Does Job Training Work?

The Clients Speak Out

Eli Ginzberg

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9780367003463
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429710179
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Labour Economics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book summarizes the key findings from Philadelphia Private Industry Council's 1985 customer survey. It helps young people to take a critical look at their living practices and define their personal agenda and action plan for pursuing constructive choices in the future.

1
The Philadelphia Private Industry Council

In the two decades between the Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA) of 1962 and the expiration of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) in 1983, the federal government spent about $100 billion on programs to provide training and jobs for the hard-to-employ. Charges of serious mismanagement of these federal funds, probably grossly exaggerated, and the perception that relatively few CETA enrollees obtained full-time jobs in the private sector led the Reagan administration to seek an end to federal support for employment and training programs. However, the severe depression of 1982, which raised the unemployment rate above the 10 percent level, forced the administration to accept a congressional compromise: the federal government would cease financing public service jobs but would continue to make training and related employability assistance available for the hard-to-employ. A major aim of the new Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) of 1982 was the expanded role of the business community that henceforth was to be directly involved in the design and oversight of the federally funded programs.

Title I of the Act reflected the concept of the "New Federalism" under which federal block grants are made to the states with a minimum of supervision. Primary oversight responsibility for the JTPA rests with state governors, but 78 percent of the federal funds which they receive must be focused on the Service Delivery Areas (SDAs) according to the federal formula based on the distribution of poor people and the number of unemployed persons. A state's share of 22 percent is divided into four "set-asides": 8 percent for coordination of educational programs with JTPA; 6 percent for performance awards and incentives to provide more assistance for the most needy; 5 percent for state administration; and 3 percent for older workers.

The Private Industry Councils (PICs), with a predominance of business representatives and local elected officials, are jointly responsible, under congressional stipulation, for selection of program administrators and oversight of training programs.

Three additional operating principles were built into the JTPA; a results-oriented approach requiring that training culminate in both a high proportion of enrollees being placed in unsubsidized jobs and, hence, reduced welfare dependency; the prohibition of public service employment; and a limitation on support services, including training stipends, to inhibit the development of "professional trainees."

Title II of the Act, Training Services for the Disadvantaged, covers the largest part of the JTPA population. Title IIA, Adult and Youth Programs, defines participant eligibility and acceptable forms of training and services. As in previous legislation, eligibility is restricted largely to the "economically disadvantaged." Unemployment is not, however, a precondition. In addition, those with special barriers to employment, such as school dropouts, teenage parents, non-English speakers, older workers, displaced workers, substance abusers, etc., may participate even if they are not economically disadvantaged.

In addition to spelling out the eligibility criteria, Title IIA established acceptable program services and types of training. Aside from prohibiting public service employment of any kind, local autonomy in designing programs for adults and youth is encouraged. A total of twenty-eight kinds of services may be provided with JTPA funds, in addition to special youth programs (education for employment, preemployment skills training, school-to-work transition assistance programs, etc.) within stipulated time limits. Even subsidized employment in the private sector or with nonprofit organizations is permitted as a "rehearsal" for work in the case of disadvantaged youth who have never worked before and for adults who have been out of the work force for some time. Pre-enrollment screening is encouraged to facilitate a better fit between need and remediation.

Training includes classroom training (CT) in basic education, leading in some cases to a GED, occupational skills training, or a combination of the two, on-the-job training (OJT) in an actual work setting with the employer reimbursed for part of the trainee's wages, job search assistance, and work experience.

Training is restricted to occupations in demand locally or in the area to which the trainee may relocate. Among the more popular types of classroom training are office technology (word processing, computer operation) and general clerical training. Other courses range from licensed practical nurse to home health aide, to craft and operative skills, bank teller, electronic production work, etc. Course time ranges from two weeks to a maximum of two years in a community college.

OJT programs usually have a maximum duration of twenty weeks and if a worker's performance is satisfactory it is expected that a job offer will be made. According to The Job Training Partnership Act, A Report by the National Commission for Employment Policy, published in 1987, OJT and job search assistance resulted in the highest level of job placements in 1985.

Title IIB, Summer Youth Programs, is intended mainly for disadvantaged youth between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one but is available also to fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds. These programs offer remedial education, work experience, job search training, and OJT.

Before outlining the specifics of the Philadelphia Private Industry Council, the contours of the Philadelphia economy require a brief review.

According to a recent issue (1988) of Employment and Earnings, published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are about 778,000 persons employed in Philadelphia, of which 147,000 are government workers and 21,000 work for railroads. Approximately two in five were employed in services, slightly less than one in five in manufacturing, and one in six in retail trade. These three industry groups together furnished 75 percent of all jobs held by Philadelphia workers. On a disaggregated basis, the health care industry was the single largest provider of jobs (12 percent), followed by finance, insurance, and real estate (11 percent), business and miscellaneous business services (10.5 percent), and education (7.6 percent).

An analysis of business establishments by the number of employees confirms the fact that Philadelphia is a city of small businesses. Over half of the firms have between one and four employees and 85 percent have fewer than twenty.

Inner-city Philadelphia is a low-wage area where many work for the minimum wage and $4 per hour will attract young entry-level workers. On the other hand, in the suburbs where jobs are expanding rapidly, $6 per hour plus some benefits has become the norm for fast-food workers and other unskilled help. This mismatch has led to exploratory efforts by the transit authority to sponsor shuttle buses between the inner and outer city; to extend city rail and bus routes into the suburbs; and to provide direct transportation services to suburban corporate parks—all with the goal of getting people to the available jobs.

Culturally, Philadelphia is a city of neighborhoods which are in effect ethnic enclaves. Many parents are fearful of having their teenagers work outside of their neighborhood or even of having them cross other neighborhoods to get to work. This parochialism compounds the severe mismatch between the areas where the jobs are expanding—the prosperous northeast—and the area of greatest need—inner-city, largely minority, northern Philadelphia.

The PIC Structure

In 1985 the City Office of Employment and Training was integrated into the Philadelphia Private Industry Council which became the key agency responsible for the publicly financed employment and training effort in Philadelphia. As a public/private corporation, the board of directors of the PIC is composed of representatives from business (who make up the majority), government, community organizations, labor, and education.

Community outreach is effected through a network of community and neighborhood-based organizations known as PIC Referral Centers (PRCs). Counting two satellite centers as independent entities, there were thirty-eight PRCs in operation in mid-1988. These centers are concentrated in northern, western, and northwestern Philadelphia, the targeted areas of need.

Many of the PRCs antedate the JTPA and several of them receive funds from sources other than the JTPA. Since PIC recognized that established, multi-funded PRCs have a better track record than newly established centers solely dependent on JTPA funds, some of which are struggling to survive, would-be PRCs must demonstrate the presence of other sources of funding for inclusion in the PIC network.

The employment and training process begins by providing information to potential clients about the role and function of the PRC. While informal information networks exist (former clients, community leaders, the church), the PIC uses the media to get the information out into the community. Some of the more sophisticated PRCs do their own advertising as well in the belief that they know better how to reach their potential clients.

The PRC serves as the initial intake center for applicants who may telephone for an appointment or simply walk in off the street. Usually interviews are not conducted immediately. Rather, applicants are given a specific date and time to return for an interview and are asked to bring certain basic documentation along with them. Only information concerning name, address, telephone number, and social security number is taken at the first contact, with the contact person adding gender and race.

When the applicant returns for the interview, initial screening and assessment take place. Educational and job history are major areas of interest as well as the existence of special problems such as welfare dependency, need for child care, lack of basic education, and limited use of English.

Screening and assessment to determine JTPA eligibility are followed by the development of an Employability Development Plan (EDP), matching the applicant's qualifications with PIC job specifications or training program requirements. On the basis of Training Program Notices and OJT information furnished by the PIC on a regular basis, the PRCs refer suitable candidates to the PIC for placement in a training slot or send the applicant with suitable skills directly to an employer with a job opening.

The PRCs are compensated for each accepted referral at the rate of $150 each for the first thirty referrals and $250 each thereafter. In addition, when the thirty-first referral is accepted, the PRC receives $1,000 to fund additional outreach and recruitment. An accepted referral is defined as enrollment in a training program, in an OJT slot, or in a direct hire situation for a minimum of at least five days.

A representative of each PRC is required to attend regular monthly meetings at the PIC where, among other matters, a monthly performance summary is distributed to each attendee. The monthly summary analyzes the performance of individual PRCs as measured by the number of total referrals to PIC, the number of accepted referrals, the percentage of DNRs (do not respond), the accepted referral rate (net of DNRs), and compares each to the general average for the thirty-eight PRCs taken together. The total accepted referrals determines the overall ranking of each PRC. PIC attempts to be constructive in its comments, which range from the best to the lowest:

The PIC is extremely pleased with our relationship with — as a PIC Referral Center. —'s high degree of professionalism and her exceptional skill in matching clients with training programs and jobs have contributed greatly to the success of PIC.

It would benefit both — and the PIC if steps can be taken to improve the numbers listed above. We'd like to set up a meeting to discuss your recruitment.

Extremely low accepted referral percentage indicates that more effective screening is needed. Please look closely at the high percentage of your clients being referred to jobs. Your accepted referral numbers could increase significantly if a higher percentage of your clients were referred to training programs as opposed to jobs.

Erratic attendance at the monthly meetings is also noted and for the first time in 1988 was reported to the PRCs.

For attendance at training programs, PIC pays trainees a stipend of $7 per day, $35 per week. The trainers are paid $500 per trainee when 75 percent of the group has been placed.

Interviews were conducted with the director and staff members of some of the PRCs. The following represents a composite of discussions held with some of the top-ranking PRCs as to their operating principles and results.

Director: I think we have a great staff—our direct services people have a balance of compassion and toughness to them. We tell our clients to do it right or don't do it at all. We expect them to have accountability—show up for a job interview wearing sneakers and we send you home. Same if a client shows up high.

Vocational Counselor: When we give a time to show up for an interview, we mean it, A young woman came in a day after her appointment—told us she had to go somewhere with her boyfriend. We told her—you get a job, you got to show up on time or you're fired. Same here—we made her go back through the cycle to get another appointment. Incidentally, I never give them an interview immediately—they have to come back. If they don't, I give them a second chance, but that's it. No keeping after them to come in.

Job Developer: You got to be tough—the wrong kind of compassion gets you in trouble. People come in off the street and are not properly dressed, no work background, not job ready and if they get sent out on a job, you set them up for failure. You get the PIC angry at you because you're really wasting a lot of time and energy. Other agencies do it, but we're more realistic—maybe because we have more business people here, not just social-work backgrounds. We don't send out as many people as other PRCs, but the numbers that get accepted are much higher.

In the case of clients who have no saleable skills or have never worked, some PRCs conduct a two-week "world of work" program focused on how to fill out a job application, how to dress, how to answer questions, and how to develop "life skills" (getting up on time, reacting to criticism, etc.). The program may also include considerable coaching on how to handle the training or job interview as well as "dress rehearsals."

Those with child care, pregnancy, drug, psychological, and/or language problems are often referred to other agencies for help. An Hispanic counselor had this to say: "Spanish people, we cannot do much with them. They don't want to come to the two-week training because they have nothing to put on the resume. All we can do is refer them to ESL [English as a Second Language] classes and hope they'll come back." Non-Hispanics also have problems: "They're afraid to ask questions because it'll show they're dumb—and they're embarrassed about being on welfare and having no work experience to show on their resumes."

Not all PRCs have job developers, but in the case of those that do, the PIC has entered into an arrangement known as the "exclusivity principle" which can be of mutual benefit to both the PRC and the PIC. If a PRC notifies the OJT division of the PIC about job slots discovered through its own network, it will be given exclusive rights to those slots (unless the number of slots exceeds the capacity of the PRC to fill them) and will be paid by the PIC which in turn will receive credit for the placements.

Follow-up on job placements is left to the PIC which is mandated to follow up for thirty days before the PRCs can be reimbursed. In the case of non-PIC jobs found by the PRC's job developer, some PRCs also track for thirty days. Beyond that, tracking is variable and usually informal. An applicant may be fired and return to the PRC for additional help and a staff member may call the employer to get information on the reasons for dismissal. Shortage of staff is the usual reason given for lack of follow-up: "You're busy taking in new people all the time— you don't have the time to follow up on all the old people because you have just so many new ones coming through."

The variability in the size and quality of the PRC staff is in fact a major operating problem. Staff turnover is high and there is no uniformity in salary levels. While the PIC gives a $1,000 bonus to the PRC for successful client placement, the decision to pass on any of this money to staff workers is made by the individual PRC. Computerization of record-keeping is still rudimentary in most of the PRCs. Inadequate files result in inordinate demands on staff time.

The Training Structure

There are about fifty training programs offered by eighty-seven providers with some contractors offering multiple programs. The range of programs include: clerical (including computer operation and word processing skills), entry-level health, security, janitorial, warehousing, food services, welding, and copier repair.

As noted earlier, there is basic classroom training, occupational skills training, a mixture of the two, and OJT, which mainly attracts males. Excluding the summer youth program, the total number in classroom training and OJT totals about 12,000 annually.

The same principle of performance-based contracting which governs the compensation of the PRCs determines the compensation of the training providers, whether in ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• 1 The Philadelphia Private Industry Council
• 2 Profiles of Youth
• 3 Profiles of Young Mothers
• 4 Profiles of Unemployed Adult Men
• 5 Labor Market and Other Barriers
• 6 Lessons for Policy: Local and National