Committee on Housing and Workforce Development

Councilmember Michael Brown, Chairperson

Public Oversight Roundtable on the FY 2010 Summer Youth Employment

Program
June 16, 2010

Testimony submitted by Martha Ross,

Greater Washington Research at Brookings

Chairperson Brown and other members of the committee: thank you for the opportunity
to discuss the Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) operated by the DC
Department of Employment Services (DOES). As you know, this program has been a
city priority for many years. There’s little disagreement about the value of the program:
providing employment opportunities for District youth, helping them build skills and gain
experience, and giving them the chance to earn some money. However, there are
concerns about the program’s administration and whether it lives up to its purpose.

A successful summer jobs program is the result of a lot of hard work and careful
attention to multiple details:

 Finding appropriate sites to host young people – and making sure there are
enough sites for the number of youth projected to participate
 Ensuring that supervisors at those sites are clear on the expectations associated
with the program and receive appropriate support and oversight
 Ensuring that young people are prepared for their summer job through orientation
and ongoing support
 Matching young people to job sites based on the sites’ needs and the young
people’s skills and interests
 Administrative concerns, such as registering youth, timekeeping and payroll

Carrying out these tasks requires careful planning, skilled staff, a smoothly functioning
administrative structure, and sufficient time and resources. Despite the Department of
Employment Services’s best efforts, it has not been able to run a consistently high-
quality summer jobs program. Although the 2008 SYEP was a very public fiasco, it
would be a mistake to assume that problems first appeared that year and have
only occurred in the current administration. Former Councilmember Schwartz held
a youth employment roundtable in 2007. Numerous witnesses testified about problems
that are familiar today: youth getting paid to do nothing; difficulty assigning youth to
appropriate sites; difficulty with timekeeping and payroll; and difficulty in reaching DOES
staff to resolve problems. Of course, every summer there are also youth and host sites
who are satisfied and happy with their experience. This should be the norm, but it is
not.

There are numerous factors that hinder DOES/OYP from running a consistently high-
quality program, but the staffing and administrative practices of OYP appear to be a
major barrier and provide a key leverage point for improving the program in the future.
OYP does not appear to have enough staff and/or staff with the appropriate experience
and qualifications. Judging by the program’s history, this has been the case for some
years. Yet, if the program is a priority, why is this situation allowed to continue? I do
not mean this as a naïve or rhetorical question. I understand there are all sorts of
complicating factors in a bureaucracy relating to hiring and letting staff go in order to
assemble the best team. But really, why can’t we do better? The summer jobs
program is a predictable event. It is not a surprise that every summer the city operates
this program – we can foresee that the same problems will occur again and again
unless we make some changes.

Part of the problem with the staffing and administration of the program is insufficient
attention to program quality. In turn, this is related to, though not wholly dependent
upon, the size of the program.

 The size of the program. Every summer, DOES and the Office of Youth
Programs (OYP) have to dramatically ramp up their operations in a short period
of time to run a jobs program that is exponentially larger than any of their other
jobs programs. This is not an insurmountable problem but appears to be a
major challenge for the agency, making it more likely that logistical concerns
(assigning youth to job sites, making sure payroll works and so on) will swamp
quality concerns.

 Insufficient attention to quality. Whatever the program’s size, DOES and OYP
need to ensure the following:

o Youth have the appropriate hard and soft skills for their assigned job sites,
with orientation and support throughout the summer

 This requires developing several categories for youth participants,

identifying youth who are basically work-ready, those who need
some coaching, training and mentoring, and those who need
extensive training and support to succeed in a workplace. Younger
participants (14- and 15-year-olds) probably need their own track
appropriate to their own developmental and enrichment needs (and
also not running afoul of child labor laws).

o Job sites are prepared for youth participants, with appropriate supervision
and work plans for youth, and support and oversight for the job sites.

o Efficient managerial and financial systems to handle registration, job site

assignment, timekeeping, payroll, and troubleshooting.

I don’t want to scapegoat OYP staff. I believe hardworking OYP staff members want to
do their best. Other factors affecting the quality of the program include the
following:

2
  The general state of the economy, affecting the ability of outside job sites (both
private and nonprofit) to host youth

 The program’s current funding structure and design: the agency places youth in
job sites but relies on the sites’ own staff and resources to design a summer work
plan for the participants and supervise them. For sites that only take one or two
youth, this is probably not an issue. For those that employ more youth, however,
it can be a real burden on the agency and reduce the quality of the experience
for the youth. It could be particularly problematic in the case of government
agencies that are mandated to accept youth, whether or not the agency wants
them, is prepared for them, or has work for them.

 Mission creep. The program appears to have multiple goals:

o Preparing young people for the work world

o Keeping young people off the streets and out of trouble
o Providing income for young people and their families

To some degree, these goals inevitably overlap. A young person who is working
is gaining valuable skills and contacts, less likely to engage in risky behavior, and
earning money they can use for themselves or their families. But the “out of
trouble” and “income” goals can dilute the effectiveness of the employment goal.
A program primarily centered on employment will focus on the quality points I
outlined above. If the goal expands to include keeping young people occupied to
reduce crime and to provide them with additional cash, the quality points become
less important as long as the youth are “off the street” and getting paid.

To sum up, I believe that most in the city agree that the SYEP is worth doing. For
years, the city has taken the important step of prioritizing summer jobs for youth, but it
has not backed that up with a commitment to quality. The city has focused on the
size and symbolism of the program, overshadowing the practical steps and
details necessary to make it successful. It doesn’t make sense to run a program
that does not achieve its goals. The city should either get the program right or stop
doing it.