WESI-specific staff (i.e., career coaches and a co-project 

coordinator) to deliver basic computer skills instruction. Most of the subgrantees offer basic 

computer skills instruction specially tailored for and exclusive to BTW50+: WESI job candidates. 

As one subgrantee staff member observed, the basic skills class was designed specifically for 

many job candidates’ computer literacy needs, which tend to be more basic in nature than 

those covered by the college’s other computer offerings (both credit and non-credit). For 

example, topics covered in beginner-level trainings include using a mouse, opening and saving 

computer files, setting up an email account, and email and social media etiquette.

Intermediate Proficiency

Job candidates who are initially assessed as having an intermediate level of proficiency—or who 

have progressed to this point after beginner-level training—and require or desire more 

instruction can be directed to classes available through the college (e.g., Introduction to 

Computing) and/or the college’s continuing education department, which is open to a broader 

student population. Half of the subgrantees direct intermediate-level job candidates in this 

way. For example, ACC directs its intermediate-level job candidates to a two-week continuing 

education course at a satellite campus that includes a Microsoft Office certificate. SFC-FL points 

job candidates to options available through the continuing education department, including 

short online courses on particular software programs as well as a longer, six-month Microsoft 

Office course. 

Half of the subgrantees have deliberately crafted (or are in the process of crafting) 

intermediate-level classes. In at least two of these cases, this was in direct response to demand 

or need from job candidates for more training. For example, JSCC worked with the college’s 

workforce education division to develop a four-week intermediate computer course after 

noticing that job candidates who signed up for the Microsoft Office specialist occupational skills 

training were struggling with the curriculum. MDC recently established a six-week intermediate 

class on Microsoft Office, to which job candidates from all previous waves were also invited. 

Finally, EFSC is developing an intermediate option by curating a group of online exercises and 

classwork on Alison.com, which, unlike Lynda.com, is free to users. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 51
Advanced Proficiency

For job candidates at the higher levels of computer skills proficiency, subgrantees rely primarily 

on a combination of regular college courses as well as Lynda.com. College courses include ones 

specifically focused on computer skills (e.g., Microsoft Office), as well as courses that include 

substantial computer skills training as part of a larger occupational skills training program, such 

as a medical billing and coding program. In one case, computer classes are specially arranged 

for WESI job candidates only—a beginner- and intermediate-level QuickBooks course, each 

lasting multiple weeks and combining instruction and lab time. 

Only two subgrantees explicitly use Lynda.com for their more advanced job candidates. Staff 

members at both subgrantees expressed that Lynda.com is an appropriate resource for those 

who can self-train for specific skills needed for their planned job search. For example, one 

career coach noted that she has referred job candidates to Lynda.com to access Python or 

WordPress training. 

Lynda.Com Usage

As previously discussed, one of the major developments for the computer skills training since 

the first implementation study site visit was AARP Foundation’s provision of Lynda.com licenses 

to subgrantees. Exhibit IV-2 shows the continuum of Lynda.com usage among subgrantees as 

of the second implementation study site visit. 

Exhibit IV-2: Continuum of Lynda.com Usage 

One subgrantee is not using Lynda.com at all. Another group of three subgrantees is either 

planning Lynda.com use or using it minimally (e.g., sharing information on Lynda.com during 

group coaching workshops to see who is interested in a license, or making Lynda.com available 

for job candidates’ exploration during extra computer lab hours). However, in both cases, job 

candidate use of Lynda.com has been minimal thus far and staff are still determining how to 

make the best use of Lynda.com resources. For example, in the case of one subgrantee, seven 

licenses have been distributed to job candidates, but only one has made significant use of the 

platform’s classes.

Some commonly raised issues among the subgrantees who are planning their use of Lynda.com 

or using it minimally include: (1) a limited number of licenses are provided, and they therefore 

need to “be careful” about criteria for who gets one (e.g., more advanced job candidates, those 

who have demonstrated prior use of other computer resources); (2) coaches and instructors 

are able to make use of other free resources such as Alison.com for similar purposes; (3) many 

job candidates do not have computers and/or sufficiently recent versions of software to 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 52
effectively use Lynda.com from home; and (4) some job candidates will not be comfortable with 

Lynda.com as a standalone resource, but rather as supplementary to, for example, a more 

guided, in-person class.

Finally, at the time of the second implementation study site visit, SPR found that the two 

subgrantees that were using Lynda.com the most did so primarily for more advanced job 

candidates who needed additional training for specific job search plans. However, one was also 

relying somewhat on Lynda.com for training job candidates at a lower proficiency level (i.e., 

those who completed a basic computer class but were not quite ready for general college 

computer courses). 

Computer Skills Training Challenges and Best Practices

Subgrantees have faced a few key challenges with computer skills training—primarily 

concerning the level and diversity of need among job candidates—and have also shared some 

strategies and lessons about this component of the BTW50+: WESI model. 

Challenges

Job candidates have widely ranging computer skills, which requires individualization and 

intensive one-on-one assistance. Designing and providing a computer skills training 

component is challenging when job candidates have widely ranging starting points with regard 

to their computer skills. A staff member at one subgrantee noted that she might work with a 

woman who has a bachelor’s degree in computer science as well as with a woman who can’t 

turn on a computer. As a result, subgrantees must individualize much of the computer skills 

training based on personal needs and experiences, which can require considerable one-on-one 

time. A respondent from another subgrantee noted that they had planned for additional career 

coaches who will help address this need.

Subgrantees and job candidates sometimes overestimated baseline computer proficiency. At 

least a couple of subgrantees were surprised by the level of need among job candidates, 

requiring instruction of the most basic nature (e.g., using a mouse). As a result, staff members 

sometimes have had to spend a much greater amount of time than expected on individual 

assistance. In addition, subgrantees sometimes had to rethink their approach based on the 

extent of job candidates’ basic training needs. For example, one subgrantee initially referred 

job candidates to college computer courses but quickly realized coaches had overestimated 

starting proficiency levels. This subgrantee implemented the Northstar assessment to get a 

more accurate indication of computer skills at the outset of the program. Another subgrantee 

reworked its approach by crafting a computer class in collaboration with the college’s 

workforce education division once it became clear that job candidates who did not think they 

needed basic training were struggling with the Microsoft Office specialist certification 

preparation program.

Subgrantees are still exploring the potential and limitations of Lynda.com. Even among 

subgrantees that are using Lynda.com more frequently, questions remain about how to make 

the best and most efficient use of its promising resources with only a limited number of licenses 

available. Some subgrantees are still grappling with the question of which job candidates 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 53
Lynda.com is most appropriate for—for example, those with high-level computer proficiency; 

those with low-level proficiency if the platform is paired with other resources; those 

comfortable with self-directed learning and reliable Internet connections at home, etc. Finally, 

while Lynda.com holds valuable content, it can be time consuming to navigate and curate 

specific playlists or modules.

Best Practices

A laptop loaner program has helped address the lack of computer resources at home. SFC-FL 

offers a laptop loaner program so job candidates can use a computer at home. All loaner 

laptops come equipped with wireless capabilities and updated Microsoft software.

Pairing Lynda.com with Alison.com can help ensure the former is used for its distinct, valueadded components. Because Lynda.com licenses are limited, EFSC relies on the free 

Alison.com platform to provide some of the content and support that is similar to that offered 

on Lynda.com—including for the design of an intermediate-level computer class. 

Using an assessment after a basic skills computer class can be valuable as well. While all 

subgrantees now use an assessment tool to gauge job candidates’ baseline proficiency, JSCC 

has implemented the use of an assessment tool to help determine job candidates’ needs for 

intermediate computer courses. The tool in this case is a one-page Microsoft Word document 

with deliberate errors that job candidates must correct. 

Applying newly developed computer skills practice to other workshops relevant to the 

BTW50+: WESI program can be an effective learning mode. For example, at MDC, job 

candidates attend a resume and online application class directly following the computer skills 

training so job candidates can practice new skills. At SFCC-NM, job candidates use Microsoft 

Excel to create a personal budget based on Finances 50+ instruction. SFC-FL has also 

established a computer booster session so job candidates can practice newly acquired 

computer skills to work on their resumes and practice emailing. 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 54
Financial Capability Building

One of the BTW50+: WESI program’s core goals 

is to connect women age 50 and over with the 

support needed to achieve full-time 

employment. This support includes financial 

capability building. Toward this end, AARP 

Foundation provides subgrantees with a fullydeveloped 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.”12 The 

course was developed by AARP Foundation in 

collaboration with Charles Schwab Foundation. It 

includes budgeting and goal setting, taking 

charge of credit and debt, and developing a 

savings plan and protecting assets. 

“These are people who 

have had a lifetime of 

experience but who 

may be dealing with 

economic insecurity for 

the first time in a long 

time and are having 

difficulty finding the 

help they need or 

determining what their 

best next steps are.”

—AARP Foundation, Back to Work 50+: 

WESI Playbook

Adherence to Financial Capability 

Building

As of the second implementation study site 

visits, only one of the six subgrantees were rated 

as having fully implemented this component of 

the model. The two elements of the financial 

capability building fidelity measure, including 

their subcomponents, are described below. 

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. In assessing whether subgrantees have met this model element, site 

visitors reviewed project design and operations to determine whether: 

1 

• The curriculum maps onto Finances 50+, which may be 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 as well as consumer rights,

− maximizing credit scores,

− saving money by increasing income or reducing spending,

12 From AARP Foundation’s Back to Work 50+: WESI Playbook, revised April 2016.

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 55
− 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) are included.

• The program includes interactive activities.

All subgrantees have achieved full fidelity to this element of the financial capability building 

component, due to consistent use of the Finances 50+ curriculum and materials provided by 

AARP Foundation.

The financial capability building component is contextualized within the local 

community and takes advantage of its resources. In assessing whether subgrantees 

have met this model element, the researchers reviewed project design and operations 

to determine whether: 

2 

• The program refers job candidates to resources in the community that assist

with building savings and reducing debt.

• The program provides information about income supports and financial aid that

may be available to job candidate.

As of the second implementation study site visits, one of the six subgrantees has achieved full 

fidelity to this second element of the financial capability building component. Of the remaining 

five, two have not yet implemented this element, while the other three have achieved partial 

implementation. The primary reasons for this variation is that subgrantees have not yet 

identified or harnessed local community resources (including those specifically to assist with 

building savings and reducing debt). 

Variation Across Subgrantees in Financial Capability Building 

Given their rather straightforward delivery of the Finances 50+ curriculum provided by AARP 

Foundation, little variation exists among subgrantees in the delivery of this component. 

However, some have made minor modifications in terms of scheduling and format. These 

modifications are discussed below, as are some basic variations in subgrantee staffing of 

Finances 50+.

Scheduling and Format

The Finances 50+ curriculum is designed for delivery through three 90-minute sessions on: 

budgeting and goal setting; taking charge of credit and debt; and developing a savings plan and 

protecting assets. In addition, “exercises and resources are designed to provide motivation, 

education, and support for positive action to help participants reach their self-defined goals—

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 56
whatever they may be—and build financial habits that will help them thrive.”13

None of the subgrantees have delivered the Finances 50+ curriculum in the recommended 

three sessions but instead chose to compress the timeframe to one or two sessions of varying 

length. For example, half of the subgrantees have delivered the curriculum in a single session 

ranging from three to four-and-a-half hours. The remaining three subgrantees have delivered it 

in two sessions, each ranging from 90 minutes to three hours. 

In terms of format, the subgrantees essentially rely on the Finances 50+ curriculum provided by 

AARP Foundation by (1) using the recorded webinars with breaks for facilitated conversation; 

(2) moving through the workshop materials at a steady pace while engaging the job candidates 

in conversation about the content; and (3) using the script that accompanies the PowerPoint 

presentation as well as the prompts for group activities. None of the subgrantees reported 

making major changes to the curriculum or materials, though one career coach noted she does 

not necessarily feel compelled to go through every single exercise. Subgrantees have made 

more minor additions and modifications to the Finances 50+ curriculum: 

• one instructor models an interview outfit purchased entirely from Goodwill to

demonstrate how to shop on a budget;

• one instructor addresses issues of widowhood and divorce, which come up often for job

candidates; and

• one program administrator tailors the material to be more relevant to a nonmetropolitan area—for example, by adjusting income examples to more realistic levels

for the local area.

Staffing

In most cases, career coaches lead and facilitate the Finances 50+ curriculum but may receive 

assistance from either a fellow career coach, a program manager, or a project director. At one 

of the other two subgrantees, an adjunct faculty member at the college is the Finances 50+ 

instructor, and at the other it is a partner AJC staff member. One subgrantee initially relied on 

a local financial professional to deliver the Finances 50+ curriculum, but switched to a partner 

AJC staff member because the latter is more dynamic in her facilitation style.

Finances 50+ Challenges and Best Practices

Subgrantees raised no significant challenges with Finances 50+. More minor concerns that did 

emerge were mainly about whether the material was appropriate and relevant for job 

candidates still in the core services period. While the concept is perceived as valuable—one 

career coach noted that for many job candidates Finances 50+ offers a first opportunity to feel 

safe and comfortable talking openly about money—subgrantees did share concerns about the 

13 From AARP Foundation’s Back to Work 50+: WESI Playbook, revised April 2016

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 57
relevance, timing, and appeal of the material. For example, one career coach expressed that 

some of the Finances 50+ material may not be new or relevant to job candidates because “they 

are already 50 years old and have been managing money for a long time.” 

The timing of Finances 50+ instruction was also a concern for at least one subgrantee, in that it 

may “interrupt” the flow of core services and the focus on finding a job. These staff members 

did not feel that Finances 50+ content is highly relevant, or even necessarily encouraging, 

before job candidates have secured employment and have any income to manage. Instead 

staff at this subgrantee suggested gearing Finances 50+ instruction toward pre-employment 

topics such as salary negotiation. 

Best practices for Finances 50+ were also rarely described, perhaps because of the fairly 

uniform use of structured materials from AARP Foundation. In fact, only SFCC-NM shared 

successful strategies in this area, namely: (1) requiring Finances 50+ early (before core services) 

as a way to maintain job candidates’ engagement after the 7 Smart Strategies workshop; (2) 

emphasizing the importance of Finances 50+ early because “many times [job candidates] are 

looking for a job because their finances are not in good shape”; and (3) pairing the Finances 50+ 

workshop with two follow-up Microsoft Excel workshops that allow job candidates to directly 

apply what they have learned on budgeting while also practicing their computer skills. 

Job Search Skills and Employer Engagement

Per the program model, job search training and support is a key element of BTW50+: WESI. Job 

search training and support must be provided both during the initial delivery of core services, 

and as a continuing support, as needed, to individual job candidates during the search for 

employment after the end of core services. Job search training begins with participation in the 

7 Smart Strategies workshop, before official enrollment in BTW50+: WESI, and continues 

throughout core services and beyond. The model also calls for employer engagement, through 

contact between both program staff and employers and job candidates and employers during 

the active job search support and monitoring phases. 

Adherence to Job Search Skills and Employer Engagement 

To achieve fidelity to the program model established by AARP Foundation, subgrantees need 

to: (1) use staff (coaches and job search instructors) who are knowledgeable about local job 

market opportunities and familiar with local employer hiring procedures in the targeted 

occupations, (2) provide job search training and support that is tailored to the needs of job 

candidates both during and after the completion of core services, and (3) arrange for employer 

engagement in job search training activities and ensure contacts with employers during 

placement support activities.

Overall, at the time of the second implementation study site visit, subgrantees had made 

progress towards fully implementing the job search skills and employer engagement 

components of the model, though there were notable variations in the extent of 

implementation fidelity. Three subgrantees were rated as having fully implemented the job 

search skills enhancement component, while another had achieved close to full 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 58
implementation. All four of these subgrantees had prior relevant experience, either operating a 

BTW50+ Classic program or providing services to jobseekers through the public workforce 

system. The two remaining subgrantees had not yet achieved partial implementation. Details 

on individual elements of fidelity appear below. 

Staff members are familiar with local labor market trends and opportunities and are 

knowledgeable about local hiring practices in the targeted occupations. In assessing 

whether programs have met this element of the program model, site visitors 

reviewed program designs and operations to determine whether: 

1 

• Program staff members use up-to-date labor market information and provide job

candidates with details about training needed, working conditions, wages at

entry level, and opportunities for advancement for the careers in which they are

interested.

• Program staff members have established relationships with local employers in

the fields of interest to job candidates and can describe employer hiring

practices.

• The program has established connections to the local workforce development

system and connects job candidates to the resources available from local AJCs.

Overall fidelity to this element is high. Four of the six subgrantees were rated as meeting the 

stated criteria fully. Recent staffing changes and resulting program redesigns caused two 

subgrantees to be rated lower on this element. Three subgrantees are still working to develop 

a strong relationship with their local workforce development systems. 

The program provides job search skills training and job placement support that is 

tailored to the needs of job candidates. In assessing whether subgrantees have met 

this program element, site visitors reviewed program designs and operations to 

determine whether:

2 

• The program offers workshops dedicated to project participants covering the job

search skills topics that incorporate the “7 Smart Strategies” provided by the

AARP Foundation.

• Job candidates receive 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

college).

• Job candidates have access to peer support during job search, for example

through participation in a job club or group coaching sessions.

• Job candidates in both the core services and training subgroups have access to

job search skills training and placement support, though they may receive it at

different times or through different channels.

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 59
Overall fidelity to this program element was rated as high. Three of the six subgrantees were 

rated as meeting the criteria for this element fully. Criteria that have been challenging for the 

remaining subgrantees include the ability to provide job placement support to job candidates 

after the completion of occupational skills training, and the provision of peer support during job 

search.

Programs have arranged for employer engagement in the design and delivery of 

core services and have 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 designs and operations to 

determine whether:

3 

• The program has developed relationships with local employers in the targeted

occupations.

• Employers have helped the program planners identify unmet labor market and

training needs.

• The program creates opportunities to involve employers in work-based training

(e.g., internships and on-the-job training).

• Employers participate in job fairs at which BTW50+: WESI job candidates are

featured.

Overall fidelity to this element was rated as moderate. Only two of the six subgrantees were 

rated as meeting this program element fully. The remaining four subgrantees have all made 

some progress in engaging employers, but have not yet met all the criteria stated above. 

Challenging aspects include involving employers in designing and delivering job search training 

during core services and creating opportunities for job candidates to have contact with 

potential employers, for example through work-based training or other activities. 

Variations Across Subgrantees in Job Search Skills and Employer Engagement 

Model

Subgrantees exhibited several key variations in the delivery of the job search skills and 

employer engagement components:

Staffing and modality of job search skills instruction. All subgrantees offer job search skills 

enhancement through a combination of individual coaching sessions and group workshops. 

Group sessions provide an opportunity to discuss and practice effective job search approaches, 

while individual coaching sessions focus on individual job search strategies and practices. Two 

subgrantees have BTW50+: WESI coaches lead the job search skills training workshops. Others 

use existing college staff, instructors, or guest speakers to assist in leading or presenting at the 

job search skills training workshops. One subgrantee supplements face-to-face instruction with 

the college’s pre-existing online “Get that Job” training modules. Available to all students, and 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 60
not specifically designed for older jobseekers, “Get That Job” is a series of videos on topics such 

as job search strategies, resume development, interviewing, and developing a LinkedIn profile. 

Intensity and duration of job search skills training. Subgrantees vary in the intensity and 

duration of the job search skills training workshops provided. One subgrantee schedules all of 

its job search training workshops over a four-day period during the first week of program 

activities. Others schedule their workshops to occur once or twice a week over a period of up 

to four weeks after enrollment. Three subgrantees have compressed the schedule for delivery 

of job search skills training workshops after program launch from six or eight weeks, as 

designed initially, to three or four weeks, to reduce dropouts and increase the proportion of job 

candidates who complete all the scheduled workshops.

Challenges and Best Practices

Subgrantees have faced a few key challenges implementing this component, primarily 

concerning engagement of workforce system partners and employers, and also shared 

strategies and lessons with regard to this component of the BTW50+: WESI model. 

Challenges

Some subgrantees have found it difficult to build strong service delivery and referral 

relationships with the local workforce development system. For one subgrantee, staff 

turnover at the leadership levels at both the community college and the local AJC have made it 

difficult to identify and sustain a primary contact between the two entities. Subgrantee staff 

also noted that this AJC serves a higher-need population than BTW50+: WESI, and job 

candidates might not feel comfortable there. Another subgrantee has not built a strong

relationship with its local AJC in part because that AJC operates a BTW50+ Classic program and 

the two entities are essentially in competition for applicants. 

All subgrantees have found it challenging to engage local employers in face-to-face 

interactions with job candidates to the extent envisioned in the BTW50+: WESI program 

model. The model strongly suggests that subgrantees involve employers in the delivery of core 

services (e.g., in presentations on effective interviewing skills), as well as in identifying and 

preparing training curricula for targeted occupations. The Playbook also encourages programs 

to bring job candidates face-to-face with potential employers by arranging internships during 

training or holding job fairs toward the end of training. For programs that prepare job 

candidates for a wide variety of different occupations, however, it is difficult to engage 

individual employers in activities that are relevant for all job candidates. Employer 

representatives have also found it difficult to commit the time needed to meet with job 

candidates face-to-face.

Best Practices

Strong existing relationships with the local economic development and workforce 

development systems appear to strengthen access to current labor market information and 

subgrantees’ ability to identify in-demand occupations within the region that match job 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 61
candidates’ interests and skills. Half of subgrantees have been able to leverage such 

relationships to benefit job candidates:

• EFSC, as noted earlier, shares project management and service delivery responsibilities

for its BTW50+: WESI program with the local AJC. Because of that partnership, the

college is able to access a widespread employer network as well as secure program staff

who are experienced in career counseling, labor market information, and effective job

search/job placement practices.

• JSCC’s BTW50+: WESI program operates out of an AJC housed on the college campus

and is co-funded by the college and local workforce development board. In fact, the

BTW50+: WESI project director is also the director of the local AJC, which is open to

both students and customers from the general public. Her program staff work part time

for the AJC, providing career counseling and job search support to all AJC customers.

Because of their dual roles, program staff can connect to a widespread employer

network, access local job postings from the public system to make job referrals to

BTW50+: WESI job candidates, and are experienced in referring workforce customers to

training and support for their job search efforts.

• At SFC-FL, BTW50+: WESI staff members are active in local human resource associations

and regional leadership programs to help connections to the employer community.

They also advertise the program at local job fairs. The program has co-sponsored job

fairs with the Gainesville Chamber of Commerce and the local public workforce

development system.

Some subgrantees have begun to explore creative options for linking job candidates with 

work-based training. For example, SFC-FL used funds from a separate grant arranged by AARP 

Foundation to design and pilot a 6-week, 120-hour paid internship for 10 job candidates during 

the second year of the program. All internship participants were very satisfied with their 

experiences, and two of these internships led directly to ongoing employment for the job 

candidates with their internship sponsors. Unfortunately, funding was not available to continue 

the internships after the end of the grant. At EFSC, strong AJC participation in the program was 

expected to make it easier to create opportunities for work-based training (e.g., on-the-job 

training contracts) for job candidates with local employers, although this aspect of the program 

is still in development. 

Occupational Skills Training 

Another key element of the BTW50+: WESI model specifies that programs make occupational 

skills training available to job candidates and support them in arranging for occupational skills 

training. However, the model assumes that only a subset of all job candidates will enroll in 

training if it is needed to upgrade existing skills or develop new skills to prepare for their 

selected employment goals. Subgrantees are expected to develop a range of training options 

that will be of interest to job candidates and will prepare them for employment in local, indemand jobs that can offer economic stability. 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 62
Adherence to Occupational Skills Training Model 

To achieve fidelity to the program model, subgrantees must (1) develop training options that 

are well-matched to the needs of the job candidate population and broad enough to give them 

adequate choice, and (2) provide support to job candidates during and after training to help them 

succeed in training and reach their employment goals.

Across all subgrantees, average fidelity across the different aspects of occupational skills 

training is high, though there is variation in the extent to which individual subgrantees have 

fully implemented the required elements for occupational skills training. Three of the six 

subgrantees were rated as having fully implemented the key elements of occupational skills 

training, while the other three have not yet achieved full implementation. 

Slow program start-up and/or staff turnover has hampered the development of the 

occupational skills training design for two of the subgrantees. (Each of these two had enrolled 

fewer than three job candidates in training at the time of the second implementation study site 

visit.) The remaining subgrantee has not yet fully achieved the capacity to provide support to 

job candidates during and after training. Details on the fidelity of subgrantee implementation 

practices to each required element of the occupational skills training model are provided 

below. 

The program offers a range of training options tailored to the needs of job 

candidates. In assessing whether subgrantees have implemented this model element, 

site visitors reviewed program design and operations to determine whether: 

1 

• Training options target local, in-demand occupations.

• Career coaches are familiar with the available training offerings across a wide

variety of occupational areas and parts of the college.

• Job candidates receive individual coaching from the career coach or other

college staff to help them select training relevant to their employment goals.

• The recommended training options are of interest to older workers and targeted

towards their skill levels (building on skills they might already have).

• Short-term training is available to job candidates who want to get back to work

quickly.

Across the six subgrantees, average fidelity to this model element is high. Four of the six 

subgrantees were rated as having fully implemented this element of the program model. The 

two subgrantees that have not yet demonstrated fidelity to this element have been slower in 

developing and implementing their occupational skills training designs.

Providing support to job candidates during and after training. In assessing whether 

subgrantees have realized this model element, site visitors reviewed program designs 

and operations to determine whether:

2

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 63
• BTW50+: WESI career coaches or other support persons checked in regularly

with training job candidates to ensure that their needs are being met during

training.

• Job candidates in training receive support from their peers (e.g., through peer

study groups or other activities involving contacts with other BTW50+: WESI

program participants).

• Job candidates identify with and feel supported by the BTW50+: WESI program

after completing core services and entering training.

On average, at the time of the second implementation study site visit, subgrantees were 

partially implementing this training support component. Three subgrantees were rated as 

having fully implemented this element. Two subgrantees were rated as partially implementing 

this element; the remaining subgrantee was not yet far enough along in developing and 

implementing its training design to have implemented this element. As noted below, several 

subgrantees faced challenges in maintaining a connection between job candidates and the 

BTW50+ WESI program after the completion of core services. 

Variations Across Subgrantees in Occupational Skills Training Model 

The BTW50+: WESI model allows subgrantees substantial flexibility in the proportion of job 

candidates who participate in occupational skills training, the types of training options offered, 

and how the training draws on the various credit and non-credit programs offered by the 

college. Key commonalities and variations in how subgrantees have designed and implemented 

occupational skills training are described below. 

Orientation to training options. Subgrantees vary in whether they provide an orientation to 

available training as one of the earliest activities in core services, or whether they wait until 

closer to the end of core services to discuss these options. As discussed in the next chapter, 

feedback from focus groups indicates that job candidates prefer to receive guidance on 

occupational skills training early on so they can plan accordingly.

Developing individual training plans. Once training opportunities are introduced, subgrantees 

tend to follow a similar pattern in helping to match job candidates who are interested in 

training to the variety of training options. The typical pattern begins with job candidate selfexploration and self-assessment exercises (e.g., using interest inventories and other individual 

skills assessments or group exercises), followed by the delivery of information about local labor 

market opportunities and constraints including information about the demand and wages for 

different occupations. Most often, a job candidate develops a specific employment and 

training plan during an individual coaching session with her career coach. During the session, 

the career coach guides the job candidate in developing an individual employment goal, with 

close attention paid to individual interests, labor market demand, and whether the job 

candidate needs part-time temporary employment to support her and her household during 

training. Usually, the job candidate also meets with an academic advisor connected to specific 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 64
occupational skills training programs prior to enrolling, particularly if she is interested in 

enrolling in a for-credit program. 

The proportion of job candidates who choose occupational skills training. Subgrantees vary in 

the proportion of enrolled job candidates who decide to enter occupational skills training. Two 

subgrantees, as previously mentioned, were so delayed in implementing training services that 

fewer than three job candidates had enrolled in occupational skills training by the time of the 

second implementation study site visit. For three of the remaining four subgrantees that have 

enrolled job candidates in training, the proportion of job candidates enrolled in occupational 

skills training is somewhere between 20 and 35 percent of all participating job candidates. At 

the fourth subgrantee, a very high proportion of job candidates indicate interest in 

occupational skills training and a total of 60 percent of all job candidates to date have enrolled. 

Individual decisions to enroll in occupational skills training appear to be influenced by a number 

of factors including conditions in the local job market, the job candidate’s level of selfconfidence, the availability of short-term training opportunities of interest to the job candidate, 

the availability of training scholarships from the program, and the existence of family 

responsibilities, financial pressures, or transportation barriers that make it difficult for the job 

candidate to participate in training.

Extent of variations in the training options. Subgrantees vary in the number and types of 

training options they offer to BTW50+: WESI job candidates. Of the four programs that have 

made progress in enrolling job candidates into occupational skills training, three offer 

substantial flexibility with respect to the type of training that best meets job candidates’ 

individual interests and existing skills—as long as there is strong labor market evidence that the 

training is for a local demand occupation. Two subgrantees encourage job candidates to take 

only one or two courses if that is all they need to upgrade their skills and be competitive in the 

job market; two others encourage job candidates to enroll in and complete established 

certificate programs. 

One subgrantee is quite restrictive, limiting training options for BTW50+: WESI participants to 

five programs offered by the college’s non-credit workforce education division. These 

programs are a subset of short-term non-credit occupational programs that the division had 

recently developed after consulting with local employers. Otherwise, most subgrantees have 

enrolled job candidates in a wide variety of training programs. The most popular training 

programs include office occupations, including training in office software programs; healthrelated occupations; and IT-related training.

Variations exist both within and between subgrantees in the mode of training (online, hybrid, 

and classroom-based), the status of the training (for-credit or non-credit), the academic 

degrees or certifications offered (usually for-credit certificates in a career-oriented training 

program) and the duration of training (four weeks to 1.5 years). Although four of the 

subgrantees offer training that follows regular college quarter or semester schedules, two 

encourage job candidates to enroll in available training that is short-term, compressed, and 

offered more frequently than once every quarter, enabling job candidates to enter training 

without a semester delay and to complete short-term training in four to 10 weeks.

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 65
Training is rarely developed specifically for WESI participants. Although several subgrantees 

have found that job candidates appreciate and benefit from being enrolled in training alongside 

other BTW50+: WESI candidates, most have found that job candidates benefit from taking 

classes alongside younger students. One subgrantee, reported that when too many job 

candidates were enrolled in the same class it overburdened the instructor, disrupted class 

instruction, and shifted the classroom culture in negative ways given job candidates’ high 

anxiety and concerns about passing the course. 

Support offered during training. Subgrantees use different approaches to support job 

candidates after they enroll in training. In all programs, the BTW50+: WESI coaches maintain 

regular contact with job candidates during the training period, but the frequency of these 

contacts was reduced (e.g., to once a month) because subgrantees found that individuals 

enrolled in training were very busy attending to their studies. Training program coordinators 

and academic advisors usually play a role in monitoring job candidate progress through 

training, alerting coaches if a job candidate is experiencing difficulties. Coaches usually do not 

have any contact with course instructors on behalf of individual job candidates. 

Challenges and Best Practices

Subgrantees noted several challenges around occupational skills training, primarily related to 

supporting job candidates’ choice of and success in training. They have also developed a range 

of best practices to deal with these challenges.

Challenges

Most subgrantees find it challenging to develop a wide enough range of occupational skills 

training options to meet job candidates’ varying needs. All colleges identified several highdemand, high-growth sectors of the local economy in which they planned to focus training 

opportunities. But once they started working with job candidates, subgrantees often found 

that they have a wide range of work experience and transferrable skills. Some are interested in 

upgrading their skills and remaining in an occupation related to their previous employment 

while others are looking to transition to brand-new occupations. 

Subgrantees find that lack of financial support is a major barrier to enrolling in training for 

BTW50+: WESI job candidates. Even though subgrantees offer support for tuition and books, 

most job candidates have difficulty meeting daily living expenses and healthcare needs as a 

result of long-term unemployment or underemployment. To address this challenge, two 

subgrantees help job candidates who need financial support to find temporary part-time jobs in 

occupations like retail or restaurant work to support themselves while they attend training. 

Two other subgrantees encourage job candidates to explore other funding sources to support 

themselves during training, such as Pell Grants, Social Security, or financial support from family 

members. 

Some subgrantees have found it challenging to intervene to address issues that arise when 

BTW50+: WESI students have difficulties in occupational skills training. After completing core 

services and beginning training, job candidates often reduce the frequency of their contacts 

with their assigned BTW50+: WESI career coaches. Although program staff members usually 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 66
check in with training program leads about whether BTW50+: WESI candidates are doing well in 

their courses, they generally do not communicate directly with course instructors. 

Best Practices

Close working relationships with different training divisions in the college strengthen 

subgrantees’ ability to offer job candidates a variety of training opportunities. For example, 

SFC-FL has strong relationships with both non-credit and for-credit training divisions within the 

college. The program uses these relationships to offer students a wide range of short-term 

online courses, business skills upgrade courses, short-term credit- or non-credit certificate 

programs that can be taken separately or “stacked,” and longer-term associate degree career 

and technical education programs offered at the college. JSCC uses a different approach, 

drawing on short-term (four- to 12-week) non-credit vocational programs that its workforce 

education division previously developed with strong employer input. These training programs 

were selected for their ability to prepare job candidates for specialized “niche” occupations 

with unmet labor demand, such as billing and coding specialist for healthcare or specific 

software or computer skills credentials for office occupations.

Strong partnerships with other college departments can also provide needed resources to 

develop systemic solutions to support BTW50+: WESI students. As discussed in the computer 

skills training section of this chapter, JSCC worked with the college’s non-credit workforce 

education program lead to establish a new intermediate computer skills course—available to all 

students at the college—that can be taken as a foundation course to prepare students for 

success in the Microsoft Office occupational skills training program. At SFCC-NM, the project 

manager has helped job candidates struggling to keep up in a course by arranging tutoring 

support (available free of charge from the college for all students).

Differentiation of BTW50+: WESI from Services Available in the Community

Based on the implementation of the program as presented in this chapter, on data gathered 

from subgrantees about other resources at the community colleges, and on visits to local AJCs 

during the site visits, BTW50+: WESI services differ from other services available in the 

community primarily because they are designed specifically for women 50 and older:

• Occupational skills training for job candidates in the BTW50+: WESI program is

distinctive primarily because job candidates receive financial support and are guided

toward training options well-suited to the transferrable skills and income needs of

older female jobseekers. Training program options for BTW50+: WESI job candidates

are generally not very different from options available to other 50+ women in the

community who pursue short-term training directly through the college or via the public

workforce system. This is primarily because most training programs are not exclusive to

BTW50+: WESI job candidates. The main difference is the training scholarships available

through the grant, though as noted above, job candidates still struggle to support

themselves during training, and other students may be able to fund their training

through Individual Training Accounts, other scholarships, or financial aid.

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 67
• Career coaching offered through BTW50+: WESI is unique in its duration, scope, and

intensity, as well as because coaches are trained to be sensitive to the needs of older

female jobseekers. While other students and community members can access

individual case management through the public workforce system or college career

office, such coaching is not customized to the needs and concerns of older female

jobseekers. As noted earlier in the chapter, career coaching is frequently delivered by

coaches who are themselves women close to or over 50, and the diversity of their roles

—in particular, their efforts around confidence boosting and creation of cohort

identity—is both unique to the program and specifically valued by job candidates. This

point is explored more fully in the analysis of survey and focus group responses in

Chapter V.

• The program’s job search skills training is distinct from what is available on campus

and through the public workforce system primarily because it is tailored to older

jobseekers who have generally had long-term workforce experience, but who may not

be familiar with current job search tools and techniques. Visits to local AJCs revealed

that available workshops do cover topics similar to BTW50+: WESI such as developing

resumes, preparing for interviews, and creating online personal marketing tools like a

LinkedIn profile. Moreover, some participants in these workshops may be women over

50. Nevertheless, the content is not designed for or consistently delivered by women

over 50. While some of the AJCs visited do connect older jobseekers to the Senior

Community Service Employment Program, this program is targeted to an older (55 and

above) population with lower income and basic skills levels than most WESI job

candidates.

Additionally, some elements of the model are simply unique to BTW50+: WESI:

• Financial capability building is a unique aspect of the program not generally available

to others. Across subgrantees, Finances 50+ offers an important point of differentiation

from other services available in the community, both because it is available only to job

candidates in the program and because this type of training is not widely available

through either the community colleges or the public workforce development system.

One career coach noted that because the college does not offer any other financial

education programs, Finances 50+ fills a critical gap: “I’d offer it every day out in the

hallway [to traditional-aged students] if I could.”

• Computer skills assessment—and customized training to remediate these skills—is

another distinctive feature of the job candidate experience. Higher-level training and,

in some cases, basic computer skills training is available to anyone at the community

colleges (and online training platforms are available to the general public). However,

standardized assessment of computer proficiency does not typically occur prior to

beginning a job search in the public workforce system or a training program at the

community colleges. Participation in BTW50+: WESI therefore may equip job candidates

with both the knowledge of what specific skills need to be upgraded and a pathway to

appropriate training to do so.

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 68
Finally, although the intended BTW50+: WESI model emphasizes access to supportive services 

and a high level of access to local employers, the services received by job candidates may be 

similar to—or even less intensive than—services available to others for these core service 

elements. 

• Although job candidates have access to a unique funding stream for tuition expenses,

the other supportive services to which they have access may not be particularly

different from those available to individuals who visit a local AJC or enroll in a

community college. For example, at two subgrantees, job candidates are referred to

campus resource centers that also serve the rest of the campus population. At two

others, the main supportive service referral activity is providing job candidates a list of

community resources prepared by 211 or other community organizations.

Theoretically, these services are available to anyone in the community.

• The lower than expected level of employer engagement for BTW50+: WESI job

candidates means that community college departments and the public workforce

system may offer equally strong, or even stronger, links to local employers. As noted

earlier in the chapter, subgrantees are still working to realize the employer engagement

element of the program model. This has been difficult in part because subgrantees

generally are not preparing job candidates to seek out employment in particular

occupations or sectors (though employer engagement still can and should occur

regardless of targeted sectors during the active job search support phase). By contrast,

the AJCs visited have dedicated business services staff and/or job developers who

maintain strong employer connections. Moreover, college training programs that

prepare students for careers in a particular sector also emphasize and nurture

connections to relevant employers in the region.

Synthesis and Conclusions

This interim implementation report focuses on how well the programs designed and 

implemented by BTW50+: WESI subgrantees have captured the key elements of the program 

model and documents their progress toward full implementation. The findings in this chapter 

show that the subgrantees have made substantial progress toward implementing programs 

that realize the intended BTW50+: WESI program model. 

Chapter findings have several important implications for the remainder of implementation and 

beyond. First, BTW50+: WESI is a new program model. Some BTW50+: WESI model elements 

may be appropriate as part of the program approach, but seem to require more technical 

assistance and support to be fully implemented. For example, the program model emphasizes 

the need to engage local employers in multiple facets of the program, including targeting wellpaying jobs identified by employers as hard to fill with skilled workers; involving employers in 

creating opportunities for employer-based training; and bringing employers into contact with 

job seekers during the job search process. Across all subgrantees, this tends to be one of the 

least-developed elements and lowest points of differentiation from available alternative 

services, which may impact subgrantees’ ability to help job candidates find good jobs that offer 

economic stability. 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 69
This page is deliberately left blank.

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 70
Chapter V: Job Candidate Perspectives

Introduction

To contextualize findings about program implementation presented in earlier chapters, this 

chapter reviews the perspectives of job candidates in BTW50+: WESI as measured through 

surveys and focus groups. The chapter starts with a brief overview of the follow-up survey and 

the survey sample, and then reviews survey results in the following areas: reasons for 

enrollment; satisfaction with key program components; attitudes and behaviors related to 

computer use, financial capability and quality of life; and self-reported employment indicators 

and plans for the future. To complement the survey data, the chapter also summarizes 

feedback collected through focus groups conducted during implementation study site visits. 

The chapter concludes with a synthesis and summary of findings on the job candidate 

experience and their implications for program operations. 

Key Findings

• Self-reported motivations for enrollment indicate that the program is providing

accurate messaging in its outreach. Survey results show that most respondents

were motivated to enroll in BTW50+: WESI in order to bolster their job searches,

both through learning about new employment opportunities and upgrading their

computer skills to be competitive in the job market.

• While survey results indicate satisfaction with the content of most program

components, focus group feedback suggests areas for improvement in service

delivery and guidance. Survey responses show moderately high levels of

satisfaction with core components of the program, though feedback from focus

groups indicates that more interactive and personalized delivery would be

appreciated. Additionally, while a high proportion of job candidates expressed

interest on the survey in continuing with occupational skills training, focus group

feedback points to wide variation in the strength of connection to and guidance

on training across subgrantees.

• Survey respondents report positive attitudes and behaviors at three months

after enrollment, but self-reported employment rates are somewhat low. At

three months after enrollment, job candidates report feeling relatively

comfortable using computers, say they engage in positive short-term financial

behaviors, and are enjoying a relatively high quality of life. However, just under

half (48.5 percent) report being employed either full time (11.9 percent) or part

time (36.6 percent).

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 71
Survey Background and Sample Characteristics

SPR’s subcontractor, the Social and Economic Science Research Center (SESRC) at Washington 

State University, conducts telephone surveys of all job candidates at three, six, and 12 months 

after enrollment. Surveys began in November of 2015, at the three-month mark for those who 

enrolled in August of 2015. All candidates who enroll through the end of program 

implementation will be contacted for these follow-up surveys, so the survey sample will be 

considerably larger for subsequent evaluation reports. 

Results in this chapter draw exclusively on three-month follow-up surveys administered 

through November 2016. The sample includes 221 out of 509 job candidates contacted, for a 

response rate of 44 percent.14 Job candidates who completed this three-month survey had 

already completed core services and were generally part of waves that occurred prior to the 

start of enrollment into the impact study. This interim implementation report does not include 

analyses of the six-and 12-month surveys, and except for preliminary findings by employment 

status, the analyses of three-month survey do not include results by respondent demographics, 

program outcomes, or subgrantee, because the sample size is not yet sufficient to conduct such 

analyses. Where findings are presented by employment status—an exception made because 

employment is a key outcome of interest and preliminarily survey results indicate that less than 

half of survey respondents had achieved this outcome—they should be interpreted with 

caution due to the small sample size. The final implementation study report, however, will 

have a larger survey sample and therefore will include more detailed subgroup analyses.15 For 

additional details about the survey methodology, please see Appendix C. 

Job candidates contacted for the survey had enrolled in BTW50+: WESI programs across all six 

subgrantees but were not evenly distributed among them. As shown below in Exhibit V-1, over 

half of the job candidates contacted had participated in the program at either ACC (29.9 

percent) or EFSC (25.2 percent). About one in five enrolled in the program either at SFC-FL 

(19.7 percent) or SFCC-NM (18.7 percent). Fewer respondents had participated in the program 

at colleges with the newest BTW 50+: WESI programs (5.5 percent from JSCC and 1.2 percent 

from MDC).

14 Response rates for the six- and 12-month surveys were lower than for the three-month survey—26 percent 

and 22 percent, respectively. For further details on survey response rates, please see Appendix C.

15 Future analyses will include linear regression models to examine whether attitudes, behaviors and outcomes 

vary by respondent characteristics (e.g., age, gender, race) or other factors of interest. They will also include an 

assessment of how computer attitudes, financial capability, and quality of life change from the three-month 

survey to the six- and then to the 12-month survey.

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 72
Exhibit V-1: Job Candidates’ Enrollment by Subgrantee

Exhibit V-2 below provides a demographic profile of the universe of eligible BTW 50+: WESI 

participants who were contacted for the survey.16 The vast majority (90.2 percent) were 

female. Nearly six in 10 respondents (56 percent) identified as White/Caucasian, about onefifth (21 percent) identified as Black/African American, and one in seven (14.7 percent) 

identified as Hispanic/Latino. The remainder chose another race/ethnicity or did not answer 

the question.17 

In terms of age, about one-third (32.5 percent) were 49 to 55 years old, one-quarter (25.4 

percent) were between the ages of 56 and 58, and one-fifth (20.4 percent) were between the 

ages of 59 and 62. Fewer were between the ages of 63 and 65 (10.6 percent) or 66 or older 

(11.2 percent). 

These demographic characteristics indicate that the program is generally serving the targeted 

population of women between the ages of 50 and 64, with strong representation from those 

earlier in their working lives who, as anticipated by AARP Foundation in the program’s design, 

may not be eligible for the Senior Community Services Employment Program (SCSEP) or other 

programming for older adults. 

16 SPR determined that the sample of respondents to the three-month follow-up survey is representative of the 

overall pool of BTW50+: WESI participants (as recorded in the FIS) after statistically assessing the differences 

between both groups in terms of several demographic characteristics. Demographic characteristics in this 

comparison included age, gender, race/ethnicity, prior education, and college attended. (See Appendix C for 

specific details.) In the body of this chapter, characteristics are presented for the entire universe. 

17 All survey respondents who identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino, regardless of racial background, are 

included in that group. Asians, Native Americans, and other respondents who identified themselves as 

“multicultural” are included in the “Other” race/ethnicity group. 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 73
Exhibit V-2: Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents 

Survey Results

The survey asked respondents about their reasons for enrolling in the program; satisfaction 

with key program components; attitudes and behaviors around computer use, financial 

capability, and quality of life; employment status; and plans for the future. The remainder of 

this section discusses key findings on each of these topics. Frequencies for all questionnaire 

items appear in detail in Appendix D of this report. 

Reasons for Enrollment

Learning about new opportunities for employment is an important factor in candidates’ 

decisions to enroll in BTW50+: WESI. As Exhibit V-3 shows, seven in 10 respondents (70.2 

percent) rated learning about new opportunities for employment as very important in their 

decision to enroll. In comparison, fewer than half of the candidates said that finding a job as 

soon as possible or that finding a better paying job was very important (46.2 percent and 40.3 

percent, respectively); only one in five (22 percent) considered finding a job with more hours as 

very important. These findings are logical given that the rubric used for scoring program 

applications, as described in Chapter III, prioritizes serving women who are unemployed at the 

time of application, and who are therefore eager to find a new job at the time of enrollment. 

Finding better work—that is, work with more hours or better pay—appears to be secondary. 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 74
Exhibit V-3: Reasons for Enrolling in BTW50+: WESI

Upgrading skills emerged as another important motivation for seeking out services. As Exhibit 

V-4 shows, over half of respondents (53.7 percent) said learning or improving computer skills 

was very important in the decision to enroll in the program, and just under half considered 

training for a new field (49.3 percent) and upgrading skills from previous jobs (46.6 percent) as 

very important. Learning how to manage finances was not as important in candidates’ decisions 

to enroll in the program: A slight majority (59.9 percent) said it was not important or only 

slightly important; fewer said it was important (18.9 percent) or very important (21.2 percent). 

Exhibit V-4: Other Reasons for Enrolling in BTW50+: WESI

Computer Skills Upgrade

As noted above, learning or improving computer skills was an important reason for enrollment 

in the program. Among respondents who reported participating in training to learn or improve 

their computer skills, the vast majority (91 percent) said that the computer training was about 

right for them, and only small percentages said the training was either too easy (6 percent) or 

too advanced (3 percent). 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 75
Those who received computer skills training were asked how prepared it made them for their 

next jobs. Nearly half (47 percent) said it had made them very much prepared, and about a 

third said it made them somewhat prepared (35 percent). Just under one-fifth (18 percent) said 

it prepared them a little (14 percent) or not at all (4 percent). When asked about their level of 

satisfaction with the computer skills component of the BTW50+: WESI program, about threequarters (76 percent) said they were very satisfied or satisfied with the support they received 

with learning or improving computer skills. More than one in 10 (11.5 percent) reported that 

they did not experience this component of the program, which is consistent with Chapter IV’s 

findings that (1) this component was not fully developed in earlier waves of the program, and 

(2) some subgrantees who scored sufficiently high on the computer skills assessment did not 

require computer skills training. Survey respondents who reported being employed at the time 

of the survey expressed similar levels of satisfaction with computer skills training to those who 

were not employed.

Exhibit V-5: Opinions About Computer Skills Upgrade

Finances 50+

While learning how to manage finances did not figure prominently in respondents’ decisions to 

enroll in BTW50+: WESI, Exhibit V-6 shows that they did note satisfaction with the support they 

received in this area: About eight in 10 (79.5 percent) said they were either very satisfied or 

somewhat satisfied with the support they received in learning how to manage their finances. 

Small percentages reported being somewhat dissatisfied (2.2 percent) or very dissatisfied (3.2 

percent) with support received in this area; a noticeably larger group (15.1 percent) did not 

even receive support in this area, which could be due to dropping out of the program prior to 

the end of core services. Survey respondents who reported being employed at the time of the 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 76
survey expressed similar levels of satisfaction with financial capability training to those who 

were not employed. As noted in Chapter IV, subgrantees have experimented in later waves of 

the program with shortening core services to minimize attrition and breaking up the sequencing 

of Finances 50+ modules to ensure their relevance and to provide at least some training early in 

core services and for all respondents in a given wave.

Exhibit V-6: Satisfaction with Financial Capability Training

Connection to Occupational Skills Training

Respondents were generally satisfied with 

the support they received in making the 

decision to pursue additional education or 

training while in the program. As Exhibit V-7 

shows, about eight in 10 candidates (79.2 

percent) said they were very satisfied or 

somewhat satisfied with the support they 

received with making a decision about 

pursuing additional education or training. 

Fewer said they were somewhat dissatisfied 

(8.9 percent) or very dissatisfied (4.2 

percent), and the remainder said they had 

not experienced support in this area (7.8 

percent). For the latter group, it may be 

that, because occupational skills training is 

not required, they did not receive assistance 

in this area because they had not indicated 

interest on the initial application; as 

discussed later in this chapter, focus group 

feedback indicates a desire for more clarity 

in presenting the occupational skills training 

options throughout the core services period. 

There were no differences by employment 

status at the time of the survey with support 

received with making a decision about 

pursuing additional education or training. 

Exhibit V-7 also shows that among 

respondents who had enrolled in 

Exhibit V-7: Connections to Occupational 

Skills Training

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 77
occupational skills training (n=58) and expressed an opinion on whether the training met their 

expectations (n=48), over half (54.2 percent) said it exceeded their expectations, about four in 

10 (43.8 percent) said it met their expectations, and only a minority (2.1 percent) said it did not. 

When asked about how useful the training had been in helping them find a job, about a quarter 

of respondents (26 percent) said it was very useful (16 percent), useful (4 percent), or 

somewhat useful (6 percent). No candidates reported training was not useful at all, but the 

majority of those who went on to training (74 percent) said they had not yet found jobs, and 

therefore they could not yet say whether the training had been useful. 

Job Search Skills

Nearly all respondents reported that they had been given opportunities to practice job search 

skills while in the program. As Exhibit V-8 shows, the vast majority of job candidates engaged in 

learning about online job search tools (95.6 percent), creating or updating a resume (93.6 

percent), and strategies for looking for a job (92 percent). Although a relatively high proportion 

(78.4 percent) reported they had received individual assistance with their job searches, this was 

notably lower than reported participation in other group-based job search activities. 

A large proportion of respondents reported that they had applied what they learned through 

the program’s job search skills component. Over eight in 10 respondents (86.4 percent) said 

they had searched for jobs online and nearly two-thirds (65.3 percent) had applied for jobs 

online. Respondents expressed moderately high levels of satisfaction with the support they 

received in learning how to search for jobs and the support they received in learning about 

available jobs in the area and these levels of satisfaction did not vary by respondents’ 

employment status at the time of the survey. As Exhibit V-8 shows, a slight majority (58.7 

percent) were very satisfied with the support received in learning how to search for jobs, and 

just under a third (30.1 percent) were somewhat satisfied. Similarly, around half (47.9 percent) 

were very satisfied with the support received in learning about available jobs, and around onethird (32.5 percent) were somewhat satisfied. While satisfaction with these two components of 

job search skills shows, then, that most respondents are very or somewhat satisfied, it is worth 

mentioning that satisfaction with learning how to search for jobs is higher than satisfaction with 

support in learning about available jobs. This is consistent with findings in Chapter IV on 

limited use of labor market information in career coaching. 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 78
Exhibit V-8: Job Search Skills

Career Coaching

Career coaching is a key aspect of the program model, and respondents reported moderately 

high levels of satisfaction with this component. Around half (51.9 percent) were very satisfied 

and just over a third (34.4 percent) were somewhat satisfied with the opportunity to meet and 

get support from other people like them. Similarly, around half (47.2 percent) were very 

satisfied and more than one-third (38.6 percent) were somewhat satisfied with support 

received in setting goals for themselves. Just under half (47.2 percent) were very satisfied and 

just under a third (30.3 percent) were somewhat satisfied with the support they received in 

coaching on career choices. Levels of satisfaction in this area did not differ by employment 

status at the time of the survey.

For all three of these aspects, around 10 percent of respondents were either dissatisfied or very 

dissatisfied, and small but notable percentages reported that they had not experienced this 

critical component. Those individuals could either have forgotten about assistance they 

actually did experience, dropped out before receiving this type of help, or been enrolled in the 

program and genuinely not experienced career coaching elements. For example, 6 percent of 

candidates reported that they did not experience “meeting and getting support from other 

people like [them],” which could indicate that they did not remember such connections, did not 

experience a sense of connection with others in the program, or dropped out before such a 

connection could be formed. 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 79
Exhibit V-9: Satisfaction with Career Coaching

Somewhat satisfied Very dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Did not experience

Meeting and getting support

from other people like you

Support for setting goals

for yourself

Coaching on career choices

Very satisfied

Note: Values for “very dissatisfied” scale are not depicted in the exhibit above due to very small percentages.

Values include:

Meeting and getting support from other people like you: 2.1

Support and setting goals for yourself: 1.5

Coaching on career choices: 3.1

Supportive Services

As noted in Chapter IV, the program model calls for connection, as needed, to supportive 

services such as assistance with transportation, housing, or obtaining interview clothing. As 

Exhibit V-10 below shows, three quarters of respondents were either very satisfied (43.7 

percent) or somewhat satisfied (32.1 percent) with the referrals they received to other services 

in the community. Fewer were either somewhat dissatisfied (8.4 percent) or very dissatisfied 

(5.3 percent). About 10 percent said they did not experience this component of core services, 

because they either did not remember receiving it, did not need these services, or needed 

supportive service referrals but did not receive them. There were also no differences by 

employment status at the time of the survey in regard to satisfaction with supportive services.

Exhibit V-10: Satisfaction with Supportive Services 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 80

Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Did not experience

Attitudes and Behaviors

In addition to questions on program experiences, the survey also asked a series of questions to 

measure three constructs: computer attitudes, financial capability, and quality of life. The 

following sections provide a description of the survey items used in developing the scales that 

measure each one of these constructs. Descriptions include a summary measure of the initial 

items included in the scales, a note about the results of the reliability analyses, and a histogram 
to illustrate the distribution of respondents along different values in each of the scales. 

(Appendix C provides additional detail on these analyses.) 

Computer Use

Because computer training is an important component of BTW50+: WESI—and because, as 

mentioned earlier, it is also one of the most important reasons why respondents decide to 

enroll in the program—the survey included several items designed to better understand 

candidates’ 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). Exhibit V-11 below 

lists these 16 items and their respective means.

The first nine survey items were statements indicating unease 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 candidates feel more at 

ease using computers, meaning they experience less difficulty. Mean scores for these items (as 

shown in Exhibit V-11) show moderate (3.0) to low (1.5) agreement with the statements, 

indicating that candidates feel at least somewhat at ease using computers, and these scores 

were similar regardless of reported employment status. 

Exhibit V-11: Mean Scores for Unease with Computer Use

The remaining seven items related to computer use were statements indicating comfort with 

using computers; for these items, the scale is reversed: (1) = strongly agree; (5) = strongly 

disagree. As is the case for the nine items described above, lower values (more agreement) 

reflect participants feeling more at ease using computers. Exhibit V-12 shows means for these

items were between 1.8 and 2.4; again, these scores were similar regardless of reported 

employment status

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 81
Exhibit V-12: Mean Scores for Ease with Computer Use 

To measure attitudes towards computers as a construct, SPR used a scale based on the 16 

items included in the survey. These 16 items were coded such that lower values indicate that 

respondents experience less difficulty using computers, and thus are more at ease using them. 

As a first step, SPR assessed whether these 16 items are reliable measures of attitudes toward 

computer use. Internal consistency is commonly used to assess whether survey items jointly 

measure the same general construct; it is based on a computation of existing correlations 

between those items. This correlation is expressed as the alpha coefficient, which can take 

values between 0 and 1, where values greater than 0.6 indicate acceptable or good degrees of 

internal consistency (Thorndike, 2005). Results indicate a high degree of internal consistency 

among the 16 items, with an overall Cronbach alpha coefficient of .9 (α=0.936). 

The total sum of individuals’ responses to the 16 items makes up their overall computer use 

scale score. As shown in Exhibit V-13, the distribution of respondents along the values of the 

scale is skewed to the right—an indication that they experience less difficulty using computers 

and feel more at ease using computers in general. As mentioned earlier in the chapter, the 

current analyses are limited in scope because sample sizes in the three-month follow up survey 

are not yet large enough for subgroup analyses, and there is not a sufficiently large cohort of 

respondents from the six- and 12-month surveys.

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 82
Exhibit V-13: Attitudes Towards Computer Use

Financial Capability

Another important component of the BTW50+: WESI is providing financial capability training. 

As such, the survey asked about the frequency (never, seldom, sometimes, often, or always) 

with which respondents have engaged in 11 different financial behaviors. SPR used items from 

the Financial Management Behavior Scale (FMBS; Dew & Xiao, 2011) because the scale was 

psychometrically validated in a large nationally representative sample of adults. Exhibit V-14 

includes the 11 items that together serve as measure of financial capability among survey 

respondents. 

As shown below in Exhibit V-14, most respondents said they often or always engage in positive 

behaviors related to short-term planning: paying their bills, comparison shopping, staying on 

budget, and keeping track of expenses. However, the more long-term a behavior is, and the 

more assets it requires, the less frequently respondents reported engaging in that behavior—

only sometimes for emergency savings, paying off credit card balances in full, and saving money 

from each paycheck; seldom for investment in retirement or stocks and bonds. These scores 

were similar regardless of reported employment status

Exhibit VI-15 shows two additional items from this scale related to negative financial behaviors, 

with the scale reversed for ease of reading. Similar to Exhibit VI-14, responses indicate that in 

the short term, respondents demonstrate financial capability: On average, they seldom make 

just the minimum payment on a loan, and almost never max out the limit on their credit cards. 

Again, these scores were similar regardless of reported employment status.

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 83
Exhibit V-14: Mean Scores for Financial Capability

Exhibit V-15: Mean Scores for Financial Capability (Reverse Scale)

To assess the reliability of the FMBS scale in the sample of job candidates, SPR calculated the 

internal consistency of the scale among the 11 items. Results indicate there is high consistency 

among them, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .7 (α=0.730). 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. Exhibit V-16 shows that 

the distribution of respondents along the FMBS scale scores looks more normally distributed, 

with most respondents obtaining scores near the mean. It also shows that some respondents 

have scores in the extremes of the scales, either very low or very high with respect to others.

Exhibit V-16: Financial Capability Scale 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 84
Previous empirical evidence suggests that the adoption of certain financial behaviors is gradual, 

with cash management developed first, then credit, savings, and finally investment 

management (Dew & Xiao, 2011). Because the six- and 12-month follow up surveys also 

include these survey items, future analyses could examine changes in financial behaviors over 

time.

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, SPR included items in the 

survey 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 questions on the topic (see Exhibit V-17 below). 

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. The total sum of respondents’ answers to the 13 items makes up their overall 

quality of life. Across all items, greater agreement—reflected by a higher score—indicates a 

higher perceived level of quality of life. As Exhibit V-16 shows, candidates reported fairly high 

ratings of quality of life. The mean agreement score for nearly all items was over 4.0, with the 

important exception of having enough money to pay the bills. None of these scores showed 

significant differences by reported employment status. 

Exhibit V-17: Mean Scores for Quality of Life 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 85
SPR tested the degree of internal consistency among these items and concluded they possessed 

the necessary internal consistency to be used as a scale, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient for 

the 11 items of .8 (α=0.857). Exhibit V-18 shows that the distribution of respondents is skewed 

to the left towards higher scores on the quality of life scale, indicating most enjoy high quality 

of life at three months after enrollment in BTW50+: WESI.

Exhibit V-18: Quality of Life Scale 

Survey items that jointly measure quality of life are also included in the six- and 12-month 

follow-up surveys. Once SPR obtains a sufficiently large cohort of respondents, future analyses 

could examine changes in how quality of life shifts over time with more distance from 

participation in BTW50+: WESI.

Employment Status and Satisfaction

The survey asked about candidates’ employment status and, for those who were employed, 

their satisfaction with their current jobs. At the three-month mark, just under half of 

respondents (48.5 percent) reported being employed full or part time. About a third (32.2 

percent) were not employed and not in training, and about one in seven (14.9 percent) were 

not employed or in training. An additional 4.1 percent of respondents reported that they were 

retired. However, at the three-month mark after enrolling in a program to reconnect to the 

workforce, it may be that these individuals have been unsuccessful in finding jobs and have 

decided to stop looking. (It is also important to note that, at the time individuals were 

surveyed, they had generally completed core services within the past six weeks, and later 

analyses of six- and 12-month survey data may show higher employment rates given that more 

time will have elapsed since the start of their job searches).

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 86
As Exhibit V-19 shows, among those who were employed, just under half (44 percent) were 

somewhat satisfied, and less than a quarter (22 percent) were very satisfied. Satisfaction was 

generally lower for earnings, with two-thirds of respondents reporting that they were either 

very dissatisfied (32.3 percent) or somewhat dissatisfied (34.3 percent) with their earnings. 

When asked, most candidates said they had not been offered additional benefits or 

opportunities for advancement in their current jobs: Slightly over a third of respondents (37.4 

percent) said they were offered training opportunities, 28.3 percent said they were offered 

health insurance and benefits, 25.8 percent said they were offered wage increases since 

beginning their jobs, and only 14.3 percent said they were offered promotions. However, at 

the three-month mark after enrollment, most respondents likely had not been in their positions 

very long. Later analyses of six- and 12-month survey responses will provide a more complete 

long-term understanding of job quality and benefits after program participation.

Exhibit V-19: Employment Status and Satisfaction 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 87
Plans for Future Training and Employment

Finally, the survey asked respondents about their plans for the future. As shown below in 

Exhibit V-20, most said that they envision long-term continued participation in the labor force. 

Two-thirds plan to work either between five and 10 years (32.3 percent) or between 10 and 15 

years (31.7 percent). About one in five (20.1 percent) plan to work more than 15 years and 

fewer (15.8 percent) said they plan to work five years or less. Respondents’ estimates about 

their continued participation in the labor force were similar between candidates who reported 

being employed at the time of the survey and those who reported not being employed. 

Pursuing additional occupational skills training is also among respondents’ plans for the future. 

A majority (70.9 percent) said they are planning to pursue additional education or training. 

Candidates expressed interest in various types of additional education or training. Exhibit V-19 

shows that about four in 10 (40.2 percent) said they are interested in certificate programs, and 

about a quarter each are interested in degree programs (26 percent) and short-term programs 

(23.6 percent). However, anticipated plans differed for job candidates who reported being 

employed at the time of the survey compared to those who were not. While similar 

proportions of both groups expressed interest in any future training, those who reported being 

employed were more likely to be interested in short-term training (30.1 percent) than those 

who reported not being employed (17.5 percent), which may be due to employed respondents’ 

eagerness to limit time out of the workforce. By contrast, those who said they were not 

employed expressed more interest in pursuing certificate programs (49.2 percent) and degree 

programs (28.6 percent) than those who reported being employed (31.8 percent of whom 

expressed interest in certificate programs and 28.6 percent of whom expressed interest in 

degree programs.

Respondents also cited a variety of reasons for planning additional education or training 

including to increase their earnings potential (33.3 percent), because training is required in 

their professions (20.9 percent), and, for a smaller group, to increase job stability (16.3 

percent). The remainder cited other reasons such as continuing personal development or 

changing or enhancing their careers.

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 88
Exhibit V-20: Plans for the Future 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 89
Focus Group Feedback 

To complement the survey results presented above, SPR conducted in-depth qualitative data 

collection—specifically, focus groups held during each implementation study site visit—to learn 

about the job candidate experience. This section presents data from focus groups conducted 

during the second round of implementation study site visits, both because these data are more 

recent and because those visits included all six subgrantees.18 During these second-round 

visits, site visitors spoke with a total of 30 job candidates who had recently completed core 

services. Between two and six job candidates attended each focus group, and site visitors 

learned about participants’ experiences in the program in more depth. The opinions expressed 

in these groups largely aligned with the survey findings on satisfaction with various components 

of the BTW50+: WESI program. The main area in which focus group data enriches the survey 

findings is that the intimate format enabled site visitors to solicit recommendations on how to 

improve aspects of the BTW50+: WESI program. 

Focus Group Participants’ Assessment of BTW 50+: WESI 

Consistent with survey findings, most job candidates in the focus groups expressed 

satisfaction with the career coaching they received in the program. For the most part, job 

candidates praised both the individual and group coaching sessions. For instance, one job 

candidate said, “The program has great coaches! The mock interview helped us connect with 

each other and share experiences. I no longer feel like I’m the only one in this situation.” Focus 

group feedback indicates that career coaches help promote connectedness among job 

candidates, provide emotional support, and build job candidates’ self-confidence. As a job 

candidate stated, “[The career coaches] care, you know. It’s not like, ‘well, what are you doing 

here? I don’t have time to help you.’ They are good encouragers.” However, consistent with 

findings in Chapter IV on the challenge of providing sufficiently intensive coaching with limited 

staff, job candidates at one subgrantee felt their career coach was stretched too thin. These 

candidates wished their coach had spent more individual time helping them build their 

resumes.

Survey findings and focus group feedback both indicate job candidates place a high value on 

the peer support system they build while in the program. Job candidates reported that their 

peer support system helped boost their confidence to approach the job search process. One 

shared that “the connection [she] made with the rest of the class was wonderful.” She 

described her connection with other job candidates as a “sisterhood” and shared that the 

program gave her a lot of emotional support. Another shared: “It was helpful to know other 

people were doing the same activities and still not getting jobs.” Several job candidates 

expressed that BTW50+: WESI was instrumental in building the self-confidence they needed to 

seek employment and that they have stayed in touch with their peers after the end of core 

services.

18 JSCC and MDC were not brought into the grant until after the first-round site visits, and have therefore only had 

one focus group to date.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 90

 
While job candidates in the focus groups planned to enroll or were already enrolled in 

occupational skills training (consistent with survey findings on plans for future training), 

feedback about the connection to training programs indicates uneven access across 

subgrantees. Some job candidates were encouraged by their career coaches to take 

assessments and felt supported by them in selecting their training programs. However, at one 

subgrantee site, job candidates shared that while career coaches encouraged them to take 

assessments, they did not individually discuss assessment results. Furthermore, at two 

subgrantee sites job candidates felt that program staff did not promote occupational skills 

training opportunities early or clearly enough. Some learned about these opportunities during 

the last week of core services, and others seemed confused even during the focus group about 

whether the program was supposed to have been connecting them to occupational skills 

training. 

As survey results also indicate, job candidates who accessed funding to enroll in occupational 

skills training were very appreciative, but still struggled to pay for training. Several job 

candidates shared that the scholarships they received to enroll in training had exceeded their 

expectations. At one site, however, job candidates expressed dissatisfaction that BTW50+: 

WESI was not funding occupational skills training for the winter term (due to the matched 

funding source for scholarships expiring at the end of the calendar year). These job candidates 

did not know how they would pay for tuition and could not envision completing their 

occupational skills training without this support. In addition, some job candidates reported that 

scholarships were not enough to pay for training costs beyond tuition, for example for books 

and course materials. To support themselves while in training, some said they sold personal 

items or, if available, collected unemployment benefits. Other job candidates have relied on 

private loans to pay for training costs. 

Some job candidates who were already enrolled in occupational skills training have found it 

difficult to adjust to training and have sought out tutoring and other supports. Job candidates 

at two subgrantee sites shared that their occupational skills training has been challenging and 

demanding. They feel overwhelmed and some are worried that they will not pass their 

certification exams. In contrast, job candidates at another subgrantee are satisfied with their 

occupational skills training and do not seem worried about the workload. In terms of support 

received in training, some job candidates have taken advantage of campus-based services and 

have gone to the tutoring centers on campus; others have met with academic advisors. Other 

job candidates reported that their career coaches have followed them through training, and 

have helped them resolve problems that have arisen. 

Focus Group Participants’ Recommendations to Improve BTW50+: WESI 

In general, focus group feedback indicated that job candidates are satisfied with their 

experience of BTW 50+: WESI. They appreciate the support they receive through the program, 

the support systems they have built and maintain with their peers, and the skills they have 

acquired through core services. However, some feel that BTW50+: WESI can do a better job 

maximizing the in-person format of core services. For instance, one job candidate noted that 

core services were mostly “just a lot of PowerPoint we could have done at home,” and another 

said “[she] was confused the whole time [she was there] about what exactly was taking place.” 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 91
Other job candidates shared that the guidebook they received during the job search skills 

component was self-explanatory and that the time could have been better invested in 

improving their resumes. 

Beyond instructional format, participants in the focus groups had several additional 

recommendations to improve the BTW50+: WESI job candidate experience. First, they 

recommended that career coaches and program staff provide clearer guidance on both the 

availability of training and the process of accessing funding for training. Along those lines, they 

also suggested that career coaches encourage job candidates to take assessments when 

selecting occupational skills training, and individually discuss assessment results with the job 

candidates. Second, consistent with findings in Chapter IV on lower levels of fidelity to the 

employer engagement component of the model, job candidates suggested that BTW50+: WESI 

offer more networking opportunities with employers throughout core services. They feel that 

internships and job fairs could provide meaningful ways to connect with employers. Lastly, 

some mentioned they would like to receive help from career coaches on how to secure 

additional funding for training beyond scholarships available through BTW50+: WESI. 

Synthesis and Conclusions

Overall, results from the three-month follow-up survey indicate that job candidates enroll in 

the program primarily to learn about new employment opportunities and to improve their skills 

through computer or other types of training, are satisfied with various components of the 

program, frequently engage in positive short-term financial behaviors, are relatively 

comfortable using computers, and enjoy a relatively high quality of life. 

However, survey results do point to several areas for improvement related to employment—

the primary targeted outcome of the program. First, less than half of survey respondents 

reported being employed, and most of these respondents are employed part time rather than 

full time. Regardless of employment status, most candidates anticipate continuing to work for 

at least five more years, underscoring the importance of both obtaining employment and 

feeling satisfied with their work, given plans for long-term labor market participation. Second, 

while job candidates are generally satisfied with the job search skills component, the lowest 

satisfaction scores for that component concern learning about available jobs. Given that 

learning about new employment opportunities is an important reason why job candidates 

enroll in the program in the first place, it would be worthwhile to strengthen the use of labor 

market information both to guide them in learning about available jobs and to evaluate their 

needs for training.

Survey findings and focus group feedback coincide along several dimensions: both show that 

job candidates are generally satisfied with the BTW 50+: WESI program and value the peer 

support system they have built and continue to maintain. However, feedback from focus 

groups indicates there may be areas for improvement in the delivery of BTW 50+: WESI core 

services in various forms, particularly the mode of instruction and communication about the 

availability of funding for occupational training.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 92
Chapter VI: Conclusion

This chapter synthesizes the findings presented in earlier chapters to emphasize key findings, 

highlight themes of program implementation to date, and identify implications of the findings 

for the impact study. The chapter concludes with next steps for the initiative and the 

evaluation.

Key Findings

The first two rounds of implementation study site visits and an initial analysis of three-month 

follow-up surveys surfaced the following key findings, as described earlier in this report:

• AARP Foundation provides significant technical assistance to subgrantees, both by 

providing standardized curricula and materials, and maintaining and developing 

channels for facilitated communication between subgrantees on best practices. 

Primary areas where AARP Foundation efforts provide structure and support to 

programs include marketing and outreach support, the 7 Smart Strategies workshop 

materials, and the Finances 50+ curriculum. Key practices for facilitating subgrantee 

communication include regular one-on-one and group conference calls, an online 

collaboration platform, and an annual in-person Learning Exchange. 

• The SIF grant’s cash match requirement has been challenging for subgrantees to meet. 

Subgrantees are required to provide a 1:1 cash match to their subgrant amount in order 

to receive reimbursement for grant expenses. This necessitates significant staff time 

and attention beyond what subgrantees had expected, despite all subgrantees having 

prior experience managing federal grants.

• Due to the smaller than expected number of applicants, most subgrantees report that 

BTW50+: WESI enrolls most of its applicants. Because of this, the selection criteria 

proposed by AARP Foundation are used more as a general guideline than a determining 

factor for program acceptance. Some subgrantees reported serving a more highly 

educated population with fewer supportive service needs than anticipated.

• Subgrantees have fully or partially implemented most elements of the program 

model. Implementation of the career coaching, computer skills training, and job search 

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

technical assistance between the first and second implementation study visits—show 

the highest fidelity to the intended model. Subgrantees are still working towards 

implementation of the prescribed model on aspects of occupational skills training, 

supportive services, and level of employer involvement achieved. 

• While survey results indicate satisfaction with the content of most program 

components, focus group feedback suggests areas for improvement in format and 

guidance. Survey responses show moderately high levels of satisfaction on the survey 

with core components of the program, though feedback from focus groups indicates 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 93
more interactive and personalized delivery would be appreciated. Additionally, while a 

high proportion of job candidates expressed interest in continuing with occupational 

skills training, focus group feedback points to wide variation in the strength of 

connection to and guidance on training across subgrantees.

• While job search skills training is a strong component of the program that is valued by 

job candidates, actual connection to employment is still in development. Survey 

results indicate that job candidates enroll in BTW50+: WESI to improve their 

employment prospects and are satisfied with the job search skills training they receive. 

However, three months after enrollment, just under half of respondents reported being

employed full or part time. Similarly, fidelity assessment indicates that while 

subgrantees have made notable progress towards full implementation of the job search 

skills component of the model, they have also consistently struggled to engage local 

employers.

Implementation Themes

The analyses of site visit, focus group, and survey data presented in this report point to several 

key themes in the first two years of implementation:

• Implementation fidelity is correlated with several key factors: staff experience and 

stability, level of technical assistance and guidance provided, and existing 

infrastructure and relationships of each subgrantee. Midway through implementation, 

subgrantees show the highest fidelity to the intended model on coaching, job search 

instruction, Finances 50+, and computer skills upgrade. Subgrantees have received 

guidance and connections to specific curriculum resources in these areas. By contrast, 

progress toward full implementation of the model was uneven for connection to 

occupational skills training, supportive services, and employer engagement, which rely 

at least to some extent on community relationships and existing infrastructure as well as 

connections to other college departments. Additionally, the location of BTW50+: WESI 

within the community college has implications for staff expertise and strength of 

partnerships, which in turn affects which supports and services can be readily arranged 

for participants. 

• Sustaining the program may prove difficult in the long term. Despite prior experience 

implementing federal grants, the multi-year matched funding setup of the SIF grant has 

led to challenges for the stability of resources. Other than for staff time, maintaining 

matched funding sources year-to-year is difficult, necessitating long-term attention to 

sustaining the program. Most subgrantees have not yet found external (community) 

funding sources to match—or, in the long-term, replace—SIF funding. Moreover, many 

colleges are experiencing budget cuts, which means even institutional resources are 

more limited than when the grant was first awarded. Additionally, early 

implementation findings indicate that individual coaching is a key part of program 

success, but requires significant staff time and resources to provide. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 94
Implications for the Impact Study

Visits to local American Job Centers (AJCs) and interviews with BTW50+: WESI staff indicate a 

relatively strong distinction between the services available to program participants and the 

services available to the planned comparison group. Distinctive services available only to the 

BTW50+: WESI job candidates include assessment of computer skills and access to computer 

skills upgrade training and delivery of financial capability training. Further distinctions in the 

services available to job candidates in BTW50+: WESI are that services that have been tailored 

to meet the needs of women over 50, in terms of the content of career coaching and job search 

skills training, and the emphasis on arranging for peer support. 

Another feature that is intended to be distinctive for job candidates in the BTW50+: WESI 

model, as noted in the previous chapter, is employer engagement. To date, the subgrantees 

have not achieved full fidelity to the high level of employer engagement specified in the 

program model. Because this is an area in which AJCs are generally strong (having staff time 

specifically dedicated to business services and job development functions), this may reduce the 

differences between BTW50+: WESI and the services available to comparison group members—

and, therefore, resulting employment and earnings outcomes. This underscores the 

importance of strengthening fidelity to (and technical assistance on) the employer engagement 

component of the BTW50+: WESI model. 

Additionally, information gathered as part of the implementation study on recruitment, 

enrollment, and participant perspectives indicates that there may be differences in the 

background and employment history of BTW50+: WESI job candidates and members of the 

comparison group who have sought services from the public workforce system. As noted in 

Chapter III, career coaches reported that job candidates tend to have more employment 

experience and formal education than anticipated, and visits to local AJCs indicate that, at least 

for some subgrantees, the workforce system is serving a harder-to-employ population than 

BTW 50+: WESI. For this reason, it will be important for the impact analysis to present 

regression-adjusted estimates that control for these differences in background characteristics.

Next Steps for the Implementation Study

The remainder of the implementation study will include three key activities:

• Additional site visits will assess progress towards implementing the model with fidelity, 

explore subgrantee plans for sustaining the program beyond the SIF grant, and continue 

to document other services available on campus and in the community to ensure 

appropriate context for the impact study.

• Follow-up surveys at three, six, and 12 months after enrollment will continue for all job 

candidates who enroll through the end of program implementation.

• A final implementation study report will analyze all site visit and focus group data, 

follow-up survey data, and program dosage and outcome data from the FIS.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 95
This page is deliberately left blank.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report 96
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., 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. 

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. 

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.banque-france.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.

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.

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. 

BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report A-1 
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

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. 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

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.

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 

Kogan, D., Betesh, H., Negoita, M., Salzman, J., Paulen, L., Cuza, H., ... & Cloud, P. (2012). 

Evaluation of the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) Process and 

Outcomes Study (No. 036e4665651e4fa2a4213410aa90160e). 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. 

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. 

McKenna, Claire. (2012) Economy in focus: Long road ahead for older unemployed workers

(Issue Brief). National Employment Law Project. 

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/

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report A-2 
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.owlnational.org/pages/mothers-day-report. 

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. 

Singer, E., & Bossarte, R. M. (2006). Incentives for survey participation: When are they 

“coercive”? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31(5), 411-418.

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 

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. 

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

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.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report A-3 
This page is deliberately left blank.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report A-4 
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: 

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. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report B-1 
 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: 

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:

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report B-2 
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: 

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. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report B-3 
 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: 

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: 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report B-4 
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: 

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. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report B-5 
 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: 

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.

 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. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report B-6 
 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: 

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). 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report B-7 
 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: 

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. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report B-8 
Explanation of Rating: 

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 Interim Implementation Report B-9 
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 Interim Implementation Report B-10 
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 V.

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 are 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 pre-incentive19 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 

Forty-four percent 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 invalid (e.g., those who are deceased or report to the interviewer 

that they never participated in the program). 

Survey results presented in this report are based on responses to the three-month follow-up 

surveys exclusively, as sample sizes for the six-month and 12-month surveys are too small at 

this time to allow for meaningful analyses. To increase response rates in future six- and 12-

month follow-up surveys, as of spring 2017 each of the six subgrantees now receives the list of 

job candidates who will be contacted for the survey during a given month. Coaches are able to 

contact these job candidates and encourage them to participate in the survey at the beginning 

19 The use of small monetary pre-incentives is recommended in the literature on survey research (see, for 

example, Singer and Bossarte, 2006) both because higher monetary incentives to participate in surveys can be 

perceived as coercive (particularly for low-income respondents) because low-income individuals respond better 

to lower incentives. Cash payments are used in lieu of gift cards to avoid the appearance of affiliation with any 

particular merchant or company.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report C-1 

 
of each month. Data from the six-month and 12-month surveys will be analyzed in 2018 for 

inclusion in the final implementation study report. 

Exhibit C-1: Survey Response Rates

3-month 6-month 12-month

Eligible program participants 509 405 209

Invalid contacts 11 9 2 

Completed surveys 194 97 42

Partially completed surveys 27 5 3 

Response rate 44.4% 25.8% 21.7%

Non-Response Bias 

Given the moderate response rate for the three-month survey, 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 background 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 an FIS data extract provided in November of 2016. As shown below in Exhibit C2, the differences between actual and potential survey respondents on these characteristics 

tended to be small and not statistically significant. Therefore, we estimate the level of nonresponse bias on observable characteristics to be low. However, this does not preclude the 

existence of other sources of non-response bias. It is possible that potential and actual survey 

respondents differed 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. Depending on the final sample size and response rates 

for each of the surveys, subsequent analyses will likely include weighting for non-response bias.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report C-2 
Exhibit C-2: Comparison Between Survey Respondents and Universe 

Demographic 

Characteristics

Percentage of 

Survey 

Respondents

(n=221)

Percentage of 

All Job 

Candidates 

Contacted

(n=509) Difference 

Age 

55 or younger 31.2 32.2 -1.0

56–58 25.8 25.0 0.8

59–62 19.9 20.0 -0.1

63–65 11.8 10.4 1.4

66 and older 10.4 11.0 -0.6

Missing 0.9 1.4 -0.5

Gender 

Female 89.1 90.2 -1.0

Male 10.9 9.8 1.0

Racial/Ethnic Background 

Black or African American 21.7 21.0 0.7

Hispanic/Latino 12.7 14.7 -2.1

White/Caucasian 57.9 56.0 1.9

Other Race/Ethnicity 6.8 5.9 0.9

Refused or N/A 0.9 2.4 -1.5

Highest Degree Completed 

High School or GED 8.1 11.0 -2.9

Some College 21.7 23.4 -1.7

Associate’s Degree 10.0 10.0 -0.1

Bachelor’s Degree 25.8 25.2 0.6

Master’s, JD, PhD, etc. 12.7 11.0 1.7

N/A, Missing 21.7 19.5 2.3

Subgrantee 

Austin Community College 28.5 29.9 1.4

Eastern Florida State College 29.4 25.2 -4.3

Jefferson State Community College 4.1 5.5 1.4

Miami Dade College 1.4 1.2 -0.2

Santa Fe College, Gainesville, FL 15.8 19.7 3.8

Santa Fe Community College Santa Fe, NM 20.8 18.7 -2.2

Note: Chi-square tests for equality of proportions between survey participants and the universe revealed no 

significant differences between these two populations.

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report C-3 
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 of 221 participants, 

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). 

In the three-month survey, respondents were asked 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-3, 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-3 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 33.2 (M=33.18, SD=11.81) and ranged from 16 to 66 points. 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report C-4 
Exhibit C-3: 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 Interim Implementation Report C-5 
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-4. 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-4 shows that the overall scale reliability coefficient, 

Cronbach’s alpha, is .9 (α=0.9362). 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-4 shows the results of these 

single item correlations. Except for item 16 (q14p) with a correlation of .36, 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-4 shows 

how the overall alpha score for the scale would change if the item was dropped from the scale. 

Because this correlational assessment uses only preliminary survey data, and therefore 

represents a partial sample, it will be necessary to reevaluate with additional survey cases 

before deleting this item.

Exhibit C-4. 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) 0.6737 0.522179 0.9333 

2. You wish you could be as calm as others appear to be when 

they are using computers (q14b) 0.5981 0.511318 0.9375 

3. You feel tense whenever working on a computer (q14c) 0.8167 0.492792 0.9293 

4. You feel anxious whenever you are using computers (q14d) 0.8437 0.491589 0.9285 

5. You experience anxiety whenever you sit in front of a 

computer terminal (q14e) 0.7089 0.51921 0.9324 

6. You are frightened by computers (q14f) 0.6403 0.537935 0.9343 

7. You feel overwhelmed when working on a computer (q14g) 0.7656 0.507556 0.9309 

8. You worry about making mistakes on the computer (q14h) 0.7939 0.486676 0.9303 

9. You are confident in your ability to use computers (q14i) 0.7849 0.502497 0.9303 

10. You enjoy working with computers (q14j) 0.7307 0.515385 0.9319 

11. You feel relaxed when you are working on a computer (q14k) 0.8198 0.499321 0.9294 

12. You feel at ease with computers (q14l) 0.876 0.490978 0.9277 

13. You feel content when you are working on a computer 

(q14m) 0.809 0.495232 0.9296 

14. You feel comfortable with computers (q14n) 0.8641 0.501295 0.9285 

15. You would like to continue working with computers in the 

future (q14o) 0.5135 0.544378 0.9365 

16. You wish that computers were not as important as they are 

(q14p) 0.3639 0.546493 0.9444 

Test scale 0.9362 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report C-6 
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 

survey included 11 items designed to measure a variety of financial behaviors. Based on 

previous research, SPR selected survey items from the Financial Management Behavior Scales 

(FMBS). The initial items appeared to be adequate to measure financial capability because they 

included a range of short-and long-term financial behaviors and because the frequency of 

behaviors used a 5-point scale, which is adequate for developing scales. Moreover, previous 

research found that the FMBS scale displayed 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-5 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 35.7 (M=35.71, 

SD=7.78) and ranged from 13 to 52 points. 

Exhibit C-5: 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] 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report C-7 
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 C6 shows that the overall scale reliability coefficient, Cronbach’s alpha, is .7 (α=0.7305), 

suggesting that all 11 items in the scale reliably measure financial capability. Nevertheless, 

after assessing the reliability and consistency of each of the items in the scale, it appears that 

the scale could be further refined. While there were correlations below .4 (items 1 and 11) in 

the scale, it is unclear whether removing any one item would yield a much higher alpha score 

for the overall scale. Alpha scores listed in column (c) in Exhibit C-6 below show that there are 

only marginal improvements to the scale. Based on this partial sample, the assessment 

suggests that the scale may need to be further refined. If this continues to be the case for the 

same analyses when conducted with a more robust sample, it will be advisable to examine the 

joint variability of all the items in the scale. These analyses will help determine whether 

separating items yields additional advantages to help better understand candidates’ financial 

capability. 

Exhibit C-6: Assessment of Financial Capability Survey Items

Survey Items

Item-Test 

Correlation 

(a) 

Interitem 

Covariance

(b)

Alpha 

(c)

1. Comparison shopping (q11a) 0.3307 0.41011 0.7394 

2. Paid your bills on time (q11b) 0.6576 0.358637 0.6936 

3. Kept a record of monthly expenses (q11c) 0.4473 0.381212 0.7261 

4. Stayed within budget (q11d) 0.5322 0.368291 0.7077 

5. Paid off credit card balance in full each month (q11e) 0.6622 0.316104 0.6891 

6. Maxed out the limit on one or more credit cards (q11f) 0.4299 0.391607 0.7206 

7. Made only minimum payments on a loan (q11g) 0.4021 0.39261 0.7339 

8. Began or maintained an emergency savings fund (q11h) 0.6321 0.326445 0.6953 

9. Saved money from every paycheck (q11i) 0.6901 0.317363 0.6807 

10. Contributed money to a retirement account (q11j) 0.5855 0.347271 0.7011 

11. Bought bonds, stocks, or mutual funds (q11k) 0.3601 0.411913 0.7251 

Test scale 0.7305 

Quality of Life

The BTW50+: WESI program emphasizes the importance of self-care and supporting services as 

participants engage in new employment searches. SPR included 13 survey items related to 

quality of life. SPR used items from the Older People’s Quality of Life questionnaire (OPQOLbrief), which was originally developed to understand the perspectives of older people about 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report C-8 
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-7, 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. The values assigned 

to their responses on the 5-point agreement scale sum to their overall quality of life score. 

Exhibit C-7 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 55.18 (M=55.18, SD=6.73) and ranged from 29 to 65 points. 

Exhibit C-7: 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] 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report C-9 
Survey Items Measuring Quality of Life Responses Assigned Values

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-8 shows the information used to examine the correlations for all 13 items. The overall 

scale reliability coefficient, Cronbach’s alpha, is .8 (α=0.8579), 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-8 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. 

Exhibit C-8: 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) 0.7598 0.2111411 0.8361 

2. You look forward to things (q13b) 0.7539 0.2184462 0.8371 

3. You are healthy enough to get out and about (q13c) 0.5284 0.2431155 0.8520 

4. Your family, friends, or neighbors would help you if 

needed (q13d) 0.5067 0.2373691 0.8564 

5. You have social or leisure activities or hobbies that you 

enjoy doing (q13e) 0.6682 0.2209811 0.8441 

6. You try to stay involved with things (q13f) 0.7537 0.2218393 0.8378 

7. You are healthy enough to have your independence (q13g) 0.6277 0.2391055 0.8472 

8. You can do things that please you (q13h) 0.7486 0.2242616 0.8387 

9. You feel safe where you live (q13i) 0.5482 0.2401333 0.8510 

10. You get pleasure from your home (q13j) 0.5247 0.237378 0.8539 

11. You take life as it comes and make the best of things 

(q13k) 0.5594 0.2376273 0.8506 

12. You feel lucky compared to most people (q13l) 0.608 0.2282911 0.8485 

13. You have enough money to pay for household bills (q13m) 0.4748 0.2363351 0.8668 

Test scale

 

0.8579 

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report C-10
Appendix D: Survey Instrument

This appendix shows the questionnaire items and skip logic for the 3-month follow-up survey, 

annotated with frequencies for the 221 survey responses included in Chapter V. Percentages 

shown may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Q01

How did you first hear about BACK TO WORK 50+at <COLNAME>?

28.6% From an AARP newspaper or radio ad

20.0% A friend, co-worker or family member

10.5% College staff

4.5% A church or other organization in the community

36.4% 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 46.2% 31.2% 16.3% 6.3%

B. Finding a better paying job 40.3% 20.4% 15.7% 23.6%

C. Finding a job with more hours 22.0% 18.2% 13.1% 46.7%

D. Learning about new opportunities 

for employment 70.2% 22.5% 5.0% 2.3%

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-1 
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 49.3% 21.0% 16.0% 13.7%

B. Upgrading skills gained from your previous 

jobs 46.6% 23.3% 14.2% 16.0%

C. Learning or improving computer skills 53.7% 17.9% 9.6% 18.8%

D Learning how to manage your finances 21.2% 18.9% 18.0% 41.9%

Q03E

Are there any other reasons you enrolled in the BACK TO WORK 50+ program at <COLLNAME>? 

74.1% Yes  “What are those reasons?” ________________________________

25.9% No  GO TO Q04

Q03F

How important was this reason in your decision to enroll in the program? (n=163)

84% Very important

14.7% Important

0.6% Slightly important

0.6% Or not important

{ALL CHOICES SKIP TO Q07} 

Q08

What are your current employment goals?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-2 
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 . . .

7.8% Much better

16.1% Somewhat better

66.4% About the same

8.3% Somewhat worse

1.4% Or 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 49.5% 19.0% 16.7% 14.8%

B. Monthly rent or mortgage payments 35.5% 15.0% 22.0% 27.6%

C. Transportation expenses 37.7% 19.1% 25.6% 17.7%

D. Monthly payments on loans or credit 

balance 39.6% 14.2% 17.9% 28.3%

E. Long-term savings 14.1% 12.7% 19.2% 54.0%

F. Retirement planning 16.0% 9.4% 16.5% 58.0%

G. Heath care costs 18.6% 10.2% 22.3% 48.8%

H. Education or career advancement costs 28.6% 17.8% 25.8% 27.7%

Q10I

Are there any other concerns you have about your current financial situation? 

31.2% Yes  “What are those concerns?” ______________________

68.8% No  GO TO Q11

Q10J

How concerned are you about this aspect (Q10I) of your financial situation? (n=67)

0.0% Not at all concerned

3.0% A little concerned

14.9% Somewhat concerned

82.1% Or very concerned

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-3 
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 7.9% 10.3% 12.6% 17.8% 51.4%

B. Paid your bills on time 1.9% 3.3% 7.4% 18.6% 68.8%

C. Kept a record of monthly expenses 12.6% 9.8% 13.6% 12.6% 51.4%

D. Stayed within budget 7.0% 7.0% 19.6% 30.4% 36.0%

E. Paid off credit card balance in full 

each month 39.4% 7.3% 11.9% 10.9% 30.6%

F. Maxed out the limit on one or more 

credit cards 76.3% 6.6% 8.6% 3.5% 5.1%

G. Made only minimum payments on 

a loan 47.9% 9.0% 14.4% 14.9% 13.8%

H. Began or maintained an emergency 

savings fund 37.3% 5.9% 15.7% 13.7% 27.5%

I. Saved money from every paycheck 39.2% 14.9% 16.5% 11.3% 18.0%

J. Contributed money to a retirement 

account

63.4% 10.9% 7.4% 5.4% 12.9%

K. Bought bonds, stocks, or mutual funds 81.0% 7.8% 5.9% 2.9% 2.4%

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 . . .

14.2% Much better

28.0% Somewhat better

48.8% About the same

8.5% Somewhat worse

0.5% Or much worse

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-4 
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?

{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. “}

Strongly 

Agree Agree

Neither Agree 

nor Disagree Disagree

Strongly 

Disagree

A. You enjoy your life overall 34.8% 44.0% 10.6% 8.2% 2.4%

B. You look forward to things 40.5% 43.9% 8.8% 6.3% 0.5%

C. You are healthy enough to get out 

and about 60.9% 34.3% 2.4% 2.4% 0.0%

D. Your family, friends or neighbors 

would help you if needed 40.2% 44.1% 6.4% 7.4% 2.0%

E. You have social or leisure activities 

or hobbies that your enjoy doing 40.3% 44.2% 6.3% 6.8% 2.4%

F. You try to stay involved with things 42.1% 49.0% 5.0% 3.5% 0.5%

G. You are healthy enough to have 

your independence 60.9% 35.3% 2.4% 1.4% 0.0%

H. You can do things that please you 49.3% 42.5% 3.9% 3.9% 0.5%

I. You feel safe where you live 52.7% 42.0% 2.0% 2.4% 1.0%

J. You get pleasure from your home 43.1% 46.1% 5.9% 2.5% 2.5%

K. You take life as it comes and make the 

best of things 50.7% 40.4% 5.4% 3.4% 0.0%

L. You feel lucky compared to most 

people 42.3% 37.3% 13.4% 5.5% 1.5%

M. You have enough money to pay for 

household bills 24.1% 43.7% 12.1% 12.1% 8.0%

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-5 
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 2.0% 4.9% 4.9% 34.5% 53.7%

B. You wish you could be as calm as 

others appear to be when they are 

using computers

10.8% 23.2% 24.2% 20.6% 21.1%

C. You feel tense whenever working 

on a computer

2.5% 11.3% 9.9% 37.9% 38.4%

D. You feel anxious whenever you are 

using computers 2.5% 11.4% 5.9% 41.6% 38.6%

E. You experience anxiety whenever you 

sit in front of a computer terminal 1.0% 5.0% 7.4% 38.1% 48.5%

F. You are frightened by computers 0.0% 1.5% 5.9% 33.5% 59.1%

G. You feel overwhelmed when working 

on a computer

2.0% 5.4% 9.4% 36.6% 46.5%

H. You worry about making mistakes 

on the computer 2.5% 22.8% 7.9% 31.2% 35.6%

I. You are confident in your ability to 

use computers

33.3% 42.6% 12.3% 9.8% 2.0%

J. You enjoy working with computers 28.6% 49.3% 12.3% 8.9% 1.0%

K. You feel relaxed when you are working 

on a computer

25.2% 44.6% 17.3% 10.4% 2.5%

L. You feel at ease with computers 32.2% 42.1% 12.4% 11.4% 2.0%

M. You feel content when you are 

working on a computer 21.4% 40.8% 18.9% 14.9% 4.0%

N. You feel comfortable with computers 31.8% 50.7% 9.0% 6.5% 2.0%

O. You would like to continue working 

with computers in the future 37.9% 53.5% 4.0% 3.5% 1.0%

P. You wish that computers were not 

as important as they are 10.2% 35.5% 15.7% 21.8% 16.8%

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-6 
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 . . .

5.5% More than once a week

16.9% About once a week

22.9% About 2-3 times a month

14.4% About once a month

17.9% Less than once a month

15.4% Or never  GO TO Q17

2.0% Don't know  GO TO Q17

2.0% Refused  GO TO Q17

3.0% 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=156)

(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 10.3% 55.1% 34.6%

B. Phone calls 30.3% 54.8% 14.8%

C. Email messages 9.7% 49.0% 41.3%

D. Text messages 81.4% 15.4% 3.2%

E. Social media 82.7% 14.7% 2.6%

Q16F

Do you interact with your coach in any other way we haven’t mentioned? (n=156)

11.5% Yes  “In what other way do you interact with your coach?” ____________________

88.5% No  GO TO Q17

Q16G

How often do you interact with coach in this way (Q16F)? Is it . . . (n=18)

0.0% Never 

66.7% Sometimes 

33.3% Or often

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-7 
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 78.5% 21.5%

B. How to set realistic goals 71.8% 28.2%

C. Online job search strategies 86.0% 14.0%

D. How to market yourself to employers 85.3% 14.7%

E. How to care for yourself during the job search process 83.5% 16.5%

Q17F

Have you received any other types of information from BACK TO WORK 50+ staff at 

<COLNAME>? 

65.0% Yes  “What kind of information did you receive?” _____________________

35.0% No

Q18

Have you done any online job searches while in the program? 

86.4% Yes

13.6% No

Q19

Have you applied for any jobs online while in the program? 

65.3% Yes

34.7% 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?

20.5% Currently receiving training  GO TO Q21

52.3% Already received training  GO TO Q21

27.2% Not yet received training

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-8 
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=50)

78.0% Yes  GO TO Q22A

22.0% 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=141)

(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 93.6% 6.4%

B. Learning about strategies for looking for a job 92.0% 8.0%

C. Learning about online job search tools 95.7% 4.3%

D. Getting individual assistance with your job search 78.4% 21.6%

Q21E

Have you engaged in any other activities related to looking for a job (while in BACK TO WORK 

50+ at <COLNAME>)? (n=140)

53.6% Yes  “What are those activities?” _________________________

46.4% 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?

15.4% Currently receiving training  GO TO Q23

38.3% Already received training  GO TO Q23

46.3% Not yet received training

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-9 
Q23

Is/was this computer training TOO ADVANCED, ABOUT RIGHT or TOO EASY for you? (n=100)

3.0% Too advanced

91.0% About right

6.0% 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=100)

4.0% Not at all 

14.0% A little

35.0% Somewhat

47.0% Or 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?

3.0% Currently receiving training  GO TO Q26A

66.8% Already received training  GO TO Q26A

30.2% 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=56)

30.4% Yes

69.6% 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>? 

16.4% Currently receiving support GO TO Q27

45.0% Already received support GO TO Q27

38.6% Not yet received support

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-10
Q27

Did BACK TO WORK 50+ at <COLNAME> provide you with a scholarship for your tuition for a 

college training program? 

31.2% Yes

68.8% No  GO TO Q34

Q28

What is the name of the college training program in which you enrolled? (n=58) 

_________ Name of program

Q29

When did you enroll in the college training program? (n=58)

___ Month _______ Year

Q30

For what type of job <did/will> the college training program prepare you? (n=58)

_____________ Name of job

Q31

To what extent did the training meet your expectations? Did it . . . (n=48)

54.2% Exceed your expectations

43.8% Meet your expectations

2.1% Or not meet your expectations

Q32

How useful was the training in helping you find a job? Was it . . . (n=50)

16.0% Very useful

4.0% Useful

6.0% Somewhat useful

0.0% Not useful

74.0% Or you have not yet found a job  GO TO Q34

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-11
Q33

How useful was the training in helping you perform the job you are currently doing? Was it . . .

(n=15)

46.7% Very useful

13.3% Useful

20.0% Somewhat useful

13.3% Not useful

6.7% Or 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 7.2% 47.2% 30.3% 12.3% 3.1%

B. Support with learning about 

available jobs in your area 

4.1% 47.9% 32.5% 10.8% 4.6%

C. Setting goals for yourself 3.6% 47.2% 38.6% 9.1% 1.5%

D. Referrals to other services in the

community 10.5% 43.7% 32.1% 8.4% 5.3%

E. Support with learning how to 

search

for jobs

4.1% 58.7% 30.1% 4.6% 2.6%

F. Support with learning or 

improving

computer skills

11.5% 48.4% 27.6% 6.8% 5.7%

G. Support with learning how to 

manage your finances 15.1% 43.8% 35.7% 2.2% 3.2%

H. Meeting and getting support from 

other people like you 6.3% 51.9% 34.4% 5.3% 2.1%

I. Support with making a decision 

about additional education or 

training

7.8% 41.2% 38.0% 8.9% 4.2%

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-12
Q34J

Are there any other features of the BACK TO WORK 50+ program that you experienced and I 

haven’t already mentioned?

25.8% Yes  “What are they?” _________________________

74.2% 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=49)

71.4% Very satisfied

8.2% Somewhat satisfied

8.2% Somewhat dissatisfied

12.2% Or 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=52)

51.9% Yes  “What is that training?” ________________  GO TO Q39

48.1% 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=139)

12.2% Yes

87.8% No  GO TO Q40

Q39

When do you expect to complete this additional education or training? 

_______ Month _____________ Year

Q40

What is your current employment status? Are you . . .

11.9% Employed full-time

14.9% Employed part-time but not looking for full-time work

21.6% Employed part-time but looking for full-time work

35.6% Not employed but looking for work  GO TO Q50

10.3% Not employed and not looking for work  GO TO Q50

4.1% Retired  GO TO Q50

1.5% Or something else -->”What is that?” ___________________  GO TO Q50

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-13
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=99)

21.2% Very secure

45.5% Somewhat secure

16.2% Somewhat insecure

17.2% Or 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=97)

Yes No 

A. Health insurance and other benefits 28.9% 71.1%

B. Wage increases since beginning of your job 26.6% 73.4%

C. Additional training 35.4% 64.6%

D. A promotion 13.5% 86.5%

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-14
Q47E

Were there any other opportunities offered to you in your current job? (n=97)

18.6% Yes  “What were those opportunities?” __________________________

81.4% No

Q48

How satisfied are you with your current employment? Are you . . . (n=96)

21.9% Very satisfied

43.8% Somewhat satisfied

20.8% Somewhat dissatisfied

13.5% Or very dissatisfied

Q49

How satisfied are you with your earnings? Are you . . . (n=99)

11.1% Very satisfied 

22.2% Somewhat satisfied

34.3% Somewhat dissatisfied

32.3% Or 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=182)

70.9% Yes

29.1% No  GO TO Q53

Q51

What type of additional education or training do you plan to attend? Is it . . . (n=127)

23.6% A short-term program

40.2% A certificate program

26.0% A degree program  “Which degree program?” _____________________

10.2% Or something else ”Could you describe this additional training for me?” _____________

 BTW50+: WESI Interim Implementation Report D-15
Q52

What is your main reason for planning additional education or training? Is it . . . (n=129)

33.3% Increase earnings potential

16.3% Requirement in your profession

20.9% Increase job stability 

7.0% Personal development

6.2% Career change/enhancement

16.3% Or some other reason  “What is that reason?” __________________

Q53

How much longer are you planning to work? Would you say . . . (n=164)

2.4% 1 to 3 more years 

13.4% 3 to 5 more years

32.3% 5 to 10 more years

31.7% 10 to 15 more years

20.1% 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 the 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 Interim Implementation Report D-16