Innovative Programs and 

Promising Practices: Indian and 

Native American Summer Youth 

Employment Initiatives and the 

2009 Recovery Act

June 28, 2011

Jacqueline Berman

Brandon Coffee-Borden
Contract Number:

DOLQ091A20941

Mathematica Reference Number:

06788

Submitted to:

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment 

and Training Administration Office of 

Policy Development and Research, ETA, 

DOL

200 Constitution Ave., NW Rm. N-5641

Washington, DC 20216

Project Officer: Janet Javar

Submitted by:

Mathematica Policy Research

505 14th Street, Suite 800

Oakland, CA 94612-1475

Telephone: (510) 830-3700

Facsimile: (510) 830-3701

Project Director: Jacqueline Berman

Innovative Programs and 

Promising Practices: Indian and 

Native American Summer Youth 

Employment Initiatives and the 

2009 Recovery Act

June 28, 2011

Jacqueline Berman

Brandon Coffee-Borden
Disclaimer Mathematica Policy Research

iii

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared by Mathematica Policy Research for the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL), Employment and Training Administration, Office of Policy Development and Research 

under contract number DOLQ091A20941. The views expressed are those of the authors and 

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

organizations imply endorsement of same by the U.S. government. 
Abstract Mathematica Policy Research

iv

ABSTRACT 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) used various 

strategies to redress unemployment challenges experienced by disadvantaged youth. The 

Employment and Training Administration (ETA) in the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) received 

$1.2 billion for youth training and employment services. ETA allocated about $17.8 million of these 

funds to Indian and Native American (INA) youth through the INA Supplemental Youth Services 

Program. INA grantees were encouraged to use these funds to provide employment experiences to 

youth in summer 2009 and summer 2010. INA grantees responded by building on existing summer 

youth employment programs to extend services to additional youth, including older youth, and 

create new program components as appropriate and needed. 

This report describes the context in which programs for the INA Summer Youth Employment 

Initiative were created and provides a detailed discussion of how grantees used their Recovery Act 

funds to implement programs to serve youth in their communities. The analysis is based on INA 

grantees’ performance measure data and qualitative data collected during site visits to a purposive 

sample of five diverse grantees in five states. This report also highlights key findings and 

innovations grantees made to better serve youth. 
Acknowledgments Mathematica Policy Research

v 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research team and report authors benefited from the advice and cooperation of many 

people during the preparation of this report. We would especially like to thank the five sites that 

graciously volunteered to be a part of this study. We appreciates the sites’ staff, employer partners, 

and participating youth from who generously helped organize field visits, generated respondent lists, 

gave their time to respond to project questions, and generously shared their experiences with us. 

Their cooperation and input were invaluable to this study. 

This study also benefited from the advice and input of staff from the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA). We are indebted to Janet Javar, our 

project officer, and Bogdan Tereshchenko, both from ETA’s Office of Policy Development and 

Research, and Evangeline Campbell from ETA’s Indian and Native American Program for their 

excellent guidance throughout the study. We are also grateful to Duane Hall, also from ETA’s 

Indian and Native American Program, for his help collecting aggregate program data.

At Mathematica, we are grateful to Andrea Mraz-Esposito and Rebecca Kleinman for their 

work collecting initial information from sites and arranging site visits. Rebecca Kleinman also was 

instrumental in her work conducting one of the site visits and preparing a site visit report. Val 

Gilbert provided rapid and careful data analysis. Sheena McConnell, Karen Needels, Pam Holcomb, 

and Nora Paxton all made invaluable contributions as quality assurance reviewers. Sheena Flowers 

provided timely and accurate production support and John Kennedy provided thorough editorial 

services. We are also appreciative of Debbie Reed for her recommendations and insights on various 

components of the evaluation. 

Finally, we would like to express our gratitude for the input of our culturally competent study 

consultant, Chelsea Southerland, who offered invaluable advice on data collection instruments and 

site visit protocols, participated in one site visit, and provided a careful review of the final report, 

thus greatly refining and strengthening it. 

We gratefully acknowledge these many contributions and accept sole responsibility for any 

errors or omissions in the report. 
vi

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................X

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

A. The Indian and Native American Summer Youth Employment 

Initiative: The Economic Context ............................................................1

B. The History of U.S. Department of Labor Summer Youth 

Employment Initiatives in Native American Communities .........................2

C. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009............................3

D. Overview of the Evaluation.......................................................................4

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

2. Selection and Conduct of Site Visits...................................................5

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

4. Analytical Approach and Limitations..................................................6

E. Organization of the Rest of the Report.....................................................7

II. THE NATIONAL INA SYEI CONTEXT AND THE STUDY SITES..............................9

A. Recovery Act Funds Received by INA SYEI Grantees, 2009 and 

2010 .......................................................................................................9

B. Youth Enrollment, May–September 2009 and May–September 

2010 .......................................................................................................9

C. Characteristics of Youth Participants, May–September 2009 and 

May–September 2010............................................................................11

D. Patterns of Service Participation and Completion, May–

September 2009 and May–September 2010...........................................13

E. Short-Term Outcome Measures, 2009 and 2010 ...................................14

III. STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF STUDY SITES .......................................16

A. Characteristics of Selected INA SYEI Program Sites................................. 16

B. California Indian Manpower Association ................................................17

C. Four Tribes Consortium of Oklahoma ....................................................18

D. Kewa (Santo Domingo) Pueblo ...............................................................19

E. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians......................................................20

F. Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation ...................................20
vii

G. INA SYEI Program Planning, Design, and Organization 2009 and 

2010 .....................................................................................................21

1. Planning..........................................................................................22

2. Program Design ..............................................................................22

3. Staffing ...........................................................................................23

IV. YOUTH RECRUITMENT, INTAKE, ORIENTATION, AND SUPPORT .....................24

A. Program Outreach, Recruitment, and Application...................................24

B. Target Groups and Enrollment Activities................................................25

C. Youth Employment Barriers ...................................................................26

D. Orientation, Assessment, and Individual Employment Plans...................26

E. Workforce Readiness Training ...............................................................27

F. Supportive Services ...............................................................................28

V. RECRUITMENT AND INVOLVEMENT OF EMPLOYERS.......................................29

A. Employer Recruitment ...........................................................................29

B. Employer Screening, Orientation, and Support.......................................30

C. Employer Experiences............................................................................30

VI. SUMMER EXPERIENCES OF YOUTH ................................................................32

A. Matching Youth to Summer Jobs............................................................32

B. Summer Work Experiences ....................................................................32

C. Certifications and Skills Building............................................................34

D. Community Service................................................................................34

E. Academic Activities ...............................................................................35

F. Hours, Wages, and Processes for Compensating Youth..........................37

G. Youths’ Earnings ...................................................................................37

H. Worksite Monitoring, Supervision, and Youth Mentoring........................38

I. Youths’ Perspectives on Summer Work Experiences ...............................39
viii

VII. ASSESSING YOUTHS’ PROGRESS....................................................................41

A. Assessment of Youths’ Experiences and Goals.......................................41

B. Youths’ Impressions ..............................................................................42

C. Youths’ Post-Summer Progress ..............................................................42

VIII. REFLECTIONS ON THE SYEI AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS..........................44

A. Program Challenges ..............................................................................44

B. Program Strengths and Successes..........................................................46

C. Summative Findings ..............................................................................48

REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................49
ix

TABLES

I.1. Sites Selected for Visits..................................................................................5

II.1. Youth Participant Characteristics ................................................................. 11

II.2. Select Services Completed or Education Attained by Youth 

Participants ................................................................................................. 13

II.3. Performance Indicators for Participants in Summer Employment..................15

III.1. Characteristics of Study Sites.......................................................................16

FIGURES

II.1. National Youth Enrollment, by Month, May to September 2009 and 

May to September 2010...............................................................................10

II.2. Site Visit Grantee Youth Enrollment, by Month, May to September 

2009 ...........................................................................................................10

BOXES ON INNOVATIVE SITE PRACTICES

IV.1. Recruiting Youth in Need .............................................................................25

V.1. Employment and Cultural Heritage...............................................................31

VI.1. Comprehensive Inclusion of Green Jobs .......................................................33

VI.2. Culturally Competent High School Completion.............................................35

VI.3. Investing in Cultural Awareness ...................................................................36

VI.4. Formalizing Monitoring and Mentoring........................................................38

VII.1. Transitioning to Permanent Employment at a Green Worksite ......................43
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The US recession of 2007 increased unemployment rates nationwide. Some groups were hit 

particularly hard by unemployment. Among these groups, Native Americans experienced an 

increase of 26 percent in their unemployment rate. Native American youth were affected even more 

deeply, with even higher rates of unemployment than the group as a whole. For these youth ages 16 

to 19, for example, unemployment rose to 33 percent for females and 39 percent for males between 

2007 and 2009.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) used various 

strategies to redress unemployment challenges experienced by all groups, including Native American 

youth. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) in the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL) received $1.2 billion for youth training and employment services. ETA allocated about $17.8 

million of these funds for the Indian and Native American (INA) Supplemental Youth Services 

Program (SYSP) and encouraged programs serving these groups to use the funds to provide 

employment experiences to youth in the summer of 2009. INA grantees responded by building on 

existing summer youth employment programs to extend services to additional youth, including older 

youth, and create new program components as appropriate and needed. 

In order to understand how grantees utilized their Recovery Act funds to provide summer 

youth with workforce opportunities, ETA contracted with Mathematica Policy Research to conduct 

an evaluation of the implementation of the summer youth employment programs, which this report 

refers to as the INA Summer Youth Employment Initiative (SYEI). The purpose of the study is to 

identify lessons learned and promising practices that sites developed through their SYEI programs 

using Recovery Act funds. This study analyzed grantee performance measures and qualitative data 

collected during site visits to a purposive sample of five, diverse INA SYEI grantees.

Overview of the Evaluation

Five core research questions designed to focus and support a comprehensive data collection 

and analysis effort guided this study. In addressing these questions, this report provides ETA; 

national policymakers; and local program staff, administrators, and policymakers with an overview 

and analysis of how the Recovery Act-funded INA SYEI was implemented and the experiences of 

program staff and youth participants involved in the program. Primary research questions included 

the following: 

1. How did sites plan for and organize summer youth programs with funding from the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?

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

3. What program services were offered to youth who participated in the summer months? 

4. What types of work experiences were offered to participating youth?

5. What are the characteristics of program participants?

The study employs two primary study data sources in addressing these questions: (1) in-depth, 

in-person site visits to five grantees to meet program staff and participants to learn about the 

summer youth employment programs from August through December 2010, and (2) site 

performance data submitted monthly to ETA that includes all Native American youth participating 

in Recovery Act-funded summer youth employment programs. 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xi

The evaluation of the implementation of the Recovery Act’s Indian and Native American 

summer youth employment initiative in summer 2009 and 2010 identifies key strengths and 

successes as well as challenges experienced by sites in implementing their SYEIs. The evaluation 

also provides a set of summative findings about the program. The summative findings are designed 

to reflect the specific, topical findings dispersed throughout the report and to provide a set of 

observations on and central lessons learned from the implementation of the program overall and of 

potential use in future program implementation. 

Program Strengths and Successes

Sites visited for this evaluation provided youth with a rich array of program activities and 

workforce experiences through the INA SYEI and reported relatively few implementation 

challenges. They used Recovery Act funds to build new components and target new populations 

into their established summer youth employment programs and to serve larger numbers of youth. 

Staff and youth identified a number of program strengths and successes and shared a deep 

enthusiasm for and appreciation of both the programs and additional Recovery Act funds. Among 

the most often referenced strengths and successes were the following:

Serving older youth. Four of the study sites noted that they extended their programs to youth 

up to age 24, a group that they typically found hard to serve because of limited resources for their 

adult programs. They recognized the high level of need of this group and regarded it as both a

program strength and a real success that they could provide the program and work opportunities to 

these older youth. Many of these youth reported significant barriers to finding work either because 

jobs were meant for teenagers or went to older, more experienced adults. Several older youth also 

reporting having found permanent positions through the program after not being able to find 

employment for 6 to 12 months. The opportunity to serve older youth through summer youth 

employment programs was unique to the Recovery Act and regarded as a significant strength of the 

program. The opportunity to serve these youth, support their workforce readiness, and offer job 

placement formed a key program success.

Program staff’s commitment and dedication. Youth at all study sites spent a significant 

amount of time professing their deep appreciation for program staff. They noted how much staff 

were “there for them” and “helped them get whatever they needed.” Some staff were 

extraordinarily dedicated to youth and the community, joining youth in community service projects 

because “We’re not going to ask them to do something we’re not going to do.” Youth described 

staff as “a blessing for them personally, and for the community,” “outgoing and awesome,” with 

several youth describing them “like family.” One youth explained how a staff person who knew she 

had been struggling with depression and other challenges had gone to a rural reservation to let her 

know personally about the program and the opportunity to have a summer job and earn money for 

school. Youth noted that they could call staff “at any time” about “any issue” and knew that they 

would receive support if they did. 

Consistent assessments and workforce readiness and life skills training. Youth at all 

study sites mentioned the value of workforce readiness training and job and life skills-building to 

them. They universally reported finding these trainings to be valuable and key inputs for their work 

and their lives. Youth found the more comprehensive career assessments that included a work 

interest inventory, work orientation and values inventory, and career exploration to be particularly 

helpful in learning more about their own interests and developing a career path. As discussed in 

Chapter IV, youth reported the usefulness of learning about application, cover letter, and resume 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xii

preparation; self-presentation and interview skills; and job searches, as well as how to have 

confidence and self-esteem through work. 

Extending relationships with employers. Four of the five sites used the Recovery Act 

funding to extend their long-standing relationships with community employers. They reported 

close, historical relationships with employers that created a foundation upon which they could build 

the 2009 and 2010 programs. These relationships made it possible for sites to absorb and place 

more youth in workforce opportunities in a very short period, and to offer new kinds of 

employment to youth, including those appropriate for older youth and green jobs. 

Larger community benefits. A strength and success of the program frequently cited by 

employers and staff involved how the SYEI benefitted not only the direct participants—youth and 

employers—but also the larger community as a whole. Employers received additional staff to help 

them complete work and accomplish goals they might not have been able to realize without the help 

of the youth. Youth learned the importance of their own tribes, the Native American community, 

and the need to serve other people, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or 

socioeconomic status. This helped them become more community- and more community serviceoriented, something that program staff and employers felt would help them become good citizens of 

the tribe and the larger community. One site helped youth involved with the juvenile justice system 

make restitution, which could then support their reintegration into their communities. One director 

also noted that the program serves as a stimulus to the local economy by giving youth jobs and 

wages to spend in the community. As indicated throughout this report, the program served to 

benefit the larger community in multiple ways.

Providing positive experiences to youth. By far the most often reported program strength 

and individual success involved the provision of positive experiences to youth. Most fundamentally, 

youth had an opportunity to earn an income that enabled them to contribute to their families, pay 

off debts or restitution, save for the future, and support themselves. They also learned about their 

own interests; set future goals; acquired new workforce readiness, job, life and leadership, and 

academic skills; gained cultural knowledge and a sense of community service; learned the value of 

helping others; and earned valuable employment-related certifications. Importantly, youth reported 

an increased sense of responsibility, self-esteem, work ethic, and success and accomplishment 

through the program, all of which are essential to employment success. As one youth explained, “I 

didn’t know I could do this,” indicating professional and personal growth across a number of 

dimensions. 

Program Challenges

Despite the richness of program components and workforce experiences offered to youth, staff 

reported relatively few challenges with their Recovery Act program. They attributed this to the 

existence of already well-established, generally WIA-funded summer youth employment programs. 

They were able to use Recovery Act funds to support and expand existing relationships with 

employers and well-established program procedures, such as workforce readiness training and 

worksite monitoring processes. The Recovery Act funds enabled sites to serve more youth and/or 

to expand program, academic, cultural, and/or worksite opportunities. At the same time, Recovery 

Act timing and program rules introduced new challenges for staff, which they had to resolve or 

redress largely in the course of planning and implementing their summer 2009 programs. 

Many of the challenges faced pertained to the Recovery Act program itself and included the 

following: 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xiii

Program lead time. Staff from two sites referred to the short lead time between the 

availability of Recovery Act funds and program start as a challenge. This gave them little time to 

develop additional activities, hire additional staff, and adapt data systems to Recovery Act 

performance indicators. Although ETA provided guidance and trainings on the latter, staff still had 

little time to integrate new reporting requirements. One program director discussed the desire to 

have had time to develop “an employability plan” with youth and provide more individual 

counseling. The director explained that had she received the final guidance on Recovery Act funds 

earlier, she would have been able to plan a “fuller” program. 

Post-summer program reporting requirements. Staff felt that the requirement that they 

continue to report enrollment, completion, workforce readiness, and other data to ETA even after 

all Recovery Act funds were spent created more paperwork and required scarce program resources 

that staff would have liked to use on other program components. They were frustrated at having to 

continue to report and wished that their reporting requirements would have ended with the 

depletion of program funds. ETA staff confirmed that sites were required to report even after all 

Recovery Act funds had been spent. 

Worksite placement limitations. Staff at two different sites expressed disappointment at 

what they regarded as strict limitations on where youth could be placed. According to their 

Recovery Act guidance, they were not allowed to have youth work at golf courses, swimming pools, 

casinos1, or zoos. This proved to be a challenge for two sites, because in previous years they had 

placed youth in these types of worksites. One had previously placed several youth at a local golf 

course, where they felt you had learned valuable skills. Staff also mentioned youth interested in 

zoology and youth trained as lifeguards who wanted to pursue this profession but were not allowed 

to work at a pool or lake due to program rules. 

 1 One site noted that while a casino and resort complex served as a major community employer, no youth were 

placed there during their Recovery Act-funded summer youth employment program.

Payroll processes. Staff and/or youth from two sites discussed challenges with their 2009 and 

2010 payroll processes. In one case, there were too few staff in an office to review timesheets and 

organize checks. In another case, staff hired for the Recovery Act-funded program were paid late 

and irregularly. In still another site, youth experienced delays with receiving their paychecks. Sites 

created new process so that staff and youth could be paid promptly, but the addition of the 

Recovery Act rules and procedures had an adverse, if temporary, effect on payroll processes.

Favoritism. Staff from one site reported concerns over favoritism that they felt might have 

affected the program’s ability to serve youth with the greatest need and at greatest risk. They 

mentioned, in particular, the process for selecting program participants as perhaps subject to 

preference for some youth over others. As such, they feared that the selection process did not fully 

align with the program’s purpose and should be improved so that specific youth would not be 

chosen over other, potentially more needy applicants. 

Sites also reported challenges not necessarily related to the Recovery Act-funded program and 

perhaps more endemic to the summer youth employment programs. Nonetheless, these challenges 

persisted during the Recovery Act funding period and included the following: 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xiv

Paperwork requirements, especially eligibility determination. Program staff from three 

sites identified program-related paperwork as their biggest challenge. They pointed in particular to 

income verification and documentation. It was difficult for youth to provide proof of income for 

themselves and their parents either did not have or resisted sharing this information with the 

program, for fear it might affect their receipt of public assistance. Staff explained that it would have 

no effect on them, but staff continued to struggle with eligibility determinations for applicant youth. 

This has been a concern with WIA youth programs nationwide. 

Post-program follow-up. Three sites expressed regret about their inability to follow up or 

continue to work with youth after the summer program. In some cases, staff felt that youth needed 

and would benefit from more post-program follow–up; staff continued monitoring the youth but 

lacked resources to provide this kind of ongoing support. In one case, staff hired college students to 

work in the summer program who returned to school and were not available to “continue to 

connect with the youth.” Youth often expressed a desire for work and program activities after the 

summer. Although many reported having developed lasting bonds through the program, they 

worried they would not be able to find another job, complete school, or “stay positive” after the 

program was over.

Excess demand for services. Staff from all five study sites discussed the significant demand 

for their summer youth employment programs. They cited the large numbers of applicants in 

relation to the relatively small numbers of youth they were able to serve as evidence of this. All 

worried about their inability to meet demand for the program and the excess need remaining in their 

communities. One site did additional fund raising to help support various program activities (for 

example, raffles, bake sales, and concession stands) but continued to be challenged by the large 

number of youth seeking summer youth employment opportunities verses the relatively small 

number of places for participants available, even with the addition of Recovery Act funds. 

Summative Findings

The following set of key findings from the evaluation of the implementation of the Recovery 

Act Indian and Native American Summer Youth Employment Initiative are designed to consolidate 

the many topical findings dispersed throughout the report into a set of overarching observations and 

lessons learned from the 2009 and 2010 program implementation. 

• Youth and their communities had very high levels of need for specific employment 

programs and for more general positive influences in the community. 

• Recovery Act funds enabled sites to serve larger numbers of youth and older youth, up 

to age 24, than they had previously been able to serve, all of whom have significant need 

for employment training and work opportunities. 

• Even with the introduction of additional Recovery Act funds, programs continued to 

experience excess of demand for services, with numbers of youth in need of and 

applying for SYEI programs far exceeding the number of participant slots available. 

• Recovery Act funds supported the introduction of additional highly needed jobs skills 

and educational and cultural components into summer youth employment programs. 

• Sites used Recovery Act funds to provide supplemental life skills training in such highly 

needed areas as leadership and financial literacy.
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

xv

• Sites used Recovery Act funds to innovate by serving new groups of youth, such as those 

in the juvenile justice system, and offering new worksite opportunities, such as green 

jobs. 

• Well-established summer youth employment programs and existing relationships with

employers and other community partners enabled sites to absorb and use Recovery Act 

funds quickly and effectively.

• Dedicated program staff played a crucial role in designing, innovating, and implementing 

programs and in bonding with, providing guidance to, and mentoring youth. 

• Most sites lacked the funds and staff available to provide post-summer/post-program 

follow-up to youth, despite youth interest in and demand for these kinds of postprogram services.

• Despite acquiring new job skills and certifications, not all youth who wanted permanent 

job placement were able to obtain it through the SYEI or after program completion. 

• Youth and employers regard summer youth employment programs as highly beneficial 

to youth, themselves, and their communities. 

• A significant majority both of study sites and all sites nationally met their performance 

measures by a significant margin.
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

1

I. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. recession of 2007 increased unemployment rates nationwide. Some groups were hit 

particularly hard by unemployment. Among these groups, Native Americans experienced an increase 

of 26 percent in their unemployment rate. Native American youth were affected even more deeply, 

with even higher rates of unemployment than the group as a whole. For these youth ages 16 to 19, 

for example, unemployment rose to 33 percent for females and 39 percent for males between 2007 

and 2009.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) used various 

strategies to redress unemployment challenges experienced by all groups, including Native American 

youth. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) in the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL) received $1.2 billion for youth training and employment services. ETA allocated about $17.8 

million of these funds for the Indian and Native American (INA) Supplemental Youth Services 

Program (SYSP) and encouraged programs serving these groups to use the funds to provide 

employment experiences to youth in the summer of 2009. INA grantees responded by building on 

existing summer youth employment programs to extend services to additional youth, including older 

youth, and create new program components as appropriate and needed. 

In order to understand how grantees utilized their Recovery Act funds to provide summer 

youth with workforce opportunities, ETA contracted with Mathematica Policy Research to conduct 

an evaluation of the implementation of the summer youth employment programs, which this report 

refers to as the INA Summer Youth Employment Initiative (SYEI). The purpose of the study is to 

identify lessons learned and promising practices that sites developed through their SYEI programs 

using Recovery Act funds. This study analyzed grantee performance measures and qualitative data 

collected during site visits to a purposive sample of five, diverse INA SYEI grantees.

This report describes the context in which the INA SYEI program was created and provides a 

detailed discussion of how grantees used their Recovery Act funds to implement programs to serve 

youth in their communities. It also highlights key findings and innovations grantees made to better 

serve youth. Overall, the study found that although Recovery Act funds were relatively modest, 

grantees used these supplements to create innovative and concrete workforce experiences for youth 

in their communities, often in areas of high demand and high need. 

A. The Indian and Native American Summer Youth Employment Initiative: 

The Economic Context

Beginning in December 2007, the U.S. economy entered an economic recession that included a 

mortgage crisis, an inability of many to access personal and business credit, and high unemployment 

(National Bureau of Economic Research 2010). Although official estimates indicate that the 

recession ended in 2009, many communities continue to experience economic hardship (National 

Bureau of Economic Research 2010). People of American Indian and Alaskan Native descent and 

tribal communities have been severely affected by the weakened economy. The percentage of 

American Indians and Alaskan Natives in poverty rose by 2 percentage points between 2007 and 

2009 to reach 27 percent, a figure almost twice the nation average of 14 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 

2007b, 2009d). Further, the unemployment rate of American Indians and Alaskan Natives rose by 

26 percent between 2007 and 2009 to 16 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2007a, 2009c). Native 

American youth experienced particularly high rates of unemployment. By 2009, the unemployment 

rate among Native Americans ages 16 to 19 was approximately 33 percent for females and 39 
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

2

percent for males (U.S. Census Bureau 2009c). Native Americans ages 20 to 24 experienced

unemployment rates of approximately 20 percent for females and 27 percent for males (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2009c). These unemployment rates represent a significant burden and challenge for Native 

Americans seeking to strengthen their communities and recover from one of the most significant 

recessions of the past century.

B. The History of U.S. Department of Labor Summer Youth Employment 

Initiatives in Native American Communities

Before the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), Section 401 of the Job Training 

Partnership Act (JTPA) of 1982 provided federal funding of approximately $50 million per year to 

tribal governments, intertribal consortia, and nontribal Native American organizations to implement 

employment and training programs (Social Policy Research Associates 1999). Section 401 states that 

eligible participants included American Indians, Alaskan Natives, or Native Hawaiians who were 

economically disadvantaged, unemployed, or underemployed. JTPA grantees reported that their 

eligible population often consisted of youth and adults, high school graduates and dropouts, and 

those with some or no previous work experience (Social Policy Research Associates 1999). Some 

Section 401 grantees also received additional Title II-B Summer Youth Employment and Training 

Program (SYETP) funding to provide summer work experience and training to youth ages 14 to 21. 

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 adjusted the federal system for youth employment, 

training, and development. The INA SYSP2 authorized under Section 166 provides funding for 

summer and year-round employment and training activities for American Indian, Alaskan Native, 

and Native Hawaiian youth. A youth is eligible to receive services under SYSP if he or she is (1) an 

American Indian, as determined by the Native American grantee, (2) an Alaskan Native, as defined 

in Section 3(b) of the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 43 U.S.C. 1602(b); or (3) 

Native Hawaiian, as defined in WIA Section 166(b)(3). Youth participants must be no younger than 

14 and no older than 21. Youth must experience at least one barrier to employment, such as 

deficiency in basic literacy skills; school dropout; homelessness, runaway, or foster child; pregnant or 

parenting; offender; or a person who requires additional assistance to complete an educational 

program or to obtain and maintain employment. Additionally, participants must be low-income 

individuals as defined in WIA Section 101(25). Funds can be used to support up to 5 percent of 

youth who do not meet the income criteria but who have other barriers to employment (for 

example, being a school dropout or having deficiency in basic skills). In 2010, SYSP received

approximately $14 million in grants from ETA (Federal Register 2010).

 2 In addition to programs currently funded by DOL, several other federal employment- and training-related 

initiatives serve American Indian, Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian youth. Examples within the U.S. Department of 

the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) include the General Assistance (GA) Program, Tribal Work Experience 

(TWEP) Program, BIA Employment Assistance—Adult Vocational Training (AVT) Program, BIA Employment 

Assistance—Direct Employment (DE) Program, BIA Higher Education Program, BIA Adult Basic Education (ABE) 

Program, and Johnson-O’Malley (JOM) Program. Examples within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

include the Native Employment Works (NEW) Program, Tribal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) 

Program, and Child Care and Development Fund Program. American Indian, Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian youth 

can also access services provided by local One-Stop Career Centers.
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

3

C. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009

Recognizing the employment challenges youth face, especially in a recessionary economy, the 

Recovery Act targeted investment in youth employment and training. A key purpose of the Act was 

to develop a stronger workforce environment for youth and ease the transition between the labor 

market and further education and training. The Recovery Act allocated $1.2 billion to ETA for 

youth training and employment services. ETA reserved about $17.8 million of these funds for the 

INA SYSP. ETA made funds available to these communities on a formula basis. Grantees could 

spend the funds concurrently with their existing WIA Section 166 SYSP funding through June 30, 

2011 (Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 16-08).

Throughout this report we refer to the Recovery Act-funded employment and training 

initiatives as the SYEI. Other WIA-funded youth summer activities are referred to as SYSP or a 

grantee’s regular summer program. In practice, however, sites could have used Recovery Act funds 

to (1) enhance a single, standard SYSP program; or (2) create separate summer initiatives funded 

exclusively by the Recovery Act. 

ETA aligned the rules of the INA SYSP WIA-funded program with the specific circumstances 

of the recession, to ease execution of the program, and fulfill requirements of the Recovery Act. 

ETA guidance for SYEI included the following: 

• Develop new and existing strategies for serving at-risk American Indian, Alaskan 

Native, and Native Hawaiian youth. ETA advised INA grantees to use Recovery Act 

funding to increase the number of youth served and expand services. ETA encouraged 

grantees to develop plans and strategies for services that produce positive educational 

and employment outcomes for at-risk youth. It stressed that education and training 

should be closely aligned with employment opportunities available on or near 

reservations and tribal lands (or near to where tribal members in Oklahoma, Alaskan 

Natives, and Native Hawaiians live). ETA also encouraged grantees to provide 

education and training services that support youths’ advancement in school or at work or 

services that include assessments and certifications that met requirements for the next 

level of education and employment. Grantees could use Recovery Act funds to 

implement all youth activities authorized under the WIA Section 166 SYSP. 

• Identify and use workforce information and potential partnerships. ETA noted 

that workforce information would help grantees identify businesses and economic 

sectors in need of workers or that would begin to grow as the economy recovered. ETA 

also encouraged grantees to consider working with state and local workforce investment 

areas3 to obtain information on how the Recovery Act was implemented in their state or 

surrounding communities. 

• Focus on summer employment. The Congressional explanatory statement for the 

Recovery Act cited a particular interest in summer employment opportunities for youth. 

ETA encouraged grantees to use as much of their funding as possible to operate 

programs during the summer of 2009 and to provide high-quality summer employment 

 3 Within state and local workforce investment areas, Workforce Investment Boards (or WIBs) implement the 

employment and training activities prescribed by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

4

experiences to as many youth as possible. For the purpose of the Recovery Act, summer 

was defined as May 1 through September 30.

• Develop green jobs and career pathways. ETA encouraged grantees to develop 

employment experiences and program activities that exposed youth to opportunities in 

green career pathways. It also recommended that grantees provide opportunities to 

work in registered apprenticeship programs and that grantees use on-the-job training to 

introduce youth to industries and careers that employ green skills or technologies. 

• Ensure cultural appropriateness. ETA encouraged grantees to incorporate culturally 

relevant training approaches to develop youths’ academic, work readiness, and literacy 

skills. Such approaches might include mentorship, internships, and placement at tribal 

colleges or similar training centers.

• Provide appropriate youth wages and compensation. Grantees were required to pay 

youth a minimum wage of $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008, and $7.25 per hour 

effective July 24, 2009. Grantees could also provide youth with wages or stipends for 

classroom-based components of a summer employment program. 

• Give service priority for certain groups and expand eligibility. The Recovery Act 

expanded program eligibility to serve youth up to age 24. ETA noted that veterans ages 

21 to 24 have a particularly high rate of unemployment immediately after discharge. In 

response, they extended eligibility to youth up to 24 years old in order to make more 

veterans eligible for summer employment. ETA also required programs to give priority 

of service to veterans and eligible spouses. 

• Report two measures of program performance. Congress required a single measure 

of achievement of work readiness goals to assess the performance of employment and 

training services. ETA then added summer employment completion rates as a second 

measure. ETA thus had grantees report two performance measures: youth work 

readiness attainment and youth summer employment program completion rate. 

D. Overview of the Evaluation

In July 2010, ETA commissioned a research team from Mathematica to conduct a study of the 

implementation of the SYEI funded under the Recovery Act. The study focuses on how Native 

American communities are using these funds to create new summer youth employment initiatives 

and/or enhance existing ones. An analysis of in-depth, in-person site visits to five grantees to meet 

program staff and participants and to learn about the summer youth employment programs, as well 

as an analysis of aggregate program data on performance reported to ETA, provides the basis for 

this study. The evaluation focused in particular on promising practices including how to (1) 

motivate youth to achieve academic and job market success, (2) encourage youth to identify existing 

and acquire new employment skills, (3) encourage positive cultural identities, and (4) strengthen 

other youth employment programs. The overall goals of the study were to understand how different 

sites used Recovery Act funds to implement summer youth employment programs, to identify 

innovative and promising implementation practices, and to share this information with other 

communities implementing summer youth employment programs. 
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

5

1. Research Questions

Five core research questions and several subquestions designed to focus and support a 

comprehensive data collection and analysis effort guided the study. In addressing these questions, 

this report provides ETA; national policymakers; and local program staff, administrators, and 

policymakers an understanding of how the Recovery Act-funded INA SYEI was implemented and 

the experiences of program staff and youth participants. Primary research questions included the 

following: 

1. How did sites plan for and organize summer youth programs with funding from the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?

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

3. What program services were offered to youth who participated in the summer months? 

4. What types of work experiences were offered to participating youth?

5. What are the characteristics of program participants?

2. Selection and Conduct of Site Visits

ETA and Mathematica worked collaboratively to identify five grantees to participate in the 

study. The team sought a balance of geographic diversity, a mix of intertribal consortia and 

individual tribes, and any preliminary indicators of promising practices and program successes that 

could potentially be shared with other sites when choosing grantees to include in site visits. Based 

on these conversations and the selection criteria, ETA and Mathematica identified five sites for 

inclusion in the study. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary. As indicated in Table I.1, 

the study included intertribal consortia or individual tribes in five separate states, including two 

consortia and three individual tribes. Two of these groups have their main offices in or near urban 

areas, whereas three are located in or near moderately sized cities or rural areas. Most serve 

populations in primarily (but not exclusively) rural areas. 

Table I.1. Sites Selected for Visits

INA Community Intertribal Consortium or 

Individual Tribe City, State

Four Tribes of Oklahoma Intertribal consortium Anadarko, OK

California Indian Manpower Association Intertribal consortium Sacramento, CA

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Individual tribe Choctaw, MS

Oglala Sioux Tribe Individual tribe Pine Ridge, SD

Kewa (formerly Santo Domingo) Pueblo Individual tribe Santo Domingo, NM

In 2010, the team visited these five sites and met with program staff, employers who provided 

work experiences to program participants, instructors and administrators who provided training and 

instruction, and youth who participated in the program during the summer of 2009 and 2010 at each 

site.
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

6

Site visits were key to informing the study about how Recovery Act funds were used to provide 

important services to youth and the innovative strategies used to employ and support youth in 

Native American communities. This study focused on how youth were recruited and enrolled, how 

their needs were assessed and matched with jobs, and how work experiences were monitored and 

supported. This study also examined how the programs identified and engaged employers and 

linked to other community partners. Of particular interest were participating youth and what 

services were of use to them, their experiences in the program, and their work readiness after they 

completed the program. 

3. Data Sources

The study employed two primary data sources: aggregate performance data, which grantees 

reported monthly to ETA, and in-depth site visits to a selected sample of five Recovery Act program 

intertribal consortia or individual tribal grantees. 

Grantee performance data. For the Recovery Act funded program, each INA grantee 

delivered a monthly performance report to ETA. Grantees began reporting October 15, 2009, with a

report that included all Recovery Act participants from March 19, 2009 through September 30, 2009, 

and thereafter reported on a monthly basis by the 15th of the following month. In these reports, 

grantees provided ETA with demographic information about youth participating in Recovery Actfunded services; the services and program activities youth received; and program performance 

information, including enrollment, completion, and work readiness rates. The study team obtained 

performance data submitted to ETA as of February 22, 2011. These data cover implementation in 

the period March 2009 through January 2011. 

In-depth site visits. The core data for this study come from site visits with five selected 

grantees. Site visits were completed between August and December 2010. Visits lasted from two to 

three days each. While on site, study team members interviewed program staff, youth employers, 

worksite supervisors, and key program partners about program planning, implementation, 

challenges, successes, and lessons learned. Site visitors also conducted focus groups with a small 

number of youth program participants to explore youths’ program experiences and perspectives. In 

sum, the study included discussions with 87 respondents, including 37 youth participants. 

4. Analytical Approach and Limitations

The two primary data sources for the evaluation required different analytical approaches. For 

the aggregate performance indicator data, the descriptive analysis sought to provide an overall 

portrait of program implementation nationwide and a look at the five study sites in comparison with 

the program at the national level. Statistics from all of the sites funded by the Recovery Act were 

aggregated to produce national frequencies; study sites’ statistics were aggregated to provide 

frequencies regarding those programs visited during the evaluation. The team also analyzed 

enrollment patterns. Given that states provided only aggregate data, analyzing subgroups was not 

feasible.

For the in-depth site visits, the analysis focused on the study’s key research questions as the 

study team sought to identify emergent themes and well-supported cross-site findings within each 

individual site and across all sites visited. The analysis considered models of program planning and 

design; outreach, recruitment, and workforce preparations as well as approaches to monitoring, 

supervising, and mentoring youth through the program and work; employer recruitment and 

experiences; work sites and types of work conducted, as well as other program components related 
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

7

to certification, skills building, academic opportunities, and cultural activities; and assessments and 

post-summer follow-up and services. The analysis also identified some implementation challenges 

faced across sites and primary program strengths and successes, as well as more overarching findings 

related to program implementation as a whole. 

The purpose of the analysis of the qualitative data, which took the site visited as the unit of 

analysis, was to provide a more detailed portrait of implementation strategies and identify cross-site 

topical and summative findings about program implementation. The study identified differences 

between sites by noting when a particular strategy or practice occurred across all sites or within a 

subset of sites, focusing on those that occurred most frequently across sites. Given that the study 

did not include discussion with all local program staff, participants, employers, skills trainers, and 

other partners, the analysis does not include the universe of experiences of the five study sites. A 

program staff member at each site served as a site visit liaison and selected the program staff, 

employers, partners, and youth participants with whom team members met. As such, interview and 

focus group respondents formed a convenience sample for the study. The data analyzed are thus 

illustrative and are not representative of implementation strategies either at the site level or 

nationally. 

Despite these limitations, the evaluation includes the perspectives of a significant number of 

differently situated respondents. Further, it is possible to draw some conclusions about 

implementation strategies and their potential to support and extend program strengths from these 

data. The report includes short text boxes on innovative local practices and youths’ perspectives on 

the program. The practices described in these boxes are not intended to represent promising 

strategies, but rather to offer interesting examples of local innovations that sites and study team 

members found particularly inventive and worth sharing with program stakeholders. Similarly, brief 

quotes from program staff, employers, and youth are not intended to be representative, but rather 

include the voices and language of those who participated in these programs themselves. 

E. Organization of the Rest of the Report

The purpose of this report is to provide a rich description of the implementation of the Indian 

and Native American SYEIs in the summers of 2009 and 2010. 

• Chapter II of this report provides aggregate descriptive statistics on site performance 

data nationwide and from the five selected study sites.

• Chapter III describes the selected sites and their strategies for organizing and planning 

the summer initiative. 

• Chapter IV discusses sites’ efforts to recruit youth participants, most especially older 

youth newly funded by the Recovery Act, as well as their enrollment and workforce 

readiness training and other efforts to prepare youth for work. 

• Chapter V describes the recruitment, involvement, and experiences of the employers that 

provided youth employment opportunities. 

• Chapter VI details the range of summer experiences youth had and describes key 

supplemental program components, including certifications, additional skills building, 

academic opportunities, and cultural activities that programs offered. It then provides a 

discussion of the monitoring and mentoring of youth and youths’ impressions of their 

workforce and program experiences. 
I. Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

8

• Chapter VII describes how sites assessed youths’ progress generally at the end of their 

programs as well as any post-summer follow-up and services that sites provided to 

participants. 

• Chapter VIII discusses primary challenges faced in implementing the program, as well as 

program strengths and successes. As a final observation, the report cumulates the 

specific topical findings interspersed throughout the report into a set of summative, 

overarching findings about the implementation of the Recovery Act-funded INA 

summer youth employment initiatives.

Under the various section headings, each of the chapters features key specific topical findings 

(noted in bold and with bullet points) throughout the text and then provides a discussion of each 

finding in order to maximize the utility of the report to policymakers, program implementers, 

advocates, and other stakeholders. Many chapters also include short vignettes in text boxes. These 

boxes highlight specific innovations offered at different program sites and demonstrate promising 

practices identified during field research.
II. The National INA SYEI Context and the Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

9

II. THE NATIONAL INA SYEI CONTEXT AND THE STUDY SITES

Across the nation, INA SYEI grantees served approximately 3,300 youth from May to 

September 2009 and about 760 youth from May to September 2010 using Recovery Act funds. To 

record how grantees used these funds, ETA required each grantee to complete monthly 

performance reports on their youth employment and training activities. This report describes 

performance data submitted to ETA by the grantees covering the period April 2009 to January 2011. 

This chapter uses these data to explore how the Recovery Act-funded INA SYEI program 

unfolded nationally and with the five grantees that received site visits for in-depth data collection. 

The chapter examines the number of youth served, youths’ characteristics, the services provided to 

youth participants, and the outcomes experienced by the youth. The chapter begins with a brief 

discussion of Recovery Act funds received by INA SYEI grantees and reviews program enrollment 

during summer 2009 and summer 2010. It then provides an overview of the characteristics of INA 

SYEI youth participants, discusses the services youth received during summer 2009 and summer 

2010, and concludes with the outcomes experienced by youth program participants served using 

Recovery Act funds.

During site visits, some of the grantees mentioned that they had used Recovery Act funds to 

serve youth during summer 2010. However, monthly reporting data did not show site visit grantees 

using Recovery Act funds during summer 2010. Some site visit grantees simply had not submitted 

monthly reports for the summer months in the performance data analyzed for this study; the 

program year did not end until March 31, 2011 and the study data file was received prior to this date. 

The following discussion is thus limited to summer 2009 for the five study sites but includes both 

summer 2009 and summer 2010 for the national program. 

A. Recovery Act Funds Received by INA SYEI Grantees, 2009 and 2010

ETA received about $1.2 billion for youth employment and training services. It reserved about 

$17.8 million for INA SYSP grantees and these funds were allocated on a formula basis. Program 

administrators at the five grantees that hosted site visits reported receiving Recovery Act awards 

ranging from about $59,000 to $536,000. According to quarterly reports required under Section 

1512 of the Recovery Act, site visit grantees were awarded in total about $984, 000, which they used 

to supplement other WIA funds designated for summer youth employment programs. 

B. Youth Enrollment, May–September 2009 and May–September 2010

Figure II.1 shows monthly program enrollment for summers 2009 and 2010 for (1) the total 

number of youth participants that received a service funded by the Recovery Act, and (2) the total 

number of participants placed in summer employment. Large numbers of youth began enrolling in 

May 2009, with about 1,000 youth being served in May 2009 and 2,500 youth being served in June

2009. Enrollment rose again during July, peaking at about 3,300 and began to drop off during 

August and September 2009. Grantees’ enrollment trends during summer 2010 mirrored those of 

summer 2009. Overall, fewer youth were served from May to September 2010 than in the same 

months of 2009. 
II. The National INA SYEI Context and the Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

10

Figure II.1. National Youth Enrollment, by Month, May to September 2009 and May to September 

2010

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

May June July August September

2009 all youth

2009 youth in summer 

employment

2010 all youth

Youth in summer 

employment

Source: Grantee performance reports for Indian and Native American summer youth employment initiatives 

supported by the Recovery Act submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor as of January 31, 2011.

Notes: All youth refers to any youth served during the reference month using Recovery Act funds. Youth in 

summer employment refers to youth that participated in a work experience as part of their program 

participation during the reference month. 

As Figure II.2 shows, enrollment trends for site visit grantees were similar to the national 

trends, with the highest level of enrollment experienced at the beginning of summer 2009, which 

reached a peak of about 680 youth during July, and declined at the end of summer. As noted earlier, 

data on 2010 participants were not available.

Figure II.2. Site Visit Grantee Youth Enrollment, by Month, May to September 2009

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

5/2009 6/2009 7/2009 8/2009 9/2009

Enrollment

Month

All youth Youth in summer employment
II. The National INA SYEI Context and the Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

11

Source: Grantee performance reports for Indian and Native American summer youth employment initiatives 

supported by the Recovery Act submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor as of January 31, 2011.

Notes: All youth refers to any youth served during the reference month using Recovery Act funds. Youth in 

summer employment refers to youth that participated in a work experience as part of their program 

participation during the reference month. 

These figures suggest that grantees followed ETA and Congress’ guidance on how to 

implement their summer youth employment initiatives. As discussed in Chapter 1, grantees were 

encouraged to spend their funds on summer employment and to focus their efforts during summer 

2009. As shown in Figure II.1, grantees tended to focus on providing services to program 

participants during the summer months. During both summer 2009 and 2010 large numbers of 

youth began enrolling in May and June. Enrollment remained high during July but dropped sharply 

during August and September as sites began to reduce the provision of services. Further, grantees 

focused their efforts on summer 2009. Nationally, both total employment and participation in 

summer employment were higher during summer 2009 than during summer 2010.

C. Characteristics of Youth Participants, May–September 2009 and May–

September 20104

 4 Descriptive characteristics were not available for youth enrolled only in summer employment. These figures 

include all youth served using Recovery Act funds during May to September 2009 and May to September 2010.

Females and males participated at about equal rates. Most participants were in-school youth 

ages 14 to 18. Although the Recovery Act expanded eligibility to allow young adults between ages 

22 and 24 to enroll, relatively few participants were in this age range (12 percent) compared with 

other age groups. 

During summer 2009, grantees enrolled disadvantaged American Indian youth (see Table II.1). 

As would be expected given the high proportion of in-school youth, the largest share of participants 

did not have a high school diploma or equivalent. Another 23 percent had received their high 

school diploma or equivalent and about 9 percent were enrolled in postsecondary education. About 

16 percent of youth were high school dropouts. Large numbers of youth received public assistance 

or experienced skills deficiencies. Slightly more than one in 10 youth were pregnant or parenting. 

Youth with disabilities and offenders each accounted for only 3 percent of participants. 

Veterans and their spouses were given priority of service because of the high incidence of 

unemployment among veterans after discharge from the Armed Forces. Nonetheless, only 0.1 

percent of participants served during summer 2009 were veterans.

Table II.1. Youth Participant Characteristics

May-September 2009 May-September 2010

All Grantees Site Visit Grantees All Grantees

All Participants 3,303 764 793

Summer Employment Participants 2,984 555 695

Sex

Male 48.2% 49.6% 49.8%

Female 51.9% 50.4% 50.2%
II. The National INA SYEI Context and the Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

12

May-September 2009 May-September 2010

All Grantees Site Visit Grantees All Grantees

School Enrollment

High School or Pre-High School 51.7% 60.2% 48.4%

High School Graduate 23.3% 19.0% 18.4%

Postsecondary 8.9% 16.0% 6.6%

High School Dropout 16.1% 5.2% 26.6%

In School 60.6% 76.2% 55.0%

Out of School 39.4% 24.2% 45.0%

Youth Characteristics

Pregnant or Parenting 12.7% 7.1% 15.6%

Offender 3.2% 3.1% 1.6%

Receives Public Assistance 46.7% 42.9% 60.8%

Skills Deficiency 29.5% 61.5% 5.3%

Has Disability 2.9% 3.1% 3.8%

Veteran 0.12% 0.0% 0.0%

Age

Age 14–18 61.9% 67.4% 54.1%

Age 19–21 26.6% 21.7% 30.0%

Age 22–24 11.6% 10.9% 15.9%

Source: Grantee performance reports for Indian and Native American summer youth employment 

initiatives supported by the Recovery Act submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor as of 

January 31, 2011.

Note: Although during site visit interviews some site visit grantees reported using Recovery Act 

funds to serve youth in summer 2010, none reported using Recovery Act funds to serve youth 

during summer 2010 in monthly reporting. 

During summer 2009, site visit grantees served participants who were similar to the nationwide 

program, although a few differences are notable. Site visit grantees served a greater number of 

youth with skills deficiencies and slightly fewer youth who were pregnant or parenting or receiving 

public assistance than were served in the national program. Among site visit grantees a slightly 

higher proportion of youth were ages 14 to 18. As might be expected in serving this age cohort, 

greater numbers of site visit grantee participants ages 14 to 18 were enrolled in school.

Across all grantees, youth participants during summer 2010 had different characteristics 

compared with youth served during summer 2009. During summer 2010 a smaller percentage of 

youth were either enrolled in pre-high school, high school, or postsecondary education. As would 

be expected with this trend, a smaller percentage of youth were in school. A much larger number of 

youth were high school dropouts. Sites also served greater numbers of youth receiving public 

assistance and smaller numbers of youth with identified or reported skills challenges. 
II. The National INA SYEI Context and the Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

13

D. Patterns of Service Participation and Completion, May–September 2009 

and May–September 20105

 5 Patterns of service receipt were not available for youth enrolled only in summer employment. These figures 

include all youth served using Recovery Act funds during May to September 2009 and May to September 2010.

During 2009 and 2010, INA SYEI grantees focused their efforts on providing summer 

employment opportunities rather than other services to youth participants as urged by Congress and 

ETA (Table II.2). Among all youth served using Recovery Act funds during May to September 

2009, a majority (90 percent) were placed in a summer job. Similarly, among all youth served during 

May to September 2010 through January 2011, 88 percent were placed in a summer job.

Table II.2. Select Services Completed or Education Attained by Youth Participants

 May-September 2009 May-September 

2010

 All Grantees Site Visit 

Grantees All Grantees

All Participants 3,303 764 793

Summer Employment Participants 2,984 555 695

Completed Work Readiness 64.6% 74.5% 88.4%

Completed Internship or Vocational 

Exploration Program

11.8% 3.1% 0.0%

Completed Career Assessment 64.6% 85.6% 84.7%

Attained High School Diploma 0.2% 0.3% 0.0%

Attained General Equivalency Diploma (GED) 0.5% 0.7% 0.1%

Completed Occupational Skills Training 18.0% 18.3% 0.5%

Completed Leadership Skills Training 36.0% 10.3% 72.8%

Source: Grantee performance reports for Indian and Native American summer youth employment 

initiatives supported by the Recovery Act submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor as of 

January 31, 2011.

Note: Although during site visit interviews some site visit grantees reported using Recovery Act 

funds to serve youth in summer 2010, monthly reporting to ETA did not include the use of

Recovery Act funds during summer 2010. Attained High School Diploma refers to the number 

of youth participants enrolled for the period that attained a state-recognized high school 

diploma as a result of program participation. Attained General Equivalency Diploma (GED) 

refers to the number of youth participants enrolled for the period that attained a staterecognized GED as a result of program participation.

In 2009, nearly two-thirds (64.6 percent) of the youth participants completed work readiness 

training and/or career assessment. In 2010, 88.4 percent of participants completed work readiness 

training and 84.7 percent completed career assessments. Work readiness skills training might have 

included career exploration, job search, survival and daily living skills, and youth development 

activities as described in the following chapter. Career assessment was a formal evaluation of 

occupational interests, values, skills, or aptitudes to identify careers for which the participants might 

be well suited. In summer 2009, 36 percent of participants completed leadership training and this 

figure rose to 73 percent in summer 2010. This training aimed to develop leadership ability and 

could have included exposure to postsecondary educational opportunities, community and service 
II. The National INA SYEI Context and the Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

14

learning projects, peer-centered mentoring and tutoring, organizational and team work training, 

citizenship training, or organized group counseling. In summer 2009, about 10 percent of youth 

completed some form of occupational skills training, which could have included vocational 

education and on-the-job training. A much smaller share of youth completed this training in 

summer 2010.

In general, program participants at site visit grantees completed program components similar to 

those reflected in the national data during summer 2009. Youth completed these components, 

however, at slightly different rates. Like all grantees, large numbers of youth completed work 

readiness training and career assessment during summer 2009, but site visit grantees were more likely

than the national average to participate in these program components. Site visit grantees visited, 

however, were less likely than grantees on average to complete leadership skills training. 

E. Short- Term Outcome Measures, 2009 and 2010

Congress required INA SYEI grantees to report on the percentage of participants in summer 

employment that made measureable progress in attaining work readiness as a performance measure 

for youth served with Recovery Act allocations. Work readiness attainment, as discussed further in 

Chapter V, could encompass youth progress in one of several areas (ETA 2009):

• World-of-work awareness, labor market knowledge, occupational information, values 

clarification and personal understanding, career planning, and decision making 

• Job search techniques (resumes, interviews, applications, and follow-up letters)

• Survival/daily living skills, such as using the telephone, telling time, shopping, renting an 

apartment, opening a bank account, and using public transportation 

• Positive work habits, attitudes, and behaviors such as punctuality, regular attendance, 

presenting a neat appearance, getting along and working well with others, exhibiting 

good conduct, following instructions and completing tasks, accepting constructive 

criticism from supervisors and co-workers, showing initiative and reliability, and 

assuming the responsibilities involved in maintaining a job

• Motivation and adaptability, obtaining effective coping and problem-solving skills, and 

acquiring an improved self image 

In addition, ETA also required grantees to report the percentage of youth that completed their 

summer work experience.
II. The National INA SYEI Context and the Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

15

Table II.3. Performance Indicators for Participants in Summer Employment

 Program Year 2009 Program Year 2010

 All Sites

Site Visit 

Grantees All Sites

Work Readiness Attainment Rate 78.0% 81.5% 94.5%

Summer Employment Completion Rate 83.5% 84.7% 94.1%

Number of Participants in Summer Employment 3,145 633 697

Source: Grantee performance reports for Indian and Native American summer youth employment 

initiatives supported by the Recovery Act submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor as of 

January 31, 2011.

Note: Although during site visit interviews some site visit grantees reported using Recovery Act 

funds to serve youth in summer 2010, monthly reporting data sent to DOL did not report use 

of Recovery Act funds to serve youth during summer 2010. Data for Program Year 2010 are 

only through January 31, 2011 and do not encompass the entire program year. Some grantees 

may have missing or incomplete data. Therefore, the Program Year 2010 performance 

indicators should be interpreted with this in mind. 

Grantees’ performance information suggests that most youth involved in summer employment 

increased their work readiness and completed summer employment (Table II.3). Available data for 

program year 20096 suggest that by the end of the program year, 84 percent of youth completed 

summer employment and 78 percent of youth had attained work readiness. For program year 2010 

through January 2011, 95 percent of youth completed summer employment and 94 percent of youth 

had improved work readiness. Site visit grantees in program year 2009 did slightly better than 

grantees overall; 82 percent of site visit grantee youth completed summer employment and 85 

percent of these youth improved their workforce readiness. 

 6 For the Indian and Native American Program within ETA, program year 2009 covered the period from April 1, 

2009 to March 31, 2010. Program year 2010 covered the period from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011. Data were 

available only through January 31, 2011. The workforce readiness and completion of summer employment indicators 

represent only participants placed in any work experience (subsidized or unsubsidized) in the period between May 1 and 

September 30 of the program year.
III. Structure and Organization of Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

16

III. STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF STUDY SITES 

The previous chapter provided an overview of both the national INA SYEI program context 

and the national context in relation to the five selected study sites. In this chapter, we provide an 

overview of the individual study sites and brief profiles of each of the study sites’ implementation of 

the summer youth employment initiative using Recovery Act funds. We then discuss key aspects of 

program planning, design, and organization. Primary findings related to the structure and 

organization of sites appear in bold text and set off with a bullet point, to distinguish them from 

section headings. 

A. Characteristics of Selected INA SYEI Program Sites

The INA SYEI grantees selected for in-depth data collection are diverse across several 

dimensions. As referenced earlier and provided in further detail in Table III.1, three sites had service 

populations generally limited to a specific tribal community whereas two sites served Native 

American youth from a wide service area. Sites’ populations vary from a few thousand to tens of 

thousands. 

The recession had a major effect on the 2009 implementation of sites’ INA SYEI. Sites 

reported a negative impact of the recession on the local community and on job opportunities for 

youth. Some sites noted that there was limited business or industry in the area even before the 

recession. Others discussed a more recent increase in competition for jobs, the closing of local 

businesses, and/or a reduction in tourism and thus service sector opportunities due to the recession. 

As Table III.1 indicates, two sites have unemployment rates slightly above 10 percent; one site 

has an unemployment rate of 20 percent; and two sites have unemployment rates of more than 25 

percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2009a, 2009b).

The profiles of the sites below describe the site’s location, populations served, INA SYEI 

program enrollment, Recovery Act funding allocation, general organization, and the types and 

content of services provided to youth. 

Table III.1. Characteristics of Study Sites

 

California 

Indian 

Manpower 

Association

Four Tribes 

Consortium 

of Oklahoma

Kewa 

(formerly 

Santo 

Domingo 

Pueblo)

Mississippi 

Band of 

Choctaw 

Indians

Oglala Sioux 

Tribe of the 

Pine Ridge 

Reservation

Consortium or 

Individual Tribe Consortium Consortium Individual tribe

Individual 

tribe

Individual 

tribe

Service Area Affiliated with 

98 reservations 

and rancherias 

and 41 counties 

in California, as 

well as some 

areas of Illinois 

and Iowa

Caddo 

County, OK

Kewa Pueblo, 

NM

Mississippi 

Choctaw 

Indian 

Reservation, 

MS

Pine Ridge 

Reservation, 

SD

City, State

Sacramento, CA Anadarko, OK

Santo 

Domingo, NM Choctaw, MS

Pine Ridge, 

SD

Total Population 20,086 6,867 3,333 7,692 18,623
III. Structure and Organization of Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

17

 

California 

Indian 

Manpower 

Association

Four Tribes 

Consortium 

of Oklahoma

Kewa 

(formerly 

Santo 

Domingo 

Pueblo)

Mississippi 

Band of 

Choctaw 

Indians

Oglala Sioux 

Tribe of the 

Pine Ridge 

Reservation

Unemployment Rate 

16-64 Years 

19.8% 30.3% 13.4% 10.5% 25.9%

Unemployment Rate 

16-19 Years 

N.A. N.A. 55.3% 23.6% 58.2%

Unemployment Rate 

20-24 Years

N.A. N.A. 30.2% 13.4% 37.1%

Source: 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates and site visit interviews.

Note: Unemployment rates and total population for the California Indian Manpower Consortium 

refer to American Indians and Alaska Natives within the Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, 

California, Metropolitan Statistical Area. Unemployment rates and total population for the 

Four Tribes Consortium of Oklahoma refer to American Indians and Alaska Natives within 

Caddo County, Oklahoma. Unemployment rates and total population for Kewa (formerly Santo 

Domingo) Pueblo, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and the Oglala Sioux Tribe of the 

Pine Ridge Reservation refer to all persons living within the geographic areas defined by the 

U.S. Census Bureau as “Santo Domingo Pueblo, NM”; “Mississippi Choctaw Reservation, MS”; 

and “Pine Ridge Reservation, SD”, respectively, for the purposes of the American Community 

Survey 2005-2009 five-year estimates. 

N.A. = not available.

B. California Indian Manpower Association

California Indian Manpower Consortium, Inc. (CIMC) is a consortium of “federally recognized 

American Indian tribes, reservations, rancherias, bands, colonies, terminated rancherias, American 

Indian groups, entities, and organizations.”7 Its primary purpose is to provide job training and 

employment opportunities to its member groups through federal WIA funding8

. It also provides 

programs designed to promote the educational and economic advancement of all peoples in its 

service areas. Through its headquarters and eight field offices, CIMC works with 98 reservations 

and rancherias and 41 counties in California and some areas of Illinois and Iowa.9

 7 See http://www.cimcinc.org/cimc_aboutus.htm. 

8 CIMC has been providing employment and training services to its members since its incorporation in 1978. Due 

to staff turnover and program changes, CIMC staff – as well as staff in the other four site visit locations – did not have 

precise information about how long they had been providing summer youth employment programs. Several staff did 

indicate, however, that they had been providing them for many years, often since before the passage of the Workforce 

Investment Act of 1998.

9 Since 1995, CIMC has also provided WIA services to residents of the State of Illinois and Clinton, Muscatine, 

and Scott Counties in Iowa. Native American groups in these areas learned about CIMC through personal contacts and 

ultimately joined the consortium in order to be able to benefit from CIMC’s experience and from membership in a 

consortium. CIMC did not, however, include their Illinois and Iowa service areas in their Recovery Act-funded SYEI 

program.
III. Structure and Organization of Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

18

Each summer, CIMC runs four summer youth employment programs, supported by different 

combinations of federal, state, and county funding. In 2009, it received an INA SYEI Recovery Act 

supplement of $151,000, with which it served 65 additional youth. CIMC also received other 

Recovery Act funding from the state, but those funds were used for a different program that also 

supported additional youth employment opportunities. For the Recovery Act-funded SYEI 

program, CIMC received an announcement in late March/early April 2009 and had a deadline of the 

second week in June for youth to submit their enrollment documents. It trained staff in May 2009 

to help them understand the new outreach and eligibility requirements for the Recovery Act-funded 

SYEI program. Youth began the program in the last week of June 2009 and most completed the 

program by the end of September 2009. CIMC spent all of its INA SYEI Recovery Act allocation 

during the summer of 2009. 

CIMC’s goal for the Recovery Act-funded program was the same as its other summer youth 

employment programs: to provide youth with workforce readiness training and work experience, as 

well as an opportunity to earn income and have the experience of the responsibility of a job. 

Because it had well-established youth summer employment programs in place, CIMC used its 

Recovery Act funds to serve more youth through one of its existing programs. 

All youth received a career assessment or interest survey to help them determine their career 

interests. They also participated in a test of workforce readiness, followed by job readiness training 

as a group, in which the program coordinator and the workforce development coordinator field 

office staff review with youth topics such as expectations for behavior at the worksite, appropriate 

appearance, grooming, attendance, what is appropriate to discuss with supervisors, self-esteem, 

positive attitudes, pride in their cultural heritage, honesty in their jobs, balancing work and home life, 

why workers lose their jobs, and substance abuse. Youth then participate in five to six weeks of 

employment, during which they work alongside regular employees and engage in tasks that regular 

employees in the position would do. At the end of the summer, youth take another, slightly longer 

post-test to assess any changes in workforce readiness.

C. Four Tribes Consortium of Oklahoma

The Four Tribes Consortium of Oklahoma (hereafter, Four Tribes) located in Anadarko, 

Oklahoma, serves the Apache Tribe, Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, Fort Sill Apache Tribe, and 

Caddo Tribe, as well all other Native Americans in Caddo County, Oklahoma. Before the Recovery 

Act, the consortium had operated a WIA-funded summer youth employment program that typically 

served about 35 youth each summer. Two staff members, the executive director and the program 

coordinator, run the summer youth program through the Four Tribes program office, which 

provides employment and training opportunities to Native Americans throughout Caddo County. 

The Four Tribes’ base of funding comes from WIA and was supplemented in 2009 with 

$87,600 in Recovery Act funds. In 2009, it received approximately 300 applications for the summer 

program, served approximately 60 to 80 youth, and spent 100 percent of its Recovery Act allocation. 

With the Recovery Act-funded program in 2009, the Four Tribes’ goal was to enroll older youth and 

to have at least half of them retain employment. It also worked with Anadarko’s probation office to 

target youth who had community service obligations or fines to pay before being absolved by the 

court to give them opportunities to make restitution. As in other summers, the Four Tribes also 

sought to improve youths’ academic skills or credits to grade level and provide them with skills 

training and “something to put on their resume” and “to give them experiences and knowledge so 

they feel confident if they were to leave for some place like Oklahoma City.” 
III. Structure and Organization of Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

19

The Four Tribes’ summer youth program offers classroom training and worksite employment 

experiences. Its application process for summer youth employment programs begins in May of each 

year and youths’ work experiences run from approximately June 1 to mid-August. The program 

includes a measure of work-readiness via a career assessment, in which youth take a staff-developed 

employment test and complete an individual employment plan, including their two-year goals and 

steps they plan to take to reach their goals. They also receive some in-house career training or life 

skills building, on such topics as resume preparation, financial management, drug and alcohol abuse, 

or parenting as well as how to “compete for a job” and think about education beyond the general 

educational development (GED) test.

Older youth are matched to worksites, whereas younger youth, those ages 14 to 15, participate 

in one month of summer school that consists of reading or math enhancement and community 

service projects to support elders or their tribe. Some older youth also attend school if they need 

additional credits. The program includes one or two cultural activities with the Four Tribes 

community each summer.

D. Kewa (Santo Domingo) Pueblo

The Kewa (Santo Domingo) Pueblo Office of Employment and Training (OET) provides adult 

and youth employment and training to residents of Kewa Pueblo, a community of about 5,000 

residents located north of Albuquerque, New Mexico. In addition to implementing a summer youth 

employment program prior to the Recovery Act, OET provides a WIA adult program that links 

adult workers to employment and delivers job readiness training that includes resume writing, basic 

skills, and academic skills and assessments

During summer 2009, program staff hoped to provide employment experience to youth as well 

as youth development and experiential education. OET was awarded approximately $59,000 and 

used these funds to serve 20 participants in the 2009 summer youth employment initiative. 

Participants entered the program during June 2009 and exited during August 2009. OET used about 

one-sixth of its Recovery Act allocation to develop and implement a pilot GED course, Kewa 

FOCUS, which ran from August 2009 to March 2010. This pilot course enrolled about 20 

participants. The course was designed to help Kewa youth and adults earn a high school diploma in 

a local, culturally appropriate program. The director and coordinator of OET implemented the 

SYEI with the assistance of two youth advisors hired specifically for the 2009 summer program. 

OET contracted with Lifework Learning, Inc. to provide the pilot GED course and OET staff 

handled recruitment and outreach. 

In addition to workforce participation experiences, youth attended a weekly training day that 

taught them job readiness and life skills. OET staff or guest speakers from the community delivered 

this training. Program participants also attended camps, conferences, or other training activities 

focused on youth development, experiential education, and Pueblo Indian culture. Youth 

participants led an effort to form a youth council, the Kewa TRUTH Council, and were advised by 

program staff. Youth also visited local postsecondary institutions and participated in community 

service projects.

Students enrolled in the pilot GED course received instruction in the five traditional core GED 

areas. Students also visited postsecondary institutions and received life skills and job readiness 

training, including financial literacy, resume writing, and job interviewing. 
III. Structure and Organization of Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

20

E. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (MBCI) Department of Employment and Training 

(DET) provides adult and youth employment and training services to the Mississippi Choctaw 

Indian Reservation near Philadelphia, Mississippi. While staff did not have precise information 

about how long they had been running a summer youth employment program, DET has been 

implementing one since before WIA came into effect in 1998. They provide these and other 

employment services to all eight of the tribe’s communities: Bogue Chitto, Bogue Homa, Conehatta, 

Crystal Ridge, Pearl River, Red Water, Tucker, and Standing Pine. DET was awarded approximately 

$106,000 and used the funds to develop a distinct program serving youth ages 18 to 24 that was 

implemented alongside its standard summer youth employment program. Program staff’s goals for 

the program were for youth to complete job readiness training with classroom-based learning and 

complete work experience activities. For the 2009 Recovery Act-funded program, DET staff also 

wanted to make sure youth completed a comprehensive career assessment and obtained 

certifications that would increase their employability and competiveness in the job market. In 

practice, both programs participated in similar activities although youth in the Recovery Act-funded 

program spent more time in work experience and less time in classroom-based learning than their 

counterparts in the existing program. The Recovery Act-funded program enrolled two groups of 

program participants during summer 2009 in June 2009 (20 participants) and August 2009 (16 

participants). New youth entered the program during each session. The program also served a third 

group of 7 participants during January 2010. Each group was enrolled for six weeks.

During summer 2009, youth engaged in several different program activities. All program 

participants worked with the MBCI Natural Resource Department for their six weeks with the 

program. DET administered job readiness workshops during each summer session. DET partnered 

with East Central Community College’s Integrated Technologies Center to provide youth 

classroom-based and hands-on instruction in basic manufacturing safety, computer skills, hand and 

power tools, blueprint reading, basic measurement, precision measurement tools, statistical process 

control, and control chart operation; successful completion of the course earned youth a modern 

multiskill manufacturing (M3) production certification. Youth also participated in several youth 

development and cultural activities, including an annual MBCI Youth Leadership Conference, a 

ropes course, and two cultural exchanges with other tribes. 

F. Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation

The Oglala Sioux Tribe WIA Office provides adult and youth employment and training to Pine 

Ridge Reservation’s nine districts. The WIA Office was awarded $536,000 and used most of its 

Recovery Act funds during summer 2009 and had only a small amount left over for summer 2010. 

Program staff’s goals for the program included providing youth with paid work experience, valuable 

work skills, and giving them an idea of the real world. Staff also hoped to provide youth in summer 

school the opportunity to earn wages while completing their education. They said that this goal was 

unique to the summer 2009 program and had not been a goal in previous years or in 2010. The 

WIA Office served about 500 youth using Recovery Act funds during summer 2009. During 

summer 2009, youth (1) worked at worksites and received wages, some of which were funded by the 

Recovery Act; or (2) attended summer school and received wages, funded completely by the 

Recovery Act. During summer 2010, Recovery Act funds were used for workforce participation 

experiences only for youth ages 18 to 24, who typically worked with local business or tribal 

organizations. In both 2009 and 2010, the summer program was organized into two four-week 

sessions with new youth entering during each session. In both summer sessions, the first four-week 

session began during mid-June and the second began during late July. 
III. Structure and Organization of Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

21

In addition to the summer 2009 and 2010 work experience (and summer school attendance in 

the case of 2009), WIA Office staff held an orientation and two education sessions with youth in 

each district during both summer sessions. The WIA Office also partnered with a local community 

financial development institution to provide financial literacy education to youth. During both 

summer 2009 sessions a job skills trainer visited youth in each district during each session and held a 

meeting on job skills training. At the end of summer 2009 the program held a celebratory meeting. 

The program brought in youth program participants (from both program sessions) from each of the

districts and provided food, games, sports, speakers, education, and presentations at a local park. 

G. INA SYEI Program Planning, Design, and Organization 2009 and 2010

The infusion of Recovery Act funds presented sites with an opportunity to expand, modify, or 

enhance their summer youth employment programs. None of the five study sites used the funds to 

create wholly new program structures, although some did create new program components, 

including new workforce experiences, skills trainings, and cultural activities. According to staff, this 

was largely because after the Recovery Act was signed into law in early 2009, sites had only a limited 

amount of time to prepare for their summer youth employment programs. Sites had to develop 

goals for the new program, determine the services youth would receive, and decide who would 

provide youth services. 

Crucially, they also had to develop strategies both for serving older youth and for measuring 

and reporting two performance measures—program completion and workforce readiness—required 

by the Recovery Act rules. This short time frame, federal guidance, and sites’ previous experiences 

had a critical influence on the planning and design process during summer 2009. Most sites 

expended most of their funds in summer 2009 and thus were not able to make significant changes or 

improvements in their 2010 summer youth employment programs. 

The goals discussed by the five site visit grantees tended to reflect key existing goals for their 

summer youth employment programs, with some additional goals in response to the Recovery Act: 

Program staff hoped to provide youth with work experience so youth could earn income, increase 

their awareness of the world of work, and learn positive work skills and on-the-job behaviors. 

Program staff discussed wanting to provide youth with job readiness training, certifications, or 

academic training to increase their employability and competitiveness in the job market. They also 

used career assessments in their programs to help youth learn about their own interests and goals 

and explore potential careers. Some sites also wanted to provide experiences that would increase 

youths’ confidence, self-esteem, development, and awareness of and pride in their cultural heritage.

• Providing paid work experiences and serving older youth were key goals for 

Recovery Act-funded programs.

Sites also mentioned goals linked directly to the Recovery Act or ETA guidance, such as serving 

older youth and providing green job opportunities. Most sites sought to use the Recovery Act funds 

to serve more youth than during a typical summer and to serve older youth as outlined in the federal 

guidance. Most sites also sought to serve these older and larger numbers of youth with green job 

opportunities. As discussed in the following pages, their ability to provide green jobs depended 

upon existing relationships with employers, but all sites were able to expand the number of youth 

served and to modify program services to meet the needs of older youth. 
III. Structure and Organization of Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

22

1. Planning

• The summer 2009 planning process was brief, and program staff typically served 

as the primary planners. 

Most sites reported that their planning process was not different from their established process 

with the exception of training staff on Recovery Act rules and procedures, particularly the 

performance measures. Program administrators were the primary planners in collaboration with 

other program staff. They typically discussed how they could best use the Recovery Act funds to 

serve youth and meet ETA’s requirements. One site, however, involved its tribal planning office to 

discuss the federal guidance and the program’s design. Another site reviewed labor market 

information, population figures, and area poverty rates to determine the locations most in need of a 

Recovery Act-funded summer youth employment program. Youth providers and employers were 

typically not involved in the planning process. In cases in which they were involved, their 

participation was limited to a discussion of program staff’s plans or an affirmation that they would 

provide services or employment to youth within the program. Sites that used Recovery Act funds 

during both summer 2009 and summer 2010 did not make significant changes to their planning 

processes during summer 2010 based upon their 2009 experiences.

2. Program Design

Most sites had experience delivering summer youth employment and training programs before 

summer 2009. Some program staff noted that in prior years the primary source of funding for their 

summer program was their WIA allocation from ETA. Some program staff and employers said that 

there were other employment, education, and training opportunities in the area, but most stressed 

that the summer youth employment program was the main—and sometimes only—source of youth 

employment.

Sites were able to utilize their previous experience planning summer youth employment 

programs to plan for their SYEI. At the same time, they still needed to develop a plan for how best 

to utilize Recovery Act funding and align their programs with Recovery Act stipulations related to 

serving more and older youth. In practice, all sites used Recovery Act funds to serve more youth. 

One site also used Recovery Act funds to create a program to target youth ages 18 to 24 separate 

from its standard summer program, which targeted youth ages 14 to 21. Although both programs 

provided similar services, the program for older youth was designed to have a greater focus on work 

experience, work readiness skills, career pathways, and green jobs. Other sites used Recovery Act 

funds to target older youth only and then served their younger youth with other WIA funds. One 

site designed its program to focus on community service to address local needs in the wake of a 

natural disaster. Two sites used Recovery Act funds to support youth attending summer school. 

One site worked with the local juvenile justice system to allow youth with community service 

obligations or fines to enroll in the summer program and use the program activities and wages to 

fulfill these obligations. Two sites also added additional youth and cultural development 

components during summer 2009 with Recovery Act funds, including attending conferences, camps, 

or cultural exchanges with youth of other tribes. 
III. Structure and Organization of Study Sites Mathematica Policy Research

23

3. Staffing

Several sites hired new staff to assist with their implementation of an expanded summer youth 

employment program during summer 2009. Several sites saw a need for additional staff to connect 

with and support the increased number of program participants. One site doubled its number of 

direct service staff—funding half of them with Recovery Act funds—so it could increase its 

worksite monitoring. Two sites created a new direct service position and hired additional program 

staff. In each of these cases, the additional direct service staff were involved as mentors, monitors 

of worksite experiences, chaperones for trainings or events, and as role models and coaches. In one 

of these sites, the additional staff were drawn from the organization’s adult WIA program. One site 

hired a trainer to visit each area of the tribe’s communities during summer 2009 and provide 

culturally appropriate job skills training to youth participants. Two sites, however, had sufficient 

staff in place and thus did not hire additional staff with Recovery Act funds. 

• Most sites did not continue program expansions or enhancements during 

summer 2010.

Most sites did not continue their program modifications from summer 2009 into summer 2010 

and sites that had hired additional staff the previous summer did not refill those positions. Most 

sites used all or most of their Recovery Act funds during 2009 and did not have the same level of 

funding to support summer 2010 programs. Sites that did create new activities and expanded staff 

and participants in 2009 reported having to scale back their design and implementation of these 

modifications because they did not have any remaining Recovery Act supplemental funds to use in 

2010.
IV. Youth Recruitment, Intake, Orientation, and Support Mathematica Policy Research

24

IV. YOUTH RECRUITMENT, INTAKE, ORIENTATION, AND SUPPORT

In this chapter, we discuss strategies the study sites used to recruit, enroll, orient, and provide 

supportive services to youth in their Recovery Act-funded INA SYEI programs. We also provide 

key findings related to these strategies, as appropriate, in order to offer insight into these 

components of implementation. Among these findings are the importance of word of mouth to 

outreach and recruitment, the strength of workforce readiness training, and youths’ need for 

additional supportive services. These findings are designed to highlight promising practices and 

lessons learned of potential interest to other sites that offer summer youth employment programs. 

A. Program Outreach, Recruitment, and Application

• Although sites employed various established outreach and recruitment strategies 

for the Recovery Act-funded INA SYEIs, word of mouth remained one of the 

most noted modes of information sharing about the program.

Outreach and recruitment strategies varied somewhat by site, but all sites employed the same 

established and successful recruitment strategies used in previous summers. Staff from all five sites 

most often discussed disseminating program information via paper flyers posted at community 

cultural events or sent to field offices, tribal offices, recreation centers, social service agencies, tribal 

employment program offices, health centers, schools, and other Native American organizations. 

Youth often mentioned seeing a flyer or hearing about the program from a relative or friend who 

had seen a flyer.

Other modes of outreach and recruitment included announcing the program on a local radio 

station; sending out several email “blasts” to all tribal members with email contact information; and 

making presentations at regional tribal meetings, cultural events, or development clubs that promote 

“the development and advancement of each of the reservation’s communities.” Interestingly, only 

one site mentioned posting information about its program on its website and noted that few 

applicants came to it via the website. No study sites mentioned using social networking sites (for 

example, Facebook or Twitter), an increasingly common form of information sharing with youth

target groups, as a way to publicize the program. 

Of note was youth participants’ frequent mention of word of mouth as the means by which 

they learned about and approached the program. Youth at four of the five sites explicitly discussed 

learning about the program via word of mouth from family and friends. As one participant 

explained, “Living on a reservation, you learn of things from other people.” Youth specifically 

mentioned hearing about it from their mothers, grandparents, cousins, and family friends, many of 

whom worked in tribal offices or were friends with tribal office staff who were familiar with existing 

tribal youth summer employment programs. For the one site where youth did not directly mention 

word of mouth, program staff noted that there was already “knowledge of the program in the 

community” that helped them to recruit youth for the program. In another site, staff noted that 

“advertising by word of mouth was also effective” for recruiting participants. 
IV. Youth Recruitment, Intake, Orientation, and Support Mathematica Policy Research

25

• Tribal summer youth employment programs have more applicants than they can 

serve, even with the addition of supplemental Recovery Act funds.

All sites reported having more applicants 

than they could serve with their summer youth 

employment program, even when Recovery Act 

funds enabled them to expand their programs, 

sometimes by as much as 100 percent. Staff from 

one site reported having 300 applicants and 

serving about 60 youth. Another site had 70 

applicants but only 20 slots for its summer 

program. A third site typically served 10 youth 

each summer and noted how advantageous it was 

to be able to serve 20 youth in 2009. At the same 

time, it reported having approximately 200 youth 

eligible for the program. A fourth site noted that 

with its INA SYEI Recovery Act funds, it was 

able to serve 65 more youth than in other 

summers and still had outstanding demand for 

the program. 

Youth reported applying to the program 

because of the significant challenges they faced 

finding a job “on their own.” Some older youth 

with experience had been looking for 

employment for as long as 12 months. Others 

said that they were now competing with adults 

with experience for jobs they used to be able to 

get even without a lot of experience. Other youth 

were attracted to the program because they needed “something to do” for the summer, as well as 

wanting to earn an income, assist with family bills, have a “new and interesting experience,” and 

acquire new job skills. A number of youth also talked about the benefits of having the responsibility 

of a job—having to get up in the morning and be somewhere, perform job duties, and work with 

others—as beneficial to their self-esteem and level of confidence.

Box IV.1. Recruiting Youth in Need

Among the many recruitment strategies 

study sites employed, one particularly 

innovative program worked with the 

local juvenile justice system to involve 

youth who had community service 

obligations or fines to pay before being 

absolved by the court. These often 

older youth worked in community 

service jobs through the Recovery Actfunded summer youth employment 

initiative to meet their existing 

obligations as well as to earn additional 

income and acquire needed workforce 

skills. Youth appreciated these 

opportunities and staff reported the 

value of helping youth in the 

community to find an opportunity to 

make restitution. As one staff member 

explained, “It’s a great thing. We could 

have really lost a lot of kids.... Most of 

them did go around trying to do their 

hours, but because of liability, nobody 

would let them. So it’s a great thing, a 

program like ours, because we give 

them a second chance.”

B. Target Groups and Enrollment Activities

• Recovery Act funds led programs to target and enroll older youth, as well as to 

create new workforce activities and opportunities to meet their specific needs.

Four of the five study sites targeted and enrolled youth up to age 24 in their 2009 summer 

employment initiative. The fifth site enrolled youth up to age 21. One site specifically designed its 

2009 program to take advantage of the higher age limit and created workforce opportunities for 

older youth who could work with limited supervision and engage in skilled activities appropriate for 

their age, such as driving or operating machinery. Another site created a new program for older 

youth that focused on having them complete a course and receive job-specific certifications that had 

the potential to support finding a more permanent position 

Sites did not alter their intake and enrollment procedures for the Recovery Act program. They 

utilized their existing application and enrollment processes that typically asked youth for 
IV. Youth Recruitment, Intake, Orientation, and Support Mathematica Policy Research

26

demographic, household, and income information, and about youths’ skills, goals, and interests. The 

sites then verified eligibility by asking youth to provide parental income information via a pay stub 

or public assistance award letter. Other sites asked for a Social Security card and proof of income (if 

the youth was 18 or older) and proof of tribal membership or Certificate Degree of Indian Blood 

(CDIB). Two sites reported selecting youth based on need: those with the lowest or no income. 

Those sites also considered household size and if youth were parenting. As discussed further in 

Chapter VIII, staff frequently faced challenges verifying income, as some parents either did not have 

this documentation or were concerned that sharing it might affect their TANF assistance. In 

general, however, because application, intake, and enrollment are well-established components of 

pre-Recovery Act summer youth employment programs, sites did not feel compelled to change 

these processes, nor did they face any significant challenges.

C. Youth Employment Barriers

• Youth participants face significant barriers to employment, ranging from a lack 

of skills and experience to serious mental health, substance abuse, and family 

instability challenges.

Youth in the study sites reported a general lack of employment opportunities in their areas of 

residence. In some cases, this meant that there were few employment options for them on or near 

the reservation or tribal community where they live. In other cases, this involved facing employers 

unwilling to hire youth or someone without an established work history. Most nonprogram 

employment options available to youth involved fast-food restaurants or large retail stores. Youth 

from all study sites reported that in 2009 and 2010 they had to compete with adults for jobs that 

used to go to youth before the recession. 

Youth also faced logistical barriers to employment, most often with transportation to get to 

work, which was sometimes off the reservation or at some distance from where youth lived. When 

relying on public transportation, youth often did not have an alternative mode of transportation if 

the bus did not come. Some parenting youth had challenges finding consistent child care for their 

children. Youth also had a number of serious personal challenges, from “pervasive poverty” to drug 

and alcohol abuse, gang issues and violence, and criminal histories. They often lacked a “good adult 

role model,” had not completed high school or a GED program, and came from what they called 

“difficult backgrounds” and “unstable families” in poverty. Some were pregnant; others experienced

depression. Staff in two sites noted a “very high youth suicide rate.” In one case, staff reported that 

culturally specific gender norms formed an employment barrier for some young women whose 

socially proscribed gender roles were not entirely aligned with such expected work norms and 

behaviors as the need to go out and locate a job, be assertive, speak directly, and find success.

D. Orientation, Assessment, and Individual Employment Plans

All programs in the study offered some type of orientation, assessment, and workforce 

readiness training, as discussed further in the following pages. Orientations tended to follow a 

lecture format and cover topics such as program rules and expectations, work rules and regulations, 

time sheets, and attendance tracking.
IV. Youth Recruitment, Intake, Orientation, and Support Mathematica Policy Research

27

Assessments tended to focus on helping youth identify existing employment skills and/or 

personal career interests as well as a worksite of interest. Three of the sites reported using formal 

tools provided by the local One-Stop Career Center to help youth identify skills or career interests. 

Staff sought to use both formal and informal assessments to help youth understand their skills and 

interests as well as to begin to develop a career path. Two sites also administered more 

comprehensive skills assessments to older youth, for example, WorkKeys and the Tests of Adult 

Basic Education (TABE). The staff used the assessments to match youth to a worksite of interest. 

In some cases, however, they had to rely upon existing or available work opportunities and could 

not always find a worksite that matched a youth’s interests. Only one site developed formal written, 

individual employment plans with youth, which staff noted as a way of helping youth set long- and 

short-term goals related to their education and skill-building interests. Other sites said that they had 

more informal or nonwritten strategies and plans for the youth. 

E. Workforce Readiness Training

• Comprehensive and detailed workforce readiness training was available across all 

study sites at program start or during the program, with some sites providing an 

additional end-of-program meeting and reassessment.

All sites offered some type of workforce readiness training to help youth extend their 

knowledge of the work world (one site called workforce readiness training “World of Work”) and 

build the specific skills required to locate, acquire, and succeed in a job long-term. In general, 

workforce readiness training was already well integrated into sites’ summer youth employment 

programs and thus did not change significantly for the Recovery-Act funded program. Some sites 

did, however, add new features in 2009 that targeted training and skills building to older youth, for 

example, instruction in manufacturing safety, computer skills, hand and power tools, blueprint 

reading, and basic measurement.

Workforce readiness training ranged from several two-hour meetings interspersed throughout 

the work experience period to a single five-day session at program start. One site provided a weekly 

training day. Formats ranged from lecture to group discussions to leadership games and role 

playing. Many of the trainings were run by the site’s program staff, often the program coordinator, 

but also involved guest speakers, for example, financial skills management trainers or staff from 

vocational and technical schools to discuss local training options. Other sites brought in outside 

staff, for example, an employability trainer or a job skills trainer to run the entire workforce 

readiness training. 

Topics covered in workforce readiness included positive attitudes and work habits, the 

importance of punctuality and regular attendance, time management and following a schedule, 

proper dress and behavior at work, following instructions, completing tasks efficiently and with 

quality, accepting constructive criticism from a supervisor and co-workers, showing initiative and 

reliability, taking responsibility for your actions on the job, and such work ethics as integrity and 

honesty. Most sites also incorporated life skills and topics into their workforce readiness training. 

They provided training on money management and financial literacy, how to address substance 

abuse challenges, goal setting and persevering toward goals, higher education and scholarships, 

positive self-esteem, and believing in oneself. Almost all sites included specific tasks such as how to 

complete a job application, cover letter, and resume.
IV. Youth Recruitment, Intake, Orientation, and Support Mathematica Policy Research

28

Several sites included cultural elements in their workforce readiness training, for example, 

discussions of Native American history; pride in heritage; and presentations from tribal elders on 

traditions, language, proper greetings, values and practices, and their continued importance. Some 

sites also incorporated tours of the local One-Stop Career Center into their training to enable youth 

to practice job search skills and identify future career assessment, skills-building, and training 

resources. Another site offered a tour of a local technical college and area community colleges and 

universities.

Four of the five sites also included an end-of-program component, in which youth would revisit 

skills and assess workforce readiness after they had completed the program. Some sites 

administered a short post-test that staff designed to assess any gains in workforce readiness skills to 

use to support youth, improve their program, and report on these skills to ETA. One such test, for 

example, asked a series of 15 questions on topics such as whether youth had been on a job 

interview, had employment, or had written a resume over the past three months. In these end-ofprogram sessions, youth might practice interviewing and writing cover letters and resumes and 

discuss performance reviews provided by on-site supervisors. One program provided youth with 

certificates to show they had completed the program and, as noted by the program coordinator, 

“reiterate the sense that they can complete each step of the program and succeed.” Staff from 

another site explained that they worked with youth to edit and update resumes and explain other 

WIA programs available to them. They then presented youth with a financial incentive, which youth 

were encouraged to use to cover the cost of interview and work clothes. One site used the end-ofprogram meeting as a celebration attended by the tribal president and other officials who spoke to 

the youth. They discussed tribal culture as well as focused on public health topics, such as 

HIV/AIDS, safe sex, and suicide awareness.

Youth were very positive about work readiness training, accurately recounting topics covered as 

reported by program staff. They discussed the usefulness of learning how to write a cover letter and 

resume, how to present yourself at an interview, and how to use the One-Stop Career Center to 

search for employment. They felt that it helped them learn how to figure out career options, how to 

have confidence in themselves, and how to be responsible, all of which helped increase their self 

esteem.

F. Supportive Services

• Youth needed and received additional supportive services in order to be able to 

work. Some needed additional supports that were not readily available through 

the SYEI or established referral processes. 

Four of the five sites reported high levels of need among youth for work-related supports. Most 

often this involved supports that sites could provide through existing partners and with established 

procedures—proper work shoes and clothing, bus passes, gas vouchers, local shuttle service passes, 

or other transportation assistance. In two sites, program staff gave individual youth rides to work. 

One site helped youth with car insurance. Other youth needed support to pay electricity bills. One 

site reported providing funds for youth to use to pay electric bills. Some youth required child care 

assistance, which programs generally lacked the resources and referral mechanisms to provide. In 

one case, however, youth could access funds to pay for child care. In at least two cases, youth 

reported being homeless and needing housing. Generally, programs did not have the resources to 

address housing challenges, but did try to refer youth to other services. In one case, the program 

coordinator sought to help a youth directly by helping him search for an apartment he could afford. 
V. Recruitment and Involvement of Employers Mathematica Policy Research

29

V. RECRUITMENT AND INVOLVEMENT OF EMPLOYERS

Employers played a critical role in the implementation of summer youth employment initiatives 

during summer 2009 and 2010. While Recovery Act funds compensated youth participants, 

employers had to voluntarily agree to train, support, and hire youth. Program staff and employers 

had to work collaboratively to facilitate the program and to ensure that youth had a positive work 

experience. This chapter provides findings related to how sites recruited and oriented employers 

and concludes with a discussion of employer experiences and motivations for participating. Key 

findings include the importance of pre-existing employer-program relationships, the significance of 

collaboration with tribal employers, the use of similar methods to screen and orient employers, and 

employer motivations to participate related to the importance of working with youth in their 

community.

A. Employer Recruitment

• Programs’ existing relationships with employers were crucial to finding 

placements for youth funded under the Recovery Act.

Program staff from all study sites noted the importance of their established relationships with 

area employers for their Recovery Act-funded programs. All sites contacted, and in two cases were 

contacted by, organizations that were previously involved in their summer program. Employers that 

had participated in the summer program in previous years made up all or the majority of employers 

in several sites. Some sites noted that these existing relationships with employers eased the 

recruitment and implementation process, especially given the brief window—from March or April 

to June 2009—for program planning. Three sites contacted employers with which they worked in 

previous summers in their service area to discuss the program and the need for additional 

employment opportunities. One site advertised in local media and used word of mouth to make 

employers aware of the summer program. Although all sites described a scarcity of industry or 

private business in the area, few described any trouble finding enough worksites for the additional 

youth funded by the Recovery Act. 

Program staff did not typically target specific industries or employers. Although three sites 

mentioned seeking green jobs for youth, only one worked extensively with an employer to provide 

youth jobs in the green sector. Two sites noted their limited industrial base and employment 

opportunities and the need to be flexible in finding worksites. Although they did not target specific 

industries, some sites said that the extension of the program to youth ages 21 to 24 created an 

opportunity for new employers to participate or for previous employers to provide new jobs for 

older youth. 

• Tribal employers played a central role in providing youth with Recovery Actfunded summer employment opportunities.

Tribal employers played a key role in the summer program. Their existing familiarity with the 

summer youth employment programs and their proximity to tribal communities or on-reservation 

location were particularly important to the program. Staff from all sites discussed placing youth with 

tribal businesses or tribal agencies. Tribal employers included housing authorities, local schools, 

health clinics, libraries, tribal administration offices, vocational rehabilitation facilities, and centers 

for the elderly. Tribal employers were especially important in rural areas where there were fewer 

businesses or industries than in urban settings. Several youth expressed appreciation at the 

opportunity to work with tribal employers. One youth placed at a housing authority described the 
V. Recruitment and Involvement of Employers Mathematica Policy Research

30

importance of being able to assist the elderly and give back to the community. Another youth 

placed at the front desk at a tribal administration office said that by the end of summer she got to 

know and assist several community members and that she now felt more at home when she returned 

to the community. Although tribal employers were an important part of the summer program, staff 

from three sites described also trying to find employers outside of the tribal community to give 

youth a different perspective and experience.

B. Employer Screening, Orientation, and Support

• Staff sought employers committed to providing personal support and work skills 

training and development to youth.

When recruiting employers, staff assessed whether they could provide a positive experience to 

youth at both personal and professional levels. Staff sought employers not only willing to supervise 

youth, but also those committed to and willing to take responsibility for the youths’ development. 

They wanted employers that would give youth valuable experiences and training and contribute to 

their workforce skills, rather than just employ them to do busy work. They searched for employers 

that could teach youth important job-specific skills, educate them on work ethics, and build their 

confidence. Sites also sought employers that were patient with the youth and understood that they 

were young and would make mistakes.

To determine whether a site would be a good placement for youth, sites typically contacted or 

visited the employer and discussed employer expectations and responsibilities for training and 

supervising youth, as well as the number of youth that could be placed at the site and their job 

responsibilities. The formality of the process varied depending upon whether a particular employer 

had participated in past summer youth employment programs. However, all sites completed formal 

worksite agreements with employers to establish the various responsibilities of program staff, youth, 

and employers for supervision, payment, and worksite monitoring. 

C. Employer Experiences

• Employers enjoyed working with youth and believed the program benefited 

them, other employees, the youth, and the community.

Across all sites, employers expressed their enthusiasm for the program, program staff, and 

especially for the youth themselves. They had been motivated to participate by a desire to support 

and develop youth and by positive experiences with youth in the past. 

The employers enjoyed developing relationships with youth. Employers appreciated the 

opportunity to teach youth about their work, impart job skills, and promote continual learning. 

They enjoyed teaching youth life skills by being role models; discussing their personal experiences; 

and promoting a work ethic, responsibility, commitment, confidence, and a positive attitude. 

Employers from all sites noted developing a mentoring relationship with many of the youth, 

supporting them, and helping them to think about their futures. Employers from four different sites 

noted how personally rewarding they found the relationships that developed with youth. Three 

employers from three different sites also noted that they or other staff developed close relationships 

with youth over the course of the summer. Employers also reported trying to reach out to youth to 

provide mentorship in their personal lives. 
V. Recruitment and Involvement of Employers Mathematica Policy Research

31

In addition to personal fulfillment, employers from all sites said youth helped complete 

important projects or provided additional work for their organizations. Employers from three sites 

discussed the benefits to other employees of 

having the youth at work, which they felt 

improved overall morale and enhanced the work 

environment. 

Several employers reported that having the 

youth work through the summer youth 

employment program also benefited the greater 

community. Youth were able to earn wages and 

have money for themselves or to assist their 

families. Employers said that it was beneficial for 

the community to see youth being industrious and 

engaged in positive activities. Employers also 

appreciated that the program kept youth away 

from such unproductive behaviors as substance 

abuse or gang violence. They felt that the 

program provided youth with a sense of selfworth and some noted that it prevented or helped 

alleviate youths’ depression. Employers also said 

that the program enabled the community to 

complete important projects that it might not 

have been able to accomplish otherwise.

Box V.1. Employment and Cultural 

Heritage

One particularly innovative 

worksite provided 10 youth ages 18 to 

24 the opportunity to help construct 

and maintain a new rodeo arena and 

horse racetrack. The worksite 

supervisor envisioned the project as an 

informal apprenticeship and taught 

youth skills in carpentry, mechanics, 

fencing, welding, and torching. Over 

the eight weeks of the program, the 

employer had occasion to teach youth 

about their cultural heritage, discuss his 

own personal spiritual journey, and 

encourage youth to find meaning inside 

their culture in addition to looking for 

meaning outside of it. By the end of the 

summer, both youth and supervisors 

felt that the group had formed a lasting 

bond.
VI. Summer Experiences of Youth Mathematica Policy Research

32

VI. SUMMER EXPERIENCES OF YOUTH

In this chapter, we discuss the experiences of youth during the Recovery Act-funded programs. 

We focus on how youth were matched to summer jobs; the variety of worksites and multiple work 

experiences they enjoyed; and several of the supplemental components of the program, including 

community service, academic activities, and cultural experiences. Findings focus on the rich array of 

worksites, jobs, and skill-building activities available to youth; the importance of community service, 

academics, and especially cultural activities to the program; and the very positive experiences youth 

had in the summer youth employment initiatives across all study sites. In this chapter, findings are 

offset from the text with bold text and bullet points only in cases in which a finding of particular 

strength emerged.

A. Matching Youth to Summer Jobs

All sites developed processes that enabled them to assess youth skills and interests and sought 

to match youth to worksites based on them. They had youth complete surveys or career 

assessments to identify youths’ skills and interests at orientation or at workforce readiness training 

before placing them in a job. They tried to find what staff described as “a good fit” for the youth. 

For example, when youth indicated they did not want to be in an office, staff placed them in 

grounds maintenance or community clean-up jobs. 

In practice, however, program staff had to place youth in jobs that were available from 

participating employers. In one site, staff explained that there were not enough employers to base 

the youth–employer match on the youths’ interests or career goals. Instead, they described the types 

of jobs available and then allowed youth to select the ones they preferred, as available. In another 

site, however, the director maintained an extensive list of contacts throughout the year and was 

better able to find work opportunities that aligned with youths’ interests while still meeting employer 

needs. Among this program’s goals was the desire to place youth outside of the local area to expose 

them to broader opportunities, other kinds of employment, and other ways of life. Youth from this 

site expressed a strong appreciation for the quality of the match/job they received. 

When mismatches between a youth and an employer occurred, four sites reported having 

procedures in place to address this; the fifth site did not discuss any cases of mismatches or 

procedures for redressing them. Most often, they sought to find a new placement for the youth, 

rather than having the youth exit the program. Staff noted that they did not pursue additional 

placements only when problems at home or challenges with finding reliable transportation appeared 

to be the reason for poor performance, and thus the source of what appeared to be a mismatch. 

B. Summer Work Experiences

• Across programs, youth enjoyed a wide diversity of workforce experiences. Most 

sites worked closely with Native American employers to offer youth workforce 

experiences.

Across the five study sites, there was a rich array of worksites available to youth through the 

Recovery Act-funded program. Within two sites, however, worksites or types of jobs available were 

limited to local employers willing to work with the program. Across all sites, youth had the 

opportunity to work with local parks departments, recycling centers, the city manager, city and tribal 

libraries, rodeo grounds, tribal health clinics, tribal finance departments, vocational rehabilitation 

programs, public assistance offices, grocery stores, elder care programs, early childhood programs, 
VI. Summer Experiences of Youth Mathematica Policy Research

33

cultural centers, a hotel resort and spa, a housing authority, fire and emergency medical departments, 

fitness centers, gas stations, and grocery stores.

Youth engaged in various types of work and were able to build various work-related experience 

and skills. Youth in office positions learned how to interact with the public, answer telephones, use 

office equipment, make appointments, maintain client and patient records, and use an office 

database. Youth in outdoor work, largely forestry and maintenance, learned how to remove debris 

and maintain public grounds and how to operate forklifts, bulldozers, farm tractors, skid steer 

loaders, all-terrain vehicles, amphibious buggies, 

dibble bars, and brush mowers. Other youth 

learned about farming and sold fruits and 

vegetables at a farmer’s market. Youth in 

construction work learned how to use construction 

equipment and to install energy-efficient building 

materials, windows, and doors as well as carpentry, 

welding, and torching, among other skills. Youth 

in customer service positions learned how to meet 

client needs and work with a diversity of people. 

In two sites, staff reported limited types of 

work available, but across all sites youth enjoyed a 

variety of opportunities through which they were 

able to gain valuable work experience and acquire 

new skills likely to assist them in future job 

searches.

Most sites were not able to develop green jobs 

for all youth served. As discussed earlier, they had 

to rely on existing relationships with employers to 

find jobs for their participants, many of which 

were not green employers. Three sites did, 

however, mention that they explicitly sought green 

opportunities. By working with its natural 

resources department, one of these sites was able 

to offer placement in a green job to almost all 

Recovery Act-funded youth (see Box VI.1). Staff 

from another site reported seeking to ensure that 

10 percent of all Recovery-Act funded jobs were 

green, which they achieved by working with a 

green grocery store to employ youth. Another site placed youth in jobs related to green 

construction practices, including energy efficiency in construction and appliances and replacement 

of old doors and windows with energy-efficient ones. 

Box VI.1. Comprehensive Inclusion of 

Green Jobs

One site required all youth to work 

in a job with a green focus. Youth were 

able to choose what type of work they 

would do within the natural resources 

and green sectors but all were required 

to work a green job. Program staff 

collaborated with several divisions of 

their local Natural Resource Department 

with which they had a preexisting 

relationship to place youth in summer 

jobs. Youth worked in, for example, the 

Forestry Department, recycling center, 

greenhouse, and farmer’s market.

Youth performed a wide variety of 

duties, including cutting, storing, and 

delivering wake wood for traditional 

funeral rites; removing trees in yards, 

public areas, and for highway projects; 

maintaining and repairing Natural 

Resource’s equipment and facilities; 

learning about herbicides and invasive 

animal and insect species; maintaining 

and growing plants and vegetables; 

controlling animal populations through 

planting trees to hinder beavers; 

working in the local farmers’ market; 

and planting and harvesting fruits, 

vegetables, and flowers. 
VI. Summer Experiences of Youth Mathematica Policy Research

34

C. Certifications and Skills Building

• Innovative job-related certifications and life skill-building opportunities were 

integrated into several Recovery Act-funded programs.

One site visited offered formal certifications through its SYEI. This site worked with a local 

community college’s integrated technologies center to offer job training to older youth. Two days a 

week, youth attended training that included both classroom-based and hands-on instruction in basic 

manufacturing safety, computer skills, hand and power tools, blueprint reading, basic measurement, 

precision measurement tools, Statistical Process Control, and control chart operation. Those 

participants who successfully completed the training received the M3 production certification, Level 

I or II. The M3 credential demonstrates the acquisition of core skills and knowledge needed to 

perform multidiscipline industrial and environmental work and is part of a regional initiative and 

economic collaboration between two states. Youth in this program reported earning several 

certificates such as the M3, an integrated technologies certificate, a summer employment program 

completion certificate, a forklift operator certification, and a certificate for applied geotechnologies. 

Youth valued these certificates and hoped to use them to demonstrate their qualifications to 

potential employers and to “show that they are a good worker and know they’ll be able to do a good 

job.” 

Although most sites did not offer formal certifications to youth through their Recovery Actfunded programs, they did provide opportunities to build specific skills. One site offered leadership 

skill building to youth off site, through a two-day camp on emergent leadership. The program was 

designed to help youth grow personally; increase their individual confidence, capabilities, and insight; 

help them understand their identity; and improve their interpersonal skills and ability to build 

trusting relationships. The youth participated in a variety of activities, such as high and low ropes 

courses and team- and trust-building activities.

One site provided a financial literacy program as part of its life skills training. The site brought 

in a fund manager to teach financial literacy and economics, including the local economy, the U.S. 

economy, and the history of the tribal economy, to youth. Participants learned about such topics as 

how to create and maintain a budget; how to open and track a checking account; and about interest 

rates, credit reports and scores, and loan scenarios. 

D. Community Service

• Many sites emphasized and valued community service activities but few sites 

paid youth for community service or had youth engage in volunteer activities.

As was true for summer youth employment initiatives implemented by state and local 

workforce investment boards, community service was a key activity in some programs. Community

service constituted a fundamental part of two sites’ summer youth employment programs. One site 

integrated volunteer activities into its program throughout the summer. It had youth participate in 

the preparation of tribal summer events and feast days, as well as respond to requests from other 

tribal programs for assistance. Another site devoted a substantial portion of its program to 

community service and paid youth to help rebuild the local community after a summer 2009 natural 

disaster had damaged the community. In response, the program hired youth (especially older youth) 

to remove heavy debris and operate machinery. Program staff targeted and recruited older youth in 

line with Recovery Act guidance and because they could often work with limited supervision, drive 

trucks, assist with the restoration of water and electricity, and use heavy clean-up machinery. 
VI. Summer Experiences of Youth Mathematica Policy Research

35

Younger youth also performed community service and assisted with disaster clean-up by visiting the 

homes of elders and helping to clear debris, cut grass, and repair buildings. This enabled the 

program to help with the repair of the town and to engage the youth in making a difference in their 

own community. In a third site, program participants were asked to volunteer at the request of 

tribal programs or during community-wide summer events. They assisted with roadside clean-up, 

helped at a community picnic, and assisted with graffiti removal. The youth also sponsored a backto-school dance for the community at the end of August 2009. 

E. Academic Activities

• Academic activities played a key role in many of the SYEI programs.

Three of the sites visited offered explicitly academic program components to participants who 

spent all or a portion of the summer engaged in 

academic learning. In one site, youth ages 14 and 

15 participated in one month of reading or 

mathematics enhancement courses. When the 

month ended, youth went to a worksite for the 

remainder of the program. Program staff also 

encouraged youth who had dropped out of high 

school to enroll in a GED program. The youth 

would attend the GED program either full-time 

before starting work or for a half day while they 

worked. Staff also worked to place youth in need 

of credits in summer school. In the other site, 

youth were enrolled in local schools during their 

time in the program. These youth worked toward 

recovery of academic credits or completion of 

their high school education. These youth were 

also involved in other program activities, but did 

not have a worksite placement. Direct service 

staff worked with summer school teachers to 

obtain youths’ timesheets and monitor youths’ 

progress. However, staff’s interaction with the 

summer school youth was limited compared with 

those placed in worksites. 

While not designed to build academic skills, a

third site enrolled all program participants in an 

occupational skills training program administered 

by a local community college. The program 

included classroom-based and hands-on instruction in manufacturing, safety, computer skills, hand 

and power tools, blueprint reading, basic measurement, precision measurement tools, SPC, and 

control chart operation. Participants who successfully completed the course received a certificate 

that showed they had achieved competency in basic manufacturing and production. 

Box VI.2. Culturally Competent High 

School Completion 

Over several years a program 

director at one site recognized the need 

for residents to earn a GED. The

director also knew that many residents 

had significant barriers to degree 

completion, especially when working 

through nontribal institutions. From 

August 2009 to March 2010, this site 

used about one-sixth of its Recovery 

Act funds (along with other funding) to 

pilot a culturally appropriate GED 

course. It partnered with a local GED 

provider to administer a GED course 

while the site handled outreach and 

enrollment. The course enrolled about 

10 youth and adults. Instructors 

adapted the course to the group’s 

learning style and then taught students 

the five traditional core GED areas. 

Students also received instruction in 

work readiness and life skills, such as 

personal finance, fitness, and 

interviewing. Students also visited a 

local postsecondary institution and 

learned about academic programs and 

financial aid options.

Another program sought to make academic opportunities in the area available to youth. Youth 

visited three local postsecondary institutions during summer 2009, one of which had a mission to 

serve Native American students. Program staff conducted these visits to (1) encourage youth to 

complete their secondary education and (2) know and understand ways to continue their education. 
VI. Summer Experiences of Youth Mathematica Policy Research

36

Across these visits, youth toured academic 

programs, athletic facilities, and student 

unions. Youth also learned about the 

admissions process and financial aid options. 

Most sites described how cultural 

elements were woven into summer program 

activities, including work readiness and life 

skills training. For example, financial literacy 

training at one site began with a lesson on the 

history of the tribal economic system and how 

intervention from outside groups had 

adversely affected it. Job skills training at one 

site included discussions of the traditional 

roles of men and women and the importance 

of keeping balance among all areas of life, 

including heritage and spirituality. As a group, 

youth attended community-wide cultural 

conferences, festivals, and ceremonies during 

the summer. Sites also brought in community 

leaders, tribal elders, and other guest speakers 

to discuss culturally specific topics with the 

youth, including health or social issues, their 

personal experiences or development, and 

motivation to succeed. Another site held a 

celebratory event at a local park at the end of 

summer 2009. The tribal president and other 

officials attended and spoke to the youth. A 

local group performed educational skits. 

Speakers and performers took time to discuss 

several topics with program participants, 

including, for example, the importance of 

cultural heritage, education, and major public 

health issues affecting their community. At 

another site, an elder served as a guest speaker 

and discussed cultural traditions, values, and 

practices; language and proper greetings; and 

why these things are important.

Box VI.3. Investing in Cultural Awareness

During spring 2009, program staff at 

one site decided to offer youth more 

cultural, youth development, and 

experiential education activities than in 

previous years. During early summer 2009, 

youth attended a two-day camp on 

emergent leadership, designed to help them 

increase confidence, understand their 

identity, and build teamwork and trust.

Youth also attended the John Hopkins 

Center for Native American Health’s Native 

Visions camp in June 2009. Youth 

participated in one of six different sports 

clinics run by professional athletes. These 

clinics were paired with breakout sessions 

that discussed the importance of discipline, 

teamwork, health, education, and attitude. 

The camp also involved other activities, 

such as arts, crafts, and cooking. The White 

Mountain Apache provided cultural events.

Participants attended the United 

National Indian Tribal Youth 2009 

Conference. Participants met Native 

American youth from around the country, 

participated in games and social activities, 

and heard speakers and saw performances 

on issues relevant to Native American youth 

and communities. 

One youth noted that participating in 

these activities inspired her to use her 

talents to address the problems affecting 

her community. Another youth said that 

these activities increased his desire to learn 

about his cultural heritage and helped him 

recognize the interconnectedness of all 

Native peoples. Across sites, youth 

mentioned their appreciation of the cultural 

components of their programs, especially 

the opportunity to learn about their own 

histories and backgrounds, which helped 

engender a sense of pride in their heritage.
VI. Summer Experiences of Youth Mathematica Policy Research

37

Two sites also used Recovery Act funds to pay for trips, conferences, or camps that focused on 

culture and youth development.

10 One site engaged in two cultural exchanges in which program 

participants visited summer youth employment program participants from other tribes. Youth at 

another site attended several national conferences or camps in neighboring states or communities. 

Youth had the opportunity to network with other Native American youth and learned about health 

and social topics related to the Native American community. Program participants at this site also 

formed a youth council during summer 2009. Youth led an effort to develop and approve bylaws, 

elect officers, and hold council meetings with guidance from program staff. The tribal council 

approved a resolution drafted by the youth council to recognize the group as the tribe’s official 

youth council. In addition, two sites attended ropes courses or leadership training to promote 

youths’ leadership development, confidence, and teamwork. One of these sites had youth mentor 

younger children during a large group trip to a sports camp to develop participants’ leadership 

abilities.

 10 Allowable activities under the INA SYSP program, and by extension the INA SYEI as discussed in Chapter 1, 

include a variety of leadership development opportunities. Leadership development as defined by 20 CFR 664.420 may 

include: (1) exposure to postsecondary educational opportunities; (2) community and service learning projects; (3) peercentered activities, including peer mentoring and tutoring; (4) organizational and team work training, including team 

leadership training; (5) training in decision-making, including determining priorities; and (6) citizenship training, 

including life skills training such as parenting, work behavior training, and budgeting of resources.

F. Hours, Wages, and Processes for Compensating Youth

The Recovery Act presented sites with an opportunity to adjust the intensity and length of the 

summer youth employment initiative. As discussed in Chapter II, most sites expended their funds 

during summer 2009. In preparation for the 2009 program, sites had to decide whether to provide a 

short, less intensive experience to a large number of youth or longer, more intensive experiences to 

fewer youth. Sites also had to decide when to start and end the program and how many cohorts of 

youth to serve. In general, sites enrolled youth for four to six weeks and served from one to three 

cohorts of youth over the course of the summer. 

More specifically, most sites did not begin serving youth until late June or early July. Youth 

were enrolled in the program for six weeks at three sites, about five to six weeks at one site, and four 

weeks at one site. Two sites served two separate groups of participants from May to September 

2009; one of these sites served a third group beginning in January 2010. Sites did not adjust the 

timing or length of their 2010 summer program based upon their experiences in 2009. 

Sites also had an opportunity to adjust the hours worked by youth during a typical workday to 

increase their potential earnings or provide additional experience. One site noted that the Recovery 

Act funds enabled it to increase the typical hours youth worked from six to eight hours. Youth 

worked with program employers eight hours a day at one site, six hours a day at two sites, and four 

hours a day at a fourth site. At the fifth site, younger youth (14 and 15) participated in community 

service activities six hours a day while older youth typically worked eight hours a day.

G. Youths’ Earnings

Sites had to make a tradeoff between providing a small number of youth higher wages or a 

larger number of youth lower wages during the program. Sites also had to decide whether to 
VI. Summer Experiences of Youth Mathematica Policy Research

38

compensate youth for training activities as allowed under ETA guidance. All sites reported paying 

youth the federal minimum wage of $6.55 per hour, which then rose to $7.25 per hour. Two sites 

noted that they choose this wage because it enabled them to serve more youth. One site said that 

using the federal minimum wage simplified its administrative processes. At one site, youth also 

received a stipend at the end of the program, which several youth used to purchase job interview 

clothing. Another site paid youth when they attended orientation and training during the summer. 

Most sites tracked youths’ work hours using a 

timesheet on which youth or an employer 

recorded hours worked; employers signed youths’ 

timesheets. However, their processes for 

collecting timesheets varied from staff picking up 

timesheets from worksites, youth dropping off 

timesheets with program staff, or employers 

sending or faxing timesheets to the program. 

Paychecks were generally either distributed by 

staff through visits to the worksites or youth 

picking them up from program staff.

H. Worksite Monitoring, Supervision, 

and Youth Mentoring

• Worksite monitoring was a consistent, 

careful, and well-established 

component of all programs.

All study sites had well-established worksite 

monitoring procedures in place before the 

Recovery Act funding and utilized them to 

monitor the 2009 and 2010 programs. During 

2009 and 2010, program staff reported 

monitoring worksite safety, employer fulfillment 

of agreed-upon roles, youths’ behavior and work 

habits, and youths’ attendance. They sought to 

help employers and youth prevent and address any problems or challenges that might emerge. Most 

sites provided this monitoring via in-person visits. Two sites had program staff visit youths’ 

worksites on a weekly basis. A third site reported having program staff visit as many as three times a 

week. These more frequent visits, staff explained, provided them with an opportunity to talk with 

youth and their supervisors about youths’ progress and to ensure that the worksite was appropriate 

and that youth were fulfilling their responsibilities. One site had staff arrive at worksites 

unannounced to observe youths’ behavior and worksite safety. All sites reported visiting sites in 

person at least twice a month.

Box VI.4. Formalizing Monitoring and 

Mentoring

One program hired formal youth 

advisors for its summer 2009 program; 

their job was to monitor youths’ 

progress and develop mentoring 

relationships with them, “to keep them 

positive ... and encourage them to keep 

going,” as well as to avoid destructive 

activities, such as gang violence, 

recently on the rise in the area. The 

youth advisors encouraged youth to be 

assertive and advocate on their own 

behalf, especially the young women, 

while encouraging the young men to 

respect women. They focused on 

understanding the challenges youth 

were facing and on helping them no 

know that “no matter what was 

happening, they had the potential to do 

great things.” Youth, in turn, spoke 

highly of program staff, calling them 

“outgoing and awesome” and talked 

about how staff helped them “think 

about who they were and where they 

wanted to be.”

In two sites, staff also used the telephone to monitor worksites. In 2009, for example, one 

office received a heat advisory, which prompted staff to call youths’ worksites to ensure that youth 

were not in the sun and were remaining well hydrated. One site also asked youth to call staff to 

report any worksite issues, including if they were going to be late or absent so that program staff 

could communicate with the employer and identify any challenges youth might have related to the 

absence. Staff at four of the study sites also monitored youth via their timesheets, either picking up 

timesheets in person or reviewing those sent in via fax. The fifth site also employed timesheets, but 
VI. Summer Experiences of Youth Mathematica Policy Research

39

did not discuss them as a formal monitoring tool. Those sites that did refer to attendance tracking 

as a monitoring mechanism noted that following youths’ attendance via timesheets helped them to 

identify and proactively address any problems that poor attendance might indicate. It also helped 

them track the performance measure of program completion.

• Worksite monitoring and employer supervision led to the development of 

mentoring relationships between program staff and/or employers and youth.

Through frequent monitoring visits, staff and youth reported that they developed mentoring 

relationships. In four sites, youth specifically mentioned that seeing program staff frequently and 

interacting with them at their worksites led to the formation of strong bonds with staff, often with 

mentoring and guidance qualities. 

In three sites, youth discussed at length how involved and supportive program and workforce 

development coordinators were. Youth noted how the program staff would help them with any 

problems they had, answer questions about any topic, help them find “shoes and clothes and 

anything they needed,” and were constantly available to them. One youth talked about how she 

developed a close relationship with a program director, who then helped her identify and gain 

admittance to a certified nursing program, which she completed and where she now works as a 

nurse’s aide.

In other cases, mentoring relationships formed between employers and youth through 

employers’ supervision of the youth. Three male youth from one site talked about forming a strong 

bond with their employer supervisor, a former law enforcement officer and fellow employee whom 

the employer had assigned to supervise the youth. The youth recounted how the supervisor talked 

to them daily about “getting on the right path” and “not getting in trouble.” Program staff also 

talked about this particular employer supervisor, noting how he had become a positive male role 

model to the youth who lacked this kind of support at home. A youth at a different study site talked 

about how, after working his summer job, his supervisor and co-workers now “felt like a family.” 

Program staff discussed how youth would often “latch” on to their supervisor or another employee 

through which a mentoring relationship might develop. There were cases in which full-time 

employees did not want the responsibility of mentoring youth, but in general, program staff 

consistently reported positive mentoring relationships developing through monitoring and 

employers reported them as forming through supervising the youth. 

I. Youths’ Perspectives on Summer Work Experiences

• Youth responded very positively to their summer youth employment 

opportunities.

Youth expressed high levels of satisfaction and gratitude for the opportunity to have a job and 

participate in the summer work experiences. Youth mentioned enjoying the type of work they did—

from working outside with the forest service to helping out in a public assistance office. Some 

youth regarded their work experience as an invaluable opportunity to acquire specific skills that also 

helped them realize what type of work they would like to do in the future. Others highlighted the 

opportunity to attend summer school and how much it made them realize that they could and 

should finish school. 

Many also discussed how important it was for them to stay busy and have something to do each 

day. Just the responsibility of a job helped them become more focused, think about the future, and 
VI. Summer Experiences of Youth Mathematica Policy Research

40

set specific goals. Other youth discussed how having a job helped them think about who they are 

and what they want to be. They reported that they learned that through work they could make a 

difference and be productive members of their communities. Another youth noted that after going 

through the program, she learned that what she really wanted to do with her life was to help her 

community. She then changed her focus from wanting to attend business school to wanting to 

attend law school, which she felt would help her directly help her community. 

Through job training and work, youth received encouragement and positive feedback and 

learned how to be honest and respectful. In a few cases, youth talked about how having a job and 

participating in the program helped them fight depression and feelings of hopelessness. Youth also 

mentioned work as an opportunity to build relationships with community members and co-workers, 

which in turn made them feel more comfortable in their own communities.

A few youth were less enthusiastic about the work itself but were still very grateful for the 

program, the staff, and the opportunity to earn an income. Given the challenges and barriers youth 

identified in relation to finding a job, as discussed earlier, youth talked about earning an income as 

an important benefit both directly, as money they needed, and psychologically, as proving to 

themselves and others that they could be responsible and succeed. 
VII. Assessing Youths’ Progress Mathematica Policy Research

41

VII. ASSESSING YOUTHS’ PROGRESS

Sites assessed the experiences of participants through both formal performance measures and 

feedback from participants. As discussed in Chapter II, ETA requested two performance measures 

for the Recovery Act-funded program: the summer employment completion rate and attainment of 

work readiness. When the summer program ended, youth sought new work and educational 

opportunities while staff sought to support them in building on their summer experiences and 

transitioning into new opportunities. This chapter discusses findings related to program sites’ 

methods of assessing youths’ experiences and their attempts to provide and track post-summer 

transitions and progress. Key findings focus on methods used to assess youths’ program 

experiences, the lack of resources for program services beyond summer, and attempts to locate 

additional programs that could support youth with new services. 

A. Assessment of Youths’ Experiences and Goals

• Program staff typically used both formal and informal methods to assess youths’ 

experiences both during and at the end of the program.

Sites typically incorporated both formal and informal modes of assessing youths’ progress into 

their SYEI programs. Many sites employed a formal survey, questionnaire, or meeting to obtain 

information on youths’ experiences in the program. One site created a pre-post work readiness 

assessment for the summer 2009 program to help it measure and report on work readiness. It asked 

participants if in the past six months they had (1) any work experience, (2) prepared a resume, (3) 

been to a job interview, and (4) someone give a reference for them, among other topics. Program 

participants who answered no to these questions on the pre-test but then changed the answer to yes 

were considered to have gained a level in workforce readiness.

Another site asked youth to formally evaluate their worksite and the program at the end of the 

summer using a questionnaire. It asked youth to describe their experiences, including suggestions to 

improve training, additional components the program needed, and how their personal and work 

skills had improved. Program staff used this information to plan for the following year. They also 

discussed employer-specific questions with worksites to let them know how youth felt about their 

experiences and ways to improve in the future. 

Sites also sought information from employers to assess youths’ progress. Three sites had 

employers complete a performance evaluation that asked about employee traits, such as attitude and 

quality of work, and job-specific skills, such as following employee policies and use of safety 

equipment. Employers conducted this assessment at least twice during the program and used it to 

track youths’ progress over the course of the program. 

As discussed in Chapter VI, worksite monitoring also served as a key means of connecting with 

youth and assessing their progress more informally. Sites used group meetings and trainings as an 

opportunity to assess youths’ progress more informally. Staff noted that through casual 

conversations during monitoring visits or in meetings they received quite a lot of informal, usually 

positive feedback from youth, which enabled them to determine how youth were progressing 

through the program. 
VII. Assessing Youths’ Progress Mathematica Policy Research

42

B. Youths’ Impressions

• Youth found the program and work experiences “extremely valuable” and 

“motivating” and crucial to their self-esteem, careers, and life goals.

Youth consistently reported very positive experiences in summer employment program. Youth 

said they were thankful to have a job during summer. Many reported they would likely have been 

searching for a job in the absence of the program or “doing nothing.” A few youth remarked that 

having a job increased their confidence or feeling of self-worth. Although some youth would have 

preferred higher wages, most expressed satisfaction with the wage level and pay periods and 

appreciated being able to earn income over the summer. Youth used wages for a variety of 

purposes, including assisting family members with expenses, paying personal expenses, savings, 

and/or for child care. 

Youth discussed improving themselves as a result of work readiness and life skills training and 

work experiences. Youth said they improved their communication skills and learned about honesty, 

work ethic, and respect. Youth also said they had a better understanding of the world of work, 

different jobs, and what careers they might want to pursue. 

Youth felt the program enabled them to develop valuable relationships with peers, program 

staff, and employers. These relationships were important at a social level and as resources for future 

employment. Youth generally reported that their experiences with worksite supervisors were 

positive. Most youth said that they felt they could go to their supervisor or co-workers if they had a 

work issue and that those supervisors and co-workers would be patient and help them out. Several 

youth reported that their work environment was comfortable and that they could joke around with 

their supervisor or go to them with a personal problem. 

Youth who engaged in academic or classroom-based training enjoyed their experiences. One 

youth remarked that she appreciated being able to attend summer school and not have to make the 

choice between furthering her education and getting a job. Youth who engaged in occupational 

skills training said that they liked being able to learn new things and develop skills that would make 

them more attractive workers.

Youth who had the opportunity to participate in conferences, trips, and cultural activities 

reflected positively on their experiences. Youth found these activities educational and liked being 

able to make connections with Native American youth outside of their community. They said they 

learned about important social and health topics, such as alcoholism, teen pregnancy, diabetes, and 

depression. Some youth said that these activities motivated them to want to do more for their 

community and work to address its problems. 

C. Youths’ Post- Summer Progress

• Most sites were unable to offer post-summer services or formal follow-up with 

youth, but worked to connect youth with other services.

Only one site reported having a year-round opportunity available to summer program 

participants; four other sites did not serve youth after the summer program was over. Staff from all 

sites said they informed youth of other employment or education programs in the area and available 

to them when the summer program ended. These included Job Corps, NEW Programs, GED 

programs, WIA adult programs, and vocational education programs. Staff from one site said they 
VII. Assessing Youths’ Progress Mathematica Policy Research

43

completed a formal follow-up call with youth and had a post-program participant-tracking process. 

Other sites said that youth would check in with program staff from time to time. Sites also said that 

they told youth that program staff were there to help them if they needed any assistance in the 

future. One site discussed connecting youth to additional social and health services, including 

clothing assistance, housing, and mental and behavioral health. 

Staff appeared to have a sense of what youth would do when the program ended. One site 

noted that about 66 percent of program participants returned to school after the summer program 

ended. At another site, most youth focus group participants mentioned applying for the adult WIA 

program, but program staff said only one youth from the program had been accepted. At another 

site, a youth enrolled in a Job Corps program following the summer program and had almost 

completed her GED. At the same site, a youth noted that he and three other program participants 

enrolled in a community college in another state as a result of networking through the summer 

program. One site reported calling all of its 

summer participants in the fall, just “to see how 

they are doing.” Thus, informal conversations 

enabled staff to have some sense of youths’ postprogram plans and activities. 

• Opportunities to transition youth to 

permanent employment were limited, 

but some youth did obtain permanent 

positions.

Program staff said they encouraged youth to 

explore permanent employment with their summer 

employers. Some sites said they worked with youth 

to help them develop the skills and work habits 

that could earn them a reputation as a good 

worker, which could then increase their chances of 

being hired permanently or obtaining a strong 

reference. At three sites, program staff and

employers said that opportunities to transition to 

permanent employment were limited because 

employers often did not have the funds to hire 

additional workers at the end of summer. Several 

employers said, however, that they considered 

hiring summer workers or would be open to the 

possibility. Some employers said that they had 

hired workers in the past, but this was rare. 

Across sites, program staff reported varying 

levels of success in youth locating full-time 

employment. One site said about 40 percent of 

summer 2009 program participants found 

permanent employment. Another site said that 

only 6 percent of participants found full-time jobs. 

Across sites, youth focus group participants reported varying levels of success in finding permanent 

employment. Several youth reported applying for jobs to which they were referred by program staff, 

although not all youth were hired. 

Box VII.1. Transitioning to Permanent 

Employment at a Green Worksite

One site partnered with Whole 

Foods as a green worksite to place one 

youth during summer 2009 and six 

youth during summer 2010 in work 

experiences. Whole Foods’ “Green 

Mission” includes offsetting 100 

percent of its energy use with wind 

energy credits, green building, the use 

of solar power, company-wide 

recycling programs, support for 

organics, biodegradable food 

packaging, converting its truck fleet to 

biodiesel fuels, and water conservation 

programs, among other elements.

While working at Whole Foods, 

youth participated in these green 

programs at the same time that they 

learned traditional customer service, 

food preparation, and food safety 

skills. Youth reported participating in 

the operations of the store, food 

preparation and storage, customer 

service, food contamination

prevention, preventing safety hazards, 

composting, recycling, and green 

waste disposal. They also reported that 

Whole Foods had employee-friendly 

policies such as workforce team 

building, health care coverage, and 

profit sharing, which they deeply 

appreciated. At the end of summer 

2010, three of the six SYEI participants

were hired as permanent employees.
VIII. Reflections on the SYEI and Future Considerations Mathematica Policy Research

44

VIII. REFLECTIONS ON THE SYEI AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

This chapter reflects on the implementation of the Recovery Act’s Indian and Native American 

summer youth employment initiative in summer 2009 and 2010. In it, we discuss the specific 

challenges, strengths, and successes sites had in implementing the SYEI program. We conclude this 

chapter and this report with a set of overarching or summative findings about the program. These 

findings are designed to reflect the specific, topical findings dispersed throughout the previous 

chapters of this report and to provide a summative set of observations on the implementation of the 

program.

A. Program Challenges

Despite the richness of program components and workforce experiences offered to youth, staff 

reported relatively few challenges with their Recovery Act program. They attributed this to the 

existence of already well-established, generally WIA-funded summer youth employment programs. 

They were able to use Recovery Act funds to support and expand existing relationships with 

employers and well-established program procedures, such as workforce readiness training and 

worksite monitoring processes. The funds enabled sites to serve more youth and/or to expand 

program, academic, cultural, and/or worksite opportunities. At the same time, Recovery Act timing 

and program rules introduced new challenges for staff, which they had to resolve or redress largely 

in the course of planning and implementing their summer 2009 programs. 

Many of the challenges faced pertained to the Recovery Act program itself and included the 

following: 

• Program lead time. Staff from two sites referred to the short lead time between the 

availability of Recovery Act funds and program start as a challenge. This gave them little 

time to develop additional activities, hire additional staff, and adapt data systems to 

Recovery Act performance indicators. Although ETA provided guidance and trainings 

on the latter, staff still had little time to integrate new reporting requirements. One 

program director discussed the desire to have had time to develop “an employability 

plan” with youth and provide more individual counseling. The director explained that 

had she received the final guidance on Recovery Act funds earlier, she would have been 

able to plan a “fuller” program.

• Post-summer program reporting requirements. Staff felt that the requirement that 

they continue to report enrollment, completion, workforce readiness, and other data to 

ETA even after all Recovery Act funds were spent created more paperwork and required 

scarce program resources that staff would have liked to use on other program 

components. They were frustrated at having to continue to report and wished that their 

reporting requirements would have ended with the depletion of program funds. ETA

staff confirmed that sites were required to report even after all Recovery Act funds had 

been spent. 
VIII. Reflections on the SYEI and Future Considerations Mathematica Policy Research

45

• Worksite placement limitations. Staff at two different sites expressed disappointment 

at what they regarded as strict limitations on where youth could be placed. According to 

their Recovery Act guidance, they were not allowed to have youth work at golf courses, 

swimming pools, casinos11, or zoos. This proved to be a challenge for two sites, because 

in previous years they had placed youth in these types of worksites. One had previously 

placed several youth at a local golf course, where they felt you had learned valuable skills. 

Staff also mentioned youth interested in zoology and youth trained as lifeguards who 

wanted to pursue this profession but were not allowed to work at a pool or lake due to 

program rules.

• Payroll processes. Staff and/or youth from two sites discussed challenges with their 

2009 and 2010 payroll processes. In one case, there were too few staff in an office to 

review timesheets and organize checks. In another case, staff hired for the Recovery 

Act-funded program were paid late and irregularly. In still another site, youth 

experienced delays with receiving their paychecks. Sites created new process so that staff 

and youth could be paid promptly, but the addition of the Recovery Act rules and 

procedures had an adverse, if temporary, effect on payroll processes.

• Favoritism. Staff from one site reported concerns over favoritism that they felt might 

have affected the program’s ability to serve youth with the greatest need and at greatest 

risk. They mentioned, in particular, the process for selecting program participants as 

perhaps subject to preference for some youth over others. As such, they feared that the 

selection process did not fully align with the program’s purpose and should be improved 

so that specific youth would not be chosen over other, potentially more needy 

applicants. 

 11 One site noted that while a casino and resort complex served as a major community employer, no youth were 

placed there during their Recovery Act-funded summer youth employment program.

Sites also reported challenges not necessarily related to the Recovery Act-funded program and 

perhaps more endemic to the summer youth employment programs. Nonetheless, these challenges 

persisted during the Recovery Act funding period and included the following: 

• Paperwork requirements, especially eligibility determination. Program staff from 

three sites identified program-related paperwork as their biggest challenge. They pointed 

in particular to income verification and documentation. It was difficult for youth to 

provide proof of income for themselves and their parents either did not have or resisted 

sharing this information with the program, for fear it might affect their receipt of public 

assistance. Staff explained that it would have no effect on them, but staff continued to 

struggle with eligibility determinations for applicant youth. This has been a concern with 

WIA youth programs nationwide. 

• Post-program follow-up. Three sites expressed regret about their inability to follow up 

or continue to work with youth after the summer program. In some cases, staff felt that 

youth needed and would benefit from more post-program follow–up; staff continued 

monitoring the youth but lacked resources to provide this kind of ongoing support. In 

one case, staff hired college students to work in the summer program who returned to 

school and were not available to “continue to connect with the youth.” Youth often 
VIII. Reflections on the SYEI and Future Considerations Mathematica Policy Research

46

expressed a desire for work and program activities after the summer. Although many 

reported having developed lasting bonds through the program, they worried they would 

not be able to find another job, complete school, or “stay positive” after the program 

was over.

• Excess demand for services. Staff from all five study sites discussed the significant 

demand for their summer youth employment programs. They cited the large numbers of 

applicants in relation to the relatively small numbers of youth they were able to serve as 

evidence of this. All worried about their inability to meet demand for the program and 

the excess need remaining in their communities. One site did additional fund raising to 

help support various program activities (for example, raffles, bake sales, and concession 

stands) but continued to be challenged by the large number of youth seeking summer 

youth employment opportunities verses the relatively small number of places for 

participants available, even with the addition of Recovery Act funds. 

B. Program Strengths and Successes

As discussed in the previous chapter, sites provided youth with a rich array of program activities 

and workforce experiences through the INA SYEI and reported relatively few implementation 

challenges. They used Recovery Act funds to build new components and target new populations 

into their established summer youth employment programs and to serve larger numbers of youth. 

Staff and youth identified a number of program strengths and successes and shared a deep 

enthusiasm for and appreciation of both the programs and additional Recovery Act funds. Among 

the most often referenced strengths and successes were the following:

• Serving older youth. Four of the study sites noted that they extended their programs 

to youth up to age 24, a group that they typically found hard to serve because of limited 

resources for their adult programs. They recognized the high level of need of this group 

and regarded it as both a program strength and a real success that they could provide the 

program and work opportunities to these older youth. Many of these youth reported 

significant barriers to finding work either because jobs were meant for teenagers or went 

to older, more experienced adults. Several older youth also reporting having found 

permanent positions through the program after not being able to find employment for 6 

to 12 months. The opportunity to serve older youth through summer youth 

employment programs was unique to the Recovery Act and regarded as a significant 

strength of the program. The opportunity to serve these youth, support their workforce 

readiness, and offer job placement formed a key program success.

• Program staff’s commitment and dedication. Youth at all study sites spent a 

significant amount of time professing their deep appreciation for program staff. They 

noted how much staff were “there for them” and “helped them get whatever they 

needed.” Some staff were extraordinarily dedicated to youth and the community, joining 

youth in community service projects because “We’re not going to ask them to do 

something we’re not going to do.” Youth described staff as “a blessing for them 

personally, and for the community,” “outgoing and awesome,” with several youth 

describing them “like family.” One youth explained how a staff person who knew she 

had been struggling with depression and other challenges had gone to a rural reservation 

to let her know personally about the program and the opportunity to have a summer job 

and earn money for school. Youth noted that they could call staff “at any time” about 

“any issue” and knew that they would receive support if they did. 
VIII. Reflections on the SYEI and Future Considerations Mathematica Policy Research

47

• Consistent assessments and workforce readiness and life skills training. Youth at 

all study sites mentioned the value of workforce readiness training and job and life skillsbuilding to them. They universally reported finding these trainings to be valuable and 

key inputs for their work and their lives. Youth found the more comprehensive career 

assessments that included a work interest inventory, work orientation and values 

inventory, and career exploration to be particularly helpful in learning more about their 

own interests and developing a career path. As discussed in Chapter IV, youth reported 

the usefulness of learning about application, cover letter, and resume preparation; selfpresentation and interview skills; and job searches, as well as how to have confidence 

and self-esteem through work. 

• Extending relationships with employers. Four of the five sites used the Recovery 

Act funding to extend their long-standing relationships with community employers. 

They reported close, historical relationships with employers that created a foundation 

upon which they could build the 2009 and 2010 programs. These relationships made it 

possible for sites to absorb and place more youth in workforce opportunities in a very 

short period, and to offer new kinds of employment to youth, including those 

appropriate for older youth and green jobs. 

• Larger community benefits. A strength and success of the program frequently cited 

by employers and staff involved how the SYEI benefitted not only the direct 

participants—youth and employers—but also the larger community as a whole. 

Employers received additional staff to help them complete work and accomplish goals 

they might not have been able to realize without the help of the youth. Youth learned 

the importance of their own tribes, the Native American community, and the need to 

serve other people, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic 

status. This helped them become more community- and more community serviceoriented, something that program staff and employers felt would help them become 

good citizens of the tribe and the larger community. One site helped youth involved 

with the juvenile justice system make restitution, which could then support their 

reintegration into their communities. One director also noted that the program serves as 

a stimulus to the local economy by giving youth jobs and wages to spend in the 

community. As indicated throughout this report, the program served to benefit the 

larger community in multiple ways.

• Providing positive experiences to youth. By far the most often reported program 

strength and individual success involved the provision of positive experiences to youth. 

Most fundamentally, youth had an opportunity to earn an income that enabled them to

contribute to their families, pay off debts or restitution, save for the future, and support 

themselves. They also learned about their own interests; set future goals; acquired new 

workforce readiness, job, life and leadership, and academic skills; gained cultural 

knowledge and a sense of community service; learned the value of helping others; and 

earned valuable employment-related certifications. Importantly, youth reported an 

increased sense of responsibility, self-esteem, work ethic, and success and 

accomplishment through the program, all of which are essential to employment success. 

As one youth explained, “I didn’t know I could do this,” indicating professional and 

personal growth across a number of dimensions. 
VIII. Reflections on the SYEI and Future Considerations Mathematica Policy Research

48

C. Summative Findings

A list of key findings from this evaluation of the implementation of the Recovery Act Indian 

and Native American Summer Youth Employment Initiative follows. These findings are designed 

to consolidate the many topical findings dispersed throughout the report into a set of overarching 

observations and lessons learned from the 2009 and 2010 program implementation. 

• Youth and their communities had very high levels of need for specific employment 

programs and for more general positive influences in the community. 

• Recovery Act funds enabled sites to serve larger numbers of youth and older youth, up 

to age 24, than they had previously been able to serve, all of whom have significant need 

for employment training and work opportunities. 

• Even with the introduction of additional Recovery Act funds, programs continued to 

experience excess of demand for services, with numbers of youth in need of and 

applying for SYEI programs far exceeding the number of participant slots available. 

• Recovery Act funds supported the introduction of additional highly needed jobs skills 

and educational and cultural components into summer youth employment programs. 

• Sites used Recovery Act funds to provide supplemental life skills training in such highly 

needed areas as leadership and financial literacy.

• Sites used Recovery Act funds to innovate by serving new groups of youth, such as those 

in the juvenile justice system, and offering new worksite opportunities, such as green 

jobs. 

• Well-established summer youth employment programs and existing relationships with 

employers and other community partners enabled sites to absorb and use Recovery Act 

funds quickly and effectively.

• Dedicated program staff played a crucial role in designing, innovating, and implementing 

programs and in bonding with, providing guidance to, and mentoring youth. 

• Most sites lacked the funds and staff available to provide post-summer/post-program 

follow-up to youth, despite youth interest in and demand for these kinds of postprogram services. 

• Despite acquiring new job skills and certifications, not all youth who wanted permanent

job placement were able to obtain it through the SYEI or after program completion. 

• Youth and employers regard summer youth employment programs as highly beneficial 

to youth, themselves, and their communities. 

• A significant majority both of study sites and all sites nationally met their performance 

measures by a significant margin.
References Mathematica Policy Research

49

REFERENCES

California Indian Manpower Consortium, Inc. (CIMC). “CIMC Purpose.” Available at 

[http://www.cimcinc.org/cimc_aboutus.htm]. Accessed on May 10, 2011.

Employment and Training Administration. “Workforce Investment Act, Section 166 Indian and 

Native American Programs Reporting Instructions for the Supplemental Youth Services 

Program Report and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Report (ETA Form 9085).” 

Washington, DC: ETA, 2009. Available at 

http://www.doleta.gov/DINAP/PDF/FORM_9085.pdf. Accessed on August 29, 2010.

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / 11926. Available at 

[http://www.doleta.gov/grants/pdf/SGA-DFA-PY-09-04.pdf]. Accessed on May 10, 2011.

National Bureau of Economic Research. “US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions.” 

September 2010. Available at [www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.pdf]. Accessed on May 10, 2011.

Social Policy Research Associates. “An Evaluation of the JTPA Section 401 Indian and Native 

American Program.” Waltham, MA: SPR Consulting for the U.S. Department of Labor, 1999. 

U.S. Census Bureau. “2005–2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” Table B01003. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009a. Available at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_ 

submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=. Accessed on May 15, 2011.

U.S. Census Bureau. “2005–2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” Table B02001. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009b. Available at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_ 

submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=. Accessed on May 15, 2011.

U.S. Census Bureau. “2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” Table B23002C. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007a. Available at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_ 

submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=. Accessed on May 10, 2011.

U.S. Census Bureau. “2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” Table S1701. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007b. Available at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_ 

submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=. Accessed on May 10, 2011.

U.S. Census Bureau. “2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” Table B23002C. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009c. Available at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_ 

submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=. Accessed on May 10, 2011.

U.S. Census Bureau. “2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.” Table S1701. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009d. Available at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_ 

submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=. Accessed on May 10, 2011.
References Mathematica Policy Research

50

U.S. Congress. “Eligibility for participation in title IV, section 401” Code of Federal Regulations Title 

20, Pt. 632.172. Washington, DC: Code of Federal Regulations, 2006. 

[http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/20cfr632_06.html] 

U.S. Congress. “Summer Youth Employment and Training Programs” Code of Federal Regulations

Title 20, Pt. 632 Subpart I Washington, DC: Code of Federal Regulations, 2011. 

[http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid= 

5a0b998c9e8b2548363f1147b1b1500a;rgn=div5;view=text;node=20%3A3.0.2.1.19;idno=20;cc

=ecfr#20:3.0.2.1.19.9] 

U.S. Congress. “Indian and Native American Programs Under Title I of the Workforce Investment 

Act” Code of Federal Regulations Title 20, Pt. 668. Washington, DC: Code of Federal Regulations, 

2006. [http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/20cfr668_06.html] 

U.S. Congress. “Workforce Investment Act of 1998.” Pub. Law No. 105-220, August 7, 1998. 

Retrieved from [http://www.doleta.gov/USWORKFORCE/WIA/wialaw.txt] on September 

10, 2009.

U.S. Department of Labor. “Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 16-08.” Washington, 

DC: DOL, March 19, 2009.
www.mathematica-mpr.com

Improving public well-being by conducting high-quality, objective research and surveys

Princeton, NJ ■ Ann Arbor, MI ■ Cambridge, MA ■ Chicago, IL ■ Oakland, CA ■ Washington, DC

Mathematica® is a registered trademark of Mathematica Policy Research