Lessons from the Strategy

• The strong labor market and time-limited welfare policies will eventually force all employment and training programs to serve the most difficult to employ. 

The short-term impact of welfare reform has been to move recipients closest to being employable into jobs. Recent unemployment rates have been extremely low while job creation rates have been very high. As a result, the strong economy has "pulled" more people into work, simultaneously, welfare reform is "pushing" people into jobs. 

Over time, the people who remain in the welfare system are the individuals least capable of working. Welfare-to-work is a process whereby the most capable select themselves into the workforce. In practical terms, this means that welfare recipients who can benefit from a relatively inexpensive intervention (e.g., direct placement into jobs) are moving out of the system most rapidly. Over time, the remaining caseload will include a greater share of individuals with severe labor market difficulties. 
 

• As the most work-ready are absorbed into the workforce, those that remain will be the hardest to serve. In order to be effective, new programs will have to cope with severe behavior, motivation and self-esteem issues. Addressing these problems is fundamental, and more difficult than developing programs to impart knowledge about the workplace or to upgrade skills. 

Most employment and training programs have not focused on (or been especially successful with) the very difficult to employ. But a small number of unconventional pre-employment programs are exceptions to this rule. One well known example is STRIVE, which takes a severe "boot camp" approach to motivate and change the attitudes of long-term welfare clients. The program does not accept JTPA funds because of extensive federal mandates and the "creaming" incentives mentioned earlier; it relies on foundation support for most of its program financing. 

Founded in Harlem in 1984, STRIVE has since expanded to seven cities. Some 17,000 people have obtained jobs with its help and nearly 80 percent of them remain employed for at least two years. STRIVE's fundamental hypothesis is that attitude, not lack of skills, prevents individuals from finding and holding jobs. Consequently, the program is built around changing counterproductive attitudes and behaviors. A 1997 Washington Post article cites the "iron rules" of STRIVE: "Arrive on the dot. Spit out the gum. Lose the hooker heels. Show up even when you're sick. Shelve the self-pity. Never blame racism. Participate or get out."¹⁸ Counter-productive attitudes are challenged harshly; rules are strictly enforced. 

STRIVE does not expect its participants to keep their first job. The program is a lifetime support system, and initial failure is acceptable - if long-term barriers to work are overcome. While this approach is not appropriate for everyone, it illustrates the need for intensive, powerful programs capable of coping with well-entrenched behavior and attitude problems. 

In the end, however, some individuals may remain unemployable. These individuals may suffer clinical-level mental illness, other severe health problems, or an extreme level of dysfunction. But in the current policy environment, there is no room to work constructively with such people. 
 

• Public systems, particularly the welfare system, are moving towards a "work first" approach. 

Employment and training programs have been based on a theory of employment which presumes people are unemployed because they lacked sufficient "human capital" (education, skills, attitudes and behaviors). Therefore, the theory goes, training and education programs are investments in "human capital" and will result in the placement of individuals into jobs. 

The "work first" approach codified into federal welfare reform marks a dramatic departure from this theory. Work first says that finding work is the first priority, and rejects the assumption that specific barriers to an individual's employability can be predicted accurately prior to the commencement of a job search. Consequently, work first uses a mandated job search to ascertain whether or not someone is employable. 

While there is some common sense in this theory, it is not without flaws. For example, in many places, insufficient attention is paid to what happens if an individual cannot find a job. In addition, as we have seen, placement into a job does not necessarily lead a person out of poverty. Solving these problems requires at least some human capital development. Thus, while work first is not without merit, it does not constitute a complete workforce development system. 
 

• Most neighborhood-based service providers will have to define their roles within a larger workforce development system. 

The workforce development field is crowded with many players, often jockeying for position as state and local workforce systems are reorganized. As reorganization occurs, workforce institutions must define their niche or role within a larger system. 

Labor force systems can be understood as a "pipeline" connecting low-income communities to employers with jobs. The major sections of the pipeline are: 

• Bringing people into the system and helping them find their way into work or appropriate skills and support services: intake, assessment and case management; 
• Providing clients with necessary pre-employment, skills development and support services; 
• Accessing jobs, identifying employer labor force needs, and aggregating or organizing the labor force demands of employers with common needs; and 
• Helping clients move from marginal employment to better jobs.
A competent neighborhood-based service provider has a competitive advantage because of its knowledge of its community, its ability to relate to low-income people from that community, and its physical location within the community. These strengths lend themselves particularly well to the roles of client recruitment and intake, assessment, pre-employment training, referral to other services, and case management. 

However, neighborhood-based organizations or other service providers don't always do these things well. As workforce development reform proceeds and voucher systems create new competition, neighborhood-based service providers failing to define an appropriate niche or failing to provide services well may lose their funding. 
 

• Since the first post-welfare job is not usually a path out of poverty, career advancement becomes paramount. 

Very few employment and training efforts have seriously addressed career advancement into higher paying jobs. If a person can advance, the second or third job may pay enough to take that worker and his/her family out of poverty. Higher paying jobs often demand advanced skills. Sometimes they can be acquired on the job, but in many cases, they require formal training. Depending on a person family responsibilities, finding the time to pursue this training outside of working hours can be difficult. The cost for formal training can also be prohibitive. 

In its own way, Project QUEST is a career advancement program.¹⁹ Some of its clients are people with substantial work experience who lost their jobs in plant closures. QUEST packages nearly two years of community college training in sectors such as health, business services and environmental technologies. The average annual cost per trainee is approximately $7,200, far higher than many other job training program costs. However, earnings for those Project QUEST placed into jobs have risen substantially, both absolutely and relative to the averages for comparable employees in the region. QUEST is a deep investment, high return program whose time and cost parameters illustrate the difficulty of promoting career advancement.
 

• Many workforce programs are seeking to become more "market-driven," viewing employers as their "customers." However, this creates a tension as programs balance the needs of employers with their missions of serving low-income residents. 

A customer/employer-driven workforce program emphasizes the worksite standards of punctuality, reliability, behavior, attitude, and responsibility which all employers demand. If particular skills are required by certain employers, these employers are involved in curriculum design and often provide the actual trainers. Customer-driven programs obtain regular employer feedback about their clients. If a problem arises, they rectify the problem as quickly as possible. 

Attention to customer service enables an organization to establish credibility with employers, which in turn opens up job opportunities for the unemployed. However, a totally market-driven approach can force a program away from serving persons with more severe employment barriers who are routinely passed over by the private sector. Programs will be driven to cream. Consequently, the best programs find a balance between their two customers: employers and low-income residents. 

The Seattle Jobs Initiative (SJI), one of six sites participating in the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Jobs Initiative demonstration has taken a systemic approach to be coming customer-driven. SJI seeks to improve access to family-supporting jobs for disadvantaged, inner city young adults. SJI targeted the aerospace manufacturing industry as a promising sector, and worked with a local community college to design a course on computer- controlled manufacturing equipment to train employees for this industry. 

When placement rates for program graduates were lower than expected, SJI conducted extensive employer focus groups and discovered aerospace firms' concerns about the training curriculum. As a result, the community college program was redesigned, and graduates now have an easier time finding jobs. 
 

• Changes in the workforce development system also create opportunities for advocacy, such as the location and governance of one stop centers, and the composition and policies of new workforce development boards. 

Even before the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 was enacted, many states had begun to reorganize their workforce systems. The reforms followed the basic principles of federal legislation, with one-stop job centers the first phase of implementation. One-stop centers originated as a response to the fragmented, uncoordinated nature of the workforce development system. 

By locating multiple service organizations in a common facility, creating stronger partnerships between service providers, and establishing a common intake, orientation, and eligibility assessment protocol, one-stop job centers seek to simplify the bureaucracy for job seekers. The client can theoretically access a full array of services at one place rather than traveling from one organization to another and filling out multiple applications. 

A nine-state evaluation of one-stop centers conducted by Social Policy Research Associates found that "both employer and job-seeker customers are enthusiastic in describing one-stop career centers as improvements over the previously uncoordinated system."²⁰ However, the study cautioned that services for particular constituencies, such as non-English speakers or individuals with disabilities, might become less effective when consolidated with program services for other populations. 

These system changes can also have negative consequences for particular neighborhoods. One practical consequence is the loss of services to neighborhoods as services are shifted to one-stop centers in other locations. More generally, an array of issues arise, including: which populations or neighborhoods are targeted for services, who provides those services, who makes decisions, and how neighborhood interests are represented on workforce development boards. 
 

• The employment and training arena lacks the formal support infrastructure seen in other areas, such as affordable housing. 

In affordable housing, a well-developed support infrastructure has evolved to strengthen neighborhood organizations. This support infrastructure includes training, technical assistance, and financial resources, often provided through intermediaries. While the housing support system is far from perfect, the corresponding infrastructure for neighborhood employment and training is not as comprehensive. 

One element of infrastructure present in some cities is a city-wide industry association composed of workforce service providers. The Chicago Jobs Council (CJC), a network of community-based organizations monitoring and advocating for workforce development policy, is a well-respected example of such an association.²¹ Founded in 1981, CJC has over 90 members, predominantly civic or nonprofit organizations. Its mission is to "expand employment opportunities for all city residents, with an emphasis on the poor, racial minorities, the long-term unemployed, women, and others who experience systematic exclusion from employment and career mobility." 

Most of CJC's work is carried out by three working groups: welfare-to-work, health care, and workforce development. As a policy advocate, CJC has been particularly active in welfare reform and one-stop center issues. More recently, CJC has initiated projects to build the capacities of member institutions. These include establishing a computerized job listing and referral system (Chicago JOBNET), developing a health care sectoral strategy involving several of its members, and serving as a local sponsor for the national "Bridges to Work" welfare-to-work transportation initiative managed by Public/Private Ventures, Inc. 
 

• Youth employment programs for youth, more than those designed for adults, must take a comprehensive approach integrating education, work experience, recreation and social development. 

The best youth employment programs are concerned with developing the "whole person," rather than simply imparting job skills or making placements. As Karen Pittman, director of the International Youth Foundation, explains, "We have to broaden the goals of youth development beyond school and jobs to include health, social and civic competencies. While achieving various competencies is important for youth, we must also help youth develop the confidence and connectedness needed to use those competencies well."²²

Many youth programs try to work with all elements of a young person's environment: family, communities, schools, social networks and other institutions which contribute to a person's development. Finally, much of a youth employment program's focus is preventative rather than remedial. By instilling confidence and skills which lead to labor market attachment, programs can help young people steer a course to successful adulthood. 
 

• Recruitment, placement and retention can be enhanced by creating or strengthening networks and support systems. 

Recent research on poverty and jobs has focused on the importance of networks and social support systems in finding and retaining jobs.²³ Low-income neighborhoods suffer from social and economic isolation. This isolation makes if difficult for residents to learn about available jobs or gain even a rudimentary understanding of employer expectations and the world of work. 

Some innovative programs, especially the Annie E. Casey Foundation Jobs Initiative, are developing new ways to re-create these social networks and supports for work. The Denver Jobs Initiative utilizes "community coaches" - neighborhood leaders who, by virtue of their personality or employment, inform their communities about job openings and recruit appropriate workers. In the Seattle Jobs Initiative, a men's support group has been created for program participants. In the Milwaukee Jobs Initiative, support groups are conducted at employment sites. 

Concluding Thoughts

• Philanthropic dollars are more flexible than government funds, allowing nonprofits to take risks, serve hardest-to-serve populations and generally avoid the pitfalls of "creaming." 
• Philanthropic dollars can be focused at the neighborhood or community level, especially important in this era of "one-stop" job centers that centralize services and access. 
• Philanthropic dollars allow similar programs around the country to learn from one another and to create a network. 
• Philanthropic dollars can support advocacy to protect, expand or fine tune programs and services. 
• Please see the Pittsburgh Foundation case study to learn more about the ways in which carefully targeted foundation support can make workforce development more effective; see the C.S. Mott Foundation case study to discover linkages between workforce development and sectoral employment development strategies. 

Resources

Holzer, Harry J. What Employers Want: Job Prospects for Less-Educated Workers. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 1996. 

Newman, Katherine S. and Lennon, Chauncy. Finding Work in the Inner City: How Hard Is It Now? New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 1995. 

See Resource section for more information. 

¹⁸ Judith Havemann and Barbara Vobejda. "A Job Program Tries to Tackle the Intangibles," The Washington Post. June 16, 1997, p. A1. 

¹⁹ Harrison and Weiss, op.cit., pp 70-78. 

²⁰ Social Policy Research Associates. Evaluation of the Initial One-Stop Implementation Experience. Prepared for U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. 

²¹ This case study taken from Harrison and Weiss, op. cit., and from interviews with Bob Wordlaw, director, Chicago Jobs Council. 

²² Karen Pittman. "Keeping the Glass Full: Prevention Plus Promotion Equals Youth Success." Family Resource Coalition of America Report. Chicago, IL: Volume 17:1 (Spring 1998), p 20. 

²³ See Frieda Molina. Making Connections: A Study of Employment Linkage Programs. Washington, DC: Center for Community Change. 1998.