Race/Ethnicity: 54% African-Americans/Blacks 42

1
Wages Work!An Examination of NYCs Parks
Opportunity Program and Its Participants

• A Research Project by
• Community Voices Heard
• March 2004

2
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.

3
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

4
Transitional Jobs National Scope

• 40 programs nationwide
• 3,500 individuals at any given time
• 81-94 of individuals completing programs found
  employment

5
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

6
Distinctions Between POP WEP
7
POP Testimony 1

• Euline Williams

8
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

9
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

10
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

11
Finding 1

• Wages are an Important Component in Motivating
  Welfare Recipients to Move Off Welfare
• Wages Matter
• POP Motivated Participants to Leave Welfare

12
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)

13
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 working
• in 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

14
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

15
POP Workers Did Critical Work for the City
16
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

17
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
  Improve
• C. POP Workers Gained Greater Self-Esteem

18
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

19
POP Worker Income Compared to Other Benchmarks
20
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

21
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

22
Finding 4

• The Parks Opportunity Program Prepared People for
  Work Better than Unpaid Workfare/WEP
• A. POP Workers Gained Skills On the Job
• B. A Variety of New Skills Were Learned

23
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

24
A Variety of New Skills Were Learned
25
A Variety of New Skills Were Learned
26
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

27
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

28
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

29
POP Worker Testimony 2

• Zoila Almonte

30
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

31
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

32
Job Services Were of Poor Quality Education and
Training was Limited
33
POP Program Failed to Address Individual Barriers
to Employment
34
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

35
POP Program Failed to Address Individual Barriers
to Employment
36
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

37
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

38
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

39
Program Design May Have Resulted in Limited
Post-Program Placement
40
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

41
High Unemployment Rates Put Hard-to-Employ
at Disadvantage
42
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

43
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

44
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

45
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

46
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