Brookings: Experts - Martha Ross

Connecting to Opportunity: Access to Jobs via Transit in the Washington, D.C. Region

Martha Ross and Nicole Prchal Svajlenka — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:00:00 -0500

Metropolitan transportation networks are critical for a region's economic competitiveness. Public transit is a key component of the economic and social fabric of metropolitan areas. While commuting to work is only one reason residents may use a transit system, it is a dominant use: Commutes make up the largest share of transit trips nationwide.

Improving transportation connections to employment enhances the efficiency of labor markets for both workers and employers. Years of study, research and practice have tried to address the vexing logistical problems stemming from lack of access to transportation in major metropolitan areas. Today, transportation analysts increasingly consider accessibility to be a better measure of system performance than traditional mobility. It is at least as important for metropolitan residents to be able to access a range of activities, such as jobs, via the transportation system, as it is for systems to simply move vehicles faster and reduce travel times.

The effectiveness of transit depends upon its reach, frequency, and where it goes.

An analysis of the public transit systems serving the Washington, D.C. region finds that:

Nearly 90 percent of residents in the Washington, D.C. region live in neighborhoods with access to transit coverage of some kind, whether bus, Metrorail, or commuter rail.
Due to broad transit coverage and proximity to job centers, job access via transit is strongest in the District, Arlington, and Alexandria, with access rates dropping based on distance from the core.
Transit does a better job providing high-skill residents access to high-skill jobs that it does mid-skill residents to mid skill jobs and low-skill residents to low-skill jobs.
In many cases, housing costs are out of reach for low- and mid-skill workers in areas identified in this report as offering strong transit access to employment.

Download » (PDF)

Downloads

Download the paper

Authors

Martha Ross
Nicole Prchal Svajlenka

What Would You Pay for Clean Water?

Martha Ross — Thu, 24 May 2012 14:01:00 -0400

Clean water is a top health issue for any community, and that includes public and economic health. Keeping water clean requires substantial public infrastructure, which costs money, and cleaning up existing pollution costs even more. But it’s essential if we want to be able to pour ourselves—or our customers—a glass of water, take a shower, or flush a toilet.

A modern society simply cannot function without a safe, dependable water supply.

But many major metropolitan areas, including Washington, D.C., are served by antiquated waste water systems that cannot meet modern demands.

Parts of Washington, D.C. are served by a combined system carrying both storm water and sewage. Some of the pipes in this system date back to the Civil War. A large rainstorm can overwhelm the system, allowing sewage to flow into area waterways leading into the Chesapeake Bay.

To correct this situation, D.C. Water has embarked on the Clean Rivers Project, a federally-mandated $2.6 billion, 20-year project to build huge underground tunnels to store overflow storm water and sewage during rainstorms until it can be treated. A new Brookings paper examines the project and concludes that despite D.C. Water’s smart management, we need a better financing system to ensure its success and spread the cost fairly and efficiently among all the beneficiaries.

D.C. Water is financing the project by issuing long-term bonds backed by revenue from customer fees and charges. The federal government has supported the project, but that support is not predictable. The present approach puts the burden on District property owners based on the “polluter pays” principle, which could be risky, judging by the project’s cost projections. Water and sewer payments will increase sharply, with disproportionate impacts on the lowest-income residents. Rate payers’ will or ability to pay may falter, and the costs of the project may crowd out D.C. Water’s other capital and maintenance investments.

Some would say, this is the District's problem; let them pay to solve it. That approach ignores the fact that water doesn’t recognize political boundaries. Cleaner water flowing from the District means downstream jurisdictions have fewer pollution problems, and it helps improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay, a national priority. The District is home to about 11 percent of the region's population, but the benefits of cleaner water for drinking and recreation from here all the way to the Bay are enjoyed by millions. Meanwhile, surrounding states and local jurisdictions face their own regulatory and budgetary pressures, many also tied to federal mandates, to improve water quality.

Current fragmented efforts do not match the scale of the problem. Water may not be constrained by boundaries, but communities and utilities are. They have no authority beyond their own borders or narrow rate bases, yet they must address water issues that span multiple states and stem from multiple causes, including agricultural runoff, sewage, and stormwater runoff and erosion.

Jurisdictions and regions across the country face the dilemma of developing sustainable financing for sustainable environmental goals. In the D.C. region, there is a better way to pay for clean water. We recommend that D.C. Water and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments convene federal, state and local jurisdictions to sort out a more rational approach to pay for the Clean Rivers Project, which could serve as a national demonstration. Wouldn’t it be nice to see the federal government create a framework supporting regions working together on water quality, resource management, system upgrading, and, of course, financing?

The full paper, "Cleaner Rivers for the National Capital Region: Sharing the Cost", is available here.

Authors

Martha Ross

Publication: The Avenue, The New Republic

Image Source: ERIC THAYER / Reuters

What's Missing From the Forbes Column on "Poor Black" Children

Martha Ross — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:34:00 -0500

In his column, “If I Were a Poor Black Kid,” Forbes writer Gene Marks notes the advantages conferred upon him and his children by being white and financially secure. He asserts that black kids in poor urban neighborhoods with struggling schools have a harder situation, but that with hard work and perseverance, they can successfully graduate high school, go to college, and get a good job.

Essentially, he’s calling for kids in tough situations to be resilient, or, in other words, to do better than expected in adverse circumstances. Resiliency is a valuable psychological trait, and there’s a fair amount of research on it and ideas to promote it. Everyone needs it, even affluent white people, because life isn’t fair and bad things happen to good people. But it’s nowhere near an adequate response to the problem of poverty and economic inequality. It ignores a major part of the equation.

Individual behavior happens in specific environmental contexts. Marks’ poor black kid has to marshal extraordinary levels of resilience in order to compensate for struggling schools and the effects of poverty.

So why is Marks so blithe about struggling schools and poverty?

He appears to be using the poor black kid as a symbol in a larger argument that the American Dream is alive and well. Marks opens and closes his column with references to President Obama’s recent speech on inequality (which he calls “excellent”), and he also highlights the 99 percenters. Nonetheless, he is saying, there are ways out of poverty and into the gentry. And he’s correct, in a narrow sense. But let’s stick with the poor black kid and Marks’ prescription for how he or she should navigate the minefield of a troubled educational system.

Education can be a powerful springboard for mobility, but it can also perpetuate economic and racial inequality. If we are going to urge the poor black kid to beat the odds, why do we tolerate the system that generates such steep odds in the first place?

Improving schools is a massive, messy, complicated initiative and it is inherently political. We have major disagreements about major issues: the role of poverty and economic distress in inhibiting academic achievement and whether/how to address such out-of-school factors; the value of standardized testing; how to encourage and reward teachers; the role of career and technical education; and the utility of a “college for all” approach. These are choppy, sometimes treacherous waters, and the only easy answers are platitudes.

But it is simply inaccurate to say, as Marks did, that the biggest challenge we face is “ignorance”--that the poor black kid doesn’t know about the opportunities that exist, such as scholarships, mentoring, and technological tools for researching and studying.

That is narrow and incomplete. His solution of personal pluck and perseverance is a similarly narrow and incomplete response to the problem he correctly identified: that income, race and family factors all-too-often limit an individual’s opportunities.

The truer, messier, harder answer is that we need to act on multiple fronts: Do more to help individual kids in tough situations find their way and develop stronger educational and career pathways through school and into employment, so that all kids face good choices.

Authors

Martha Ross

Publication: The Avenue, The New Republic

Image Source: © Adam Hunger / Reuters

The Wrong Debate About College

Martha Ross — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:35:00 -0500

A recent Intelligence Squared debate tackled the proposition that “Too Many Kids Go to College.” Arguments in favor: the cost of higher education is rising out of proportion to its value; it stifles entrepreneurial creativity (because Plan B is to found a million dollar software company, natch); and the bachelor’s degree is a “false credential” that doesn’t accurately signal what a college graduate knows and can do. Arguments against: Post-secondary education is the best hedge against poverty, unemployment, and dead-end jobs.

It was a lively discussion, but as the debate progressed, the terms got fuzzier and it wasn’t clear what they meant by “college”: A four-year college or university right after high school? Community college leading to an associate’s degree? A proprietary school? On-line courses? Ivy-covered buildings?

A better proposition to debate would have been: “Too many kids go to the wrong college for them.” That would have gotten to the heart of the matter—we have created a caste system with academic four-year baccalaureate programs on top, and we view programs that provide applied learning, occupational skills training, and employer engagement as second-best.

By granting the B.A./B.S. a sort of exclusive “most-favored nation” status, we’ve constrained ourselves from developing a diverse, robust set of educational pathways through post-secondary education and into the labor market. (We’re also overly focused on prestige and ivy, but that’s another topic.)

The dominant “college for all” approach leads to the mainstream ideal of completing an academic program of study in high school and then immediately attending a residential four-year college. But the field of post-secondary education is much broader, also including two-year degrees, certificates, apprenticeships, and occupational training. While it’s clear that a high school diploma alone is likely to lead to low-wage jobs, research shows that not everyone needs a four-year degree to support themselves. Depending on the field, certificates and associate’s degree holders can out-earn those with four-year degrees. A wide swath of jobs in the labor market—good jobs, with good earnings—does not require a bachelor’s degree. In 2018, almost equal proportions of jobs are projected to require some college or an associate’s degree (30 percent) as are projected to require a bachelor’s degree or more (33 percent).

But the four-year degree also carries cultural significance. The question of who should go to college, and what exactly do we mean by college anyway, taps into conflicting currents in U.S. culture: 1) We’re a meritocracy and education is a tool for social mobility; and 2) race and class limit individual choices, and education reproduces inequality via tracking and segregation.

The “college for all” approach does not come out of a cultural vacuum. As one debater noted, people are very supportive of non-college options for other people’s children, but they want the best for their own offspring. And the best equals the prestige and self-determination that comes from a four-year college degree. Career and technical education (previously known as vocational education) has been disparaged and seen as a dumping ground for students not deemed “college-ready” because in fact many times it HAS been inferior to academic college-preparatory classes. And pretty typically, the kids assigned “non-college-ready” status have been poor, black, or Latino. It’s unquestionably the right thing to overturn decades of discriminatory behavior toward schoolkids and to stop tracking them into second-class educational options.

“College for all,” however, is not translating into the desired outcomes: Only about 30 percent of Americans earn a four-year degree by their mid-twenties. Dropout and attrition rates are high. We need to broaden our definition of educational success so that it includes more than the high school college-prep program leading to a four-year college degree. We should see equal worth and dignity in high school and post-secondary programs that include apprenticeships and contextual learning and that do not rely solely on the bachelor’s degree as a sign of skill mastery. The ultimate goal of education should be for individuals to discover things they love to do, and learn how to do them well. That’s the process and outcome we should value. We should stop assuming it only comes via a bachelor’s degree.

Authors

Martha Ross

Publication: The Avenue, The New Republic

Image Source: Â© Mike Segar / Reuters

Strengthening Educational and Career Pathways for Washington D.C. Youth

Martha Ross — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 00:00:00 -0400

In the District of Columbia, far too many young people fail to make a successful transition to adulthood. They drop out of school before earning a high school diploma, a post-secondary degree or training credential with value in the labor market, and ultimately fail to get or keep a good-paying job. The District can do far more to leverage its considerable assets to ensure that youth and young adults stay on track or get back on track to achieve these key educational and employment outcomes.

Current efforts to prepare D.C. youth for careers and post-secondary education are woefully inadequate. While there are pockets of excellence, few programs provide evidence of effectiveness; serious employer involvement remains the exception rather than the rule; partnerships among government agencies, public education (K-12 and post-secondary), and community service providers are often non-existent or ineffective; and information to evaluate and improve programs is usually lacking.

The District and its partners should embrace the following agenda:

Adopt a goal that by 2022, 90 percent of DC youth will earn a post-secondary credential and obain full-time work by the age of 24.
Identify how many young people are now falling out of the educational and training pipeline at different points.
Develop, improve, or expand programs to re-engage them and to support all youth in transitioning successfully to adulthood. Programs should more tightly link secondary and post-secondary education and integrate education, training, work-readiness and youth development principles.
Develop clear engagement points for employers to work with training providers, public schools, post-secondary institutions, unions and community-based groups in order to provide a pipeline of qualified residents to employers who are ready to hire them.
Insist on quality improvement and performance measurement. Use the National Youth Employment Coalition’s Promising and Effective Practices Network as a resource, re-orient the Department of Employment Services’ youth portfolio towards a more balanced approach between summer and year-round programs, and improve oversight on both substance and administrative functions like contracting. Close programs that cannot demonstrate effectiveness.
Dramatically improve the city’s capacity to generate and use data to track the progress of the District’s young people along educational and career pathways and in meeting its goals.

Downloads

Download the Full Paper

Authors

Martha Ross

Image Source: Â© Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Creating New Career Pathways for Youth Success in Washington D.C.

Martha Ross — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:07:00 -0400

The Washington, D.C. region routinely ranks highly on measures of economic health, even though in these recessionary times, “economic health” sometimes means you’re still suffering, just not as badly as the guy down the road. And averages mask all kinds of disparities. For example, the city at the core of the region has both high average incomes and high poverty rates, and, as you can imagine, these figures do not refer to the same residents.

Let’s zoom in for a closer focus on a particular subset of Washington, D.C. residents to see how they’re doing: young people. A successful transition to adulthood typically involves the achieving the following educational and employment milestones:

Finishing high school or earning an alternative credential,
Earning a two- or four-year college degree or a certificate with value in the labor market, and
Work experiences (internships, part-time jobs, entry-level jobs) that lead to jobs with good wages and opportunities for advancement

Other researchers have noted the dismal employment outlook nationally for young people, as well as the high school dropout crisis.

Given this backdrop, it’s not surprising that the news regarding young people aged 16 to 24 in the District is not pretty. Nearly 9,000 District low-income young people aged 16 to 24 are not in school and are not working – one in ten of all young people. Unemployment rates among 16 to 19 year olds are at 50 percent. (Scroll down to page 15 for the D.C. numbers.) High school graduation rates are below 50 percent. An analysis of a cohort of public school 9th graders in 2001 found that of every 100 students, 43 graduated from high school within five years, 29 enrolled in post-secondary education within 18 months of graduating high school, and nine earned a post-secondary degree within five years of enrolling in college.

These youth struggle to succeed in high school, post-secondary education, and the labor market. If we don’t create better pathways to adulthood for them, they will become the low-income, low-skilled, and unemployed D.C. residents of the future.

But we don’t have to accept the status quo. I go into more depth in a new paper, Strengthening Educational and Career Pathways for D.C. Youth, but here’s the short version. There’s a lot we can do. Starting with the big picture, let’s acknowledge that there’s dignity in all kinds of learning and working, and get serious about building multiple pathways to high school completion and post-secondary education, instead of focusing only on the college-prep track leading to a four-year degree. Bring employers into high schools through “Career Academies.” Integrate occupational skills with developmental education. Strengthen youth service corps and internship and co-op programs at the secondary and post-secondary levels.

These are big challenges, but if we’re willing to make serious, positive, and necessarily disruptive changes, we can end the cycle of low expectations, low achievement, and limited employment prospects for young people stemming from the current educational and employment landscape.

Authors

Martha Ross

Publication: The Avenue, The New Republic

Image Source: Â© Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Challenges Associated with the Suburbanization of Poverty: Prince George's County, Maryland

Martha Ross — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Martha Ross spoke to the Advisory Board of the Community Foundation for Prince George’s County, describing research on the suburbanization of poverty both nationally and in the Washington region.

Despite perceptions that economic distress is primarily a central city phenomenon, suburbs are home to increasing numbers of low-income families. She highlighted the need to strengthen the social service infrastructure in suburban areas.

Full Presentation on Poverty in the Washington-Area Suburbs » (PDF)

Downloads

Full Presentation

Authors

Martha Ross

How to Fix the Washington, D.C., Summer Jobs Program

Martha Ross — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0400

It's Groundhog Day in August: another hot summer and another contentious D.C. Council hearing on the summer jobs program. It played out again a few weeks ago when the council rejected Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's last-minute request to extend the program beyond the six weeks authorized in the FY 2010 Budget Support Act. Never mind that the seven-day extension would add $4 million to a program already over budget by about $7 million.

It's time to break the cycle. Summer jobs are not the only way to connect young people to jobs and training, and they shouldn't be the sole policy focus. We also need to make our summer jobs program manageable and predictable. That means targeting enrollment for a specific number of young people, making quality -- not size -- the most important benchmark and putting improved management and financial systems in place. Then we can broaden the debate about youth employment to include year-round programs, internships, and career and technical education at the K-12 and post-secondary levels.

That there are enough job sites for participants, and that each job site has a clear work plan vetted by DES. No one gets paid for doing nothing or gets make-work assignments, and all participants learn new skills.
That youth are matched to their job sites based on an assessment of their hard and soft skills. Some sites want to provide basic skills enrichment and work-readiness training. Others, usually private-sector employers, want someone who is ready to go and needs less coaching.
That there are clear standards for youth and job sites, and that both receive orientation, support and oversight throughout the summer.
That managerial and financial systems are sufficient to handle registration, job site assignment, timekeeping, payroll and troubleshooting. Every summer, Employment Services has to dramatically ramp up its operations in a short time. This is not an insurmountable problem but appears to make it more likely that logistics swamp quality concerns.

Rather than building a program around unlimited enrollment, the city should deliver on its promise to provide meaningful work opportunities and help young people build skills -- and stay within its budget.

Authors

Martha Ross

Publication: The Washington Post

Public Oversight Roundtable on Washington's FY 2010 Summer Youth Program

Martha Ross — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Chairperson (Michael) Brown and other members of the committee: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) operated by the DC Department of Employment Services (DOES). As you know, this program has been a city priority for many years, but the last few years have been bumpy.

Budget over-runs for this program are getting to be a habit. This is the second time in three years that the program has exceeded its authorized budget. The latest installment in this saga is a $12 million over-run of the program’s $22.7 million budget. In 2008 and in the current year, the root cause of the over-run is the program’s size. This year, rather than living within its means in a very tough budget environment, the Fenty administration chose to continue its policy of serving about 20,000 youth, knowing it did not have the budget to support that many participants. While the goal of providing employment and skill-building opportunities to so many District youth is laudable, the program’s implementation is divorced from budgetary realities. Nor has DOES shown that it has the capacity to plan and deliver a consistently high-quality program. The administration appears satisfied with size and symbolism instead of a program that delivers on its promise to provide meaningful work opportunities and help young people build skills and gain experience. In some cases, the summer jobs program does teach young people valuable skills, but sometimes it teaches them that they can get paid for doing nothing.

SYEP’s problems stem from two basic issues:

Insufficient attention to program quality.
Program size. Not that a smaller program is a panacea. In previous years, smaller summer jobs programs have also had problems. Former Councilmember Carol Schwartz held a roundtable in 2007 in which youth and nonprofit host sites detailed many of the same problems that surfaced after the program’s dramatic expansion in 2008: administrative difficulties related to job site assignment, timekeeping and payroll, and little attention to quality.

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

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

This requires developing several categories for youth participants: those who are work-ready, those who need some coaching, training and mentoring, and those who need extensive training and support to succeed in a workplace. Younger participants (14- and 15-year-olds) probably need their own track appropriate to their own developmental and enrichment needs (and also not running afoul of child labor laws).
Employers who specify they want work-ready participants are assigned work-ready participants. Less work-ready participants are assigned to sites that specify they have the interest and capacity to host young people with those characteristics. Typically, private sector employers are assigned work-ready young people and youth-serving nonprofits are assigned youth that need more assistance.

There are enough job sites for the youth. No youth are assigned to city agencies that don’t really want them or to any site without a clear work program.

Job sites and supervisors receive supervision and support over the summer. Currently, if a youth has a positive experience, it is because of the host site’s initiative, not DOES’ standards or oversight. Especially for private-sector employers, DOES should ensure that youth can access support from DOES or youth-serving nonprofits for problems that may interfere with their employment. Employers may be willing to hire youth but probably do not want to serve in any kind of a social worker role.

Managerial and financial systems are sufficient to handle registration, job site assignment, timekeeping, payroll, and troubleshooting.

This is a labor-intensive endeavor and it involves a lot more than assigning kids to slots like they’re widgets. The Department of Employment Services and the Office of Youth Programs do not appear to have enough staff or staff with the appropriate skills and experience. I know that there are smart, hard-working employees in DOES and OYP, but something is preventing them from operating a consistently high-quality program. Judging by the program’s history, this has been the case for some years. Yet, if the program is a priority, why is this situation allowed to continue?

Another frustrating aspect of the summer jobs program is that it draws attention and resources from year-round programs. The number of youth in year-round programs is a fraction of the number in summer jobs program. Combined, the number of youth in year-round programs (including in-school and out-of-school youth) is typically less than a thousand. Especially for young people in vulnerable situations, a summer program is simply not enough, especially when it is not connected in any systematic way to further education and training, whether through a DOES program, career and technical education in the public schools, or internships. Connecting the summer jobs experience to further educational and employment options is also a smart choice for young people succeeding in school.

The city can do better. The summer jobs program is a predictable event. It is not a surprise that every summer the city operates this program – we can foresee that the same problems will occur again and again unless we make some changes. Youth employment programs can play a constructive role in young people’s lives: connecting them to the world of work, teaching interpersonal and occupational skills, and serving as a springboard for the future. For years, the city has taken the important step of prioritizing summer jobs for youth, but it has not backed that up with a commitment to quality. Nor has it aligned the program with budgetary realities or a clear-eyed assessment of the city’s administrative capacity. The city should either get the program right or stop doing it.

Authors

Martha Ross

Publication: Committee on Housing and Workforce Development, District of Columbia

Public Oversight Roundtable on the Workforce Investment Council and the District’s One Stops

Martha Ross — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Chairperson (Michael) Brown and other members of the committee: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the DC Workforce Investment Council (WIC). Your interest and leadership on this topic is heartening, since the WIC has languished for too long as a weak policy body. The city needs strong and sustained leadership to help District residents improve their skills and increase their employment rates and earnings. The WIC should be an integral part of that leadership team.

As you know, the WIC is a federally-mandated entity created by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). The District’s WIC combines the functions of state and local workforce boards. Overall, its task is to convene employers, education and training organizations, government agencies, unions, and other stakeholders to respond to area labor market needs and help the community thrive. Specifically, it includes the following functions:

As a state body:

Developing a state plan
Developing and continuously improving statewide activities under WIA
Developing and improving comprehensive state performance measures to assess the system’s effectiveness

As a local body:

Developing a local plan
Selecting and overseeing the operators of One-Stop centers
Identifying eligible training providers (youth and adult)
Overseeing youth and adult services
Developing a budget and administering grants
Developing employer linkages and coordinating workforce development and economic development activities
Helping employers meet their hiring needs

The DC WIC has not acted in a leadership capacity in carrying out these roles.

As you well know, the WIC suffers from several problems:

It has not had a permanent executive director for several years, and currently has minimal staffing.
When the WIC did have more staff, they were not particularly strong in policy development or program oversight. Nor were they strong in developing partnerships with nonprofits, government agencies, or the private sector.
The WIC does not have strong backing or interest from the executive branch, both in the current and previous administrations. The executive branch has not made workforce development a priority, despite its relevance to the city’s economic competitiveness and social health. Nor has the legislative branch previously focused sustained attention on workforce development.
Related to the above bullets, the WIC does not have a strongly engaged membership, especially from the private sector, since it is not clear what the WIC accomplishes.

These problems persist despite the energetic efforts of Bill Dean, the current chair and Barbara Lang, the previous chair. Both dedicated their own staff to work on WIC-related matters. The city is home to talented and committed individuals from the public, nonprofit and private sectors who care about workforce development but the WIC has not successfully harnessed their energy and efforts.

To be fair to the WIC, it has a hard job and many of its counterparts around the country also face difficulties in carrying out their mission. The workforce development field is broad, as it includes a multitude of programs to help individuals improve their basic or technical skills, get a job, or get a better job. Organizing multiple partners (employers, community colleges, public schools, nonprofits, government agencies, unions, and so on) around a focused agenda is challenging. In other jurisdictions, high school career and technical education programs and community colleges are strong institutions and help form the backbone of the system. The District is home to a weak career and technical education program in DCPS and only recently has the University of the District of Columbia embraced its community college function by creating the Community College of the District of Columbia. Workforce development also presents thorny problems in how to best to assist individuals who may have low skill levels or other barriers to employment.

And yet, the Workforce Investment Act has charged the WIC with specific responsibilities and unless the law changes, that is the WIC’s job. In addition to the federal mandate, it is clearly in the District’s interest to convene regional and local employers, government agencies, nonprofits and unions to develop a policy agenda around employment and training.

Given the circumstances, what should DC and the WIC do?

1)     First of all, the WIC should hire an executive director and staff. The lack of a director has been crippling, and it’s not clear why the position has been open for so long.
2)     Build the WIC’s capacity incrementally, deciding on specific initiatives based on members’ interests, relevance to the local and regional labor market, and capacity (of the WIC itself and partners). I offer some ideas below, but I’m sure that WIC members and others have additional options to add.
a.      Focus on stable or growing industry sectors in the city or region with unmet labor market needs. Develop partnerships of employers, education and training organizations, community-based groups and unions to meet these labor market needs, whether that is upgrading the skills of incumbent workers, improving worker retention, or identifying and training new hires. Sometimes called a “sector-based” approach, the goal is to meet the needs of both workers/job seekers and employers.   The WIC could start with its sector analysis of a few years ago, but update it with interviews and candid discussions with employers to adapt for recent economic changes.
b.      Develop performance standards for training providers and assess providers’ performance in complying with the standards and meeting employers’ and participants’ needs.
c.      Assess the One-Stop career centers and consider naming another provider than DOES to operate one or more centers if the assessment finds that the quality of services at the One-Stops is inadequate.
3)     Tie efforts to reinvigorate the WIC’s membership to the specific initiatives undertaken by the WIC, so that new or existing members are engaged with WIC activities and have a clear role.
4)     Clarify the WIC’s relationship with DOES. The WIC and DOES obviously should have a close working relationship, but they have separate roles and responsibilities. The WIC’s role is to set policy priorities and provide oversight of the workforce development system, while DOES operates workforce development programs. The WIC’s current position within DOES and dependence upon DOES staff hurts its ability to act on its own as a separate entity.
a.      I think the idea of transforming the WIC into a non-profit public-private entity is promising but given the resistance, it’s not worth pursuing in the current administration. I would rather not put structure over function. More important is whether the WIC has an engaged membership, the support of the Mayor, greater independence from DOES, and clear goals.   The WIC could work well or poorly in any number of organizational configurations.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and I’m happy to discuss this topic further.

Authors

Martha Ross

Publication: Committee on Housing and Workforce Development, District of Columbia

Public Oversight Roundtable on Washington's FY 2010 Summer Youth Employment Program

Martha Ross — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0400

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Job sites are prepared for youth participants, with appropriate supervision and work plans for youth, and support and oversight for the job sites.
Efficient managerial and financial systems to handle registration, job site assignment, timekeeping, payroll, and troubleshooting.

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

The general state of the economy, affecting the ability of outside job sites (both private and nonprofit) to host youth
The program’s current funding structure and design: The agency places youth in job sites but relies on the sites’ own staff and resources to design a summer work plan for the participants and supervise them. For sites that only take one or two youth, this is probably not an issue. For those that employ more youth, however, it can be a real burden on the agency and reduce the quality of the experience for the youth. It could be particularly problematic in the case of government agencies that are mandated to accept youth, whether or not the agency wants them, is prepared for them, or has work for them.
Mission creep. The program appears to have multiple goals:

Preparing young people for the work world
Keeping young people off the streets and out of trouble
Providing income for young people and their families

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

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

Authors

Martha Ross

Publication: Committee on Housing and Workforce Development

Building a Strong, Independent DC Community College

Alice M. Rivlin and Martha Ross — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:17:00 -0500

A report commissioned by Greater Washington Research at Brookings and DC Appleseed underscores the need for a strong community college in the District of Columbia. The report, conducted by JBL Associates, recognizes the steps already taken by the new Community College of the District of Columbia (CCDC) and recommends that the city support CCDC in moving towards independence from the University of the District of Columbia, with its own administration, board of trustees, budget and academic accreditation. The report also proposes that CCDC create partnerships with one or more of the area’s community colleges in order to supplement its own programs and courses in its start-up years.

The report was the subject of a roundtable convened by Vincent C. Gray, Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia. The roundtable, “Implementation of an Independent Community College in the District of Columbia” included testimony from Brookings, JBL Associates, and DC Appleseed.

Downloads

Authors

Increasing Employment, Skills and Earnings

Martha Ross — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0400

Good morning Councilmember Barry and other Council members. My name is Martha Ross and I am Deputy Director of Greater Washington Research at Brookings. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the proposed FY 2010 budget of the Department of Employment Services.

I’d like to start out by saying that I think the city is lucky to have someone of Joe Walsh’s caliber as the Director of the Department of Employment Services. He brings energy, lots of ideas and receptivity to community partners. I hope he sees fit to stay with the city for a long time.

I understand that Mr. Walsh is planning to strengthen the agency’s activities and programs for disconnected youth and adult job training, which is sorely needed. His idea to use federal stimulus money immediately on weatherization training is smart, since it provides a relatively quick training opportunity for jobs that are related to other stimulus priorities. He is planning to apply for competitive federal funding as well related to green jobs and health care, and use youth stimulus funding to support disconnected youth programs, which strikes me as exactly right.

Regarding the budget, I’m going to focus my remarks on a few areas. The FY 2010 budget allocates $43 million to the summer youth employment program, and $12 million to the Transitional Employment Program. Especially in a tough budget environment, this is a lot of money. This $55 million is either entirely or almost entirely in local dollars – there may be a small amount of federal money in there. Only $9 million is allocated to year-round youth employment programming, and presumably that includes federal Workforce Investment Act funds.

We would all like to have a strong summer jobs program that helps young people gain skills, earn money, and get connected to the world of work. Similarly, providing subsidized jobs to adults with barriers to employment through the Transitional Employment Program is a smart strategy. However, both programs have implementation problems that reduce their cost-effectiveness and ability to achieve their goals. Additionally, I am distressed at the lack of attention provided to year-round programs for youth, including those disconnected from school and/or employment.

In 2007, DOES served 357 in-school youth and 290 out-of-school youth in year-round employment programs, for a grand total of 647 in year-round programs. Numbers for 2006 are similar. Compare to this to the estimate from an earlier Brookings report that about 4,400 to 6,000 youth between the ages of 16 and 24 are not enrolled in school and working less than full-time. Even if the number is smaller – I’ve heard Vinnie Schiraldi, Director of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services, estimate there are about 2,750 disconnected youth in the city – our year-round programs for in-school and disconnected youth are way too small.

With so few year-round slots, most youth in the summer jobs program cannot go on to participate in year-round programs, and lose a chance to reinforce the lessons and learning of the summer jobs experience. Youth, especially those with multiple challenges, benefit from the supportive structure of a well-run long-term program, and they don’t get that through summer jobs.

As you know, there were well-publicized problems with last summer’s jobs program, due in large part to a few key decisions, such as not putting a cap on enrollment and extending the length of the program from 6 weeks to 10 weeks. Given last year’s problems, which have been amply detailed in an internal report from the administration as well as a report by the DC Auditor, I’m surprised that the city decided to keep the same parameters. I am in favor of big investments in programs that are likely to generate high returns in the forms of good outcomes, but the summer jobs program appears to be a big investment with uncertain, uneven, and sometimes really bad outcomes, at least as it has been implemented locally. The problems predate last summer – in a 2007 roundtable convened by then-Councilmember Carol Schwartz, nonprofit service providers provided gave specific examples of numerous problems with registration and administration, using words like “excruciating,” “chaotic,” “confusing” and “demoralizing.” Young people reported getting paid to watch TV and eat. With no work to do and no supervisors keeping track of them, some participants faked the hours on their timesheets. Private-sector involvement has been minimal. After last summer’s experience, the DC Chamber of Commerce withdrew from the program and I believe is setting up its own summer program.

Although some youth have positive experiences every year (including last year), that outcome is due to the initiative and organizational skills of particular host sites, not the standards set by DOES or oversight by the agency. Even before the program’s expansion in 2008, DOES was unable to administer a high-quality program. The agency needs to focus on core issues: improving its program administration, getting youth work-ready, defining quality job placements, developing the capacity to monitor host sites, and engaging employers.

It is irresponsible to put $43 million in precious local dollars towards a program with this kind of track record, especially after allowing minimal time for the agency to regroup, reassess, and build standards and processes that would assure a quality experience. I recommend that the city use some of these funds towards year-round programs, with a focus on serving disconnected youth. The city could release a Request for Proposals for programs that serve youth and young adults with a combination of occupational skills training, basic skills education, work readiness services, and maybe a stipend for participants. There are some non-profits that offer those services currently, and I’m not sure what their capacity is to expand, but we can develop a strategy over a couple years to increase slots. By my back-of-the envelope calculations, the city could serve another 200 youth in programs like YouthBuild and youth service corps for about $4 million. Other programs that aren’t targeted to youth specifically, such as the Center for Employment Training and the Excel Institute, could serve another 200 at a cost of $2.6 million. I’m giving these cost estimates and naming these organizations as an example, not as an exclusive list – I’m sure there are other strong programs I could have listed and that would submit strong proposals. In deciding how much to budget for the 2010 summer jobs program, the agency should decide how many youth it can serve in a high-quality program (certainly less than 21,000, and probably less than 15,000 participants) at the same time it is making the kind of program improvements I outlined above, and budget accordingly.

Although this hearing is about the FY 2010 budget, I would also like to bring up the FY 2009 budget and the summer jobs program. The budget for the 2009 summer jobs program is $23 million, and was developed assuming fewer youth (about 15,000) and six weeks instead of ten weeks. The agency appears to be using 21,000 youth as a baseline for this summer. Subsidized wages alone for 21,000 youth will cost about $33 million - $10 million more than was budgeted for. Presumably, the agency thinks that $43 million is the true amount the summer jobs program will cost – although inflation and increases in the minimum wage increase the 2010 cost from the 2009 cost, that’s still $20 million more than we’ve got budgeted for this summer. How is the city going to pay for this summer’s jobs program? That’s not a rhetorical question. One option is to cut the length from 10 weeks back to six weeks, which would reduce the amount the city pays in subsidized wages to about $20 million. Or cut it to five weeks, which would reduce the cost of subsidized wages to about $17 million.

We should all want Mr. Walsh to succeed and the summer jobs program to succeed—I certainly do. I think he’s made some smart choices to improve the program. But what the city has done thus far– set an audacious goal and barrel ahead with minimal planning – does not inspire confidence that it will achieve the goals we all want it to achieve.

Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to answer any questions.

Download the testimony » (PDF)

Downloads

Download

Authors

Martha Ross

Publication: Council of the District of Columbia Committee on Housing and Workforce Development

Demographic and Economic Trends in the National Capital Region and their Effects on Children, Youth and Families

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:21:15 -0500

Greater Washington Research at Brookings conducted an analysis to assess demographic and socioeconomic trends in the National Capital Region with an eye towards their effects on children, youth and families and presented their findings to Venture Philanthropy Partners. The analysis provides a primer on the stresses and challenges facing a region that is generally prosperous but with some geographic areas and populations in economic distress. Areas of focus include the suburbanization of poverty and economic stress, the rapid and recent rise in the immigrant population, especially in outer suburban areas, and the geographic divisions in the region based on earnings and race/ethnicity.

At a time of deepening economic anxiety and financial uncertainty, the National Capital Region is likely to fare better than other metropolitan areas, although that is small comfort to families and institutions struggling through the recession. Additionally, vulnerable populations are at risk for increased hardship.

Download the presentation »
Download the full report »

Downloads

Download

Authors

Envisioning Opportunity: Three Options for a Community College in Washington, D.C.

Brooke DeRenzis, Alice M. Rivlin and Martha Ross — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:00:00 -0400

In most cities around the country, community colleges play a critical role in providing training for “middle skill” jobs, those that require less than a four-year degree but more than a high school diploma; helping students transfer to four-year baccalaureate programs; and serving adults who want to upgrade their skills. Community colleges are accessible to residents through open admissions and affordable tuition rates. They serve a diverse student body from all social and economic backgrounds with flexible schedules and offerings. Community colleges offer a wide array of academic and occupationally-focused certificate and associate programs tied to the regional labor market. Associate degree programs have clear articulation agreements with four-year degree programs to facilitate transfers. Community colleges also provide strong developmental courses for students without the reading, writing, or math skills required for college-level coursework, as well as support and guidance services to help students succeed. They often forge strong links with public high schools and adult literacy programs. Additionally, community colleges serve regional employers by working closely with them to develop curricula and programs to prepare a pool of skilled and qualified workers.

The District needs a community college to carry out these types of functions. While the regional labor market is generally a high-skilled one, not all occupations in the city and surrounding suburbs require a four-year degree or more. Nearly a third of the jobs in the city itself are accessible to workers with some postsecondary training or a two-year degree. Yet too often, District residents do not meet this threshold. Census estimates for 2005 suggest that more than 111,000 working-age adults in the city have no post-secondary education. D.C. residents with a high school degree or less have higher poverty and unemployment rates than those with some postsecondary education and college degrees.

Despite this need, the District of Columbia does not have a fully fledged community college. In fact, of the 50 largest American cities, Washington is the only city without one. Instead, the city’s only public institution of higher education, the University of the District of Columbia (UDC), struggles with the dual missions of a community college and a state university, straining its resources and hampering its effectiveness.

This brief lays out three options for creating a community college in the District: (1) Create a community college within UDC; (2) create a freestanding community college from an incubator institution; or (3) create a community college network that strengthens and ties together sub-baccalaureate offerings at UDC and other institutions in the city and suburbs. None of these options are easy or cheap, and all would require substantial commitment from city leaders and major new investments in higher education. If the city is not willing to make a large and long-term investment, it cannot expect much in return. While each option has benefits and limitations, we believe that the most viable, effective, and sustainable option is the creation of a freestanding community college that starts within an incubator institution.

None of the options call for eliminating UDC’s state university functions in favor of a community college mission. However, the creation of a strong community college would have major implications for UDC since it currently carries out all of the city’s public higher education functions. If the city chooses to move forward with one of the above options, the community college planning process should take place within a broader, inclusive dialogue about the city’s public higher education needs and priorities.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Putting Patients First: Developing and Maintaining Patient-Centered Medical Practices

Kathy Patrick and Martha Ross — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:00:00 -0400

Focus groups of low-income Washington, DC residents conducted by the DCPCA Medical Homes DC project identified multiple barriers to health care access and problems within the system. The identified barriers are common across the country, especially among low-income and minority populations, and the paper recommends several promising practices that health centers can enact to improve access to care and the patient experience.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Kathy Patrick
Martha Ross

Reducing Poverty in Washington, D.C. and Rebuilding the Middle Class From Within

Martha Ross — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:00:00 -0400

In her presentation at the Brookings event on reducing poverty in Washington D.C., Martha Ross discusses how to help the city's low-income residents move into the middle class over the next few years.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Martha Ross

Reducing Poverty in Washington, D.C. and Rebuilding the Middle Class from Within

Brooke DeRenzis and Martha Ross — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:00:00 -0500

Read the Executive Summary

Washington D.C. has experienced job growth, increases in city revenues, and a development boom over the past several years, but too many residents are excluded from local and regional prosperity. Ensuring the District's future as a vibrant, inclusive city depends on a commitment to increase the middle class from within. This paper from Brookings Greater Washington makes a set of focused recommendations for a workforce development strategy that will increase the skills, earnings, and employment of at least 10,500 low-income, low-skilled residents over the next seven years.

Workforce development, however, should be seen as part of a broader strategy to move the working poor into the middle class. Even with enhanced education and job placement services, many residents will continue to work in low-wage jobs. Polices and programs that support employment and create financial incentives to work can help residents in low-wage jobs make ends meet.

Additionally, an unstable housing situation can make it difficult to find and keep a job or participate in workforce programs. This paper proposes increasing assistance to alleviate the severe housing shortage experienced by the lowest-wage workers. To help working households stay in the city as their incomes increase, this paper also recommends developing workforce rental housing for middle-income families.

By helping more residents enter and advance in the workforce, the city can begin to steady its fiscal base while blurring economic, racial, and geographic divides.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Brooke DeRenzis
Martha Ross

Health Status and Access to Care Among Low-Income Washington, D.C. Residents

Martha Ross and Nicole Lurie — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:00:00 -0400

Findings
As part of the DCPCA Medical Homes project, an analysis of health indicators, insurance status, and hospital admissions in the District of Columbia finds that:

Residents of low-income areas of Washington, D.C. consistently have worse health outcomes and less access to health care than those who live in more affluent areas of the city. Residents in neighborhoods with medium to high poverty rates are more likely to have chronic diseases such as asthma, diabetes and hypertension and to be hospitalized for conditions that could be treated and managed in a primary care setting. They have lower insurance rates and are less likely to have a regular doctor or source of health care besides hospital emergency rooms.

There have been some improvements in the past few years, however, especially among youth and young adults. Rates of potentially avoidable hospitalizations among youth declined between 2000–2004. (Potentially avoidable hospitalizations are hospitalizations for conditions that, with appropriate primary care, should not become serious enough to require admission to a hospital.) These trends were strongest among youth living in high- and moderate-poverty ZIP codes. There was also a decline in potentially avoidable hospitalizations among young adults (ages 18–39). The timing of these downward trends coincides with the expansion of the District's Medicaid program and the creation of the D.C. Health Care Alliance, suggesting that these programs may be improving health outcomes for low-income District residents by improving access to primary care.

Health planners need access to more and better data to monitor District residents' health status, access to care, and the performance of the health care system. The lack of data is especially pronounced for children and youth, for whom the potentially avoidable hospitalization statistics are some of the only health data available. There is little information on children's insurance or health status. Without better data for residents of all ages on potentially avoidable hospitalizations by hospital, emergency department utilization, quality of care, insurance status, access to care, and chronic and acute diseases, the city and other health care leaders are hampered in their ability to improve the delivery of primary medical care to low-income and uninsured District residents.

The high rates of chronic disease and avoidable hospitalizations in parts of the city point to a clear need for better access to high quality primary care. Community health centers—nonprofit health centers with a mission to provide care regardless of ability to pay—provide critical services but do not have the capacity to serve all of the city's medically underserved residents. The Medical Homes D.C. project, launched by the D.C. Primary Care Association in partnership with the District government, Brookings Institution, RAND and numerous other partners, is in the early stages of a long-term initiative to strengthen the current network of community health centers and create a more effective system to deliver primary care to low-income and uninsured District residents.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Martha Ross
Nicole Lurie

Leaders Among Us: Developing a Community Health Worker Program in Washington, D.C.

Kathy Patrick and Martha Ross — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:00:00 -0400

Low-income residents of Washington, D.C. are in poorer health and have less access to regular medical care than more affluent residents. A citywide community health worker program could increase primary care visits among low-income residents, improve their health and reduce potentially avoidable emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Community health workers (CHWs) are trusted and well-trained community members whose backgrounds are similar to those they serve, and who provide health education, links to health services, and support in managing health conditions. CHWs serve communities with cultural, linguistic, or economic barriers to health care services. A growing body of research suggests that CHW programs improve access to primary and preventive care, reduce emergency department overcrowding, and are cost-effective.

A citywide CHW program could be integrated into the Medical Homes D.C. Area Health Education Center (AHEC), part of the D.C. Primary Care Association. The Medical Homes AHEC would coordinate the training and placement of CHWs in community health centers, hospitals, emergency rooms, and managed care organizations. The program should start on a modest scale, training and employing 10 to 15 students in the first year. Starting small will allow the program to devote adequate time to recruitment, curriculum development, job development, obtaining feedback and buy-in from health care providers, and fund-raising for ongoing program support. A citywide CHW program would cost an estimated $900,000 over the first five years.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Kathy Patrick
Martha Ross