Hire LA: Summer Youth
Employment Program
Evaluation Report
2014
Prepared for:
City of Los Angeles
Workforce Investment Board
and
The Economic and Workforce
Development Department
Supported by:
Los Angeles County
Community and Senior Services
Authors:
Richard W. Moore, Ph.D.
Cristina Rubino, Ph.D.
Akanksha Bedi, Ph.D.
Daniel R. Blake, Ph.D.
Julie29,
Coveney,
July
2015 M.A.
The College of Business and Economics
Hire LA: Summer Youth Employment Program Evaluation
Executive Summary
Overview
Youth employment rates have declined dramatically nationwide, in California and Los Angeles
County, in recent years. This is not a local phenomenon, but a national problem. In Los Angeles
County the percent of 16-19 year olds employed fell from 23.8% in 2009 to 16.4 percent in 2013
(see Figure 1 below; American Community Survey, 2015). This decline fits with the national
data, showing a similar decline in youth employment nationwide (Schwartz & Leos-Urbel,
2014).
Figure 1: Los Angeles County Employment Rate for 16-19 Year Olds 2009-13
25.0%
20.0%
23.8%
22.1%
19.8%
15.0%
18.0%
16.4%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
The summer of 2014 brought a renewed focus to summer youth employment and the City set a
goal of expanding the program to 10,000 participants. The program was called “HIRE LA’s
Youth”. For purposes of this report we will refer to it as the Summer Youth Employment
Program or SYEP. The goals of the program were to provide work experience and in addition:
To increase youths’ career aspirations and career awareness,
To increase youths’ motivation,
To improve youths’ “work readiness” skills,
To encourage youth to continue their education or find employment.
Evaluation Approach
As part of this initiative, the City committed to evaluating the impact of the Summer Youth
Employment Program. To this end, the Economic and Workforce Development Department of
i
the City of Los Angeles contracted with our team of researchers at California State University,
Northridge, to conduct an evaluation of the 2014 Summer Youth Employment Program.
Our evaluation of the program involved five data collection efforts. First, a sample of youth
participants were surveyed at two time points: 1) as they entered the program and 2) at exit.
Second, we administered a follow-up survey seven months after the program ended. Third, we
conducted a series of focus groups with participants to gain a more in-depth understanding of
their experiences. Finally, we surveyed the adults who supervised youth to get their evaluation
of the program.
Key Findings
1. SYEP serves a diverse population of youth, who are on a positive track but who
have weak labor market attachment.
SYEP participants were diverse in terms of age, gender, ethnicity and experience. Most learned
about the program through personal connections or through referrals from schools or other
agencies. Fourteen percent learned about the program through the HIRE LA website.
Overall the large majority of participants are on a positive path. Over 84% are in school. They
report positive attitudes towards school, work and careers. However, participants have a weak
labor market attachment, with only 24% of youth participants having worked in the last 6
months. They also report limited knowledge about jobs and report they have few connections for
finding jobs or getting career information.
2. Youth are at different stages in their career development.
The SYEP program includes youth who have just entered high school and youth who have
completed several years of college. We found that these two groups differed significantly in their
career awareness and career development. Not surprisingly, college students have clearer career
plans than high school students. Another group comparison shows that students with previous
work experience report more career development than those who have not worked. Female
participants also report more career development than male participants. This may reflect a larger
trend for women to mature earlier than men and may not be related to program performance.
3. SYEP mostly provides employment experience through service jobs in schools and
nonprofit organizations.
Over two-thirds of participants worked in schools or non-profits, while only 6.3% worked in
private sector jobs. The most common types of jobs were: “office work,” “janitorial work” and
“child care”. It is important to note that there are other components of SYEP, which we did not
evaluate, that deal directly with placing youth in private sector jobs.
4. Youth show small but significant gains in career development from the beginning to
the end of the program.
ii
Most summer youth employment program evaluations find small positive gains for youth. We
found similar results. Youth showed small but statistically significant gains in their: “comfort
with making a career decision,” “clarity about their career interests,” “knowledge about careers,”
and “importance of making a career choice”. In our follow-up survey, a majority of the youth
reported they believed their experience in the program would help them find a job and advance
in their career. A majority also agreed that the experience encouraged them to continue their
education, and most did. Finally, the program provided many participants, who had not
previously worked, with work experience, which enables them to include work experience and a
reference on future job applications or resumes.
5. Overall youth were highly satisfied with their SYEP experience.
Youth reported high levels of satisfaction with their SYEP experience, overall average
satisfaction was 4.3 on a five-point scale. Youth were slightly less satisfied, average 4.1, with
the quality of work readiness and financial literacy training. In focus groups, youth reported a
wide range of benefits from the program, including earning needed money, gaining work
experience that will lead to more employment, getting mentoring from supervisors, and learning
patience. In follow-up surveys administered seven months after the SYEP experience, over 96%
reported they would recommend the program to someone like them.
6. Most youth followed-up on their plans to return to school and/or seek employment.
At exit, 91% of participants said they planned to enroll in school and 91% said they planned to
work. Seven months after leaving the program, 85% of participants surveyed were in school,
and half of those not enrolled were working, leaving only 7% of all participants not in school or
work. Over 80% of those in school attend full-time. Thirty-five percent of all participants were
working seven months after leaving the program, compared to only 24% working before they
entered the program. Most worked part-time and earned between $9 and $10 dollars per hour.
Virtually all the out-of-school and out-of-work youth report they are looking for work.
7. Adults who supervised youth participants report high levels of satisfaction with the
program.
The supervisors of the youth participants report high levels of satisfaction with their experience.
Overall satisfaction averaged 8.8 on a ten-point scale. Perhaps more importantly, almost 94% of
the supervisors said they would participate in the program again. Supervisors did have a number
of suggestions for improving the program, including: adding more hours of work, improving the
match between youth and the job, and improving youths’ work readiness.
Recommendations
Based on our evaluation of this program and our review of other evaluations of summer youth
employment programs conducted in other cities, we have four recommendations for improving
the program. Three deal with changes that can be made in the coming year, and one deals with
longer term changes to the program.
iii
This year
1. Improve financial literacy and work readiness training.
Youth develop quickly. A 16-year-old about to enter her junior year in high school is at a very
different stage of development from a 20-year-old her about to enter her junior year of college.
Because of these differences, we recommend that both financial literacy training and work
readiness training be delivered at two different levels. The first level would be designed for high
school aged students, 14 to 18, many of whom will be working for the first time and are still in
high school or have just completed high school. The level of both financial literacy and work
readiness training will be more focused on basics and be appropriate for high school students
with little or no work experience. The second level course would be designed for youth 19
yearsold and older and cover more advanced content that is aligned with their developmental
stage and addresses their specific needs (e.g., developing career goals).
While participant satisfaction with the training component of the program was high, we believe it
could be improved. We believe if trainers focused on making the training more interactive, by
using active learning techniques, such as exercises, role plays, case discussion and break out
groups, it would be more effective, especially for the younger participants. One way to facilitate
this more engaging training would be to select some of the college students in the program and
use them as teaching assistants to help facilitate the active learning activities.
2. Improve the quality and variety of placements.
As we noted in the supervisor survey, 70% of supervisors have participated in the program
before. Agencies build relationships with local non-profit and government agencies and a few
private employers and tend to return to these agencies each year. This is efficient and helps get
the program started quickly each summer. But many of these placements do not introduce youth
to higher-level occupations or emerging sectors of the economy. Also, we recognize the
program has a goal of adding more private sector placements in emerging industries, such as
entertainment, transportation, health care and technology.
To accomplish this we recommend that agencies, with the help of EWDD, identify private sector
employers in their area prior to the summer and establish relationships that can lead to summer
jobs, where youth will have more contact with a variety of professions. These placements will
be particularly appropriate for the older youth who have some work experience and postsecondary education.
In our experience, employers, particularly private employers, who are willing to provide higherlevel work experience want to select their own youth. This came up in the suggestions from
supervisors about improving the program. We recommend that agencies establish job fairs
where youth who are interested and prepared for higher-level placements get to meet and talk
with employers.
iv
3. Build Structured Reflection Into the Program
The educational philosopher John Dewey said: “We do not learn from experience... we learn
from reflecting on experience.” We found, when we conducted focus groups with youth
participants, that they were eager to talk about their experiences and in the process gained
insights into themselves and the nature of work. Effective work experience programs should
include an opportunity for participants to reflect on what they have learned, how they have
developed, and how they can apply this in the future. We recommend that some structured
reflection be built into the program.
We see a couple ways this can be done. First, after the initial 25 hours of work experience, youth
could return to the agency where in groups they could discuss their initial experience in their
placement. In the groups youth could compare experiences with the discipline of work, dealing
with supervisors and other issues. Together they could do some problem solving and get
coaching from each other and an adult. Again college students interested in human services
could facilitate these groups.
At the conclusion of the 100 hours of work experience, groups could meet again to reflect on the
experience and to do some career planning activities. Specifically, youth could set short-term and
mid-term goals for education and employment. We know that setting concrete goals is
motivating and increases the chance that youth will follow through.
In practical terms, it would also be a good time to help youth who plan to go on for postsecondary education or to seek a permanent job to find the resources they need to take these
steps.
Long Term
4. Start the program earlier in the year.
City staff and the agencies do heroic work to get the summer youth employment program
launched and get thousands of youth placed each summer. This rush to roll out the program each
year is driven by last minute funding decisions, the fact that money for the new fiscal year cannot
be spent until July 1, and other administrative constraints. With public school starting in late
August, this leaves a very short window for delivering the program, and students are out of
school for over a month before the program begins.
In New York City, intake is done during spring break in the public schools and placements are
made in advance so that youth can begin work promptly when school ends. Such a system
would be ideal in Los Angeles as well. Accomplishing this will mean overcoming many
administrative barriers but we recommend it as a longer term goal for improving the program.
v
Contents
Hire LA : Summer Youth Employment Program Evaluation .......................................................... i
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i
Overview ...................................................................................................................................... i
Evaluation Approach .................................................................................................................... i
Key Findings ............................................................................................................................... ii
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... iii
This year ................................................................................................................................. iv
Long Term ............................................................................................................................... v
I
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
II
Previous Research.................................................................................................................... 2
III Los Angeles City Summer Youth Program 2014 .................................................................... 4
IV Evaluation Approach ............................................................................................................... 5
Sample ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Pre Survey ................................................................................................................................... 5
Post Survey.................................................................................................................................. 6
Follow-up Survey ........................................................................................................................ 6
Supervisor Survey ....................................................................................................................... 6
Observations ................................................................................................................................ 6
Focus Groups............................................................................................................................... 6
Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 6
V
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 7
1. What were the demographics, educational status and attitudes towards career and education
of Youth Served by the SYEP, who participated through WIA YouthSource contractors? ....... 7
Demographics .......................................................................................................................... 7
Youth Attitudes and Perceptions ............................................................................................. 9
2. What were the key differences among the youth in terms of their demographics and
attitudes?.................................................................................................................................... 12
Work Readiness ..................................................................................................................... 12
Career Plan ............................................................................................................................ 12
vi
Skill Development ................................................................................................................. 13
Network ................................................................................................................................. 14
Consult About Careers........................................................................................................... 14
Career Decision Status........................................................................................................... 15
Clarity .................................................................................................................................... 15
Decidedness ........................................................................................................................... 16
Comfort and Choice Importance ........................................................................................... 16
Knowledge and Decisiveness ................................................................................................ 17
Career-Related Positive Personal Beliefs and Job Market Favorability Perceptions ............ 18
Attitudes toward School ........................................................................................................ 19
Attitudes toward Work .......................................................................................................... 20
3. How did Youth evaluate their summer employment experience? ........................................ 21
Type of employer and job ...................................................................................................... 21
Program Satisfaction.............................................................................................................. 22
Job Fit and Burnout ............................................................................................................... 23
Focus Group Findings ........................................................................................................... 24
4. Did different subgroups of youth evaluate their experience differently? ............................. 24
Career Decision Status........................................................................................................... 25
Decidedness and Knowledge ................................................................................................. 25
Job Market Favorability Perceptions ..................................................................................... 25
Attitudes toward School ........................................................................................................ 26
Attitudes toward Work .......................................................................................................... 26
Self-esteem ............................................................................................................................ 27
5. How did the attitudes of youth change from before to after the work experience? ............. 27
6. How do the adults who supervised the summer youth program evaluate their experience? 28
More hours, longer duration of program ............................................................................... 31
Better Job-matching ............................................................................................................... 31
More Work-Readiness Training ............................................................................................ 32
Begin Program Earlier ........................................................................................................... 32
Better Communication ........................................................................................................... 33
Less Paperwork...................................................................................................................... 33
vii
More Youth............................................................................................................................ 33
7. Where were the youth served by the summer youth program seven months later, in terms
of education and employment? ................................................................................................. 33
Education Status Spring 2015................................................................................................ 33
Employment Spring 201 ........................................................................................................ 38
SYEP’s Impact on Employment and Education Plans .......................................................... 42
Would Participants Recommend the SYEP Program? .......................................................... 43
V
Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 45
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 45
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 47
This year ................................................................................................................................ 47
Long Term ............................................................................................................................. 49
Final Thoughts ....................................................................................................................... 49
APPENDIX A: ............................................................................................................................. 52
Detailed Tables ............................................................................................................................. 52
Table A-1. Demographic Break-down of Youth Participating in Intake Survey ...................... 53
Table A-2: Spring 2014 Work and Education Status ................................................................ 54
Table A-3. Average Pre-Program Attitudes and Perceptions ................................................... 55
Table A-4. Summary of Demographic Differences among Youth on Key Outcome Measures56
Table A- 5. Summary of Youth Exit Survey Measures ............................................................ 60
Table A-6. Summary of Sub Group Differences among Youth Post SYEP ............................. 61
viii
HIRE LA: Summer Youth Employment Program
Evaluation Report
I
Introduction
Youth employment rates have declined dramatically nationwide, in California and Los Angeles
County, in recent years. This is not a local phenomenon, but a national problem. In Los Angeles
County the percent of 16-19 year olds employed fell from 23.8% in 2009 to 16.4 percent in 2013
(see Figure 1 below; American Community Survey, 2015). This decline fits with the national
data, showing a similar decline in youth employment nationwide (Schwartz & Leos-Urbel,
2014).
Figure 1: Los Angeles County Employment Rate for 16-19 Year Olds 2009-13
25.0%
20.0%
23.8%
22.1%
19.8%
15.0%
18.0%
16.4%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
The problem is at its worst in the summer when youth are out of school and available for work.
This problem has been widely recognized in recent years by policymakers and researchers.
(Schwartz and Leos-Urbel, 2014 and Sum, Trubskyy and McHugh, 2013). As a result there is
increasing interest in reviving summer youth employment programs, especially among
America’s mayors who are the elected officials closest to the problem. (Partnerships for Summer
Youth Employment, 2014). Summer youth employment programs were first created under the
Manpower Development and Training Act in the 1960’s, but fell out of favor in many cities over
the ensuing decades. The City of Los Angeles has remained committed to providing summer
youth employment opportunities and has retained a program when many other cities closed
theirs.
1
The summer of 2014 brought a renewed focus to summer youth and the City set a goal of
expanding the program to 10,000 participants. The program was called “HIRE LA’s Youth”.
For purposes of this report we will refer to it as the Summer Youth Employment Program or
SYEP. The goals of the program were to provide work experience and in addition:
To increase youths’ career aspirations and career awareness,
To increase youths’ motivation,
To improve youths’ “work readiness” skills,
To encourage youth to continue their education or find employment.
The City also committed to evaluating the impact of the Summer Youth Employment Program.
To do this this, the Economic and Workforce Development Department of the City of Los
Angeles contracted with researchers at California State University, Northridge, to conduct an
evaluation of the 2014 Summer Youth Employment Program. The evaluation was driven by a
series of research questions:
1. What were the demographics, educational status and attitudes towards career and education
of youth served by the SYEP, who participated through WIA YouthSource contractors?
2. What were the key differences among the youth in terms of their demographics and attitudes?
3. How did youth evaluate their summer employment experience?
4. Did different subgroups of youth evaluate their experience differently?
5. How did the attitudes of youth change from before to after the work experience?
6. How do the adults who supervised the summer youth program evaluate their experience?
7. Where were youth served by the summer youth program six months later, in terms of
education and employment?
These research questions were answered by surveying a sample of youth participants as they
entered the program and again at exit. We then conducted a follow-up survey seven months after
the program ended. In addition we conducted a series of focus groups with participants to learn
more about their experience. Finally we surveyed the adults who supervised youth to get their
evaluation of the program.
II
Previous Research
With the renewed interest in summer youth employment programs, there has been a new wave of
evaluation research studying program effects in a number of major cities. To summarize the
results in a sentence: Summer youth employment programs are successful at finding
employment for targeted youth and they have a small positive impact on youth on a variety
personal, educational and career development measures. Here we will briefly present the recent
major studies.
2
In Boston the summer youth employment program focused on placing disadvantaged youth from
high crime neighborhoods in jobs in government agencies and non-profit organizations. The
program evaluation (Sum, Trubskyy and McHugh, 2014) focused on the impact of the program
on employment, participant satisfaction and risky behaviors. The study compared participants to
a similar control group. The study found that only 27% of the control group found summer
employment, compared to all of the participants. Participants were highly satisfied with their
employment experience and the supervision they received. and 92% said they would take the
same summer job again. Participants reported engaging significantly less in risky behaviors on
13 of 22 measures. Specifically, participants were less likely to use alcohol, sell or use drugs,
not listen to their parents, teachers or supervisors, spread false rumors or pick on other youth.
The Philadelphia region has a long standing summer youth program that focuses on private
sector employment. A rigorous evaluation with a control group found that the program increased
the chances of youth getting a job but in the intermediate term did not improve academic or
employment outcomes (McClanahan, Sipe, and Smith 2004).
A New York City summer youth employment program, which worked closely with the public
schools, increased school attendance 1% overall and 3% for the most at risk youth (Leos-Urbel,
2014). A follow-up study of the same program found small positive increases in school
performance (Schwartz et.al., forthcoming).
In Chicago an evaluation of an after school apprentice program- After School Matters- found
significant improvements in social and emotional development, although it found no
measureable improvement in academic achievement (Hirsh et.al., 2011).
In light of the widely recognized problem of limited employment opportunities for youth and the
emerging research showing positive, if modest, impacts of summer youth programs, interest has
increased in promoting summer youth programs. In 2014 the Hamilton Project of the Brookings
Institute published a policy proposal, Proposal 5: Expanding Summer Youth Employment
Opportunities for Low-Income Youth (Schwartz and Leos-Urbel, 2014). The paper recommends
a nationwide summer youth employment program similar to HIRE LA. It proposes a program to
serve youth 16-19, both in and out of school. Youth would work 25 hours a week for six weeks
and the program would involve an education component, taking up two full days a week and
focusing on college and career readiness.
In short, the country is refocusing on summer youth employment as an intervention to help
disadvantaged youth develop in terms of career readiness, academic persistence and
employment.
3
III
Los Angeles City Summer Youth Program 2014
The Hire LA Summer Youth Employment program is complex. It uses multiple funding sources
to deliver summer jobs to disadvantaged youth through a variety of program components.
Funding comes from federal, county, city and private funds. The program is sponsored by Los
Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and operated by the City of Los Angeles Economic and Workforce
Development Department. The program partners in different ways with many different public
and private organizations, including Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles
Community Colleges, Unite LA, The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, California
Employment Development Department and others.
Essentially the program provided twenty hours of training on work readiness and financial
literacy, and then youth were placed in summer jobs for 100 hours of work experience, usually at
$9.00 per hour, which was the California minimum wage as of July 1, 2014. Both training time
and time on the job were paid. Hence, a youth who completed all hours would be paid $1,140.
In most cases the program pays the youth’s wages but employers bear the cost of supervising the
youth. Typically, youth work 20 hours a week for five weeks, but schedules varied.
The element of the program that was evaluated was the SYEP program operated by the sixteen
YouthSource contractors, who are part of the City’s Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Program.
These eighteen OneSource Youth Centers are distributed across all the city’s planning areas, and
serve youth with WIA funds on an on-going basis. The City planned to have these centers serve
3,700 youth in the summer of 2014. The funding, which included the youths’ pay, was $2,000
per youth who completed all program activities.
To be eligible for SYEP, a youth had to be 14-24 years old, live in the City of Los Angeles, and
be from a low income household as defined by WIA. Youth came to the program in various
ways. A HIRE LA’s YOUTH website allowed youth to complete an initial application and this
contact information was passed on to contractors who were to recruit at random from the list.
Many youth were referred to contractors by schools or through the agencies’ contacts in the
community. There was also a focus on recruiting youth who were in foster care, on probation,
homeless or from TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families Program) households.
While other elements of the program varied slightly from this model, the programs we evaluated
were typical of the larger program
4
IV
Evaluation Approach
To answer the research questions posed before, we used a “pre-test post-test” evaluation design
where essentially we surveyed youth at the beginning and end of the program, then again seven
months after the program ended. In addition, to gain more insights into the program we
conducted observations of the work readiness and financial literacy training. At the end of the
summer we conducted focus groups at each site to discuss the youth’s experience in the program.
Finally, we conducted a short survey of the adults who supervised the youth to get their
impressions of the program. Here we present some details about our method.
Sample
We sampled five sites from different regions of the city to capture the diversity of youth
participating in the program. Our goal was to survey all youth at these sites. In Table 1 below
we show the number of completed usable questionnaires we received for each survey. Our initial
pre-program survey captured 22.9% of all planned enrollments in the SYEP program through
YouthSource Centers. Other components of the program enrolled youth as well, but they were
not part of our sampling frame.
Table 1: Sample by Site Si
Site
PreLocation
program
And Agency
Survey
AYE (South)
221
Para Los Niños
175
(East)
UCLA (Central)
112
WLCAC
175
(South)
YPI (Valley)
178
Total
903
Postprogram
Survey
72
183
Follow-up
Survey
Supervisor
Survey
68
56
22
42
97
184
51
21
21
33
117
653
50
246
18
136
Pre Survey
Each participant completed a survey before beginning the SYEP. This was usually done just as
the work readiness and financial literacy training was beginning. Participants were anonymous,
but were asked to give an email address, date of birth, and their gender in order to match the pre
and post surveys. The survey also asked respondents if they would be interested in participating
in a focus group about their experience in the program after they completed their work hours.
The questionnaire collected basic demographic data and used a number of scales related to work
readiness, career aspirations and attitudes. Scales are described in detail in the Results section.
5
Post Survey
Youth came back to the centers to pick up their final paychecks, and we used this opportunity to
survey youth at the end of their experience. Due to many logistical challenges in getting youth to
complete the questionnaires as they were exiting the program, the number of completed
questionnaires was substantially smaller in the post-survey overall, although at two sites we
actually captured more youth at exit than at entry. One issue was that some youth continued to
complete their work hours into October. This questionnaire asked youth to evaluate their
experience, report on their immediate work and school plans, and retake some of the career and
work attitude scales to see how they had changed.
Follow-up Survey
While we collected youths’ plans when they left the program, we wanted to know what the youth
were actually doing seven months after they exited the program. For example, if they planned to
go on to higher education, we wanted to know if they actually enrolled and attended. To
accomplish this, we surveyed, through an on-line questionnaire, all youth for whom we had
valid email addresses in April of 2015. The questionnaire asked youth about their employment
and educational status at that time.
Supervisor Survey
The supervisors of the youth at the job sites play a critical program role. We wanted to know
how satisfied they were with the program and what ideas they had for improving the program.
Toward the end of the summer we distributed a brief questionnaire through the OneSource
Centers to the supervisors. Responses varied substantially by site. We do note that many
supervisors supervised multiple youth, so the number of supervisors was much smaller than the
number of youth.
Observations
We attended at least one training and orientation session at each site. Researchers took field
notes which described the training delivered and youths’ reaction to it.
Focus Groups
At the end of the summer, we conducted two focus groups at each site. Each focus group
typically consisted of 11 youth ages 14-24. We asked youth to describe their work experience
and what they thought they gained from the program. We also asked them for their ideas about
how to improve the program. Participants were compensated $20 for their time.
Analysis
The results of each survey were analyzed individually. Then, where possible, we linked the pre,
post and follow up survey results together to see how individuals had changed over the course of
the program. This longitudinal analysis is the most powerful of our analyses and is the focus of
6
this report. The results of the supervisor survey are reported independently. Results of focus
groups and observations are used to inform our analysis and generate recommendations in the
final section of the report.
V
Results
1. What were the demographics, educational status and attitudes towards career
and education of Youth Served by the SYEP, who participated through WIA
YouthSource contractors?
To identify the characteristics of the participating summer youth, we asked the youth to answer
various demographic, personality, and attitudinal questions in the Intake Survey, which was
completed prior to beginning the program.
Demographics
A complete summary of the demographic breakdown is included in the Appendix (see Tables A1 and A-2). Our findings indicated that most of the youth (76%) had not previously participated
in the program; only 24% had participated in the past. Youth also reported how they learned
about the Hire LA Summer Youth Program (see Figure 2). The majority of youth heard about the
program through word of mouth: 42% of youth heard about the program from a friend or family
member; 11% were referred by another center; and 10% were referred by school. Only 19%
learned about the program through the Hire LA website or a flyer.
Figure 2: How did youth learn about the program?
Other 5%
Internet search 4%
Hire LA website 14%
Friend or Relative
42%
Social media 0%
Email 4%
Drove by building 1%
Saw a flyer 5%
Met a staff member
4%
Referred by another
center 11%
Referred by a school
10%
7
The majority of the participating youth were female (59%) and, as Figure 3 depicts, the
majority were Latino (58%) and Black (31%). The youth ranged between the ages of 15 to
24, with an average age of 19 years old. We also asked youth some demographic information
regarding their families. Twenty-five percent of youth were living with two or more family
members (not including themselves), 57% had three to five family members, and 19% had
more than six family members, with almost half of the youth (48%) reporting sharing the
household with two or more siblings.
Figure 3: Ethnic Breakdown
80%
60%
58%
31%
40%
20%
3%
4%
3%
2%
White
Asian
Multi-racial
Other
0%
Latino
Black
The next set of questions gauged the youth’s educational and work status. As Figure 4
indicates, when asked the highest level of education achieved to date, 53% of participants
reported having a high school diploma/GED or higher, with 42% reporting only having
completed some high school. Interestingly, 22% of youth had completed some college. We
also assessed their Spring 2014 work and educational status. Only 12% of youth indicated
that they were not enrolled in any type of school in Spring 2014, with the majority of youth
(56%) being enrolled in high school (see Figure 4). When asked about their work status, only
24% report having a job in Spring 2014, with 61% working three months or less during the
six month period.
Figure 4: Highest Level of Education Achieved
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
42%
30%
22%
1%
Some high
school
High school
diploma/GED
Some college
8
Associate's
Degree
6%
Other
Figure 5: Educational Status in Spring 2014
Not enrolled in
school 12%
Middle school 4%
Trade/technical
school 1%
4-year college 13%
High school 56%
Community college
14%
Figure 6: Work Status in Spring 2014
Months Worked Since Jan
1 month or
less
25.5%
2 months
17.9%
3 months
17.5%
4 months
8.5%
5 months
9.4%
6 months
21.2%
Worked 24%
Unemployed
76%
Youth Attitudes and Perceptions
We also assessed various personal attitudes and perceptions of the youth prior to entering the
program. These are summarized below. All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale.
We first assessed youth’s career-related proactive behaviors using a 14-item measure
developed by Claes and Ruiz-Quintanilla (1998) and used by Buunk, Perio, and Griffioen
(2007), which includes four work readiness indicators: career plan (i.e., extent to which they
have developed a career plan), skill development (i.e., extent to which they perceive that they
have the knowledge and skills needed for their career), network (i.e., extent to which they
perceive that they know individuals who can provide them job opportunities), and consult
(i.e., extent to which they feel comfortable asking previous coworkers for guidance or
recommendations). This scale was rated from 1 = ‘not at all’ to 5 = ‘a great deal.’ On
9
average, youth indicated that they had started developing their career plans (i.e., Career
Plans) and felt comfortable seeking the advice of previous co-workers (i.e., Consult). Youth
rated their Skill Development slightly lower, suggesting that youth feel that they were
somewhat prepared for their future jobs. Youth ratings on Network were more neutral,
indicating that youth perceive that they do not yet have a well-developed network for career
purposes.
Figure 7: Work Readiness Indicators
Consult
3.8
Network
3.0
Skill Development
3.4
Career Plans
3.6
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
The next set of measures is part of the Career Decision Status Measure developed by Jones,
(1989), which assesses six different perceptions that youth have regarding their career
decisions: whether they believe that making a choice about their career is important at the
present time (Choice Importance); whether they are comfortable in making decisions in
general ( Decisiveness); whether they feel they have sufficient knowledge about occupations
(Knowledge); whether they have a clear idea of their own interests and abilities (Clarity);
whether they are comfortable with their vocational decision status (Comfort); and how
decided they are regarding their occupational choice (Decidedness). The items for these
measures were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree, and findings are summarized below (Figure 8). Overall the findings suggest that
although youth feel that it is important for them to make career choices and they feel they
know what they would like to do as a career, they are not very aware of various occupations
or of their own interests and abilities. These findings suggest that youth need more
knowledge, training, and self-exploration before making career decisions.
10
Figure 8: Career Decision Status Measures
Choice Importance
4.2
Decisiveness
3.5
Knowledge
2.7
Clarity
2.6
Comfort
3.7
Decidedness
4.1
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
We also included several other measures, including Attitudes toward Work and School, Job
Market Favorability Perceptions, Career-Related Positive Personal Beliefs, and Self-Esteem.
These findings are summarized below.
Youth were asked to report their Attitudes toward Work and School with two items
asking them to rate on a smiley-face scale, (1 = unhappy face and 5 = happy face),
how the idea of work and school made them feel. On average, youth felt positively
about work (average = 4.3) and school (average = 4.5).
Job Market Favorability Perceptions were assessed using the ease of movement
subscale from the Employment Opportunity Index (EOI; Griffeth et al., 2005). This
assessed whether youth felt that they would be able to find a job and that there are
opportunities available to them. On average, youth job market perceptions were
neutral (average = 3.1). Even though they are not highly favorable, they may still be
higher than expected considering the current job market.
Career-Related Positive Personal Beliefs, an 8-item measure used by Shane,
Heckhausen, Lessard, Chen, and Greenberger (2012), which assessed the extent to
which youth felt positive and in control of their careers. Youth on average had
slightly positive personal beliefs (average = 3.8).
The 10-item Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (RSE; Rosenberg 1965) was used to gauge
whether youth had a positive self-image, as this is linked to stress, performance, and
attitudes. Our findings indicate that youth generally had positive self-esteem (average
= 4.1, on a five point scale).
11
2. What were the key differences among the youth in terms of their
demographics and attitudes?
Work Readiness
We assessed if there were different outcomes for different demographic groups for work
readiness. To do this we compared a series of demographic groups on the various personality
measures with statistical tests. The comparisons included were:
Gender: Males vs females
Level of Education: high school, postsecondary, out of school.
Employment: employed in last six months or not
In SYEP before: yes or no.
Here we highlight the differences that were statistically significant. Other relevant statistics are
presented in Table A-4 (Appendix A).
Work readiness was rated on a scale from 1 = ‘not at all’ to 5 = ‘a great deal’ with a mean of
3.42 and standard deviation of 1.06. Figures 9 through 12 shows results for our four Work
Readiness indicators upon entrance into the program. The four indicators were: career plan (i.e.,
whether they have a career plan); skill development (i.e., whether they believed they had
knowledge and skills needed for their career); network (i.e., whether they believed they had
networks that could provide them with job opportunities); and consult (i.e., if they felt
comfortable asking previous coworkers for guidance or recommendations).
Career Plan
We found that overall, females were more prepared with their career plan than males. In
addition, previous participation in the summer youth program was associated with higher levels
of career plans. Our third comparison variable was educational enrollment in Spring 2014: if the
youth were enrolled in high school, some college, or were out of school and out of work. Our
results indicated that overall, youth who were enrolled in some college program reported higher
levels of career plans, followed by youth out of school and out of work and youth in high school.
Finally, youth with work experience in the 6 months prior to SYEP reported higher levels of
career plans (Figure 9). In short, the more education or work experience the youth had, the
clearer their career plans.
12
Gender
Male
3.47
No
3.52
Employed Education
last 6
enrollmentmonths
Spring'14
Female
Program
before
Figure 9: Career plan when entering program
3.62
Yes
3.67
Out of School Out of work
3.74
College
3.78
School
3.40
No
3.48
Yes
3.81
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Skill Development
With respect to skill development, we found that overall, previous participation in the summer
youth program was associated with higher levels of self-assessed skill development. In addition,
youth who were enrolled in some college program and youth with prior work experience
reported higher levels of skill development (Figure 10).
Employed
last 6
months
Education
enrollmentSpring'14
Program
before
Figure 10: Skill Development
No
3.23
Yes
3.69
Out of School Out of work
3.46
College
3.62
School
3.15
No
3.19
Yes
3.85
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
13
Network
Our results for career network indicated that, interestingly, males perceived they had more
networks than females. In addition, previous participation in the summer youth program was
associated with higher levels of networks. Our results for educational enrollment indicated that
overall, youth who were enrolled in some college program reported higher levels of networks,
followed by youth out of school and out of work, and youth in high school. Finally, youth with
work experience in the 6 months prior to SYEP reported higher levels of networks (Figure 11).
Gender
Female
Program
before
Figure 11: Have network for career purposes
No
2.88
Male
3.09
2.84
Yes
Education
enrollmentSpring'14
Out of School Out of work
School
2.74
Employed
last 6
months
3.33
No
2.77
2.97
College
3.27
Yes
3.53
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Consult About Careers
Finally, with respect to having people to consult about career issues, we found that overall,
previous participation in the summer youth program was associated with higher levels of comfort
consulting co-workers for advice. In addition, youth who were enrolled in some college program
reported higher levels of comfort, followed by youth in high school and youth out of school and
out of work. Finally, youth with work experience in the 6 months prior to SYEP reported higher
levels of comfort (Figure 12).
14
Figure 12: Have people to consult about career issues
3.75
Yes
3.94
Out of School Out of work
Employed
last 6
months
Education
enrollmentSpring'14
Program
before
No
3.69
College
3.87
School
3.74
No
3.72
Yes
4.07
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
To summarize, our results illustrate that when it comes to individual demographics associated
with work readiness, overall females, individuals with prior work and summer youth program
experience, and those in college or high school appear to be the most prepared for work
experiences.
Career Decision Status
We assessed if there were different outcomes for different demographic groups for Career
Decision Status. Here we highlight the key differences that were statistically significant. Other
relevant statistics are presented in Table A-4 (Appendix A).
Career decision status was rated on a scale from 1 = ‘not at all’ to 5 = ‘a great deal’ with a mean
of 3.46 and standard deviation of 0.87. As mentioned previously, career decision status was
measured using six indicators: whether they have a clear idea of their own interests and abilities
(Clarity); how decided they are regarding their occupational choice (Decidedness); whether they
are comfortable with their vocational decision status (Comfort); if making a choice about their
career is important at the present time (i.e., Choice Importance); if they are comfortable in
making decisions in general (i.e., Decisiveness); and if they feel they have sufficient knowledge
about occupations (Knowledge).
Clarity
With respect to clarity, we found that overall, youth who were enrolled in some college program
reported higher levels of clarity, followed by youth out of school and out of work, and youth in
high school. In addition, youth with prior work experience reported higher levels of clarity
(Figure 13).
15
Employed
last 6
months
Education
enrollmentSpring'14
Figure 13: Clarity about interest and abilities
Out of School Out of work
2.57
College
2.66
School
2.47
No
2.50
Yes
2.73
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Decidedness
Our results for decidedness indicated that overall, females were more decided about their
occupational choices than males. In addition, youth who were enrolled in some college program
and youth with prior work experience reported higher levels of decidedness (Figure 14).
Employed
last 6
months
Education
enrollmentSpring'14
Gender
Figure 14: Decidedness about career
Female
4.24
Male
3.91
Out of School Out of work
4.02
College
4.28
School
4.02
No
4.05
Yes
4.28
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Comfort and Choice Importance
Figures 15 and 16 show our results for Comfort and Choice Importance. Overall, our results
indicate that once again females, youth who were enrolled in some college program, and youth
with prior work experience report higher levels of comfort making vocational decisions and
career choice as important.
16
Gender
Female
Male
3.61
Employed Education
last 6
enrollmentmonths
Spring'14
Figure 15: Comfort with career choice
Out of School Out of work
3.63
3.72
College
3.84
School
3.60
No
3.63
Yes
3.83
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Gender
Female
Education
enrollmentSpring'14
Out of School Out of work
Employed
last 6
months
Figure 16: Importance of career choice
No
4.28
Male
4.05
4.26
College
4.34
School
4.09
4.17
Yes
4.30
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Knowledge and Decisiveness
Figures 17 and 18 show our results for Knowledge about Occupations and Decisiveness
confidence in making decisions. Overall, we found that youth who were enrolled in some college
program, followed by youth out of school and out of work, and youth in high school reported
higher levels of knowledge and decisiveness. Moreover, youth with work experience in the 6
months prior to SYEP reported higher levels of occupational knowledge and decisiveness levels.
17
Employed last 6 Education enrollmentmonths
Spring'14
Figure 17: Knowledge about occupations
Out of School Out of work
2.70
College
2.94
School
2.60
No
2.65
Yes
2.83
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
4.50
5.00
Employed last Education enrollment6 months
Spring'14
Figure 18: Decisiveness about career and occupational choice
Out of School Out of work
3.57
College
3.65
School
3.48
No
3.51
Yes
3.68
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Career-Related Positive Personal Beliefs and Job Market Favorability Perceptions
Next, we examined Career-Related Positive Personal Beliefs (the extent to which youth felt
positive and in control of their careers) and Job Market Favorability Perceptions (whether youth
felt that they would be able to find a job and that there are opportunities available to them).
Significant differences emerged for youth with previous work experience. Specifically, youth
with work experience six months prior to SYEP reported higher levels of Career-Related
Positive Personal Beliefs and Job Market Favorability Perceptions (Figures 19 and 20).
18
Figure 19: Career-Related Positive Personal Beliefs
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
3.86
3.75
Yes
No
Employed last 6 months
Figure 20: Job Market Favorability Perceptions
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
3.33
3.07
Yes
No
Employed last 6 months
Attitudes toward School
Our next set of analyses computed results for Attitudes toward school. Significant differences
emerged for all four of our comparison groups. We found that overall, females felt more positive
about school than males. In addition, previous participation in the summer youth program was
associated with higher levels of positivity toward school. Moreover, youth who were enrolled in
some college program, followed by youth in high school and youth out of school and out of
work, reported positive feelings about school. Finally, youth with prior work experience reported
higher levels of positivity toward the idea of school (Figure 21).
19
Gender
No
4.35
4.14
Male
4.24
4.36
Yes
4.16
Out of School Out of work
4.45
College
4.19
School
Employed
last 6
months
Education
enrollmentSpring'14
Female
Program
before
Figure 21: Attitudes toward School
4.25
No
4.37
Yes
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Attitudes toward Work
With respect to Attitudes toward Work, we found significant differences for gender and
education. Females felt more positive about work than males. Moreover, youth out of school and
out of work, followed by youth who were enrolled in some college program, and youth in high
school, reported positive feelings about work. These results are interesting as they demonstrate
that perhaps SYEP needs to be better targeted toward out of school and out of work youth, as
these young people are the most excited about the idea of working. (Figure 22).
Education enrollmentSpring'14
Gender
Figure 22: Attitudes toward Work
Female
4.61
Male
4.38
Out of School Out of work
4.63
College
4.59
School
1.00
4.46
1.50
2.00
2.50
20
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
3. How did Youth evaluate their summer employment experience?
To answer this question, we examined data from the focus groups with students who had
completed their work experience and the exit survey.
Type of employer and job
On the exit survey we asked participants--to describe their employer and the type of work they
did. We divided employers into five major categories. Education (35.5%) consisted of
universities, colleges, high school and elementary schools. Many of the contractors partnered
with large educational facilities such as UCLA, Cal State University, Los Angeles, and Charles
Drew University, as well as LAUSD, which resulted in education being the work site category
with the highest frequency. The Nonprofit category (32.8%) consisted of the five nonprofit
agencies that delivered the program and themselves hired many participants, as well as other
nonprofit organizations in the community, such as the YMCA, the Boys and Girls Clubs,
MEND, and Plaza de la Raza. Government (10.3%) consisted of state or local government
entities including courthouses, fire departments, libraries, and parks and recreation centers.
Private Sector sites (6.3%) consisted of private companies such as Parson’ss Corporation,
ARCADIS, State Farm Insurance, Walgreens, and Party City. Childcare work sites (3.2%)
consisted of nursery schools, daycare, and childcare centers.
Figure 23: Type of employer
Education
35.5%
Nonprofit
32.8%
Government
10.3%
PrivateSector
6.3%
Childcare
3.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Youth described many different types of jobs assigned to them during the program. Office
work was the most common type of job, reported by 36%. Tasks such as filing, making
copies, and some computer work were reported most frequently by youth working at
educational, nonprofit, and government work sites. This was followed by janitorial duties
(15.6%), which was most frequently performed at elementary schools and nonprofit work
sites. Participants reported childcare (15.2%) as the third most frequent type of job duty,
21
which was most often done at government recreation centers, schools, and childcare
facilities. Other types of work included organizational duties (5.8%) of inventory or
merchandise, assisting programs (4.4%), front desk reception (2.8%), assisting teachers
(1.8%), customer service (1.7%), odd jobs (1.4%), and moving things (1.2%) such as boxes,
furniture, and loading inventory. A few participants reported doing maintenance work
(1.2%), such as fixing shelves and electronics in education, nonprofit, and childcare sites.
Figure 24: Type of job
OfficeWork
36%
Janitorial
15.6%
Childcare
15.2%
Organize
5.8%
ProgramAssist
4.4%
Reception
2.8%
TeachAssist
1.8%
CustomerServ
1.7%
OddJobs
1.4%
MovingThings
1.2%
Maintenance
1.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Program Satisfaction
To assess the effectiveness of the program, we asked youth to rate their program experience in
the exit survey (see Table A-5 in the Appendix A for a detailed summary). First, youth were
asked to report their level of satisfaction with different aspects of the program using validated
scales, including overall program experience and satisfaction with supervisor, job, and training
received (both financial literacy and work readiness). Youth reported high levels of satisfaction
on average with all aspects of the program.
22
Figure 25: Satisfaction Measures (5 point scale)
Overall Program Satisfaction
4.3
Supervisor Satisfaction
4.3
Job Satisfaction
4.2
Work Readiness Training Satisfaction
4.1
Financial Literacy Training Satisfaction
4.1
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Job Fit and Burnout
We assessed a few other outcome measures (see Figure 26 below). First, youth reported the
extent to which their internship fit their skills, interests, needs, and goals, referred to as ‘Job Fit’
and assessed with six items developed by Cable and DeRue (2002). Youth on average agreed
that they experienced fit with their assigned positions, but 23% either felt neutral or experienced
misfit with their jobs.
Further, though youth were highly satisfied, they reported slightly lower levels of affective
commitment, or the extent to which youths experience emotional attachment to the organization
and genuinely want to be there every day, using a 3-item measure developed by Allen and Meyer
(1990). This may be because of the relatively limited time youth spent with the organization.
Typically they spent 100 hours at the workplace, the equivalent of 2.5 weeks of full-time work.
This is not very long to develop an organizational commitment.
Using a scale developed by Halbesleben and Demerouti (2005), we also assessed burnout, or
whether youth were emotionally exhausted or felt energy depleted as a result of their work, as is
evident in positions with high stress (e.g., bad supervisor, workplace conflict, job ambiguity).
The average rating was between neutral and disagree, suggesting that although youth
experienced some stress, it was not overwhelming or debilitating by any means.
Figure 26: Fit, Commitment, and Burnout Measures
Job Fit
3.9
Affective Commitment
3.7
Burnout or Exhaustion
2.4
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
23
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Focus Group Findings
To get a qualitative understanding of the youth’s experience, we conducted multiple focus
groups with youth at the end of the program at each site. Overall, the focus group participants
spoke very positively about the program. All but a few said they would participate in the
program again. Of those few, some cited educational plans that they planned to pursue instead of
the SYEP, while others were simply aging out of the program. As one young woman put it, “I
like working. Now I’m independent! My mom doesn’t complain because now I’m not asking her
for money!”
What They Learned
When asked what they learned from their experiences, some mentioned basic job skills such as
patience, communication, working with others, organization, office skills, time management,
taking initiative, and critical thinking skills. Others added social interaction skills such as
meeting new people, making connections, remaining respectful when dealing with upset
customers, and working with people with disabilities. One young female remarked, “I feel less
shy…working allowed me to open up more, which gave me a better understanding of people.”
Many participants referenced things they learned during the work readiness and financial literacy
training. One young man noted, “How to use banks and credit unions, I didn’t know about stuff
like that.”
Exposure to computer technology sparked interest in exploring specific careers further. As one
respondent pointed out, “Being at [a well-known engineering firm] showed me the type of
engineering they do, which let me see how much I like it.” Work experience allowed others to
realize careers they did not want to pursue, “Working in accounting sounded interesting, but it
really wasn’t for me. I’m glad I know that now.”
Earnings
Participants cited money or “getting paid” as a motivator for participating in the program. One of
the questions we were especially curious about was what participants did with their earnings.
Many youth mentioned practical investments such as food, clothes, shoes, school supplies,
books, car repairs, and summer classes. Although some youth did not want to go into too much
detail, they also mentioned more personal things such as getting a phone, an iPad, a professional
camera, “clothes and shoes,” and going to the movies. Quite a few young people mentioned
pitching in at home and spending their earnings on their family and kids. One young man noted
he spent it “on family, to help my Mom from carrying all of the burden.”
4. Did different subgroups of youth evaluate their experience differently?
We also looked at post SYEP work attitudes and outcomes and assessed if there were any
demographic differences among youth as they exited the program. Other relevant statistics are
presented in Table A-6 (Appendix A).
24
Career Decision Status
We assessed if there were different outcomes for different demographic groups for Career
Decision Status after they completed SYEP. Here we highlight the key differences that were
statistically significant.
Career Decision Status was rated on a scale from 1 = ‘not at all’ to 5 = ‘a great deal’ with a mean
of 3.46 and standard deviation of 0.95. Significant group differences emerged for only two of our
six Career Decision Status measures: how decided they are regarding their occupational choice
(Decidedness), and if they feel they have sufficient knowledge about occupations (Knowledge).
Decidedness and Knowledge
With respect to Decidedness, we found that overall, females were more decided about their
occupational choices than males (Figure 27). The results for knowledge about occupations
indicated that youth with prior work experience reported higher levels of occupational
knowledge.
Figure 27: Decidedness
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
4.14
3.82
Male
Female
Gender
Figure 28: Knowledge
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
3.98
2.98
Yes
No
Employed last 6 months
Job Market Favorability Perceptions
Our results for Job Market Favorability Perceptions (whether youth felt that they would be able
to find a job and that there are opportunities available to them) are reported in Figure 29.
Significant differences emerged for work experience: youth with prior work experience reported
higher levels of job market favorability.
25
Figure 29: Job Market Favorability Perceptions
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
3.67
3.44
Yes
No
Employed last 6 months
Attitudes toward School
With respect to Attitudes toward School, we found significant differences for education. Youth
who were enrolled in some college program, followed by youth in high school and youth out of
school and out of work, reported positive feelings about school (Figure 30).
Figure 30: Attitudes toward School
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
4.41
4.17
School
College
4.14
Out of School Out of
work
Education enrollment-Spring'14
Attitudes toward Work
With respect to Attitudes toward Work, we found significant differences for the youth who have
participated in SYEP before. Youth who have participated in previous SYEP programs reported
positive feelings about work compared to youth with no prior SYEP experience (Figure 31).
26
Figure 31: Attitudes toward Work
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
4.65
4.51
Yes
No
Program before
Self-esteem
Finally, we found significant differences for self-esteem between males and females. Females
evaluated their self-image positively compared to males (Figure 32).
Figure 32: Self Esteem
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
4.00
4.15
Male
Female
Gender
5. How did the attitudes of youth change from before to after the work
experience?
Youth report very positive attitudes towards work and school before and after the program. At
the beginning of the program, ninety percent of youth reported they planned to work after the
program. When surveyed at the end of the program, 91% said they planned to work after the
program. Similarly, 93% of youth reported they planned to return to school at both the
beginning and end of the program.
27
Some psychological measures were collected in both the Intake and Exit Surveys to determine
whether participating in the program caused significant changes in youths’ career perceptions
and attitudes. Table 3 below summarizes these findings. The findings only include youth who
completed the measures on both the Intake and Exit Surveys (N = 294).
The findings indicate that participation in the program did not bring about large changes in
attitudes toward work and school or self-esteem. This fits with the research we reviewed earlier
that showed that summer youth employment programs tend to have small positive impacts.
However, we see notable differences on the Career Decision Status Measures. Specifically, there
is a significant increase in Comfort, Clarity, Knowledge, and Choice Importance, and a decrease
in Decidedness. These findings suggest that the program impacts career-specific decisions by
providing participants with more knowledge about occupations (Knowledge), shedding light on
their own abilities and skills (Clarity), and demonstrating the importance of making a career
decision (Choice Importance). As a result of exposure to different occupations and work
contexts, they are also less certain about what specific career they would like to pursue
(Decidedness). Overall, these findings highlight how beneficial new experiences, knowledge,
and exposure can be for youth who likely have very limited opportunities to find out about
various occupations or explore what skills and abilities they can leverage.
Table 3: Pre-Post Comparisons based on 294 Matched Pairs
Measure
Intake Survey
Attitude Towards Work
4.5
Attitude Towards School
4.3
Decided on occupational choice
4.1
Comfort maker career decision
3.7
Clarity of interests and ability
2.5
Knowledge of occupations
2.7
Decisiveness: I don’t delay decisions
3.5
Choice of career important now
4.2
Self Esteem
4.1
Note. Significance levels: * < .05; ** < .01.
Exit Survey
4.6
4.3
4.0
3.8
2.8
2.8
3.4
3.9
4.1
Difference
.04
.07
-.10*
.12*
.22**
.15**
-.09
.27**
-.03
6. How do the adults who supervised the summer youth program evaluate
their experience?
For SYEP to be sustainable, the agencies must be able to keep and add partner organizations that
employ the youth. Therefore we thought it was important to understand how the adults who
supervised the youth evaluated their experience. We attempted to survey all supervisors at each
28
of our research sites. A total of 144 supervisors responded to the Supervisor Program
Satisfaction Survey.
First we wanted to understand how much experience supervisors had with the program. We
found almost 70% of supervisors had participated in the Summer Youth Employment Program
before, indicating that about 30% were new to the program that summer.
There were no significant differences in the satisfaction of supervisors who had participated in
the program before and those who were first-time participants.
Figure 33: Previous Participation in SYEP
1.4%
Yes
29.4%
No
69.2%
Not Sure
Overwhelmingly the supervisors (93%) felt that the program provides youth with an
experience that better prepares them for the future. A small percentage (2.1%) felt the
program does not enhance their future, while 4.9% of supervisors were not sure. This
positive assessment probably explains why so many supervisors are willing to work with the
program again.
Figure 34: Whether Program Provides Youth Experience that Better Prepares Them for
Future
2.1%
4.9%
Yes
No
29
93%
Not
Sure
The vast majority of supervisors (93.7%) would be willing to participate in the Summer
Youth Employment Program again. Only 1.4% said they would not participate again, while
4.9% were not sure.
Figure 35: Willingness to Participate in SYEP Again
1.4% 4.9%
Yes
No
Not
Sure
93.7%
Supervisors report high levels of satisfaction with the program. Overall satisfaction was very
high, with an average of 8.82 on a 10 point scale. Satisfaction with the program staff was
almost equally high, and even satisfaction with paper work and other program requirements
was over 8.5. In open-ended comments, supervisors overwhelmingly showed they believe in
the program and recognize the impact it has on the participants as well as the community.
One respondent remarked, “Great program for youth to gain work experience and learn new
skills.” Supervisors enjoy the process of mentorship and appreciate the youths’ contribution
to their work sites.
Figure 36: Supervisor Overall Satisfaction
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
8.82
8.71
8.59
Overall, how satisfied were How satisfied were you with Overall how satisfied are you
you with your experience your interaction with the staff with logistics and paper work
supervising youth in the
at the center?
required to participate in the
SYEP?
program?
30
We asked supervisors for their thoughts on how the program could be improved. In the figure
below we show the most common suggestions with the number of supervisors who made the
suggestions, and then we describe in more detail their comments.
Figure 37: Supervisor Comments on How to Improve SYEP
18
14
14
10
6
5
3
3
More hours, longer duration of program
Many supervisors suggested more hours would be beneficial to the program. One supervisor
commented, “I felt that the duration of the program was rather short for some of the students. If
possible have all of the students participate for a full eight weeks.” Another suggested the option
of more work hours available based on job performance, “…more hours to youth who perform
well at sites.” This may be an option for private companies that would prefer to have the option
of inviting youth to stay on, but do not want to be tied to the decision before they have met or
interacted with the participant. It may also serve as an incentive for the youth to do their best
work at their job.
Better Job-matching
Supervisors also felt better job-matching would benefit both the youth and the jobsite. “Perhaps
students could be better matched so they are placed in a position that reflects their career
interest.” This is a topic that many youth mentioned in the focus groups as a suggestion for
improving the program.
Another suggestion was to match by skills and experience. More employers may be interested in
participating if they know the participants have skills that will benefit or enhance their
organization. One supervisor mentioned, “The only thing I asked for was a youth who had
31
computer skills and the person assigned to me had very little computer skills which really
hindered what he could do and increased the amount of time to work with him on basic skills.”
A private company that participated commented: “ARCADIS is the leading global natural and
built asset design and consultancy firm that provides design, consultancy, engineering, project
and management services. Therefore, we feel that it is beneficial for everyone to have youth
with an Architectural/Engineering background assisting us next year.”
Another employer said they would be willing to invest in interviewing youth to get a better
match for their position. “Though it is difficult, it would also be ideal for supervisors and youth
to exchange some information or have some knowledge of one another before they are assigned
to work. Whether this comes in the form of an informational interview, biography about one
another before we meet or in some other fashion of meeting, it is helpful to have some
expectation of who we will be working with for 5 weeks. I think a fun activity for the youth to
engage in is an informational interview of their choice (and where their interest lay). This would
serve as practice for communicating in a professional manner as well as discovering more about
their personal career goals.”
Another comment was “More communication prior to the student being placed and scheduled, an
introduction with the supervisor.”
Some supervisors liked the idea of placing participants by age or years of experience, such as
youth who have participated in the program before, “…we prefer older summer workers that can
handle groups of 10 children.”
More Work-Readiness Training
Supervisors strongly suggested that youth have more work-readiness training. Some employers
felt that more training would benefit participants in areas of professional conduct and
appearance. “Provide more training for youth before they get to worksite on dress code and how
to act on a job. This year was better than years before.”
Others requested an orientation for supervisors so they know the rules and policies of the
program. “Hold an orientation for supervisors so we know the rules and policies.”
An established reflection/evaluation plan was suggested by multiple employers. In order to gain
perspective and to understand what they are learning and how it will help them in the future
employment situations, one supervisor suggested, “…individual meetings to review their
progress, especially employer feedback on their performance.” Another added, “…an evaluation
plan along with the work experience to keep them on track and aware of their growth.”
Begin Program Earlier
Supervisors preferred that the program begin earlier in order to place more youth in the program
and allow them to complete their hours before their focus was back on school work. “Start the
32
orientation and selection process earlier, maybe in May.” Other comments reflected this, such as,
“If it could start earlier so the kids have enough time to finish before school starts back.”
Better Communication
Six supervisors suggested better communication between the nonprofits and the work sites.
Some supervisors emphasized the communication between youth and responsibility of the youth
to contact the job site when they were not coming in, rather than just contacting the nonprofit.
Less Paperwork
Only three supervisors complained about the amount of paper work, which actually surprised us.
“Please eliminate the constant evaluation of youth workers!” or “less paperwork! I was given at
least 4 sets of evaluations.” As noted before, satisfaction with the program operations including
paper work rated above 8.5 on the satisfaction scale.
More Youth
There were only a few suggestions of having more youth, “Employ more youth” and “more slots
available.” A third comment provided a little more detail, “possibly open it up to more youth,
not just under privileged.” This suggests that supervisors see the value of the work experience
for all youth, not just disadvantaged youth.
7. Where were the youth served by the summer youth program seven months
later, in terms of education and employment?
This follow-up survey of the 2014 Summer Youth Employment Participants (SYEP) was
conducted during April and May of 2015. The survey was administered to 1,091 participants
with valid email addresses from the five SYEP sites that were studied by the Northridge
Research Group. This followed-up participants to find out if they were in school and or
employed. It also asked respondents to reflect on their summer work experience. We analyzed
what the 312 respondents were doing during the late spring of 2015 and how they believe their
SYEP experiences affected them to that point and will affect them in the future.
Education Status Spring 2015
We asked participants if they were in school in spring 2015, after their SYEP experience. The
vast majority (85.6%) of the 2014 SYEP participants were in school. This shows that a large
majority of the 91% of youth who reported they intended to return to school actually did. About
half of the 14.4 percent who were not enrolled in school were working, while the others either
looked for work or fulfilled family obligations.
33
Figure 38: Percent of Youth in School Spring 2015
14.4%
85.6%
In School
Not in School
Most of those SYEP participants in school were enrolled in post-secondary institutions, but
nearly 42 percent were still in high school. Over 30 percent of those pursuing education were
enrolled in four-year colleges and another 25.5 percent were enrolled in community colleges.
Private vocational and technical institutions accounted for the small remainder.
Figure 39: Enrollment by Type of Institution
High School
41.9%
Community College
25.5%
Private Vocational/Tech
2.2%
Four Year College
30.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Notably, a large majority of those in post-high school level programs were enrolled full-time.
Given the sizable number that were still in high school, this large proportion enrolled full-time is
not unexpected, but it means that over two-thirds of those enrolled in post-secondary education
are attending full-time.
34
Figure 39: Full-time and Part-time Enrollment
18.1%
81.9%
In school full-time
In school part-time
Post-secondary enrollees were asked what specific major they were pursuing. Their responses
suggested that a large proportion of these students were early in their college careers, as
indicated by the 30.6 percent reporting “Undecided” or “Undeclared” as their “majors”. These
are “majors” that students “declare” in their first year or two as they search for an academic
home, whereupon they switch to their “real” major. Among the real majors the post-secondary
enrollees reported, Behavioral Science, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics), Health Related and Business and Economics majors were most common.
Figure 40: Majors of Youth Enrolled in Secondary Education
Undecided/Undeclared
30.6%
Behavioral Science
24.6%
STEM
17.9%
Health Related
9.0%
Business/Economics
9.0%
Language and Arts
6.0%
Educational programs
3.0%
0%
5%
10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
While over 85 percent of the survey respondents were enrolled in educational programs, just
under 15 percent were not. We wondered what were the 14.4% not enrolled doing during the
35
spring, and exactly where they were in terms of their potential education track. What had they
already achieved in terms of their education? Specifically, were those not enrolled at a natural
stopping point in their educational track, where they could more or less safely explore noneducational alternatives, or had their education progress been “interrupted” by life events at a
point where restarting their education would be hard to do? The most telling feature of such an
interruption would be if they had not yet finished high school.
As Figure 41 shows, of the 14.4% not in school only 7.1% had not finished high school. Over
half had achieved a high school diploma, and another 38% had completed some college. So it
appears that most youth who did not return to school had some substantial educational
qualification to bring to the labor market.
Figure 41: Educational Achievement of Youth Not Enrolled in School in Spring 15
Some high school
7.1%
HS Diploma/GED
52.4%
Some college
38.1%
Associates degree
2.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
There were a variety of reasons why those 14.4% of respondents not in school did not enroll.
The most common reason was “family obligations,” followed by having “missed the application
deadline” and simply “preferred to work right now”.
36
Figure 42: Reason for Not Enrolling in Education
Family obligations precluded it
28.9%
Missed application deadline
24.4%
Preferred to work right now
24.4%
Didn’t have enough money
22.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
It appears that most youth who did enroll could have enrolled if they had wanted to and stayed
on top of the process and navigated the steps required. Only “family obligations precluded it”
suggest a barrier that could not be overcome with some planning.
For whatever reason they did not enroll, the question becomes what were they doing instead. In
answer to that question, their responses show that the vast majority of them were either working
or looking for work. About half of the youth who are out of school are employed and almost all
the rest are looking for work.
Figure 43: Employment Status of Out of School Youth
Working
51.1%
Looking for work
48.9%
Fulfilling family obligations
2.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
37
40%
50%
60%
Employment Spring 201
More than one-third of the 2014 SYEP participants were working during the Spring of 2015.
This shows a substantial improvement over the 24% of participants who were employed any time
in the six months before they enrolled in SYEP.
Figure 44: Employment Status of Youth Spring 2015
35.9%
64.1%
Working
Not working
Among those working, over half thought that the experience they gained in SYEP helped them
get their current jobs. Specifically, 60.4% “agreed or strongly agreed” that their experiences in
SYEP helped them get their current jobs, while 11.9% percent were “undecided” on the question.
The respondents cited improvements in their work readiness, increased work experience, and
enlarged skill sets among the main ways in which their SYEP experiences indirectly helped them
get their current jobs.
38
Figure 45: Youth Reporting SYEP Helped them Find Current Job
Strongly Agree
36.6%
Agree
23.8%
Undecided
11.9%
Disagree
13.9%
Strongly Disagree
13.9%
0.0%
5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%
However, many fewer respondents, but still over 20 percent, claimed that they had found their
current jobs directly through SYEP.
Figure 46: Found Current Job Directly Through SYEP
Strongly Agree
13.6%
Agree
7.8%
Undedided
13.6%
Disagree
36.9%
Strongly Disagree
28.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Over half of the youth who had a job worked fewer than 16 hours a week. Only 16% worked
over 32 hours a week. This isn’t surprising given that a large majority of those working were
also attending school full or part-time.
39
Figure 47: Hours worked in Typical Week
1 day/week (1-8 hours)
14.3%
2 days/week (9-16 hours)
42.0%
3-4 days (17-32 hours)
27.7%
5 days (33+ hours)
16.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Clearly, most of these participants had part-time jobs and most of those jobs fell into expected
categories for young, part-time employees. Retail-related jobs led the list, followed by clerical
and assistant positions. Teaching assistants, tutors, interns, and student workers accounted for
another important category, and a respectable proportion worked in the health-related areas of
nursing and caregiving. Food service jobs rounded out the discernable categories, with 12
percent of the jobs spread over a miscellany of types including security, maintenance,
photography, and others.
Figure 48: Type of Job Held by Youth
Retail related jobs
27.8%
Clerical and assistants
22.2%
TAs/Tutors/Interns/Student
workers
17.6%
Nursing/caregiving
13.0%
Food service
7.4%
Miscellaneous
12.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
40
30%
How much were these workers paid? As Figure 49 shows, nearly 60% percent were paid
between $9 and $10 per hour. Another one-fifth earned between $10 and $11 per hour, with less
than 20 percent earning above the $11 per hour mark.
Figure 49: Hourly Pay for Employed Youth
$13-$13.50/hour
2.9%
$12-$12.95/hour
7.8%
$11-$11.50/hour
7.8%
$10-$10.50/hour
20.1%
$9-$9.95/hour
58.8%
$7.25-$8/hour
2.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Regardless of whether they were working during the spring, over 80% of the 2014 SYEP
participants were job hunting during April/May 2015. This indicates that many of the youth with
minimum wage jobs were already looking for a better opportunity.
Figure 50: Percent of Youth Currently Job Hunting
20.6%
79.4%
Job hunting
Not job hunting
Note the fact that about one-fifth indicated that they were not job hunting; this does not mean
that they did not plan on working during the summer of 2015. Many of those people could be
41
planning on continuing in their current job. In fact, only 8.1% indicated that they were not
working nor were they looking for work.
SYEP’s Impact on Employment and Education Plans
The survey participants were asked whether SYEP encouraged them either to stay in school or
return to school; almost 80% either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that it did. That means that
less than 15 percent of participants “disagreed” that SYEP encouraged them to continue their
education.
Figure 51: Did SYEP Encourage Youth to Return to School?
Strongly Agree
50.0%
Agree
29.9%
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
0.0%
9.7%
4.4%
6.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
In addition, over 80 % of respondents believe that their SYEP experience would help them get a
job in the future, and another 10 percent were not sure whether it would or not.
42
Figure 52: Will the SYEP Experience Help You Get a Job in the Future?
Strongly Agree
47.9%
Agree
32.8%
Undedided
9.6%
Disagree
2.9%
Strongly Disagree
6.4%
N/A
0.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
When asked “specifically how will your SYEP experiences help you get a future job?” the
largest group (40%) percent responded that the experience had improved their “work readiness”,
while another 31% reported they had built their “job related skills”
Figure 53: How SYEP Will Help Youth Find a Job in the Future
Increase my Work Readiness
40.1%
Build my Job-related Skills
31.0%
Increase my Work Experience
16.8%
Increase my Career Awareness
7.3%
Increase my Network
3.0%
Increase my Motivation
1.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Would Participants Recommend the SYEP Program?
When asked whether they would recommend SYEP to someone like themselves, over 96%
responded that they would. This reflects that the overwhelming positive experience youth
reported in early surveys persisted after they left the program.
43
Figure 54: Percent of Youth Who Would Recommend SYEP to Someone Like Them
1.3 1.9
96.8
Yes
No
Not Sure
In fact, many of the 2014 SYEP liked the program so well that 71.8% plan to enroll again this
summer.
Figure 55: Percent of Youth Planning to Enroll in SYEP Again
21.8
6.4
71.8
Yes
No
Not Sure
Finally, we asked the youth how they primarily spent their SYEP earnings. Their responses
show that much of the money they earned during the summer of 2014 has gone to further their
education, pay outstanding bills and personal expenses. A substantial minority of about 14%
were able to save their money.
44
Figure 56: How Youth Spent Their SYEP Earnings
Education
44.4%
Bills
15.9%
Personal Expenses
15.6%
Savings
14.6%
Family
5.4%
Kids
4.1%
0%
V
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
The City of Los Angeles Summer Youth Employment Program provides valuable work
experience and labor market connections to disadvantaged youth. Based on the results of our
evaluation we draw seven conclusions about the program.
1. SYEP serves a diverse population of youth, who are on a positive track but who
have weak labor market attachment.
SYEP participants were diverse in terms of age, gender, ethnicity and experience. Overall the
large majority of participants are on a positive path. Over 84% are in school. They report
positive attitudes towards school, work and careers. Only 24% of participants were in the
Summer Youth Program before. This indicates that the program continues to reach new
populations of youth, rather than repeatedly serving the same individuals. Most learned about
the program through personal connections, or through referrals from schools or other agencies.
Fourteen percent did learn about the program through the HIRE LA website.
Participants have weak labor market attachment, with only 24% of youth participants having
worked in the last 6 months. They also report limited knowledge about jobs and report they have
few connections for finding jobs or getting career information.
45
2. Youth are at different stages in their career development.
The SYEP program includes youth who have just entered high school and youth who have
completed several years of college, so we find significant differences in their career awareness
and career development. Not surprisingly college students have clearer career plans than high
school students. Students with previous work experience report more career development than
those who have not worked. Female participants also report more career development than male
participants. This may reflect a larger trend for women to mature earlier than men and not be
related to program performance.
3. SYEP mostly provides employment experience through service jobs in schools and
nonprofit organizations in service jobs.
Over two-thirds of participants worked in schools or non-profits, while only 6.3% work in
private sector jobs. The most common types of jobs were: “office work”, “janitorial work” and
“child care”. It is important to note that there are other components of SYEP which we did not
evaluate that deal directly with placing youth in private sector jobs.
4. Youth show small but significant gains in career development from the beginning to
the end of the program.
As we noted earlier in this report, most summer youth employment program evaluations find
small positive gains for youth. We found similar results. Youth showed small but statistically
significant gains in their “comfort with making a career decision”, “clarity about their career
interests”, “knowledge about careers” and the “importance of making a career choice”. In our
follow-up survey a majority of the youth reported they believed their experience in the program
would help them find a job and advance in their career. A majority also agreed that the
experience encouraged them to continue their education, and most did. Finally, the program
provided many participants with their first work experience so they now had some work
experience and a reference to put on a future job application.
5.
Overall youth were highly satisfied with their SYEP experience.
Youth reported high levels of satisfaction with their SYEP experience, overall average
satisfaction was 4.3 on a five point scale. Youth were slightly less satisfied, average 4.1, with
the quality of work readiness and financial literacy training. In focus groups youth reported a
wide range of benefits from the program, including earning needed money, gaining work
experience that will lead to more employment, getting mentoring from supervisors, and learning
patience. In follow-up surveys seven months after the SYEP experience, over 96% reported they
would recommend the program to someone like them.
46
6. Most youth followed up on their plans to return to school and/ or seek employment.
At exit, 91% of participants said they planned to enroll in school and 91% said they planned to
work. Seven months after leaving the program, 85% of participants surveyed were in school,
and half of those not enrolled were working, leaving only 7% of all participants not in school or
work. Over 80% of those in school attend full-time. Slightly over half of all participants were
working seven months after leaving the program compared to only 24% working before they
entered the program. This is not surprising given that 91% of participants said they intended to
work on the program exit survey. Most worked part-time and earned between $9 and $10 dollars
per hour. Virtually all the out of school and out of work youth report they are looking for work.
7. Adults who supervised youth participants report high levels of satisfaction with the
program.
The supervisors of the youth participants report high levels of satisfaction with their experience.
Overall satisfaction averaged 8.8 on a ten point scale. Perhaps more importantly almost 94% of
the supervisors said they would participate in the program again. Supervisors did have a number
of suggestions for improving the program, including: adding more hours of work, improving the
match between youth and the job, and improving youths’ work readiness.
Recommendations
Based on our evaluation and our review of other evaluations of other summer youth employment
programs, we have four recommendations for improving the program. Three deal with changes
that can be made in the coming year, and one deals with longer term changes to the program.
This year
1. Improve financial literacy and work readiness training.
Youth develop quickly. A 16-year-old about to enter her junior year in high school is at a very
different stage of development from a 20–year- old about to enter his junior year of college.
Because of these differences, we recommend that both financial literacy training and the work
readiness training be delivered at two different levels. The first level would be designed for high
school aged students, 16-18, many of whom will be working for the first time and who are still
mostly in high school or just completed high school. The level of both financial literacy and
work readiness training will be more focused on basics and be appropriate for high school
students with little or no work experience. A second level with more advanced content should be
designed for those youth 19 years old and older. Our research shows that many of these youth
will have college experience or some previous work experience and will be prepared for more
advanced training and be ready to move through topics more quickly.
As we noted, we observed the financial literacy and work readiness training at all sites. Different
sites used different instructional methods with, in our view, various levels of effectiveness.
While participant satisfaction with the training component of the program was high, we believe it
47
could be improved. We believe if trainers focused on making the training more interactive, by
using active learning techniques, such as exercises, role plays, case discussion and break out
groups, it would be more effective, especially for the younger participants. One way to facilitate
this more engaging training would be to select some of the college students in the program and
use them as teaching assistants to help facilitate the active learning activities. This would provide
both a valuable learning experience for the college students and more resources for delivering the
training.
2. Improve the quality and variety of placements.
As we noted in the supervisor survey, 70% of supervisors have participated in the program
before. Agencies build relationships with local non-profit and government agencies and a few
private employers and tend to return to these agencies each year. This is efficient and helps get
the program started quickly each summer. But many of these placements do not introduce youth
to higher level occupations or emerging sectors of the economy. As first time jobs, these basic
jobs offer value, but as the youth mature and gain more education, more challenging jobs in
growth industries would add more value. Also, we recognize the program has a goal of adding
more private sector placements in emerging industries, such as entertainment, transportation,
health care and technology.
To accomplish this we recommend that agencies, with the help of EWDD, identify private sector
employers in their area prior to the summer and establish relationships that can lead to summer
jobs, where youth will have more contact with a variety of professions. These placements will
be particularly appropriate for the older youth who have some work experience and postsecondary education. For example, in our focus groups we met a young man who was studying
accounting at a community college. He got placed in the accounting office of the agency
running the program. It was a valuable placement for him, where he got to work directly with
professional accountants and experience the day to day work of accounting.
In our experience, employers, particularly private employers, who are willing to provide higher
level work experience want to choose their own youth. This came up in the suggestions from
supervisors about improving the program. We recommend that agencies establish job fairs
where youth who are interested and prepared for higher level placements get to meet and talk
with employers. Both the youth and the employer can learn a bit about each other. These job
fairs are common on campuses and other settings. The experience will introduce youth to this
career development activity and lead to better matches between youth and their placement. It
will also encourage more employers, who are concerned about the fit of the youth they get, to
participate in the program.
3. Build Structured Reflection Into the Program
The educational philosopher John Dewey said: “We do not learn from experience... we learn
from reflecting on experience.” We found, when we conducted focus groups with youth
participants, that they were eager to talk about their experiences and in the process gained
insights into themselves and the nature of work. Effective work experience programs should
48
include an opportunity for participants to reflect on what they have learned and how they have
developed. We recommend that some structured reflection be built into the program. Just as
there is work readiness and financial literacy training built into the program pre-employment, we
recommend that there be some reflection built in during and after employment.
We see a couple ways this can be done. First, after the initial 25 hours of work experience, youth
could return to the agency where in groups they could discuss their initial experience in their
placement. In the groups youth could compare experiences with the discipline of work, dealing
with supervisors and other issues. Together they could do some problem solving and get
coaching from each other and an adult. Again college students interested in human services
could facilitate these groups.
At the conclusion of the 100 hours of work experience, groups could meet again to reflect on the
experience and to do some career planning activities. Our data suggest that the work experience
itself makes youth consider new career alternatives and challenge existing choices. The end of
the program would be a good time to tap this experience and help youth reconsider their career
plans in light of the experience. Specifically youth could set short-term and mid-term goals for
education and employment. We know that setting concrete goals is motivating and increases the
chance that youth will follow through.
In practical terms it would also be a good time to help youth who plan to go on for postsecondary education or to seek a permanent job to find the resources they need to take these
steps. It would be an excellent opportunity to invite admission representatives from community
colleges and four year institutions to meet with the youth.
Long Term
4. Start the program earlier in the year.
City staff and the agencies do heroic work to get the summer youth employment program
launched and get thousands of youth placed each summer. This rush to roll out the program each
year is driven by last minute funding decisions, the fact that money for the new fiscal year cannot
be spent until July 1, and other administrative constraints. With public school starting in late
August, this leaves a very short window for delivering the program, and students are out of
school for over a month before the program begins.
In New York City, intake is done during spring break in the public schools and placements are
made in advance so that youth can begin work promptly when school ends. Such a system
would be ideal in Los Angeles as well. Accomplishing this will mean overcoming many
administrative barriers but we recommend it as a longer term goal for improving the program.
Final Thoughts
In today’s economy teenagers have a difficult time finding that first part-time job. College
students have trouble finding a summer job that can provide both some money for college and
the work experience that employers value. These problems are particularly acute for youth from
49
low income households, who often lack the family connections or resources needed to break into
the labor market. The HIRE LA: Summer Youth Employment Program provided meaningful
work experience for thousands of disadvantaged LA youth. Our results show that the experience
helped youths’ career development and youth were highly satisfied with their experience. The
program is delivered by dedicated city staff and a diverse group of agencies across the city that
make an extraordinary effort every year to bring the program to life. The lack of employment
opportunities for youth will remain a problem for the foreseeable future. We hope this evaluation
can both illustrate the value of summer youth employment programs and point the way to make
them even more effective.
50
References
American Community Survey.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
Fischer, D. G. & Fick, C. 1993. Measuring Social Desirability: Short Forms of the MarloweCrowne Social Desirability Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 417424.
Hirsch, Barton J. Hedges, Larry V, Stawicki, and Mekinda, Megan A. 2011. After-School
Programs for High School Students: An Evaluation of After School Matters.
Unpublished. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
Leos-Urbel, Jacob. 2014. “What Is a Summer Job Worth? The Impact of Summer Youth
Employment on Academic Outcome.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33(4):
891-911.
McClanahan, Wendy S., Sipe, Cynthisa and Smith, Thomas J. 2004. Enriching Summer Work:
An Evaluation of the Summer Career Exploration Program. New York, NY:
Public/Private Ventures.
Partnerships for Summer Youth Employment. 2014. “Finding Collaborative Solutions for
Detroit’s Youth.” Prepared by: The United States Conference of Mayors. Collaboration
With Bank of America. Prepared For: Dollarwise: Mayors for Financial Literacy.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. 2007. Measuring Personality in One Minute or Less: A 10-Item
Short Version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41(1), 203-212.
Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., & Schoenbach, C. 1989. Self-Esteem and Adolescent Problems:
Modeling Reciprocal Effects. American Sociological Review, 1004-1018.
Sum, Andrew, Trubskyy, Mykhaylo, and Mchugh, Walter. 2013. The Summer Employment
Experiences and the Personal/Social Behaviors of Youth Violence Prevention
Employment Program Participants and Those of a Comparison Group. Boston, MA:
Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern Univerity.
Schwartz, Amy Ellen and Leos-Urbel, Jacob. 2014 Proposal 5: Expanding Summer Employment
Opportunities for Low-Income Youth. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute, Hamilton
Project.
Schwartz, Amy Ellen, Leos-Urbel, Jacob, Silander, Meagan and Wiswall, Matthew. Forthcoming.
Making Summer Matter. The Impact of Youth Employment on Academic Performance.
51
APPENDIX A:
Detailed Tables
52
Table A-1. Demographic Break-down of Youth Participating in Intake Survey
Demographic
Race/Ethnicity
Latino
Black
White
Asian
Multi-racial
Other
Gender
Male
Female
Age (years)
15-16
17-18
19-20
21-22
Over 22
Program Before
Yes
No
Children Under 18 (not including them)
0
1
2
3-4
Over 5
No. Family Members (not including
them)
2 or fewer
3-5
6 or more
Highest Level of Education
Some high school
High school diploma/GED
Some college
Associate's Degree
Other
N
871
503
272
22
31
28
15
885
362
523
883
128
241
269
163
134
880
209
670
885
180
280
191
193
41
885
217
502
166
839
351
253
181
7
47
53
Percentage
57.7%
31.2%
2.5%
3.6%
3.2%
1.7%
40.9%
59.1%
14.5%
27.3%
30.5%
18.5%
15.2%
23.8%
76.1%
20.3%
31.6%
21.6%
21.8%
4.6%
24.5%
56.7%
18.8%
41.8%
30.2%
21.6%
0.8%
5.6%
Table A-2: Spring 2014 Work and Education Status
Work/Education Status
School Enrollment in Spring
Middle school
High school
Community college
4-year college
Trade/technical school
Not enrolled in school
Worked in Spring
Yes
No
Hours Worked in Spring
1-10 hrs/wk
11-20 hrs/wk
21-30 hrs/wk
31-40 hrs/wk
More than 40 hrs/wk
Months Worked Since Jan
1 month or less
2 months
3 months
4 months
5 months
6 months
N
870
37
485
118
115
10
105
865
204
661
200
63
62
36
26
13
212
54
38
37
18
20
45
54
Percentage
4.3%
55.7%
13.6%
13.2%
1.1%
12.1%
23.6%
76.4%
31.5%
31.0%
18.0%
13.0%
6.5%
25.5%
17.9%
17.5%
8.5%
9.4%
21.2%
Table A-3. Average Pre-Program Attitudes and Perceptions
Measure
Work Readiness Measures
Career Plans
Skill Development
Network
Consult
Career Decision Status Measures
Decided on occupational choice
Comfort making career decisions
Clarity of interests and ability
Knowledge of occupations
Decisiveness: don’t delay decisions
Choice of career is important now
Career-Related Positive Personal Beliefs
Job Market Favorability Perceptions
Attitude toward School (happy face)
Attitude toward Work (happy face)
Self Esteem
Mean
SD
(Standard
Deviation)
N
3.56
3.35
2.96
3.8
0.93
0.98
1.29
1.03
888
888
884
883
4.1
3.68
2.55
2.7
3.54
4.19
3.77
3.13
4.52
4.27
4.12
0.86
0.89
0.96
0.83
0.95
0.75
0.56
0.82
0.64
0.79
0.6
888
887
888
887
886
886
888
853
882
876
888
55
Table A-4. Summary of Demographic Differences among Youth on Key
Outcome Measures
Variable
Work Readiness
Career plans
Gender
Program before
Education enrollment-Spring'14
Employed last 6 months
Skill Development
Program before
Education enrollment-Spring'14
Employed last 6 months
Network
Gender
Program before
Education enrollment-Spring'14
Employed last 6 months
Consult
Program before
Group
N
Mea
n
S.D.
(Standard
Deviation
)
Male
Female
Yes
No
School
College
Out of School Out of
work
Yes
No
360
523
208
670
521
243
3.47
3.62
3.67
3.52
3.40
3.78
0.91
0.94
0.91
0.94
0.94
0.89
63
3.74
0.90
203
661
3.81
3.48
0.87
0.94
0.00
Yes
No
School
College
Out of School Out of
work
Yes
No
208
670
521
243
3.69
3.23
3.15
3.62
0.80
1.01
0.96
0.96
0.00
63
3.46
1.00
203
661
3.85
3.19
0.85
0.97
0.00
Male
Female
Yes
No
School
College
Out of School Out of
work
Yes
No
360
519
208
667
519
243
3.09
2.88
3.33
2.84
2.74
3.27
1.28
1.29
1.20
1.29
1.26
1.23
0.02
62
2.97
1.25
203
658
3.53
2.77
1.19
1.26
0.00
Yes
No
208
665
3.94
3.75
0.89
1.07
0.02
56
p
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Variable
Work Readiness
Career plans
Gender
Education enrollment-Spring'14
Employed last 6 months
Career Decision Status
Clarity
Education enrollment-Spring'14
Employed last 6 months
Decidedness
Gender
Education enrollment-Spring'14
Employed last 6 months
Comfort
Gender
Education enrollment-Spring'14
Employed last 6 months
Knowledge
Education enrollment-Spring'14
S.D.
(Standard
Deviation
)
Group
N
Mea
n
Male
School
College
Out of School Out of
work
Yes
No
360
517
243
3.47
3.74
3.87
0.91
1.06
1.02
62
3.69
0.90
203
656
4.07
3.72
0.93
1.04
0.00
School
College
Out of School Out of
work
Yes
No
521
243
2.47
2.66
0.93
1.01
0.01
63
2.57
0.86
204
660
2.73
2.50
1.02
0.94
0.00
Male
Female
School
College
Out of School Out of
work
Yes
No
360
523
521
243
3.91
4.24
4.02
4.28
0.94
0.79
0.91
0.74
0.00
63
4.02
0.87
203
661
4.28
4.05
0.76
0.88
0.00
Male
Female
School
College
Out of School Out of
work
Yes
No
360
522
520
243
3.61
3.72
3.60
3.84
0.91
0.88
0.90
0.88
0.06
63
3.63
0.84
203
660
3.83
3.63
0.91
0.88
0.00
School
College
521
243
2.60
2.94
0.80
0.85
0.00
57
p
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
Variable
Work Readiness
Career plans
Gender
Employed last 6 months
Decisiveness
Education enrollment-Spring'14
Employed last 6 months
Choice importance
Gender
Education enrollment-Spring'14
Employed last 6 months
Career-Related Positive
Personal Beliefs
Employed last 6 months
Job Market Favorability
Perceptions
Employed last 6 months
Attitude toward School (happy
face)
Gender
Program before
Education enrollment-Spring'14
S.D.
(Standard
Deviation
)
p
0.02
Group
N
Mea
n
Male
Out of School Out of
work
Yes
No
360
3.47
0.91
63
2.70
0.79
204
660
2.83
2.65
0.91
0.80
0.01
School
College
Out of School Out of
work
Yes
No
521
243
3.48
3.65
0.97
0.92
0.04
63
3.57
0.96
204
660
3.68
3.51
0.92
0.96
0.03
Male
Female
School
College
Out of School Out of
work
Yes
No
359
521
521
243
4.05
4.28
4.09
4.34
0.78
0.71
0.79
0.65
0.00
63
4.26
0.69
204
660
4.30
4.17
0.74
0.74
0.03
Yes
No
203
661
3.86
3.75
0.56
0.55
0.02
Yes
No
200
642
3.33
3.07
0.82
0.81
0.00
Male
Female
Yes
No
School
351
520
206
661
516
4.14
4.35
4.36
4.24
4.19
0.80
0.78
0.74
0.81
0.80
0.00
58
0.00
0.05
0.00
Variable
Work Readiness
Career plans
Gender
Employed last 6 months
Attitude toward Work (happy
face)
Gender
Education enrollment-Spring'14
S.D.
(Standard
Deviation
)
Group
N
Mea
n
Male
College
Out of School Out of
work
Yes
No
360
240
3.47
4.45
0.91
0.75
62
4.16
0.81
200
653
4.37
4.25
0.77
0.80
0.06
Male
Female
School
College
Out of School Out of
work
355
522
519
240
4.38
4.61
4.46
4.59
0.67
0.59
0.61
0.63
0.00
63
4.63
0.73
59
p
0.02
0.00
Table A- 5. Summary of Youth Exit Survey Measures
Measure
Job Fit
Work Outcomes
Overall Program Satisfaction
Supervisor Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction
Affective Commitment
Burnout or Exhaustion
Training Outcomes
Work Readiness Training
Satisfaction
Financial Literacy Training
Satisfaction
Mean
3.93
SD
(Standard
Deviation)
0.76
N
643
4.28
4.3
4.24
3.74
2.38
0.69
0.79
0.78
0.87
0.85
647
644
644
626
626
4.1
0.77
641
4.12
0.73
642
60
Table A-6. Summary of Subgroup Differences among Youth Post SYEP
Variable
Career Decision Status
Decidedness
Gender
Knowledge
Employed last 6 months
Job Market Favorability
Perceptions
Employed last 6 months
Attitude toward School (happy
face)
Education enrollment-Spring'14
Attitude toward Work (happy
face)
Program before
Self Esteem
Gender
S.D.
(Standard
Deviation
)
Group
N
Mea
n
Male
Female
152
214
3.82
4.14
0.99
0.83
0.01
Yes
No
80
270
2.98
2.75
0.87
0.93
0.05
Yes
No
80
275
3.67
3.44
0.76
0.83
0.03
School
College
Out of School Out of
work
144
114
4.17
4.41
0.95
0.76
0.08
21
4.14
1.11
Yes
No
78
212
4.65
4.51
0.53
0.63
0.07
Male
Female
152
215
4.00
4.15
0.80
0.73
0.07
61
p