Employment

Redesign of Los Angeles’ OneSource Centers Will Focus on Helping Out-of-School Youth Get Their High School Diploma or GED

/ The Old Crank

(updated below)

Here’s an example of Workforce Innovation Fund dollars being used on a major education project for out-of-school youth: Los Angeles new Youth Source Centers, a redesign of a program that used to be focused on helping in-school youth look for jobs, but will now be focused on helping out-of-school youth 16-21 to get their high school diploma or pass the General Educational Development (GED) test. The new centers are funded in part by a $12 million grant from the Department of Labor’s Workforce Innovation Fund.

(via Intersections South LA)

UPDATE 10/27/12: An article posted to the National League of Cities blog, CitiesSpeak.org, puts this initiative in context, noting that it is one of several “dropout reengagement initiatives” now operating in cities such as Davenport, Iowa, and Boston, Massachusetts. The author advises municipal leaders to keep an eye on these efforts, as “[m]oving dropouts back into school holds great promise for achieving credentials at the high school level and beyond.” There is a reference to cross-collaboration as a common element of these initiatives; I wonder to what extent—if any—existing adult education systems (which, in many areas, have traditionally provided the bulk of educational services to out-of-school youth) are employed in these efforts.

Why Hasn’t Prison Education Led to Better Employment Outcomes in D.C.?

/ The Old Crank

(Updated Below)

According to the Council for Court Excellence (CCE), an estimated 60,000 people in the District of Columbia have criminal records (this is roughly one in every ten persons), and about 8,000 of them return to the city each year after serving their sentences. Unfortunately, half of these individuals will end up back behind bars within three years of getting out.

Reducing recidivism improves public safety and strengthens communities, and is therefore a worthy policy goal. And the research tells us that one of the best ways to accomplish this is to provide inmates with access to education and training while they are in prison.

But it appears that education and training for incarcerated D.C. residents isn’t going to be enough unless we significantly reduce barriers to employment once people are out of prison.

Las year, CCE released a report on the employment challenges facing previously incarcerated D.C. residents after they are released. The report was based on the results of a survey of 550  formerly incarcerated individuals. Among the key findings: there was little or no difference in employment rates for those who earned a GED or job certificate before or after prison and those who did not:

The unemployment rate among survey respondents was about the same after incarceration as it had been prior to incarceration, even among those who used their time in prison productively to increase their skills. Over 30% indicated that they received a GED or higher in prison and 35% indicated receiving a job training certificate of some kind. CCE’s sample showed little or no difference in the unemployment rate for those who had earned a GED or job certificate in or after prison compared with those who had not. (my emphasis)

This finding is at odds with the findings of another recent recidivism study from another jurisdiction, conducted by Jake Cronin, a policy analyst with the Institute of Public Policy in the Truman School of Public Affairs at the University of Missouri.

Cronin studied Missouri Department of Corrections data and found that inmates who earned their GED in Missouri prisons were significantly more likely to find a job after release from prison than those who did not.

But Cronin also noted that recidivism rates went down most dramatically for those inmates had earned a GED and acquired a full-time job after release.

“Employment proves to be the strongest predictor of not returning to prison that we found,” Cronin said. “Those who have a full-time job are much less likely to return to prison than similar inmates who are unemployed. Recidivism rates were nearly cut in half for former inmates with a full-time job compared to similar inmates who are unemployed.”

It makes sense to me that education plus sustained employment has the most lasting impact on reducing recidivism. But in Missouri, at least, attaining an educational credential appears to increase the likelihood of employment, whereas in Washington it may have no effect at all. So the question is whether there are other significant barriers to employment for formerly incarcerated individuals here in the District—other than education—that may not be as prominent in Missouri. And if there are, what do we do about them?

I’ll concede that the biggest barrier to employment for many people these days is the lack of jobs to begin with. I’ll also concede that part of the problem may be that the jobs that do become available in the District may, on average, require more specialized training or post-secondary education than the jobs that are available in Missouri. (I don’t know that for certain, but it seems reasonable.) Nonetheless, there are also policies that can be put in place to make it easier for those returning from prison to find a job, and to encourage employers to hire them.

For their part, the Council for Court Excellence (CCE) believes that barriers to employment unrelated to education do exist, and in their report, they made several recommendations to address them, including, among other things, liability protection for employers and a “certificate of good standing” indicating that an individual has completed his or her sentence and is in good standing with conditions of release.

These two recommendations are the centerpiece of recent bill, the D.C. Re-entry Facilitation Amendment Act, introduced by D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson on July 10th.

UPDATE 9/27/12: My original headline (Why Hasn’t Prison Education Reduced D.C. Recidivism Rates?) was all wrong—I was making a point about employment outcomes, not recidivism rates—and was updated accordingly.

Interesting Look at How Federal Investments Drove Job Growth in Charlotte

/ The Old Crank

(Updated Below)

For anyone interested in job creation and job training—and the debate over the federal role in both—this story on a new Siemens turbine plant in Charlotte in yesterday’s Washington Post is probably going to be more interesting than anything you’ll read coming out of either of the political conventions:

Ask Siemens executives why they placed their bet on Charlotte and they talk about public investments such as the state-funded rail spur that runs through their facility and the city’s international airport, which recently added a fourth runway using $132 million in federal funds.

They talk about the Export-Import Bank, an independent federal agency that in January approved a $638 million loan to finance the sale of turbines to Saudi Arabia, helping Siemens beat bids from companies in Germany, South Korea and Japan.And they talk about the quality of the workforce in Charlotte, where local leaders are retooling the public education system to churn out the engineers and skilled technicians needed to operate one of the most efficient gas-turbine plants in the world.

My only quibble with this piece: I don’t understand why the austerity budgets “favored by the GOP” are set aside as if they are somehow separate from Romney’s position.

Romney’s plan for growth centers on slashing government spending while cutting tax rates sharply for everyone. Romney claims his approach would create 12 million jobs over the next four years, a conclusion that relies heavily on research by Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley.

Auerbach, who has studied the economic effects of tax cuts, said lower taxes on savings and investment do cause people to plow more money into new investments, which “should lead to faster economic growth.” But “how much, how fast” is harder to say, Auerbach said. And that approach is, in any case, less likely to be effective in a sluggish economy, he said, when businesses are holding back on new investments not because they do not have the cash but because they are “looking first at whether they can sell stuff.”

“If the question is what would [Obama and Romney] do right now to spur economic activity,” Auerbach said, “I’m not sure either platform is particularly well designed for that.”

Meanwhile, the austerity budgets favored by the GOP would cut government spending in the very areas that do seem to matter. (my emphasis) In his most recent budget, Romney’s vice-presidential running mate, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), proposed spending 25 percent less on transportation over the next decade than Obama and 31 percent less on education and training.

As part of their campaign to shrink the size of government, House Republicans also tried to kill the Export-Import Bank, which encourages exports by financing the foreign purchase of U.S. goods and services, turning a profit for taxpayers. Spiegel said the bank was a critical factor in Siemens’s decision to build turbines for export in the United States. 

Romney has endorsed the Ryan budget cited here. It’s not as if Romney has one approach and House Republicans have another one that is on some kind of separate track (“meanwhile”). Whatever the merits are of Romney’s proposal to cut tax rates in order to spur growth, by endorsing that budget, he has completely embraced the federal infrastructure and education spending cuts proposed by Ryan and his party. Those spending cuts are just as much a part of his approach as his tax rate cut proposal. And if those cuts “do seem to matter,” then the differences between the two candidate’s approaches are perhaps more significant than this article suggests.

UPDATE 9/5/12 7:22pm: Added the last sentence and edited the whole piece slightly for clarity and emphasis.

Interactive Chart Shows Decline in Good Jobs Despite Growth in Educational Attainment

/ The Old Crank

Earlier this week, Colin Gordon of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) published an interactive chart on CEPR’s blog based on “In Where Have All the Good Jobs Gone?” a report published by CEPR in July. That report used CPS data to show that the share of good jobs (which they define as those with an earnings threshold of $18.50/hr plus health coverage and a retirement plan) has fallen—even as the age and educational attainment of the workforce has gone up.

Using this chart, you can select different combinations of demographics and “good job” elements (earnings, health coverage, retirement plan) to compare and contrast. If you enjoy pointing and clicking at charts and getting depressed about the economy, this is definitely worth checking out. I especially recommend it to recent college grads…