Wages Work! An Examination of NYC’s Parks Opportunity Program and Its Participants A Research...
-
Upload
ferdinand-foster -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Wages Work! An Examination of NYC’s Parks Opportunity Program and Its Participants A Research...
Wages Work!An Examination of NYC’s
Parks Opportunity Program and Its Participants
A Research Project by
Community Voices HeardMarch 2004
Workfare vs. Transitional Job
Workfare – a welfare recipient “works off” benefits in a job in the public or private sector. Education, training and support services may be available.
Transitional Job – a welfare recipient works in a time-limited job with pay. Education, training and support services are a key part of the program.
What is a Transitional Job?
Provides work experience: time-limited, publicly subsidized job with wages
Provides case management: address barriers, assist in accessing work supports
Provides skill development: on the job and through education and training
Provides job placement support: job search assistance & job retention services
Transitional Jobs: National Scope
40 programs nationwide
3,500 individuals at any given time
81-94% of individuals completing programs found employment
Parks Opportunity Program (POP)
Largest paid transitional jobs program Run by NYC Dept. Parks & Recreation Started Spring 2001 Initial phase of program had:
– 3,500 Participants– Paid $9.38 an hour– 11 ½ month positions– Workers were District Council 37 members
Distinctions Between POP & WEPParks Opportunity Program
Work Experience Program
Hourly Wage $9.38 - $12.50 $0.00
Salary $19,510 - $26,000 $0.00
EITC Eligibility Yes No
Job Title CSA / CPW / PEP / PA None
Union Status District Council 37 Member None
Sick Leave & Vacation Time Accrued None
Received On-the-Job Training 76.9% 19.9%
Learned New Skills 70.7% 39.2%
Felt Good About Self 87.9% 22.4%
POP Testimony #1
Euline Williams
Research Design
Multiple contact with 1000+ POP participants
Development of 10-page survey instrument– Personal background, history prior to POP, placement process– Experience during POP: at job site, at job services site, in
relation to salary & work supports, quality of life – Experience post-POP, current situation, general feedback
Random sample of 200 former workers from 3,403 list of participants
Research Sample
Response Rate: 50%– 101 surveyed - 35 not found at home– 36 had moved - 12 refused– 13 unknown at address - 2 unable to complete
Demographics– Gender: 100 women & 1 man– Age Range: 79% 25 – 44 years old
22% 45 – 64 years old – Race/Ethnicity: 54% African-Americans/Blacks
42% Latinas/Hispanics– Education: 57% less than High School
42% High School / GED / Beyond
Major Research Findings
Finding 1: Wages are Important
Finding 2: POP Workers Did Real Work
Finding 3: POP Improved Lives of Participants
Finding 4: POP Prepared People Better than WEP
Finding 5: POP Lacked Critical Elements of TJPs
Finding 6: POP Failed to Connect Many to Jobs
Finding 1
Wages are an Important Component in Motivating Welfare Recipients to Move Off Welfare
A. Wages Matter
B. POP Motivated Participants to Leave Welfare
Finding 1: Wages Important
Wages Matter
Best things about POP:– being off of public assistance (90.9%)– getting a paycheck (77.4%)
Program aspects that changed the way POP participants felt about work:
– earning a paycheck (97.6%)– having a job title (96.2%)– having a supervisor (83.8%)– having a clear work plan (87.5%)
Finding 1: Wages Important
POP Motivated Participants to Want to Leave Welfare
98% would have liked to keep working in a full-time job
93% would have liked to keep workingin a full-time permanent Parks job
79% were actively looking for work and had applied to an average of 10 jobs each
78% felt confident that they could get a job post-POP, while only 60% did post-WEP
Finding 2
POP Workers
Did Real Work Needed for the City
A. POP Workers Did Critical Work for the City
B. POP Workers Were Often Asked to Work Overtime
Finding 2: Real Work
POP Workers Did Critical Work for the City
WORK DONE BY POPs AT 1,700 CITY PARKS
Maintenance/Cleaning 89.9%
Painting 77.8%
Landscaping/Horticulture 51.5%
Recreational Coordination/Planning 23.2%
Clerical/Administration 19.2%
Security 14.1%
Customer Service 13.1%
Driving 8.1%
Other 6.9%
Finding 2: Real Work
POP WorkersWere Often Asked to Work Overtime
The importance of the work is also reflected in the fact that…
– 61% were asked to work overtime
– Of those asked to work overtime, 70% asked to work overtime between 3 & 10 times
Finding 3
The Parks Opportunity Program Improved the Lives of Most Welfare Recipients Participating in the Program
A. POP Workers Had More Monthly Income
B. POP Workers Saw their Quality of Life ImproveC. POP Workers Gained Greater Self-Esteem
Finding 3: Improved Lives
POP Workers Had More Monthly Income than Welfare Recipients
90% had more monthly income during POP
Eligible for up to $3,888 in EITC
36.4% were even able to save money
Finding 3: Improved Lives
POP Worker Income Compared to Other Benchmarks
$8,244
$15,394$17,650
$22,584
$48,936
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
Welfare Full-TimeMinimum Wage
FederalPoverty Line
POP Worker Self-SufficiencyStandard
Finding 3: Improved Lives
POP WorkersSaw Their Quality of Life Improve
93% felt their quality of life had improved
Responses pointed to: – increased economic security, – rising self-esteem, and – positive family spillover effects
Finding 3: Improved Lives
POP Workers Gained Greater Self-Esteem
87.9% of POP respondents felt above average (good or terrific) while in POP
Only 22.4% felt this positive while receiving public assistance
Finding 4
The Parks Opportunity Program Prepared People for Work Better than Unpaid Workfare/WEP
A. POP Workers Gained Skills On the JobB. A Variety of New Skills Were Learned
Finding 4: Prepared People>WEP
POP Workers Gained Skills On the Job
72% considered POP a useful program
71% said they learned new skills on the job
39% felt they had learned new skills in WEP
Finding 4: Prepared People>WEP
A Variety of New Skills Were Learned
71%
49%44%
31%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Equipment Usage MaintenanceCleaning
Painting LandscapingHorticulture
New Parks-Focused Skills Learned by POP Workers On the Job
Finding 4: Prepared People>WEP
A Variety of New Skills Were Learned
New Transferable Skills Learned by POP Workers On the Job
11%
7%
6%
6%
3%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
Driving
RecreationalCoordination/Planning
Customer Service
Clerical/Administration
Security
Positive Elements of POP
Wages are an Important Component
POP Workers Did Real Work for City
POP Improved Lives of Participants
POP Prepared People for Work
Still, some elements need improving…
Finding 5
POP Program Model Fails to Incorporate Critical Elements Typical of Most Effective Transitional Jobs Programs
A. Work Supports Were Not Sufficient or Accessible
B. Job Search & Employment Services Were Poor,
Education & Training Was Limited
C. POP Failed to Address Individual Barriers to Employment
D. Program Length is Insufficient to Achieve Stated Goals
Finding 5: Missing Elements
Work Supports Were Neither Fully Accessible Nor Sufficient
93% had their cash assistance cases closed
69% drew on additional benefits to help make ends meet
Even with a wage of $9.38 an hour and up, additional supports were necessary
POP Worker Testimony #2
Zoila Almonte
Finding 5: Missing Elements
Work Supports Were Neither Fully Accessible Nor Sufficient
Without supports, an average family would fall short almost $2,000 each month in paying their expenses [Self-Sufficiency Standard & Calculator, P.26]
Yet, despite clear need for additional supports, not everyone received additional benefits…
– Earned Income Tax Credit 88.3% received– Medicaid 81.9% received– Food Stamps 64.7% received– Childcare 45.6% received– Rental Assistance 27.9% received
Finding 5: Missing Elements
Job Services Were of Poor Quality & Education and Training was Limited
92% attended JAC & PACT 2-8 times per month
Bulk of services received focused on:– job readiness (time, behavior, hygiene, dress, etc.)– job search (resumes, interviewing, etc.)
Only 50% felt they were better equipped or skilled to get a job at the end of receiving the job services
Finding 5: Missing Elements
Job Services Were of Poor Quality & Education and Training was Limited
SERVICE/TRAINING TYPE PERCENT RECEIVED
Job Readiness 87.5%
Job Search Workshops 88.6%
Job Search Activities 61.4%
Job Retention Services 11.4%
English as Second Language 50.0%
Adult Basic Education 11.0%
GED Preparation 10.9%
Drivers License Preparation 12.3%
Commercial Drivers’ License 3.5%
Civil Service Exam Preparation 2.3%
Finding 5: Missing Elements
POP Program Failed to Address Individual Barriers to Employment
INDIVIDUAL BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT CITED
Lack of GED 45.8%
Lack of Education/Certification 34.9%
Lack of Job Experience 31.3%
Lack of Childcare 30.1%
Lack of English Proficiency 20.5%
Lack of Transportation Money 16.9%
Poor Health Condition 9.6%
Finding 5: Missing Elements
POP Program Failed to Address Individual Barriers to Employment
Differentials in Disadvantages Mentioned
Based on Education Level– A high percent of non-graduates mentioned their lack of education as
a major barrier to employment (80%)– Non-graduates mentioned certain barriers (lack of job experience and
pay not being enough to support a family) more often than graduates
Based on Race/Ethnicity– Consistently across categories, Latinas cited each barrier at a higher
level than African-Americans– More focused education/training options were not offered as
frequently to Latinas as African-Americans
Finding 5: Missing Elements
POP Program Failed to Address Individual Barriers to Employment
ADDITIONAL TRAINING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL
Computer Training 73.2%
Driver’s License Training 52.4%
GED Preparation 37.8%
Civil Service Exam Training 36.6%
Vocational Education 30.5%
English as Second Language 13.4%
Professional Training 11.0%
Landscape/Horticulture Training 7.3%
Basic Education 4.9%
Finding 5: Missing Elements
Program Length is Insufficient to Achieve All Stated Goals
Participants felt that a year or more was necessary in a transitional job
– 49% 2 years– 30% 1 ½ years– 21% 1 year
Extra time can help participants…– Stabilize their finances– Learn to juggle work & family– Complete both basic education and job training– Demonstrate ability to maintain long-term job to prospective employers– Provide increased value job placement sites
Finding 6
POP Failed to Connect Most Participants to Paying Jobs Thereby Forcing Many to Return to Welfare
A. Design May Have Resulted in Limited Post-Program Placement
B. High Unemployment Put Hard-to-Employ at Disadvantage
C. When in Need, Program Leavers Return to Public Support
Finding 6: Failed Connection
Program Design May Have Resulted in Limited Post-Program Placement
Only 15.5% of those surveyed were employed when the surveys were taken
A slightly higher percentage (22%) had held at least one job since POP
Finding 6: Failed Connection
Program Design May Have Resulted in Limited Post-Program Placement
JAC & PACT PLACEMENT NUMBERS & AVERAGE WAGES
FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 TO DATE
JAC 1
$7.39/hr
83
$7.95/hr
167
$8.32/hr
251
PACT 9
$8.82
127
$9.20/hr
196
$10.11/hr
332
TOTAL PLACEMENTS 10 210 363 583
Finding 6: Failed Connection
Program Design May Have Resulted in Limited Post-Program Placement
Critical program elements were missing or of a low quality in POP:
– Formal screening & assessment at start– Intensive case management with low advisor-participant ratios– Education and job skills training– Job placement assistance– Job retention assistance
Difference in skills participants obtained on the job and jobs available in the market
Finding 6: Failed Connection
High Unemployment Rates Put Hard-to-Employ at Disadvantage
SOCIETAL BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT
Lack of Jobs Available in Community 80.7%
Pay Isn’t Enough to Support Family 42.2%
Lack of Jobs Available in Occupation 34.9%
Finding 6: Failed Connection
High Unemployment Rates Put Hard-to-Employ at Disadvantage
Unemployment Rates were high– 8.2% in NYC in 2002
Non-High School Graduates Disadvantaged – 9.7% unemployment in 2002
People of Color Disadvantaged– 9.6% for Latinas in 2002– 11.0% for Non-Hispanic Blacks in 2002
Single Mothers w/ Less than High School– In 2003, only 39.4% employed
Figures based on CSS tabulations from Current Population Survey
Finding 6: Failed Connection
When in Need, Unemployed Program Leavers Return to Public Support
Though most were looking for work throughout (79.1%), some needed public support…– 85% accessed unemployment benefits– 68% were receiving assistance when surveyed
Food Stamps 90.6% Medicaid 91.9% Cash Assistance 57.8%
Conclusion
The Parks Opportunity Program was an excellent public sector jobs program
– Employed large numbers in good paying city jobs
However, as a transitional jobs program, it failed to provide participants with the comprehensive supports necessary for success
Needed
Fusion of large-scale living wage paying public jobs initiative with positive elements of higher quality transitional job support elements
Critical improvements to move beyond simply being good temporary jobs program and toward an effective transitional jobs program
Recommendations
1: Diversify positions available
2: Provide links to long-term employment
3: Make available training and education
4: Extend program length
5: Incorporate flexibility into program model
6: Expand work supports