INFORMATION TO USERS

This reproduction was made from a copy of a m anuscript sent to u s for publication
and microfilming. While the m ost advanced technology has been used to p ho­
tograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily
dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. Pages in any m anuscript
may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify notations which
may appear on this reproduction.
1. M anuscripts may not always be complete. When it is not possible to obtain
missing pages, a note appears to indicate this.
2. When copyrighted materials are removed from the m anuscript, a note ap­
pears to indicate this.
3. Oversize materials (maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sec­
tioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand corner and continu­
ing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize
page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional
charge, as a standard 35mm slide or in black and white paper format. *
4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or micro­
fiche b u t lack clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For
an additional charge, all photographs are available in black and w hite
standard 35mm slide format. *
'"For more information about black and white slides or enlarged paper reproductions,
please contact the Dissertations Customer Services Department.

TU T-A/f-T
D|ssertation
iVll Information Service
U niversity M icrofilm s International
A Bell & H ow ell Inform ation C o m p a n y
3 0 0 N. Z e e b R o a d , A nn Arbor, M ich ig a n 4 8 1 0 6

8607078

G a rd n e r, L om an R onald

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TWO YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS IN
DETROIT, MICHIGAN: THE DETROIT YOUTH INCENTIVE ENTITLEMENT
PILOT PROJECT AND THE SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

Michigan State University

University
M icrofilm s
International

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Ph.D.

1985

PLEASE NOTE:

In all c a se s this material h a s been filmed in the best possible w ay from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this docum ent have been identified here with a ch eck mark -✓ .

1.

Glossy photographs or p a g e s _____

2.

Colored illustrations, paper or p rin t_______

3.

Photographs with dark b ack g ro u n d _____

4.

Illustrations are p oor c o p y _______

5.

P ages with black marks, not original copy

6.

Print shows through a s there is text on both sides of p a g e _______

7.

Indistinct, broken o r small print on several pages

8.

Print exceeds m argin req u irem en ts______

9.

Tightly bound co p y with print lost in s p in e _______

tX

10.

Computer printout p ag es with indistinct print_______

11.

P ag e(s)____________ lacking w hen material received, a n d not available from school or
author.

12.

P a g e (s)____________ seem to b e missing in numbering only as text follows.

13.

Two pages n u m b e re d

14.

Curling and wrinkled p a g e s _______

15.

Dissertation co n tain s pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received

16.

Other___________________________________________________________________________

. Text follows.

University
M icrofilm s
International

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TWO YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
PROGRAMS IN DETROIT, MICHIGAN:

THE DETROIT

YOUTH INCENTIVE ENTITLEMENT PILOT PROJECT
AND T H E .SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

By
Loman R . Gardner

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration
19 8 5

ABSTRACT

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TWO YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
PROGRAMS IN DETROIT, MICHIGAN:

THE DETROIT

YOUTH INCENTIVE ENTITLEMENT PILOT PROJECT
AND THE SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

By
Loman R. Gardner

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to compare the
implementation and the recruitment and placement results of
the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project (YIEPP) and
the Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) in Detroit, Mich­
igan.

The study covered the 1980 year of implementation

of both programs.

The study attempted to answer the

following specific

questions:

1.

Is

gram's recruitment

there a difference between the YIEPP pro­
and placement of in-school youth on jobs

and the SYEP program's recruitment and placement of in-school
youth on jobs?
2.

Is

gram's recruitment

there a difference between the YIEPP pr o ­
and placement of out-of-school youth on

jobs and the SYEP program's recruitment and placement of

Loman R. Gardner
out-of-school youth on jobs?
3.

Is there a difference between the YIEPP pro­

gram's number of contacts made for enrollment with in-school
and out-of-school youth and the SYEP program's number of con­
tacts made for enrollment with in-school and out-of-school
youth?
4.

Is there a difference between the YIEPP pro­

gram's recruitment of in-school and out-of-school youth for
program participation and the SYEP program's recruitment of
in-school and out-of-school youth for program participation?
5. Is there a difference between the YIEPP pro­
gram's placement of in-school youth and out-of-school youth
on jobs and the SYEP program's placement of in-school youth
and out-of-school youth on jobs.
6.

Is there a difference between the YEIPP pro­

gram's number of male and female youth recruited for parti­
cipation and the SYEP program's number of male and female
youth recruited for participation?
7.

Is there a difference between the YIEPP pro­

gram's enrollment of in-school youth by ethnicity and the
SYEP program's enrollment of in-school youth by ethnicity?
8.

Is there a difference between the YIEPP pro­

gram's enrollment of out-of-school youth by ethnicity and
the SYEP program's enrollment of out-of-school youth by
ethnicity?

Loman R. Gardner
Procedure
The summary data for both programs were used for
the

1980year of implementation.

The actual number

of youth

contacted, recruited, and placed on jobs were compared.
Each hypothesis was tested using the Chi-square (X^)
analysis.

The significant level of rejection of the hypothesis

was established at .05.

Findings
1.

There was a significant difference between the

numbers of in-school youth recruited and placed by the Youth
Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project and the Summer Youth Employ­
ment Programs.
2.
numbers of

There was no significant difference between the

out-of-school youth recruited and placed by the YIEPP

and SYEP programs.
3.

There was a significant difference between the

number of contacts made with in-school and out-of-school youth
by the YIEPP and SYEP programs.
4.

There was a significant difference between the

numbers of in-school and out-of-school youth recruited for par­
ticipation in the YIEPP and SYEP programs.
5.

There was no significant difference between

the numbers of in-school and out-of-school youth placed on jobs
from the YIEPP and SYEP programs.

Loman R . Gardner

6.

There was a significant difference between the

numbers of male and female youth recruited for participation in
the YIEPP and SYEP programs.
7.

There was no significant difference between the

numbers of in-school youth, by ethnicity, enrolled for partici­
pation in the YIEPP and SYEP programs.
8.

There was no significant difference between

the numbers of out-of-school youth, by ethnicity, enrolled for
participation in the YIEPP and SYEP programs.
The conclusion relative to the comparison of the
two programs was that in the recruitment and placement of in­
school youth on jobs, contacts with in-school and out-of-school
youth, recruitment of in-school and out-of-school youth for
program participation and recruitment of both male and female
youth, the SYEP proved to be more effective.

Both programs

were found to be equally effective in the recruitment and
placement of out-of-school youth, placement of in-school youth
on jobs, recruitment of in-school youth by ethnicity for par­
ticipation and recruitment of out-of-school youth by ethnicity
for program participation.
This researcher recommends that agencies that plan
and implement youth employment programs involve persons from
every facet affected in the planning, implementing and assessing
of the programs.

It is also recommended that more interfacing

Loman R. Gardner

with school administrators, counselors and vocational teachers be
done to more effectively implement the youth employment programs
planned.

DEDICATION

To mother, who constantly told me I could do anything
I wanted to do if I worked hard enough and long enough.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to thank the many people who in
so many ways contributed to his many years of education.
The persons in the education field are too numerous to name
because there are principals and many teachers who have
supported him.
Sincere appreciation is extended to the writer's
committee members.

Special appreciation is extended to

Dr. Louis Romano who provided support and guidance during the
writing of the dissertation.
Finally,

the author wishes to express his deepest

gratitude to his wife, Jimmie, his mother, Lillian Barnett,
and his children, for their patience, sacrifices and encourage­
ment throughout the years of graduate study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ............................................. vi
Chapter
I.

INTRODUCTION

....................................

1

Introduction to the Study
...................
1
Need for the S t u d y ..........................
4
Assumptions
....................................
6
Limitations of the Problem
...................
7
Research Questions
............................. 9
Definition of T e r m s ............................. 11
Overview of the Dissertation Organization
. . 15
II.

REVIEW OF RELATED L I T E R A T U R E ...................... 17
Youth Employment Prior to World War II
. .17
Youth Employment after World War II
. . .19
Legislated Youth Employment Programs
. . .
23
Youth Employment S t u d i e s ........................ 25
S u m m a r y .......................................... 26

III.

DESIGN AND M E T H O D O L O G Y .............................27
................................
27
Introduction
Program Management - Y I E P P ................
27
Program Management - S Y E P ...................... 35
The Population and D a t a ...................
39
Statistical Procedure
.......................
49
S u m m a r y .......................................... 50

IV.

ANALYSIS OF D A T A ................................... 51
Introduction
................................
Results of the Analysis of YIEPP and SYEP . . .
Testing and Hypotheses
. . . . . . .
S u m m a r y ...................................

V.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS
and R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S ..........................

51
51
51
67
71

S u m m a r y ....................................
71
P o p u l a t i o n ................................
75
Discussion of Findings
...................
76
Recommendations
.
77
Recommendations for Further Study. . . .
82
C o n c l u s i o n s .......................................84

iv

Chapter

Page

BIBLIOGRAPHY

.......................................

86

APPENDICES:
A.

Intake and Application - Work Flow
Chart - 1980 S Y E P .......................

94

Paper Flow - Worksite - Monitoring
( Y I E P P ) .................................

97

C.

Program Activity Summary (YIEPP)

98

D.

Participant Performance Standards
( Y I E P P ) .................................

99

Y.I.E.P.P. Report Card for Alternative
Education Students
........................

101

B.

E.

v

. . . .

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.

2.

3.

4.

Page
Total Number of In-School Youth Recruited in the
Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project in
Detroit, Michigan in 1980 ............................

40

Total Number of In-School Youth, by Ethnicity,
Recruited for Participation in the Youth
Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project in
Detroit, Michigan in 1980 ............................

41

Total Number of Out-of-School Youth Contacted
for Enrollment in the Youth Incentive Entitle­
ment Pilot Project in Detroit, Michigan in 1980 . .

42

Total Number of Out-of-School Youth, by Ethnicity,
Contacted for Enrollment in Youth Incentive
Entitlement Pilot Project in Detroit, Michigan,
in 1980 ..............................................

43

5.

Total Number and Percentage of In-School Youth
Placed on Jobs in Detroit, Michigan in 1980
Through the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot
P r o j e c t ................................................ 44

6.

Total Number and Percentage of Out-of-School
Youth Placed on Jobs in Detroit, Michigan
in 1980 through the Youth Incentive Entitle­
ment Pilot P r o j e c t .................................... 44

7.

Total Number of In-School Youth Contacted
for Enrollment in the Youth Incentive
Entitlement Pilot Project in Detroit,
Michigan in 1980 .............

45

Total Number of In-School Youth Recruited for
Participation in the Summer Youth Employment
Program inDetroit, Michigan in 1980 ................

45

Total Number of In-School Youth, by Ethnicity,
Recruited for participation in the Summer
Youth Employment Program in Detroit, Michigan
in 1980 ..............................................

46

Total Number of Out-of-School Youth Con­
tacted for Enrollment in the Summer Youth
Employment Program in Detroit, Michigan
in 1980 ..............................................

46

8.

9.

10.

vi

Table
11.

12.

Page
Total Number of Out-of-School Youth by Ethnicity
Contacted for Participation in the Summer Youth
Employment Program in Detroit, Michigan in 1980 . . .
Total Number and Percentage of In-School Youth
placed on jobs in Detroit, Michigan in 1980
through the Summer Youth Employment Program ..........

47

48

13.

Total Number and Percentage of Out-of-School
Youth Placed on Jobs in Detroit, Michigan in
1980 through the Summer Youth Employment
P r o g r a m ...................................................48

14.

Total Number of In-School Youth Contacted for
Enrollment in the Summer Youth Employment
Program in Detroit, Michigan in 1980 ...............

49

Comparison between the Number of In-School
Youth Recruited and Placed on Jobs in the
YIEPP and SYEP programs in Detroit, Michigan
in 1980 ................................................

52

15.

16.

Data Calculations for Null Hypothesis O n e .............. 53

17.

Comparison Between the Number of Out-of-School
Youth Recruited and Placed on Jobs in the
YIEPP and SYEP Programs in Detroit, Michigan
in 1980 ................................................
.............

54
55

18.

Data Calculations for Hypothesis Two

19.

Comparison Between the Number of Contacts
made with In-School and Out-of-School youth
for enrollment in the YIEPP and SYEP Pro­
grams in Detroit, Michigan in 1980 ...................

56

20.

Data Calculations for Hypothesis Three ................

57

21.

Comparison between the Number of In-School
and Out-of-School Youth Recruited for
participation in the YIEPP and SYEP Programs
in Detroit, Michigan in 1980 ..........................

58

22.

Data Calculations for Hypothesis F o u r .................. 59

23.

Comparison Between the Number of In-School
and Out-of-School Youth Placed on jobs from
the YIEPP and SYEP Programs in Detroit,
Michigan in 1980

vii

60

Table
24.
25.

Page
Data Calculations for Hypothesis F i v e ................ 61
Comparison Between the Numbers of Male and Female
Youth Recruited for Participation in the YIEPP and
SYEP Programs in Detroit, Michigan in 1980 .........

62

26.

Data Calculations for Hypothesis S i x ................. 63

27.

Comparison between the Number of In-School
Youth, by Ethnicity, Enrolled for Participation
in the YIEPP and SYEP Programs in Detroit,
Michigan in 1980 .............

64

28.

Data Calculations for Hypothesis Seven .............

65

29.

Comparison Between the Number of Out-of School
Youth, by Ethnicity, Enrolled for Participation
in the YIEPP and SYEP Programs in Detroit,
Michigan in 1980

viii

. 67

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Study

In the United States, youth between the ages of
fourteen and twenty-one have traditionally had a higher rate
of unemployment than other age groups.

In Detroit, Michigan,

like other large cities, attempts have been made to decrease the
unemployment rate of youth through employment projects funded
by the city, state or federal government.

Two of the youth

employment projects implemented by the city of Detroit were,
"The Detroit Youth Entitlement Pilot Project" and "The Summer
Youth Employment Program."
Current data specifically indicate that annual
unemployment rates of youth in the United States have not
decreased below the level of eleven percent since 1954.

The

annual average unemployment rates have, in fact, continued
to rise.

Unemployment rates of teenagers averaged 16.8 per­

cent between 1970 and 1978 as compared with 14.3 percent in
1961 and 11.4 percent in the 1950's (Butler, 1980).

While

unemployment rates of all youth have consistently risen, un ­
employment among minority youth in the United States, has
consistently been about double that of white youth until
1977 when the interval widened even more.

At the national

level, the jobless rate for non-white youth was 38.5 percent

1

in 1977 or 2.5 times the white race,

(Johnson, Miriam and

Sugarman, 1377).
The unemployment rates of youth who resided in
the Detroit, Michigan area were similar to the national
rates.

The Michigan Employment Security Commission, Re­

search and Statistics Division

(MESC) indicated that the

Detroit, Michigan's unemployment rate for white youth ages
16-19 was 18.3 percent while the unemployment rate for
Black youth in the same age group was 37.2 percent.

Non­

white females in the 16-19 age group had the highest unem­
ployment rate of any group

(49.4 percent)

(MESC, 1979).

Youth unemployment problems stem from an early
acceptance of child labor in the United States.

One of the

most important reasons for child labor in the 1800's was
the scarcity of laborers as the United States entered the
age of industrialization.

During that time, most adult males

were involved in agriculture; therefore, women and children
made up the bulk of the work force in the first factories.
Economic conditions also served to promote the acceptance
of child labor.

Although many states as well as the Federal

Government attempted to ratify legislation eliminating child
labor, little was accomplished until the passage of the First
Child Labor Law in 1836 by Massachusetts.
states began to follow suit.

Gradually other

In 1848, Pennsylvania became

the first state to establish a minimum age for employment in

3
the cotton, woolen and flax factories.

By 1855 three other

states established minimum wages for factory work:
Jersey, Rhode Island and Connecticut.

New

Although the good

intent was there, early state laws were basically ineffective
because the legislators did not provide the means of enforce­
ment,

(Adams, Mangum, Seninger and Stevenson,

1978).

Federally-funded programs to decrease the jobless
rates of youth have been plentiful, beginning with the 1962
Manpower Development and Training Act

(MDTA) and culminating

with the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) of
1973 and the Youth Employment and Demonstration Act (YEDPA)
of 1977.

As a means of attacking its problem of unemploy­

ment among youth, Detroit, Michigan used two of these funding
sources to implement two youth employment programs.

The Detroit

Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project was funded by the
Manpower Development and Training Act while the Detroit Summer
Youth Employment Program was funded through the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act.

Need for the Study
In an effort to alleviate the youth unemployment
problem in the United States, Congress has provided experi­
mental employment and training programs for youth since 1962.

4
Congress legislated activities and programs aimed at dis­
covering the underlying cause of youth unemployment and
possible solutions.

The Youth Employment and Demonstration

Project Act (YEDPA) programs were similar, if not the same
youth programs implemented over the past twenty-four years,
i.e., conservation projects,

institutional and on-the-job

training work experience, counseling, placement and other
kinds of support services,
Stevenson,

(Adams, Mangum, Seninger and

1978).
Mangum and Walsh (1978) stated that youth employ­

ment and training programs varied based upon the emphasis
of society.

In the mid 1960's, particular programs were

measured a failure if enrollment of hard core disadvan­
taged youth were at a minimum.

The program was criticised

for enrolling only the best of the disadvantaged.

The

emerging of the dual labor market theory led to wholesale
condemnation of employment and training programs for pre­
paring enrollees for placement in the secondary labor market
low paying, deadend jobs which most enrollees could obtain
without program enrollment.
In 1976, with the unemployment rate among all
youth nationally at 16.9 percent, and the YEDPA passed,
the national black youth unemployment rate was 37.1 percent.

5
A rate of 43.3 percent unemployment for Metropolitan poverty
areas was the extreme of that trend with much higher rates
for specific central cities and neighborhoods,
ment of Labor,

(U.S. Depart­

1977).

All of this might have been only of passing dif­
ficulty for each youth if unemployment as a teenager had
no long term consequences.

However, in tracking employment

patterns of 1,500 young men and women, it was found that
early labor market experiences are related to subsequent
measure of labor market success,

(Adams, Mangum, Seninger,

Stevenson 1978).
The use of the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot
Program and the Summer Youth Employment Program in Detroit,
Michigan was an attempt to have an impact on the youth un­
employment problems in that city, and based upon historical
information,

(Chapter II), Congress will continue to address

youth unemployment problems nationwide.

This study is,

therefore, needed because.it will provide data in analyzing
the effectiveness of two youth unemployment programs.

The

information gained will be helpful in determining target
populations for youth unemployment programs, determining
effective strategies for reaching "in-school" and "out-of-

6

school" unemployed youth and determining which type of
youth unemployment program is more effective, if either is,
in identifying and placing unemployed youth on jobs.

This

study is also needed because while there is much descriptive
information available on youth unemployment, a data search
of literature revealed very little statistical analysis of
data on youth unemployment programs.

Assumptions
The implementation of the Youth Incentive En­
titlement Pilot Project (YIEPP) and the Summer Youth Employ­
ment Program (SYEP) emphasized the recruitment and placement
of female as well as male participants. The researcher, there­
fore, assumes that the participation requirements for female
and male youth in youth employment programs were the same.
The implementation of the YIEPP and the SYEP re­
quired plans for management of the total program although
the YIEPP was a program operated for the entire year and
SYEP was a program operated only during the stammer months.
The researcher, therefore, assumes that the management of
a full-year youth employment program was as efficient as a
summer youth employment program.

7
The implementation of the youth unemployment pro­
grams requires plans for recruitment and placement of unem­
ployed youth on jobs.

Both the Youth Incentive Entitlement

Pilot Project and the Summer Youth Employment Program included
plans for the recruitment and placement of "in-school" and
"out-of-school" youth on jobs.

The researcher, therefore,

assumes that the in-school youth were as capable and trainable
for participation in youth employment programs as out-of­
school youth.

Limitations of the Problem
There are many factors that could be studied
about the two youth unemployment programs:

the Youth Incen­

tive Entitlement Pilot Program and the Summer Youth Employ­
ment Program.

This study was limited in that it utilized

the two youth unemployment programs implemented in Detroit,
Michigan,

during the year 1980.

It utilized the nominal data

available from both programs on the youth contacted, enrolled,
recruited and placed on jobs.

Sources of the data were the City of Detroit file
data on both the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project
and the Summer Youth Employment Program (YIEPP and SYEP).
The nominal data for the YIEPP, prior to September 1, 1979

through August 31, 1980, were not available.

The City of

Detroit file data on the Summer Youth Employment Program
(SYEP)

were available for the summer of 1979 and 1980. Ho w ­

ever, this study was limited to the 1980 year of operation
for both the YIEPP and SYEP.
Statement of the Problem
Implementation of the Youth Incentive Entitle­
ment Pilot Project and the Summer Youth Employment Program
during 1980 in Detroit, Michigan, required the development
of contact, recruitment and placement strategies for "in­
school" and "out-of-school" youth.

Both programs also had

to utilize training sessions for participants.

Each pro­

gram had the responsibility of identifying and negotiating
employment contracts with employers.
The implementation required not only the con­
tact, recruitment and placement of "in-school" and out-of­
school" unemployed youth in Detroit, Michigan, but it also
required the management of these youth on their jobs.
The major purpose of this study was to analyze
two federally-funded youth employment programs implemented
in Detroit, Michigan,

and compare the effectiveness of the

programs in management, enrollment, recruitment and job
assignment.

9
Specifically the study included:
1.

a review of the Federal laws pertaining to

youth employment;
2.

a comparison of the management of the two

3.

a comparison of the two programs' outreach/

programs;

recruitment/intake procedures for in-school and out-of-school
youth;
4.

a comparison of the job placement rates for

in-school and out-of-school youth of the two programs
5.

and

a comparison of the populations of in-school

and out-of-school youth contacted, recruited and placed on
jobs by the two programs.

Research Questions

1.

Is

gram's recruitment

there a difference between the YIEPP

pro­

and placement of in-school youth on jobs

and the SYEP program's recruitment and placement of in-school
youth on jobs?
2.

Is

there a difference between the YIEPP

pro­

gram's recruitment

and placement of out-of-school youth

on

jobs and the SYEP program's recruitment and placement of
out-of-school youth on jobs?

10
3.

Is there a difference between the YIEPP pro­

gram's number of contacts made for enrollment with in-school
and out-of-school youth and the SYEP program's number of con­
tacts made for enrollment with in-school and out-of-school
youth?
4.

Is there a difference between the YIEPP pro­

gram's recruitment of in-school and out-of-school youth for
program participation and the SYEP program's recruitment of
in-school and out-of-school youth for program participation?
5.

Is there a difference between the YIEPP pro­

gram's placement of in-school youth and out-of-school youth
on jobs and the SYEP program's placement of in-school youth
and out-of-school youth on jobs?
6.

Is there a difference between the

gram's number of male and

female youth recruited

YIEPP pro­
for parti­

cipation and the SYEP program's number of male and female
youth recruited for participation?
7.

Is there a difference between the

gram's enrollment

of in-school youth

YIEPP pro­

by ethnicity and the

SYEP program's enrollment of in-school youth by ethnicity?
8.

Is there a difference between the YIEPP pro­

gram's enrollment of out-of-school youth by ethnicity and
the SYEP program's enrollment of out-of-school youth by
ethnicity?

11
Definition of Terms
Balance of State - The area which consists of
all areas within a State which are' not within the juris­
dictions of local Prime Sponsors and, therefore, are served
by the State acting as the Prime Sponsor.

In Michigan 46

rural counties are in the Balance of the State.
CETA - Comprehensive Employment' and Training
Act, the Federal Legislation which authorized funding for a
wide range of employment and training services to youth and
adults.
Classroom Training - Any .training normally con­
ducted in an institutional setting, including vocational
education, which is designed to provide individuals with
the technical skills and information required to perform a
specific job or group of jobs.

It may also include train­

ing designed to enhance the employability of individuals
by upgrading basic skills, through the provisions of courses
such as remedial education, training in the primary language
proficiency, or English-as-a-second language training.
Governor1s Grant - Refers to discretionary monies
made available by the U.S. Department of Labor to Governors
through Title II of CETA.

In Michigan these monies are

administered by the State Operations Division of the Bureau
of Employment and Training.

12
Governor1s Youth Grant - Refers to discretion­
ary monies made available by the U.S. Department of Labor
to Governors through Title IV of CETA.

In Michigan these

monies are administered by the State Operations Division
of the Bureau of Employment and Training.
On-the-Job Training

(OJT) - Training to the

public or private sector given to an individual who has
been hired by the employer, while he or she is engaged in
productive work which provides knowledge or skills essen­
tial to the full and adequate performance of the job.
Prime Sponsor - A unit of general local govern­
ment which has a population of 100,000 or more persons on
the basis of the most satisfactory current date available
to the Secretary of Labor.

Also any consortium of units

of local government which include a unit with a popula­
tion of 100,000 or more persons.

A recipient of finan­

cial assistance designated pursuant to appropriate sections
of the CETA regulations.
Region V - The U.S. Department of Labor admin­
isters CETA programs through ten regional offices.

Michi­

gan is in Region V along with Ohio, Illinois, Indiana,
Wisconsin and Minnesota.

The Regional Offices are in

Chicago.
Supportive Services - Services which are de­

13
signed to contribute to availability of participants, en­
hance their employment opportunities, assist them to re­
tain employment or to participate in other employment and
training activities funded under CETA, and training acti­
vities funded under CETA, and facilitate their movement in­
to permanent employment not subsidized under CETA.

Such

services include but are not limited to: health care and
medical services, child care, transportation, temporary
shelter, assistance in securing bonds, family planning
services and financial counseling and assistance.
SYEP - Summer Youth Employment Program provided
productive work experience and vocational exploration dur­
ing the summer months.
Title II B/C - Established programs to provide
comprehensive employment and training services in order
to ease barriers to labor force participation encountered
by economically disadvantaged persons to enable such per­
sons to secure and retain employment at their maximum
capacity, and to enhance the potential for individuals to
increase their earned income.

These programs include the

development and creation of training, upgrading and retraining-education and other services needed to enable in­
dividuals to secure and retain employment.

A Title of

CETA.
Vocational Exploration Program (VEP) - A pro-

14
gram designed for the purpose of exposing youth to the
operation and types of jobs available in the private sec­
tor through observation of such jobs and instruction in­
cluding, where appropriate, limited practical experience.
Young Adult Conservation Corps.

(YACC) - This

organization provided opportunities for those ready to
tacr.lo structured, supervised work in an outdoor setting.
Youth Community Conservation and Improvement
Projects

(YCCIP) - These projects aimed mostly at out-of-

school youth who needed work in their own communities.
Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects
Act of 1977

(YEDPA) - This Act

(Public Law 95-93) amended

the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act by adding
several new programs for youth.
Youth Employment and Training Program (YEPT) This program concentrated on both in-school and out-of­
school youth, with an emphasis on linking education and
work.
Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Projects

(YIEPP) -

An' experimental project in Detroit that guaranteed jobs
to all in-school youth or those who agree to return to
school in a five high school region of the city.

YIEPP

tested what a job guarantee would do to encourage youth to
complete their education.

15
Job Corps - An established program that served
the most needy with comprehensive human resource develop­
ment services and residential support.

A national system

of residential centers in the United States and Puerto
Rico provided basic education, vocational training, coun­
seling, health care and similar renewal services to help
disadvantaged young men and women, sixteen through twentyone, prepare for jobs and for responsible citizenship.

En-

rollees in Job Corps residential centers received room and
board, clothing for work and dress, books and other learn­
ing supplies, and a cash allowance, part of which was paid
on leaving the program after satisfactory participation.
Knowledge Development - A broad scale approach
to learning which employment and training programs work
best for whom.

Most of the knowledge development activi­

ties are research and demonstration programs funded under
discretionary monies from the Office of Youth Program, U.S.
Department of Labor.
Overview of the Dissertation Organization
In this Chapter the introduction provided the
background for the study.

The need for the study and cer­

tain assumptions were discussed in detail.

The limitations

of the study were explained and a statement of the problem
was presented.

Research questions and definitions of terms

concluded the Chapter.

Chapter II will contain a review

of the literature which is relevant to the study.

Chapter

III will present a description of the organization of the
Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Program and the Summer
Youth Employment Program; it will also explore the method
of investigation.

Chapter IV will present the analysis

and discussion of the data with respect to the research
questions.

Chapter V will present a summary of conclusions,

implications and recommendations for future research.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The attempt to reform child labor had an impact,
not only on legislative action, but also the high rates of
joblessness.

A historical review is nesessary to ensure that

the extent to which child labor reform and high rates of job­
lessness have influenced legislative action and the overall
job market in the United States is understood.

Youth Employment Prior to World War II
In the late 1800s and early 1900s child labor
reform became prominent.

The U.S. Congress made its first

attempt at Federal Legislation by passing the Keating Owen
Bill in 1916.

This law was to establish minimum age, maxi­

mum working hours and to prohibit foreign or interstate
commerce of goods by establishments employing children in
violation of the law.

The law was in effect 273 days when

the U. S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional on the
grounds that Congress did not have the authority to regu­
late interstate commerce.

In 1919, Congress passed a law

to levy a ten percent tax on the annual net profits of
companies employing children in violation of standards very
similar to those of the previous legislation.

This law al­

so was declared unconstitutional in 1922 by the U. S. Su­
preme Court, with the argument that child labor was a mat-

17

18

ter to be regulated by the individual states.

In 1924

Congress attempted to amend the Constitution as a means
of overcoming the legal barriers prohibiting earlier
legislation, but the amendment met with opposition and
did not receive the necessary votes from the states to
pass.

During the 1930s another attempt was made to legis­

late child labor through a comprehensive reform program
known as the National Industrial Recovery Act.

The in­

tent of this law was to eliminate unfair business competi­
tion by establishing minimum labor standards to assist in
stabilizing the economy.
the U.S. Supreme Court.

This law was also invalidated by
In 1936, the first Federal Child

Labor Law to successfully withstand the test of constitu­
tionality was the Walsh-Healty Public Contracts Act.

In

1937, provisions were added to a newly adopted Sugar Act,
requiring growers to comply with minimum age standards in
order for them to be eligible for subsidies.

The follow­

ing year, a major breakthrough occurred in Child Labor
reform legislation with the passage of the Fair Labor
Standard Act

(FLSA), (Adams, Mangum, Seninger, Stevenson,

1978) .
Mangum and Walsh, 1978, stated that included
within the Fair Labor Standard Act were provisions to pro­
tect the well-being, health and educational opportunities
of working minors.

Since then amendments have strengthen-

ed its powers and broadened its coverage making it the
law applying to companies directly engaged in interstate
commerce.

It prohibits the use of oppressive child labor,

defined as Employment of Children under the legal minimum
ages.

According to the law, youth eighteen (18) years or

older can work any job; 16, 17 year-olds can work nonhazardous jobs for unlimited hours and 14 and 15 year-olds
can work nonhazardous jobs outside of school for no more
than three hours on a school day, eighteen hours in a school
week, eight hours on a non-school day or forty hours in a
non-school week.

Under this law, the Secretary of Labor

determines which occupations are dangerous for minors.
minimum wage that employers pay workers,

The

including minors,

comes under the purview of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Youth Employment After World War II
In the post World War II era, youth suffered
from high rates of joblessness even when the Labor force
as a whole experienced relatively low levels of unemploy­
ment.

In 194 3, teenage unemployment averaged 9.2 percent

in the United States as compared with an overall rate of
3.8.

In no year since 194 8 has youth employment fallen

below 7.5 percent which was approached in 1953.

By the

year 1975 youth unemployment had soared to 19.9 percent,
(Levitan and Taggart, 1976).

20
Legislated Youth Employment Programs
In 1962 the Manpower Development and Training
Act (MDTA) was enacted.

Since then the U.S. Department

of Labor had administered many kinds of training and em­
ployment programs designed to assist unemployed,
come individuals find jobs.

low in­

Initially the focus of these

efforts was on adult family heads threatened with job
loss because of automation within the industry.

The high

rate of unemployment among youth had the effect of redi­
recting MDTA efforts to youth programs.

From 1963 onward,

amendments to MDTA increased the proportion of funds avail­
able for Youth Training and Allowances.

At the same time,

new programs were proposed and enacted for the purpose of
serving economically disadvantaged young people both in
and out of school,(U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Ad­
ministration, 1971),.
The Neighborhood Youth Corps

(NYC) was one of

two programs authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act
(EOA) of 1964.

The NYC offered subsidized work experi­

ence in the Public and Private Agencies to youth between
the ages of fourteen and twenty-one.

For those youth

attempting to complete their high school education, the
in-school program provided up to fifteen hours a week of
paid work experiences during the school year to students
in the ninth through twelfth grades from low-income fami­

21
lies.

In addition the NYC Summer Program provided nine-

week, part-time jobs in hospitals, libraries, schools and
other public agencies, or within local summer recreation
programs.

Although the NYC out-of-school program encour­

aged participants to return to school, it was recognized
that drop-outs would need special attention to qualify
for jobs with advancement potential.

Therefore these

early projects offered mainly work experience.

By 1970,

the Department of Labor had reorganized the program com­
ponent of NYC, thereafter calling it NYC-2.

The emphasis

became skill training, remedial education, and supporting
services and efforts were redirected to the sixteen to
seventeen year-old drop-outs,

(Taggart, 1976).

The Job Corps Training Program, also authorized
by the 196 4 Economic Opportunity Act, was administered
through 1969 by the Office of Economic Opportunity and
then transferred to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Present­

ly the program serves approximately 44,000 disadvantaged
youth, ages sixteen to twenty-one, who receive remedial
education, skill training and on-the-job work experience,
coupled with counseling and health services, (U.S . General
Accounting Office, 1977) .
Riegelson,

1972, stated that Public Employment

(PEP), a public service employment effort which was author­
ized by the Emergency Employment Act

(EEA) of 1971 was not

22
exclusively a youth program.

The legislature did name youth

as one of several groups needing special consideration for
Federally-funded public service jobs.
In 1973, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Em­
ployment and Training Act (CETA).

The objectives of the

Legislation, which was authorized in 1978, were to bring to­
gether fragmented categorical programs serving many groups
into a broad training and employment effort and to transfer
responsibility for planning and operating these programs from
the Federal Government to State and Geographical localities.
Under CETA Prime Sponsors are mostly governmental units in
areas with populations of 10,000 or more, and are responsible
for locally tailored comprehensive programs of training, em­
ployment, and related services supported with Federal Funds.
Today as in 1973, youth are served in activities authorized by
most titles of the Act., i.e., Title IIB and Comprehensive
Services, upgrading and retraining;

IID - Public Service Employ­

ment (PSE) Programs for economically disadvantaged.
IV and VII also authorize youth activities.

Titles III,

(U.S. Department

of Lab o r , 1977).
In 1977, the Youth Employment and Demonstration
Act (YEDPA) was enacted which added four youth employment
programs to the U. S. Department of Labor's Summer Pro­
gram for Economically Disadvantaged Youth (SPEDY)

23
and Job Corps program; this was an effort to broaden the
Federal Government's attack on youth unemployment, with
emphasis on disadvantaged youth.

The CETA youth programs

were established to combat the high rate of unemployment
among disadvantaged youth, (Bruno, 1978) .
Youth Employment Studies
Several studies addressed the problems of youth
unemployment and related factors.
Gibson, 1981, studied the scores attained by
Coordinated Vocational Academic Education

(CVAE) completers

on the six subtests of the Program for Assessing Youth Em­
ployment Skills and compared these scores with those at­
tained by newly enrolled CVAE students.

Gibson found that

participation in the CVAE program for one year enhanced
the attitudes of disadvantaged CVAE students.

Gibson also

found that there was an increase in these students' cog­
nitive knowledge of basic employment skills.

It was recom­

mended by the researcher that appropriate activities be
implemented to improve job-seeking and job-holding skills
and that the work experience component of the CVAE pro­
grams be broadened.
Butler, 1980, reviewed the problems, programs
and policies of youth employment in the United States and
found that the problem was not simply an unemployment

24
problem, but rather a youth problem.

Butler, 1980, fur­

ther examined the implementation of the Youth Employment
and Demonstration Projects Act

(YEDPA) in Boston and

found that it was difficult to develop a coordinated local
strategy in Boston.

Boston was able to make progress in

reforming the delivery system for youth employment;

in

developing new institutional relationships among CETA pro­
grams; and in quadrupling the number of young people re­
ceiving employment services.
Yarusso, 19 79, studied the assumptions on which
Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act
and Youth Employment and Training Programs
based.

(YEDPA)

(YETP) were

Yarusso also examined the goals of the two programs.

He found that there were serious flaws in the assumptions
on which the YETP was based.

He also found that all goals

of the YEDPA were impossible to achieve since some goals
were in total conflict with others.

To ascertain these

conclusions, Yarusso conducted the study in four separate
but inter-related stages.

In the first stage, histori­

cal methodology was applied to determine the assumptions
that led to YEDPA and to establish the legislative and
administrative requirements of YETP.

The second stage

sought to determine the content of typical YETP submis­
sions from prime sponsors.
potential outcomes.

The third stage identified

The fourth stage applied conceptual

25
analysis to five as stamp tions that were specific to YEDPA.
This conceptual analysis permitted the researcher to iden­
tify assumptions that were inconsistent with other assump­
tions.

The integration of the four stages allowed the

researcher to show the complete effect the YETP would have
on the schools.
Lapinski,

1976, studied thirty-one Cooperative-

Work Experience students, thirty-one employers and thirtyone parents through the responses on an instrument "Tran­
sition from school to work."

The researcher found that the

major problem had to do with the youth's perception of job
satisfaction.

This perception of youth was often the de­

terminant in whether a student was successful on a job and
ultimately retained the job on which he or she had been
placed.

It was also found that many students had unrealis­

tic perceptions about the employer-employee relationship and
ultimately the performance and attitude of the student toward
work in general and the actual job on which he or she worked
specifically.
Summary
Review of the previously cited literature re­
vealed that youth employment problems have been prevalent
enough for Congress to address these concerns since 1916.
These first congressional laws were designed to regulate.

and limit the hiring of youth.

However, since the post

World War II years, the labor market in the United States
has been characterized by high rates of joblessness among
youth.

As a result of the high rates of joblessness,

congressional action since the post World War II years
has focused on the problems of unemployment among youth.
Most of the congressional action since 1962 and the enact­
ment of the Manpower Development and Training Act has been
enacted to administer employment programs designed to as­
sist low income youth in finding jobs.

The literature

located by the researcher emphasized the historical, ad­
ministrative or attitudinal aspect of the youth employ­
ment problem.

CHAPTER

III

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Introduction
It should be recalled that the researcher's
major purpose of this study was to analyze the two federal­
ly-funded youth employment programs implemented in Detroit,
Michigan and compare the effectiveness of the programs in
management, recruitment and job assignment.

To compare

the effectiveness of the two programs in management, a de­
tailed description of the operations of both the Youth
Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project and Summer Youth Em ­
ployment Program is presented.
Program Management - YIEPP
The Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project
(YIEPP) was implemented in Detroit, Michigan in 1979 - 1980
to guarantee quality work experiences to all youth who
"met the eligibility criteria and who also agreed to re­
main in or return to school."

(McKinney, 1979).

Youth

between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one from homes
whose family income was at or below the poverty level were
eligible to participate.

The City of Detroit Manpower

Department was given full operational control of the
proj e c t .
To ensure effective operation of the project,

27

28
the Manpower Department sub-contracted with the Chrysler
Learning, Inc. to assume responsibility for the recruit­
ment, job assignment and job retention of "out-of-school"
youth.

The Manpower Department also sub-contracted with

Chrysler Learning, Inc. to provide all non-educational
services for the "out-of-school" youth.

The contract

with Chrysler Learning, Inc. was a performance-based con­
tract.

Additionally, YIEPP maintained a non-financial

agreement with Michigan Employment Security Commission
(MESC) to provide job matching services and to maintain
the job bank for the program.

Under this agreement, six

MESC Placement Specialists were stationed at six YIEPP
Intake Centers.
The Manpower Department sub-contracted with
the Detroit Public School

(DPS) to provide the outreach

and recruitment services for all "in-school" youth.
The major functions of the Manpower Depart­
ment for YIEPP were those of worksite operations, work
coordination, intake and contract services

(worksite

development) and monitoring and analysis.

The Manpower

Department was responsible for receiving all participant
performance data from the Detroit Public Schools and
Chrysler Learning, Inc.
all contracts.

The Department also negotiated

A second contract was negotiated with

Chrysler Learning, Inc. to provide all non-educational

29
services for the "out-of-school" population.

This con­

tract also authorized Chrysler Learning to develop a
detailed work plan.

YIEPP management expected Chrysler

to mirror the intake,

job development, placement, and

worksite coordination functions as YIEPP staff.

The

Chrysler contract was a performance-based contract, and
YIEPP assigned monitors from the Monitoring and Analysis
Unit to assure quality performance for both this contract
and the one with the Detroit Public Schools.

The Project

Manager met with Chrysler representatives on a monthly
basis to review progress and devise solutions to problems
which arose.
Under re-organization YIEPP maintained its nonfinancial agreement with the Michigan Employment Security
Commission

(MESC) to provide job matching services and to

maintain the job bank for the program.

Under this agree­

ment, six (6) MESC Placement Specialist were stationed at
the YIEPP Intake Centers.

Their performance was monitor­

ed by the six (6) supervisors at the Intake Center.
Worksite Operations
Worksite Operations was the largest functional
division within YIEPP.

This staff assumed responsibility

for participants after they received their work assign­
ment.

The Division was composed of three

(3) units:

N

30
Work Coordination, Work Supervision, and Participants'
Services.
The Work Coordination unit had the responsi­
bility for maintaining regularly scheduled meetings with
participants and employers at the more than six-hundred
(600) worksites.

The staff of participant coordinators

addressed problems as they arose, reported all enrollee
status changes, assured that standards were met for evalu­
ation of participant work performance and submitted regu­
larly scheduled weekly performance reports to the manage­
ment unit.

Participant Coordinators were expected to

spend at least one-half hour per month with each of the
participants for whom they were responsible.
staff, there were six

At full

(6) supervisors and forty-three

(43) participant coordinators.

The supervisors were re­

sponsible for supervision at large not-for-profit and
public worksites where they were responsible for general
supervision, worker support and picking up time sheets.
Each sub-unit had one Coordinator, five Supervisors and
forty-four Worksite Supervisors.

Worksite Supervisors

maintained the weekly pick-up routes and accounted for
each enrollee.
"Worksite Operations" also contained a "Parti­
cipant Services."

The payroll portion of this unit de­

veloped time sheets routine, assigned worksite supervisors
to them, logged in time sheets when they were delivered
from the field, verified time sheets for correct informa­
tion and answered participants' questions about payroll.
Participant Services prepared information for the Manpower
Department's Payroll Unit.

The Work Confirmation and

Participant Information Office of this unit recorded the
sites and the participants as they became active, main­
tained records on temporarily inactive participants and
handled questions for youth whose Participant Coordinators
were not present.
nine employees.

The "Participant Services" Unit had
"Worksite Operations" were under the di­

rections of the Assistant Manager for operations.

The

assistant manager was responsible for the day-to-day per­
formance of his staff.

He held weekly staff meetings and

met more frequently with unit coordinators to exchange
information, review progress and discuss problems.
Intake and Contract Services

(Worksite Development)

An Assistant Manager for Intake and Contract
Services was responsible for operating two intake units
to bring in new participants and to develop and maintain
all job related information.

An intake Coordinator super­

vised the operation of six Intake Center, although each
center had a Supervisor of its own to monitor day-to-day

32
tasks.

There were fourteen Intake Workers located

throughout the Centers.
The Contract Services Division
velopment)

(Worksite De­

identified potential worksites, developed and

clarified all job descriptions, reviewed facilities and
confirmed worksites.

There were eight Central Service

Representatives responsible for worksite development.
The Supervisor of the Intake Center was respon­
sible for assuring that sufficient quality worksites exist­
ed to accommodate all participants, maintaining accurate
sponsor description cards and worksite master lists, and
negotiating shared-cost agreements with private employers
to reduce subsidies.
Monitoring and Analysis
There was an Assistant Manager for Monitoring
and Analysis who managed a unit which systematically ex­
amined project performance in meeting programmatic and
fiscal objectives, established monitoring standards,
supervised the use of Management Information System,
supervised special analytical studies, and served as a
liaison with educational agencies.
Two monitoring units reported to the Assistant
Manager.

Each unit had a Supervisor and nine monitors.

33
The first sub-unit assessed the performance or sub-con­
tractors such as Chrysler Learning,
Group, Inc.

Inc., MESC, Payroll

The second sub-unit monitored all worksites,

with more attention given to the sites where there was a
high risk of employee substitution.

The monitoring units

also focused on internal program operations, such as con­
tract services, intake, job placement and payroll to en­
sure quality operation.

Criteria was developed for inter­

nal operations based on planned goals generated by the
staff.

The Monitoring sub-units monitored deviations from

plans and reported problems to the top management of YIEPP.
The Planning and Educational Liaison Sub-unit
included a Program Specialist who identified and resolved
deficiencies within the Management Information System, pro­
vided technical monitoring assistance, designed data col­
lection instruments and developed procedures.
The Sub-unit also included .an Educational Liai­
son Specialist who was the liaison with public, private and
non-profit educational contractors.

The Specialists' re­

sponsibilities included assuring the maintenance of educa­
tional standards and achieving the enrollment targets,
negotiating and evaluating performance of alternative edu­
cation programs and enrichment projects, monitoring per­
formance against educational standards, and resolving

34
problems involving the Prime Sponsor and education insti­
tutions .
The outreach and recruitment of the "out-of­
school" youth conducted by Chrysler Learning, Inc., and other
contractual obligations of the company were monitored on a
weekly basis by the YIEPP monitoring unit.
The procedures used for outreach and recruit­
ment by Chrysler

Learning, Inc., were:

advertising in local and
community papers,
contacting possible em­
ployers ,
reviewing student records
contacting churches and
other organizations
and
placing flyers in public
places.
The "out-of-school youth" had to be more accurately de­
fined since there were youth who had completed high school
who were eligible based on the criteria.

As a result

"out-of-school youth" was defined to mean any student who
was not in high school who was between the ages of four­
teen and twenty-one and who also met the eligibility
criteria.

35
Program Management - SYEP
The Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) was
implemented in Detroit, Michigan during the Summer of 1980
to provide eligible youth with "useful work" and suffici­
ent basic education and institutional or vocational train­
ing to assist the youth to develop their maximum occupa­
tional potential and to obtain employment under CETA
(McKinney, Hall, 1981) .

The Employment and Training De­

partment, planning division of the city of Detroit, Michi­
gan was authorized to plan and administer the Summer Youth
Employment Program.

As a part of its responsibility, the

Employment and Training Department assigned the partici­
pants to subgrantees and subcontractors for employment and
training activities and supportive services.

These sub­

grantees and subcontractors were acquired through the re­
quest for proposal

(RFP) process.

RFP's were solicited

for the following activities:
classroom training
work experiences
vocational exploration
labor market exploration
RFP's for supportive services were solicited in the fol­
lowing areas:
outreach

36
counseling
orientation to the world
of work job search tech­
niques training
job development and place­
ment
In the request for proposals
youth was established.

(RFP), the eligibility for

The eligibility criteria for par­

ticipation were evident that each person, at the time of
enrollment, would be fourteen through twenty-one years of
age inclusive and a resident of the City of Detroit.

The

final eligibility for participation was determined by the
Employment and Training Department's staff.

The services

to be sub-contracted were defined in the RFP as follows:

1.

Classroom Training
This program activity included any training
conducted in an institutional setting designed to
provide individuals with the technical skills
and information required to perform a specific
job or group of jobs.

It also included training

designed to enhance the employability of individ­
uals by upgrading basic skills, through the pro­
vision of courses in, for example, remedial ed­
ucation training in the primary language of per­
sons of limited English-speaking ability, or
English-As-A-Second-Language training.

For

qualified applicants, it also included pre­
college classroom preparation

(reading com­

prehension, improvement of study habits, use
of library facilities, orientation to college
life, test-taking skills, etc.) to eligible
high school graduates who intended to con­
tinue on to college.
Work Experience

(In School)

This activity was only subcontracted to
a major institution with a demonstrated ca­
pacity to manage the payment of participant
wages.
Work experience participants were placed
at worksites sponsored by public and private
non-profit agencies or community based organi­
zations.

This activity was designed to en­

hance opportunities for developing occupa­
tional skills, desirable work habits, and ex­
posure to the general world of work.
Agreements were made with worksites
specifying the work activities and worksite
arrangements.

Where applicable, concurrence

was obtained from collective bargaining agents.

38
3.

Vocational Exploration
This program activity was designed to
help participants choose careers by class­
room instruction, use of microfiche infor­
mation systems or other aids, and exposure
to a variety of occupations.

Activities

included spending time at work-places and
participating in work activities with the
provision that no more than 49% of the
participant's time was spent outside the
classroom.
4.

Labor Market Orientation
This activity referred to training
activities designed to prepare youth for
successful entry into the "unsubsidized
labor market" and included such training
areas as career exploration and decision
making, job seeking skills, grooming and
personal appearances, what jobs were avail­
able to youth in the area, and exposure*~to
their community resources.

5.

Supportive Services
Supportive services were not defined
in the RFP.

39
Program Recruitment - YIEPP and SYEP
Both the YIEPP and SYEP used the Detroit Public
School to recruit in-school youth.

The methods used for

recruitment and enrollment of out-of-school youth for the
two programs were city-wide advertisement through the
media.

Handbills and posters were placed in areas where

out-of-school youth were thought to congregate.

Announce­

ments were sent to local churches, community centers,
recreational places and local civic organizations.
The Population and Program Data
Summary data were available for the number of
in-school and out-of-school youth in both the YIEPP and
SYEP.

The number of in-school youth contacted for the

YIEPP was 7,241 while the total number of in-school youth
contacted for

the SYEP was 20,351.

contacted for

participation in the YIEPP and SYEP were

567 and 672 respectively.

Out-of-school youth

Nominal data presented were

only available in summary form for each of the federallyfunded program.

Consequently all available summary data

for 1980 were used for this investigation.
The data for the YIEPP prior to the September 1,
1979 - August

31, 1980 period were

not available.

Sum­

mary data for

the SYEP were available for the summers of

40
1979, 1980 and 1981.

Because of the disparity in the

data available during specific years, the analysis of
data in this study involved participant information in
the YIEPP for the 1979-1980 year of operation and parti­
cipant information in the SYEP for the 1980 year of oper­
ation.
Table 1.

Total number of In-School Youth Recruited
for Participation in the Youth Incentive
Entitlement Pilot Project in Detroit,
Michigan in 1980

Male

2,023

Female

TOTAL

1,979

4,002

Table 1 gives the total number of in-school youth
recruited for participation in the Youth Incentive Entitlement
Pilot Project in Detroit, Michigan during 1980.

Table 1 shows

that there were 2,023 in-school males recruited for parti­
cipation in the YIEPP while there were a total of 1,979 in­
school females recruited for participation in YIEPP.

There

were a total of 4,002 in-school youth recruited for parti­
cipation in YIEPP.
Table 2 shows the number of in-school youth, by
ethnicity, recruited for participation in the Youth Incentive
Entitlement Pilot Project in Detroit, Michigan in 1980. Table 2

41
shows that there was a total number of ninety-eight (98)
white in-school youth recruited for participation in the
Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project, while the total
number of Black in-school youth recruited for participation
in YIEPP was 3,768.
Table 2.

Additionally, American Indians, Asians

Total number of In-School Youth, by Ethnicity
Recruited for participation in the Youth
Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project in
Detroit, Michigan in 1980.

Ethnicity

Total

White

98

Black

3,768

American Indian
Asian

5
11

Hispanic

120

Total

4,002

and Hispanics in-school youth recruited for participation in
the YIEPP were 5, 11, and 120 respectively.
Table 3 shows that there were a total of 567 youth
contacted for enrollment in the YIEPP in Detroit, Michigan dur­
ing 1980.

Of the 567 out-of-school youth,

398 were females.

169 were males and

42
Table 3.

Total number of Out-of School Youth
contacted for enrollment in the Youth
Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project
in Detroit, Michigan in 1980.

Male

Female

Total

169

398

567

Table 4 gives the number of Out-of-School youth,
by ethnicity,

contacted for enrollment in the Youth Incen­

tive Entitlement Pilot Project in Detroit, Michigan in 1980.
Data presented in Table 4 also show,

that there was a total

of 18 white Out-of-School youth contacted for enrollment in
the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project, while the
total number of Black Out-of-School youth contacted for
enrollment in YIEPP was five-hundred and six (506).

Addition­

ally, Asians and Hispanics Out-of-School youth contacted for
enrollment in YIEPP were nine (9) and thirty-four (34) re­
spectively .

43
Table 4.

Total number of Out-of-School Youth, by
Ethnicity, contacted for enrollment in
the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot
Project in Detroit, Michigan in 1980.

Ethnicity

Total

Anglo

18

Black

506

Asian

9

Hispanic

Total

34

567

The Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project
identified worksites and the work activities of the parti­
cipants prior to their being placed on the jobs.

Table 5

shows that the total number of YIEPP in-school youth
actually placed on jobs was 3,740.

Of that number, 1,871

were males and 1,869 were females.

Table 5 also gives

the percentage of the total placement that was male and
female.

The percentage of male in-school youth placed on

jobs was 50.02, while 49.98 percent of the total in-school
youth placed on jobs were female.

44
Table 5.

Total number and percentage of In-School
Youth placed on jobs in Detroit, Michigan
in 1980 through the Youth Incentive En­
titlement Pilot Project.

Number Placed

Percentage Placed

Male

1,871

50.02

Female

1,869

49.98

Total

3,740

Table 6 shows the number of out-of-school youth
placed on jobs through the SYEP.

The number placed was 57;

of the 57, 31 were males and 26 were females.

The percen­

tages of the total number placed were 54.39 and 45.61 for
males and females respectively.

Table 6.

Total number and percentage of Out-of-School
Youth placed on jobs in Detroit, Michigan in
1980 through the Youth Incentive Entitlement
Pilot Project

Number Placed

Percentage Placed

Male

31

54.39

Female

26

45.61

Total

57

45
Table 7.

Total Number of In-School Youth Contacted
for Enrollment in the Youth Incentive
Entitlement Pilot Project in Detroit,
Michigan in 1980.

Male

Female

Total

4,061

3,180

7,241

Table 7 shows the total number of in-school
youth contacted for enrollment in the YIEPP in Detroit,
Michigan during 1980.

Of the 7,241 youth contacted,

4,016 were male and 3,180 were female.
Table 8.

Total Number of In-School Youth Recruited
for Participation in the Summer Youth
Employment Program in Detroit, Michigan
in 1980.

Male

Female

Total

6,623

7,672

14,295

Table 8 shows that the number of in-school
yolath recruited for participation by the Summer Youth
Employment Program was 14,295.

Of that number, 6,623

were males and 7,672 were females.

46
Table 9.

Total Number of In-School Youth, by Ethnicity,
Recruited for Participation in the Summer
Youth Employment Program in Detroit, Michigan
in 1980.

Ethnicity

Total

Anglo

258

Black

13,561

American Indian

5

Asian

27

Hispanic

426

Total

14,295

Table 9 shows that the total number of youth
recruited for participation in the Summer Youth Employment
Program was 14,295.
were Black,

Of this number, 258 were Anglo, 13,561

5 were American Indian, 27 were Asian and 426

were Hispanic youth.
Table 10.

Total Number of Out-of-School Youth Contacted
for Enrollment in the Summer Youth Employment
Program in Detroit, Michigan in 1980.

Male

Female

Total

334

338

672

47
In Table 10, the data show

there were a

total of 672 out-of-school youth contacted for enroll­
ment in the SYEP.

Of the 672 youth, 334 were males

and 338 were females.
Table 11.

Total Number of Out-of-School Youth by Ethnicity,
Contacted for Participation in the Summer Youth
Employment Program in Detroit, Michigan in 1980.

Ethnicity

Total

Anglo

156

Black

435

American Indian

20

Asian

12

Hispanic

49

Total

672

Table 11 shows that 672 out-of-school youth were
contacted for participation in the SYEP.

Of this number,

156 were Anglo, 435 were Black, 20 were American Indians,
12 were Asian and 49 were Hispanic.

48
Table 12.

Total Number and Percentage of In-School Youth
Placed on Jobs in Detroit, Michigan in 1980.
Through the Summer Youth Employment Program.

Number Placed

Percentage Placed

Male

5,291

41.68

Female

7,403

58.32

Total

12,694

Table 12 shows that there were 12,694 in-school
youth placed on jobs by the SYEP.
were males and 7,403 were females.

Of this number, 5,291
The percentage of males

and females placed on jobs were 41.68 and 58.32 of the total
number placed, respectively.
Table 13.

Total Number and Percentage of Out-of-School
Youth Placed on Jobs in Detroit, Michigan in
1980 Through the Summer Youth Employment
Program.

Number Placed

Percentage Placed

86

41.75

Female

120

58.25

Total

206

Male

49
In Table 13, the data show that there were 206
out-of-school youth placed on jobs by the SYEP.
youth, 86 were males and 120 were females.

Of these

The percentages

of males and females were 41.75 and 58.25 respectively, of
the total number placed.
Table 14.

Total Number of In-School Youth Contacted for
Enrollment in the Summer Youth Employment
Program in Detroit, Michigan in 1980.

Male

Female

Total

9,732

10,619

20,351

Table 14 shows that 20,351 in-school youth were
contacted for enrollment in the SYEP.

Of these 20,351 youth,

9,732 were males and 10,619 were females.

Statistical Procedure
Initially, the investigator projected to use
Analysis of Variance (ANOV);

however, only nominal data

were available and the statistical analysis of chi-square
(X2) had to be used.

The

.05 level of confidence was util­

ized in retaining or not retaining the null-hypotheses.

The

critical values of chi-square were used to examine the nullhypothesis based on the degrees of freedom and the specified
level of significance.

50
Summary
The implementation of the YIEPP program in
Detroit, Michigan during 1980 involved extensive planning,
contract negotiations and worksites location, prior to
its implementation.

The YIEPP program utilized the Detroit

Public Schools to identify, recruit and enroll in-school
youth.

YIEPP planned and implemented training programs de­

signed to give youth enrolled specific skills to make their
placement on jobs easier.
The Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project
utilized city wide advertisement as outreach techniques
to which these methods for outreach, recruitment, and en­
rollment and placement are revealed through the number of
out-of-school youth who participated in the Youth Incentive
Entitlement Pilot Project in Detroit, Michigan during 1980.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introduction
This chapter contains the results of the statis­
tical analysis of data.

Each research question is restated

as a null hypothesis and is accompanied by the results of
the Chi-Square (X^) analysis.

The

.05 level was set for

statistical tests used in this study.

This is the typical

level of significance for alpha error used in most social
science studies.

(Springthall, 1982)

It should be recalled that the major purpose of
this study was to analyze the two federally-funded youth
employment programs implemented in Detroit, Michigan, and
compare the effectiveness of the programs in management,
recruitment and job assignment.

The determination of the

effectiveness of management strategies of both programs
is based on the quantitative analysis of data and is found
in the summary of this chapter, Results of the Analysis of
YIEPP and SYEP D a t a .
Testing of Hypotheses
The hypothesis which tested the difference be- tween the recruitment and placement of in-school youth on
jobs by both the YIEPP and SYEP programs was:
Hypothesis One
There is no significant difference between the YIEPP

51

52
program's recruitment and placement of in-school youth
on jobs and the SYEP program's recruitment and place­
ment of in-school youth on jobs.
Table 15.

Comparison Between the Number of In-School
Youth Recruited and Placed on Jobs in the
YIEPP and SYEP Programs in Detroit, Michigan
in 1980.

Frequency
YIEPP's Actual Number of
Youth
Expected Number
of Youth
S Y E P 's

Recruited

Placed on Jobs

4,002

3,740

4,078.64

3,663.36

Actual Number of
Youth

14,295

12,694

Expected Number
of Youth

14,218.36

12,770.64

df = 1
Critical X 2 = 3.84
X 2 = 3.87

Table 15 gives the actual number of in-school youth recruit­
ed in the YIEPP and SYEP programs.
and 14,295 respectively.

These numbers were 4,002

It also gives the expected numbers

of in-school youth recruited by the YIEPP and SYEP programs.
These numbers were 4,078.64 and 14,218.36 respectively.
The actual placement of in-school youth on jobs by the YIEPP
and SYEP were 3,740.00 and 12,694.00 respectively.

The null

53
hypothesis was not retained because the 3.87 value of chi2
square (X ) test statistic exceeds the 3.84 critical value
2
of X . Therefore, at the five percent level of significance,
the null hypothesis is not retained.

It can then be conclu­

ded that the recruitment and placement of in-school youth of
the YIEPP program and the SYEP program are not equal or uniform.

Table 16.

Observed
Value

Data Calculations for Null Hypothesis One

Expected
Value

0
Chi-Square (X )

4,002

4078.64369

1.42151705

3,740

3663.35631

1.58266383

14,295

14218.3563

.407772961

12,694

12770.6437
X2 = 3.86595299
df = 1

.45399914

The hypothesis which tested the difference be ­
tween the recruitment and placement of out-of-school youth
on jobs by both the YIEPP and SYEP programs was:
Hypothesis Two
There is no significant difference between the YIEPP
program's recruitment and placement of out-of-school
youth on jobs and the SYEP program's recruitment and
placement of out-of-school youth on jobs.

54
Table 17.

Comparison Between the Number of Out-of-School
Youth Recruited and Placed on Jobs in the YIEPP
and SYEP Programs in Detroit, Michigan in 1980.

Recruited

Frequency
YIEPP1s Actual Number of
Youth
Expected Number
of Youth
SYEP's

108
97.20

Placed on Jobs

57
67.80

Actual Number of
Youth

269

206

Expected Number
of Youth

279.80

195.20

df = 1
Critical X 2 = 3.84
X 2 = 3.58

Table 17 shows

that the null hypothesis was accepted because

the 3.58 value

of the X 2 test statistic is less than

3.84 critical value of X 2 .

the

Therefore, at the five percent

level of significance, the null hypothesis is accepted, and
it can be concluded that the recruitment and placement of
out-of-school youth of the YIEPP program and the SYEP pro­
gram are equal

or uniform.

Table 17 also shows that

actual numbers

of out-of-school youth recruited by the

the

YIEPP and the SYEP programs were 108 and 269 respectively,
while the expected numbers of out-of-school youth for re­
cruitment by the YIEPP and SYEP were 97.20 and 279.80 re­
spectively.

The numbers of actual out-of-school youth

55
placed on the jobs by the YIEPP and SYEP were 57 and 206
respectively, while the expected numbers were 67.80 and
195.20 respectively.
Table 18.

Data Calculations for Hypothesis Two

Observed
Value

Expected
Value

Chi-Square (X2)

•108

97.1953125

1.09250726

57

67.8046875

1.56606554

269

279.804688

.379502522

206

195.195313

.54400171

X 2 = 3.58207704

•

df = 1

The hypothesis which tested the difference be ­
tween the number of contacts made by the YIEPP and SYEP
to in-school and out-of-school youth was:
Hypothesis Three
There is no significant difference between the YIEPP
program's number of contacts made with in-school and
out-of-school youth and the SYEP program's number of
contacts made with in-school and out-of-school youth.
Table 19 shows that the null hypothesis was not
2
retained because the 227.79 value of the X test statistic
2
exceeds the 3.84 critical value of X . Therefore, at the

56
five percent level of significance,

the null hypothesis is

not retained, and it can be concluded that the number of
contacts with in-school and out-of-school youth of the YIEPP
program and that of the SYEP program are not equal or uni­
form.
Table 19.

Comparison Between the Number of Contacts Made
With In-School and Out-of-School Youth for
Enrollment in the YIEPP and SYEP Programs in
Detroit, Michigan in 1980.

In-School
Youth

Frequency
Y I EPP1s Actual Number
of Contacts

SYEP's

7,241

Out-of-School
Youth

567

Expected Number
of Contacts
7,472.45

335.55

Actual Number
of Contacts

672

20,351

Expected Number
of Contacts
20,119.55

907.45

df = 1
Critical

= 3.84
X 2 = 227.79

Table 19 also shows that the actual numbers of contacts of
in-school and out-of-school youth made by the YIEPP program
were 7,241 and 567 respectively, while the expected numbers
of contacts were 7,472.45 and 335.55 respectively.
actual numbers of contacts of in-school and out-of-

The

57
school youth made by the SYEP were 20,351 and 672 respec­
tively, while the expected numbers were 20,119.55 and
907.45 respectively.
Table 20.

Data Calculations for Hypothesis Three

Observed
Value

Expected
Value

7,241

7472.45451

567

335.54589

20,351
672

Chi-Square (X2)

7.13821495
158.964992

20119.5455

2.6511527
59.0400351

903.454511
X 2 = 227.794395
df =

1

The hypothesis which tested the difference b e ­
tween the recruitment of in-school and out-of-school youth
by the YIEPP and SYEP w a s :
Hypothesis Four
There is no significant difference between the YIEPP
program's recruitment of in-school and out-of-school
youth for program participation and the SYEP's pro­
gram's recruitment of in-school and out-of-school
youth for program participation.
Table 21 shows that null hypothesis four was not
retained because the 9.49 value of the X

2

test statistic ex-

58

2

ceeds the 3.84 critical value of X .
five percent level of significance,
is not retained.

Therefore, at the

the null hypothesis

It can, therefore, be concluded that

the recruitment of in-school and out-of-school youth for
participation in the YIEPP program and in the SYEP pro­
gram are not equal.
Table 21.

Comparison Between the Number of In-School and
Out-of-School Youth Recruited for Participation
in the YIEPP and SYEP Programs in Detroit,
Michigan in 1980.

In-School
Youth

Frequency

YIEPP's Actual Number
of Recruits

4,002

Expected Number
of Recruits
SYEP's

4,027.03

Out-of-School
Youth

108
82.97

Actual Number
of Recruits

14,295

269

Expected Number
of Recruits

14,269.97

294.03

df = 1
1!

= 3.,84
XI
N>

Critical

49

Table 21 also shows that YIEPP's actual numbers of recruits
of in-school and out-of-school youth were 4,002 and 108 re­
spectively, while the expected numbers of youth were 4,027.03
and 82.97 respectively.

The SYEP's actual number of recruits

59
of in-school and out-of-school youths were 14,295 and 269
respectively, while the expected number were 14.269.97 and
294.03 respectively.
Table 22.

Data Calculations for Hypothesis Four

Observed
Value
4,002
108
14,295
269

Expected
Value

Chi-Square (X^)

4027.02528

.14936148

82.9747242

7.24906482

14269.9747

.0421506824

294.025276

2.04570561

X2 = 9.48628425
df = 1

The hypothesis which tested the difference be ­
tween the placement of in-school and out-of-school youth
by the YIEPP and SYEP was:
Hypothesis Five
There is no significant difference between the YIEPP
program's placement of in-school youth and out-of­
school youth on jobs and the SYEP program's placement
of in-school youth and out-of-school youth on jobs.
Table 23 shows that null hypothesis five was reO

tained because the .117 value of the X^ test statistic is
O

less than the 3.84 critical value of X .

Therefore, at

60
the five percent level of significance, the null hypothe­
sis is retained.

It can then be concluded that the place­

ment of in-school and out-of-school youth on jobs from the
YIEPP and the SYEP programs is equal.
Table 23.

Comparison Between the Number of In-School and
Out-of-School Youth Placed on Jobs From the
YIEPP and SYEP Programs in Detroit, Michigan
in 1980.

In-School
Youth

Frequency

YIEPP's Actual Number
of Placements
Expected Number
of Placements
SYEP's

Out-Of-School
Youth

3,740

57

3,737.19

59.81

Actual Number
of Placements

12,694

206

Expected Number
of Placements

12,696.81

203.19

df = 1
X 2 = 3.,84
X2 =
.,117

Table 23 also shows that YIEPP's actual numbers of placements for in-school and out-of-school youths were 3,740
and 57 respectively, while the expected numbers were
3737.19 and 59.81 respectively.

The SYEP's actual numbers

of placements of in-school and out-of-school youths were
12,694 and 206 respectively, while the expected numbers

61
were 12,696.8 and 203.19 respectively.
Table 24.

Data Calculations for Hypothesis Five:

Observed
Value

Expected
Value

3,740

Chi-Square (X2)

.0014251304

3737.19219

57

59.8078098

12,694

12696.8078

206

.0890316811
.000419473736

203.19219

10262115681.

X 2 = .1171078553
df = 1

The hypotheses which tested the difference between
the number of male and female youth recruited for participa­
tion by the YIEPP and SYEP was

:

Hypothesis Six
There is no significant difference between the
YIEPP program's number of male and female youth
recruited for participation and the SYEP pro­
gram's number of male and female youth recruited
for participation.
Table 25 shows that null hypothesis six was not retained b e ­
cause the 22.16 value of the X 2 test statistic exceeds the
3.84 critical value of X 2 .
level of significance,
tained.

Therefore, at the five percent

the null hypothesis was not re­

It can then be concluded that the recruitment

62
of male and female youth for participation in the YIEPP
and SYEP programs is not uniform.
Table 25.

Comparison Between the Number of Male and Female
Youth Recruited for Participation in the YIEPP
and SYEP Programs in Detroit, Michigan in 1980.

YIEPP

SYEP

Actual Number of Males

2,023

6,623

Expected Number of Males

1,891.09

6,754.91

Actual Number of Females

1,979

7,672

Expected Number of Females

2,110.91

7,540.09

df = 1
Critical X 2 = 3.84
X2 = 22.16

Table 25 also shows that the actual numbers of males re­
cruited for participation by the YIEPP and SYEP programs
were 2,023 and 6,623 respectively, while the expected
numbers were 1,891.09 and 6,754.91 respectively.

The

actual numbers of females recruited for participation by
the YIEPP and SYEP programs were 1,979 and 7,672 respec­
tively, while the expected numbers were 2,110.91 and
7,540.09 respectively.
Table 26 will show the data calculations for
hypothesis six.

63
Table 26.

Data Calculations for Hypothesis Six

Observed
Value

Expected
Value

Chi-Square (X2)

2,023

1891.091

9.13140915

6,623

6754.909

2.55641133

1,979

2110.909

8.18051638

7,672

7540.091

2.29020126

X 2 = 22.1585381
df = 1

The hypothesis which tested the difference between
the two programs' recruitment of in-school youth by ethni­
city w a s :
Hypothesis Seven
There is no significant difference between the YIEPP
program's enrollment of in-school youth by ethnicity
and the SYEP program's enrollment of in-school youth
by ethnicity.
Table 27 shows that null hypothesis seven was
retained because the 7.05 value of the X 2 test statistic
O

is less than the 7.81 critical value of X .

Therefore, at

the five percent level of significance, the null hypothesis
is retained.

It can then be concluded that the recruitment

of in-school youth by ethnicity in both the YIEPP and the
SYEP programs is uniform.

64
Table 27.

Comparison Between the Number of In-School
Youth by Ethnicity, Enrolled for Participation
in the YIEPP and SYEP Programs in Detroit,
Michigan in 1980.

YIEPP

SYEP

Actual recruitment of Anglo

98

258

Expected recruitment of Anglo

77.87

278.13

Actual recruitment of Black

3,768

13,561

Expected recruitment of Black

3,790.27

13,538.73

Actual recruitment of Hispanic

120

426

Expected recruitment of Hispanic

119.42

426.58

Actual recruitment of Other

16

50

Expected recruitment of Other

14.44

51.56

• df = 3
Critical X2 = 7.81
X2 = 7.05

Table 27 also shows that the numbers of Anglo, Black, His­
panic and other youth recruited for participation in the
YIEPP were 98, 3,768,

120 and 16 respectively, while the

expected numbers were 77.87, 3,790.27, 119.42 and 14.44
respectively.

The numbers recruited by SYEP of Anglo,

Black, Hispanic and other youth for participation were 258,
13,561, 426 and 50 respectively, while the expected numbers
were 278.13, 13,538.73, 426.58 and 51.56 respectively.

65
Table 28.

Data Calculations for Hypothesis Seven

Observed
Value

Expected
Value

98

77.8658797

258

278.13412

Chi-Square (X^)

5.20616738
1.45750835

3,768

3790.2748

.130905202

13,561

13538.7252

.036647962

119.423512

120

.00278285541

16

14.4358092

.169487764

50

51.5641908

.0474494601

426

426.576488

.000779082549

X2 = 7.05172805
df = 3
The hypothesis which tested the difference between
the two programs' recruitment of out-of-school youth by
ethnicity w a s :
Hypothesis Eight
There is no significant difference between the YIEPP
program's enrollment of out-of-school youth by ethnic­
ity and the SYEP program's enrollment of out-of-school
youth by ethnicity.
Table 29 shows that null hypothesis eight is re2
tained because the 2.38 value of the X test statistic is
less than the 7.81 critical value of X^.

Therefore,

66
at the five percent level of significance, the null hy ­
pothesis is retained.

It can then be concluded that the

recruitment of out-of-school youth by ethnicity in both
the YIEPP and the SYEP programs is uniform or equal.
Table 29.

Comparison Between the Number of Out-of-School
Youth by Ethnicity, Enrolled for participation
in the YIEPP and SYEP Programs in Detroit,
Michigan in 1980.

YIEPP

Frequency

SYEP

Actual number of Anglo

18

31

Expected number of Anglo

14.85

14.15

Actual number of Black

67

151

Expected number of Black

66.08

151.92

Actual number of Hispanics

25

74

Expected number of Hispanics

30.01

68.99

Actual recruitment of Other

7

13

Expected recruitment of Other
n . . , df = 3
Critical x2 = 7 81
X2 = 2.38

6.06

13.94

Table 29 also shows that the numbers recruited by YIEPP of
Anglo, Black, Hispanic and other out-of-school youth for
participation were 18, 67, 25 and 7 respectively, while
the expected numbers were 14.85, 66.08, 30.01 and 6.06 re­
spectively.

For the SYEP these actual numbers were 31,

67
151, 74 and 13 respectively, while the expected numbers
were 34.15, 151.92, 68.99 and 13.94 respectively.
Table 30.

Data Calculations for Hypothesis Eight

Observed
Value

Expected
Value

Chi-Square

(X^)

18

14.8523316

.667088279

25

30.007772

.835709516

67

66.0777202

.0128727207

7
31
151

6.06217617

.145082149

34.1476684

.290146202
.00559891535

151.92228

74

68.992228

.363487039

13

13.9378238

.0631026448

X2 = 2.38308747
df = 3

Summary - Results of the Analysis
of YIEPP and SYEP Data
As indicated in the descriptive operational in­
formation, each program utilized different management
strategies for the contacting, recruitment and placement
of in-school and out-of-school youth.

The determination

of effectiveness is measured in the results of the strate­
gies used and not in the strategies themselves.

A compari­

son of the results shows that there were differences in

68
the results achieved by both programs in some areas.
In the recruitment and placement of in-school
youth on jobs, the Summer Youth Employment Program proved
to be more effective than the Youth Incentive Entitlement
Pilot Project during 1980.

This determination is based

on the SYEP's recruitment and placement of 14,295 and
12,694 youth respectively compared to the YIEPP's recruit­
ment and placement of 4,002 and 3,740 youth respectively.
In the recruitment and placement of out-ofschool youth, both programs proved to be equally effective.
This determination is based upon the fact that the YIEPP
program recruited and placed 108 and 47 youth respectively,
and the SYEP program recruited and placed 269 and 206
youth respectively.
In the area of contacts of in-school and outof-school youth, the SYEP program was more effective than
the YIEPP PROGRAM.

This determination is based on the

number of contacts of in-school and out-of-school youth
of the SYEP in 1980 of 20,351 and 672 respectively.

This

is compared to the number of contacts of the YIEPP of in­
school and out-of-school youth of 7,241 and 567 respective­
ly.
The SYEP program proved to be more effective in
the recruitment of in-school and out-of-school youth for

69
program participation.

This determination is based upon

the 14,295 and 269 in-school and out-of-school youth re­
spectively recruited for participation.

This is compared

to the YIEPP's recruitment for participation of in-school
and out-of-school youth of 4,002 and 108 respectively.
Both programs proved to be equally effective
in the placement of in-school youth and out-of-school youth
on jobs.
The SYEP program proved to be more effective in
the recruitment of both male and female for participation.
This determination is based upon the fact the SYEP's re­
cruitment of 6,623 males and 7,672 females compared to
YIEPP's recruitment of 2,023 males and 1,979 females for
participation.
Both programs proved to be equally effective
in the recruitment of in-school youth by ethnicity for
program participation.
Both programs proved to be equally effective
in the recruitment of out-of-school youth by ethnicity for
program participation. Overall analysis of data revealed
that the SYEP proved to be generally more effective than
the YIEPP.

This is based on the fact that in the testing

of null hypotheses, the SYEP proved to be more effective
than YIEPP in four areas.

In the remaining four areas,

70
the programs proved to be equally effective.

In no areas

did YIEPP prove to be more effective than SYEP.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS,
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

The effective implementation of the Youth Incen­
tive Entitlement Pilot Project and the Summer Youth Employ­
ment Program in 1980 in Detroit, Michigan necessitated that
each program provide an extensive plan for management of
the multi-functions of these programs.

To ensure effective operation, the Youth Incen­
tive Entitlement Pilot Project utilized a sub-contract with
the Chrysler Learning,

Inc. to assume the direct responsi­

bility of recruitment, placement and job retention of outof-school youth.

To accomplish this end the sub-contractors

utilized city-wide advertisement through the media.

Addi­

tionally handbills and posters were placed in areas where
out-of-school youth were thought to congregate, and announce­
ments, handbills and posters were also sent to local churches,
community centers, recreational places and local civic or­
ganizations .

These efforts resulted in 567 out-of-school

youth being contacted,

117 out-of-school youth being enroll­

ed for participation.

Of this number, 108 were recruited

for placement on jobs.

Of the 108 youth recruited, 57 out-

71

72
of-school youth were actually placed on jobs.
The Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project
utilized the Detroit Public School as its source of contact
for in-school youth.

These efforts resulted in the 7,241

youth being contacted for enrollment and 4,002 youth actual­
ly were enrolled and recruited for job placement.

There

was a total of 3,740 in-school youth placed on jobs by the
YIEPP.
The YIEPP not only sub-contracted with Chrysler
and the Detroit Public Schools to advertise, contact, en­
roll, recruit and place youth on jobs, but it also sub-con­
tracted with these sub-contractors to provide basic skills
and technical skills instruction for participants.

Partici­

pants also received training in applying for and keeping a
job.

This phase of training also included personal grooming

and personal hygiene assistance.
The Summer Youth Employment Program was similiar
to the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Project in that it
also utilized subcontracting with other companies and the
Detroit Public Schools to advertise for the contact, enroll­
ment, recruitment and placement of in-school and out-of-school
youth on jobs.

As a result of these efforts, there were 672

out-of-school youth contacted, 269 youth enrolled and recruit­
ed and 206 out-of-school youth placed on jobs.

As a result of the

73
efforts to contact, enroll, recruit and place in-school
youth on jobs, there were 20,351 youth contacted.
number,

Of this

14,295 were enrolled and recruited for participa­

tion and 12,694 in-school youth were placed on jobs.
The Summer Youth Employment Program also utilized
sub-contractors to provide technical and basic skills in­
struction for participants.

Emphasis was also placed on

assisting participants in their appearance for job inter­
views and on the job itself.
The investigation of the Youth Incentive Entitlement
Pilot Program and the Summer Youth Employment Program imple­
mented in Detroit, Michigan in 1980 indicated that the programs
were alike in many w a y s .
The Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Program
(YIEPP) and the Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) both
targeted in-school youth for placement on jobs.

Each pro­

gram provided occupational training and were designed to
place in-school youth on meaningful jobs.

Each program

provided basic skills training for participants and career
or vocational exploration.

Both programs utilized sub­

contractors to provide some of the experiences for the in-school
youth, and both programs utilized the Detroit Public Schools as
their major source of contact for in-school youth.
Both the YIEPP and SYEP utilized monitoring sys-

74
terns to determine the extent to which the contracts were
being carried out and to identify and correct any problems
in implementation.

Both programs were operated under the

auspices of the City of Detroit, Michigan.

The YIEPP pro­

gram was operated under the Manpower Department of the City
of Detroit.

The Employment and Training Department of the

City of Detroit operated the SYEP.
While the YIEPP and SYEP programs were similar in
many ways, they were also dissimilar in other ways.
The intent of working with out-of-school youth was
different.

The YIEPP focused on out-of-school with the in­

tent of getting them to return to school.

In fact, out-of-

school youth who were recruited and placed on jobs by the
YIEPP agreed to return to school.

The SYEP, on the other

hand, simply focused on the contact, recruitment and job
placement of out-of-school youth.
The YIEPP was a year-long program operated with
the intent of longer placement of in-school and out-of-school
youth.

Consequently, the basic skills training of this pro­

gram was designed for longer-lasting effect on the youth
that were contacted, recruited and placed on jobs.
was operated with a "short-term" purpose.

The SYEP

The emphasis was

the three-month placement of both in-school and out-of-school
youth.

The basic skills and vocational training of this pro-

75
gram was designed for immediate and short-term placement
of the youth contacted, recruited and placed on jobs.

Be­

cause of the difference in "long-term" and "short-term"
placement of the two programs, the companies and potential
places of employment were different.
Population
The in-school youth contacted, enrolled, recruit­
ed and placed on jobs in both the Youth Incentive Entitle­
ment Pilot Project and the Summer Youth Employment Program
were between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one.

These

youth also had to be from homes whose family income was at
or below the poverty level to be eligible for participation.
Out-of-school youth were those students who were not in high
school, including high school graduates, who were between
the ages of fourteen and twenty-one and who also met the
eligibility criteria.
In-school and out-of-school youth had to be placed
in four different categories:
Contacted youth were those youth who
either inquired about participation
by returning an inquiry card or who
talked to a recruiter about partici­
pation.

These youth included those

youth who did not meet the eligibility
criteria.

76
Enrolled youth were those youth who
qualified based on their age.

These

youth also completed an application
for participation.
Recruited youth were those youth who
applied and were eligible for par­
ticipation in all categories.

These

youth also attended at least one
session indicating they wanted to
work.
Placed youth were those youth who
were actually placed on jobs.

Data were not available on the length of time youth actually
held the jobs on which they were placed.

Discussion of Findings
Based on the data analyzed, the YIEPP and SYEP
were equally effective in enrolling, recruiting and placing
out-of-school youth.

There was no significant difference

in the numbers of out-of-school youth enrolled, recruited
and placed on jobs by both programs.

The programs were also

equally effective in the recruitment for participation of
in-school youth by ethnic groups.

There was no signifi­

cant difference in the recruitment of in-school youth by
ethnicity by both groups.

The YIEPP and SYEP programs

were also equally effective in the recruitment for partici-

77
pation of out-of-school youth by ethnicity.

There was no

significant difference in the number of out-of-school youth
recruited by ethnicity in both programs.
It can then be concluded that despite the differ­
ences in management strategies and the number of months each
program was in operation during the year of 1980, there
was no significant difference in their enrollment, recruit­
ment and placement outcomes of out-of-school youth.
There was a significant difference in the con­
tacting of both out-of-school youth as well as in-school
youth.

Based on the data, the Summer Youth Employment

Program was more effective in the area of contacting youth.
The Summer Youth Employment Program also proved to be more
effective in the contacting, enrollment, recruitment and
placement of in-school youth on jobs.

This is concluded

because there was a significant difference in each of these
areas tested.
It can be concluded that the Summer Youth Employ­
ment Program was more effective overall in 1980 in manage­
ment outcomes than the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot
Project.

This is concluded because the SYEP showed a sig­

nificant difference in four of the eight areas tested.

78
The findings of this study are such that there
are implications for those who implement youth employment
programs, for the youth who participate in employment programs
and the schools from which these in-school or out-of-school
youth come. There are also implications for the agencies who
plan these programs and for the federal government which
often funds these youth employment programs.
The recruitment and placement of in-school youth
on jobs by the SYEP program proved to be more effective than
the recruitment and placement of these youth by the YIEPP
program.

The extent to which the SYEP program was more suc­

cessful in the recruitment and placement may be due, to a
large extent,
mented.

to the time of the year the programs were imple­

The YIEPP program was a year-long program and its re­

cruitment and placement of youth could have been affected by
the vocational programs in public schools which place youth on
jobs during the school year.

The YIEPP program's recruitment

and placement also were possibly affected by the numbers of
youth who are actually not available for work during the
school year.

During the school year, involvement in school

activities and in studies often limit the number of youth who
are available for work.

79
The SYEP and the YIEPP programs had limited
success with the recruitment and placement of out-of-school
youth on jobs.

This limited success could have been

partially affected by the number of out-of-school youth
actually unemployed.

The recruitment and placement could

also have been affected by the methods used to notify outof-school youth about the program and by the follow-up data
available for the out-of-school youth at the local schools.
The SYEP program was more effective than the
YIEPP program in contacting both in-school and out-of-school
youth.

This difference might again be attributed to the

time of year of implementation, and the fact that more youth
are available for employment during the summer months than
during the months when school is in session.

The time factor

also could have influenced the discrepancy between the number
of male and female youth recruited for participation in the
SYEP as compared to the fewer numbers of male and female re­
cruited by the YIEPP program.

Both the SYEP and YIEPP programs enrolled large
numbers of Black youth for participation compared to the numbers
of youth from other ethnic groups.

These large numbers simply

reflect greater portion of Black youth in Detroit, Michigan
whose families are low income.

80
The larger number is also reflective of the student pop­
ulation within the public schools in Detroit, Michigan,

Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, as well
as the literature and research reviewed, the following
recommendations are offered to the planners and those who
implement youth employment programs:

1.

Provide a broad-based planning committee

for the initial planning of such programs.

This committee

should include persons from local schools, in-school and
out-of-school youth as well as representatives from the
corporate world.

This broad-based committee should provide

in-put on the methods to be used to contact and recruit
in-school and out-of-school youth.

2.

Interface with vocational personnel within

local schools if youth employment programs are to be im­
plemented during school months.

This interfacing can elim­

inate duplication and can ensure that the most in-school youth
can be reached.
3.

Use high school records for follow-up data

on out-of-school youth.

These data, if current, can provide

81
a basis for personal contact with the out-of-school youth
for program participation.

This personal contact will pos­

sibly increase the number of out-of-school youth involved
in employment programs.
The following recommendations are offered to
public school personnel:
1.

Maintain as much up-to-date information on

out-of-school youth as possible.

This information would

allow out-of-school youth to be contacted for participation
in programs that are designed to assist them in employment.
2.

Utilize present in-school youth to assist in

locating out-of-school youth who are not employed or under­
employed.

In-school youth can be given information for the

out-of-school youth they might know.

This could possibly

increase the number of out-of-school as participants for the
employment programs.
Finally,

the recommendations to the federal govern­

ment and other possible funding agencies are as follows:
1.

Be sure the planning for youth employment

include persons from every facet of life that will be involved
in the implementation of the youth employment programs.

This

broad-based planning will not only improve program planning,
but will also ensure "buy-in" for such programs.

82
2.

Utilize the broad-based committee to

assess program implementation.

This assessment will allow

programmatic adjustments based on the in-put.

This utili­

zation should increase the numbers of youth contacted, re ­
cruited and actually placed on jobs.

Recommendations for Further Study
The findings of this study indicate a need
for further study of youth employment programs.

This is

especially true since this study only involved one year
(1980) of the implementation of the two programs.
An interesting study would be a follow-up of
the 1980 participants to determine their employment status
five years later.
The extent to which employment as a youth
affects employment as an adult would also provide infor­
mation for planning future unemployment programs.
Another study recommended would be one that
focused solely on the outreach methods for out-of-school
youth.

This study should be undertaken with the intent

of providing program planners with specifically tested
strategies for reaching this difficult-to-reach category

83
of youth.
One additional study recommended would iden­
tify the specific social, academic and technical areas
needed by out-of-school youth that would make these youth
competitive in today's job market
The investigator also recommends that more
effort be made in compiling and maintaining individual
participant data to allow adequate follow-up.

Retention

information will help to determine the extent to which
participants are successful on the jobs on which they are
initially placed.
Finally,

this investigator recommends that in­

dividual assessments be made of participants to determine
their social, academic and/or technical skills needs.

This

will allow participants to obtain the skills needed and pre­
vent their having to go to classes designed to provide skills
they already have.

84
Conclusions

The findings of this study itself have led this
investigator to conclusions about the planning and operation
of both the YIEPP and SYEP programs.
clusions are subjective,

Although these con­

the investigator believes these

conclusions are, however, supported by the information pre­
sented in this study.
The methods planned to secure the participation
of out-of-school youth in the programs were not effective.
The ineffectiveness of the methods used and consequently the
number of out-of-school youth who subsequently enrolled and
were placed on jobs by the programs cause this investigator
to question the feasibility of including out-of-school youth
in programs of this type.

At least, the investigator b e ­

lieves that much more study needs to be made to determine
more effective ways of contacting, recruiting, enrolling and
placing out-of-school youth on jobs.

The actual number of out-

of-school youth placed on jobs, as reported in this study,
led this investigator to conclude that the basic skills train­
ing for out-of-school youth was not effective.
The recruitment of in-school youth was not as
effective as it could have been.

This conclusion, by the

investigator, is based on the number of in-school youth en-

85

rolled and subsequently placed on jobs during the operation
of the programs.
This investigator further concludes that the
record-keeping procedures for the two programs on individual
participants were inadequate.

This conclusion is based

upon the lack of follow-up information available on individual
participants.
Finally,

this investigator concludes that while

the YIEPP and the SYEP programs were successful in some areas,
there were many areas where effectiveness was not evident.
As a result the placement of youth on jobs, both in-school
and out-of-school, was not as effective as it could have
been for both the YIEPP and the SYEP program.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
.Adams, Arvil V . ; Mangum, Garth L.; Seninger, Stephen F.; and
Stevenson, Wayne.
The Lingering Crisis of Youth Unemploy­
m e n t . Kalamazoo, Michigan:
The W. E. Upjohn Institute of
Employment Research, 1978.
.Ball, Joseph.
Implementing Supported Work:
Job Creation
Strategies During the First Year of the National Demon­
stration. New York:
Manpower Demonstration Research
Corp., 1977.
.Barton, Paul E.
"Youth Policy:
Getting Started."
Education Exchange, August-September, 1977.

Work

.Bowen, William G. and Finnegan, T. Aldrich.
The Economics of
Labor Force Participation. Princeton:
Princeton Univer­
sity Press, 1969.
•Bromley, James and Wardle, Larry.
CETA Program M o d e l s : OnThe-Job Training. Office of Manpower Research and Develop
ment Monograph prepared for the Department of Labor, Em­
ployment and Training, Washington, D.C., 1977.
.Bruno, Lee.
CETA Program Models:
Intake and Assessment.
Office of Manpower Research and Development Monograph
prepared for the Department of Labor, Employment, and
Training, Washington, D.C., 1978.
•Butler, Erik Payne.
Sociology, Public and Social W e l f a r e .
Youth Employment in the United States: A Review of Pro­
blems, Programs and Policies.
Harvard University, 1980.
•Bullock, Paul.
Aspiration vs. Opportunity:
Careers in the
Inner C i t y . Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Institute of Labor and
Industrial Relations, 1973.
•Cain, Glen G.
"Benefit/Cost Estimates for Job Corps."
Insti­
tute for Research on Poverty, University of WisconsinMadison, 1968, mimeographed.

86

87
.Citizens' Committee on Youth, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Urban Con­
servation P r oject. An Experiment in Housing Renovation
in an Urban Renewal Area to Train Unemployed Y o u t h . Pre­
pared for the U.S. Depatment of Labor, Manpower Administra
tion, August, 1968.
.Feldstein, Martin.
"The Economics of the New Unemployment."
The Public Interest 33 (Fall 1973) pp 3-42.
•Ferman, Louis A.
Disadvantaged Youth:
Problems of Job Place
ment Job Creation, Job Development. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University of Michigan, December, 1967.
•Fiefer, Irwin, et al.
Industrial Guidelines for Undertaking
a Hardcore Employment Program. Prepared by Mobilization
for Youth, Inc., the Experimental Manpower Laboratory for
the U.S. Department of Labor., Manpower Administration,
1971.
.Freedman, Marcia.
"The Youth Labor Market" in National Com­
mission for Manpower Policy From School to W o r k : Improv­
ing the Transition. Washington, D .C .: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1976.
.Gallagher,
Work,"
School
D.C.:

Dennis.
"Community Efforts to Link Education and
in National Commission for Manpower Policy, From
to W o r k : Improving the Transition. Washington,
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.

.Gibson, G. Ruth.
The Effects of Participation in CVAE and
Work Experience on the Basic Employment Skills and Work
Attitudes of Disadvantaged High School Youth.
Georgia
State University-College of Education, 1981.
.Gonzales, Joseph P. et a l . Neighborhood Youth Corps Vocational
Exploration and Dropout Prevention Project. Prepared by
the Stockton Unified School District for the U.S. Depart­
ment of Labor, Manpower Administration, Office of Research
and Development, March, 1973.
•Gottlieb, David.
Youth and the Meaning of W o r k . U.S. Depart­
ment of Labor, Research, and Development Monograph 32,
Washington, D . C . : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.

88

.Greater Washington Central Labor Council, D.C.
Project B U I L D ;
Pre-Apprenticeship in Construction Trades for Disadvantaged
You t h . Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower
Administration, October, 1969.
.Harrison, Bennett.
Urban Economic Development.
D.C.:
The Urban Institute, 19*74.

Washington,

•Harwood, Edwin, et al.
Houston's Out-of-School Neighborhood
Youth Corps:
Impact on the Work Attitudes and Job Futures
of Poverty Youths. Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Labor Office of Manpower Planning, Evaluation and Research.
October, 1968.
.Harwood, Edwin.
"Youth Unemployment:
A Tale of Two Ghettos"
in The Public Interest, 17, Fall, 1969.
. Hines, Joseph S.
"Some Work-Related Cultural Deprivations in
Lower-Class Negro Youth."
In Staples, The Black Family.
Belmont, California:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1971.
•Hobbs, A.
"Role of the Educational Sector to Prepare Youth
for Work."
Paper presented to the National Urban League
Conference on Youth Employment.
Kansas City, Missouri,
1976.
.Hoyt, Kenneth C.
A Primer for Career Education. Washington,
D.C.:
Office of Career Education, U.S. Office of Educa­
tion Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1977,
p. 8.
.Johnson, Gene C.
Property Rehabilitation Employment Program.
Prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Develop­
ment Administration, June, 1972.
..Johnson, Miriam and Sugarman, Marged.
CETA Program M o d e l s :
Job Development and Placement. Office of Manpower Re­
search and Development Monograph prepared for the U.S.
Department of Labor, Employment, and Training.
Washington,
D.C., 1977.

.Kalachek, Edward.
The Youth Labor M a r k e t . Policy Paper No.
12 in Human Resources and Industrial Relations.
Ann Arbor,
Michigan:
Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations,
University of Michigan-Wayne State University, 1969.

89
.Mangum, Garth L. and Glenn, Lowell M.
Employing the Disad­
vantaged in the Federal Civil Rights Service. National
Manpower Polciy Task Force and The Institute of Labor
and Industrial Relations.
The University of Michigan,
Wayne State University, 1969.
.Mangum, Garth L. and Walsh, John.
Employment and Training
Programs for Youth;
What Works Best for W h o m . A Report
prepared for the Office of Youth Programs, U.S. Depart­
ment of Labor by the National Council on Employment
Policy and the Olympus Publishing Company, 1978.
.Manpower Institute.
Study of Corporate Youth Employment
Policies and Practices. Prepared for the U.S. Department
of Labor, Assistant Secretary for Planning, Evaluation,
and Research.
January, 1973.
•Miles, Guy H.
Developing Model NYC Programs for Rural You t h .
Prepared by North Star Research and Development Institute
for the U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration,
Office of Research and Development.
May 27, 1971.
.Moore, William, Jr.
House, 1969.

The Vertical Ghetto.

New York:

Random

.National Child Labor Committee.
Rite of Passage:
The
Crisis of Youth's Transition from School to W o r k . New
York National Child Labor Committee, 1976.
.National Committee on Employment of Youth.
"Eight Youth
Employment Programs:
Problems and Issues."
Prepared
for the Office of Economic Opportunity.
April 1, 1965,
mimeographed.
.National League of Cities/U.S. Conference of Mayors.
CETA and
Y o u t h : Programs for Cities.
Washington, D.C.:
National
League of Cities/U.S. Conference of Mayors.
1976.
.Olympus Research Centers.
An Assessment of School Supervised
Work Education Programs.
Part II;
Urban Cooperative Work
Education Programs and Follow-Up Study.
Prepared for the
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office
of Education, Office of Planning Budgeting and Evaluation.
March 1976.
Vol. 1: Overview of Thirty Urban Cooperative
Education Programs.
By John Walsh and Vincent J. Breglio.

90

.Kobrak, Peter.
Private Assumption of Public Responsibilities.
The Role of American Business in Urban Manpower Programs.
U.S. Economic, Social and Political Issues, New York:
Praeger Publishers, 1973.
.Lapinski, Edward John.
A Study:
To Identify and Measure Major
Problems Encountered by Youth Making the Transition from
School to Work as Perceived by Youth, Parents, Cooperative
Work Experience Coordinators, and Employers.
Education,
Secondary. The University of Connecticut, 1976.
.Levitan, Sar A. and Johnston, Benjamin H. The Job C o r p s : A
Social Experiment that W o r k s . Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1976.
.Levitan, Sar A. and Mangum, Garth L.
Federal Training and
Work Programs in the Sixties. Ann Arbor.
Institute of
Labor and Industrial Relations, 1969.
.Levitan, Sar A.; Mangum, Garth L.; and Taggart, Robert III.
Economic Opportunity in the Ghetto:
The Partnership of
Government and Business, Policy Studies in Employment
and Welfare no. 3.
Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1970.
.Levitan, Sar A.; Mangum, Garth L . ; and Marshall, Ray.
Human
Resources and Labor Mark e t s . Second Edition.
New York:
Harper and Row Publishers, 1976.
.Levitan Sar and Taggart, Robert III.
"Background Paper on
the Job Crisis for Black Youth" in Twentieth Century
Fund Task Force on Employment Problems of Black Youth,
The Job Crisis for Black Y o u t h . New York:
Praeger Publishers, 1971.
.Levitan, Sar A. and Taggart, Robert III, eds. Emergency Employ­
ment Act:
The PEP Generation. Salt Lake City, Utah:
Olympus Publishing Company, 1974.
.McDaniel, John W.
NYC (Neighborhood Youth Corps) Summer/inSchool Goes to Community College. Prepared by Evaluation
Technology Corporation for the U.S. Department of Labor,
Manpower Administration, February, 1973.

91
Vol. 2: Work Education Program Outcomes; A Twenty-Four
Month Follow-up Study by Vincent J. Breglio, Martha
Stevers, and Jeanette Tobias;
Vol. 3, Thirty Case Studies
of Urban Cooperative Education Programs by Theodore Bryant.
.Richardson, Ann and Dunning, Bruce B. Youth in the WIN Pro­
gram, Client Backgrounds, Program Experience, and Sub­
sequent Labor Force Participation, BSSR Report No. 0085-3
Washington, D. C . ; Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc.
1975.
.Riegelson, Lillian, et al, Federal Youth Programs; A Discussion
Paper, Washington, D. C., Office of Economic Opportunity,1972.
.Schulz, David A . , "Coming Uo As A Boy In The Ghetto" in Doris
Wilkson and Ronald L. Taylor, e d s ., The Black Male in Amer i c a ,
Chicago, Nelson Hall, 1971.
.Smith, Robert S. and Pitcher, Hugh M . , The Neighborhood Youth
Corps; An Impact Evaluation, Technical Analysis Paper No. 9
Office of Evaluation, Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Policy, Evaluation and Research, U.S. Department of
Labor, September, 1973.
.Springthall, R. C . , Basic Statistical Analysis, Reading, Mass.;
Addison-Wesley, 1982.
.Taggart, Robert III, "Employment and Training Programs for
Youth" in National Commission for Manpower Policy, From
School to W o r k : Improving the Transition; Washington,
D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1976.
.U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of
Human Development, Office of Youth Development, Division
of Youth Activities;
Catalog of Federal Youth Programs,
Washington, D. C. , U. S7 Government Printing Office, n.d.
.U. S.Department of Labor, ETA/Office of Youth Programs, A
Charter for the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects
Act of 1977, Washington, D . C . , 1977.
.U. S. Department of Labor, Improving Employment Opportunities
for Female Black Teenagers in New York Cit y , R and D
Monograph No.47, Washington, D. C .; 07S . Government
Printing Offices, 1977.

92
.U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Adminis­
tration, Office of Youth Programs.
"A Knowledge Develop­
ment Plan for the Youth Employment and Demonstration Pro­
jects Act of 1977."
Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department
of Labor, 1977, mimeographed.
•U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Inner-City
Youth in a Job Training Project, MDTA Experimental and
Demonstration Findings, No. 7. Washington, D.C.:
U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1971.
.U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration.
Job De­
velopment for the Hard-to-Employ, MDTA Experimental and
Demonstration Findings No. 4. Washington, D.C.:
U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1968.
•U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration.
Methods
of Assessing the Disadvantaged in Manpower Programs. A
Review and Analysis, Research and Development Findings
No. 14.
Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1973.
.U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration.
Produc­
tive Employment of the Disadvantaged: Guidelines for
Action, Research and Development Findings No. 15.
Wash­
ington, D . C . : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.
.U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration.
Summer
Youth Employment G u i d e . Experimental and Demonstration
Findings No. 10.
Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1971.
.U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration.
Youth and
The Meaning of W o r k . Manpower Research Monograph No. 32.
Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974.
.U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Manpower Policy, Evalua­
tion and Research, Office of Evaluation and Reports.
Report on Evaluation of Youth Opportunity Centers Program.
Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office,
1966.
.U.S. General Accounting Office.
Improvements Needed in Con­
tracting for On-The-Job Training Under the Manpower De-

93
velopment and Training Act of 196 2 . Report to the Con­
gress by the Comptroller General of the United States,
November 26, 1968.
Washington, D . C . : U.S. General
Accounting Office, 1968.
•U.S. General Accounting Office.
Information on the Summer
Youth Employment Program. June 27, 1977.
Prepared for
Parren J. Mitchell, Chairman, Human Resources Task Force,
Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives.
Washington, D.C.:
U.S. General Accounting Office, 1977.
.U.S. News and World Report.
"Young Blacks Out of Work;
Time Bomb for U.S. Citizens." December 5, 1977.
.Valdez, Anne.
"Twenty Years of Youth Placement."
ment Security Review.
May, 1963.

Employ­

•Yarusso, Lowell Charles.
implications of the Youth Employ­
ment and Demonstration Projects Acts, PL 95-93: An
Application of Policy Analysis Techniques.
Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1979.

APPENDIX

INTAKE AND APPLICATION PROCESSING - WORK FLOW CHART
1980 SYEP

OUTREACH AND RECEIVE APPLICATIONS (MAIN OFFICE)*
1. Distribute 1980 SYEP
community outlets

Application to

2. Log in applications returned

SCREEN FOR DISPOSITION
1.

Screen applications for eligibility by
checking for residency, age and income

2.

If applicant not eligible for SYEP but
eligible for some other CETA program,
send out a CETA Intake Letter

3.

If applicant not eligible for any CETA
program send out ineligible CETA Letter

3. Quick-screen applications for completness
4. Group applications in batches and prepare
Application Tracking Log

l
PREPARE FOLDER AND SCHEDULE
INTAKE INTERVIEW

PREPARE FOR INTERVIEW APPOINTMENT AT CENTER

1.
2.
3.

1. Determine if special eligibility interview
will be required

Set up Area Applicant File
Schedule interview
Send out Interview Appointment Letter

2. Prepare list of all appointments scheduled

* This activity carried out at the main office of the SYEP.
carried out at the area offices.

All other activities presented in this chart are

INTERVIEW APPOINTMENT AT CENTER -FRONT DESK AND XEROX

INITIAL APPOINTMENT AT CENTER—
Station 1: Documents

1.

Quick-screen applicant's documents

1.

2.

Xerox all documents

Review the original documents and
check to make sure everything has
been copied clearly

3.

If documents are missing, send applicant
home to get better documentation, and
schedule a new appointment

2.

Fill in the Document Screening record
part of the Eligibility Summary

INITIAL APPOINTMENT AT CENTER—
Station 2: Eligibility Determination

INITIAL APPOINTMENT AT CENTER—
Station 3: Work Permit

1.

Thoroughly review the application, the
eligibility summary and the income worksheet

1.

2.

If applicant is determined not eligible
for SYEP, but is eligible for another CETA
program, refer him/her to CETA Intake

3.

. Work Permit
. Offer of Employment & Request for work
permit

If applicant is not eligible for any CETA
program follow procedure in "Screen for
Disposition"

. Transcript of Birth Record
2.

4.

Send applicant to Station 3— Work Permit—
if he/she is under 18.
If over 18, send
applicant to Station 4--Job Placement Interview.

If applicant is under 18 fill in
following forms:

Applicant signs work permit

INITIAL APPOINTMENT AT CENTER—
Station 4: Job Placement Interview

INITIAL APPOINTMENT AT CENTER —
Station 5: Worksite Assignment

1. Discuss worksite preference with applicant

1.

Match applicant to worksite openings

2. Fill in worksite placement Interview

2.

Complete Worksite Assignment Sheet

3.

3.

Assign pension number

4.

Fill in payroll forms and payroll
Certification Paper._______________

Explain the Participant Agreement, Equal
Opportunity form and CETA Complaint form
to the applicant

INITIAL APPOINTMENT AT CENTER—
Station 6: Photographer and Typist
1.

Take applicant's picture

2.

Give applicant I.D. card

3.

Tell applicant he/she is finished for the day.

WRAP-UP INITIAL INTERVIEW AT CENTER—
Activities After Applicant Has Left Area Office
1.

Clear up Incomplete Visit notations

2.

Double-check changed or new appointments

3.

Return all forms and documents to proper
place

4.

Contact Did Not Report List to make new
appointments.__________ ____________

PAPER FLOW - WORKSITE MONITORING

Payroll Register
or
Monthly Performance Report

Selection of Worksites

Yiepp Worksite
Monitoring Report
(Form and Narrative)

Work Adjustment
Counseling Request

Employer Request
For Student(s)

Onsite visit by monitors

Payroll Problem
transmittal

Any other
Deficiency
Notification

Follow-up

Follow-up

Follow-up

Follow-up

Report

Report

Report

Report

PROJECT ACTIVITY SUMMARY

APPLICANT AGENCY

PROPOSAL NUMBER

CLASSROOM
TRAINING

VJD

WORK EXPERIENCE
(IN SCHOOL)

LABOR MARKET
ORIENTATION

VOCATIONAL
EXPLORATION

( )Included

( )Included

( )Included

( )Included

( )Not Included in
This Proposal

( )Not Included in
This Proposal

( )Not Included in
This Proposal

( )Not Included in
This Proposal

FROM

FROM

FROM

FROM

TO

TO

TO

TO

Age 14-17

Age 14-17

Age 14-17

Age 14-17

Age 18-21

Age 18-21

Age 18-21

Age 18-21

NUMBER OF GROUPS

It classes

If worksites

It groups

Maximum number
of classes per day

TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS OF
WORK OR CLASS FOR EACH
PARTICIPANT

Age 14-17

Age 14-17

Age 14-17

Age 14-17

Age 18-21

Age 18-21

Age 18-21

Age 18-21

TOTAL COST (not including
allowances or wages)

$

$

$

$

COST PER PARTICIPANT

$

$

$

$

DURATION (Give start
and end dates)

00

TOTAL NUMBER PARTICIPANTS

NUMBER TO BE PLACED IN
UNSUBSTDTZED EMPLOYMENT

Not Applicable

Not Applicable
---- ----------------- 1

PARTICIPANT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Participant Category:
Functional Areas:

Regular High School Student

Academic Performance, Attendance, Conduct

STANDARD OR MEASORE OF PERFORMANCE

MONITORING TECHNIQUES

1.

Academic. To maintain eligibility
for participation in the Entitlement
Program, each student-participant
must maintain passing grades in at
least three subjects.

Obtain and review regular
monthly progress reports that
will contain all grades and
will be prepared for each
student..

2.

Attendance. To maintain continuing
eligibility for participation in the
Entitlement Program, unless excused,
each student-participant must not be
absent more than five days in a
monthly period.

Obtain and review regular
monthly progress reports.
Interview officials responsi­
ble for granting excused
absences; review records of
reasons given for excused
absences.

3.

Conduct. To maintain eligibility, a
student-participant, in the event of
exclusions and/or suspensions due to
violations of the Oniform Code of
Student Conduct, muRt not accumulate
more than ten days during any one
semester.

Obtain and review monthly
progress reports; review
other regular and special
reports on disciplinary ac­
tions taken by school offi­
cials; interview affected
student-participants, instruc­
tors, and counselors.

•>

PARTICIPANT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Participant Category:
Functional Areas:

Oilier than Regular High School Student

Academic Performance, Attendance

MONITORING TECHNIQUES

1.

Academic. To maintain eligibility
Tor continued participation in the
Entitlement Program, each studentparticipant must either, depending
on the structure of the educational
program, (a) not be failing more
than one subject or ciass, or
(b) be achieving at least a satis­
factory level of progress as defined
in Reporting Format "B" (Exhibit 2B).

Obtain and review regular monthly
progress reports and other such
reports providing achievement
information.

2.

Attendance. To maintain continuing
eligibility for participation in
Entitlement, unless excused, each
participant must be in attendance
at least 80% of the total number of
class days scheduled during monthly
periods.

Obtain and review regular monthly
progress reports. Interview offi­
cials responsible for granting
excuses; review records of reasons
given for excused absences.

100

STANDARD OR MEASURE OF PERFORMANCE

Y.l .K.l'.r- RKI’UKT CARD
FOR ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION STUDENTS
DATE:

SCHOOL
NAIF:

COUNSELOR:

ilusty

ITTrslT

i.D. ifi

coimsF.

CLASS
SUBJECT

NO.

ROOM
NO.

*GRADE
PASS/FAIL

**// OF DAYS
ABSENT DURING
MONTH

***// OF
UNKXCUSED
ABSENCES
DURING MO.

****UNEXCUSEU
ABSENCES/
EXPRESSED AS A
PERCENTAGE

TEACHERS
SIGNATURE

LUL

•

•
*Enter the letter grade (or P or F if pass/fail system is used) which best reflects the student's
performance as of the end of the month shown in box above.
**Include nil ubscnccs, uncxcuscd und excused.
***Enter all uncxcuscd absences.

•

****Enter the percentage which represents the number of unexcused absences as a fraction of the total
number of scheduled class days for the month.
Indicate if students have been suspended for behavior or other reasons.

:;
*;

(Such as drop-out from program)
,

COMMENTS:

EXCUSED ABSENCES:

-i

Illness, death in family, bad weather conditions (causing schools to close)
religious holiday, note from pnront/gunrdinn indicating any other reason for absenteeism.