learning from the youth opportunity experience · state-level attention to high school reform is...

CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY

Learning from the YouthOpportunity Experience

Building Delivery Capacity in Distressed Communities

by Linda Harris

January 2006

On the front cover:

“Preparation + Opportunity = Success”

Twenty-six young artists, ranging in age from 14 to 22, designed and created the mural withguidance from Museum of Cultural Arts of Houston (MOCAH) artists Reginald & Rhonda Adamsand Prince Maduekwe. It was the final project of a 300-hour mural training curriculumdesigned by MOCAH and WorkSource Youth Opportunity Centers. This mural was dedicated inNovember 2005.


Learning from the YouthOpportunity Experience

Building Delivery Capacity in Distressed Communities

by Linda Harris

January 2006

Acknowledgements The author acknowledges the assistance of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Center forEducation and the Economy for facilitating initial “Lessons Learned” discussions among YouthOpportunity sites. The author also thanks Joan Crigger, U.S. Conference of Mayors; Connie Doty, BostonCommunity Development; Clyde McQueen, Kansas City Full Employment Council; Robert Sainz, LosAngeles Workforce Board; Lisa Johnson, Brockton Area Private Industry Council; David Lah, U.S.Department of Labor; and Angela Parker and Caitlin Johnson, CLASP for their assistance.

About the AuthorLinda Harris, Center for Law and Social Policy senior policy analyst, specializes in approaches to re-engagedisconnected youth. Her current work focuses on community and systemic solutions to the issue of youthwho are disconnected from school and work.

For almost two decades researchers, policymak-ers, and advocates have been documenting the

struggle of disadvantaged youth in America, par-ticularly those growing up in our most distressedcommunities. In the 1987 publication Workforce2000, economists noted that most new jobs creat-ed in the 1990s and beyond would require somelevel of post-secondary education. They cautionedthat without substantial adjustment in policies andinvestment in education and training, the prob-lems of minority unemployment, crime, anddependency would be worse in the year 2000.1

Similarly, in the 1988 publication, The ForgottenHalf: Non-College Youth in America, the William T.Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Familyand Citizenship warned that our economy, nation-al security, and social cohesion faced a precariousfuture unless comprehensive polices and programswere developed to address the growing gapbetween more fortunate youth and those with farfewer advantages. In 1990, the National Center

on Education and the Economy released America’sChoice: High Skills or Low Wages, which noted thatone in five young people in this country grow upin “third-world” surroundings, starting out withsevere learning disadvantages from which theynever recover. The report called for investment ina drop out recovery system that would build theconnection between education and work for youthwithout high school certification.2

Despite nearly two decades of admonitions andrecommendations from noted researchers andcommissions, we are a nation absent a coherentnational youth policy. The current federal andstate-level attention to high school reform is wel-come, and long overdue. Our public schools grad-uate only 68 percent of their students; in somelarge urban areas, the number drops to 50 percentamong minority youth. In other words, absentintervention, half of the young people in the highschool pipeline in our most distressed systems will

i

Preface

1 Johnson, W., Packer, A., Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century, Hudson Institute, U.S. Department of Labor, 1987.

2 National Center on Education and the Economy, America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages, 1990, pg. 44.

likely disconnect. Each year, half a million youthacross the country will drop out and join the near-ly 4 million others who preceded them.

This situation warrants attention as a national pri-ority—but the solution will depend on the abilityof communities to rally all sectors, levels of gov-ernment, and systems to re-engage young peopleand support their transition to adulthood. Towardthis end, in 2000, the Department of Labor

awarded Youth Opportunity (YO) Grants totalinga little more than $1 billion to 36 high-povertycommunities. The grants funded aggressive, community-wide efforts to connect systems andresources to dramatically improve the economicand life options for young people. This reportdocuments the insights, accomplishments, and lessons from this very ambitious effort to reshapethe landscape of service delivery for youth in high-poverty communities. ■


ii

iii

Executive Summary................................................................................................................1Chapter 1: Introduction .........................................................................................................7Chapter 2: The Workforce Investment Act and Youth Opportunity Grants—Background ....11

About the Youth Opportunity Communities .............................................................13What Youth Opportunity Grantees Were Called Upon to Do ...................................13

Chapter 3: Youth Opportunity Grants—Early Accomplishments ..........................................17Chapter 4: Survey Results—Areas of Success and Lessons Learned......................................21

Mobilizing Community Leadership...........................................................................22Connecting Systems and Accessing Resources ..........................................................24

- Secondary and Post-Secondary Education Systems ....................................26- Juvenile Justice System................................................................................27- Welfare and Child Welfare Systems ............................................................27- WIA One-Stop System................................................................................27

Assembling and Redirecting Funding........................................................................28Implementing Comprehensive Program Strategies ...................................................29

- Areas of Programmatic Strength ................................................................30- Areas of Programmatic Challenge ..............................................................34

Engaging the Business Community ..........................................................................35Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications of Findings...........................................................37Appendix I: YO Community Collaborations with Other Systems.........................................41Appendix II: Communities Indicating Success Worth Sharing in Various Areas....................47Appendix III: Contact Information for Respondents to the Youth Opportunity: Lessons Learned Survey .......................................................................49

Table of Contents


iv

In May 2000, the United States Department ofLabor awarded sizable Youth Opportunity (YO)

Grants to 36 high-poverty urban, rural, andNative American communities. These communi-ties were among the most economically distressedcommunities in the nation, all characterized byhigh drop out rates, high youth unemploymentrates, greater incidence of juvenile crime, violence,and gang activity. The Youth OpportunityGrants—ranging from $3.1 to $43.8 million overfive years—provided the resources to put in placecomprehensive approaches at considerable scale.The Department’s expressed intent in awardingthese grants was to demonstrate that the educa-tional outcomes and economic prospects foryoung people in high-poverty communities couldbe dramatically improved by infusing these com-munities with resources; building capacity andinfrastructure; connecting systems; and developingcomprehensive, age-appropriate opportunities foryouth.

The Youth Opportunity Grants were part of theoverhaul of the youth delivery system broughtabout by the passage of the Workforce Investment

Act of 1998. The expectation was that these com-munities would be at the forefront of a re-designed national delivery system for disadvan-taged youth. With the legislative reforms in place,it was anticipated that congressional appropria-tions would continue and perhaps increase toallow the expansion beyond the original 36 com-munities. However, this was not the case.Appropriations for the Youth Opportunity Grantsended and the YO communities are in variousstages of transition.

The Youth Opportunity Grant was extremelycomplex to implement, both administratively andprogrammatically. It required engaging all sectorsof the community and pulling together multiplesystems. The grantees were required to engage asizable proportion of the 14- to 21-year-old popu-lation, both those in and out of school, in theirtarget areas. They were required to create YouthOpportunity Centers to serve as Safe Havens andfocal points for case management and youth-cen-tered activity. Youth were to be connected to edu-cation support, workplace and career exposure,youth development activities, and case manage-

1

Executive Summary

ment support until they completed their academiccredentials and successfully transitioned into thelabor market or higher education. By the end ofthe fifth year, more than 90,000 mostly minorityyouth were enrolled in the Youth Opportunityprogram in the 36 communities.

Much was accomplished in a relatively short peri-od of time in these communities. These accom-plishments are particularly notable, consideringthe complexities of the YO grant requirements,the challenges of the economic and budgetaryenvironments in the local communities at the timeof implementation, and the change in governancein the workforce system that was occurring at thesame time. The observations in this paper arebased on the responses of 22 of the YO sites to a“Learning from Youth Opportunity” surveyadministered by the Center for Law and SocialPolicy (CLASP), wherein respondents were askedto identify areas of strength and challenges on 120items in four categories: (1) Mobilizing andEngaging Leadership, (2) Connecting Systems, (3) Implementing Comprehensive ProgramStrategies, and (4) Engaging the Business Sector.Focus group discussions were conducted with sev-eral of the YO sites shortly after the start of thefinal grant year and then again as the year ended.This paper presents an assessment of the capacitybuilding efforts in YO communities, the strengthsand challenges of the program, lessons learned,and recommendations for policy and approach.

General FindingsSeveral overarching themes were reflected in thesurvey responses and in the discussions.YO resources played a catalytic role in elevatingthe youth agenda. Most communities reportedthat the competition for and receipt of the grantcreated the impetus for key leadership to cometogether to focus on “older youth” and be morestrategic in the solutions.

Implementation presented an enormous chal-lenge. Managing a program with such a broadscope of activity, considerable scale, and adminis-

trative complexity presented tremendous chal-lenge, especially in the start-up year. Pressure forquick start-up before management systems were inplace was detrimental to performance in the firstyear. Successful implementation requires a muchlonger planning andstart-up time than YOsites were afforded.

Participants felt con-siderable pride inearly programmaticaccomplishments. TheYO directors andWorkforce InvestmentBoard (WIB) directorsexpressed considerable pride—as individual com-munities and as a collective movement—in theirsuccessful outreach to youth and establishment ofcommunity and systems connections. There wereclearly short-run accomplishments for the com-munities and the youth involved, including:

■ YO communities were successful in outreach-ing and engaging a substantial portion of theyouth in the target area, particularly out ofschool youth. Department of Labor estimatesthat the YO program had a penetration rate of42 percent of all eligible youth and 62 percentof out-of-school youth. The saturationapproach appears to have worked well interms of attracting and connecting traditional-ly hard-to-serve (and hard-to-find) groups.

■ YO impacted the way communities organizedtheir systems and resources to respond to theneeds of youth in high-risk categories.

■ The YO experience contributed to the increasedprofessionalism of the youth delivery system.The consistent focus on upgrading staff skills,creating institutes and academies, establishing ayouth practitioners’ apprenticeship program,and ensuring peer-to-peer collaboration across sites has increased the expertise and caliber ofyouth workers in these communities.


2

By the end of the fifthyear, more than90,000 mostly minori-ty youth were enrolledin the Youth Opportu-nity program in 36communities.

■ The YO sites were successful in dramaticallyincreasing youth participation in academicsupport or education re-engagement activities.Quite noteworthy are the activities devoted topost-secondary preparation and the high levelof post-secondary matriculation.

■ The Youth Opportunity sites were very suc-cessful in connecting youth to internships andemployment opportunities:• 23,652 internship opportunities

were created

• 28,302 youth were placed in short-term unsubsidized jobs

• 18,456 youth were placed in long-term unsubsidized work

• 23,478 were engaged in training

The infusion of YO funding had an importanteconomic impact. Communities (especially ruralcommunities) reported that YO not only played arole in building the youth delivery infrastructure,but also had an important economic impact. YOrequired a heavy investment in case managementand outreach staff—participating communitiesadded 40 to 70 new jobs, most of which were pro-fessional positions. While there is no empiricalanalysis that documents the magnitude of the YOeconomic impact, it is reasonable to presume thatthe increased buying power of new employees andthe expanded contracting had a multiplier effect inthese local economies.

Survey FindingsTwenty-two communities participated in theCLASP survey: Albany, GA; Baltimore, MD;Boston, MA; Brockton, MA; Buffalo & ErieCounties, NY; California Indian ManpowerConsortium, CA; Cleveland, OH; Denver, CO;Detroit, MI; Houston, TX; Hartford, CT; KansasCity, MO; Los Angeles, CA; Lumber River, NC;Memphis, TN; Philadelphia, PA; San Diego, CA;San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; Tampa, FL; PimaCounty (Tucson), AZ; and Washington, DC.Collectively, a significant expertise has been devel-

oped, with communities demonstrating strengthin different areas.

YO communities experienced the most success inthe following activity areas:

■ Mobilizing community leadership and involv-ing key public systems in the planning andcoordination of service delivery.

■ Attracting key leaders to the Youth Council(or similar convening group) and engagingthem in a strategic process.

■ Accessing resources from multiple systems insupport of the delivery of youth services—78percent of the communities blended staffingand/or resources from at least three youth-serving systems, including the local school dis-trict, juvenile justice, post-secondary, WIAone-stops andTANF system.Sixty-two percentof communitieshad formal refer-ral relationshipswith the juvenilejustice system.

■ Creating the out-reach strategiesand networks forreaching youth and engaging them in servicedesign or delivery.

■ Developing or accessing alternative educationprograms for out-of-school youth.

■ Creating work experiences and internships forin-school and out-of-school youth.

Areas of greatest challenge tended to be:

■ Recruiting adults to serve as mentors.

■ Developing special interventions to serve theneeds of harder to serve groups such as home-

Learning from the Youth Opportunity ExperienceBuilding Delivery Capacity in Distressed Communities

3

Seventy-eight percentof the communitiesblended staffing and/or resources from atleast three youth-serving systems—localschool district, juvenilejustice.

less youth, youth returning from incarcera-tion, youth with substance problems, andthose with limited English speaking ability.

■ Engaging the media in a positive, constructiveway.

■ Assembling local funding and redirecting thefunding streams from other systems to accom-modate the programming and service needs ofyouth at very high risk.

■ Closing the gap between employer expecta-tions and young people’s skills sets.

Conclusions and KeyRecommendationsThe infusion of the YO resources into these com-munities at a time when the workforce deliverysystem was in transition, when the economy wasrecessing, when resources to other youth serviceorganizations and systems were retrenching andwhen youth unemployment was on the rise creat-ed a synergy in many communities. Out of neces-sity, and given this opportunity communities coa-lesced around the older youth agenda creatingrelationships and interventions that extend beyondthe YO boundaries and will most probably contin-ue beyond the grant funding. It also created anational movement uniting communities in aprocess of learning from each other and buildingcommunity capacity to implement and managethis effort of significant scale and importance.

The Youth Opportunity experience demonstratesthat:

1. Young people by the thousands are anxiousfor a chance to reconnect. When presentedwith options to re-engage in schooling, pre-pare for careers, and transform their paths,youth by the thousands connected throughYouth Opportunity. The Department ofLabor estimates that 42 percent of the eligibleyouth and 62 percent of the eligible out-of-

school youth in the target areas enrolled in theYO program. The loss of such resources and infrastructure in these most distressed com-munities would be tragic.

2. Communities can manage to scale. YO com-munities persevered through the start-up chal-lenges, demonstrating that—given adequateresources and planning time—communitiescan bring effective, comprehensive, coordinat-ed programming to scale.

3. Requiring the involvement of multiple sys-tems and resources as a contingency of fund-ing is effective in bringing disparate playersto the table. The directives of grant makersand funders affect how programs and plan-ning occurs in a community. In communitieswith limited resources, every incentive shouldbe used to leverage systems and resources towork in tandem to address the needs ofyouth.

4. There must be a convening entity. A YouthCouncil (or similar vehicle) comprising theappropriate membership can help create astrategic vision for youth—in particular, thosefalling outside the mainstream—and engageall segments of the community in implement-ing the vision and benchmarking progress.

5. Local and state officials have an extremelyimportant role to play. Communities thatindicated success in engaging their mayor orlocal official also had greater success in access-ing multiple systems.

6. Local delivery capacity is directly related tothe ability to hire and maintain quality staff.Most YO sites invested in recruiting, training,and developing quality case management staff.The vagaries of funding make it difficult forcommunities to maintain a high-quality directservice capacity. Developing and maintainingthe professional capacity in youth service


4

delivery is a critical challenge to overcome ifcommunities are to make a substantial impacton the negative indicators.

7. Communities with large numbers of drop-outs will need to explore multiple avenues forconnecting these youth to quality educationoptions. Many of the approaches employed inthe YO communities are promising but rela-tively young and may succumb to a lack offunding support. Given the tremendous needfor effective educational alternatives, these col-lective YO efforts should be maintained andsupported—they are a fertile arena for contin-ued study, information sharing, and technicalsupport.

8. The child welfare and mental health systemsmust be more fully engaged in the localvisioning, strategic planning, and delivery ofthese interventions, in order to address themyriad situations that young people face asthey attempt to reconnect. These systemsappeared to be tangential in the YO efforts. Infact, the welfare and child welfare systems wereleast likely to be engaged in the planningprocess.

9. The YO communities were successful inmotivating youth to post-secondary aspira-tions. Making those aspirations a realityrequires greater support for non-traditionalstudents matriculating in college.

10. Economically stressed communities can’treplace the loss of millions in federal fund-ing. The provision for Youth OpportunityGrants in the 1998 WIA legislation was builton lessons from several years of prior demon-stration funding and was grounded in the

findings from years of research on effectivepractice. The abandonment of a well thought-out, targeted intervention— particularly at atime when drop out rates among poor urbanminority youth exceed 50 percent— shouldbe reconsidered.

11. Foundations and other funders have animportant role to play in incubating and sus-taining these innovations. Many promising—in some cases groundbreaking—approacheswere implemented in the YO communities.Many of these will suffer not because theyaren’t effective, but because the availableresources are insufficient to nurture theirgrowth and development in complicated envi-ronments. Foundation funds are critical tomaintaining and further developing these suc-cessful efforts and assisting in their evaluation,dissemination, and replication.

12. There is a need for expanded participation ofemployers and business leaders in craftingpathways for youth to connect with highgrowth, high skill areas of the economy. Inmany communities, the YO effort broughttogether secondary, post-secondary, and work-force systems to support non-traditional stu-dents. The business sector can help these sys-tems define the skills set, exposure, and expe-riences that can create a pipeline of well-trained candidates for the skilled jobs of thefuture. Several YO sites noted the challenge ofimparting the requisite occupational skills forsuccess—a task that cannot be accomplishedwithout business and industry at the table.Further exploration of incentives and supportsto expand business and industry alliances iswarranted. ■


5


6

In May, 2000 the United States Department ofLabor awarded sizable Youth Opportunity (YO)

Grants to 36 high-poverty urban, rural, andNative American communities. These communi-ties were among the most economically distressedcommunities in the nation, all characterized byhigh drop out rates, high youth unemploymentrates, greater incidence of juvenile crime, violenceand gang activity. The grants were substantial,ranging from a low of $3.1 million in the NativeAmerican community of Grand Traverse to $43.8million in larger urban areas like Baltimore, LosAngeles, San Antonio, and Houston. The YOgrants provided the resources to establish compre-hensive approaches at considerable scale. Theywere catalytic in launching important collabora-tions in these communities to connect systems, toleverage resources, and to develop and implementcomprehensive strategies for reaching these youngpeople and redirecting their paths.

The Department of Labor’s intent in making theseawards was to demonstrate that investing substan-tial resources in relatively small geographic areas inorder to connect youth to high-quality supports

could bring about significant community-wideimprovement in the education and labor marketoutcomes for youth. Unlike traditional federalyouth programs that have strict income eligibilityrequirements, all youth (ages 14 to 21) whoresided within the boundaries of the target areaswere eligible for service. Emphasis was to beplaced on outreach to all eligible youth, especiallyolder youth who were out of school and out ofwork. The Department of Labor also sought todemonstrate that by infusing high-poverty com-munities with resources, by building capacity andinfrastructure, by connecting systems, and by satu-rating communities with age-appropriate, horizon-extending opportunities for youth, the graduationrates, college matriculation rates, and employmentrates for youth in these communities could be dra-matically increased.

The Youth Opportunity Grants were part of theoverhaul of the youth delivery system broughtabout by the passage of the Workforce InvestmentAct of 1998. The expectation was that YO com-munities would be at the forefront of a redesignednational delivery system for disadvantaged youth.

7

Chapter 1: Introduction

With the legislative reforms in place, it was antici-pated that congressional appropriations wouldcontinue and perhaps increase to allow the expan-sion beyond the original 36 communities.However, this was not the case—appropriationsfor YO grants were dramatically decreased, allow-ing just enough funding to honor the obligationto the original 36 grantees.

With these awards, the Department of Laborlaunched a vibrant YO movement that fosteredcollaboration both within and among communi-ties to elevate the field of practice related topreparing youth in high-poverty communities forsuccessful transition to adulthood and labor mar-ket success.

At the time of this analysis, the YouthOpportunity Communities were ending their finalyear of the five-year grant period and preparing forphase-down and transition. The local YO directorsand Workforce Investment Board directorsacknowledged the enormity of the challenge ofmanaging at such a scale. They also expressed con-siderable pride in what was accomplished in sucha short timeframe in terms of engaging communi-ty leadership and building the capacity of theyouth-serving systems to successfully supportthousands of youth.

The ultimate measure of success for these com-munities is the extent to which the educationand labor market outcomes for youth are altered;it is questionable whether the funding period waslong enough to yield such sustained community-wide impact. Nevertheless, for the 90,000 youthengaged over the 36 sites, many of the short runaccomplishments are encouraging. These commu-nities have developed a great deal of knowledge,experience, and delivery capacity that can hopeful-ly survive the retrenchment in funding.

This report serves to document those accomplish-ments; identify those areas where capacity has beenbuilt; highlight the lessons learned; and draw atten-tion to the challenge and accomplishments of com-

munities that have been working earnestly to recon-nect their young people. Input for this report wasgathered via three sources: two formal meetingswith YO directors debriefing on lessons learned andnext steps; formal surveys of 22 YO communities;and follow-up phone calls to YO directors andWorkforce Investment Board directors.

Several resonating themes emerged from sites,including:

■ The catalytic role that YO resources playedin elevating the youth agenda—most com-munities reported that the competition forand receipt of the grant created the impetusfor key leadership to come together to focuson “older youth” and be more strategic in thesolutions.

■ The enormity of the implementation chal-lenge—grantees commented on the tremen-dous complexities associated with implement-ing an initiative of this scope and scale. Theywere required to concurrently convene multi-ple partners and systems; assemble resources;negotiate formal service agreements; retrofitfacilities; develop interventions for in-school,out-of-school, older, and younger youth;implement a complex case management track-ing system; hire and train a sizable staff; andestablish recruitment and referral networks.Grantees were also required to track youthfrom the time of enrollment (in and out ofmultiple activities) through to two years afterprogram completion, and report on interimbenchmarks. For some, this meant tracking2,000-3,000 young people. Pressures to startbefore management systems were in place wasdetrimental to performance in the first year.Effective implementation requires a muchlonger planning and start-up time than YOsites were afforded.

■ Pride in the early programmatic accomplish-ments—the YO directors and WIB directorsexpressed considerable pride as individual


8

communities and as a collective movement intheir success in reaching out to and connect-ing youth, and establishing community andsystems connections. Most communities feltthat accomplishments in the face of such chal-lenge were noteworthy.

■ The complexity of the administrativedetails—in general, YO directors expressedconsiderable pride in the management information systems that were put in place,and noted that such tracking systems areessential for quality control and programaccountability.

■ The economic impact of the infusion of YOfunding—grantees (especially in rural areas)reported that YO not only strengthened theyouth services delivery infrastructure, but alsohad an important economic impact on com-munities. YO required a heavy investment incase management and outreach staff; commu-nities added 40 to 70 new jobs—mostly pro-

fessional positions—to the economy. Whilethere is no empirical analysis that documentsthe magnitude of the YO economic impact, itis reasonable to presume that the increasedbuying power of new employees and theexpanded contracting had a multiplier effectin these local economies.

■ Concern about ability to preserve the infra-structure, programs, and capacity beyond theperiod of grant funding—while many com-munities made substantial inroads partneringwith other systems, the loss of funding willmost likely jeopardize the ability to sustainmuch of what has been built. At the time ofthis report, communities were attempting toscale back and eliminate some components.

As the grantees ended their final year of funding,they expressed concern not just about the impend-ing loss of resources, but also about losing groundin areas where they had significant and meaningfulprogress. ■


9


10

The Youth Opportunity Grant was authorizedunder the Workforce Investment Act of 1998

(WIA), which dramatically changed the way thelocal workforce system delivers youth services. Foryouth, WIA required a shift in delivery from one-time, short-term interventions toward a morecomprehensive, systemic approach that offers arange of coordinated services. It mandated anincreased expenditure of funds on out-of-schoolyouth. Most notable, WIA required the inclusionof ten program elements for youth which can begrouped around four major themes:

1. Improving educational achievement, includingsuch elements as tutoring, study skills training,and instruction leading to secondary schoolcompletion; drop out prevention strategies, andalternative secondary school offerings.

2. Preparing for and succeeding inemployment, including summer employmentopportunities, paid and unpaid work experi-ence, and occupational skills training.

3. Supporting youth, including meeting sup-portive services needs and providing adult

mentoring, follow-up services, and compre-hensive guidance and counseling.

4. Offering services intended to develop thepotential of youth as citizens and leaders,including leadership development opportunities.

The stand-alone federal summer jobs program,which had been available to local communities for

11

Chapter 2: The WorkforceInvestment Act and Youth

Opportunity Grants—Background

WIA in BriefThe federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998(WIA) streamlined national employment/train-ing programs to give states and communitiesmore flexibility to design effective, accountableworkforce development efforts. Title I of WIAauthorizes services for youth, adults, and laid-off workers.

Among its provisions, WIA mandated the cre-ation of Youth Councils in every local deliveryarea to develop a coordinated youth policyand strengthen linkages between existingyouth-serving systems and resources.

more than three decades, was eliminated in lieu ofthe requirement that all youth must be engaged inyear-round activity. In recognition of the chal-lenges faced by youth in high-poverty communi-ties, the legislation authorized the YouthOpportunity Grants Program. As stipulated inthe legislation, congressional appropriations abovea $1 billion threshold in the WIA youth title (upto $250 million annually) would be used by theDepartment of Labor to provide grants to high-poverty communities.

The Youth Opportunity Grant Program was thelargest investment of its kind for the Department

of Labor since the youth demonstration projects ofthe late 1970s, which provided several billion dol-lars to local communities to create job training,work experience, and conservation corps at con-siderable scale. YO built on the lessons learnedfrom several smaller demonstrations in recentprior years–including The Youth Fair Chance,Youth Opportunity Unlimited, and the KulickDemonstration grants. The Notice of FundAvailability for the Youth Opportunity Grant wasexplicit and prescriptive about the components tobe addressed in the grant proposals.


12

Community YO funding # of youth(in millions) enrolled

UrbanBirmingham, AL $19.7 1636Pima County

(Tucson), AZ 27.8 2913

Los Angeles, CA 43.8 4412

San Diego, CA 27.8 3057

San Francisco, CA 19.8 2401

Hartford, CT 27.8 2778

Denver, CO 19.9 2535

District of Columbia 31.8 2369

Tampa, FL 23.8 2310

Louisville, KY 27.8 4419

Brockton, MA 17.8 1844

Boston, MA 23.8 3507

Baltimore, MD 43.8 4357

Kansas City, MO 15.9 1721

Buffalo, NY 31.6 2992

Portland, OR 19.8 1947

Cleveland, OH 27.8 2667

Philadelphia, PA 19.8 2629

Memphis, TN 25.8 3535

Houston, TX 43.8 4185

Community YO funding # of youth(in millions) enrolled

Urban continued

San Antonio, TX 43.8 4308

Seattle, WA 17.8 1444

Milwaukee, WI 23.8 1937

Rural

South Eastern, AR 19.8 2191

Imperial, CA 19.8 1145

Albany, GA 14.6 1468

Molokai, HA 8.7 993

Monroe, LA 19.8 1877

Lumber River, NC 19.8 2034

Native AmericanCA Indian Manpower 15.9 1396

Consortium

Cook Inlet, AK 31.8 3421

Grand Traverse 3.1 143

Navajo Nation 41.0 4020

Oglala Sioux Tribe 15.9 3159

Ute Mountain 8.0 346

YO Communities

DOL. Youth Opportunity Monthly Data and Rate Analysis Report. June 2005.

About the YouthOpportunity CommunitiesThe grant solicitation and review process requiredcommunities to demonstrate their capacity to coa-lesce local leadership and resources in support of aneffort as comprehensive as YO. More than 150 com-munities applied; 36 urban, rural, and tribal com-munities were selected. The grantees were geographi-cally dispersed throughout the country includingAlaska and Hawaii. The urban jurisdictions rangedin population from 100,000 in Brockton,Massachusetts, to 3.7 million in Los Angeles.

The jurisdictions receiving awards are listed on theprior page. Within those jurisdictions, fundingwas targeted to the most distressed neighborhoodslocated within the designated empowerment orenterprise zones. Grant awards ranged from $3.1million to $43.8 million.

What Youth OpportunityGrantees Were Called Upon to DoTo appreciate the implementation challenge of theYO grant, it is important to understand thebreadth of intervention mandated in each com-munity. Grantees were required to engage the various sectors of the community—specifically, the school system, the juvenile justice system,community-based organizations, and the privatesector—in the design and delivery of services. Thegrants required each area to put in place, at a min-imum, the following four components.

■ Youth Opportunity Centers. Each site wasrequired to establish at least one physical loca-tion (most had multiple locations) that waseasily accessible and identifiable as the YouthOpportunity point of access.

■ Core of Case Managers. The grant requiredthat each site maintain a low student-to-staffratio to ensure individualized attention. TheDepartment of Labor prescribed the numberand type of staff to be hired in each com-munity. Each site assembled a core staff ofbetween 40 to 60 youth specialists (on aver-age) to develop individualized plans andhelp young people access appropriate educa-tion support programming; health, child-care, housing, and other supports; andcareer-planning, internships, occupationaltraining, employment and post-secondaryopportunities.Youth develop-ment staff wererequired to trackyouth throughprogram comple-tion and twoyears beyond.

■ Drop OutPrevention andIntervention Strategies. Increasing graduationand college matriculation rates were impor-tant goals for the YO program. Sites wererequired establish supportive services toincrease school retention, improve academicachievement, and increase graduation rates, aswell as intensive support strategies to assistyouth who had already fallen behind andthose at greatest risk of dropping out.

■ Alternative Education Connections. YOgrantees were required to enroll all out-of-school youth without a diploma in an appro-priate education option.

The grant required that youth be involved inactivity from the time of initial engagementthrough successful labor market (or post-second-ary) transition and beyond. Probably the mostdaunting of challenges for these communities wasdeveloping the programmatic capacity to meet theeducational needs of the hundreds—in some cases,


13

The Youth OpportunityGrant Program wasthe largest investmentof its kind for theDepartment of Laborsince the 1970s.

thousands—of out-of-school youth in need ofalternative pathways to high school credentials.For example, large urban sites like Baltimore,Memphis, Houston, Detroit, Los Angeles,Cleveland, Tampa, Philadelphia, Boston, andBuffalo all reported enrolling in excess of 1,000out-of-school youth in YO activities. The grantrequired all drop-outs be connected to a programof educational support.

The Department of Labor was quite explicit aboutthe breadth of programming, system innovation,and community mobilization expected in thesecommunities. The selection criteria gave consider-

able weight to themanagement plan andto leveraging resourcesfor sustainability. TheDepartment of Laboralso invested in build-ing the local capacityby (1) providingcoaches for each of thesites to help with start-up, by (2) creating aleadership academy toprovide ongoing train-ing for local YO staff,

(3) facilitating networking among sites throughconferences and monthly teleconferences, and (4)assigning the department’s regional staff to assist inoversight. Among the youth-serving efforts todate, YO was unique in its complexity, its scale,the scope of activities, and the required compo-nents. The YO grantees engaged concurrently in abroad range of activities related to implementingthe grant, including:

■ Mobilizing the community leadership to sup-port such massive intervention and to exertthe influence necessary to redirect the pro-gramming of systems, agencies, communityorganizations, service providers, and resourcestreams in support of the YO effort.

■ Negotiating governance arrangements, whichwere extremely complicated in many areas.The YO grants were funded at the same timethat the Workforce Investment Act of 1998took effect requiring substantial restructuringof the local workforce system, re-designationof local delivery areas, replacement of localPrivate Industry Councils with localWorkforce Investment Boards, and establish-ment of Youth Councils. Thus many areaswere called upon to implement this very com-plicated grant as they concurrently restruc-tured their organizations and their boards.

■ Identifying and rehabilitating physical spacesufficient to accommodate the size of staff andlevel of activity for hundreds of youth at atime. Each community was required to haveat least one community-based center servingas the focal point for activity. Most communi-ties had several locations. These facilities need-ed to be accessible, affordable, engaging, andyouth-friendly.

■ Assembling and training a sizable staff, largeenough to meet the case management require-ments of the grant. YO grantees were requiredto maintain a relatively small ratio of studentsto staff, thereby requiring substantial hiring.

■ Implementing new management informationsystems to facilitate case management, trackyouth participation and outcomes, and meetthe rigorous data collection requirements ofthe grant.

■ Establishing formal agreements with the various service systems and putting in placethe mechanics for procurement of servicesfrom a broad range of providers, agencies, andvendors.

■ Identifying, expanding, or replicating strongprogram models to provide effective assess-ment, case management, and advocacy; careerawareness and exploration; tutoring for in-


14

Sites were required toinvolve youth in activi-ties from the time ofinitial engagement totheir transition toschool or work, andbeyond—and trackyouth through twoyears after programcompletion.

school youth; pre-GED, GED, or alternativeeducation for out-of-school youth; work expe-riences and internships; training in civic, life,and soft skills; occupational training; mentor-ing and adult guidance; and preparation forand transition to jobs.

■ Implementing outreach strategies, referralnetworks, and engagement activities toattract and retain youth who are traditionallyvery hard to attract and keep connected. ■


15


16

Implementation for the YO grants occurredamidst several challenges. The roll-out of the YO

program occurred during a period of economicrecession and a slow jobless recovery. The work-force system was undergoing substantial restructur-ing. The Youth Councils, designed to provide guid-ance to the planning process, were just beingformed in many areas. State and local governmentswere experiencing budget shortfalls resulting inreductions in important support programs. In lightof the tumultuous environment and shifting struc-tural, economic, and political landscape, the YOmovement had quite notable accomplishments in arelatively short period of time.

These accomplishments include:

■ Engaging more than 90,000 youth, mostlyminority, spanning all age categories. TheYO communities attracted and engaged thetarget population in numbers that exceededthe goals set for the grant. Forty-two percentof the eligible target population (and 62 per-cent of the eligible out-of-school population)were enrolled. Fifty eight percent were AfricanAmerican, 22 percent were Hispanic, and 15percent were Native American.

Chapter 3: Youth OpportunityGrants—Early Accomplishments

Outreach and Recruitment Totals

In-school Youth Out-of-School Youth Total

New Enrollments 47,892.00 51.9% 44,371.00 48.1% 92,263.00

Male 22,235.00 46.4% 21,437.00 48.3% 43,672.00 47.3%Female 25,657.00 53.6% 22,934.00 51.7% 48,591.00 52.7%

14 – 16 Yrs. 32,331.00 67.5% 6,708.00 15.1% 39,039.00 42.3%17 – 18 Yrs. 11,893.00 24.8% 16,353.00 36.9% 28,246.00 30.6%19 – 21 Yrs. 3,668.00 7.7% 21,309.00 48.0% 24,977.00 27.1%


17

This is particularly notable considering thatduring this period, a GovernmentAccountability Office (GAO) assessment ofearly WIA implementation identified therecruitment of out-of-school youth as a majordifficulty for local service providers.3 As refer-enced in subsequent sections of this paper,outreach and recruitment was an area inwhich local directors felt they experiencedconsiderable success.

■ Creating 204 Youth Opportunity Centers orSatellites. The establishment of these centersfulfilled the grant requirement that there be atleast one well-situated youth center, withsatellites if necessary, where youth can enroll,receive individual assessment, meet with staff,access program information and referrals andengage in employment development andyouth development activities. YO sites invest-ed in creating youth friendly, technologyequipped environments.

■ Creating and engaging youth in a broadrange of activities. The YO sites, as requiredby the grant, created a broad spectrum ofactivities and succeeded in maintaining anaverage monthly participation rate of 80 per-cent of all enrollees engaged in activities.

While youth participation is more a measureof process, the high level of engagement ofyouth in continuous activity is significant forthree reasons. • It reflects substantial systemic change in the

delivery of youth services in the workforcesystem, towards longer-term comprehensiveprogramming.

• It reflects the incorporation of the youthdevelopment principles.

• It shows the ability of these communities toengage service providers, vendors, and com-munity resources to generate the level ofprogrammatic opportunity necessary toaddress the varying needs of this sizablegroup of youth.

■ Dramatically increasing youth’s participationin academic support or education re-engage-ment activities. YO sites paid considerableattention to expanding the range of activitiesdesigned to:• Support youth’s academic progress while in

school.

• Reconnect out of school youth to educa-tional alternatives.

• Expose, prepare and connect youth to post-secondary education options.


18

3 GAO, WIA Youth Provisions Promote New Strategies, But Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development, April2002, p 27.

Participation in Activities

Number of ParticipantsActivities In-School Out-of-School Total

Internships/Subsidized Jobs 16,609 9,615 26,224

Community Service 14,348 9,478 23,862

Sports & Recreation 21,352 14,481 35,833

Support Groups 13,649 11,427 25,076

Peer to Peer Mentoring 11,439 8,148 19,587

Job Readiness Training 23,257 20,735 44,092

Occupational Training 9,747 9,798 19,545


Quite noteworthy is the substantial level ofparticipation in SAT preparation and thenumber of youth engaged in a post-secondaryactivity. The post-secondary matriculation forthe Youth Opportunity students is particularlyremarkable considering the very low level ofpost-secondary achievement for minority pop-ulations in the urban communities receivingYO grants. According to the BrookingInstitute’s Census Data profiles on 22 of the24 cities, only 13 percent of the Black andHispanic population over the age of 25achieved a college diploma, on average, com-pared to 38 percent for the Whitepopulation4. Thus, the focus on collegematriculation for these youth was important

not only for improving their labor market sta-tus, but for potentially impacting the disparityin post-secondary achievement.

■ Creating a substantial number of work expe-rience and labor market exposure opportuni-ties for youth. More than 70,000 work orlabor market connections were developed aspart of the preparation or transition experi-ences for these youth. It should also be notedthat these opportunities were being developedat the same time that the federal summer jobsprogram was being eliminated and as thefunding for youth programs in general wasbeing decreased. ■


19

4 Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program, Living Cities Data Books. http://apps89.brookings.edu:89/livingcities/.

Academic Remediation 22,405

Enrolled in Alternative School 3,895

Enrolled in 2-year College 7,224

Enrolled in 4-year College 6,045

Enrolled in SAT Prep 17,856

Enrolled in GED Prep 15,210

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Number Participating

Youth Placed in Selected Education Enhancement Activites


20

Youth Participation in Work and Labor Market Exposure Activities

Replacement Jobs5,562

Long-term Unsubsidized Jobs

18,456

Short-termUnsubsidized Jobs

28,302

Internships andSubsidized

Employment23,652

CLASP emailed surveys to the WorkforceInvestment Board directors and the Youth

Opportunity project directors in each community.The survey was designed to identify those areas ofplanning, programming, or delivery where consid-erable success was achieved and to also identify theareas of continued challenge or common concern.The survey items can be grouped in five cate-gories: Mobilizing and Engaging leadership,Connecting Systems, Assembling and RedirectingFunding, Implementing Comprehensive ProgramStrategies, and Engaging the Business sector. Therewere a total of 120 questions across these cate-gories. For each question the respondent wasasked to indicate whether they (1) achieved con-siderable success worth replicating; (2) achievedsome success; challenges still exist; (3) attempted,but had little success; or (4) did not attempt.Respondents were then asked to comment ontheir successes or problems and to identify barriers.

Twenty-two of the 36 communities responded tothe survey: Albany, GA; Baltimore; Boston;Brockton, MA; Buffalo & Erie Counties;

California Indian Manpower Consortium;Cleveland; Denver; Detroit; Gulf Coast, TX;Hartford, CT; Kansas City; Los Angeles; LumberRiver, NC; Memphis; Philadelphia; San Diego;San Francisco: Seattle; Tampa; Tucson; andWashington, DC.

Follow-up phone calls were made to several of therespondents to clarify responses and gather moredescriptive information. Areas of strength arethose where at least half of the sites had achievedsuccess, according to survey responses and follow-up discussion, and where they felt their activitieswere worth replicating or sharing. Similarly, areasof continued challenge or concern are thosewherein less than a quarter of the sites indicatedconsiderable success, and more than a quarterindicated that they were not successful or that itwas an area of challenge. Appendix 2 shows areasin which specific communities felt they had devel-oped considerable capacity worth sharing.

In general, the survey responses suggest that, col-lectively, a great deal of expertise has been generat-ed, and that different communities developed

21

Chapter 4: Survey Results—Areasof Success and Lessons learned

strength in different areas. YO communities expe-rienced the most success in the following activityareas:

■ Mobilizing community leadership and involv-ing key public systems in the planning andcoordination of service delivery.

■ Attracting key leaders to the Youth Council(or similar convening group) and engagingthem in a strategic process.

■ Accessing resources from multiple systems tosupport service delivery—in particular theeducation system, the WIA one-stop system,and juvenile justice system.

■ Making connections with the education andpost-secondary systems for academic enhance-ments and post-secondary preparation.

■ Creating effective outreach strategies and net-works for reaching youth and engaging themin the design or delivery of service.

■ Developing or accessing alternative educationprograms for out-of-school youth.

■ Creating work experiences and internships forboth in-school and out-of-school youth.

Areas of greatest challenge tended to be:

■ Recruiting adults to serve as mentors.

■ Developing special interventions to serve theneeds of harder-to-serve groups such as home-less youth, youth returning from incarcera-tion, those with substance problems, andthose with limited English proficiency.

■ Engaging the media in a positive, constructiveway.

■ Assembling local funding and redirecting thefunding streams from other systems to accom-

modate the programming and service needs ofthe very high-risk youth.

■ Closing the gap between employer expecta-tions and young people’s skill sets.

The following sections examine YO communities’successes and challenges in the five survey itemareas.

Mobilizing CommunityLeadershipThere were several items on the survey related toengaging community leadership, formulation ofthe Youth Council (or similar advisory group),visioning, and planning. Based on the surveyresponses and follow up discussions with the YOdirectors and WIB directors, this was an area ofstrength for the YO communities. In analyzing thesurvey responses across all 15 items on mobilizingleadership and strategic planning, several commu-nities appear to have had considerable success inmultiple areas, including Kansas City, Boston,Baltimore, Tucson, Detroit, Hartford, San Diego,San Francisco, California Indian ManpowerConsortium, and Memphis.

The majority of communities indicated consider-able success in involving their elected officials orother key community leaders in focusing attentionon the challenges of out-of-school youth andyouth in high risk situations. They also indicatedsuccess in attracting the participation of key play-ers on the Youth Council (or similar group) andengaging the Council in policymaking and strate-gic planning related to youth service delivery.From follow-up discussions with several sites, itwas clear that success evolved over time as com-munities strengthened partnerships to meet theimplementation, programmatic, and sustainabilitychallenges. What emerges from the surveyresponses and comments is that multiple commu-nities were successful in convening key representa-


22

tives from disparate youth efforts, various youthservice systems, the public and private sector, andcommunity-based organizations to strategize about

a better-coordinated, effective delivery system fordisadvantaged and disconnected youth.


23

In Baltimore, at the outset of the YO initiative,multiple organizations, agencies, and businessessigned a formal “Declaration of Partnership” com-mitting their “collective efforts in support of realiz-ing the shared vision of ensuring all youth developthe skills, abilities, and personal attributes necessaryfor the successful transition to productive adult-hood.” The partnership—which included theworkforce system, school system, the university andcommunity college, the housing authority, socialservices, the mental health system, the MarylandBusiness Roundtable, the Mayor’s Office onCriminal Justice, and others—remained activethroughout the entire grant period, with all playerscontributing to the implementation and servicedelivery.

In Boston, the Youth Council had very active participa-tion from both the private and public sectors in thedesign of their youth strategy. Most notable were thestrong collaborations with the law enforcement commu-nity—including the police department, the SuffolkCounty Sheriff's Department, the Departments ofProbation and Youth Services, and the DistrictAttorney's Office. The Boston Public School’s Directorof Alternative Education and the principals of the publichigh schools were also actively engaged in the YO effort.Boston’s “Friends of YO” sustainability effort waslaunched after Mayor Menino, a longtime supporter ofyouth programming, addressed a Town Hall Breakfastmeeting of political, business, and community leadersgathered to learn about the Youth Opportunity Programand discuss effective ways to coordinate activity.

The YO grant enabled Pima County toestablish a youth services network of com-munity-based organizations and keyyouth-serving institutions and to fund astaff position to support the collaboration.Each agency agreed to dedicate staff to theOne-Stop Center system. The use of a net-work of agencies offered youth multiplepoints of entry and a choice of service-delivery locations, including schools, thepublic housing authority, the juvenile jus-tice system, neighborhood centers, andagencies focused on gang prevention,homeless youth, and disability services.The state foster care system also dedicatedin-kind staffing to the network.

In Kansas City, the business com-munity played a leading role in focus-ing attention on the older youthagenda, with the Full EmploymentCouncil performing the intermediaryfunction. Prompted by statistics fromNortheastern University’s Center forLabor Market Studies on Kansas Citydemographic and labor force trends,the board presented an economicdevelopment imperative rather than asocial imperative to draw multiplepartners into focusing on strategies toprepare older youth for productiveparticipation in the labor force.

The success of the YO communities in bringingtogether this leadership across sectors and systemssuggests that the infusion of resources was catalyticand helped bring the problems of older and dis-connected youth to the forefront. The commentsfrom the field indicated that even with resources,successful mobilization required significant anddedicated leadership. Active mayoral involvementappears to correlate highly with programmatic suc-cess. Those communities that indicated that theyhad considerable success in engaging their mayor(Boston, Detroit, California Indian ManpowerConsortium, Buffalo, Memphis, and Brockton)also indicated having considerable success inengaging multiple systems and implementingcomprehensive programs.

Most of the communities were not starting fromscratch. The strength of the Department of Laborapproach to the implementation of the grants was

its insistence on multi-ple systems comingtogether and buildingon communityresources. Many otherorganizations andefforts—includingUnited Way, Safe andSound, Job Corps,YMCA, Boys and

Girls Club, the empowerment zones, transitionaljobs initiative, 21st Century Schools, and mayoraland county-level initiatives—were cited as playingimportant roles in (and in some cases facilitating)this strategic process. Nearly half of the communi-ties indicated that such strategic youth program-ming required a community-wide vision and planand extended beyond just the implementation ofthe YO grant.

Several communities referenced the structural andeconomic impact that the YO funding had in thecommunity. The physical facilities that were reha-bilitated to serve as Youth Opportunity centers inmany instances will remain beyond the grant. Oneeconomically distressed rural community that had

lost most of its industry base due to plant closuresand foreign trade, noted that the YO grant repre-sented the first major financial infusion of anykind in long while. Thus, in addition to being acatalyst for youth programming, it also served asan economic stimulus for the local economy. YOgrant dollars created business opportunities forsmall contractors and community-based providersof goods and services. The case managementmodel for the YO grant required communities tocreate many new job opportunities leading tomore dollars being spent by staff and youth in thecommunity. While there is no empirical analysisthat documents the magnitude of economicimpact, it is reasonable to presume that the buyingpower associated with an infusion of several mil-lion dollars over several years and the multipliereffect as contractors, staff, and youth spent moneyin the community had important economic andcommunity development impacts.

A significant challenge noted by several commu-nities was that the grant requirement restricted YOactivities to a specified geographic area—generallywithin an empowerment zone or enterprise com-munity. The Department of Labor imposed geo-graphic boundaries in an effort to test the impactof saturating a defined area. Many communitiesindicated that the geographic parameters imposedby the YO grant and the requirement that theYouth Opportunity Grant retain a separate identitycomplicated the community engagement process.

Connecting Systems andAccessing ResourcesIn most economically distressed communities, thesystems and supports that should reinforce youthdevelopment are strained and often dysfunctional.Young people disconnect from the systems that arecharged with their education and care, often with-out notice. There are few organized retrievaloptions, and the well-intended efforts in place inthese communities are generally insufficient in


24

Dedicated leadershipmatters: active may-oral involvementappears to correlatehighly with program-matic success.


25

scale and coordination to have a significantimpact.

YO funding provided a vehicle for focusing, coor-dinating, and building on the various efforts andexisting strengths in each community.

Communities were very successful in engagingmultiple youth-serving systems and resourcestreams. The CLASP survey asked about thenature of the involvement with several systems,including public schools, welfare and child wel-fare, juvenile justice, WIA one-stops, and post-sec-

ondary systems. Respondents were asked to indi-cate whether each system was involved in plan-ning, provided funding, provided dedicated staff,provided special programming, established formalreferral agreements, or made informal referrals.The analysis looked at how many systems wereformally engaged (beyond planning) and howmany systems provided resources in the form offunds, staff, or special programs, and found sub-stantial success in this area. As indicated in thechart below, 20 (91 percent) of the respondentshad established formal referral relationships withat least three of the above mentioned youth-

Reflections from the field—Mobilizing Community Leadership(selected comments from local WIB and YO Directors, gathered from surveys and focus groups)

★ In mobilizing a youth strategy it is important to use the economic development imperative ver-sus a social imperative. We need these youth to be productive in the economy. The demograph-ics of an aging workforce and growing skills gap—especially in the crafts and skilled trades—aregood reasons to make this investment. There is a positive return on investment for this type ofintervention. This makes a more compelling reason for business to get involved.

★ It was important that the YO process be viewed as leveraging funds and not soaking up funds.The more YO funds are used to mobilize resources, broker services, and support community-based delivery, the greater the community-based constituency for sustainability.

★ Creating a comprehensive coordinated youth strategy takes committed stakeholders, willing tocollaborate, coordinate and bring resources to the table. However, the agencies and partnersconcurrently experienced cutbacks in federal, state, and foundation funding. These cuts height-ened the need and willingness to collaborate and coordinate, but resulted in very little redirec-tion of dollars.

★ These youth efforts are often in competition with the early childhood, after school, or school-based initiatives for budget attention and priority. Foundations and funding are more often sym-pathetic to the children’s or in-school initiatives. Must form the constituency and the data toelevate these youth, particularly drop-outs for attention.

Number of YO Respondents that engaged:

4 or more systems 3 systems 1 or 2 systems

In providing resources in the form 13 4 5of funding, staff, or special programming

In establishing formal referral arrangements 15 5 2

serving systems. Seventeen (77 percent) of the YOcommunities negotiated resources in the form offunding, staff, or programming from at least threesystems. More than half of the communitiessecured resources and had formal referral arrange-ments from four or more systems.

The communities that were able to attractresources from four or more systems also tendedto be those that:

■ Secured the active involvement of their electedofficials.

■ Attracted key leadership to serve on theirYouth Council or similar advisory group.

■ Felt that their Youth Council engaged activelyin their strategic planning.

■ Established formal referral relationships withseveral systems.

Youth Opportunity communities had more suc-cess with some systems than with others. Thechart above indicates that they made significantinroads with the school system, the juvenile justicesystem, the One-Stops, and the post-secondarysystem.

The most significant observations related to thehow YO communities engaged the systems withintheir respective communities are detailed below.

Secondary and Post-SecondaryEducation SystemsThe YO communities evidenced a high degree ofsuccess in engaging the secondary and post-second-ary systems in non-traditional ways to keep strug-gling students in school and provide options forengagement of out-of-school youth. Undoubtedly,this high level of formal connection between thelocal education system and the YO projects con-tributed to the relatively high level of participationin education support activities and the high level ofpost-secondary matriculation for the Youth Oppor-tunity enrollees described in previous sections.

In communities that reported accessing resourcesfrom their school system, half reported theirschool system provided funding, nearly half indi-cated the schools dedicated staff to the effort, andapproximately two-thirds reported their districtsprovided special programs. From the commentsaccompanying the survey responses, much of theseresources were used for expanded academic sup-port and special programming as opposed to sys-temic shifts in educational programming or fund-ing. These school-based efforts included the provi-sion of additional counseling and support staff forYO students, tutorial assistance, establishment ofcareer-focused academies, and enhanced collegeprep support. A brief description of the variousconnections between the YO program and thepublic school system is presented in Appendix I.


26

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ChildSupport

Post-Secondary

WIAJuvenileJustice

ChildWelfare

WelfareSchoolSystem

91%

50% 50%

68% 73%

95%

27%

Percent of Responding Communities with Formal Relationships with Selected Systems

Survey respondents cited the following barriers toformal connection with education systems:

■ Difficulty in gaining school-based access forcase managers and other support staff.

■ Confidentiality limitations on access to schoolrecords or information regarding school status.

■ Decentralized school-based decision-makingmade it difficult to put in place system-widepolicies.

■ Shortfalls in the local district budget or fund-ing caps that precluded access or retrieval ofADA (average daily attendance) funding tosupport alternative program operation.

Several communities—Kansas City, Boston,Tampa, Seattle, Cleveland, and Pima County—rested substantial programmatic responsibilitywithin the school system and these areas reportedhaving considerable success with their drop outprevention and/or their educational strategies forout-of-school youth.

Among communities that reported accessingresources from the post-secondary system, the sup-port was most often in the form of staff or specialprogramming. The special programming includedactivities such as: SAT preparation; study skills andsoft skills classes; occupational training offerings;financial aid counseling and scholarship assistance;or college exposure (Los Angeles createdCommunity College Centers at each YO centerand UCLA provided summer immersion activi-ties). Additional detail is provided in Appendix 1.

Juvenile Justice SystemThe majority of communities engaged their juve-nile justice system in the design and planning ofthe YO efforts and most succeeded in accessingresources from the juvenile justice system.Communities reported making inroads at varying

points in the justice system—with the police, theprosecutor’s office, the courts, and at re-entry (seeAppendix 1). Demographic information was notavailable on the number of young offendersenrolled in Youth Opportunity program. ACLASP survey of 193 drop-outs across 15 YOsites revealed that approximately one-third hadbeen engaged in some form of criminal or gang-related activity. It appears that the YO communi-ties were active in reaching out to those youth inthe justice system. Addressing the complex needsof those re-entering from incarceration was a com-mon area of concern (see Areas of ProgramChallenge, below). Many areas had formal referralagreements with the juvenile justice system toreceive youth as part of the diversion or releaseprogramming. In follow-up discussion, YO direc-tors reported that many young offenders foundtheir way to the YO centers without formal refer-ral from the juvenile justice system. Communitiesmet with varied success in serving the complexeducational and support needs for this populationand this area emerged as one that several commu-nities expressed interest in networking with eachother for technical assistance and exchange.

Welfare and Child WelfareThe YO communities were not quite as successfulin accessing the welfare, child welfare, or childsupport systems. The welfare or child welfare sys-tem participated in the planning process in lessthan one-third of the communities. Only twocommunities reported having formal referralarrangements with either of these systems. Despitethis lack of formal engagement in the design andplanning process, almost half of the communitieswere able to get resource support, in the form ofdedicated staff or special programming, from theirwelfare or child welfare agency suggesting that thedoor may be open for greater collaboration.

WIA One-stop SystemStart-up of the Youth Opportunity grants coincidedwith the transition of the workforce system to meetthe requirements of the Workforce Investment Act


27

of 1998. Communities planning YO implementa-tion were at the same time, in the midst of formingnew workforce boards, Youth Councils, and struc-turing their WIA One-Stop systems. Despite thesubstantial changes that were underway, the over-whelming majority of the communities surveyedreported success in engaging the One-Stop systemin planning. Seventy (70 percent) indicated thatthey received resources from the One-Stop systemto support the YO efforts and nearly half had for-mal referral arrangements in place with the One-Stop system. This success is partly because in 17 ofthe 22 communities, the workforce agency is alsothe grant recipient for the YO grant. With oneexception, the five communities where the YOgrant is separately administered from the WIAgrants were just as successful in engaging the One-Stop system.

Youth Councils—a new requirement under theWorkforce Investment Act—were just in theirstart-up phase. Despite this, the majority of theresponding communities indicated having consid-erable success in attracting key leadership to thecouncil and being highly successful in having the

council engage in policymaking and planning fortheir youth efforts. This close connection betweenYO and the WIA system will be of key impor-tance, in that WIA youth resources may be essen-tial to the sustainability of some of the deliverycapacity once YO funding ends.

Assembling andRedirecting FundingEarlier sections of this report noted that commu-nities were successful in accessing resources fromother systems including funding, staff, and specialprogramming. Questions were also asked on thesurvey to get an indication of how successful com-munities had been in accessing funding fromother systems or other funding streams. Manycommunities noted that with the general cutbacksin funding across all systems, it was easier to getother agencies to extend staffing, services, or pro-grammatic support than it was to achieve any redi-rection of funds. There were several communitiesthat were able to access funding from multiplefunding streams and systems.


28

Provided Funding Support for YO Service Delivery

School Child Juvenile Adult HigherSystem Welfare Welfare Justice WIA ADA Perkins Basic Ed Ed Act

Boston ■ ■ ■

Brockton, MA ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Buffalo ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

CA Indian Manpower ■ ■ ■ ■

ConsortiumDetroit ■ ■ ■ ■

Hartford ■ ■ ■

Kansas City ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Los Angeles ■ ■ ■ ■

Lumber River ■ ■ ■

Philadelphia ■ ■ ■

Tucson ■ ■ ■

San Diego ■ ■ ■ ■

Tampa ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

ImplementingComprehensive ProgramStrategies There were 25 questions on the survey designed toprovide information on how successful the YOsites were in assembling the mix of programmaticservices and supports to provide such comprehen-siveness. The questions included: evidence ofyouth engagement, ability to meet the needs ofyouth in high-risk categories, good education sup-port strategies, strong employer engagement, andsolid work experience/work exposure component.Areas of strength include: outreach and engage-ment of youth, creating work experience andinternship opportunities, and developing effectiveeducation support strategies for in-school and out-of-school youth. Those areas presenting most chal-lenge were those related to delivery of service toyouth in high risk categories—offenders, homelessyouth, and those with substance problems or lim-ited English ability. Engaging adults as mentorsalso proved challenging.

By year four, the enrollment levels well exceededthe goals set by the Department of Labor. Theexistence of Youth Centers, the use of communica-tions strategies and events geared to young people,the use of youth in peer-to-peer outreach, involve-ment of youth in the design of facilities and inmanagement decision-making, the infusion ofarts, culture, sports and recreation activities, andthe use of youth in community mapping and sur-vey activity were all ways that communities madethe service more accessible and youth-friendly.

Almost all of the communities felt that they hadmet with some success in the implementation ofdrop out prevention and alternative educationstrategies. Half of the communities felt that theirefforts were exemplary and others could learnfrom what they had to share. There was a widerange of educational approaches cited. Theyincluded credit retrieval options, charter schools,twilight schools, community-based alternativeschools, supported GED options, and linkagewith Job Corps. Others like Kansas City andSeattle rested substantial responsibility for drop


29

ChallengeMixed successConsiderable success

0 20 40 60 80 100

creating work experiencescreating private-sector internships

post-secondary linkagesalternative education strategiesdrop out prevention strategies

youth with disabilitiesteens with limited english

serving teen parentssuccess with homelessness

success with substance abuseserving offenders

engaging mentorsyouth engaged in design or delivery

retentionoutreach

Areas of programmatic success and challengeHow successful was the community in the following areas:

out recovery with their school system and reportedconsiderable success. The diversity in approachesacross the sites, with reported success, is an impor-tant by-product of the YO movement.

Most of the Youth Opportunity sites felt that theyachieved some success in the majority of program-matic areas. The dark areas on the chart belowrepresent the programmatic areas where respon-dents felt considerable exemplary practice is occur-ring. The programmatic areas with the most lightblue are those that presented the most challenge.

Areas of Programmatic StrengthOutreach and Engagement of Youth. As theenrollment and participation numbers in the earli-er section indicate, the programs were highly suc-cessful in engaging both in-school and out-of-school youth. The Department of Labor estimatedthat the YO program enrolled approximately 42percent of the eligible youth (62 percent of eligibleout-of-school youth) in the target area. In discus-sions, the local directors expressed feeling consid-erable pressure to enroll quickly and to hit theenrollment goals established by the Department ofLabor. There was the sense that the continued


30

From the field—Successful Strategies for Youth Engagement (selected comments from local WIB and YO Directors, gathered from surveys and focus groups)

★ Detroit—The Youth senate provided critical programmatic feedback and ideas that were incor-porated into youth programming. Youth were also used as peer counselors and recruiters

★ Baltimore—Youth management teams participated in the facility design and made input intoprogram development and development of incentives. Youth were trained to serve on otheradvisory councils. YO members developed monthly community service activities to give back tothe community. Youth also participated in the interview and selection of staff.

★ Houston—Each of Houston’s 4 youth centers had a Youth council, comprised of young peoplefrom the center. They assisted with planning and implementing special services and wereencouraged to develop entrepreneurial programs to fund their activities. These activities wereused to develop leadership and business skills such as budgeting, planning, marketing, organi-zation development and follow through.

★ Seattle—Youth serving on the youth advisory board served a maximum two year term. Theyreceived academic or vocational credit for their internship on the board and helped design allfacets of youth programming. They maintained the thematic activity calendar and planned andimplemented community service events.

★ Pima—Youth In Action Council (YIAC) members received facilitation training and designed anambitious peer survey process which ultimately reached 700 youth in Pima County. The YIACformed a service Learning Committee in Conjunction with a handful of paid internships. The all-youth committee designed a service learning program to engage youth throughout the One-Stop system in community service. Each month the program implemented community serviceprojects that were planned and managed entirely by youth. Each project culminated in a reflec-tion and celebration activity. The YIAC also publishes a monthly newsletter for the One-Stopcommunity.

appropriation of federal funds was, in fact, contin-gent on being able to demonstrate that these localinterventions could be successful in attracting andretaining youth, who traditionally have been veryhard to engage.

In one discussion of lessons learned from theirexperience, the directors reflected on the chal-lenges posed by having to outreach and enrollyouth as they were concurrently hiring staff, reno-vating facilities, negotiating for service, and estab-lishing systems. The feeling was that their abilityto adequately program for and service the youthcoming through the doors in first year was com-promised by the enormity of all the other tasksthat had to be put in place to assure quality deliv-ery. The consensus seemed to be that adequatetime needs to be allowed to put staff, facilities, andsystems in place to receive youth before the startof enrollment. There was also the consensus thatthe first year obstacles were replaced by robuststrategies for outreach and engagement that arenow highly successful.

Several components contributing to success in thisarea—including the existence of Youth Centers asthe focal point of activity and staff support;involvement of youth in planning, on youth advi-sory boards and in program delivery; peer-to-peerword of mouth; the infusion of arts, culture,sports and recreation activities; and effective refer-ral relationships with multiple youth-serving agencies.

The Arts played an important role in engagingand retaining the interest of youth. Art-relatedactivities were evident across the network of YOsites. The YO Memphis Academy offered a collegeprep curriculum and offerings in visual and per-forming arts including drawing, painting, graphicdesign, dance, filmmaking, musical theatre, per-forming band and recording Industry. In Pima,Las Artes combined education with training andwork experience in the creation of mosaic tile pub-lic art. The New Media Program, also in Pima,combines pre-GED classes with training and expe-

rience in video, TV and film production, websitedesign and computer animation. Lumber Riverestablished a YO Records studio and a BroadcastMedia Academy at the public high school inRobeson County Career Center. In San Diego,Steps of Praise, a nationally acclaimed dancetroupe, partnered with the San Diego YouthOpportunity program to provide dance workshopsand encourage creativity through art expression.The National Endowment for the Arts partneredwith several YO communities—Milwaukee,Oglala Sioux, San Diego, Memphis, RuralArkansas, Kansas City,and Albany—in proj-ects related to dance,drama, production,graphic arts, murals,photography, choirand voice, and cultur-al exposure. InHouston, two dozenyoung artists partici-pated in the designand creation of a 1200 square foot ceramic tilemosaic mural which adorns the external wall of anewly built center (and the pages of this report).The youth made the design, which reflects the val-ues and mission of the YO program.

In addition to setting high enrollment goals for the YO sites, the Department of Labor estab-lished the expectation that each month, 80 per-cent of enrollees would be actively participating indefined youth development activities. While track-ing and measuring this proved unwieldy for theYO sites, it required them to incorporate a rangeof activities that would motivate and sustain theinterest of young people.

Effective Education Support Strategies. Almost allof the communities felt that they had met withsuccess in the implementation of drop out preven-tion and alternative education strategies. Half ofthe communities—Tucson, Boston, Brockton,Lumber River, Baltimore, California IndianManpower Consortium, Tampa, Cleveland,


31

The YO sites succeededin meeting the month-ly requirement thatthey engage 80 per-cent of all enrollees inactivities.

Philadelphia, Seattle, Kansas City, Los Angeles,Denver, and San Diego—felt that their effortswere exemplary and others could learn from whatthey had to share. A synopsis of some of the edu-cation strategies in these communities is presentedin Appendix 1.

The high level of perceived success can probablybe attributed to several factors:

■ The DOL guidance to the potential respon-dents to the YO solicitation required that allproposals be explicit about their strategies fordrop out prevention and drop out retrieval.The Department of Labor in its SGA alsoidentified several education support modelsthat sites should consider replicating includingthe Futures program in Baltimore, RheedlanFoundation efforts, Quantum OpportunityProgram, Community in Schools, LA’s BestAfter-School Program, and Job Corp.Variations of these models were employed bythe YO sites.

■ Most of the communities that indicated thatthey were highly successful with their educa-tional support strategies were those that hadsuccessfully engaged their school systems inplanning and had negotiated resource supportfrom their school system.

■ Most communities built upon the relation-ships with their school district or their existingalternative education deliverers to implementor expand innovative approaches for connect-ing drop-outs or struggling students (seeAppendix I).

Across the sites that indicated considerable successin implementing alternative programs for dropouts, a wide range of educational approaches werecited—these included credit retrieval options,charter schools, twilight schools, community-based alternative schools, supported GED options,and linkage with Job Corps. Some communitiesworked with their school system to build delivery

options outside the system. Others like KansasCity and Tampa, rested substantial responsibilityfor drop out recovery with their school system andreported considerable success.

The activities noted below are examples of someof the types of interventions that were employedacross the sites:

■ Cleveland’s Quantum Opportunity Program,Baltimore’s Futures Plus, Seattle’s In-SchoolConnection Program, and Brockton’s In-School Access Center all provided studentswith school-based staff support, intensiveadvocacy, academic support, career explo-ration, cultural activities, and connections tocommunity service or work experience.

■ Memphis established the YO! MemphisAcademy—offering College Prep Curriculum,Tutoring/Intensive Test Prep, an HonorsProgram and College Credit Courses.

■ In several sites, the local districts or collegescreated special academies or occupationallyfocused programs. Houston, Tampa,Cleveland, and Baltimore all had programsfocused on Fire and Rescue. Lumber Riverestablished broadcast television academies atthe Public Schools of Robeson County CareerCenter and a Mixed Media Program at theUniversity of North Carolina at Pembroke. InTampa, the school district created “SummerAcademies” providing occupational training inareas such as Fire Rescue and CertifiedNursing Assistant. The Tucson MedicalCenter provided YO students with entrytraining for the Health Care field.

■ In Seattle, the University of WashingtonPipeline Project recruited, trained, and placedtutors in YO schools and centers to helpyouth perform at higher academic levels andprepare for college.

Serving the educational needs of youth in thesecommunities where the drop out rates exceed 50


32

percent requires a diversity of approaches in thesame community. The range of educationalapproaches employed by the YO sites provide animportant collection of practice that can benefitother communities confronting the same chal-lenge. While many of the approaches are relativelyyoung, these collective efforts are a very fertilearena for continued study, sharing, nurturing, andtechnical support.

Work Experience Opportunities. As noted earlier,the YO sites appeared to have considerable successin creating work experience, internship, and com-munity service opportunities for the youth enrolledin the program. More than 50,000 such opportuni-ties were created and more than half of thoseresponding to the survey indicated that they hadconsiderable success in this area. This is not surpris-ing given that the YO activities are well anchored in

the workforce development system in most of thecommunities and many have a long history of expe-rience playing the intermediary role in the school-to-work and other employer engagement efforts.

Providing high-quality, hands-on experiences toacquaint youth with the demands of the work-place and develop their employability skillsappeared to be a priority across most of the sites.More than half of the communities respondedthat they had considerable success in developinghigh-quality internships, work experiences, orcommunity service experiences in either the publicor private sector. Several communities—Tucson,Boston, Lumber River, Brockton, Kansas City,Denver, Philadelphia, Houston, and Los Angeles-indicated considerable success in accessing paidinternships in the private sector.


33

1. Level I, for youth at high risk, featuresan intensive focus on training and coach-ing on employability skills and team-building and participants complete ashort-term community service project.

4. Level IV placements for older youth are in pri-mary labor-market positions in the private sec-tor or long-term occupational skills trainingprograms. Career Specialists provide advice andsupport to individuals at this level, with a viewto bringing youth to a point where they cancompete independently in the labor market.

3. Level III placements may be in either private-sector employment at a basic entry-level jobor occupational skills training programs withCareer Specialists providing advice andcoaching on an individual basis.

In Pima, vocational high school students progress from a classroom employability-skills training phaseto a structured work crew experience to an individualized placement in a public sector internship.Students participating in their Rewarding Youth Achievement program go through a career explo-ration phase on a college campus to prepare them for a complementary work experience.

The sequential models that were put in place in Boston and Pima are worth noting. Boston’s four-tiered employment system transitions youth from supported community-based employment to com-petitive private sector employment. The levels in Boston’s Transitional Employment System (TES) are:

2. Level II provides a stipend accompany-ing a community-based internship.Though supported through a weeklyemployability skills support group,youth work more independently in thecommunity than in Level I.

Many YO sites linked to existing intermediaries tobroker with business in the establishment of workexperiences and internships. WorkReadyPhiladelphia coordinates public resources and pri-vate sector resources to provide work exposure andcareer preparation experiences for youth.WorkReady includes a training curriculum foryouth and adult mentors as well as project-basedlearning and portfolio components. Youth canearn credit in certain placements in addition towork experience. The San Diego Partnership’sSchool to Work Intermediary and the Pima Pledgea Job Intermediary both assisted YO participantsin connecting to work experiences and preparatorysupport.

Areas of Programmatic ChallengeBased on the survey responses and the feedbackfrom directors, there were several difficult areasrelated to program implementation.

Inadequacy of Planning Lead Time. There wasconsistent feedback that the planning lead timewas inadequate for an undertaking of this scale.Many felt pressure to enroll youth even thoughthe facility, staffing, and programming were notfully in place. Awardees were announced inMarch. Grants were finalized 60 to 90 days there-after (depending on negotiations) thereby givingthe authority to spend. All communities wereexpected to have their YO center doors open withyouth enrolled by the beginning of September.Feedback from directors suggests that the timeframe was too aggressive for an undertaking of thismagnitude. Several indicated that it undercut theability to nurture relationships and achieve upfront buy-in needed for ultimate sustainability.Others commented that the lead time was insuffi-cient for hiring and training staff and puttingmanagement systems in place. There was a generalfeeling that the initial start-up complications wereovercome as the program reached a more steadystate. It was believed that the initial pressure forenrollment was to secure future congressionalappropriations for the YO effort. Ultimately, those

appropriations were cut assuring no expansion orextension of Youth Opportunity Movement.Several directors expressed the concern that start-up challenges may have negatively impacted firstyear operations, outcomes, and early perceptionsabout the YO movement.

Recruitment of Adult Mentors. It is not surpris-ing that finding mentors for older and often trou-bled youth posed a challenge. Most communitiesreported either mixed success or lack of success inthis area. Only respondents from Kansas City,Washington, DC, and the California IndianManpower Consortium reported being very suc-cessful in this area. Reasons cited for this challengeincluded:

■ The difficulty in recruiting adults who aregood role models and are willing to make thetype of firm and sustained commitment thatis needed from a volunteer.

■ The need for significant level of staff supportto address the recruitment, matching, train-ing, ongoing problems that arise.

■ Concerns related to accountability, security,and liability.

Some communities implemented creativeapproaches to address these problems. PimaCounty structured its case management staffing tomaximize opportunities for mentoring by assigningone case manager to each youth, often matchingthe youth with a case manager at an agency in theirown neighborhood or school. They trained volun-teer worksite supervisors to provide mentoring.

Programs and Services for Youth at Very HighRisk. This was cited repeatedly, specifically, relatedto those returning from incarceration, those withsubstance problems, homeless teens, and thosewith limited English speaking ability. Factors thatwere cited as contributing to the difficulty includ-ed: lack of resources in the community to addressintensive service and support needs, and inade-quate housing and shelter options for homeless


34

youth and young parents. More active participa-tion of the welfare, child welfare, and health andmental health systems in the design and imple-mentation of the YO activities might have resultedin better access to the supports needed for thesedifficult populations. Many of the youth findingtheir way into the YO program had a history inthe foster care, juvenile services, welfare, protectiveservices, possibly mental health systems. Severalsites indicated a desire for technical assistance andnetworking to learn what has been effective inmeeting the special needs of the most troubledyouth and strategies for better accessing the sup-port of multiple systems to support those services.

Some YO sites indicated considerable success withspecial populations, and could be valuableresources for networking.

Media Engagement. The inability to effectivelyengage the local media was cited as a concern byseveral respondents. Very few communities indi-cated having success in engaging the local mediain any sustained way. The YO directors identifiedcommunications and marketing as an area of col-lective concern. Respondents expressed frustrationover the difficulty in getting media attentionswitched from the negative coverage of youth topositive activity, and frustration that outside oftheir network there is little knowledge of the YOefforts.

Data Reporting. While most communities effec-tively used the data management system mandatedby the Department of Labor for tracking andreporting, the system fell short of providing accessto the type of reporting needed to documentimpact. The Department of Labor prohibited localsites from using the federal YO funds for evalua-tion or analysis, because it had contracted for anextensive evaluation. While most sites receivedmonthly statistical reports, no information onimpact or evaluations has been provided to thecommunities.

Engaging the BusinessCommunitySurvey respondents indicated mixed success inengaging the business community. A notableaccomplishment is that two-thirds of the YO com-munities reported considerable success in eitheraccessing private sector internship positions, cre-ating customized training opportunities, or estab-lishing effective intermediary relationships to coor-dinate access to jobs or business resources. It wasclear in the survey responses that all of the YOcommunities valued the role of the business sectorand sought to actively engage that community inthe planning and in opening up opportunities forboth in school and out of school youth.


35

Communities with Successful Interventions for Difficult Youth Populations

The communities in the table below indicated on the survey that they had considerable success—worth sharing—with the special populations below.

Special Group Communities indicating having Considerable Success

Incarcerated youth Pima, Boston, Brockton, San Francisco, Tampa, Los Angeles, Hartford

Limited English Ability Washington, DC, San Francisco, Buffalo

Parenting teens Pima, Washington, DC, Brockton, Seattle

Homeless youth Boston, Pima, Washington, DC, Seattle, Denver

Substance impaired youth Brockton, Denver, Seattle, San Diego

Youth with disabilities Pima, Lumber River, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Detroit

Interestingly, when asked separately about successcreating private sector opportunities for in-schoolyouth versus out-of-school youth, sites reportedbeing equally successful. This is encouraging inthat it suggests that communities recognized thatexposure to the private sector workplace and tocareers was an essential component in program-ming for both in school and out of school youth.

An informal survey in 2003 of the directors of allthe YO sites regarding their business partnershipsrevealed that the communities had made progressin gaining access beyond the traditional retail andfood service establishments that traditionally hireyouth. Partnerships with businesses in the healthindustry was the most predominant, followed byretail, tourism and entertainment (not includinghotels), communications and technology, banking,and then, manufacturing, warehousing, businesssupport and hospitality. Most of these partnershipsyielded internships, exposure, business participa-tion in job readiness preparation, and opportuni-ties for placements.

Respondents reported greater challenge in engag-ing the business community in more formal sus-tained efforts to create pipelines. The overwhelm-ing majority of communities reported that whilethey had met with some success working withemployers to identify the growth areas of theeconomy and the entry-level skill set, they weremuch less successful in engaging business orindustry representatives in the development ofcurriculum or special training programs, pathwaysor pipelines to specific industries. Respondentsprovided some possible reasons for this:

■ Much of the early YO activity occurred at atime of economic down-turn. Many compa-nies were laying-off and therefore the environ-ment was not conducive for bringing inyounger workers.

■ There was competition from adult workers forthe limited jobs that were available, meaningyouth were not the priority for hiring.

■ Pressures at the workplace related to lay-offsand downsizing made it difficult for employ-ers to release staff to participate in the level ofdiscussion necessary to build effective pipelineprograms.

Several communities indicated that their success inconnecting youth to employment opportunitieswas directly related to job development and theone-on-one work between job coaching staff andyouth, and with employers to make the matches.Pima County (Tucson) reported having successusing an OJT model, where employers providedvery specific information on the competencies tobe gained before an intern was assigned. Theyreported success with most of those entering OJTbeing hired into positions. Washington, DC part-nered with the unions to expose youth to the con-struction trades.

Baltimore also reported success in using paidinternships in the private sector as a gateway toemployment in higher-wage jobs. Job developerssolicited employer partnerships where youth couldbe trained in technical workplace skills for occupa-tions. Interested employers worked with the jobdeveloper to structure the internship. The wagesfor the youth were subsidized by the BaltimoreYouth Opportunity System with the formal agree-ment that the employer will identify positionswithin their business or organization in which theyouth could be hired upon completion of theinternship. The youth’s supervisor and the jobcoach monitor closely the youth’s development ofthe essential workplace skills.

Houston, Baltimore, Tampa, Cleveland all estab-lished pipeline programs to introduce and prepareyoung people for careers in the field of fire andrescue. ■


36

The infusion of the YO resources in thesecommunities at a time when the workforce

delivery system was in transition, the economywas recessing, resources to other youth serviceorganizations and systems were retrenching, andyouth unemployment was on the rise created asynergy in many communities. Communitiescoalesced around the older youth agenda, creat-ing relationships and interventions that extendbeyond the YO boundaries and will most proba-bly continue beyond the grant funding. YO alsocreated a national movement uniting communi-ties in a process of learning from each other andbuilding community capacity to implement and manage this effort of significant scale andimportance.

Following are the conclusions and recommenda-tions based on observation and analysis.

1. The Youth Opportunity experience demon-strates that young people by the thousandsare anxious for a chance to be reconnected.When presented with options to re-engage inschooling, prepare for careers, and transform

their paths, youth by the thousands connectedthrough Youth Opportunity. The loss of suchresource and infrastructure in these most dis-tressed communities would be tragic.

2. Communities can manage to scale. In highlydistressed communities, where thousands ofteens drop out and disconnect, a single pro-gram intervention can’t change the landscapefor these youth. A well coordinated cross-system approach with all partners on boardcan make a difference. Such complicated pro-gramming requires leadership, managementskills, administrative capacity, and deliverycapacity. A lingering question has always been:can community capacity be developed to man-age such large scale efforts? YO communitiespersevered through the start-up challenges andin most communities appear to have demon-strated that, given the resources and the plan-ning time, such comprehensive coordinatedprogramming can be implemented.

3. The grant requirement that multiple systemsand resources must be involved was essential

37

Chapter 5: Conclusions andImplications of Findings

in bringing disparate efforts to the table. Thedirectives of funders affect how programs andplanning occurs in a community. Often, grantmakers, federal and otherwise, send fundingthrough a system or entity without any realrequirement for involvement of other systemsor existing infrastructure. This contributes tothe fragmented landscape of youth deliverythat is duplicative and inefficient. In resource-challenged communities, every incentiveshould be used to leverage systems andresources to work in tandem to address theyouth challenge.

4. A convening entity is necessary. A YouthCouncil (or similar vehicle) comprising appro-priate membership can be a vehicle for creat-ing a strategic vision for youth—in particular,those falling outside the mainstream—and formobilizing all segments of the community tobe part of the design and benchmarkingprogress.

5. Local and state officials have an importantrole to play. It appeared that those communi-ties that indicated success in engaging theirmayor or local official also had greater successin accessing multiple systems. Accessing stateeducation funds and connecting with the jus-tice and child welfare systems require theactive involvement of state systems. Navigat-ing the state/local relationship to create flexi-ble, innovative system connections on behalfof drop-outs, foster youth, and offendersrequires active state leadership.

6. Local delivery capacity is directly related tothe ability to hire and maintain qualitystaff. Most YO sites invested in recruiting,training, and developing quality case man-agement staff. The vagaries of funding makeit difficult for communities to maintainhigh-quality direct service capacity.Developing and maintaining the professional

capacity in youth service delivery is a criticalchallenge to be overcome if communities areto make a substantial impact on the negativeindicators.

7. YO efforts to engage drop-outs warrant fur-ther study. Communities with large numbersof drop-outs will need to explore multipleavenues for connecting these youth to qualityeducation options. Many of the approachesemployed in the YO communities are promis-ing, and can guide this effort. Unfortunately,some of these newer approaches may succumbto a lack of funding. Given the tremendousneed for effective educational alternatives,these collective YO efforts are a fertile arenafor continued study, sharing, nurturing, andtechnical support.

8. The child welfare system and the mentalhealth system must be pulled into the localvisioning, strategic planning, and delivery.They appeared to be tangential in the YOefforts. YO directors indicated substantialparticipation of former foster care youth, ofoffenders, and of homeless youth. Theseyoungsters benefit most from the supportiveprogramming with caring adult advocacyand hands-on labor market experiences thatYO program provides. But, they also comewith greater challenges requiring the servicesof health and mental health professionals.With the increased focus in WIA reautho-rization for greater service to the most at riskyouth, the participation of these two systemsis critical.

9. The YO communities were very successfulin motivating youth to post-secondary aspi-rations. A separate CLASP survey of nearly200 drop-outs enrolled in YO revealed that40 percent indicated their desire to enroll incollege. Of those with college ambitions, 65percent had specific majors in mind.


38

Changing these youth mindset is a tremen-dous accomplishment.5 Making their aspira-tions a reality requires greater support fornon-traditional students matriculating in college.

10. Economically stressed communities can’treplace the millions being lost in federalfunding. The provision for YouthOpportunity Grants in the 1998 WIA legisla-tion was built on lessons from several years ofprior demonstration funding. It was groundedin the findings from years of research on effec-tive practice. WIA reauthorization is eliminat-ing Youth Opportunity Funding in lieu ofChallenge Grants, not necessarily targeted todistressed communities. The abandonment soquickly of a well thought-out, targeted inter-vention, when drop out rates for poor urbanminority youth exceed 50 percent, should bereconsidered.

11. Foundations and funders are needed to sus-tain the innovation. Foundations and otherfunders may be reluctant to simply step inand replace retrenching federal dollars. Butwhen federal interventions give rise to promis-ing approaches or interventions, foundationscan incubate these efforts and assisting in theirevaluation, dissemination, and replication.

Many promising—in some cases ground-breaking—approaches were implemented inthe YO communities; some will suffer notbecause they aren’t effective, but because theavailable resource support is insufficient tonurture their growth and development incomplicated environments. This is particularlytrue of fledgling arrangements with the schoolsystem and justice system.

12. There is a need for expanded participation ofemployers and business leaders in craftingpathways for youth to connect with high-growth, high-skill areas of the economy. TheYO effort in many communities broughttogether the secondary, post-secondary, andworkforce systems to structure support fornon-traditional students. The business sectorcan play an incredibly important role in help-ing these systems define the skill set, exposure,and experiences that can create a pipeline ofwell-trained candidates for skilled jobs of thefuture. Several YO sites noted the challengeinvolved in delivering young people with therequisite occupational skills for success. Thiscan not be accomplished without the partici-pation and willingness of business and indus-try at the table. It is worth further exploringways to provide incentives and supports toexpand business and industry alliances. ■


39

5 Harris, L. Don’t Hang Up—Their Future’s on the Line: What Youth Say About Being Reconnected. Center for Law and SocialPolicy, pending publication Spring 2006.


40

Appendix 1: YO Community Collaborations with Other SystemsThis appendix contains a brief description of the collaborative efforts in which YO communities were engaged.

YO Collaborations with Secondary and Post-Secondary Systems

Lumber River, Lumber River established broadcast television academies at the Public Schools of RobesonNC County Career Center and a Mixed Media Program at the University of North Carolina

at Pembroke. They partnered with the Basic Education Department of Robeson Community College (RCC) to engage out-of-school youth in a high school diploma program. RCC also established an early college program with the intent of attracting students who may not be considering higher education. In that program, students are charged no tuition for the college-level courses. They are asked to follow the rules set by the public schools until they begin taking full-time college courses during their fifth year.

Seattle, WA The University of Washington Pipeline project recruits, trains, and places tutors in YOschools and centers to help youth perform at higher academic levels and to prepare themfor college. YO participants were assisted by the Seattle School Connection Program,which provided prevention and intervention services for students who were increasinglyabsent from school and experiencing school failure and to those returning to regularschool after completing a re-entry program. YO students were enrolled into this programbased on an assessment of risk factors. Individual plans were developed for each youth,building on his/her strengths and engaging the family in a set of activities, agreements,supports, and incentives to address the truancy and behavioral issues.

41

Appendices


42

YO Collaborations with Secondary and Post-Secondary Systems – continued

Seattle, WA YO partnered with the Seattle Interagency School to provide open-entry enrollment,continued mentoring, community service, individual assessment, individualized instruction, and

academic remediation. The Interagency school serves youth who have dropped out ofschool, are homeless, street-involved, or are low skilled and have been unsuccessful inother programs.

Baltimore, MD Baltimore expanded its Futures Plus model for grades 9 through 12; it offers comprehen-sive, year-round, student-centered programming including intensive advocacy, academicsupport, youth development activities, career exploration, coaching for personalstrengths, college tours, cultural & arts trips, summer work and enrichment experiences.

Baltimore also developed a “funds following students” credit recovery program for out-of-school youth. The YO program partnered with Baltimore City Public Schools to re-engage high school drop-outs and re-enroll them in community-based diploma programsrun by contract providers. The youth were able to earn a regular high school diploma in asmall, community-based learning environment that could better meet students’ academicneeds, individual strengths, and circumstances. Baltimore had a strong partnership withthe College Bound Foundation to increase youth enrollment in college by placing staff atthe YO Centers and providing SAT prep, college tours, fee waivers, and information.

San San Diego established a charter school on-site at the YO Center to provide small classDiego, CA room and individualized instruction and academic guidance to complete the high school

diploma. Also provided on site was psychological/social counseling using a program partner’s funding through the CA Endowment Foundation.

Tampa, FL In partnership with the school district, YO Tampa established several award-winning“Summer Academies” such as Fire Rescue and certified nursing assistant (CNA) occupa-tional training programs. The Tampa school district delivered all of the YO tutoring,remediation, GED prep, and occupational skills training through its Career andTechnical Education division.

Cleveland, Cleveland established a collaborative project with the Cleveland Municipal School OH District (CMSD) to create the Twilight school. Intended for youth who had dropped out

of school, it was a full-service high school taught by CMSD teachers and offering a CMSD diploma. The Twilight School provided nontraditional teaching that was tailored to each individual so high school drop-outs and students with special needs were able to earn a diploma at their own pace.

Quantum, an in-school support program, was started as part of the original grant. Theprogram worked directly with area high schools to provide long-term mentoring andafter-school activities with the goal of increasing each member’s chances of graduatingfrom high school and planning for after school. Members were each assigned a counselorwho guided them through the program. After-school activities included community


43


Cleveland, service, life skills training, youth development projects, and visits to art and cultural OH, cont. museums. In addition, Quantum arranged academic tutoring and offered a financial

stipend based on performance.

Cuyahoga Community College partnered with YO Cleveland to introduce programmembers to higher education. TRI-C provided computer-assisted and traditionalclassroom learning modules to help prepare YO members for college-level work. Inaddition, it offered services that were designed to help acclimate YO members to acollege atmosphere.

Pima Pima YO program partnered with Pima Vocational High School, which is a state-chartedCounty, diploma program combining instruction with individualized support and work experience AZ in public-sector internships. The program established an occupational training voucher

system to maximize post-secondary access to occupational training and expand the number and selection of occupation training programs that youth could pursue. The vendor list includes technical colleges and non-profit training providers. The YO programalso bought education classes from the largest school district’s extensive technical education resources and made them available to YO members, including drop outs and those residing outside the district.

Los Angeles, The Los Angeles YO effort assembled over 30 Partners in education to create a range ofCA opportunities for in-school and out-of-school youth. The partners included technical

high schools, charter schools, alternative schools, community colleges and four-year uni-versities, community-based programs, and vocational skills centers. Upon enrollment,each youth developed a plan that identified short- and long-range goals and connectedthem with the most appropriate education and employment preparation options.

College Career Centers were housed at the Youth Opportunity offices in Watts and BoyleHeights. The College Career Centers were set up to be a comfortable place for students toresearch colleges and speak with recruiters and staff. The College Career Centers allowedstudents to explore possibilities in postsecondary education. YO provided students withthe information and materials they needed to go to college. Other program supports wereprovided—including (1) ACT/SAT preparation offered in partnership with Kaplan,UCLA Early Academic Outreach Program, and UCLA Center for Experiential Educationand Service Learning; (2) a public speaking class provided via the community college; (3) summer immersion programs at UCLA; and (3) a student/parent workshop.

Kansas City, The Kansas City Public Schools out-stationed a full-time staff person to the One-StopMO Center. This staff person had access to school systems records and support programs and

was responsible for connecting drop-outs to the most appropriate educational option. Theschool system was cited as one of the most productive providers of educational services forout-of-school youth.


44


Boston, MA Boston engaged the Boston Public School’s Director of Alternative Education, manyheadmasters from the district high schools, and the guidance department, and workedwith its extensive network of community based alternatives to provide education optionsfor out-of-school youth.

Memphis, TN YO! Memphis Academy—a secondary school offering college-prep curriculum, tutoring,intensive test preparation, an honors program, college credit courses, and a Visual ArtsConnection—was established. Students can explore drawing/painting and graphic design,forensics, and performing arts including dance, filmmaking, musical theatre, performingband, and recording industry classes.

Hartford, CT The site established a Diploma Plus program in cooperation with (and housed within) theHartford Public Schools’ adult education system. Internships and career work experienceswere incorporated as an integral part of curriculum. The “Plus” phase included courses atCapital Community College.

Hartford also established a Credit Retrieval program for out-of-school youth and thoseinvolved in the justice system. The college prep program will have helped almost 300youth into college by the fall of 2005.

The Youth Opportunity effort strengthened School Prevention Teams in several schools,linking school attendance and achievement data to the YO database (Hartford Connects)to have a real-time, comprehensive in-school youth database to track outcomes.

Brockton, MA Brockton began a distance learning program for young people seeking a GED but unableto make it to class due to full-time work, child care issues, and other barriers. Donatedcomputers were placed into member’s homes along with GED software. An instructorworked with students via the Internet, telephone, and home visits. This program was suc-cessful and received continued funding through the Department of Education.

An Access Center was created at the Brockton High School and school case managerswere co-located there during the school day to be available to YO members. The AccessCenter provided supervision to youth during their directed academics, lunch breaks, andafter school. The center also provided one-on-one tutoring, and peer mentoring andtutoring alternatives as well as career exploration. Center staff tracked the academic anddisciplinary progress of the members and offered support and referrals to the appropriateresources to help with youth development. Youth advocates were stationed at the commu-nity college to provide support to youth as they transitioned to higher education.


45

YO Collaborations with the Justice System

Houston, TX The Houston YO program worked with the juvenile justice system to identify youthbefore they were released and to develop planning as to how the workforce system wouldassist them in their educational and employment goals.

Brockton, MA Brockton established strong relationships with the court system, the juvenile justice sys-tem, the Department of Youth Services, and Plymouth County House of Corrections.Young offenders are recruited and offered support, guidance, and connections to educa-tion and employment opportunities. This strong partnership assisted Brockton in creatingthe Gateway Program of the Youthful Offenders Demonstration Project.

Tampa, FL YO Tampa has established an agreement with the local State Attorney's office that identi-fies YO as an official diversionary program for adjudicated youth.

Los Angeles, The Intensive Transition “IT” Team has created a partnership between the County CA Probation Department, Los Angeles YO Movement (LAYOM), WIA, and the City of Los

Angeles Information Technology staff to create a new referral system for probation clients. The IT team helps probation camp returnees enroll in LAYOM or WIA services within 48 hours of their release.

Boston, MA The Boston YO program worked with the Department of Youth Services to connectyoung offenders to their transitional jobs program, providing work, stipends, connectionsto education, and case management support.

Philadelphia, Philadelphia’s three YO Centers, now known as E3 Power (Empowerment, Education andPA Employment), have partnered with the City’s Department of Human Services to enhance

community reintegration efforts on behalf of youth returning from juvenile placement facilities. Returning youth deemed most likely to experience recidivism participate in step-down activities at E3 during their first three months after release for up to four hours each day, 6-7 days/week. Programming offered to youthful offenders includes academic support, life skills training and employment-related activities, including work readiness training, referrals to employment and job support. In addition, youthful offenders have access to a range of other programs and services offered through E3. The E3 centers continue to serve this population in addition to other populations of disconnected.

Hartford, CT Youth involved with the justice system are referred directly to a youth development spe-cialist who develops a service plan and enrolls them in the most appropriate educationaloption—for example, credit retrieval, Diploma Plus, Credit Diploma program, GED, ora return regular school. Assigned staff worked directly with Community Court and otherjustice agencies. YO staff provided justice-involved youth with employability skills, workexperience, and jobs.


46

Washington, Re-Focus was launched as a pilot project involving a collaborative partnership with the DC juvenile courts, government probation and retention organizations and the DC YO pro-

gram, to provide anger management/conflict resolution, substance abuse education, life skills and peer adult mentoring to improve behavior and attitude of youth involved withthe criminal justice system. These services supported youth for transitioning to education, employment and occupational skills training.

YO Collaborations with the Justice System continued


47

Appendix II: Communities Indicating SuccessWorth Sharing in Various AreasOn the CLASP Survey “Lessons from the Youth Opportunity” respondents were asked to identify areas ofconsiderable success that they felt were worth sharing or replicating. They were also asked to identify thesystems which provided resource support to the effort. The charts below identify the areas of strength iden-tified by specific communities.

Mobilizing Leadership/ Comprehensive Preventive Strategic Planning or Alternative Programming

Communities below indicated high level of success Communities below indicated considerable success in engaging their political and community leadership in developing programming that combined in elevating youth issues and supporting the YO effort education, work experience, and support

Baltimore, MD • Boston, MA • Baltimore, MD • Boston, MA • Brockton, MA • California Indian Manpower Consortium • California Indian Manpower Consortium •

Detroit, MI • Hartford, CT • Denver, CO • Hartford, CT • Houston, TX • Kansas City, MO • Memphis, TN • Kansas City, MO • Los Angeles, CA •

Pima County, AZ (Tucson) • San Diego, CA • Lumber River, NC • San Diego, CA • San Francisco, CA • Tucson, AZ •

Connecting Multiple Systems

Communities below were successful in getting resource support from at least four of the following systems: school,juvenile justice, WIA, welfare, child welfare, or post-secondary.

Juvenile Welfare/ Child Post-Schools Justice Child Support Welfare WIA secondary

Albany ■ ■ ■ ■

Brockton ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Buffalo ■ ■ ■ ■

Detroit ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Hartford ■ ■ ■ ■

Houston ■ ■ ■ ■

Kansas City ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Los Angeles ■ ■ ■ ■

Lumber River ■ ■ ■ ■

Memphis ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Philadelphia ■ ■ ■ ■

Pima County (Tucson) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Tampa ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■


48


49

Appendix III: Contact Information for Respondentsto the Youth Opportunity: Lessons Learned Survey

YO Site Organization Contact Information

Albany, GA Albany/Dougherty Lynn Borders, Executive DirectorCommunity Partnership [email protected]

Baltimore, MD Mayor’s Office of Karen Sitnick, DirectorEmployment [email protected] Ernest Dorsey, YO Project Director

[email protected]

Boston, MA Boston Office of Jobs and Conny Doty, DirectorCommunity Services/EDIC [email protected]

Brockton, MA Brockton Area Private Kevin O’Rourke, Executive Director, Industry Council [email protected]

Lisa Johnson, Director of Special [email protected]

Buffalo & Erie County, Workforce Development Colleen Cummings, DirectorNY Consortium [email protected];

California and California Indian Lorenda Sanchez, Administrator Western Nevada Manpower Consortium and Project Director

[email protected]

Cleveland, OH YO! Cleveland Reuben Sheperd, YO Project [email protected]

Denver, CO Mayor’s Office of Cecilia Sanchez de Ortiz, DirectorWorkforce Development [email protected]

Seth Howsden, Director of Youth [email protected]

Detroit, MI Detroit Workforce Cylenthia LaToye Miller, DirectorDevelopment Department [email protected]

Chantelle [email protected]

District of Columbia Department of Gregory Irish, DirectorEmployment Services [email protected]

Hartford, CT Capital Region Workforce Tom Phillips, PresidentDevelopment Board [email protected]

Jim [email protected]

Houston, TX Houston Works Terry Hudson, Director [email protected]

Kansas City, KS Kansas City Full Clyde McQueen, President and CEOEmployment Council, Inc [email protected]

YO Site Organization Contact Information

Los Angeles, CA Community Development Robert Sainz, General ManagerDepartment [email protected]

Lumber River, NC Lumber River Council Dana Powell, [email protected]

Memphis, TN YO! Memphis Marie Milam, Executive [email protected]

Philadelphia, PA Workforce Investment Sallie Glickman, Executive DirectorBoard of Philadelphia [email protected] Youth Laura Shubilla, PresidentNetwork [email protected]

Pima County (Tucson), Pima County Workforce Arnold Palacios, Director of Youth ServicesAZ Development Board [email protected]

San Diego, CA San Diego Workforce Larry Fitch, President and CEOPartnership [email protected]

Margie Rosas, YO Grant [email protected]

San Francisco, CA Private Industry Council Tyrone Jackson of San Francisco [email protected]

Seattle, WA Seattle-King County Kris Stadelman, President and CEOWorkforce Development [email protected] Daniel Fey, Director of Advancement

[email protected]

Tampa, FL Tampa Youth Dori BlancOpportunity Movement [email protected]


50

learning from the youth opportunity experience · state-level attention to high school reform is...

Documents