1) · Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America Boy Soy s of America. 4. national network

NI,

iii.. ) I I

1. I 04

1 r Itt 1,t1

111

AU

1 1o 1

t'l10 !! vi° 0"

ii. 1.1 11. il I) ,i141;-,-, It

I I

ur -

,W1 1._.

.?// li4) : 11 :) 1,!' 4! 'I:1 (9 11.1:1-li t-)11-1

ri p) .C. Si .. :11 l I 1 III

ti!

.1 :U1 -4 1 1 0 : 0'..1 0, ,,tj

' r .14 14.1 ' * 114 : 0 ' 1 4 .4 .1.14t+1 ..-1' 1,,Lig'r-(11.01U 2..'L'Il U) livl i.'41. ,.et, w

1/40 : 0 .141 : ,.111

I (1) I s l !V) E l , 1-1 Id I'd : 14 41. 4.) PI lal 10 .11-1..r1 0 IQ) :U) 1U/' 'CI ,4-4 1.4.) 1 RIr1 I it/ bq 1.4 Cu1i ip IQ) lij i-41 4.1 10 1 0

F',I 41.1 ,1111411:40 Z 1 0 : t13. id' 1.14 '41 r11 (V '1)111-1' W .W 1,...,1144.44

.

41404143m

t o g. ri. y 1 ] 1 1 u 1.4 11.1 pi,1,,,,

gi, :2!-41 1 q' E l .....4-1 U L) L . 7 1010 -r1

.1?-JI t*I .1T4 'El 1/11 "(Z13' z 1 8 ....'-i' fili 8 ..'-',11,6,11,,-.1

.. .4 tr1-1 El 1-4 IN cit) AU 10 ..-1 Art A U .,, i 0 . 0. 41-1 ,Q) 'U) la) in .01 fri uot 11.1.1 IA41 4-4 1. 111 aU (Itlyttvi.1 0 r-li Cni 01 U 1:4 .Q) .0 :0 ;m1,0 ' 0

1 0 : 01 1-1. PI 0 1/4' ri ..ri * 1.4: 0(.11 1) 1.,.t. 11 4 lai :,t3,:trEi 1 ,L) 0 Ifil 1-1 t4,

14111.(43-1 1 t4'.1

C) ,1) 3:3 ':;',D.1%)1 I I 4, '4,1 11 141: IG.; (111 .14.1.1 1 tri. , , : 1 4.,,

PI !4-1 . 0 .t.1 41,1-.1.1.4..,(41) Al ty11);f:14-1 (ow :i3)11-; ,..11.01zn! to

1 el $e 11.11 1E1 . 4J,E1 gille*Ilt 111 ' "' 1 1 '6'1 '71.011j 'tt: 1*1:-1 (14

III-..1t11101.e114.4-1114 : Li) ! I') a '11 ,,1-11 «1 ''Al, :.1A '.;.... '>' HT 41 r:1 r !:1 +14 -irl 14 '14 !t11 '1 1 I* 1 tn, Fl j).-1 0 1:, , F4 1.1 ta .4, I-1 ;0 ../-11,4-,13 al . 4-1. 11,1 Al OA ! 0) 11.4-11 1:)! 4:d IN P. 'Z U)

11) o-1 .r1 . ...r1..r1. (4.1. 4-1ICI: 01 1-i..1.1 ' 0.4 1I 1 111 1 1T1 ! pi c) , i ., ) 14! 4., 4. . 4 .1-1 ii 11: .0 P 14..1 rd, 4-)

1 'e I Pi I 1:1111!4-)! 41 0 U) 0 :CI 11,11(1) 14)1 :-i-il iIi ,l'?,kill )`; ii ',....,i 0Hi:11: 11,11 I. f-,

0: iv 1 w U) r1Cl'' ri : pi 01

10 41: (LI' R. 0 tf) .U) U) 1-14 111, U1 fl1.4-1ATN!0:b4 0 41.1-1 101.1-1,0

,.1/ .0.-4 14.1 ,

11* .0 iv ! 141 ,

-.. , .t 4

t ,,,,

,,,, t , , , 1,1 IL ., .

6 !u, fru, ,f ,:, 1 ! 110 Ni . l'fr:J1;4 IL! 11.9 Li?, 'tI 14., 1 4-1 r-I. 4( ./.1 1:i W 114 -I 'r7.4 , 'I../ 4 LI ' ,., '..).....179 Ali 4/1) 0 ' 1'' ill F-1 : ci U ( I , , ' -11.1 4.9 P ici p I t) 1 4..... 0 1. i 1 i' I IV

[,1,,...,., ' 1,,'; ,, , 4.I 11 -ii , , U. \ ho U) ,, ,'1/4. ,,,, .,..,, ft (4', li+ r, i',/ ,1/1 1)

1 1 1 I r1r1 1 I 11 . (J) mil 0 14 .. i''Iv; !fl is), ,j 1 4114) 1..., ... fall :-,* ' 1 , I' ,f, it. 0, ii,III,(11,11

1271..r1 14-1 4-1 13 i 141 '173 0 ! U) ,1 0t Ill 1,-1. ! 4:4 :.) 4111,..0 . , . i, ! ,.. ,1 , f ; h 11/) 4, 1 1 -1t. ..---

0 t.114-1 pi . p: : Ai .* ON() U 0101010 14111F,. ' I- 1 4 1 0 1 Ili ril PI .-. t', Ail 1,-%

"4 11-i 1 0 Al, r1'1:1' !I( '.4111' (ILI) 7trii) 14) 11. 7 ;1,11 0'14...a, .-;j !J Hof Ili ua, !11) 1 04 ru

!4.)11-1 'r-1 (1) Ft 14 Fl ai Irri II :II- , fi (1.

U! 1 w 1 ! v:11 ii. Al i ni :rtf t 1 i I.4) ,I.E01,

40 14:-.1144

tiyi>111111

Li :111

t:11 ,t1 111 61 II' 'W-1-1 D1 L1, ril 1 III 11 111

,U). 4-4 :g !F: i'i-i ,=444--1 14 4-1 1"-t 410 ' 1,,-

p4 0..0 4411E1 ..1 w43 AV .0, ..4.4 0 :43 44 ,tt: Q) il-.t 1 0 .0 1 : 011U) l3'

43) 144 11s1 : (1,110 z"

'P4 44 , I, i 1. wir 4. I li Ill .1i-C 114:0

El 1 13 41) il- i GI'. 1=1 IV) U I P.14.1 ..r4 0 . r1 1.4-) 1.r. : 01.r1

11111 !.1111) 11 I IQ) Id PI r1 0 Iti I I 8 0 rl a , Fl I 0 1 0 IV.U.. RV r1 :0 , U 10'.54 ....... F) ! Z (V Ai 1pF&I r'--1!1/4

I 0 1 1 : 1 1 Al .4.1 0 E l L 1 ! 0 . 1 1..) Iv1,410-110110!nlIft1 : m rhl 1 1 Ps Z ! tn 0: i,-11 rai (ii 144 10

! In4-1 Pr) Ill F4 id Fr r-- .0 4-1 I IA 1 nil (II

0 itri 1 U) 1'H . r44

r.-1 AI 4-1.4-1 P1 :1.Pi 1 U) U) .11 : F1' o;* gi 1 sv.i+ sir.,-1

14.), 0.10-4 e ml 1 6.1014-1 i itE1-1

4-). A CI 1-1 ,N i , , ,t) , i-,:.0: 4) 0 , PI 4.1 1 ta I

lay fti aj II.4 .0 (-P

(1). XI In FA1 III

I-1 41 'CI i . 1 1 I. I DI' 1). .0 II-1 0) 1 tr) .4-1

O !q) : *41 0)4.1 In, xi 44 4t1 mirl 1 1-Ortc)0 oil 1 0- 1 0 .ri al r1 ! 44 41 Al I 1-1 1 I-I :.Z1 : pl.04 I % * t W PI 0 to im 1 II '0-U stlrIlt 11 I I ) IL) I 1 Id U...11

El I I-1 't-1 IX .0 4-1 I I- 141o,11 0 rd I () I:3 0 I I-I rl. -1-). 4-1 0 I-4 .4-3 I tr.I4-1 I (I)F14 el 1 ( L I 1 E l '0) 10 0 .) 1.11 Hpl 1 lat El 0 0 fil I 1-11 0 1-1

.4-1 1 P1 r-1! P. 0 ' '1"" ,144 1 U ) 1 1..)r11.1-1 1 1 ) W: 1-1 I WI.G4 1 W' L )41), .4.4 l i ) : p i 1 1 ) . 1 / 4 1 0 ..0 ' U U 0 14 :F4 .nt/ 1 0 1 0 ! U14.H pi .0) 44 :a,),r1,U. 0 10,) Ni W .011-4144 10.Q)...iclj 1 11.0, 4r9...tc-1 4) . s . ( 1 ) 1 0 HP1, 1-1 41r-1,U Ul'UvoltuAl,F.; 31 V. :(tf . 1 0 - I I - 1 . 14 1 (Win 0/ le) WI 0 '45 I ii4I C.-. I, IP1- rIl ' I I I 1 g l ! () r-1.41 . XI r+I :Al 'rri 01: 1 3 7 U) .(1). -1-) 10 I gi I QV WI U) . .N, .4 IQ)

t, f-I-1 14-11 U Pt IU) 11 Pt a 10 10 !Al. 14) 0 ,0 1:11 P/ .14 rr.I 1 El *H. 41:1' /0 T.4 4-i 4:11 44 44 . 1 Fn ri t. PI C4 111 W 10 *0 1 0 1 I I / 1 0 . e l A l c y ON m ) ip. 10 41 't-1: Wilr, 14 ' r-1 . 1 , 1 1 1 4 1 1 0 11-1: 0. . 4 1 ( 1 ) W : 0

1 : 3 f a l 1 : 1 rd CI !NII-4 1.4.V......064 0 1 . In A n : r1:1: L E V a:)! c l v i s , lz) 1g411F4.1 PI !P 4.11. Oil= U CD 10 C) : 0 Is . EA-v. -1 El 1 !GP

1 WI F-1 C) r:li H Ai 44 ii! 0 1,-.A i A.1 Patti 1111 ,44 4 E 3 c t 1 t-1 ,n1. ..1-1 .0 AO 14J ! U) r--.4 .0 '0 11) IL) 1 sr: 0 ri 1-1 W CI 40 ri I 3::1 1 44 I

f--1 111 el th pH I UI Cr..4., 1W. 4.4 (J. 10 'P 4:1)1V4-1 A) to,-1 4-43 : :, 11.11 a ! ill R. Ul El itl, ri () v-I-1 I4-1 f

0 . 1 11-4 0 44 A.)1(1/14t1,11).4:1 r11011 {-I. 4.) 0 IQ) I 1-41,CV (1)(71Z U . ( r ) 1 in, 4-1 V 0 1 1 ! 0 lei 1 I-I A i ' 0 I-4 0 0. -) Iv) lig I

-1:1-tit 0 Z ip.1 174: 414 :0 .44 ' 1 0.: 1144 12-1, .0. 4-1 ,c14 .r4 0 /CI ! rz) "

0 '171 141

C-1 C.0 . Fit C-10 PA EA' 1...) 4.1., .44

. t :EA1-1C4

El 'En PI 41 , U) 14-11 /-1 ,V) 11-110A-1 :L.) 0 44 .r1 ,4 ,U) 'd

0 49 U)' W ' t

r. . o 0, N 10 'tn

i U 1:1)' rt 01 I (U 10 .(14 1 0 U/ in tizI :13 1 ire 1 (1)4.) jCV 10 1-1 IJ) 1) AI +1 I i-1 I it : 0Irl

1 fC131 Pal :at 'F-4 1-1 1 FA ..r 1 a ft, 11-11 cil IN 4.1) 1:V 1r4 42)

! E-1 ,- 174 0 ,1-11 14 1) I U) :Al : (1,111Z1 A 1(1) Y.). rd 10 il-i id PH : Q) I Mir" pLI IE-i 'P! FIN lin I) ! Z 2 1:4 .0 44 1:. ' jr:4 1.C1 4.1 41, 1,41 Q) 4 1! r-. 4-1 ;-1 171111'0 I V/t-i U) I () co! z1 L - 4 1 r , I A

, 44.1 .(// O y1 P A

HZ Rs 11) a 0 c i N 1m 0: 42) I-i tn:14-1 10 , ri i 0 0 iv y ri: r1 .14 0 I 0 11-1,0

1 iki 1 .4'1 .111 1:44' U' I r t .1;1 :A 1-1 1 F A At 11Z1 .Wild u 1>-1 in , a): Pc. cy r- ,t,,sra Wild 44 1 iai-P

* (1)

I* iti ** 111 ** la ** ** Q) ** ** P3 ** 'r0 ** 0 ** ** 1.44 ** 441 ** 14:1 ** 44 ** 1 ** :4-1 14-1* '11 1 pi *

fl

t) 111! 1 4,*.,

.1/4, , 41

w 0--,'* ,14 (0 *II- ** 11 ** 1(/) I CP*Lk (,14 I.J-1 ** n; 11-4 *

** 411 0 *** P-.14,14 *1 1.4-11,3-1 it

1.4.4 ** 10 it* Q) 1 El ** .44 10 ** r+4 114 ** .13414-4 ** . R. ** '0 ** Ul ** ** U) ** 41:1 *-1I , 0 ** rri ** Iv ** , 0 ** p ** :0 ** 11-i ** . Pt ** 41) ** ''111 ** ** ** ** ** * * *

National Calabar-AO-cm for Youth_

American Red r:-.,..)ss Youth Services

Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America

Boys" Clubs of America

Boy Soy s of America

Camp Fire. Inc.

4-H Youth Programs

Future Homemakers of America. lc:

Girls Clubs of America. Inc_

Girl Scouts of the U.S.A.

National Board of YMCAs

National Board. YWCA of the U.S.A.

The National Network

United Neighborhood Centers of America

National Collaboration for Youth1725 K Street N.W. -= Suite 408Washington. D.C. 20006(202)659 =0516

The National Assembly291 BroadwayNew York. N.Y. 10007(212) 267-1700

AmericanRed Cross

11c.Imorsaaa....01:1116 or van.*

SC01111116/13SA

4

^-P.1.25 ni ni"-ATs.:1RC.::

GIRL SCOUTS

YMCA

thenationalnetwork

UNSTED- NEIGHSOM000CENTns Of AMEMA

Voluntary Youth ServersAgencies Denionecreewad Ckgrizatimris andProject Protect Advisory Conunftlee

AmericanRed Cross Youth SenicesMs Firnrla MathesNatior..1 Program Specialist. Youth

Boys Chubs of AmericaMir. David WynnDi...Lector. National Program Developmen: --r7. vices

Boy Snouts of AmericaMr. Waiter M. FriedmanNaziortal Director, Program Support

Camp Film Inc.Dr. Karen BartzDirector. Program Department

Yoteli ProgranatDr. ice( IL SoobitskyProgrzam Leader 4-H

Future Homemakers of AmericaMs:. Louisa LiddellAssociate uirector

Girls Clubs of America, Inc.Fannie Belle Burnett

Director of Program Development

Girl Scouts of the U.S.A.Ms. Juiie GilliganCoordinator. Special and Innovative Project

National Board of YMCAsMr. Ronald JohnsonDirector. Juvenile Justice Services

National Board, YWCA of The U.S.A.Ms. Skip DockstaderTeen Program Consultant

United Neighborhood Centers of AmericaMr. Walter L. SmartExecutive Director

Acknowledgements

Infroduction

Developmert of the 7-"our-EmploYment Program Survey

The Survey Sat.-tole

The Reno':

Results of -die Youfa Erarrfoymemt Survey

Youth

Youth ServedYo-,th Served in Ent -4.. yrnent-Related ProgramsYouth Served in Ager-=.v Supported and CETA Surrwraed ===rsYouth Served by L_ S. Regions

Programs

Youth Employment .--ograms 1975-1978Types of Programs Or=feredEmployment Program for Inner City. Urban. St= d Rural YouthPrograms Supported 7? Agency Budgets and CEL1.__ 3LK :sPrograms by Major I: S. RegionsCFTA ProgramsProgram StaffPrograms with Volunzzer ServicesReasons for Not Off.-7.1g Employment-Related --_-x-arriProgram Evaivation

gunding 16

-ding for Youth ProgramsRange of Money ExpeodedCommunity Involvem-n_ t

Future Programs

ProjectionsTypes of Future Frog =msSources of Future

Summary 19

Arum-ion Red f:ross Youth Services

3oys- Clubs c± Ame,ica-;

3oy Scouts o America

Camp Fire, In,:

4-14 Youth Programs

Future Homemakers of Ameri._

girls Clubs of America 43

girl Scouts of e USA 446

Nizaticr2.1 Board of YMCAs 4+1

tiatiocal Board of the YWCA of the USA 54

niter !:.eighborhood Centers of America

£seticin 1F

Characteristics of the Participants in theYouth employment Programs in 1978 12

2.. Youth Participation in Programs Supported byAgency Funds and CETA Funds in 1978 12

3. Types of Employment - Related Programs Offered in 1975-1977

4_ Types of Youth Employrr.ent Programs with Volunteer Services 16

L Youth Employment Survey Return Rate for Phase I and Phase 9

2. Youth Served By All Agency Programs 11

3. Youth Employment Programs Supported byAgency Funds and CETA Funds in 1978 14

4. Number and Percent of Respondents with1978 Employment Programs and CETA Funded Programs

5. Reasons Respondents Did Not Offer Employment-Related PrzT=3.-- 16

6. Funding Sources for Employment-Related Programs 17

7. Ftnnge of Money Expended in 1378 17

8. Money Expended for Empr-n-ment-Related Programs 1975-1c7- 17

9. Community Involvement 18

10. Future Program Plans 18

Section IIFigures with Each Survey

1. Characteristics of the Participants in theYouth Employment F Jgram in 1978

2. Types of Employmenz-Related Programs Offered in 1975-77 arod in 1978

Appendix A - Tables

1. Youth Served by All Agency Programs 61

2. Funding Sources for Employment-Related Programs in 1978 61

3. Future Program Plans 6'4. Future Funding Plans 62

Appendix B - Major U.S. Region 63

The developmeim implementation and reporting of this survey would not have beenpossible without the assistanceand cooperation of many. many people. Among them arethose whose contributions '31* special importance: James Petersen of Behavidr As--sociates. whose patient diligence made it all possible: The Voluntary Youth ServingAgencies Demonstration Project Advisory Committee especially Walter Friedman,Boy Scouts of America. Fannie Belle Burnett. Girls Clubs of America. Inc. and RonaldJohnson. National Bard of YMCAs who gave continuing guidance_ and support. andfinally. the 1.816 respondents wh,- took the time to share the vital information.

Barbara J. Olive:Project Director

9

The National Assembly of National Voluntary Health and Social Welfare Organizations.Inc.. is an organization whose members consist of private health and social welfareagencies_ To be a member, an agency must be natioral and voluntary, have broad laycitizen participation. be sujported largely through volitorary contributions. and recog-nized as a nonprofit organization under Section 50! (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.At present the National Assembly consists of thirtv-six Members.

Member agencies with common interests may join together The National Collabora-tion for Youth. as an affinity group of the National Assembly. represents just such a group.Presently, thirteen member ag -ncies comprise she National Collaboration for Youth: twoagencies, Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America and The National Network, are recentMembers and were not included in (his survey. The eleven agencies that were the focus ofthis survey are listed below.

American Red Cross Youth Services ARYYSBoys' Clubs of America IrABoy Scouts of America BSACamp Fire. Inc. CF441 Youth Programs 4=1-1

Future Homemakers of America FHAGirl Scouts of the U.S.A. GS USAGirls Clubs of America GCANational Board of Y.M.C.A.s YMCANational Board of Y.W.C.A. of the U.S.A. YWCAUnited Neighborhood Centers of America UNCAAs part of the contract with the Department of Labor (Contract g99-8-1915-33-48). the

National Collaboration for Youth was responsible f:1- conducting a_ urvey of the localyouth-sc.-vh,g agencies affiliated with its member organizations. The purpote of thesurvey was to determine to what degree and in way_ the above agencies are involvedin providing employment and training activities for youth. In addition, it was hoped thatthe survey would identify the resources and capabilities available through these agenciesto address youth employment problems.

The need for a survey of this nature is obvious. These eleven National Youth ServingAgencies serve millions of youth across the United States. Knowledge of the extent ofinvolvement of each of the agencies' local member affiliates in providing employment-related services and programs for youth, I.:rid the general _nature of those programs, isinvaluable in_planning, programming and funding efforts of each of the National Collab-oration for Youth agencies, the Department of Labor. CETA prime iponsors, communitybased organizations, private sector employers, and many others involved in developingand conducting employment and training programs for youth.

It should be noted that while volunteers are often an integral part of each of theteorganizations. the question in the survey which relates to volunteers is specific to thoseinvolved in the employment related programs for youth.

10

Section IDevelopment of the Youth Employment Program Survey

On December 15. 1978. the National As-sembly entered into a contract with Be-havior Associates to survey the localaffiliates of the eleven pal 7i.pating mem-bers of the National Collaboration forYouth_

The original objectives of the surveywere formulated:

to determine the extent to Which, as wellas how effectively. the resources andcapabilities of youth-serving organiza-tions are utilized in addressing youth em-ployment problems.to demonstrate the experience and ex-perise that voluntary organizations havedeveloped in serving young people and indealing with youth employment andtraining problems, and to provide exam-ples of successful programs and ap-proaches.

to identify arms for establishing linkagesbetween voluntary youth organizationsand other agencies that serve youth suchas CETA prime sponsors. employmentservice agencies. school systems. com-munity based organizations and the busi-ness community.to identify programs and approacheswhere CETA prime sponsors havemaximized use of voluntary youth serv-ing organizations and to demonstrate toothers the resultant benefits.After discussions and further projectionS

of the methodology. original objectiveswere modified to reflect a survey format.Subsequently. some objectives were mod-Lied or determined as not appropriate forthe survey format. Specifically, it was feltthat the determination of .ìow effectivelythe resources and capabilitieS of theyouth-serving organizations are utilized inaddressing youth employment problems"was beyond the scope of a national mailsurvey.

Further; it was felt that providing exam-ples of successful programS and ap-proaches was also beyond the scope of asurvey and might best be left to a folloW-cpthrough the development and submissionof model programs as required by tbe De-partment of Labor contract.

After the development of a series ofQuesticins that reflected the objectives andthe data needs of the participating NationalOrganizations. the survey was field tested.Each of the eleven National Organizationssubmitted the names and addresses of threeof their local :member affiliates. A copy ofthe Ezld-test --'ersion was mailed to themwith t: letter r:.ti L:esting an evaluation of thesurvey from a user's viewpoint. Of 33field-test surve:, s mailed. 20 were returned.The input Kaineit from _the _field-testng ofthe survey facilitated the development ofthe final version of the Youth EmploymentProgram Survey.

TheeWith eleven participating National Organi-Zations. the issue of to whom the surveyshould be sent was an important one It wasdecided that the survey would be sent toeach organization's corporate mfit. definedas the unit responsible for program servicesand administration over a territorial juris-diction as contracted or chartered by theNational Organizations: Using this basicdefinition. each National Organizationidentified its own corporate units for thepurpose of the survey and prepared themailing ;1st.

Forrotgtions. BCA.4-H. FHA andYMCA. have a large number of corporateunits. In consultation with representativesfrom each b.' the agencies. it was agreedthat a random sample would be selectedfrom the total number of corporate units.The 4-H sample included 15 randomlyselected states and a random selection of520 units within those stars.

Because the total numbe- of corporateunits for the other seven participating Na-tional Organizations was small relative tothe other four organizations. it was decidedto ant7 the survey to each of their corporateunits.

The survey was conducted in twoPhases: In Phase I. 3.508 survey formswere mailed. The return rate was notevenly distributed among the participatingOrganizations. as shown in Table 1. To helpassure a more accurate tabulation of youthemployment and training activities._ a sec-ond survey Phase was contracted. Surveyforms were mailed to those who did not

Table 1 Youth EmploymentSamey Return Rate for_Phaseized_Pluese

NVO

Pius* I Phase I & Phase

SampleSize

Ce ReturnNumber of of Total

Surveys Survey sReturned Maded

SampleSae

Number ofSurveysReturned

Returnof TotalSurveysMarled

ARC -YS' I28 40 31 188 70 37BCA 300 109 36 300 209 70BSA: 420 250 60 420 253 60CFG 330 81 25 330 231 704-1-f2 520 96 18 520 90 18

FHA: 400 23 6 . 400 23 6GCA 120 57 48 120 80 67GSUSA 348 146 42 348 227 65UNCA 114 33 29 114 58 51

YMCA3 404 73 18 934 315 34YWCA 424 97 23 424 254 60

TOTAL 3.508 4.005 _29_ _4.;098 1.816 44

In Phase II. ARC-YS increased sample size by 60 cotperate units."BSA. 4-H St FHA elected not to resurvey in Phase II.'In Phase IL YMCA increased sample size to include total populatio: of corporate units.

respond in Phase I. The sample size forARC-YS and the YMCA were increased asa result of correcting mailing errors andomissions; thre-e organizations (BSA: 4-H.and FHA) elected not to participate inPha5e II. the reopened survey:

19

Table I shows the number of corporateunits surveyed for each National Orgarriza7tion, the number of surveys returned andthe percent of surveys returned for eachorganization in PhaSt I and in PhaSeS I andII comb med Overall, the return rate for theeleven participating National Organiza-tions was 44% of the total surveys mailed.

The Report

This report is presented in two sections.Section I is an analysis of the responses ofthe 1.816 corporate units of the elevenNational Youth Serving Agencies. Forsimnlicity, those corporate units Which re-turned completed surveys, are referred toas RESPONDENTS. All data have beenSummed to yield a national view of theYouth Employment Programs.

Section II of the report contains ananalysiS for each of the eleven NationalYouth Serving Agencies. The respondingcorporate units are again refered to asRESPONDENTS.

In both sections: the information pre-sented refers to youth employment pro-grams during three periods: The Past(1975-1977). The Recent Past (1978) andthe Future. The greatest number of ques-tions in The Youth Employment Surveyrefer to The Recent Past (1978) activiti°s ofthe respondents. In most cases. 19Th in-

13

formation is presented first, and, whenpossible._ followed by information about1975-1977 and/or the Future.

The data are presented in a variety offormats. Figures and tables have been usedfor ease of interpretation. When read-ing figures or tables, please note that thepercentages may not total 100% due torounding.

Results of The Youth Employment Program Survey

Youth

Youth Served by The Rrsponcipritc

The surveyed affiliate organizations offer awide range of services to youth and theirfamilies. In order to identify the geographicarea served by the organizations and thegeographic sources for the youth recruitedfor all programs and services, the followingquestion was asked:

Please tell us what percent of the youth.which your agency serves. reside in thefollowing areas: Inner City. Urban.Suburban and Rural?

The response to this question indicatedthat the respondents recruit and serveyouth on a fairly even distribution fromeach of the four geographic areas served bythese agencies.

There was no working definition for thelisted geographic areas, so replies weresubject to individual interpretations.Nonetheless, the URBAN areas seem tohave the highest percentage of youthserved, while the majority. 55% of the re-

11

spondents, indicated that they did notserve youth residing in the INNER CITYareas. Table 2 presents the percentage ofyouth served by the respondents across thefour geographic areas.

Youth Served in Employment-RelatedPrograms

The respondents reported that a total of287.992 youth participated in a wide varietyof employme.::,related programs during1978. This participation represents a na-tional mean of 263 youth per program:however, the median of 35 youth per prcgram is more accurate reflection of the participation level per program:

In Figure 1. the characteristics of theyouth participants in employment pro-grams are presented. A majority (61%) ofthe youth were MALE, while 39% wereFEMALE.

Table 2Youth Served by All Agency ProgramsRespondent's Identification of Service by Geographic Areas

The ethnic characteristics data indicatethat the youth were predominately WHITE(697e). The proportion of other ethnic/cultural groups are as follows: BLACK/AFRO:AMERICAN (21%). HISPANIC(5%). ORIENTAL/ASIAN (3%).AMERICAN INDIAN (1%). OTHER(1%). In addition, the youth in em-ployment-related programs tended toreside primarily in SUBURBAN (34%) andURBAN (28%) areas. Nineteen percent ofthe youth were reported living in RURALand INNER CITY areas each.

To what extent were youth with specialneeds involved in the youth employmentprograms? The respondents reported serv-ing only a small percent of special needsyonth: i.e. LEARNING DISABLED (5%).YOUTH OFFENDERS (2%), PHYSI=CALLY HANDICAPPED (2%) andSTATUS OFFENDERS (1%).

Tabulations of family income levels indi-cated that 42% of the youth lived in familieswith annual incomes between 510.000 andS19.999.36% of the youth had families withannual incomes below S10.000 per year.while 21% had families with incomes above$20,000 annually.

Percent of Respondents

ARC-YS BCA BSA CF 4-H FHA GCA GSUSA UNCA YMCA

AllRespon-

YWCA dentsInner City

No Youth 41% 40% 46% 53% 797c _88% 64% _6117,- 13%_ _5_3% 48% 55%-1-50% 52% 17% 53% 39% 21% -0% 13%_ 40% 7% 38% 32c -32%51 -100% 7% 43% 1%_ 8% _117c_ 12% 22% 1% 80% 9% -20% 14%

UrbanNo Youth 39%_ -45% 22% 31% 50%- 77% 39% 35% 70% 387c 36% 39%1-50% 49% 38%-68%- -46% 42% 12%- 25% 487c= 17% 42% 37% 43%51-100% 13% 17% Ka -?3% 8% 12% 36% 18% 13% 20% 27% 18%

SuburbanNo Youth 30% 56% 32% 41% 48% 77% 5570 3970 85% 38% 45% 44%1-50% 56% 34% 54% 30% 35% 12% 33% 40% 13% 38% 42% 38%51-100% 14% 10% 14% 29% 17% 12% 12% 22% 2% 25% 14% 18%

RuralNo Youth 59% 62% 16% 27% 14% 53% 70% 25% 94% 37% 67% _ 4170_1-50% 41% 32% 55% 65% 46% 12% -287 67% 4% 53% 32%-- 46%-51-100% 0% 6% 30% 8% 40% 35% 2% _13%_ 2% 10%- 1% 13%

'These data represent the endreyouth membership of the respondents and is not limited to the youth involved in employmentprograms. Figures 'are percent of respondents and should be read. for example: 49% of the respondents from the ARC-YSindicated that 1-50% of the youth served reside in the Urban Area

or43% of all respondents indicated that 1-50% of the youth served reside in the Urban Arca.

14

12

Figure 1- Characteristics of the Participantsin the Youth Employment Programs in 1978

Percent of Youth Served

61%

Ethnicity

Native American 11%

Black/Afro-American

Hispanic 5%

Asian/Oriental II 3%White

Other I 1%

21%

69%

Special NeedsYouth Offenders

Status Offenders

Physically Handicapped

Learning Disabled

Geographic AreasInner City

Suburban

Urban

Rural

1.11.11-19%

19%

34%

28%

Family Annual Income

0$4,999$5,000-9,999

510,000-19,999

$20,000-29,999

530,000Above

Figure 2 Youth Participation in Program.s Supportedby Agency Funds and CETA Funds in 1978

MIN Agency Funded Programs CETA Funded Programs

Youth Served in Agency Supported andCETA Supported Programs

Are the characteristics of the rfnuth differ-ent for those who were itzvoi..rd in pro-grams supported by agency budgets versusprograms supported by CETA budgets?

There appears to have been a clear dif-ference between these two groups. Youthin CETA funded programs were 50%MALE and 50% FEMALE. whereas inAgency supported programs more wereFEMALE (60%) than MALE (40%). In ad-dition. CETA funded programs involvedmore minority populations, particularlyBLACKS and HISPANICS. than youthwho were involved in Agency supportedprograms. Figure 2 presents data which il-lustrate these differences.

One can conclude that CETA programsenable the youth serving organizations tobetter meet the employment training needsof minority groups and women. Since oneof the goals of CETA is to meet the em-ployment needs of minority groups such asBLACKS and HISPANICS, it would ap-pear that the National Organizations arehelping to fulfill this goal.

Youth Served by Major U.S. Regions

What was the distribution of youth in thefour major U.S regions?

North Central SouthNorth East West

The responses indicated the following per-centages:

30% live in the NORTH CENTRAL25% live in the NORTH EAST25% live in the SOUTH20% live in the WESTThe median number of youth was stable

across the four regions and ranged_ from 32per program in the NORTH CENTRAL to39 per program in the WEST. The U.S.Regions are defined in Appendix B.

Were the National Organizations re-sponsive to the ethnic distribution ofYouth? The answer is yes. In the SOUTHand WEST where-there is a greater numberof NATIVE AMERICANS than theNORTH EAST or NORTH CENTRAL.the median number of youth per programwas also greater.

Specifically. the median number of NA-TIVE AMERICAN youth per programwas 4 in the SOUTH and WEST. 3 in theNORTH CENTRAL and I in the EAST. Inthe SOUTH. NORTH EAST and NORTHCENTRAL where the number ofBLACKS is greater than the WEST themedian number per program is also greater.Specifically, the median number of

BLACKS/AFRO-AMERICANS per pro-gram Was 15 in the SOUTH. 12 in theNORTH EASE 11 in the NORTH CEN-TRAL and 5 in the WEST The same trendappears to be true for the remaining ethnicgroups. i.e., for HISPANICS the mediannumber of youth per program was 10 in theSOUTH. 8 in_ he WEST. 7 in the NORTHEAST and 5 in the NORTH CENTRAL;for ORIENTAL/ASIAN AMERICANyouth the median number was 3 youth perprogram in the WEST 2 in the NORTHEAST 1 inAhe SOUTH and none in theNORTH CENTRAL; for WHITE youththe median number was 24 per program inthe NORTH EAST, 21 in the NORTHCENTRAL, 20 in the SOUTH and 17 inthe WEST.

Programs

Youth Employment_Programs 1975-1978

The information presented in this sectionrepresents data about the respondent'sYouth Employment Programs. Informationabout 1978 programs is presented firstand, when possible, comparisons with1975-1977 programs are made.

A total of 4,737 separate and distinctyOuth employment-related programs wasoffered in 1978. As of June 1979; 73% ofthese program services were still being of--feted to youth. Of the total reported, 41%operated only during the summer. Themean number of programs offered was fourper respondent: however, the median wastwo. Interestingly, the number of separateand distinct programs ranged from 1 to 99.

For the three-year period, 1975 through1977. the respondents reported a total of5.923 employment-related programs foryouth. Of these, 2,617 programs were op-erated only during the summer. In 1978.4,737 employment-related programs wereoffered. with 1,944 of them offered onlyduring the summer monthS. By comparingthe _number of programs offered between1975 and 1977 (5,923) with those offered in1r8 (4-,737), it can be seen that the numberof programs offered in 1978 approaches thccumber offered during the previous three-year period, constituting a rather dramaticincrease in the availability of youth em-ployment programs.

In addition. it Should be noted that overthe past four years there has been a steadyincrease in the number of respondents fi-nancially supporting employment-relatedprograms for youth. In 1975. 949 respon-dents reported expending money on suchprograms_ the number increased to 985 in1976. 1,009 in 1977 and 1.250 in 1978; 1978demonstrated the most dramatic increase.

Figure 3 Types of Employment-Related ProgramsOffered in 1975-1977 and in 1978

as 1975-1977 (n = 1146) EN 1978 (n = 1250)

Tyres of_Programs _Offered

What types ofprograms were offeted to theyouth? The data presented in Figure 3 showthe types of employment-related programsthat have been offered by the affiliates overthe past four years. The data are highlyconsistent between 1975 -1977 and 1978and indicate that each agency basicallyemphasized the same program areas in1978 as it did between 1975-1977: The mostfrequently offered programs were PAID orUNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE, andCAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATION.Other areas that were emphasized to alesser degree were JOB TRAINING,JOB PREPARATION, LIFE SKILLSMANAGEMENT VOCATIONAL JOBCOUNSELING, SUPPORTIVE SER-VICES and ASSISTANCE IN MAKING

1 6

THE --lANSITION FROM SCHOOL TOWORK. Infrequently emphasized areaswere TUTORING and PREPARATIONfor EMPLOYMENT-RELAT=s EXAMSand TRANSPORTP'ION ASSISTANCE.

Employment Programs for-Inner City,Urban, Suburban & Rural Youth

Did the youth employment programs em-phasize different program content depend-ing upon the geographic area served?

Four geographic areas were identified inthe survey: INNER CITY. URBAN.SUBURBAN and RURAL. The respon-dents were asked to indicate What percentof the youth in their youth employment

programs came from each of these areas.Because the range_ of percentages could befrom 0% to 100% for each of these areas, itWas decided to present information aboutprograms for those respondents who indi-cated a level of service of 50% or more.

The data reveal that programs with pre-dominately INNER CITY youth, partici=pated in rr-inly PAID WORK EXPERIENCE programs. probably C7TA funded.Fifty-three percent of the respondents saidthey provided JOB TRAINING andanother 51% said they provided JOBPREPARATION programs for INNERCITY youth.

Programs for predominately URBAN.SUBURBAN and RURAL Youth also emphasized PAID WORK EXPERIEN7E.but to a lesser degee than the programs forINNER CITY youth. Programs for pre-dominately URBAN and - SUBURBANyouth emphasized UNPAID WORK EX-PERIENCE and CAREER AWARE-NESS/EDUCATION. Programs for pre-dominately RURAL youth tended to em-phasize CAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATION and JOB PREPARATIONexperience.

Clearly, the youth employment pro-grams were focused on different programcontent areas depending upon_ the geo-graphic area served. It is logical to assumethat the reason for different program con-tent in the four primary geographic areaswas because the employment and trainingneeds of the youth differed. If this were so,the respondents can be credited with beingresponsive to the nee is of the youth.

Programs Supported by Agency Budgetsand CETA Budgets

What types of youth employment programswere supported by agency budgets versusCETA only budgets in 1978?

The information that follows representsthose respondents who indicated that theirSource of funding for their youth employ-ment programs came only `-rn theirAgency budgets or only from tneir CETAbudgets_ Respondents with combined fund-ing sources are not included_

Table 3 illustrates that CETA moniessupported primarily programs that werePAID WORK EXPERIENCE. JOBTRAINING and JOB PREPARATION.Agency budgets mainly supported PAID

Table 3Youth Employment Programs Suported by Agency Funds and CETAFunds in 1978

Employment-Relak-d ProgramsPercent of Respondents

Agency Funds CETA Funds

Career Awareness /Education 52% 31%

Life Skills Management 28% 15%

Vocational Job Counseling 17% 20%

Job Preparation 25% 39%

Assistance in MakingTransition -from School _to Work_ 13% 18%

Transportation Assistance 2% 5%

Tutoring & Preparation for-Employment-Related Exams 4% 13%

Unpaid Work Experience 47% 28%

Paid Work-Experience 55% 79%

St;pportive Services 14% 16%

Job Training 24% 47%

Job Placement 8% 24%

Other 12% 13%

Agency Funds (n = 265) CETA Funds (n = 131)

WORK EXPERIENCE. CAREERAWARENESS /EDUCATION and UN-PAID WORK EXPERIENCE. AlthoughPAID WORK EXPERIENCE was theprimary emphasis of both CETA andAgency funded programs. there were 24%more respondents with PAID WORK EX-PERIENCE programs supported by CETAfunds than by Agency funds. In addition,13% of the respondents with CETA fundedprograms reported offering TUTORINGand PREPARATION for EMPLOY-MENT-RELATED EXAMS and 24%offered special JOB PLACEMENTactivities. These figures are considerablyhigher than those indicated by respondentswith Agency supported programs_

CETA monies appear to support primar=ily those types of programs that build basicskills, knowledge and attitudes relating toemployment- and employability; i.e.,WORK EXPERIENCE. JOB PREPARA-TION and TRAINING. This approach isconsistent with the philosophy of CETA tobuild and develop these types of skills inyouth who lack them.

Agency budgets reflect an emphasis onWORK EXPERIENCE, but also on suchthings as expanding the youth's awarenessof various career opportunities and; in gen-eral, LIFE SKILLS MANAGEMENT.

Program br Major US, Regions

What was the distribution of the respon-dents that offer youth employment pro-grams?


For those respondents with Youth Em-ployment Programs in 1978- their geo-graphic distribution was as follows:

32% are in the NORTH CENTRAL28% are in the NORTH EAST20% are in the SOUTH19% are in the WESTIt is clear that a majority (60%) of the

respondents to the Youth EmploymentSurvey came from the NORTH EAST orNORTH CENTRAL regions. It is alsoclear that the WEST had the smallest per-centage_ of respondents from the four re:gions. Table 4 further illustrates the find-ings.. The U.S. regions are defined in Ap-pendix B.

CETA Programs

What was the distribution of CETA pro-grams by the four geographic regions? Atcan be seen in Table 4, 30% of respondentswith CETA programs came from__theNORTH EAST: 28% from the NORTHCENTRAL 25% from -the SOUTH and17% from the WEST. CETA programs ap-proximately parallel_ the general populationdistribution of the United States.

Table 4Number and Percent of Respondents with 1978 Youth EmploymentPrograms by_G&.ographic Regions

Respondents with 1978Youth Employment Programs

Geographic Number of % of TotalRegion Respondents Respondents

North East 323 28%North Central_ 364 32%south 223 201cWest

TOTAL 1.121*

Number and Percent of Respondents with 1978 CETA FundedPrograms by Geographic Regions

Respondents with1978 CETA Funded Programs

Geographic Number of % of TotalRegion Respondents Respondents

_Nortb_East_ 162_ 30%_North Central 153 _2890

South 135- 25%_West- 89 -17%

TOTAL 539 100%

This figure does not equal the total reported earlier of 1.250 because some respondents did notindicate their geographic region.

Program Staff

The respondents were requested to providethe number of paid staff positions and theaverage number of hours worked inmonthly employment related programs.These positions could be full or part-timeand were to include professional, technicaland support staff positions. The same re-quest was applied to volunteers.

A total of 11352 PAID STAFF and48,223 VOLUNTEERS was reported.While _the mean number of VOLUN-TEERS far exceeds the mean number ofPAID STAFF, the median of three PAIDSTAFF and five VOLUNTEERS per pro-gram is a more accurate reflection of thestaffing patterns.

The responses indicated that the meannumber of hours per month devotedto em-ployment programs by PAID STAFF was99 and 113 hours by VOLUNTEERS. Themedian reveals, however, that the numberof hours per month is closer to 49 hours forPAID STAFF and 10 hours for VOLUN-TEERS.

The involvement of volunteers is a majorstrength of the Voluntary Youth ServingAgencies and that strength is demonstratedin this survey.

If one uses the median number of volun-teered hours per month. _ per respondent.and multiplies that figure by the number ofrespondents with employment-related pro-grams in 1978, an estimate of the totalnumber of volunteered hours per monthcould be obtained across all respondents.Since the median was 10 volunteered hour,per month and there 1.250 respondentswith programs in 1978, total estimatedhours per month is 12.500. Without takinginto account the many professional rolesand responsibilities performed by volun-teers, an application of the minimum wageof $2.90 per hour would equal $36,250monthly. Annually. this would amount to$435,000.

S

Programs with Volunteer Services

Fifty-four percent of the respondents re-ported VOLUNTEER services in youthemployment programs during 1978. at atotal estimate of 12.500 hours per month.

To ascertain if the use of volunteers al=ters the type of program or program em-phasis. a comparison of the surveys fromthose respondents who reported havingvolunteers involved in their youth em-ployment programs during 1978 (Figure 4)with all respondents having youth em-ployment programs during 1978 (Figure 3)was made.

The results indicated that VOLUN-TEERS were involved in all of the program...ategories identified in 1978 (Figure 3).Further, the comparison revealed that theprograms in which volunteers served rep-resented a higher percentage of programsoffered in all categories than offered by thecombined respondents. For example, in1978, 45% of at the respondents reportedproviding CAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATION wograms, whereas 60% ofthe respondents with volunteer servicesreported providing CAREER AWARE-NESS/EDUCATION programs. Amongthe indications of the thrust of volunteerServices are programs of LIFE SKILLSMANAPEMENT. UNPAID WORK EX-PERIENCE and JOB PREPARATION.

Reasons for Not OffennAgEmploy ment-Related Programs

For the period 1975 =- 1977.670 (37%) of theresponding agencies reported that they didnot offer employment-related programs.For 1978. however. there was a modestdecrease in the number. 556. and percent=age. 31%. of those not offering employ-ment-related services.

Among the reasons given for not includ-i -.ployment-related programs in the

r, :.f locally offered services, the major-è respondents for both periods indi-

catec hat it was NOT A PROGRAMPRIORITY. NO KNOWN FUNDINGSOURCES and INSUFFICIENT STAFFwere two other frequently cited responsesfor the period 1975-1977 and 1978.

In 1978. employment-related programsbecame somewhat more of a program prior,ity and the agencies were more successfulin getting funding and program develop-ment assistance. However, agencies stillhad to contead with an insufficient numberof staff available for employment-relatedpror:arns. Responses are summarized inTable 5.

1:

3

Figure 4 Type!With

Employment- Related Programs I Pert

Career Awareness/Education

Lite Skills Manacrel.ient

Vocational Job Cod-meting

Job Preparation

Assistance in MakingTransition from School to Work

Transportation Assistance

Toonng & Preparation for IIIEmployment-Rekeed Exams

Unpaid WO& Experience

Paid Work Experience

Supportive Services'.-

Job Trainingal

Job Placeraenrill

Table 5Reasons Respondents Di

Reasons

Not a Program PriorityNo Known Funding SourceInsufficient Number of Staff

_ No_Program Development Assi:Do ;401 Ktiaw for Sure

No Board of Directors_ppravaNo Community -NeedOther

1975-77 N = 670 1978 N = 566

of Youth Employment ProgramsVolun'eer Services

ant of Respondents

28%

42%

28%

9%

23%

46%

71%

IPraocrson Evahiation

SrAT ; eight per ent of the respondents in,.that same form of evaluation of

programs was conducted. Of thoseagencies that had an evaluation perforthed,53'; conducted their own INTERNALE \LIJATION. 20% had an evaluationpenorrned by a FEDERAL/STATE /LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCYand only 6% used an OUTSIDE EVALU=ATION FIRM. However. 38% of the agen-cies said that a written report was avail-able. indicating that evaluations probablytended to be rather informal.

Due to the prevalence Of funding fromagency budgets for employment-relatedprograms. the emphasis on internal evalua-tion is logital. In addition, the lower per-centages of FEDERAL/STATE/LOCALGOVERNMENTAL AGENCY or OUT-SIDE EVALUATION FIRM evaluationsare also consistent with the analysis of thesource of program monies presented earlierin this report.

Funding

4`tiloodiartinr YoudtErnploymetki Programs_

=ale 6 presents data regarding tht propor--ion of money expended by the agencies for:778 employment-related programs ac-cording to the source of funding. Becausean agency could have had more than oneSource of fu ding for its employment-relazed programs. the percentages total

I Not Offer Employment Related Programs more than 100%.The dataclearly indicate thatthe prirnary

Percent of Percent of Source of funding was the AGENCIES'Respondents Respondents OWN BUDGETS. Although most respon-

1975-77 1978 dents checked more than one source of53%_ 50% funding. 6!% indicated that their OWN4207,, 36%

BUDGET supported many of their youthemployment prOgrams. The next most fre-

40% 45% quently indicated source (44%)_ was CETAtance 25 % 20% TITLE IL III or IV monies. Other than the

17' 10% above two categories of funding sources.

11% 9% the remaining categories were infrequentlychecked by the respondents. Only 9% of

8% 8% the respondent's monies came from a15`-e- 17% UNITED WAY (SPECIAL GRANT).. 8%

from the LOCAL BUSINESS COMMU-NITY. 7% each from STATE FUNDS andPRIVATE FOUNDATIONS. and 6% eachfroth CIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS and CITYFUNDS: Less than:5% of the respondentsindicated each of the following sources ofmoney: STATE. COUNTY'.TITLE XX. I.MW sources or CORPORA-TIONS or CORPORATE FOUNDA-TIONS. Seventxrcent of the respondentslisted an OTHER source. In general. thesedata reflect a diversified but low-level fund-ing pattern by the memner affiliates for

1 q youth employment programs.:

6=Funding Source for Employment-Related Prog

Funding Source

Percent ofRespondents

1978

Percent ofRespondents with

Funding Plans.- Budget 61% 0

,I_ IV- 44% 46%U n: _ 02=1' Grant) 9% 15%Lc _ css Community 8% 17%

Ci 6% 18%adatigmrs 7% 18%

Co( as or CorporateFc is 11% 9%S:ate FL:11as (Non ZETA orTitle XX) 7% 7%County Funds (Non CETA orTitle XX) 4% 6%City Funds (Non CETA or Title XX) 6% 7%

L.E.A.A. 4%Title XX 4% 5%HEW 1% 4%Vomtioiaal -0

Other 7%

Table 7-Range of Money Expended by The Respondents in 1978 According toFunding (All figures are percent ofrespondents)

Funding Sources None55.000 or

Less55,001-$25.000

$25,001-$50,000

550,001- 5100,0015100,000 or more

Agency Budget 39 40 16 3 1 -1CETA Title II,111 or IV 56 20 18 3 0

United Way(Special Grant) 91 4 3

Local BusinessCommunity --91- 7 0

Civienervice Club--94 7 0 0 0

Private Foundations 93 5 0 0 0

Coiporations orCorporate Foundations 96 1 0 0 0

State Funds (nonCETA or Title XX) _93 4 2 4- -0-City Funds (nonCETA or Title XX) 94 3 1 0 0 0

County (non CETAor Title XX) 96 3 1 0 I)

L.E.A.A._ 96 i 2 0

Title -XX 96_ 3 1 0 0HEW _99 1 0_ _0 -9Other 92 5 i 0 0 0

Table /L-_-Mone Expended for Employment Related Programs

Anicamd of_Money


1975


1976


-1971-No Money '0% ___15%_ _14%

51% 50%_51.000-55,000 -53%5-M01=525.000 21% 34% 26%

25,001=550,000 3% 4% 5%550,001-5100.000 2% 2% trio5100.000 or more 3% 3% 3%

29

Range of Money Expended

Table 7 presents the source of funding andthe range of money expended by the re-spondents for youth employment programsin 1978.

With regard to Table 7, except for theirown AgencY budgets and some CETAmonies, most (91%-99%) of the respon-dents reported not receiving money fortheir employment-related programS fromany other possible funding source..Further, when agencies did receive moneyfrom any of the funding sources; thatamount tended to be small. usually lessthan 525.000.

Table 8 illustrates how much money therespondents expended for employment-related programs in 1975; 1976 and 1977.The data are consistent from year to year.however, a slight increase in the amount ofmoney expended each year is indicated.This increase can be observed in severalways. First, there was a reduction, overthree years; of agencies expending nomoney on employment-related programsand second, there was a slight decrease inagencies expending a small amount ofmoney (51,000 to 55,000). It is difficult tojudge the role inflation plays in thesefigures; however, all things being equal, in-flation would cause part of these slight in-creases to occur.

Another important factor influencing tneslight monetary increases is the numberof local member affiliates Offeringemployment-related programs. As previ-ously mentioned, there has been a seedilyincrease of affiliates offering employment -related-programs over the past four years.

Although specific dollar amounts werenot available. there appears to have beenan increase in money expended on youthemployment programs over the four yearscovered in the survey.

ComnumityInvolverneut

A question of central importance is: Towhat extent were the respondents involvedwith :;ter community agencies in plan-ning developing or implementing em-plownent-related programs for iiuth?In Table 9, a diversified picture of the re-sponses is presented. In general, theaffiliates were involved with a variety ofrublic and private community agencies inplanning and implementing employment-related programs; Of all community agen-cies. CETA PRIME SPONSORS are theorganizations with -which the respondentswere most involve& Forty7five percent in-dicated that they were INVOLVED toVERY INVOLVED with CETA PRIMESPONSORS in planning, developing or im-plementing employment-related programsfor youth. Thirty=eight percent said theywere INVOLVED to VERY INVOLVEDwith the SCHOOLS and EDUCATIONALSYSTEM. Between 20% and 28% indi-cated that_they were INVOLVED or VERYINVOLVED with EMPLOYMENT SER-VICES AGENCIES. OTHER YOUTHSERVING ORGANIZATIONS, theBUSINESS COMMUNITY or COL-LEGES and UNIVERSITIES. Almbst NOINVOLVEMENT was indicated for thePRIVATE -AGENCIES in the communityCIVIC/SERVICES ORGANIZATIONSor with ORGANIZED LABOR_

Future Programs__

Projections

Forty-three percent of the respondentswho had Youth Employment-Related Pro-grams in 1978 indiarited-plang to increasetheir programming irrthis area in the future.Fifty_percent had plans to maintain the an-rent level of program services, while lessthan 2% planned any d=rease in emphasisor-effort. Of those respondents who had noYouth Employment-Related Programs in1978, 37% indicated plans to become in-volved in such progams in the future. Thepictureappears quite clear. A majority ofrespondents with programs in 1978 willeither increase their involvement in youthemployment-relatedprograms. or maintaintheir current level of involvement. In thefuture_ many respondents who had no 1978programs in this area plan to becomeinvolved.

Table 9 -To What Extent Wm. The Respondents Involved with Other Agenciesin The Planning, Development, or Implementation of CurrentEmployment-Related Programs for Ycmtlit

_Community Involvement

Agencies

VeryInvolved

1 2 3 4

NotInvolved

5


CETA Prime Sponsors 301 15% 18%- 9C 29%__

Employment Services Agencies 10% 10% 22% 18% 4CCr-_

Other -Youth- Serving Organization: 13% 15% 24% 16% 32%

Private Agencies 4% 8% 14% 16% 58%

Business C -ommunity 12% 15% 22% 15% 40%

-Schools 8,Educational System 18% 20% 11% 10% 30%

College & Universities U% 15% 21% 17% 35%

Organized Labor 1% 3% 7% 12% 78%

Civic/Service Organizations 6% 11% 211 18% 44%

Table 10Future Program Plans__

iyives_orprwansCareer Awareness /EducationLife Skills ManagementVocational Job CourtSzAingJob PreparationAssistance in Making Transition from School to WorkTransportation AssistanceTutoring & Preparation for EmploYment:Related ExamsUnpaid Work ExperiencePaid_WorkExperience

Percent of AllRespondent Who

Plan Future Programs50%27%21%

Supportive-ServicesJob TrainingJob PlacementOther

19%

31%

17%

7%

Types of Future Programs

Table 10 represents the future programmingemphases for all respondents planning tohave employment-related programs foryouth in the next twelve months. The pat-tern is similar to the emphases placed onthe programming for youth employmentprograms seen in the previous four years.In essence, the respondents who plan tohave programs will emphasize both PAIDand UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCESand CAREER AWARENESS/EDU-CATION. Other areas of zmphasis willinclude LIFE SKILLS MANAGE-MENT, JOB PREPARATION, JOBTRAINING and VOCATIONAL JOBCOUNSELING.

Sourcesoffuture Funds_

As can be seen in Table 6. a large percent-age (46%) of the agencies plan to seekmonies from CETA (Title II. III or IV) forfuture employment-related pmgrarns- Thisemphasis upon seeking CETA monies isconsistent with previous (1978} efforts ofthe agencies. When compared with the1978 funding pattern. the respondents indi-cated that there will be increased effort toobtain monies from all funding sources.with the greatest increase directed towardobtaining financial support from PRIVATEFOUNDATIONS. LOCAL CIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS, the LOCAL BUSI-NESS COMMUNITY and UNITED WAY(SPECIAL GRANT). Other than CETA.the emphasis is clearly upon seekingmonies from NON-GOVERNMENTALsources.

Summary

Thirteen member agencies of the NationalAssi=nbly of National_ Voluntary Healthand Social Welfare Organizations. Inc.have joined together to form_the NationalCollaboration for Youth. EleVen of theagencies_are the focus of this survey andare iisted beloW in alphabetical order.

American Red CrossYouth ServicesBoy Scouts of AmericaBoys' Clubs_ of AmericaCamp Fire. Inc.4-H Youth ProgramsFuture Homemakers of AmericaGirl Scouts of the U.S.A.Girls Clubs of AmericaNational Board of Y.M.C.A.sNational Board of Y.W.C.A: ofthe U.S.A.

United Neighborhood Centersof America

As a part of the contract from the De-partment of Labor (Contract #99-8-1915-7-48). a survey was to be conducted of the

ideal Youth serving agencies affiliated withthese member organizations. The purposeof the survey was to determine to whatdegree and in what way the agencies Wereinvolved in providing employment-relatedprograms for youth.

Developrrient of The Youth EmploymentProgram Survey

On Deczember15, 1978. the National As-senrb17 contracted Behavior Associates toconduct. the survey of the local memberaffiliaries of eleven of the participatingmember agencies of- the National_ Collab-oration for Youth. The proposed surveyquestions were reviewed by the Project'sAdvisory Committee for input and modifi:cation_ The suggestions and recom-mendations were incorporated into a field -test version of the survey. Three localaSliates of each of the eleven memberagencies were sent copies of the field-testversion and a letter requesting them toe,.--alitarft the survey from a user's view-pormt. Of the 33 field -test surveys mailed tothe local affiliates. 20 were returned. Inputgained from the field-test of the survey wasincorporated into the final version of theYouth Employment Survey.

The Survey Sample

The Survey was sent to each organization'scorporate unit, defined as the unit respon-sible for program services and administra-tion over a territorial jurisdiction as con-tracted or chartered by the National Or-ganization. Depending upon the size of thepopulation, either a random sample wasselected or the total sample was used.TheSurvey was cOnducted in two phw-es. Dur-ingPhase I; 3.508 surveys were mailed and1.005 were returned completed. In hopes ofincreasing the return rate. Phase II wasimplemented. During this Phase. a secondsurvey form was sent to the nonrespon-dents in Phase I. In some instances, samplesizes were increased as a result of mailinglist corrections. The total number of sur-veys mailed during Phase I and Phase IIwas 4.908. The total number of surveysreturned was 1.816. which constitutes a44% return rate.


The respondentS reported that a total of287.992 youth participated in a wide varietyof employment-related programs during1978. This participation represents a na-tional median of 35 youth per program. Themajority (61%) of the youth were MALE.while 39% were FEMALE. The youthwere predominately WHITE (69%).BLACK/AFRO-AMERICAN (21%) andHISPANIC (5%) and lived primarily in theSUBURBAN (34%) and URBAN (28%)areas. Forty4Wo percent of the youth livedin families with annual incomes between510.000 and 519,999. 36% of the youth hadfamilies with annual incomes below510.000 per year. while 21% had familieswith incomes above S20.000 annually.

The Youth Employment Programs19751978

A total cf 4.737 separate and diStinct youthemployment-related programs were of-fered in 1978. Of this total. 41% operatedonly during the summer. The mean numberof programs offered was 4 per respondentwhile the median was 2. A total of 5.923employment-related programs for youthwas reported for the 1975=1977 period.Summer-only programs comprised 44% ofthis total. Interestingly, the total number ofprograms offered in 1978 approached thetotal number offered during the previousthree-year period.

Types of Programs Offered

The data indicate that each agency basi-cally emphasized the same program areasin 1978 as it did between 1975=1977. Themost frequently offered programs werePAID or UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCEand CAREER AWARENESS/EDUCA-TION. The programs that received some-what less of an emphasis were JOBTRAINING. JOB PREPARATION. LIFESKILLS MANAGEMENT. VOCA-TIONAL JOB COUNSELING. SUP-PORTIVE SERVICES and ASSISTANCEIN MAKING THE TRANSITION FROMSCHOOL TO WORK.

CETA Supported Programs

This survey reveals that a large percentage(54%) of the local member affiliates of theeleven National Youth Serving Organiza-tions have youth employment programssupported by CETA (Title II. III or IV)funds. These programs varied greatly incontent and fotus but tended to emphasizethe experiential aspects of the world ofwork. preparation and training for em-ployment and job placement.

An equal distribution of male and femaleyouth participated in the various CETAprograms. Forty -five percent of the youthin CETA programs were WHITE. 37%BLACK/AL:RO--AMERICAN and 14%HISPANIC, When compared with all pro-grams. CETA programs showed an in-crease in females and ethnic minority groupparticipation.

Next to Agency budgets. CETA was thelargest supporter of youth employmentprograms for the respondents. It appearsthat CETA has provided the means to in-crease the number of employment-relatedprograms over the past four years.

20

Community Involvement

Community organizations with which therespondentS were most involved wereCETA PRIME SPONSORS. with 45% in-dicating that they were INVOLVED toVERY INVOLVED with CETA PRIMESPONSORS in planning. developing andimplementing employment-related pro-grams for youth. Thirty-eight percent saidthey were INVOLVED to VERY IN-VOLVED with SCHOOLS and EDUCA-TIONAL SYSTEMS while 2070 =28% indi-cated that they were INVOLVED or_ VERYINVOLVED with EMPLOYMENT SER-VICES AGENCIES. OTHER YOUTHSERVING ORGANIZATIONS. THEBUSINESS COMMUNITY or COL-LEGES and UNIVERSITIES.

Funding for Youth Employment Programs

Sixty-one percent of the respondents indi-cated that their youth employment pro-grams were supported by their regularoperating budget. The next most frequentlyindicated source of funds (44%) was CETA(Title II. III or IV). Other than these twocategories of funding sources, the remain-ing categories were infrequently indicated.

Range of Money Expended

The respondents reported that the moniesthey received from any funding sourcetended to be rather small usually less thanS25.000. Although specific dollar amountswere not available there appears to havebeen an increase in money expended inyouth employment programs over the fouryears covered in the survey.

Program Staff _

A total of 48,223 VOLUNTEERS and11.259 PAID STAFF were involved in theemployment-related programs in 1978. Themedian number of hours per month de-voted to the ernployment=related programsper VOLUNTEER was 10, while the me-dian number per PAID STAFF was 49.Using the minimum wage of $2.90. a totalmonthly dollar value contributed byVOLUNTEERS would be $36,250. Annu-ally this would amount to $435.000.

Program Evaluation

Sixty-eight percent of the respondents in,dicated that some form of evaluation oftheir rograms was conducted. Fifty-threepercent performed their OWN INTER-NAL EVALUATION. 20% had an eval-uation performed by a FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENTALAGENCY. and 6% indicated using anOUTSIDE EVALUATION FORM. Of the68% who indicated that some form ofevaluation was conducted. 38% indicatedthat a written report was available.

Reasons for Not OfferingEmployment-Related Programs

In the period 1975-1977. 37% of the re,sponding agencies reported that they didnot offer employment-related programs.For 1978.31% of the respondents indicatednot offering employment-related services:Among the reasons given for not havingemplorr.ent-related programs, the major-ity of the respondents indicated that it wasNOT A PROGRAM PRIORITY. NOKNOWN FUNDING SOURCES and IN-SUFFICIENT STAFF were the two othermost frequently cited responses: In addi-tion. for 6 of the 8 categories there was adecrease in the percent of respondents soindicating those categories between1975-1977 and 1978.

Future _Programs_

Forty-three percent of the respondentswho had youth employment-related pro-grams in 1978 indicated plans to increasetheir programming in this area. 50% hadplans to maintain the current level of pro=gram services. while less than 2% plan anydecrease in emphasis. Of those respon-dents who had no youth employment-related programs in 1978, 37% indicatedplans to become involved in such programsin the future.

Types of Future Programs

In essence. the respondents who anticipatehaving programs in the future plan toemphasize both PAID and UNPAIDWORK EXPERIENCES and CAREERAWARENESS/EDUCATION. Otherareas of emphasis will include LIFESKILLS MANAGEMENT, JOB PREP-ARATION, JOB TRAINING and VO-CATIONAL JOB COUNSELING.

Sources of Future Funds

Forty-six percent of the respondents planto seek monies from CETA (TITLE I!. IIIor IV) for future employment-related pro=grams. The respondents also indicated thatthere will be increased effort in obtainingmonies from all funding sources. with thegreatest increase in effort directed towardPRIVATE FOUNDATIONS. LOCALCIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS, the LOCALBUSINESS COMMUNITY and UNITEDWAY (SPECIAL GRANT).

YOUTH EMPLOYMENTPROGRAMS: A Survey ofNational Youth Serving Organizations

Contents

American Ren Cross Youth ServicesBoys' Clubs o' America 25Boy Scouts of America 24Camp Fire, Inc. 334-H Youth Programs 37Future Homemakers of America 40Girls Clubs of America 43Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. 46National Board of YMCAs 50National Board of the YWCA ofthe U.S.A. 54

United NeighborhoodCenters of America 58

22

Survey Report Presentations

Sample Size and Return RateYouth

Youth ServedYouth Served in Employment-Related

Programs'Youth Served in Agency Supported andCETA Supported Programs

`Youth Served By Major U.S. RegionsProgram

Youth Employment Programs 1975_1978Types of Programs Offered'Employment Programs for Inner City.

Urban. Suburban and Rural Youth'Employment Programs By Major U.S.

Regions'Employment Programs Supported by

Agency Budgets and CETA BudgetsProgram Funding

Funding for Youth EmploymentPrograms

Future Program PlansTypes of ProgramsSource of Funds

AppendicesAppendix A TablesAppendix B U.S. Regions

'These presentations are the results of crosstabulations. In some instances (ARY-YS. 4-HFHA. GCA. and INCA). the number of re-sponses was too small to develop meaningfulinterpretations and the findings are not included.

American Red Cross Yeuth Services

The aims of the American Red Cross are toimprove the quality of human life and en-hance individual self- reliance_ and concernfor others. It works toward these aimsthrough national and chapter services gov-erned and directed by volunteers. Ameri-can Red Cross services help people avoidemergencies. prepare for emergencies andcope with them when they occur.

To accomplish its aims. the Red Crossprovides volunteer blood services to a largeSegment of the nation. conducts commu-nity services and, as mandated by its Con-gressional Charter. serves as an indepen-dent medium of voluntary relief and com-munication between the American peopleand their armed forces: maintains a systemof local. national and international disasterpreparedness and relief: and assists thegovernment of the United States to meethumanitarian treaty commitments.

Through Youth Services young peopleserve others :Is Red Cross volunteers orparticipate in Red Cross programs inschools or out of school. Across the coun-try. Red Cross chapters offer a wide varietyof programs for both elementary and sec-ondary age youth.

Elementary school programs focus onservice to others. health and safety, andinternational and intercultural relation,ships. Through first aid, water safety andchild care courses. young people learn andpractice health and safety rules. They de-velop concern for the environment, goodnutrition and accident prevention. Throughthe Red Cross. young people help to al-leviate the loneliness of the elderly by"adopting- grandparents and by sharingcreative materials. companionship. andtalents with the hoSpitalized. the hand-icapped. and the aged. They become ac-quainted with youth in other parts of theUnited States and overseas through variedmeans of communication.

For junior and senior high school ageyoung people. the Red Cross provides anopportunity for action-oriented school andcommunity projects in hospitals. nursinghomes, preschool centers. recreation sites.and in blood donor recruitment. In-schoolprojects include "adopting- communityagencies and meeting their specific needs.providing services as a part of schoolworkor course requirements. and promotinghealth and safety programs for the studentbody and the community. Young peoplelearn and practice leadership and other im-portant skills through participation in anumber-of volunteer experiences and train-ing activities.

Results of_The Youth EmploymentProgram SurveyAmerican Red Cross Youth Services_

Sample Size and Return Rate

A total of 188 corporate units was sur-veyed. The total responses for Phase I & IIwas 70: i.e., a 37% return of the total sur-veys mailed.

Cross Tabulation

To add depth to the Youth EmploymentSurvey results, several cross tabulationswere performed on the data. In order forcross tabulations to have meaning theymust be based upon a relatively large sam-ple of survey respondents.

In the case of American Red Cross YouthServices, the number of respondents foreach cross tabulation was too small toallow meaningful interpretation. A criter-ion was established that the cross tabula-tion response rate must be at least 25% ofthe total number of respondents for eachcross tab. There were no cross tabulationswhen reached this criterion. and the find-ings for the following cross tabulations arenot presented:


Youth Served by Major U.S. RegionsEmployment Programs for INNERCITY, URBAN. SUBURBAN andRURAL Youth

Employment Programs by Major U.S.Regions

Employment Programs Supported byAgency Budgets and CETA Budgets

Youth

Youth Served

American Red Cross Youth Services offer awide range of services to youth and theirfamilies. Inorderm identify the geographicarea served by the organizations and thegeographic sources for the youth recruitedfor all programs and services, the followingquestion was asked:

Please tell us what pereent of the youth.which your agency serves reside in thefollowing areas: Inner City. Urban.Suburban and Rural?

The response to this question indicatedthat the respondents recruit and serveyouth on a fairly even distribution fromeach of the fourgeographic areas served bythese agencies.

There was no working definition for thelisted geographic areas, so replies weresubject to individual interpretations. Table1 presents the percentage of youth servedby the respondents across the four geo-graphic areas. The majority (59';) of therespondents indicated that they did notserve youth residing in the RURAL areas.while the SUBURBAN areas seemed tohave the highest percentage of youthserved (70%).


The respondents reported that a *.otal of7.937 youth participated in a wide variety

employment-related programs during1978. This participation represents a meanof 156 youth per program: however, themedian of 70 youth per program is a moreaccurate reflection of the participationlevel.

In Figure 1. the characteristics of theyouth participants are presented. A major-ity (74%) of the youth were FEMALE,while (27%) were MALE.

In terms of ethnic characteristics, thedata indicate that the youth were predomi-nately WHITE (68%). The proportion ofother ethnic/cultural groups is as follows:BLACK/AFRO-AMERICAN (23%).HISPANIC (4%). ASIAN (3%). NATIVEAMERICAN (.5%). OTHER (2%). In addi-tion, the youth in employment related pro-grains tended_ to reside primarily in SUB-URBAN (48%) and URBAN (26%) areas.Twenty-two percent_ of the_ youth were re,ported living in INNER CITY areas, andonly 5% were reported living in RURALareas.

To what extent were youth with specialneeds involved in the youth employmentprograms? The respondents reported serv-ing only a small percent of special needsyouth: i.e.. YOUTH OFFENDERS (1%1.STATUS OFFENDERS (1%1. LEARN-ING DISABLED (.5%) and PHYSI-CALLY HANDICAPPED (.5%).

Family income data revealed that 55% ofthe youth lied in families with annual in-comes between 510.000 and $19,999, 22%of the youth had families with annual in-comes below S10.000 per year while 24%had families with incomes above 520.000annually.

ARC-YS Figure 1 Characterisiks of the Participantsin the Youth Employment Programs in 1978


Ser.

Male

Female

27%

74%

Ethnicity

Native American

Slack/Afro-Amvican

Hispanic

Asian/Oriental

.5%

23%

4%

3%

White

Other 0 2%

Special NeedsYouth Offenders 1%

Sta4.-3 Offenders 1%

Ph YsiCally Handicapped .5%

Learning Disabled .5%

Geographic Areas

Inner

Subisrban

Urban

Rural 5%


0-34.999 5%

S5.000=9.999 17%

S10,000=19.999 55%

520.000-29,999 20%

$30,000 -Above In 4%

Programs

Youth Employment Programs 1975-1978

The information presented in this sectionrepresents data about the respondent'sYouth EmploYment Programs. Informationabout 1978 programs is presented first and.when important. comparisons with 1975-1977 programs are made.

A total of 201 separate and distinct youthemployment-related programs was offeredin 1978. As of June 1979. 175 of these pro-gram services were still being offered toyouth. Of the total reported. 88 operatedonly during the summer. The mean numberof programs offered was 4 per respondent,however. the median was two.

For the 1975-1977 period, the respon-dents reported providing a total of 7.62employment-related programs for youth.Summer-only programs comprised 43% ofthe total. By comparing the number of pro-grams offered between 1975 and 1977 (262)with those offered in 1978 (201). it can beseen that the number of programs offered in1978 alone approached the number offeredduring the previous three-year period, con-stituting a rather dramatic increase in theavailability of youth employment pro-grams.

In addition, it should be noted that overthe past four years there has been a stablebut slightly increasing number ofemployment-related programs for youth.In 1975. 44 respondents reported expend-ing money on such programs. the numberdecreased to 43 in 1976 and 1977 and in-creased to 57 in 1978: 1978 demonstratedthe most dramatic increase.


What types of programs wer: offered to theyouth? The data presented in Figure 2 showthe types of employment-related programsthat have been offered by respondents overthe past four years. The data are highlyconsistent between 1975 -1977 and 1978and indicate that the Amencan Red CrossYouth Services basically emphasized thesame program areas in 1978 as they didbetween 1975=1977. However. there aresome exceptions. There was a moderateincrease fro:n 1975-1977 and 1978 in thepercent of respondents offering VOCA-TIONAL COUNSELING. TUTORINGSERVICES. PAID WORK EXPERI-ENCE and JOB PLACEMENT. In addi-tion. there was a large decrease in thenumber of respondents providing UNPAIDWORK EXPERIENCE. The most fre=quently offered programs were PAIDor UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE.and CAREER AWARENESS/EDUCA-TION. Other areasemphasized to a lesserdegree were JOB TRAINING. JOBPREPARATION. LIFE_ SKILLS MAN-AGEMENT. VOCATIONAL JOBCOUNSELING. SUPPORTIVE SER-VICES and ASSISTANCE IN MAKINGTHE TRANSITION FROM SCHOOL TOWORK- . Infrequently emphasized areaswere TUTORING and PREPARATIONfor EMPLOYMENT-RELATED EXAMSand TRANSPORTATION ASSILTANCE.

?4

Program Funding

Funermg for_Youth_EmpLopnent_Pingrams

Table 2 presents data regarding the propor-tion of money expended by the respon-dents for 1978 employment-related pro-grams according to the source of funding.Because a respondent could have had morethan one source of funding for itsemployment-related programs. the per-centaget total more than 100%.

The data clearly indicate that the primarysource of funding was the AGENCIES'OWN BUDGETS. Fifty-four percent ofthe respondents indicated that their OWNBUDGET supported their youth employ-ment programs, while the next most fre-quently indicated source (33%) was CETA(TITLE II. III or IV) monies. Other thanthe above two categories of fundingsources. the remaining categories were in-frequently checked by the respondentS:Only 7% of the monies came from CITYFUNDS. 5% from UNITED WAY (SPE-CIAL GRANT). 3% each from CIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS and HEW. Two percentof the respondents indicated each of thefollowing sources of money: COUNTY.L.E.A.A.. TITLE XX, LOCAL BUSI-NESS COMMUNITY and PRIVATEFOUNDATIONS. Sixteen percent of therespondents listed an OTHER s-ource. Ingeneral, these data reflect a diversified butlow-level funding pattern.

Future Program Plans

Types of Employment Programs

Table 3 represents the future programmingemphases for all respondents planning tohave employment-related programs foryouth in the next twelve months. The _pat-tern is similar to the emphases placed onthe programming for youth employmentprograms seen in the previous four years.In essence, the respondents who plan tohave programs will emphasize both PAIDand _UNPAID _WOR.K EXPERIENCESAND CAREER AWARENESS/ED;UCATION. Other- areas_of emphasiswill include SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.LIFE SKILLS MANAGEMENT. JOBTRAINING. JOB PREPARATION andASSISTANCE IN MAKING THETRANSITION FROM SCHOOL TOWORK. The largest increase in emphasisbetween 1978 and the future will be in thearea of SUPPORTIVE SERVICES andUNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE.

ARC-YS Figure 2 Types of Employment- Related ProgramsOffered in 1975-1977 and in 1978

Employment-Related Programs Percent of Respondents

Vocational Job Counsefing 6%

Job Preparation

Assistance in Making M.Transition from School to Work 24%

8%

lill 69l;

=g 31%

35%

23%

Transportabon' Assistance

TUtoring & Preparehori forEmployment- Related Exams

Unpaid Work Experience


Supportive Services

Jo.. Training

Job Placement

62%NM 11%

""-47%

L41%

27%

68%

80%

gg_1975 -1977 (n = 49) 1978 (n = 57;

Source of Future Funds

As can be seen in Table 4, a large percent-age (43%) of the respondents plan to seekmonies from CETA (Title II, III or IV) forfuture employment-related programs. Thisemphasis upon seeking CETA monies isconsistent with previous (1978) efforts ofthe respondents. When compared with the1978 funding pattern, the respondents indi-cated that there will be increased effort toobtain monies from all funding sourceswith the greatest increase in obtaining fi-nancial support from PRIVATE FOUN-DATIONS. LOCAL CIVIC/SERVICECLUBS, the LOCAL BUSINESS COM-MUNITY and L.E.A.A. Other than CETAand L.E.A.A. the emphasis is clearlyupon seeking monies from NON-GOV-ERNMENTAL sources.

Boys' Clubs of America

With a special concern for boys from dis-advantaged backgrounds. typified by cul-tural. spiritual and social as well as eco-nomic deprivation. Boys' Clubs provideyouth:

- Daily access to facilities and programson a voluntary basis.

- Professional leadership which under-stands and truly cares about the stress-es of growing up.Advocates and spokesmen who ad-dress the critical issues facing them:Programs which are developed to meettheir needs and interests_Varied and diversified experienceswhich have an impact on their lives.

Boys' Clubs in 50 States. Puerto Ricoand the Virgin Islands currently serve1.190,694 youth_ The total Club staff in-clude r- -t than 68,225 adults, youth andvoluntc , with nearly 97.000 individualsserving. ,m the Boards of Directors andsimilar support groups. Twenty-seven per-cent (27%) of the members are fourteen andover, thirty-four percent (34%) are fromeleven through thirteen and thirty-eightpercent (38%) are ten and under. Foi :y -sixpercent (4.6%) are from single parent homesand forty-four percent (44%) come fromfamilies with incomes under 58.000 peryear. Annual operating expenditures forBoys' Club services exceed 5109,000,000per year

Through its NATIONAL HEAD=QUARTERS in New York City and eightReJnal Offices, Boys' Clubs of Americaprovides direct consultative services tolocal Boys" Clubs in Management Services:"--ogram Development: Professional Man-power Development: Advocacy and UbanFocus: Communications and Marketing:Resource Development: Board Relations:as well as providing communities assist-ance in establishing new Boys' Clubs.

The primary mission of the Boys' Clubsof America is to assure and enhance thequality of life for boys as participatingmembers of a richly diverse urban Society.

Programs in local Boys' _Clubs are de-signed to stress objectives in citizenshipeducation: leadership development: skilldevelopment: health and fitness: prepara-tion for leisure: personal adjus:ment anddevelopment of individual potential:educational-vocational motivation: inter-group understanding: value development:sense of community: ennching family andcommunity life. Programs for youth cur-rently receiving emphasis include: YouthEmployment: Health Services and Educa-tion: Delinquency Prevention: YouthLeadership Development: AlcOhol AbuSePrevention and Education for Parenthood.

BCA Fcure 1 Characteristics of the Participantsin the Youth Employment Programs in 1978

Percent c Youth Served

Sex

21%

79%

Ethnicity LNative American 12%

EgeOr/Atro-American

Hispanic

Asian/Oriental 11%

weOther 1%

13%


Statu-s OffenderS 5%

Physically Hancfpcapped 11%

Learning Disablqd 7%


Suburban 18%

ban

Rural 6%

Ur

47%


Results of The Youth EmploymentProgram SurveyBoys' Clubs of America


A total of 300 corporate units was sur-veyed. The total response for PhaSe I & IIwas 209: i.e., 70% return of the total sur-veys mailed.

Youth

Youth Served

Boys' Clubs of Amenca offer a wide rangeof services to youth. In order to identify thegeographic area served by the organizationand the geographic sources of the youthrecruited for all programs and services, thefollowing question was asked:

Please tell us what percent of the youth.Which your agency sertes. reside in thefollowing areas: Inner City. Urban.Suburban and Rural?

28

There was no working definition for thelisted geogaphic areas, so replies weresubject to individual interpretations. Theresponse to this question indicated that therespondents recruit and serve youth in pre-dominately INNER CITY (60%) andURBAN (55%) areas. Figure 1 presents thepercentage of youth served by the respon-dents across the four geographic areas. Themajority (62%) of the respondents indi-cated that they did not serve youth residingin the RURAL areas.


The respondents reported that a total of11.797 youth participated in a wide varietyof employment-related programs during1978. This participation repreSents a meanof 89 youth per program: however. the me-dian of 36 youth per program is a moreaccurate reflection of the participationlevel.

In Figure 1. the characteristics of theyouth participants are presented. A major-ity (79%) of the youth were MALE, while21% were FEMALE.

In terms of ethnic characteristics. thedata indicate that the youth were predomi-nately WHITE (43%) and BLACK/AFRO-AMERICAN (427). The propor-tion of other ethnic/cultural groupsare as follows: HISPANIC (13%).ORIENTAL /ASIAN (1%). NATIVEAMERICAN (2%). OTHER (1%). In addi-tion. the youth in employment related pro-grams tended to reside primarily in INNERCITY (477) and URBAN (30%) areas.Eighteen percent of the youth were re-ported living in SUBURBAN areas. and6% in RURAL communities.

To what extent were youth with specialneeds involved in the youth employmentprograms? The respondents reported serv-ing a modest percent of special needsyouth: i.e.. LEARNING DISABLED(7%). YOUTH OFFENDERS (8%).STATUS OFFENDERS (5%) and PHYS-ICALLY HANDICAPPED (17).

In terms of family income. 197 of theyouth lived in families with annual incomesbetween S10.000 and S19.999. 77% of theyouth had families with annual incomesbelow S10.000 per year. while 4% hadfamilies_ with incomes above S20,000 annu-ally. Clearly. the Boys* ClubS ofAmerica serves lower income INNERCITY children.


Are the characteristics of the differ-ent for those who were involvea in pro-grams supported by agencybudgets versusprograms supported by CETA budgets?

Because of_ the relatively low number ofrespondents for this cross tabulation. the.data are not presented: i.e.. n for agencybudget was 17 while n for CETA was 26.


What was the distribution of the youth bythe four major geographic regions?


The distribution by the four geographicregions does not parallel the distribution ofthe respondents. Specifically. 507 of theyouth were in the NORTH EAST. 21%were in the WEST, 17% were in theSOUTH and 13% were in the NORTHCENTRAL. Clearly, although the NORTHEAST had about the same number of re-spondents as the SOUTH and WEST, it hada much larger percentage of youth thaneither the SOUTH. WEST or even theNORTH CENTRAL. The reason for thisdifference is that the average number ofyouth participants was almost twice that inany of the other regions. The U.S. Regionsare defined in Appendix B.

What was the ethnic distribution of theyouth in the major geographic regions?

There does appear to be some differ-ences between the four geographic regionswith regard to the ethnic distribution ofyouth. In particular. the percentage of NA-TIVE AMERICAN youth was 6% in theNORTH CENTRAL. 27 in the WEST 1%in the SOUTH and less than I% in theNORTH EAST. With regard to the dis-tribution of BLACK/AFRO-AMERICANyouth, the percentage of youth per programwas 62% in the SOUTH. 54% in the WEST357 in the NORTH CENTRAL and 33% inthe NORTH EAST: For HISPANIC youth.the percentage of youth per program_ was387 in the WEST 11% in the SOUTH. 9%in the NORTH CENTRAL and 7';;- in theNORTH EA,T region.

Less than 17 of the programs inany geographic region had ASIAN/ORIENTAL youth. In terms of WHITEyouth, the percentage of youth perprogramwas 587 in the NORTH EAST. 49% in the.NORTH CENTRAL. 26%. in the SOUTH.and 47 in the WEST.

Programs

Youth Employment Programs 1975=1978

The information presented in this sectionrepresents data about the respondent'sYouth Employment Programs. Informationabout 1978 programs is presented firs: and.when important. comparisons with 1975-1977 programs are made.

A total of 471 separate and distinct youthemployment-related programs was offeredin 197g. As of June 1979. 245 of these pro-gram services were still being offered toyouth. Of the total reported. 214 operatedonly during the summer. The mean numberof programs offered was 4 per respondent,however the median was three.

For the 1975-1977 period. the respon-dents reported providing a total of 606employment-related programs for youth.Summer-only programs comprised 41% ofthe total. By comparing the number of pro-grams offered between 1975 and 1977 (606)with those offered in 1978 (471). it can beseen that thenumber of programs offered in1978 alone approached the number offeredduring the previous three-year period, con-stituting an increase in the availability ofyouth employment programs.

In addition, it should be noted that overthe past four years there has been a steadyincrease in the number of employment-related programs for youth. In 1975. 113respondents reported expending money on

9q

such procrams. the number increased to121 in 1976. 125 in 1977 and 146 in 1978:1978 demonst.ated the most dramatic in-crease.


What types of programs were offered to sheyouth? The data presented in Figure 2 showthe types of employment-related programsthat have been offered by respondents overthe past four years. The data are highlyconsistent between 1975-197 and 1978and indicate that each agency basicallyemphasized the same program areas in1978 as it did between 1975-1977: The mostfrequently offered programs were PAID orUNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE. JOBPREPARATION. JOB PLACEMENT.JOE TRAINING. VOCATIONAL JOBCOUNSELING_ and CAREER AWARE-NESS/EDUCATION. Other areas em-phasized to a lesser degree were TUTORING. LIFE SKILLS MANAGEMENT.SUPPORTIVE SERVICES. ASSIS-TANCE IN MAKING THE TRANSI-TION FROM SCHOOL TO WORK. I 1-frequently emphasized was TRANSPOR-TATION ASSISTANCE.

Employment Programs for Inner City,Urban. Suburban and Rural Youth

Did the youth employment programs em-phasize different program content depend-ing upon the geographic area served?

The data reveal that programs with pre-dominately INNER CITY youth (definedas 517 of the youth participating in theprograms who came from this geographicarea) -emphasized mainly PAID WORKEXPERIENCE. JOB PREPARATION.JOB TRAINING; CAREER AWARE-NESS/EDUCATION and .103 PLACE-MENT: Programs with predominatelySUBURBAN youth tended to empha-size- PAID WORK EXPERIENCEalso. ther. UNPAID WORK EXPERI-ENCE. fo!lowed by JOB PLACEMENT.JOB TRAINING and JOB PREPARA-TION. Programs :'or predominatelyURBAN youth tended to emphasize PAU)WORK EXPERIENCE. JOB PLACE-MENT: UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE.JOB PREPARATION and JOB TRAIN-ING. Finally. programs for predominatelyRURAL youthtended to emphasize PAIDWORK EXPERIENCE. followed by UN-PAID WORK EXPERIENCE. JOBTRAINING. ASSISTANCE IN MAKINGTHE TRANSITION FROM SCHOOL TOWORK. and CAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATION.

Clearly; the youth employment pro-grams emphasized different program areasdepending upon the different geographicareas served: however. it is apparent that in

BCA. Figure 2 Types of Emplo yment -matedOffered in 1975-1977 and in 1978


44%44%

19%


Cite Skills Management

Vocational Job Counseling39%

40%

h2SENES 39%Job Preparabco

Assistance in MakingTransition from School to Work 25%

7e--!

Transportation Assistance im tft

_ Tutoring & Preparation for 25%Employment-Related Exams 23%

Unpaid work Experience

Paid Work Expenence

Supporbve Services

JOb Training

Job Placement

47%

;P4; 1975-1977 (n = 134) 1.11 1978 = 148)

all geographic regions. the primary pro-gram being offered was PAID WORK EX-PERIENCE. It is logical to assume that thereason for different program content in thefour primary geographic areas was becausethe employment training needs differed be-tween the areas.

Employment Programs by MajorU.S. Regions

What was distribution of the respondentsby the major U.S. regions?


For those respondents with youth em-ployment programs in 1978. theirgeograph-ic distribution was as follows:

28% were in the NORTH EAST27% were in the SOUTH26% were in the WEST18% were in the NORTH CENTRALExcept for the NORTH CENTRAL. the

distribution of respondents between theNORTH EAST. SOUTH and WEST wasfairly equal. The U.S. Regions are definedin Appendix B.

30

CETA Programs

What was the distribution of CETA pro=grams hr the .four : eographic regions?

The data reveal that 32% of the CETAprograms were located in the SOUTH. 28'were in the NORTH EAST. 24% were_ inthe WEST and 16% Were it the NORTHCENTRAL.

Employment Programs Supported byAgency Budgets and CETA_Budgets

What types of youth employment programswere supported by _agency budgets andCETA budgets in 1978?

Because of the relatively low number ofrespondents for this cross tabulation. thedata are not preSented: i.e., n for theagency budget was 17 while n for CETA*as 26.

Program Funding


Table 2 presents data regarding the propor-tion of money expended by the respon-dents for 1978 employment-related pro-grams according to the source of funding.Because a respondent could have had morethan one source of funding for itsemployment=related programs. the per-centages total more than 100%.

The data clearly indicate that the primarysource of funding was the AGENCIES'OWN BUDGETS and CETA. with 66% ofthe respondents indicated that their OWNBUDGET supported their youth employ-ment programS. The next most frequentlyindicated source (62%J was CETA (TITLEII. III or IV) monies. Other than the abovetwo categories of funding sources. the re-maining categories were infrequeatlychecked by the respondents: Only 9% ofthe monies came from UNITED WAY(SPECIAL GRANT) and STATE FUNDS.8% each_ from the LOCAL BUSINESSCOMMUNITY and L.E.A.A.. 7% fromPR1VATE_FOUNDATIONS. and 6% fromCIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS and 5% fromCITY FUNDS. Less than 5% of the re-spondents indicated each of the followingsources of money: COUNTY. TITLE XX.HEW sources or CORPORATIONS orCORPORATE FOUNDATIONS. Six per-cent of the respondents listed an OTHERsource. In general, these data reflect a di-versified but low-level funding pattern bythe member affiliates for youth employ-ment programs.

TYpes of Employment Programs

Table 3 represents the future programmingemphases for all respondents planning tohave employment-related programs foryouth m the next twelve months. The pat-tern is sim72r _to the emphases placed onthe programming for youth employmentprograms seen in the previous four years.In essence, the respondents who plan tohave programs will emphasize both PAIDand UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCES,JOB PREPARATION, JOB TRAINING.and CAREER AWARENESS/EDUCA-TION. Other areas of emphiSis will includeJOB PLACEMENT VOCATIONAL JOBCOUNSELING and LIFE SKILLSMANAGEMENT

50ces of Future Funds

As can be seen in Table 4. a large percent-Age (67%) of the respondents plan to seekmonies from CETA (TITLE IL III or IV) forfuture employment-related program& ThiSemphasis upon seeking CETA monies isconsistent with previous (1978) efforts ofthe respondents. When compared with the1978 funding pattern, the respondents indi:cared that them will be increased effort toobtain monies from all funding sourceswith the greatest increase in obtaining fi-nancial support coming from LOCALCIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS, LOCALBUSINESS COMMUNITY. PRIVATEFOUNDATIONS, UNITED WAY, COR-PORATE FOUNDATIONS and L.E.A.A.Other than CETA and L.E.A.A., the em-phaSis is clearly upon seeking monies fromNON-GOVERNMENTAL sources.

Boy Scouts of America

The purpose of the-Boy Scouts of Amer:ca.Incorporated on February 8. 1910. andchartered by Congress in 1916. is to pro-vide an educational program for boys andyoung adults to build character; to train inthe responsibilities of rrarticipating citizen-ship. and to develop personal fitness.

Community groups receive nationalcharters to use the Scouting program as apart of their own youth work:. These groupswhich have goals compatible with those ofthe BSA include religious. educational.civic, fraternal, business. labor_ gov-ernmental bOdies, corporations. profes-sional associzzions. and groups of citizens.

ProgramCub Scouting: A family- and home-centered program for boys who are 8. 9.and 10 years old: When they are 10. theycan become Webelos Scouts and prepare tobecome Boy Scouts. (Boys also may be-come Cub Scouts if they are 7 and havecompleted the second grade or WebelosScouts when they are 9 and have completedthe fourth grade.)Boy Scouting: A program for boys 11through 17 designed to achieve Scouting'sobjectives through a vigorous outdoor pro-gram and peer group leadership with thecounsel of an adult Scoutmaster. (Boysalso may become Boy Scouts if they are 10and have completed the fifth grade.)Exploring: A contemporary pregarn foryoung men and women 15 through 20 thatprovides opportunities to learn about adultroles and vocational opportunities in as-sociation with business and communitypartners. Special - interest posts cover morethan 100 vocations with the most popularincluding aviation. law enforcement. medizcal and health; law and government. andSea Exploring which also have national as=Sociations. (Young adults also may becomeExplorers if they are 14 and have com-pleted the eighth grade.)

Membership since 1910 totals more than62 million. As of December 31. 1978. mem-bership was 4.493.491.

Volunteeradult leaders serve at all levelsof Scouting in 417 local councils. 31 areas.six regions, and nationally with volunteerexecutive boards and committees provid-ing guidance.

Each autonomous local council is char-tered by the BSA which provideS programand training aids along the guidelines estab-lished by the national Executive Board andthe national charter from Congress.

Results of The Youth EmploymentProgram SurveyBoy Scouts of America

Sample .cxze_and Return Rate

A total of 420 corporate units was sur-veyed_ The total response for Phase I & IIwas 253: i.e.. 60% return of the total sur-veys mailed.

Youth_

Youth Served

The Boy Scouts of America offer a widerange of services to youth. In order to iden-tify the geographic area served by the or-ganization and the geographic sources forthe youth recruited for all programs andservices, the following question was asked:

Please tell us what percent of the youth.which your agency serves. reside in thefollowing areas: Inner City. Urban.Suburban and Rural?There was no working definition for the

listed geographic areas. so replies weresubject to individual interpretations. Table Ipresents the percentage of youth served bythe respondents in the four geographicareas. RURAL areas seemed to have thehighest percentage of youth served. (85%).with URBAN areas (78%) and SUBUR-BAN areas (68%) following.

In reviewing the unserved areas. a major-ity (46%) of the respondents indicated thatthey Aid not serve youth residing in theINNER CITY.


The respondents reported that a total of177.014youth participated in a wide varietyof employment-related programs during1978_ This participation represents a meanof 890 youth per program: however, themedian of 65 youth per program is a moreaccurate reflection of the participationlevel.

In Figure 1. the characteristics of theyouth participants are presented. A major-ity (74%) of the youth were MALE. while(26%) were FEMALE.

In terms of ethnic characteristics, thedata indicate that the youth were predomi=nately WHITE (83%). The proportion ofother ethnic/cultural groups is as follows:BLACK/AFRO-AMERICAN (9%).. HIS-PANIC (4%). ASIAN/ORIENTAL (1%).NATIVE AMERICAN (1%). OTHER(1%). In addition. the youth in employmentrelated programs tended to reside primarilyin SUBURBAN (33%) and RURAL (31%)areas. A total of (37%) of the youth werereported living in URBAN (27%) andINNER CITY (10%) areas.

To what extent were youth with specialneeds involved in the youth employmentprograms? The respondents reported serv-ing only a small percent of special needsyouth. i.e.. LEARNING DISABLED(1%). YOUTH OFFENDERS (1%).PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED (1%)and STATUS_ OFFENDERS (1%)

In terms of family income. 50% of theyouth lived in families with annual incomesbetween S10.000 and S19.999. 30% of theyouth had families with annual incomesbelow S10.000 per year. while 21% hadfamilies with incomes above 520.000annually.


Are the characteristics of the youth differ-ent for those who were involved in the pro-grams supported by agency budgets versusprograms supported by CETA budgets?

Because of the relatively low number ofrespondents for this cross-tabuIation, thedata are not presented. i.e.. n for agencybudget was 98. while n for CETA was 3.

Youth Served by_Major_13;&Regiois

What was the distribution of the partici-pants in youth employment programs bythe four major geographic regions?


3

BSA Figure 1 Cara cteristics of the Pmdtsin the Youth Employment Programs in 1978


SexMale

Fernaie 26%

74%

EthnitityNative Amentan II 1%

Black/Afro-American MI 9%Hispanic III a%

Asian/Oriental 1%

weOther 1%

83%


Status Offenders I S%Physically Handicapped I .5%

Learning Disabled I S%

Geographic AreasInner City 10%

Subarban

Urban

Rural

27%

31%

Family Annual Income0-54.999 7%

55.000-999510.000-19.999520.000-29.999 OEM 16%S30.000=Above 5%

23%

Interestingly. although 18% of the re=spondents came from the WEST. 27% ofthe youth involved in employment-relatedprograms lived in the WEST. This repre-sents the highest percentage of youthserved for any geographic area for the BoyScouts of America. Twenty-six percent ofthe youth came from the NORTH CEN-TRAL. 25% from the SOUTH and 21%from the NORTH EAST An inspection ofthe median number of youth served perprogram in the various geographic- regionssupports the above distribution of youth.i.e.. in the WEST. the median number ofyouth served per program was 150. In con-trast. the median number of youth served inthe NORTH CENTRAL was 78.41 in theSOUTH and 36 in the NORTH EAST.Clearly. the WEST respondents tend tohave more youth per program than do theNORTH EAST. NORTH CENTRAL orSOUTH. Appendix B defines the U.S.Regions.

What was the ethnic distribution ofyouth inthe four geographic regions?

For NATIVE AMERICAN youth. the per-centage of youth per program was3% in theWEST. 2% in the NORTH CENTRAL. andless than 1% in both the SOUTH andNORTH EAST. For BLACK/AFRO=AMERICAN youth. the percentage ofyouth per program was 23% in theSOUTH. 10% in the NORTH CENTRAL8% in the WEST and 4% in the NORTHEAST. With regard to HISPANIC youth.the percent of youth per program was 9%in the WEST. 3% in the SOUTH. 2% inthe NORTH CENTRAL and 1% inthe NORTH EAST region. ForORIENTAL/ASIAN youth. the percent ofyouth per program was I 8% in the NORTHCENTRAL. 2% in the WEST. and less thanI% in both the SOUTH and the NORTHEAST. With regard to WHITE youth. thepercent of youth per program was 9,1%_ inthe NORTH EAST 77% in the WEST 72%in the SOUTH. and 67% in the NORTHCENTRAL region.

33

Programs


The information presented in this sectionrepresents data about the respondent'sYouth Employment Programs. Informationabout 1978 programs are presented firstand, when important. comparisons with1975=1977 programs are made.

A total of L820 separate and distinctyouth employment-related programs wasoffered in 1978. As of June 1979. 1.451 ofthese program services were still being offered to youth. Of the total reported. 510operated only during the summer. Themean number of program* offered was10 per respondent. however the medianwas two.

For the 1975=1977 period. the respon-dents reported providing a total of 1.011employment-related programs for youth.Summer-only programs comprised 40% ofthe total. By comparing the number of pro-grams offered between 1975 and 1977(1.011) with those offered in 1978 (1.820). itcan be seen that the number of programsoffered in 1978 alone exceeded the numberoffered during the previous three-yearperiod. constituting a rather dramatic in-crease in the avaiLibility of youth employ-ment programs.

In addition, it should be noted that overthe past four years there has been a steadyincrease in the number of member affiliatesproviding employment-related programsfor youth. In 1975. 192 respondents re-ported expending money on such pro-grams, the number increased to 196 in 1976;:95 in 1977 and 218 in 1978: 1978 demon-strated the most dramatic increase inmember affiliates.

Typesvf PixtgramsOfTered

What types ofprograms were offered to theyouth?

The data presented in Figure 2 show thetypes of employment-related programs thathave been offered by respondents over thepast four years. The data are highly con=sistent between 1975 -1977 and 1978 andindicate that each agency basically _em-phasized the same program areas in 1978 asit did between 1975-1977. The most fre-quently offered programs were PAID orUNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE andCAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATION.Other areas which were emphasized to alesser degree were JOB TRAINING. JOBPREPARATION. LIFE SKILL MAN-AGEMENT. VOCATIONAL JOBCOUNSELING and ASSISTANCE INMAKING THE TRANSITION FROMSCHOOL TO WORK. Infrequently em-phasized areas were TUTORING. JOBPLACEMENT, SUPPORTIVE SER-VICES. PREPARATION for EMPLOY-MENT-RELATED EXAMS and TRANS-PORTATION ASSISTANCE.

ESA Figm-e 2Types of Employment-Ma.edt PrograrmOffered in 1975-1977 and in 1978

ErVidYrnent-Related P:7rents Pe. -cent of Respondents

Career AaiateriettlEducation

Cite Skills Management

vocational Joo Counseling 6.11111.11.1 32%30%

HINI11.1111. 35%Job Preparation

39%

34%

Assistance in Making 34%Transition from School to Work 30%


aitorrig_& PrermationlorEmployment-Related Elan*


I1%

1%

2*11110 45%39%

58%

58%

Paid Work Experience =6114%70%

Supportive Services pm 11%12%

6E111= 27%Job Training27%

122 5%Job Placement

11. 6-14

16%Other

17%

pm 1975-1977 (n = 209) IIIII 1976 (n = 218)

Employment Programs for Inner City,Urbsurrban and Rural Youth

Did the youth employment programs em-phasize different program content depend-ing upon the geographic areas served?

The data reveal that programs with pre-dominately INNER CITY youth (definedas 51% of the youth participating in theprograms who come from this geographicarea) emphasized mainly PAID WORKEXPERIENCE. ASSISTANCE IN MAK-I NG THE TRANSITION FROMSCHOOL TO WORK. JOB PREPARA-TION and CAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATION. Programs for predomi-nately SUBURBAN and URBAN youthwere similar. These programs tended toemphasize PAID WORK EXPERIENCE.CAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATION

and LIFE SKILLS MANAGEMENT. Fi-nally. programs for predominately RURALyouth tended to emphasize CAREERAWARENESS/EDUCATION. PAIDWORK EXPERIENCE and UNPAIDWeR.K EXPERIENCE.

In general. the data are consistent withthe national view of the Boy Scouts ofAmerica in that all programs, regardless ofthe population served, tended to em-phasize PAID WORK EXPERIENCE.first and foremost. However, after thisarea. the pattern of programs tends to besomewhat different bt_%% ten_programs forpredominately INNER CITY. SUBUR-

BAN. URBAN and RURAL youth.Clearly. by emphasizing different programcontent areas. depending upon the geo-graphic area served. it is logical to assumethat the organization is responsive to thedifferential youth employment trainingneeds of various youth populations.

Employment Programs by MajorUS. Regions

What was the distribution of the respon-dents by major US. regior-s: i.e. NorthCentral. North East. South and West?

For those respondents with youth em-ployment programs in 1978. their geo-graphic distribution was as folloWs:31% came from the SOUTH26% came from the NORTH EAST25% came from the NORTH CENTRAL18% came from the WESTThe U.S. Regions are defined in Appen-dix B.

CETA Programs

What was the distribution of CETA pro-grams by the four geographic regions?

Because of_ the relatively low number_ ofrespondents for this cross tabulation, thedata are not presented: i.e.. n was 3respondents.


What types of outh employment programswere supported by agency budgets andCETA budgets in 1978?

Because of the relatively low number ofrespondents for this cross tabulation. thedata are not presented: i.e.. n for theagency budget was 98. while n for CETAwas 3.

Program Funding

Funding _for Youth_Employment Programs

Table 2 presents data regarding the propor-tion of money expended by the respon-dents for 1978 employment-related pro-grams according to the source of funding.Because a respondent could have had morethan one source of funding for itsemployment-related programs. the per-centages total more than 100%.

The data clearly indicate that the primarysource of funding was the AGENCIES'OWN BUDGETS. Eighty percent of sherespondents indicated that their OWNBUDGET supported their youth employ-ment programs while the next most fre-quently indicated source (25%) was CETA

2(TITLE IL III or IV) Monies. Other thatthe above two categories of fundingsources. the remaining categories were in-frequently checked by the respondents:OnlY 13% of the monies came from theLOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY. 11%from CIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS. 10%from CORPORATIONS or CORPORATEFOUNDATIONS. 9% from PRIVATEFOUNDATIONS, and 7% from aUNITED WAY (SPECIAL GRANT): 4%of the responder= indicated each of thefollowing_ sources of money: CITY.STATE. COUNTY.:.. E.A _A.. TITLEXX. and HEW. Six peen of the respon-deats listed an OTHER source. In general.theSe data reflect a diVertified but low-levelfunding pattern by the member affiliates foryouth employment programs.


Types of Programs

Table 3 represents the future programmingemphases for all respondents planning tohave employment-related programs foryouth in the next twelve months. The pat-tern is similar to the emphasis placed on theprogramming for youth employment pro-grams seen in the previous four years. Inessence. the respondents who- an to haveprograms will emphasize both PAID andUNPAID WORK EXPERIENCES.CAREER AWARENESS /EDUCATIONand LIFE SKILLS MANAGEMENT.Other areas_of emphasis will include JOBPREPARATION. JOB TRAINING. THETRANSITION FROM SCHOOL. TOWORK and VOCATIONAL JOB COUN-SELING.

Sources of Futore Funds_

As can be seen in Table 4. a moderate per -centage (33%) of the respondents plan toSeek monies from CETA (TITLE H. III or1V) for future einployment-related programs.This emphasis upon seeking CETA moniesis consistent with previous (1978) efforts ofthe respondents. When compared with the1978 funding pattefn, the respondents indi-cated that there will beincreased effort toobtain monies from all funding sources.with the greatest increase in obtaining fi-nancia/ support from PRIVATE FOUN-DATIONS. LOCAL CIVIC /SERVICECLUBS. the _LOCAL BUSINESS COM:MUNITY. UNITED WAY and CORPO-RATIONS or CORPORATE FOUNDA-TIONS. Other than CETA. the emphasis isclearly upon seeking monies from NON-GOVERNMENTAL sources.

Camp Fire, k

Camp Fire's corporate purpos e is to pro-vide. through a program of informal educa-tion. opportunities for youth to realize theirpotential and to function effectively as car-ing. Self-dire=ed mdividirils, responsibleto themselves and to others and. as an or-ganization, to seek to improve those condi-tions in society which affect youth. Theorganization's membership includes girlsand boys up to 21 years of age.

Camp Fire's basic program methodologyis the sm2U group. led by skilled. caringadults, using informal educadon, recrea-tion and group work principles and tech-niques; Programs focus on learning by do-ing. developing a positive self-image.responsibility and creativity, gainingdecision-making and planniii,g skills andlearning to appreciate, care for and workwith others; They build opportunities forpersonal and social language, for develop-ing life skills and for reducing sex-rolestereotyping.

Camp Fire is a multi-program member-ship agency. Its three major program areasare.

Club Programs are year - round_ smallgroups with four program levels includ-ing Blue Bird. Adventure. Discovery andHorizon.Outdoor Programs include group camp,.ing. day camping, resident camping andtrip programsResponse Programs are designed bycouncils and/or the national organiza-tion to meet identified needs of variousgroups of youth. This has resulted in avariety of programs, such as:

Day care and drop7in centersTutorial and in-school enrichmentprogramsYouth employment education pro-gramsDeliquency prevention projectsusing athletics and club leadershipopportunities

Camp Fire is a not-for-profit nationalvolunteer membership organizationfounded in 1910. There are now 330 coun-cils chartered by Camp Fire to serve youthin rural, urban and suburban areas in over35,000 communities. The new CorporateHeadquarters of Camp Fire at 4601 Madi-son Avenue. Kansas City. Missouri 64112.represents the membership, developsmaterials for national and local uSe, trains.advises, consults, provides merchandiseand apparel for local members, and sup-ports those involved with Camp Fire pro-grams throughout the country.

ReSultS of The Youth EmploymentProgram Sdrvea-Camp Fire_lne

Sample Sae and Rptiyrt Rate

A total of 330 corporate units was SW--veyed. Tne total response for Phase i & Hwas 231: i.e.. a 70% return of the total sur-veys mailed.

Youth

Youth Served

Camp Fire offers a wide range of servicesto ?outh. In order to identify the geo-graphic area served by the organization andthe geographic sources for the yl-,uth re-cruited ;or all programs and services, thefollowing question was asked:

Please tell us what pert of the youth.which your agency seni.s, reside in the

following areas: Inner City. Urban.Suburban and Rural?There was no working definition for the

liSted geographic areas. so replies weresubject to individual interpretations.

The response to this question indicatedthat the respondents recruit and serveyouth on a fairly even distribution fromeach of the four geographic areas served bythese agencies. Table 1 presents the per-centage of youth served by the respondentSacross the four geographic areas While theRURAL areas seemed to have the highestpercentage of youth served (73%), it isnoted that there are substantial services toURBAN youth (69%). Geographic areasserved are directly dependent upon thejurisdictional lines of each corporate unit.Jurisdictions do not always include each ofthe geographic areas.

Youth &erted in Employment-RelatedProp-was

The respondents reported that a total of11.964 youth participated in a wide varietyof employment-related programs during1978. This participation represents a meanof 144 youth per program: however. themedian of 22 youth per program is a moreaccurate reflection of the participationlevel.

In Figure 1, the characteristics of theyouth participants are presented. A major-ity (59%) of the youth were FEMALE.while 41% were MALE.

In terms of ethnic characteristics, thedata indicate that the youth were predomi7nately BLACK (54%). The proportion ofother ethnic/cultural groups is as fol-loWs: WHITE (42%). HISPANIC (3%).ASIAN/ORIENTAL (1%). NATIVE6

AMERICAN (1%). OTHER (1%). In addi-tion. the youth in employment related pro-grams tended to reside primarily inURBAN (36%) and SUBURBAN (Y0%)areas. Twenty-one percent_ of the youthwere reported living in INNER CITY areasand 12% in RURAL areas

To what extent were youth with specialneeds involved in the youth employmentprograms? The respondents reported serv-ing a small percent of special needs youth:i.e.. LEARNING DISABLED t<1%).YOUTH OFFENDERS (<1%). PHYSI:CALLY HANDICAPPED (<1%) andSTATUS OFFENDERS (3%).

_Family income data indicated that 37%Of the youth lived in families with annualincomes between S10.000 and S19.999. 60%of the youth had families with ana;:al in-comes below S10.000 per year. while 3%had families with incomes above 520.000annually.

Youth Served in Agency Supported andCETA Supported Progratns_

Are the characteristics of the youth differ-ent for those who were involved in pro-grams supported by agency budgets versusprograms supported by CETA budgets?

Because of the relatively low number ofrespondents for this cross tabulation, thedata are not presented: i.e.: n for agencybudget was 25, while n for CETA was 12.

Youth Served by Major US. Regions

What xas the distribution of the youth bythe four major geographic regions?


Interestingly enough. 74% of the youthare identified as coming from the SOUTFLwhile only 11%_can from the WEST, 9%from the NORTH 1. IST and 5% from theNORTH CENTRAL. It is clear that themajority of the youth in youth employmentprograms for Camp Fire reside in theSOUTH. The median number of youth perprogram was 28 in the SOUTH. 17 in theNORTH EAST, 15 in the WEST and 11 inthe NORTH CENTRAL. However. an in-spection reveals that the mean number ofyouth per program was 403 in the SOUTH.107 in the NORTH EAST. 52 in the WEST,and 26 in the NORTH CENTRAL. TheU.S. Regions are defined in Appendix B.

CF Figure 1 CharacteriStics of the Participantsin the Youth Employment Programs in 1:9n_

I_Percent of Youth Served

Make 41%

FermAtillIMM..1111.11.111 59%Ethnicity

Native American .5%

Biack/Afro-Arnetican

Kg.* p 3%Asian /Oriental 1 1%

vattae

Other 1 1%

54%


Stabs Offenders III 3%

Physically Kan:lc:ebbed I .5%

Learning Disable:I I .5%

Geographic Areasinner City 2176

Suburban 33%

Urban 36%

Rural 12%

Family Aran: I Income0-54,999 15%

55,000-9.999S10.000-19,999

520.000-29.999 2%

S32.000Above 11%

45%

37%

What was the ethnic distribution of theyouth by the major geographic regions?In terms of the NATIVE AMERICANpopulation of youth, the percent of NA-TIVE AMERICANS by each of the geo-graphic regions of NORTH EAST.NORTH CENTRAL. SOUTH and WESTwas less than: 1%. For BLACK /AFRO-AMERICAN, the distribt. tion of youth was61% in the SOUTH. 50% in the NORTHEAST. 37% in the WEST and 5% in theNORTH CENTRAL. For HISPANICyouth. the percent of youth per programwas 24% in the WEST, 1% in the SOUTH.and less than 1% in both the NORTHCENTRAL and NORTH EAST areas. ForASIAN/ORIENTAL youth, the distribu-tion was less than 1% in each of the fourgeographic areas. Finally, for WHITEyouth. _ the percent of youth per, programWas 93% in the NORTH CENTRAL.53% in the NORTH EAST, 40% in theWEST and 38% in the SOUTH.

Programs

Youth Employ. lent Programs 1975-1978

The information presented in this sectionrepresents data about the respondent'sYoUth Employment Programs: Informationabout 1978 programs is presented firstand. when important. comparisons with1975-1977 programs are made.

A total of 183 separate and distinct youthemployment-related programs was offeredin 1978. As ofJune 1979. 139 of these pro-_gram services were still being offered toyouth, Of the total reported. 103 operatedonly during the summer: The mean andmedian number of programs offered wastwo per respondent.

For the 1975-1977 period. tne respon-dznts reported providing a total of 198emplovniecT-relateci programs for youth.Summez-only programs comprised 59% ofthe total By comparing the number of pro-graMS offered between 1975 and 1977 (198)with those offered in 1978 (1). it can beseen that the number of programs offered in1978 alone approached the number offeredduring the previous three year period, con-stituting a rather dramatic increase inthe availability of youth employmentprograms.

In addition: it should be noted that overthe past four years there haS been a steadyincrease in the number of employment-related programs for youth. In 1975. 69 re-spondents reported expending money onsuch programs. the number decreased to 68in 1976. then in-reed to 73 in 1977 and 103in 1978: 1978 demonstrated the mostdramatic increase.


What types of programs were offered to theyouth'

The data presented in Figure 2 show thetypes of employment-related programs thathave been offered by respondents over thepast four years. The data_are highly con:sistent between 1975-1977 and 1978 andindicate that each agency basically em-phasized the same program areas in 1978 asit did between 1975-1977: The mostfrequently offered programs were PAIDor UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE.CAREER AWARENESS /EDUCATIONand JOB TRAINING. Other areas em-phasized to a lesser degree were JOBPREPARATION and LIFE SKILLSMANAGEMENT. Infrecuently empha-sized areas were TUTORING ANDPREPARATION FOR EMPLOYMENT-RELATED EXAMS. TRANSPORTA;TION ASSISTANCE. VOCATIONALJOB COUNSELING. ASSISTANCE INMAKING THE TRANSITION FROMSCHOOL TO WORK and SUPPORTIVESERVICES.

Employment Programs for Inner City,Urban, Suburban and Rural Youth

Did the youth employment programs em-phasize different program content depend -ingupon the geographic area served?

The data reveal that programs with pre-dominately INNER CITY youth (definedat 51% of the youth participating in theprograms who come from this geographicarea) emphasized mainly CAREERAWARENESS/EDUCATION,_ followedby JOB TRAINING. JOB PREPARA=TION and PAID WORK EXPERIENCE.Programs for predominately URBANyouth emphasized PAID and UNPAIDWORK EXPERIENCE. CAREERAWARENESS/EDUCATION and JOB

CF. Figure 2 Types of Employment-Related ProgramsOffered in 075-1977 and in 1978

Employment-FieLead Programs Percent of Respondents

Career Ariareness/Educabon 36%

Lrfe Sails ManagementklEINEE 19%

20%I

Vocabonal Job Courtseiing 6%=

III 6%

11111291171113 24%Job Preparattn

25%


7ra:1e:or:atm Assrstance

Ttdonng & Preparation forEmployment-Robbed Exams



SLIP conk.*

PaNIBMIE-7,7 58%41%

i;IMMISEE.,e17. 55%

21.

MieS 8%Other

1111 8%

1975-1977 (n = 85) 11111 1978 (n = 103)

TRAINING. Programs for predominatelySUBURBAN youth tended to emphasizeUNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE.TUTORING and PREPARATION FOREMPLOYMENT RELATED EXAMSsuch as the GED. and SUPPORTIVESERVICES. Finally, programs for pre-dominately RURAL. youth tended to em-phasize PAID WORK EXPERIENCE.CAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATION.and UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE.

Clearly. the youth employment pro-grams emphasized different programcontent areas depending upon the geo-graphic area served. It is logical toassume that the reason for differentprogram content in the four majorgeographic areas was because the em-ployment training needs of youth dif-fered between the areas.

Employment Programs by MajorU.S. Regions

What was the distribution of the respon-dents by the major U.S. regions: ix. NorthCentral. North East. South and West'. .

For those respondents_ with youth em-ployment programs in 1978. their geo-graphic distribution was as follows:

36% were in the SOUTH35% were in the NORTH CENTRAL14% were in the NORTH EAST14% were in the WESTGenerally. the NORTH CENTRAL and

the SOUTH had the largest percent_of re-spondents while the NORTH EAST andthe WEST had the least. The U.S. Regionsare defined in Appendix B.

38

CETA. Prams

What was the distribution of CETA pro-graMs by try four geographic regions?

Because of_the small number of respon-dents with CETA programs by each of thegeographic regions; the data for this crosstabulation cannot be presented.


What types of vouth employment programswere supported by agency and CETA bud-gets in I978?_

Because of the relatively loW number ofrespondents for this cross tabulation. thedata are not presented: i.e.. n for_ theagency budget was 25: while n for CETAwas 12.

Program Funding


Table 2 presents data regarding the propor-tion of money expended by the respon-dents for 1978 employment-related pro=grams according to the source of funding:BecauSe a respondent could have had morethan one source of funding for itsem_ployment-related programs, the per-centages total more than 100%.

The data clearly indicate that the primarysource of funding was the AGENCIES'OWN BUDGETS. Fifty percent of the-re -spondents indicated that their OWNBUDGET supported their youth employ-ment programs. while the next most fre-quently indicated source (25%) was CETA(TITLE II. III or IV) monies. Other thanthe above two categories of fundingSources. the remaining categories were in-frequently checked by the respondents:Only 9% of the monies came, from aUNITED WAY (SPECIAL GRANT). Lessthan 5% of the respondents indicated eachof the following sources of money:LOCAL- BUSINESS COMMUNITY,PRIVATE. CIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS.CITY. STATE. COUNTY, L.E.A.A.,TITLE XX. HEW sources or CORPORA-TIONS or CORPORATE FOUNDA=TIONS. Ten percent of the respondentslisted an OTHER source. In general, thesedata reflect a diversified but low=level fund-ing pattern by the member affiliates foryouth employment programs.

6Ft Provam rams

Types of Programs_

Table 3 represents the future programmingemphases for all respondents planning tohave emplovment-related programs foryouth in the next twelve months. The pat-tern is similar to the empbaseSplaced onthe programming for youth employmentprograms seen in the previous four ;ears.In essence. the respondents who plan _tohave programs will emphasize both PAIDand UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCESand CAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATION. Other areas of emphasiswill include. JOB PREPARATION. JOBTRAINING and VOCATIONAL JOBCOUNSELING.

Sources of Funds

As can be seen in Table 4. a moderate pertentage (25%) of the respondents plan toseek monies from CETA (TITLE II. III orIV) for future employment-related pro-grams. This emphasis upon seeking CETAmonies is consistent with previous (1978)efforts of the respondents. When comparedwith the 1978 funding pattern, the respon-dents indicated that there will be increasedeffort to obtain monies from all fundingsources with the greatest increase in ob-taining_ financial support from PRIVATEFOUNDATIONS and LOCAL CIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS.

441Yooth Programs

Science and EducationExton USDAUSDA

4-H is operated through_ the Extension Ser-vice. USDA. Cooperative Extra Sion Ser-vices of the State land-grant universities.State and lotal governments The Exten-sion Service USDA. provides nationalleaderShip guided by USDA missions. theExtension Committee on Organization andPolicy (ECOP) and its 4-H Youth Sub-committee. and recommendations of the4-H Century III program goals document.State Extension SerVices of the land-grantuniversities give State leadership.

Through informaL practical, learn-by-doing educational programs in agricultureand natural resources, home economics.community development. and relatedareas, 4-H helps youth establishgoals and become competent. productivecitizens. Cooperative Extension's 4-Hyouth _progr.uns are based on a uniquepartnership ti." government, land-grant uni-versities. volunteers and the private sector:4-H programs are carried out locally byvolunteer leaders under the guidance.supervision and training of county Exten-sion professionals and pare- professionalsrepresenting land-grant university sys-tems. The National 4-H Council. a privatesupport organization. assists the Coopera-tive Extension Service in carrying out anumber of programs in behalf of 4-H.

Today's 4-H program is for all youthrural and urban from all racial, cultural.economic and social backgrounds. Familycooperation_ and participation in 4-H pro=grams are given high priority. Youth par-ticipate in 4-H as members of organized4-H Clubs and in 441 special interestgroups, through the zH Expanded Foodand Nutrition Education Program (primar-ily for low income city youth). or as partici-pants in 4-I-1 Instructional TV programseries. 4-H is located in all states. the Dis-trict of Columbia. Puerto Rico. Virgin Is=lands and Guam.

Approximately 5.8 million youth are nowparticipating in 4-H youth programs withover 25% of these youth coming fromminority groups. 4-H-ers enrolled in over 9million projects last year.

In keeping with recommendations from"4-H in CenturY a recently developed4-H goals statement prepared by a TaskForce of the Extension Committee on Or-ganization and Policy. the following eight4-H program areas are now receiving majorattention:

Economics, Jobs and Careers.Animal. Plant and Soil ScienceSEnergy and Mechanicd Sciences

- Environment and Natural Resources- Community Development. Leader-

ship. and Citizenship Education- Home and Family Resources including

Consumer Eilliention and NutritionEducationHealth and Safety

- Leisure Education. Creative and Per-forming Arts, Communications

To carry out effective prOgrams in theSeareas will require expansion in numbers of,olunteer leaders. inreased teen involve-ment. intensive staff development andtraining programs. expanded use of TV andother educational program mediums. andUnproved systems for evaluation, reportingand accountability.

Results of The Youth EmploymentProgram Survey4-0 Youth Programs

Sample Slit and Return Rate

A total-of 520 corporate units was sur-veyed. The total response for Phase I of thesurvey was 96: i.e.. an 18% return of thetotal surveys mailed. 4-H was not able toparticipate in Phase H of the survey.

Cross Tabulation

To add depth to the Youth EmploymentSurvey results, several cross tabulationswere performed on the data. In order forcross tabulations to have meaning, theymust be based upon a relatively large sam-ple of survey respondents.

In the case of the 4-H Youth Programs.the number of respondents for each crosstabulation was too small to allow meaning-ful interpretation. A criterion wasestablished that the cross tabulation re-sponse rate must be at least 25% of the totalnumber of respondents for each cross tab.There were no cross tabulations thatreached this criterion, and the findings forthe following cross tabulations are notpresented:


Youth Served by Major U.S. RegionsEmployment Programs for INNERCITY. URBAN. SUBURBAN andRURAL Youth



A

0

Youth

Youth Served

In order to identify the geographic areasfrom which the respondents recruit theiryouth for all program activities. the follow-ing question was asked:

Please tell us what percent of the you:h.which your agency serves. reside in thefollowing areas: Inner City. Urban:Suburban and Rural?There was no working definition for the

listed geographic areas. so replies weresubject to individual interpretations. Theresponse to this question indicated that therespondents recruit and serve youth prin-cipally in RURAL and SUBURBAN areas.Table 1 presents the percentage of youthserved by the respondents across the fourgeographic areas. Youth were served in allgeographic areas. ranging from 86% inRURAL areas to 21% in the INNERCITIES.


The _respondents reported that a total of177.014 youth participated in a wide varietyof- employment - related programs daring1978. This participation represents a meanof 890 youth per program: however, themedian of 65 youth per program is a moreaccurate reflection of the participationlevel.

In Figure 1 the characteristics of theyouth participants are presented. A major-ity (54%) of the youth were FEMALE.while 46% were MALE.

In terms of ethnic characteristics, thedata indicate that the youth were predomi-nately WHITE (86%). The proportion ofother ethnic/cultural groups is as follows:BLACK/AFRO-AMERICAN (10%);HISPANIC (4%). ORIENTAL/ASIAN(.5%). NATIVE AMERICAN (0%).OTHER (.5%). In addition, the youth inemployment-related programs tended toreside primarily in RURAL (39%) andINNER CITY (24%) areas. Twenty-twoperceatof the youth were reported living inSUBURBAN areas and 17% in URBANareas.

To what extent were youth with specialneeds involved in the youth employmentPrograms?

The respondents reported serving only asmall percent of special needs youth: i.e..LEARNING DISABLED (8%). YOUTHOFFENDERS (2%). STATUS OFFEND-ERS ( I%) and PHYSICALLY HANDI-CAPPED (1%).

8

4-H Figure 1 Characteristics of the Participantsin die Youth Employment Programs in 1978

SexMale

Female

EthnicityNative Arnerican

Black/Afro-American

Hispanic

Asian/Oriental

White

Other .5%

IPercent of Youth Served

46%

54%


Status Offenders 1%

Physically HancHcapped 1%

[earning Disabled 8%


Suburban

Urban

aural

24%

22%

17%

Family Annual Income0-44.999 8%

55.000-9.999

$10.000-19.999

W0.000-29.999

530.000Above 1%

32%

12%

48%

Family income data revealed that 48% ofthe youth lived in families with annual in-comes between 510.000 and 519.999. 40%of the youth had families with annual in-comes below 510.000 per year. while 13%had families with incomes above 520.000annually.

Programs


The information presented in this sectionrepresents data about the respondent'sYouth Employment Programs: Informationaoout 1978 programs is presented first and,when important, comparisons with 1975-1977 programs are made.

A total of 83 separate and distinct youthemployment-related programs was offeredin 1978. As of June 1979. 100% of theseprogram services were still being offered tomouth. Of the total reported. 94 operatedonly during the summer. The mean numberof programs offered was 2 per respondent.however the median was one

For the 1975=1977 period. the respon-dents reported providing a total of 166employment-related programs for youth.Summer-only programs comprised 3790 ofthe total. By comparing the number of pro-grams offered between 1975 and 1977 (166)with those offered in 1978 (83). it can beseen that the number of programs offered in1978 alone approached the number offeredduring the previous three-year period, con-stituting a small increase in the availabilityof youth employment programs.

In addition, it should be noted that overthe past four years there has been a steadyincrease in the number of youth em-ployment-related programs offered. In1975, 45 respondents reported expendingmoney on such programs. the_numberchanged to 46 in 1976, 43 in 1977 and 52in 1978: 1978 demonstrated the most dra-matic increase.

4 1

Types of_Progr2ms Offered_

What types of programs were offered tothe youth?

The data presented in Figure 2 shoW thetypes of employment-related programs thathave been offered by respondents over thepaSt four years. The data are highly con-sistent between 1975-1977 and 1978 andIndicate that each agency basically em-phasized the same program areas in 1978 asit did between 1975-1977. The most fre=quently offered programs were CAREERAWARENESS/EDUCATION. PAIDWORK EXPERIENCE and LIFESKILLS MANAGEMENT. Other areasemphasized to a lesser degree were JOBTRAINING. JOB PREPARATION, UN-PAID WORK EXPERIENCE, VOCA=TIONAL JOB COUNSELING. and AS-SISTANCE IN MAKING THE TRANSI-TION FROM SCHOOL TO WORK: In-frequently emphasized areas wereTUTORING and PREPARATION forEMPLOYMENT-RELATED EXAMS.TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE andSUPPORTIVE SERVICES.

Program Funding


Table 2 presents data regarding the propor-tion of money expended by the respon-dents for 1978 employment-related pro-grams according to the source of funding.Because a respondent could have had morethan one source of funding for itsemployment-related programs, the per-centages total more than 100%.

The data clearly indicate that the primarysource of funding was the AGENCIES'OWN BUDGETS. Forty-eight percent ofthe respondents indicated that their OWNBUDGET supported their youth employ-ment programs while the next most fre-quently indicated source (33%) was CETA(TITLE II. III or IV) monies. Other thanthe above two categories of fundingsources. the remaining categories were infrequently checked by the respondents:Only L5% of the monies came fromCOUNTY FUNDS. 12% came from theLOCAL BUSINESS_ COMMUNITY. 6%each from PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS andCORPORATE or CORPORATE FOUN-DATIONS and 4% from UNITED WAY(SPECIAL GRANT): Less than 3% of therespondents indicated each of the followingSources of money: CITY. STATE.COUNTY: L.E.A.A TITLE XX. HEW,CIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS or CORPO-RATIONS or CORPORATE FOUNDA-TIONS. Three percent of the respondentslisted an OTHER source. In general= thesedata reflect a diversified but low=leveling pattern by the member affiliates foryouth ernoloyment orocrams.

4-H Figure 2 Types of Employment-Related ProgramsOffered in 1975-1977 and in 1978

Employment-Related Programs


Life Skits Management

Vocational Job COunSeling

Job Preparation

Assistance in MakingTransition from School to Work 10%

erCent of Respondents

s. 67%

50%

16%

14%

17%

14%


Tutoring & Preparation forEmployment-Related Exams 4%

2%

4%

4%

Unpaid Work Expe


Supportive Services

Job Training

Job Placement

:47 37%

27%

24%

7,7::2-72. 41%

4%

6%

4%

ags 1971977 (n = 51) MI 1978 (n = 52)

21%

49%

42%

Future_ Pimgrant Plans

Th:mts of Programs_

Table 3 represents the future programmingemphases for all respondents planning tohave employment-related programs foryouth in the next twelve months. The pat-tern is similar to the emphases placed onthe programming for youth employmentprograms seen in the previous four Years.In essence. the respondents who plan tohave programs will emphasize -both PAIDand UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE.LIFE _SKILLS MANAGEMENT andCAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATION.Other areas of emphasis will include JOBPREPARATION and JOB TRAINING.

Sources of Funds

As can be seen in Table 4. a moderate per-centage (27%) of the respondents plan toseek monies from CETA (TITLE II. III orIV) for future employment=related pro-grams. This emphasis upon seeking CETAmonies is consistent with previous (1978)efforts of the respondents. When comparedwith the 1978 funding pattern, the respon-dents indicated that there will be increasedeffort to obtain monies from all fundingsources. with the greatest increase in ob-taining financial_ support from COUNTYFUNDS. CIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS andthe LOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY.

Future Homemakers of America

Future Homemakers of America is a non-profit national vocational education or-ganization for young men and women inhome economics and related occupationscourses in public and private schools with anational membership of half a million in12.500 chapters located in all 50 states, theDistrict of Columbia. Puerto Rico. the Vir-gin Islands and American schools over-seas. Membership is voluntary for all stu-dents who are taking or have taken a coursein consumer homemaking or occupationalhome economics.

There are two types of chapters:FHA Chapters place major emphasis onprojects involving consumer education.homemaking and family life education.Chapters also explore home economicsrelated jobs and careers with the realiza-tion that homemakers fill multiple rolesas community leders and wage earners.HERO Chapters place major emphasison preparation for jobs and careers withrecognition that workers also fill multipleroles as homemakers.The objective is to help youth assume

their roles in society through Home Eco:nomics Education in areas of personalgrowth. family life, vocational preparationand community involvement.

The major program goal is to developyouth leadership capabilities. Program Ac-tion Impact. a decision-making process.and Encounter, an individual goal-settingproceSs. were designed with student inputas methods for members to plan and carrythrough in-depth, home economics relatedprojects based on their own concerns andinterests. A third process, one in Whichstudents can identify forms of recognitionthat have meaning for them, provides anopportunity to evaluate awards programsand identify the type of recognition mostvalued by individuals.

Fourteen National Officers (youth) areelected by the voting delegateS to the Na-tional Leadership Meeting and make up theNational Executive Council. The NationalBoard of Directors is composed of adultrepresentatives plus five youth representa-tives. State AsSociations and local chapterselect their own youth officers. State pro:grams come under the direction of theHome Economics Education Staff. StateDepartment of Education. Chapter ad-visors are home economics teachers.

Results of The Youth EmploymentProgram SurveyFuture Homemakers

SampleSizes_and Return Rates

A total of 400 corporate units of FutureHomemakers of America was surveyed.The total respeinse for Phase I was 23: i.e..a 6% return of the total surveys mailed.Future Homemakers of America was notable to participate in Phase II of the survey.

Cross Tabulation

To add depth to the Youth EmploymentSurvey results, several cross tabulationswere performed on the data. In order forcross tabulations to have meaning. theymust be based upon a relatively large sam-ple of survey respondents.

In the case of the Future Homemakers ofAmerica. the total number of respondentswas too small to allow meaningful interpre-tation. There were no cross tabulations andthe findings for the following areas are notpresented:




Employment Programs Supported byAgency Budgets and CETA Budget..

Youth

Youth Served

In order _to identify the geographic_ areaSfrom which the respondents recruit theiryouth for all program activities, the follow-ing question was asked:

Please tell us what percent of the youth.which your agency serves. reside in thefollowing areas: Inner City, Urban.Suburban and Rural?The response to this question indicated

that the majority of youth recruited andServed (50%-100%) are evenly_distributedat 12% between the INNER CITY.URBAN and SUBURBAN Areas, TheRURAL area. in contrast, has 35%. Table 1presents the percentage of youth served bythe respondents in each of the four areas.


The respondents reported that a total of1.157 youth participated in a wide varietyof employment-related programs during1978. This participation represents a meanof 89 youth per program: however. the me=dian of 31 youth per program is a moreaccurate reflection of the participationlevel.

In Figure 1; the characteristics of theyouth participants are presented. A major-ity (63%) of the youth were FEMALE,while 37% were MALE.

In terms of ethnic characteristics thedata indicate that_ the youth were predomi=nately WHITE (69%). The proportion ofother ethnic/cultural groups is as follows:BLACK/AFRO-AMERICAN (14%).HISPANIC (16%). ORIENTAL/ASIAN(0%1. NATIVE AMERICAN (1%) andOTHER (0%). In addition, the youth inemployment-related programs tended toreside primarily in URBAN (65%) andRURAL (24%) areas. Seven percent of theyouth were reported living in SUBUR-BAN, and 4% in INNER CITY areas.

To what extent were -youth with specialneeds invoked in the youth employmentprograms?

The responses indicated that less than1% of the program served YOUTH OF=FENDERS. STATUS OFFENDERS. theLEARNING DISABLED or the PHYSI-CALLY HANDICAPPED.

Family income date revealed that 33% ofthe youth lived in families with annual in-comes between $10.000 and 519.999, 35%of the youth had families with annual in-comes below 510,000 per year. while 33%had families with incomes above $20.000annually.

Programs

Youth Employment Programs 1975-1978_

The information presented in this sectionrepresents data about the respondent'sYouth Employment Programs. Informationabout 1978 programs is presented first and,when important. comparisons with 1975-1977 programs are made.

FHA Figure 1 Characteristics of the Participantsin the Youth Emplment Programs in 1978


Sex

Male 37%

Female 63%

Ethnicity

Native American I 1%Firteck/Afro-Arneritan 14%

Hispanic 16%

Asian/Oriental 0%

White 69%Other 0%

Special Needs

Youth Offenders .5%

Status Offenders .5%

Physically Handicapped .1%

Learning Disabled .5%

Geographic Areas

inner City 4%

Suburban 7%

Urban 65%

Rural 24%


044.999 14%

$5,000-9,999 21%

$10,000-19,999 33%

S20,000-29.999 23%

sa0.000Above 10%

A total of 36 separate and distinct youthemployment-related programs was offeredin 1978. As of June 1979, 27 of these pro-gram services were still being offered toyouth. Of the total reported, five operatedonly during the summer. The mean numberof programs offered was two per respon-dent, however. the median was two.

For the 1975-1977 period, the respon-dents reported providing a total of fiveemployment-related programs for youth.Summer-only programs comprised 20% ofthe total. By comparing the number of pro-grams offered between 1975 and 1977 (5)with those offered in 1978 (36). it can beseen that the number of programs offered in1978 alone approached the number offeredduring the previous three-year period, con-stituting a rather dramatic increase inthe availability of youth employmentprograms.

In addition, it should be noted that overthe past stir years there has been a steadyincrease in the number of employment-related programs for youth. In 1975 and1976. 13 respondents reported expendingmoney on such programs, the numberincreased to 14 in 1977 and 17 in 1978.demonstrating a small but steady increasein youth employment programs.

4


What types of programs were offered to theyouth?

The data presented in Figure 2 show thetypes of employment-related programs thathave been offered by respondents over thepaSt four years. The data are highly con-sistent between 1975-1977 and 1978 andindicate that the agency basically em-phasized the same program areas in 1978 asit did between 1975-1977. The most fre-quently offered programs were CAREERAWARENESSLED_UCATION. PAIDWORK EXPERIENCE. JOB TRAININGand VOCATIONAL J OB COUNSELING.Other areas emphasized to a lesser degreewere JOB PREPARATION. LIFESKILLS_ MANAGEMENT: JOBPLACEMENT and ASSISTANCE INMAKING THE TRANSITION FROMSCHOOL TO WORK. Infrequently em-phasized _areas were TUTORING. SUP=PORTIVE SERVICES. TUTORING ANDPREPARATION for EMPLOYMENT-RELATED EXAMS and TRANSPORTA-TION ASSISTANCE.

Funding


Table 2 presents data regarding the propor-tion of money expended by the respon-dents for 1978 employment-related pro-grams according to the source of funding.Because a respondent could have had morethan one source of funding for itsemployment-related programs. the per-centages total more than 100%.

The data clearly indicate that the primarysources of funding were the AGENCIES'OWN BUDGET and CETA funds. Each ofthe two funding sources were cited by 29%Of the respondents. while the next mostfrequently indicated sources were theLOCAL BUSINESS COMMUNITY(17%) and CITY GOVERNMENT (12f;-).Other than the above categories of fundingsources. the remaining categories were in-frequently checked by the respondents:Eight percent of the respondents securedSTATE FUNDS. while 5% of the indicatedfunding sources were UNITED WAY-SPECIAL GRANTS. CIVIC/SERVICECLUBS and TITLE XX. In general. thesedata reflect a divertified but loW=level fund-ing pattern by the member affiliates foryouth employment programs.

FHA Figure 2Types of Employment-Related ProgramsOffered in 1975=-1977 and in 1978

EMplOyMent-Related Programs Percent of ReSpondentS


Life Skills Management

Vocational Job Counseling

Job Preparation



Tutoring-E. PreparatiortforEmployment-Related Exams



Supportive Services

Job Training

Job Placement

WE 1975-1977 (n = 19)

42%

59%

53%

0%

0%

16%

12%

47%

41%

65%

63%

59%

ateganagEMENS3%59%

71%

EMI 16%29%

MERESEESELgt%

sasnassmsw.

0611%6%

1978 (n = 17)

71%

Future Program -Plans

Types of Programs__

Table 3 represents the future programmingemphases for all respondents planning tohave employment-related programs foryouth in the next twelve months. The pat-tern is similar to the emphases placed onthe programming for youth employmentprograms seen in theprevious four years. Inessence, the respondents who plan to haveprograms will emphasize both CAREERAWARENESS/EDUCATION. PAIDWORK EXPERIENCE. JOB TRAININGand JOB PREPARATION. Other areas ofemphasis will include LIFE SKILLSMANAGEMENT. VOCATIONAL JOBCOUNSELING. ASSISTANCE INMAKING THE TRANSITION FROMSCHOOL TO WORK and JOB PLACE-MENT.

Sources of Future Funds

As can be seen in Table 4. a large percent-age (307c) of the respondents plan to seekmonies from CETA (TITLE II. III or IV)for future employment-related programs.This emphasis upon seeking CETA moniesis consistent with previous (1978) efforts ofthe respondents. When compared with the1978 funding pattern. the respondents indi-cated that there will be increased effort toobtain monies from all funding Sources,with _the_ greatest increase in obtainingfinancial support from the LOCAL SUSI=NESS COMMUNITY and STATEFUNDS. Increased emphasis is alsoplanned to secure more funds from HEWand CIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS.

Girls Clubs of America

GCA is a national service and advocacyagency for the rights- nd needs of all girls.National goals of GCA are established toprovide services consistent with prepara-tion of today's girls for their transition towomanhood and the responsibilities theywill face.

Within national guidelines, programs areinitiated by Member Clubs to meet theneeds of girls in that community. GirlsClubs in 34 states offer programs in tutoringand specialized learning. physical fitnessand team sports. career development. per-forming and fine arts. health and sexualityeducation, parenting and homemakingskills, individual and group counseling.Open five to seven days a week. Girls Clubsprovide members with a supportive envi-ronment in which to develop personalstrengths. relationships and goals.

Youth EmploYment Programs are con-ducted in most clubs. Several clubs havedeveloped outstanding models that are re-plicable in other communities and some areapproved for school credit:

Program emphasis in each club is closelyrelated to the target population in that city.Programs are adapted to specific commu-nity needs and capabilities rather thanpre-packaged and imposed by the parentorganization.

Services of a Girls Club_ are ongoing andyouth involved in a specific program havethe opportunity to participate in other pro-grams and supportive services. All pro-grams provide the benefits of agency volun-teers. professional staff and communityinvolvement. Career Development Pro=grams access all resources of the agency.

Girls Clubs are uniquely qualified to pro-vide services to girls, as the only agencyproviding daily building centered programsspecifically designed with and for females.The professional staff locally receives spe-cial training and technical assistancethrough the national staff and ctherconsul-tants skilled in working with girls. The na=tional agency is a leading advocate for therights of girls of all backgrounds andabilities and applies this policy to all ser-vice areas. Girls become decision-makersthrough GCA.

Results of The Youth EmploymentSurveyGirls Clubs of America


A total of 120 corporate units of Girls Clubsof America was surveyed. The total re-sponse for Phase I & II was 80; i.e.. a 67%return of the total surveys mailed.

Cross Tabulation

To add depth to the Youth EmploymentSurvey results, several cross tabulationswere performed on the data. In order forcross tabulations to have meaning, theymust be based upon a relatively large sam-ple of survey respondents. In the case ofthe Girls Clubs of America. the number ofrespondents for each cross tabulation wastoo small to allow meaningful interpreta-tion. A criterion was established that thecross tabulation response rate must be atleast 25% of the total number of respon-dents for each cross tabulation.

For the Girls Clubs of America. therewere no cross tabulations that reached thiscriterion. Therefore. the finding for the fol-lowing cross tabulations are not presented:




Employment Programs Supported byAgency Budgets and CETA Budgets.

Youth

Youth Served

The Girls Clubs of America offer a widerange of services to youth. In order to iden-tify the geographic area served by the or-ganization and the geographic sources forthe youth recruited for all programs andservices, the following question was asked:

Please tell as what percent of the youth.Which your agency serves. reside in thefollowing areas: Inner City. Urban.Suburban and Rural?There was no working definition for the

listed geographic areas. so replies weresubject to individual interpretations. Theresponse indicated, however. that the prin-cipal recruitment and service is based inURBAN areas (61%) followed by SUB-URBAN areas (45%) and the INNERCITY (35%), Table 1 presents the percent-age of youth served by the respondentsacross the four geographic areas.

Youth Served in Employment-RelatedPrograms_ 1975 -1978

The respondents reported that a total of7.553 youth participated in a wide varietyof employment-related programs during1978. This participation represents a meanof 124 youth per program; however. themedian of 38 youth per program is a moreaccurate reflection of the participationlevel.

In Figure I. the characteristics of theyouth participants in 1978 employmentprograms are presented. A majority (91%)of the youth were FEMALE, while 9%were MALE.

In terms of ethnic characteristics, thedata indicate that the youth were predomi-nately BLACK (55%). The proportion ofother ethnic/cultural groups is as follows:WHITE (35%). HISPANIC (7%)..ORIENTAL/ASIAN (1%); NATIVEAMERICAN ( I%) and OTHER (1%). Inaddition, the youth in employment-relatedprograms tended to reside primarily inINNER CITY (419) and URBAN (349 )areas, Nineteen percent of the youth werereported living in SUBURBAN and 7% inthe RURAL areas.

To what extent were youth with specialneeds invoked in the youth employmentprograms?

The respondents reported serving asmall percent of special needs youth;STATUS OFFENDERS (7%). YOUTHOFFENDERS (49 ), LEARNING DIS-ABLED (3%) and PHYSiCALLY HAND-ICAPPED (1%).

Family income data revealed that 22% ofthe youth lived in families with annual in-comes between S10.000 and S19.999. 75%of the youth had families with annual in=comes below $10.000 per year. while 29had families with incomes above S20.000annually.

14

GCA Figure 1 Characteristics of the Participantsin the Youth Employment Programs in 1978


Sex

Ethnicity

Special Needs

Male

Female 91%

Native American 1%

Black/Afro-American

Hispanic 7%

Asian/Oriental 1%

White

Offler 1%

55%

35%

Youth Offenders II 4%

Status Offenders 7%

PhYslcai HarKicabffecl` .5%

Learning Disabled 3%

Geographic AreatInner City

Suburban

Urban

Rural

19%

=.1Family Annual Income0$4.999 16%

55.000-9.999510.000-19.999

520.000-29.999 111 2%

$30.000Above 0%

41%

34%

22%

Programs


The information presented in this sectionrepresents data about the respondent'sYouth Employment Programs. Informationabout 1978 programs is presented firstand.when important. comparisons with 1975=1977 programs are made.

A total of 222 separate and distinct youthemployment-related programs was offeredin 1978. As ofJune 1979, 147 of these pro-gram services were still being offered toyouth. Of the total reported. 102 operatedonly during the summer. The mean numberof programs offered was four per respon-dent. however, the median was three.

For the 1975-1977 period, the respon-dents reported providing a total of 273employment-related programs for youth.Summer-only programs comprised 34% ofthe total. By comparing the number of pro-grams offered_ between 1975 and 1977 (273)with those offered in 1978 (222). it can beseen that the number of programs offered in1978 alone approached the number offeredduring the previous three-year period, con-stituting a rather dramatic increase inthe availability of youth employmentprograms.

In addition. it should be noted that overthe past four years there has been a steadyincrease in the number of employment-related programs for youth: In 1975.50 re-spondents repDrted expending money onsuch programs. the number increased to 52in 1976. 53 in 1977 and 67 in 1978: 1978demonstrated the most dramatic increase.

4 7

lYpes of Programs Offered

What types of programs is.ere offered to theyouth?

The data presented in Figure 2 show thetypes ofemployment-related programs thathave been offered by respondents over thepast four years. The data are highly con-sistent between 1975-1977 and 1978 andindicate that the agency basically em-phasized the same program areas in 1978 asit did between 1975=1977. The most fre-quently offered programs were PAID orUNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE andCAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATION.Other areas emphasized to a lesser degreewere JOB TRAINING. JOB PREPARA-TION. LIFE SKILLS MANAGEMENT.VOCATIONAL JOB COUNSELING.SUPPORTIVE SERVICES and ASSIST-ANCE IN MAKING THE TRANSITIONFROM SCHOOL TO WORK. In-frequently empha&ized areas wereTUTORING and PREPARATION forEMPLOYMENT-RELATED EXAMS.JOB PLACEMENT and TRANSPORTA-TION ASSISTANCE.

Funding

Funding for Youth Employment_Programs_

Table 2 presents data regarding the propor-tion of money expended by the respon-dents for 1978 employment-related pro=grams according to the source of funding.Because a respondent could have had morethan one source of funding for itsemployment-related programs. the per-centages total more than 100%.

The data clearly indicate thatihe primarysource of funding was the CETA (TITLEH. III. IV). Sixty-one percent of the re-spondents indicated that CETA funds sup-ported their youth employment programs.while the next most frequently indicatedsource (55%) was the AGENCIES' OWNBUDGET. Other than the above twocategories of funding sources, the remain-ing categories were infrequently checkedby the respondents: Only 15% of themonies came from a UNITED WAY(SPE-CIAL GRANT). 17% from the LOCALBUSINESS COMMUNITY. 14% fromPRIVATE FOUNDATIONS. 13% fromCIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS. 9% fromCITY FUNDS: Less than 6% of the re-spondents indicated each of the followingsources of money: STATE. COUNTY,L.E.A.A., TITLE XX. or HEW. Fourteenpercent of the respondents listed anOTHER source, In general. these data re-flect a diVersified but low-level funding pat-tern by the member affiliates for youth em-ployment programs.

GCA Figure 2 Types of Employment-Related ProgramsOffered in 197S-1977 and in 1978

Employment - Related Programs Percent of Respondents

Career Avirareness/Education



Job Preparation

Aa SittanCe in MakingTransition from School to Work


Tutoring & Preparation forEmployment-Related Exams



Supportive Services

Job Training

Job Placement

71%

73%

1111.....ffia 37%43%

44%

43%

INLIMMENNIMPIONI 77%

24%

33%

53%

23%

27%

84%

EMI 1975-1977 (n = 62) En 1978 (n = sn

Types of Programs

Table 3 represents the future programmingemphases for all respondents planning tohave employment-related programs foryouth in the next twelve months. The pat-tern is similar to the emphases placed onthe programming for youth employmentprograms seer in the previous four years.In essence, the respondents who plan tohave programs will emphasize both PAIDand UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCESand CAREER/AWARENESS/EDUCA-TION; Other areas of emphasis will includeLIFE SKILLS MANAGEMENT. JOBPREPARATION; JOB TRAINING andVOCATIONAL JOB COUNSELING.

Sources of Funds

As can be seen in Table 4, a large percent-age (65%) of the respondents plan to seekmonies from CETA (TITLE II, III or IV)for future employment-related programs.This emphasis upon seeking CETA moniesis consistent with previous (1978) efforts ofthe respondents. When compared with the1978 funding pattern. the respondents indi-cated that there will be increased effort toobtain monies from all funding sources,with the greatest increase in obtainingnancial support from CIVIC/SERVICECLUBS, PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS.L.E.A.A., LOCAL BUSINESS COM-MUNITY and UNITED WAY (SPECIALGRANT).

t6Girl Scouts of U.S.A.

Girl Scouting Is An organization that pro-vides opportunities for girls from all seg-ments of American life to develop their po-tential, make friends, and become a vitalpart of their community. Based on ethicalvalues. It opens up an exciting world ofopportunity for youth and adult volunteersworking in partnership with them.Its Program Is a continuous adventure inlearning that offers girls a broad range ofactivities that address both their currentinterests and their future roleS as women.Through activities that stimulate self-discovery, they are introduced to the ex-citement in the worlds of science, the arts.the out -of -doors and people. Girls have op-portunities to develop new skills and self-confidence._ to have fun, to make newfriends, and through meaningful commu-nity service to acquire understanding aboutthemselves and others.It Is The largest voluntary organizationfor girls in the world. It is open to all girlsages 6 through 17 (or in grades 1 through 12)who subscribe to its ideals as stated in theGirl Scout Promise and Law.

It is part of a worldwide family of girlsand adults in 98 countries through its mem-bership in the World Association of GirlGuides and Girl Scouts. There are morethan three million members with 2.511.000girl , or one out of every nine girls. ages6-=17, in the United States. There are573.000 adult members (women and men)who participate as volunteer leaders.consultants, board members and staffspecialists in the areas of child develop-ment, adult education, outdoor educationand administration.

Girls and leaders participate in GirlScouting through group activities in over159.000 troops, including those on foreignsoil (TOFS): The Girl Scout troops are or-ganized by Girl Scout councils: 336 in theU.S.A. Councils are local units charteredby the national organization to administerand develop Girl Scouting in a council'sjurisdiction (a specific geographic area).

Results of The Youth EmploymentProgram SurveyGirls Scouts of the USA


A total of 348 corporate units was sur-veyed. The total response for Phase I & IIwas 227: i.e.. a 65% return of the totalsurveys mailed.

Youth_

Youth Served

The Girl Scouts of the USA offer a widerange of services to youth. In order to iden-iify the geographic area served by the or-ganization and the geographic source forthe youth recruited for all programs andservices, the following question was asked:

Please tell us what percent of the youth,which your agency serve, reside in thefollowing areas: Inner City. Urban.Suburban and Rural?There was no working definition for the

listed geOgraphic areas, so replies weresubjec to individual interpretations. Table1 presents_the percentage of youth servedby the respondents _across thc four geo:graphic areas. Recruitment and service to amajority of youth (51% to_100%) was al-most evenly matched in URBAN areas(18%) and SUBURBAN areas (22% Thiscontrasts with ( i%) in the INNER CITYareas and (13%) in RURAL areas. Overall.RURAL areas have the highest percentageof _youth served (75%) followed byURBAN areas at (68%) and SUBURBANareas at (62%).


The resOondentS reported that a total of13,945 youth participated in a wide varietyof employment-related programS during1978. This participation represents a meanof 117 youth per program: however. themedian of 30 youth per program is a moreaccurate reflection of the participationlevel.

In Figure the characteristics of theparticipants in the 1978 Youth Employmentprogram are presented. A majority (99%)of the youth were FEMALE, while 1%were MALE.

In terms of ethnic characteristics, thedata indicate that_ the youth were predomi,nately WHITE (90%). The proportion ofother ethnic/cultural groups is_ aslows: _ BLACK/AFRO-AMERICAN(8%). HISPANIC (1%) ORIENTAL/ASIAN_(1%). _NATIVE AMERICAN(1%). OTHER (1%). The residence of theyouth participating in employment-relatedprograms were fairly evenly distributed be-tween SUBURBAN areas (35%). RURALareas (25%) and a combination (35%) ofURBAN (28%) and INNER CITY (7%).

To .chat extent were youth with specialneeds involved in the youth: employmentprograms?

The respondentS reported serving lessthan one percent of the LEARNING_ DIS-ABLED. YOUTH OFFENDERS.STATUS OFFENDERS and PHYSI-CALLY HANDICAPPED.

In terms of family income. 65% of theyouth lived in families with annual incomesbetween 510,000 and 519.999. 25% ofthe youth had families with annual incomesbelow 510:000 per year. while 10% hadfamilies with incomes above 520.000annually.


Are the characteristics of the youth differ-ent for those with were involved in pro-grams supported by agency budgets versusprograms supported Ir. CETA budgets?

Because of the relatively ,ow number ofrespondents for this cross tabulation, thedata are not preSented: n for agencybudgets was 511 while n for CETA was 6.

Youth Served by Major U.S. _Regions

What was the distribution of the youth inthe .four major geographic regions?

North central SouthNorth East West

The percentage of youth by the four geo-graphic regions are as followS:

57% lived in the NORTH CENTRAL18% lived in the SOUTH13%lived in the NORTH EAST11% lived in the WESTThe median number of youth was 35

youth per program in the NORTH EASTand in the SOUTH. 25 in the NORTHCENTRAL and 20 in the WEST. TheU.S. Regions are defined in Appendix B.

GSUSA Figure 1 Characterigics of the Participantsin the Youth Employment Programs in 1978

percent of Youth Served

Sex

Mate

99%Flatlets _

Ethnicity

Native American

Black/Afro-American

Hispanic

Asian/Oriental

White

Other

I .5%

11%11 1%

8%

90%II 1%

Special NeedsYouth Offenders

Status Offenders

Phyticaily Handidapped

Learning Disabled

.01%

.01%

.01%

.01%

3eographic Areasinner City

Suburban

Urban

Rural

35%

28%

=amity Annual income

0-$4.999

55,000-9.999 17%

510,000-19.999

520.000-29.999 9%

530,000-Above _VI%

65%

What was the ethnic distribution of theyouth in the four geographic regions?

In general. the percentage of NATIVEAMERICAN youth per program was lessthan I% in_ each of the four regions. ForBLACK/AFRO-AMERICAN youth, thepercent per program was 29% in theSOUTH. 6% in the NORTH EAST. 3% inthe NORTH CENTRAL and 3% in theWEST. For ORIENTAL/ASIAN youth.the percent of youth per program was 8% inthe WEST. I% in the SOUTH and less than1% in both the NORTH EAST andNORTH CENTRAL. For WHITE youth.the percent of youth per program was 97%in the NORTH CENTRAL. 86% in theWEST. 76% in the NORTH EAST and 70%in the SOUTH.

Programs


The information presented in this sectionrepresents data about the respondent'sYouth Employment Programs. InformationaPout 1978 programs is presented first and.when important, comparisons with 1975-1977 programs are made.

A total of 395 separate and distinct youthemployment-related programs was offeredin 1978. As of June 1979. 227 of these pro-gram services were still being offered toyouth. Of the total reported. 256 operatedonly during thesummer. The mean numberof programs offered was three per respon-dent. however, the median was two.

For the 1975-1977 period, the respon-dents reported providing a total of 341employment-related programs for youth.Summer-only programs comprised 64% of

50

the total. By comparing the number of pro-grams offered between 1975-1977 (341)with those offered in 1978 (395). it_ can beseen that the number of programs offered in1978 alone exceeded the number offeredduring the previous three-year period, con-stituting a dramatic increase in the availa-bility of youth employment programs.

In addition, it should be noted that overthe past four years there has been a steadyincrease in the number of member affiliatesproviding employment-related programsfor youth. In 1975 and 1976 each. ninety -seven respondents reported expendingmoney on such programs. The number in-creased to 102 in 1977 and 139 in 1978: 1978demonstrating the most dramatic increase.

Wipes -of- Programs Offered


The data presented id Figure 2 show thetypes of employment-related programs thathave been offered by respondents over thepast four years. The data are highly con-sistent between 1975-1977 and 1978 andindicate that the agency basically em-phasized the same program areas in 1978 asit did between 1975-1977. The most fre-quently offered programs were CAREERAWARENESS/EDUCATION. UNPAIDWORK EXPERIENCE and PAID. Otherareas emphasized to a lesser degree wereJOB TRAINING. JOB PREPARATIONand LIFE SKILLS MANAGEMENT.Infrequently emphasized areas wereTUTORING AND PREPARATION FOREMPLOYMENT-RELATED EXAMS.TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE.VOCATIONAL JOB COUNSELING.SUPPORTIVE SERVICES and ASSIST=ANCE IN MAKING THE TRANSITIONFROM SCHOOL TO WORK.

Employment Programs for Inner City.Urban, Suburban and Rural Youth

Did the youth employment programs em-phasize different program content de-pending upon the geographic area served?

The data reveal that programs with pre-dominately INNER CITY youth (definedas 51% of the youth participating in theprograms who come from this geo-graphic area) emphasized mainly PAIDWORK EXPERIENCE. CAREERAWARENESS/EDUCATION and JOBTRAINING. In contrast. programs for

4

GSUSA Figure 2 Types of Employment-Related Programs4XLmd in 1975-1977 and in 1978





Preparaticn


26%

IS 4%

III 5%

MEE 19%25%


Ttitdringli Preparation forEmployment-Related Exams 0%

0%

Unpaid Work

Paid Wbrk Experience

Supportive Services

53%

Youth Employment ProgramstiyAlajor U.SRegions

What was the population distribution of therespondents by the major U.S. regions?

61% North Ceniral South

60% North East West

For those respondents with youth em-ployment programs in 1978, their geo=graphic distribution was as follows:

43r% were in the NORTH CENTRAL25r,-; were in the SOUTH2.1r7i- were in the NORTH EAST117 were in the WESTClearly the NORTH CENTRAL region

of the United States had the highest per-centage of respondents of all the regions,With the lowest percentage coming fromthe WEST. The U.S. Regions are defined inAppendix B.

Job Training

Job Placement

13%

29%

34%

4%

4%

8%Other7%

ism 1975-1977 (n = 129) MI 1978 (n = 139)

predominately RURAL youth emphasizedCAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATION.UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE and JOBTRAINING. Programs for predominatelyURBAN youth tended _to emphasize UN-PAID WORK EXPERIENCE, CAREERAWARENESS/EDUCATION and thenPAID WORK EXPERIENCE. Finally,programs for predominately RURALyouth were CAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATION and UNPAID WORK EX-PERIENCE; followed by PAID WORKEXPERIENCE. Generally speaking. thepattern or type of youth employment pro-gram offered to youth from predominatelyINNER CITY. SUBURBAN, URBAN

and RURAL areas tended to be slightlydifferent. Clearly, in the INNER CITYarea the emphaSis is on PAID WORK EX-PERIENCE, whereas in SUBURBAN andRURAL areas the emphasis is onCAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATIONand in the URBAN area on UNPAIDWORK EXPERIENCE. The fact thatthere is variability between these four areasmight lead one to conclude that the GirlScouts of America is responsive to the differential employment training needs oftheir youth.

CETA Programs


Due to the fact that the total number ofCETA programs reported for each of theregions was very low, the data for this crosstabulation will not be pretnted. Specifi-cally, only 14 CETA programs were re-ported in the NORTH CENTRAL, 9 in theNORTHEAST, 7 in the SOUTH and 3 inthe WEST.

Youth EinplOIMent Programs Supportedby_Agency Budgets and CETA Budget

What types of:Youth employment programswere supported by agency and CETA bud-ged in 1978?

Because of the relatively low number ofrespondents from this cross tabulation; thedata are not presented: Le:, n for agencybudgets was 50, while n for CETA was 6.

Program Funding

Funding for Youth Employment Prognutts_

Table 2 presents data regarding the propor-tion of money expended by the respon-dents for 1978 employment-related pro-grams according to the source of funding.Because a respondent could have had morethan one source of funding for itsemployment-related programs. the per-centages total more than 1007c.

The data clearly indicate that the primarysource of funding was the AGENCIES'OWN BUDGET Sixty-eight percent of therespondents indicated that their OWNBUDGET supported their youth employ-ment programs, while the next most -fre-quently Indicated source (24%) was CETA(TITLE II. III or IV). Other than the abovetwo categories of funding sources, the re-maining categories were infrequentlychecked by the respondents. Only 9% ofthe monies came from a UNITED WAY(SPECIAL GRANT). 6% from the PRI-VATE FOUNDATIONS. Less than 5% ofthe respondents indicated each of the fol-lowing sources of money: LOCAL BUSI-NESS COMMUNITY. CIVIC/SERVICECLUBS. CITY. STATE. COUNTY.L.E.A.A.. TITLE XX. HEW sources orCORPORATIONS or CORPORATEFOUNDATIONS. Seven percent of the re-spondents listed an OTHER source. Ingeneral. these data reflect a diversified butlow-level funding pattern by the memberaffiliates for youth employment programs.


IYpes of_Programs_

Table 3 represents the future programmingemphases for all respondents planning tohave employment-related programs foryouth in the next twelve ttionthx. The prit:tern is similar to the emphases placed onthe programming for youth employmentprograms seen in the previous four years.In essence, the respondents who plan tohave programs will emphasize CAREERAWARENESS/EDUCATION and bothPAID and UNPAID WORK EXPERI-ENCES. Other areas of emphasiswill include LIFE SKILLS MANAGE-MENT. JOB PREPARATION and JOBTRAINING.

Sources of Funds

As can be seen in Table 4. a moderate per-centage (23%) of the respondents plan toseek monies from CETA (TITLE II. III orIV) for future employment-related pro-grarns. This level of approach for seekingCETA funds is consistent with previous(1978) efforts of the respondents. Whencompared with the 1978 funding pattern.the respondents indicated that there will beincreased effort to obtain monies from allfunding sources. with the greatest increasein obtaining financial support fromCIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS. LOCALBUSINESS COMMUNITY. PRIVATEFOUNDATIONS and UNITED WAY.Other than CETA. the emphasis is clearlyupon seeking monies from NON-GOVERNMENTAL sources.

50Young Morn; Christian Association

The Young Men's Christian Associationwas founded in London. England in 1844by George Williams and eleven otheryoung men. The YMCA was established bythem as a reaction to what they consideredthe corrupt and immoral life in 19th centuryLondon. Influenced by the initial successof the organization. Thomas Sullivan or-ganized the first YMCA in the UnitedStates in Boston in 1851.

Throughout its 125-year history. theYMCA in the United States has developedInto a multi-service community agencyserving all segments of the population. TheYMCA. in policy and practice, supports allactivities that help boys, girls, men andwomen realize their full potential as per-sons. This means that no one approach canbe the only answer forits members. There-fore, a wide variety of opportunities existas deemed most important by the differentlocal YMCAs. Financed almost entirely byincome from membership, rentals; pro-gram fees. United Way and private con-tributions, YMCAs are challenged to offerthe kinds of meaningful and significant pro-grams that will attract increasing numbersof members and other constituents.

In addition to traditional programs ofgroup work and health and physical fitness.YMCAs in the past two decades havechanneled resources into programs thatrespond to- social needs and problems.Many YMCAs have developed programsthat focus on the particular concerns ofdisadvantaged persons. especially youngmen and women in poverty areas. Throughsuch activity. YMCAs have provided lead-ership and coordination for more effectiveutilization of available community re-sources and have opened many avenuesleading toward resolution of this country'spressing social concerns.

A particular example of these efforts isthe YMCAs' juvenile justice and youth de-velopment programs. In 1972. the NationalBoard of YMCAs adopted as one of its sixprogram goals the task of developing_pro-grains to change the conditions that lead todelinquency and youth alienation. Sincethat time, over 500 juvenile justice and de-linquency prevention programs have beenimplemented by local YMCAs. In 1978. theNational Board broadened the scope of thiswork by adopting a major goal on youthdevelopment. Included in this effort will beprograms that focus on the youth employ-ment crisis: In tandem with continuingwork in juvenile justice. it is expected thatover the next three to five years programsrelated to youth employment will grow innumber and quality to become a majorcomponent of YMCA's responses to thesocial challenges of our times.

Results of The Youth EmploymentProgram SurveyNational Board of YMCAs


A total of 934 corporate units was sur-veyed. The total response for Phase I & IIwas 315: i.e.. a 34% return of the totalsurveys mailed.

Youth

Youth Served

The affiliates of the YMCA offer a widerange of services to youth and theirfamilies: In order_ to identify the geographicarea served by the organizations and thegeographic sources for the youth recruitedfor all programs and services, the followingquestion was asked:

Please tell us what percent of the youth.which your agency serves, reside in thefollowing areas: Inner City. Urban.Suburban and Rural?There was no working definition for the

listed geographic areas, so replies weresubject to individual interpretations. Theresponse to this question indicated that therespondents recruit and serve youth on afairly even distribution from each of thefour geographic areas served by theseagencies. Table I presents the percentageof youth served by the respondents. Thereis a significant metropolitan presence re-flected in the responses for INNER CITY(47%), URBAN (62%) and SUBURBAN(63%).


The respondents reported that a total of25.880 youth participated in a wide varietyof employment-related programs during1978. This participation represents a meanof 126 youth per program: however, themedian of 25 youth per program is a moreaccurate reflection of the participationlevel.

In Figure I, the characteristics of theyouth participants in employment-relatedprograms are presented: A _majority (58%)of the youth were MALE, while (42%)were FEMALE.

In terms of ethnic characteristics, thedata indicate that the youth were predomi-nately WHITE (60%). The proportion ofother ethnic/cultural groups are as fol-lows: BLACK/AFRO-AMERICAN(29%). HISPANIC (7%). ORIENTAL/ASIAN (1%), NATIVE AMERICAN(1%). In addition. the youth inemployment-related programs _tended toreside primarily in INNER CITY (36%).SUBURBAN (26%) and URBAN (25%)areas.

To what extent were youth with specialneeds involved in the youth employmentprograms?

The respondents reported serving only asmall_perceat of special needs youth: 1.6.,LEARNING DISABLED (2%). YOUTHOFFENDERS (4%). PHYSICALLYHANDICAPPED (1%) and STATUS OF-FENDERS (3%)

Family income data indicates that 25%of the youth lived in families with annualincomes between $10,000 and 519.999.63% of the youth had families with annualincomesbelow SI0.000 per year, while 12%had families with incomes above 520,000annually.


Are the characteristics of the youth differ-ent for those who were involved in pro-grams supported by agency budgets versusprograms supported by CETA budgets?

Because of the relatively low number ofrespondents for this cross tabulation, thedata are not presented: i.e., n for agencybudget was 22. while n for CETA was 25.

Youth Served by MajorALSRegions_



The distribution of the youth by thefourgeographic regions does not parallel eitherthe distribution of respondents or the dis-tribution of CETA programs. The data re-veal the following distribution:

51% lived in the NORTH CENTRAL21% lived in the SOUTH19% lived in the NORTH EAST9% lived in the WESTIt is clear that the NORTH CENTRAL

had the greatest number of youth, whereasthe WEST had the least number. The dif-ference between the percentage in theNORTH CENTRAL versus the WEST isconsiderable. An inspection of the meannumber of youth per program reveal thatthe NORTH CENTRAL had a mean of 197youth per program. the SOUTH had a

YMCA Figure 1 Characteristics of the Participantsin the Youth Employment Programs in 1978

Sex

EthnicityNative Anteriran 1%

Ble-di/Ahri-Ameri=an

Hispanic 7%

Asian/Oriental 1%

White

Other 1IPMIIIMIISpecial Needs

Youth Offenders 4%

Status Offenders 3%

Physically Handicapped 1%

Learning Disabled 2%


Sueumen

urban

Rural

26%

25%

36%


0-54..999 26%

S5.000-9.999

$10.000-19,999

620.000-29.999 F%$30.000Aboee 3%

37%

mean of 130 youth per program. theNORTH_ EAST 78 youth per program andthe WEST 64 youth per program. It is clearthat the largenumberoty_outh per programin the NORTH CENTRAL versus theWEST is the prime factor in the differencesbetween these regions. The U.S. Regionsare defined in Appendix B.

Was the YMCA responsive to the ethnicdistribution of the youth by the four majorgeographic regions?

The answer appears to be_yeb. The per-centage of NATIVE AMERICAN youthper program was 5% ;a the WEST. 2% inthe NORTH CENTRAL. 1% in theSOUTH and less_ than 1% in the NORTHEAST This distribution generally reflects

the distribution of NATIVE AMERICANSacross the United States: however. theparallel in this case is only slight. In theSOUTH. NORTH EAST, and NORTHCENTRAL where the number ofBLACK /AFRO-AMERICANS is greaterthan in the WEST the percentageof BLACK/AFRO-AMERICAN youthper program is also greaten Specifically.the percentage of BLACK/AFRO-AMERICANS per program was 32% in theSOUTH. 32% in the NORTH CENTRAL21% in the NORTH EAST and 8% in theWEST

The same trend appears to be true forHISPANIC. ORIENTAL/ASIAN, andWHITE youth: i.e.. for HISPANIC, thepercent of youth per program was 23% inthe WEST. 8% in the NORTH CENTRAL6% in the NORTH EAST and 1% in theSOUTH. For ORIENTAL/ASIAN youth.the distribution was 5% in the WEST andless than 1% in the NORTH EAST.NORTH CENTRAL and SOUTH. Withregard to the distribution of WHITE, thepercent of youth was 70% per program inthe NORTH EAST, 66% in the SOUTH.57% in both the NORTH CENTRAL andWEST.

Youth Emeoyment Programs 1975-1978

The information presented in this sectinrepresents data about the respondent'sYo nth Employment Programs. Informa:tion about 1978 programs is presented firstand when important. comparisons with19751977ptograms are made.

A total of 712 separate and distinct youthemployment-related programs was offeredin 1978. As of June 1979.488 of these pro-gram services were still being offered toyouth. Of the total reported. 369 operatedonly during the summer. The mean numberof programs offered was four per respon-dent. however, the median wits three.

For the 1975=-1977 period. the respon=dents reported providing a total of 1;422employment-related programs for youth.Summer-only programs comprised 33% ofthe total. By comparing the number of pro-grams offered between 1975 and 1977(1,422) with those offered in 1978 (712), itcan be seen that the number of programSoffered in 1978 alone, approached thenumber offered during the previous three=year period. constituting an increase inthe availability of youth employmentprograms.

In addition, it should be noted that overthe_paSt fourYears there has been a steadyincrease in the number of emplo)ment-related programs for youth. In 1975. 168respondents reported expending money onsuch programs. the number increased to 179in 1976, 181 in 1977 and .229 in 1978: 1978demonstrated the most dramatic increase.

Thxs_o_CProgramsOffeied


The data presented in Figure 2 show thetypes of employment-related programs thathaVe been offered by respondents over thepast four years. The data are highly con-sistent between 1975 -1977 and 1978 and in=dicate that the agency basically _em-phasized the same progam areas in 1978 asit did between 1975=1977. The most fre-quently offered programs were PAID andUNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE. JOBTRAINING and JOb PREPARATION.Other areas emphasized to a lesser degreewere JOB PLACEMENT VOCATIONALJOB COUNSELING. LIFE SKILLSMANAGEMENT. CAREER AWARE=NESS/EDUCATION, SUPPORTIVESERVICES and ASSISTANCE IN MAK-ING- THE TRANSITION FROMSCHOOL TO WORK. Infrequently em-phasized areas were_TUTORING ANDPREPkRATION FOR EMPLOYMENT=RELATED EXAMS and TRANSPORTA-7:eri `.SSISTANCE.

2

YMCA Figure 2Types of Employ-meat-Related ProgramsOffered in 1975-1977 and in 1978

Employment-Related Programs I Percent of Respondents

(i,.77'Zrr,; 18%career Awareness/ 1"Education 20%


VOCaii :al Job Counseling

Job Preparation


Trarisportation Assistance8%

011 6%

Tutoring & Preparation for 14%ErnPloyment-Retated Exams

Unpaid Work Experience49%

25%

13%

iMZEIEZZOM=-6--:7" 53%


Supportive Services

Job Training

Job Placement

Other

...;-,C...,7f2177..:7: 84%

85%

1975-1977 (n = 202) S 1978 (n = 229)

Employment Programs for Inner City,Urban, Suburban and Rural Youth

Did the youth employment programs em-phasize different program content depend-ing upon the gec,.raphic area served?

The data reveal that programs with pre-dominately INNER CITY youth as partic-ipants (defined as 51% of the youth par-ticipating in the programs who come fromthis geographic area) emphasized mainlyPAID WORK EXPERIENCE. JOBTRAINING. JOB PREPARATION and

UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE. Pro-grams for predominately URBAN. SUB-URBAN and RURAL youth also em-phasize these same areas: however, theemphasis on JOB PREPARATION wasconsiderably loWter than in programs forpredominately INNER CITY youth. Aconsistent emphasis is apparent. regard-less of the geographic area served.

Youth Employment Programsby Major U.S. Regions

What was the population distribution of therespondent.s by the major U.S. regions:Le.. North Central. North East. South andWest?

The data reveal that for respondents withyouth employment programs in 1978. theirgeographic distribution was as follows:

31% were in the NORTH CENTRAL30% were in the NORTH EAST21% were in the SOUTH18% were in the WESTIt_ appears. that the NORTH EAST and

NORTH CENTRAL had the greatestnumber of respondents while the SOUTHand WEST had the F nallest r.umber. TheU.S. Regions are defined in Appendix B.

CETA ProgramS


The data reveal that 34% of the CETAprograms were located in the NORTHCENTRAL region, 29% were located inthe NORTH EAST. 20% in the SOUTHand 18% in the WEST. It is interesting tonote the parallel in the distribution ofCETA programs by the geographic regionswith the distribution of respondents.

Youth Employment Programs Supportedby Agency Budgets pad CETA Budget

What types of youth employment programswere supported by agency budgets and(-ETA budgets in 1978?

Because of the relatively low number ofrespondentS for this cross tabulation. thedata are not presented: i.e.. a for theagency budget was 22. while n for CETAwas 25.

Program Funding


Table 2 presents data regarding the propor-tion of money expended by the respon-dents for 1978 employment-related pro-grams according to the source of funding_Because a respondent could have had morethan one source of funding for itsemployment-related programs, the per-centages total more than 100%.

The data cleuly inckatithat the primarysource -of funding was the AGENCIES'OWN BUDGETS. Sixty-seven percent ofthe respondents indicated that their OWNBUDGET supported their youth employ-ment programs, while the next most fre-quently indicated source (64%) was CETAMILE II, III or IV) monies. Other thanthe above two categories of fundingSources. the remaining categories were in-frequently checked by the respondents:Only 11% of the monies came from. aUNITED WAY (SPECIAL GRANT), 15%from the LOCAL BUSINESS COMMU-NITY. 12% from CITY. 10% from STATEFUNDS and TITLE XX; and 9% fromCIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS. Eight percentor less indicated each of the followingsources of money: COUNTY. LPRIVATE FOUNDATIONS. HEW andCORPORATIONS or CORPORATEFOUNDATIONS. Eight percent of the re-spondents listed an OTHER source. Ingeneral, these data reflect a diversified butlaw-level funding pattern by the memberaffiliates for youth employment programs.


Types of Programs

Table 3 represents the future programmingemphases for all respondents planning tohave employment-related programs foryouth in the next twelve months. The pat-tern is similar to the emphases placed onthe programming for youth employmentprograms seen in the previous four years.In essence. the respondents who plan tohave programs will emphasize both PAIDand UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCESand JOB TRAINING, _Other areas of em-phasis will include LIFE SKILLS MAN-AGEMENT JOB PREPARATION. JOBTRAINING and VOCATIONAL JOBCOUNSELING. CAREER AWARE-NESS/EDUCATION, ASSISTANCE INMAKING THE TRANSITION FROMSCHOOL TO WORK and SUPPORTIVESERVICES.

Source of Funds

As can be seen in Table 4, a large percent-age (64%) of the respondents plan to seekmonies from CETA (TITLE II, III or IV)for future employment-related programs.This emphasis upon seeking CETA moniesis consistent with previous (1978) efforts ofthe respondents. When compared with the1978 funding pattern. the respondents indi-cated that there will be a modest increase ineffort to obtain monies from all fundingsources.

54Young Women's Christimtiissociation of The U.S.A.

Founded in England. 1855U.S. Founding. 1858

The YWCA is for women and girls over12 S,earS, representing a cross section ofracial and ethnic. economic and religiousbackgrounds working in partnership toachieve human rights for all people.

The YWCA. at its 1979 convention,adopted as one of its objectives. specialattention to the needs of teens.

ItS program includes education. careerguidance_ non-traditional employment op-portunities. health education. training inthe arts. Its juvenile justice program stress-es advocacy programs for high-risk teengirls. It is where, together. teens and adultscan affect social action.

The YWCA emphasizes youth as fullpartners. as the Association works towardsyouth empowerment through programssuch as leadership development, involve-ment in decision-making value choices,cultural awareness and spiritual growth.

At the base of all Association program isthe YWCA'S Ore Imperative. which callsfor elimination of racism wherever itexists and by any means necessary.

The YWCA of the U.S:A.. with a mem-bership of 21/2 million women and girls andparticipants is at work in 49 states at 5.000locations. It is part of a worldwide mem-bership movement in over 80 countries.

Results of The Youth EmploymentProgram SurveyNational Board_ofilie_YWCA of the U.S.A.

Sample Size and Return Rate_A total of 424 corporate units was sur-veyed_ The total responses for Phase I & IIwas 254: i.e.. a 60% return of the total sur-veys mailed.

Youth

Youth Served

The YWCA offers a wide range of servicesto youth. In order to identify the geo-graphic areas served by the organizationand the geographic sources for the youthrecruited for all_programs and services. thefollowing question was asked:

Please tell us what percent of the youth,which your dgency serves. reside in thefollowing areas: Inner City, Urban,Suburban and Rural?

YWCA Figure 1 Characteristics of the Part1cipantsin the Youth Employment Programs in 1978

IPercent of Youth Served

Sex

EthnicityNative Amendan 1%

Black/Afro-American

Hispanic 6%

Asian/Oriental 1%

White 49%

Other 1%

27%

73%

Special NeedtYouth Offenders 3%

Handicapped 2%

Status Offenders .,Physically

Laaming Disable° 12%


Suburban

Urberi

Rural sok

25%

40%

Family Annual income0-54.999 31%

55.000-9.999

S10,000-19:999 MEM 19%520.000-29.999 II 4%

530.000=Above I 1%

45%

There was no working definition for thelisted geographic areas. so replies weresubject to individual interpretations. Asshown in Table 1. the response to this ques-tion indicates an emphasis on recruitmentand service in the metropolitan areas ofINNER CITY (52%). URBAN (64%) andSUBURBAN (56%).

Youth Served in Employment-RelatedPrograms_

The respondents reported that a total of8.414 youth participated in a wide varietyof employment-related programs during1978. This participation represents a meanof 58 youth per program: however, the me-dian of 33 youth per program is a moreaccurate reflection of the participationlevel.

In Figure I. the characteristics of theyouth participants in Employment:RelatedPrograms are presented. A majority (73%)of the youth were FEMALE, while 27%were MALE.

In terms of ethnic characteristics, thedata indicate an almoSt equal percentageof WHITE youth (49%) and BLACKAFRO-AMERICAN (42%), other ethnic/cultural groups are as follows: HISPANIC(6%1. ORIENTAL/ASIANA1%). NA-TIVE AMERICAN (1%). OTHER (1%).In addition, the youth in employment-related programs tended to reside primarilyin INNER CITY (40%) and URBAN (33%)areas. Twenty-five percent of the youthwere reported living in SUBURBAN and5% in RURAL areas.

TO what extent were youth with specialneeds involved in the youth employmentprograms?

The respondents reported serving_ asmall percent of youth with special needS:i.e.. LEARNING DISABLED (2 %).YOUTH OFFENDERS (3%). PHYSI-CALLY HANDICAPPED (2%) andSTATUS OFFENDERS (4%).

theincome data indicates that 19% of

the youth lived in families with_annual. in-conies between SI0.000 and 519.999. 76of the youth had families with annual in-comes beloW SI0.000 per year while 5bad families with incomes above 520.000anaually.


Are the characteristics of Ike youth differ-ent for those who Were involved iii pro--:grams supported by agency budgets versusprogramS supported by CETA budgets?

Because of the relatively low number ofreSpondentS for thiS cross tabulation. thedata are not presented: i.e.. n for agencybudget was 22. while n for CETA was 25.




The diStributiOn of the youth onlyslightly parallels the distribution of respon-dents by the four_ geographic regions. Inparticular. 4Y of the youth came from theNORTH CENTRAL region. 25% camefrom the NORTH EAST region. 17% camefrom the SOUTH and 15% from the WEST.Even though the percentage of youth forthe NORTH CENTRAL was greater thanthe percentage of respondents for theNORTH CENTRAL. the pattern is verysimilar: i.e.. the NORTH CENTRAL andNORTH EAST have the greatest numberof youth. while the SOUTH and WESThave the fewest. The median number ofyouth across the four geographic regionswas 72 youth per program in the NORTHCENTRAL. 55 youth per program in theWEST. 50 youth per program in theSOUTH and 48 youth per program in theNORTH EAST. The U.S. Regions are de-fined in Appendix B.

Was the YWCA responsive to the ethnicdistribution of the youth by the major geo-graphic regions?

It appears clear that the YWCA Is re-sponsive_ to the ethnic distribution of theyouth of the United States. Specifically. theWEST had the greatest percentage ofyouth of NATIVE AMERICAN extractionwith three percent of the total youth pool',lation. The percentage of NATIVEAMERICANS_in the NORTH EAST.NORTH CENTRAL and SOUTH was lessthan 1%. In the SOUTH. NORTH CEN-TRAL and NORTH EAST. where the gen-

eral distribution of BLACK/AFRO=AMERICANS is greater than in the WESTthe distribution of youth per program ofBLACK/AFRO-AMERICAN origin isalso greater than in the WEST. In particu-lar. the percent of BLACK /AFRO-AMERICAN by the four geographic re-gions is as follows: 55% in the SOUTH.47% in the NORTH CENTRAL. 39% inthe NORTH EAST and 17% in the WEST.

In the WEST the same trend appears tobe true for HISPANIC. ORIENTAL/ASIAN and WHITE youth: i.e.. for HIS=PANICS the percentage of _youth_per pro-gram was 14`7' in the WEST. 13% in theSOUTH. 5% in the NORTH EAST. and2% in the NORTH CENTRAL. ForORIENTAL/ASIAN youth the distribu-tion was 5% in the WEST. 2% in theNORTH CENTRAL and less than I% inboth the SOUTH and NORTH EAST_ForWHITE yoUth the distributiari was 59% inthe_WEST._55% in the -NORTH EAST. 50%in the NORTH CENTRAL and 31% in theSOUTH.

Programs

Youth Employment _Programs_1975-1978

The information presented in this sectionrepresents data about the respondent'sYouth Employment Programs. Informationabout 1978 programs is presented first and.when important. comparisons with 19751977 programs are made.

A total of 41 9 separate and distinct youthemployment-related programs was offeredin 1978. As of June 1979. 283 of these pro-gram services were still being offered toyouth. Of the total reported. 151 operatedonly during the summer. The mean numberof programs offered was two per respon-dent: the median was also two.

For the 1975-1977 period. the respon-dents reported providing a total of 427employment-related programs for youth.Summer-only programs comprised 48% ofthe total. By comparing the number of Pro=grams offered between 1975 and 1977 (427)with those offered in 1978 (419). it can heseen that the number of programs offered in1978 alone approached the number offeredduring the precious three -year period.constituting a rather dramatic increase inthe availability of youth employmentprograms.

In addition. it should be noted that overthe past four years there has been a steadyincrease in the number of employment-.related programs for youth. In 1975. 116respondents reported expending money onsuch programs. the number increased to127 in 1976. Ilf+ in 1977 and 168 in 1978:1978 demonstrated the most dramatic in-crease.

Types Prow-ams_Offerfd


The data presented in Figure 2 shoW thetypes of employment-related programsthat have been offered by respondents overthe past four years. The data are highlyconsistent between 1975-1977 and 1978and indicate that the azency basically em-phasized the same program areas in 1978 asit did betWeen 1975-1977. The most fre-quently _offered programs were _PAID_ orUNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE. JOBTRAINING and CAREER AWARE-NESS/EDUCATION. Other areas em-phasized to a lesser degree were JOBPREPARATION. LIFE _SKILLS MAN-AGEMEN T. VOCATIONAL JOBCOUNSELING. SUPPORTIVE SER-VICES and ASSISTANCE IN MAKINGTHE TRANSITION FROM SCHOOL TOWORK. Infrequently emphasized areaswere TUTORING AND PREPARATIONFOR EMPLOYMENT-RELATEDEXAMS and TRANSPORTATIONASSISTANCE.

Employment Programs for Inner City.Urban. Suburban and Rural Youth

Did the youth employment programs em-phasize different program content depend-ing upon the geographic u,tru

The data reveal that programs for pre-dominately INNER CITY youth (definedas 51% of the youth participating in the pro-grams who come from this geographic area)emphasize_d mainly_ PAID WORK EX-PERIENCE. JOB TRAINING. UNPAIDWORK EXPERIENCE and CAREERAWARENESS/EDUCATION. This pat-tern is almost identical for programs for pre-dominately SUBURBAN and URBANyouth. Programs for predominatelyRURAL youth were so_ infrequent that thedata are not presented in this cross tabula-tion. The total number of respondents whohad programs for predominately RURALyouth was six.

5

YWCA Figure 2 Tvpes of Employment-Related ProgramsOffered in 1975-1977 and in 1978

ErriplOyrnerit-Related PrpgrarnS _Percent of Respondents_

Career Aviarenest/Education

Life Skills ManagementMa= 19%

23%

6E0RIE 24%Vo=iOnal Job Comseling

24%

NIZIESESEEZ 33%Job Preparabon

34%

Assistance maitng MZEMS 24%Trantititn from School to Work 23%


Tutoring & Preparation for iMEM, 15%

Employment-Related Exams

Unpaid WOrk Expenence


Supportive Services

Job Training

-11 45%

41%

23%

24%

E2SEMBEEESINIU 47%

M222512_275°Job Placement30%

10%Other --

7%

46%

71%

72%

1975-1977 (n = 157) 1.111 1978 (n = 168)

Youth Employment Programsby Major_ tr.S. Regions

What was the population distribution of therespondents by the major U.S. regions?


For those respondents with youth em-ployrrnnt programs in 1978, their geo-graphic distribution was as follows:

33% were in the NORTH CENTRAL30% were in the NORTH EAST20% were in the SOUTH16% were in the WESTIt is clear that the majority of respondents

were from the NORTH CENTRAL andNORTH EAST regions. The SOUTH. with20%. and tne WEST, with 16%. have theleast number of respondents. The U.S. Re-gions are defined in Appendix B.

CETA Programs

What was the distribution of CETA pro-grams by the four geographic regions.'

The data reveal that 34% of the CETAprograms were located in the NORTHCENTRAL, 32% in the NORTH EAST,18% in the WEST and 17% in the SOUTH.There appears to be a parallel between thepercentage of respondents by the four re-gions and the percent of CETA programsby the four regions. Basically. the majorityof CETA programs are located in theNORTH CENTRAL and NORTH EASTregions, while the fewest number of CETAprograms are located in the SOUTH andWEST. Interestingly, the WEST had 1%more CETA programs than the SOUTH,even though the SOUTH had a greater per-centage of respondents than the WEST:

Youth Employment Programs Supportedby Agency Budgets and CETA Budgets

What types of youth employment programswere supported by agency and CETI bud-gets in 1978 ?_ _

Because of the relatively low number ofrespondents for this cross tabulation. thedata are not _presented: i.e.. n for theagency budget was 25. while n for CETAwas

Program Funding

Fondinglor_Youth Employment Programs

Table 2 presents data regarding the propor-tion of money expended by the respon-dents for 1978 employment-related pro-grams according to the source of funding.Because a respondent could have had morethan one source of funding for itsemployment-related programs, the per-centages total more than 100%.

The data clearly indicate that the primarysource of funding was the AGENCIES'OWN BUDGETS. Sixty percent of the re-spondents indicated that their OWNBUDGET supported their youth-em-ployment programs, while the next mostfrequently indicated source (54%) wasCETA (TITLE II, III or IV). Other than theabove two categories of funding sources,the remaining categories were infrequentlychecked by the respondents: Only 11% ofthe monies carne each from a UNITEDWAY (SPECIAL GRANT) and CORPO=RATIONS, 6% from the LOCAL BUSI-NESS COMMUNITY, 8% each fromSTATE & CITY FUNDS and PRIVATEFOUNDATIONS. 7% each from CIVIC/SERVICE CLUBS. Less than 5% ofthe respondents indicated each of the fol-lowing sources of money: COUNTY,L E A A , TITLE XX and HEW sources.Seven percent of the respondents listed anOTHER source. In general, these data re-flect a diversified but low-level funding pat-tern by the member affiliates for youthemployment programs.

Table 3 represents the future mgrainmingemphases for all respondents planning tohave employment-related programs foryouth in the next twelve months. The pat-tern is similar to the emphases placed onthe programming for youth employmentprograms seen in the previous four years.In essence, the respondents who plan tohave _programs will emphasize both PAIDand UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCESand CAREER AWARENESS/EDUCA-TION. Other areas of emphasis will in-chide LIFE SKILLS MANAGEMENT,JOB PREPARATION_JOB TRAININGand SUPPORTIVE SERVICES.

Sources of Fonds

As can be seen in Table 4; a large percent-age (57%) of the respondents plan to seekmonies from CETA (TITLE II; III or IV)for future employment-related programs.This emphasis upon seeking CETA moniesis consistent with previous (1978) efforts ofthe respondents. When compared with the1978 funding pattern, the respondents indi-cated that there will be increased effort toobtain monies from all funding sources,with the greatest effort directed toward ob-taining financial support from UNITEDWAY, PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS,CIVIC /SERVICE CLUBS and LOCALBUSINESS COMMUNITY. Other thanCETA, the emphasis is clearly upon seek-ing monies from NON-GOVERN-MENTAL sources.

United Neighborhood Centers of America

United Neighborhood Centers of Americawas organized in 1911 by Jane Addams andother pioneer leaders of the settlementmovement in the United States. It was thenknown as the National Federation of Set-e...10,Tc The aim of the organization is toimprove the quality of life at the neighbor-hood level.

Settlements and neighborhood centersbelieve that the neighborhood is the livingcell in the life of a city: The neighborhood iswhere children are born and reared. wherefmrtily life is nurtured. Neighborhood con-ditions. therefore. have a direct bearing onthe values and behavior patterns ofneighborhood residents. Settlements andneighborhood residents enhance the de-velopment of individuals and families for afull and productive life.

UNCA is a voluntary nonprofit agencywith 140 member agencies, which operate360 centers in 80 cities and 30 states. Ourmember agencies are located in poor com-munities where problems are most severeand where help is most needed. We're try-ing to even the odds for people who don'tnormally get an even brimk:

UNCA seeks to achieve its goals througha variety of supportive programs to localsettlements and neighborhood centers.Local agencies provide direct services toinner city residents. UNCA services tolocal agencies include but are not limited tothe following:

- National RepresentationTechnical Assistance

- Accreditation ServiceConferences

- TrainingPr Ogram DevelopmentInformation

Results of The Youth EmploymentProgram SurreyUnited Neighborhood Centers of America

Samplegae_and Return Rate

A total of 114 corporate units was sur-veyed The total response for Phase I &was 58: i.e.. 51% return of the total surveysmailed_

Cross Tabulation

To add depth to the Youth EmploymentSurvey results. several cross tabulnrionswere performed on the dares In order forcross tabulations to have meaning. theymust be based upon a relatively large sam-ple of surrey respondents. In the cases ofthe United Neighborhood Centers ofAmerica. the number of respondents foreach cross tabulation was too small toallow meaningful interpretation. A criter-ion was established that the cross tabula-tion response rate must be at least 25% ofthe total number of respondents.

For the United Neighborhood Centers ofAmerica, there were no cross tabulationSthat reached this criterion. Therefore. thefindings for the following s are notpresented:




Employment Programs Supported byAgency Budgets and CETA Budgets.

Youth

Youth Served

The United Neighborhood Centers ofAmerica offer a wide range of services toyouth. In order to identify the geographicarea served by the organization and thegeographic sources for the youth recruitedfor all programs and services. the followingquestion was asked:

Please tell us what percent of the youth.which your agi-ncy serves. reside in thefollowing areas: Inner City. Urban.Suburban and Rural?

There was no working definition for thelisted geographic areas, so replies weresubject to individual interpretarons. Table1 presents the percentage of; itith servedby the respondents across the four geo-"-aphiic areas. The responses clearly indi-cate that the major recruitment and serviceefforts are in the INNER CITY areas(87%).


The respondents reported that a total of14.669 youth participated in a wide varietyof employment-related programs during1978 This participation represents a meanof 319 youth per program: however. themedian of 76 youth per program is a moreaccurate reflection of the participationlevel.

In Figure 1. the characteristics of theyouth participants in 1978 employmentprograms are presented. A majority (51%)of the youth were MALE. while (49%)were FEMALE.

In terms of ethnic characteristics. thedata indicate that the youth were evenlydivided between BLACK/AFRO-AMERICAN (42%) and WHITE (42%).The proportion of other_ ethnic/culturalgroups is as follows: HISPANIC (9%).ORIENTAL/ASIAN (1%), NATIVEAMERICAN (7%). OTHER (1%). In addi-tion. the youth in employment-related pro-grams _tended to reside primarily in theINNER CITY (59%) with smaller percent-ages of them residing in URBAN areas(15%). SUBURBAN areas (7%) andRURAL areas (18%).

To what extent were youth with specialneeds awaked in the youth employmentprograms?

The respondents reported serving asmall percent of special needs youth: i.e.,LEARNING DISABLED (4%). YOUTHOFFENDERS (5). STATUS OFFEND-ERS (3%), PHYSICALLY HANDI-CAPPED (1%).

Family income data revealed that 12% ofthe youth lived in families with annualincomes between 810.000 and $19.999,83% of the youth had families with annualincomes below $10.000 per year while 5%had families with incomes above $20.000annually.

UNCA Figure 1 Characteristic' s of the Participantsin the Youth Employment Programs in 1978

Types of Ponnanic Offered_

That types of programs were offered to thePercent of Youth Served youth?

Sex51%

49%

The data presented in Figure 2 show thetypes of employment-related programstLat have been offered by respondts overthe past four yaus_ The data are highly

Ethhicyconsistent between 1975-1977 and 1978and indicate that the agency basically em-

7%Native American phasized the same program areas in 1978 asStack/Afro-American 42% it did between 1975:=1977. The most fre:

Firspanic 9% quently _offered programs were PAIDAsian/Oriental II 1%

WORK EXPERIENCE. SUPPORTIVESERVICES. JOB PREPARATION. JOB

42%White TRAINING. CAREER AWARENESS/Other 11% EDUCATION and VOCATIONAL JOB

Special Needs COUNSELING. Other areas emphasizedto a lesser degree were TUTORING. AS-

Youth Offenders 111 5% SISTANCE IN MAKING THE TRANSI-Status Offenders 3% TICN FROM SCHOOL TO WORK

Physc-ally Hanckayowl V1% and UNPAID WORK EXPERIENCE.Learning Disabled 4% Infrequently emphasized areas were

TUTORING AND PREPARATION FORGeographic Areas EMPLOYMENT - RELATED EXAMS.

Inner Crty TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE andSuburban "f6 LIFE SKILLS MANAGEMENT

Urban 15%

Rural 113%


0-44.999

55.000-9.999

510.000-19.999 MI 12%520.000-29.999i. 5%530.000-Above .01%

39%

44%

Programs


The information presented in this sectionrepresents data about the respondent'sYouth Employment Programs. Informa-tion about 1978 programs is presented firstand. when Important. comparisons with1975-1977 programs are made.

A total of 195 separate and distinct youthemployment-related programs was offeredin 1978. As of June 1979. 160 of these pro-gram services were still being offered toyouth. Of the total reported. 72 operatedonly during the summer. The mean numberof programs offered was four per respon-dent. however. the median was three.

For the 1975-1977 period. the respon-dents reported providing a total of 159employment-related programs for youth.Summer-only programs comprised 45% ofthe total. By comparing the numberof pro-grams offered between 1975 and 1977 (159)with those offered in 1978 (195). it can beseen that the number of programs offeredin 1978 alone approached the number of-fered during the previous three-yearperiod, constituting a rather dramatic in-crease in the availability of youth employ-ment programs.programs.

In addition, it should be noted that overthe past four years there has been a steadyincrease in the number of employment-related programs for youth. In 1975.42 re=spondents reported expending money onsuch programs. the number increased to 43in 1976. 46 in 1977 and 54 in 1978: 1978demonstrated the most dramatic increase.

Program Funding

Funding for Youth Employtnentl)inoff:tms

Table 2 presents data regarding the propor-tion of money expended by the respon-dents for 1978 employment-related pro-grams according to the source of funding:Because a respondent could have had morethan one source of funding for itsemployment-related programs, the per-centages total more than 100%.

The data clearly indicate that the primarysource of fuming was the AGENCIES'OWN BUDGETS. Seventy percent of therespondents Indicated that their OWNBUDGET supported their youth-employment prdgrams, while the next mostfrequently indicated source (54%) wasCETA (TITLE II, III or IV). Other than theabove two categories of funding sources.the remaining categories were infrequently

UNC4 Figure 1. Tees of Empl-ment-Related ProgramsOffered in 1975=1977 and in 1978


career Awareness/Education

Lite Skills Management

REEMEEMEE%52%

16%

1 20%

MEM

Vocational .lob Counseling 115/111161/18MS 3994

Job Preparation

Asastance in lifalcingTransrlion Ircm School to Woo(

52%

18%Transporation Assistance

19%

Tutoring & Prepa."ation forEmployment-Related Exams 43%

Paid Work

suppxtive Services59%

43%

43%

02111111111MESIMEZZCZE 76%

glEINENIZIMEEM 57%

Job Training47%

52%

Job Plao3ment MEMBEIMESM 49%48%

Other 9%

74%

Le."! 1975-1977 (n = 49) M. 1978 (n = 54)

checked by the respondents: Only 17%from STATE FUNDS. 15% fromL_EA_A__ 11% of the monies came from aUNITED WAY (SPECIAL GRANT).11(77- from CITY FUNDS. 9% from TITLEXX_ 8% from the LOCAL BUSINESSCOMMUNITY and 8% from- PRIVATEFOUNDATIONS. Less than 7% of the re-spondents indicated each of the followingsources of money: CIVIC/SERVICECLUBS. COUNTY. HEW. CORPORA-TIONS or CORPORATE FOUNDA-TIONS. Five percent of the responder.listed an OTHER source. In general; thesedata reflect a diversified but 1ov/1-level furing pattern by the member affiliates foryouth employment programs.

Future Program-Plans

Types of_Programs

Table 3 represents the future programmingemphases for all respondents planning tohave employment-related programs foryouth in the next twelve months. The pat-tern is similar to the emphases placed onthe programming for youth employmentprograms seen is the previous four years.In essence, the respondents who plan tohave programs will emphasize_ PAID andUNPAID WORK EXPERIENCES.CAREER AWARENESS/EDUCATION;JOB PREPARATION. SUPPORTIVESERVICES. and VOCATIONAL JOBCOUNSELING. Other areas of emphasiswill include ASSISTANCE IN MAKINGTHE TRANSITION FROM SCHOOL TOWORK. TUTORING and JOB PLACE-MENT.

Sources of Fluids_

As can be seen in Table 3. a large percent-age (79%) of the respondents plan -to seekmonies from CETA (TITLE H. III or IV)for future employment-related programs.This emphasis upon seeking CETA moniesis consistent with previous (1978) efforts ofthe respondents. When compared with the1978 funding pattern, the respondents indi-cated that mere will be increased effort toobtain monies from all funding sources.with the greatest increase in obtaining fi-nancial support from PRIVATE FOUND-ATIONS. UNITED WAY (SPECIALGRANT); L.E.A.A. and the LOCALBUSINESS COMMUNITY

Appendix A Tables 1-46

Table 1Youth Served by All Agency Programs.lbspondentA Identification of Serve by Geogaphic Areas


ARC:1S BCA -BSACF 4-H FHA GCA GSUSA UNCA YMCA YWCA

All

dentscityInner

No Youth 41% 40% 46% 53% 79% 88% 64% 60% 13% 53% 48% 55%I -=50c7i 52% 17% 53% 39% 21% 0% 13% 40% 7% 38% 32% 32%51-100% 7% 43% A% 8% 0% 12% 22% I% 80% 9% 20% 14%_

UrbanNo Youth 39% 45% 22% 31% 50% 77% 39% 35% 38% 36%__ -39%I-50% 49% 38% 68% 46% 42% 12% 25 % 48% 17% 42% 37% 43%51-100% 13% 17% 10% 23% 8% _12% _36% 18% 13 =4' 20% 27% 18%

SuburbanNo Youth_ _30% 56% 32%- 4-1% 487 77% 55% 39% 85% 38% 45% 44%

56% 54% 30 a 35% 12% 33% 40% 13% 38% 42% 38%51-100% 14% 10% 14% 29% 17% 12% 12% " 7c ")- 7i- 25% 14% 18%

No Youth 59% 62% 16% 27% 14% 53% 70% 25% 94% 37% 67% 41%1-50% 41% 32% 55% 65% 46% 12% 28% 62% 4% 53% 32% 46%51-100% 0% 6% 30% 8% 40% 35% 2% 13% 2% 10% 1% 13%

'These daia represent the entire youth membership of the respondents and is not limited to the youth involved in employmentprograms. Figures are percent of respondents and should be read. for example: 49% of the respondents from the ARC-YSindicated that 1-50% of the youth served reside in the Urban Area

Or43% of all pspondelus indicated that 1-50% of the youth served reside in the Urban Area.

Table 2Funding Sources for Employment-Related Programs _ht

Funding SourcesFitment Ofitespondents

ARC-YS BCA BSA CF 4-H FHA GCA GSUSA UNCA YMCA YWCAAgency Budget 54% 66% 80% 50% 48% 29% 55% 68% 70% 67% 60%CETA (TITLE II. III or IV) 33% 62% 25% 25% 33% 29% 61% 24% 54% 64% 54%United WaY (Special Grant) 5% 9% 7% 9% 4% 5% 15% 9% I I% 11% 11%Local Business Community 2% 8% 13% 4% 12% 17% 17% 4% 8% 15% 6%Civic/Service Club. 3% 6% 11% 4% 3% 5% 13% 5% _ 0% _ 9% 7%Private Foundations 2% 7% 9% 1% 6% 0% 14% 8% 7% 8%Corporations orCorporate Foundations 0% 2% 10% 2% 6% 0% 6% 1% 4% 2% 11%

State Funds(Non CETA or TITLE XX) -0% 9% 2% 1% 13% 8% 6% 4% 17% 10% 8%County Funds(Non CETA or TITLE XX) 2% 3% 3% 0% 15% 0% 6% 0% 7% 7% 5%City Funds(Non CETA or TITLE XX) 7% 6% 0% 5% 3% 12% 9% 4% 11% 12% 8%L.E.A.A. 2% 8% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 15% 8% 4%TITLE XX 2% 4% 2% 2% 0% 5% 3% 2% 9% 10% 4%HEW 3% 2% 0% 0% 2% 4% 3% I% 2% 8% 0%Other 16% 6% 6% 10% 3% 6% 14% 6% 5% ,:% 7%

TableFuture Program Plans

Agencies

Percent Of Respondents

Career/PommesEdocedoo_Mmegeommt

tSki 11.

4.c-Jobc.

TraweitiosJob to

Pkitazzoms_ Work

Tow Wie

Pot Imotiot,_ Work

4:z Primo!'

"aidWork

Es Polon=SOPPotttò

SeroiasJob lab

Traisisig ItimosaeotTeas.

partition _Oier

ARC YS 50% 26% 9% 29% 64% 36% 34% 34% 6% 7% 10%

BCA 50% 22% 35%.:(-_.

47% 33%_ _25% 46% 63% z 2% 43% 38% 6% 6%

BSA 57% 35% 27% 31% 26% 1% 37% _59% 10% 25% 4% 13%

CF 36% 13% 6% 14% 9% 2% 33% 26% 7% 18% 5% 1% 6%

4-H 60% 31% 9% 23% 12% 3% 26% 27% 8% 14% 4% 2%

FHA 70% 44% 52% 6 I% 48% 0% =% 61% 26% 52% 48% 9% 13%

GCA 79% 61% 40% 48% 31% 26% 65% 70% 28% 51% 30% 19% 8%

GSUSA 73% 31% 8 c 22% 1 1% - 48% 37% 14% ' % 3% 2% 6%

UNCA 69% 38% 59% 62% 52% 50% 47% 76% 60% 45% __50% 17% 10%

YMCA 19% I I% 14% 25% 20% 10% 41% 63% 19% 40% 21% 4% 4%

YWCA 5_c c",-;- 34% 26% 15% 45% 54% 30% 324-c 24% 4% 7%

Table 4 Future Funding PlansPercent_OLAN_Respondents Who Plan Future Employment Programs

__Funding Sources_ ARC-YS BCA BSA CF 4-H FHA GCA _GSUSA tiNCA _YMCA _YWCA

CETA (TITLE II. III or IV) 43% 67% 33% 25% 27% 30% 65% 23 % 79% 63% 57%

Local BusinessCommunity 4% '''cr,-; 28% 10% 18% 35% "S% 14% 17% 16% 12%

Civic/Service Clubs 9 r 27% 28% 12% 19% 13% 34% 15% 9% 13% 13%

_Private_Foundations 10% 21% ""% 10% 12% 0% 26% -14% 31-% 15% 18%

Corporate Foundations 1% 11% 19% 5% 6% 0% 14% 7% 9% 9% 5%

United Way _t_Special Grant) 6% 23% 14% 10% 5% 9 r 20% 14% 26% 13% _18%

State Funds(Non CETA or TITLE XX) I% 7% 2% 1% 14% 35% 10% 4% 14% 10% 7%

County Funds(Non CETA or TITLE XX) 3 /r I I% 1% I% 20% 4% 14% 3% 5% 9% 4%

City Funds(Non CPTA or TITLE XX) 6% I I% 2% 2% 7% 13% 8% 3% 14% 12% 6%

TITLE XX rr 8% 3% 1% 471- 4% 3 % 10% 7%

HEW

.)--4% 6% 3% 1% 13% 13% I% 7% 4% 4%

L.E.A.A. 6% 15% "1% 2% 4% 15% I% 22% 11% 8%

Vocational Rehabilitation 4r7-. 3% I% I% 13% 4% I% 2% 2% '% _

Other 17% 6% 24% 10% 14% 17% 6% 14% 17% 8% 10%

Maine ConnecticutNeW HamPshire New YorkVermont New JerseyMassarhmetts r. asylvaniaRhode Island

Ohio IowaIndiana MissouriIllinois North DakotaMichigan South DakotaW;--:onsin NebraskaMinnesota Kansas

Delaware FloridaMaryland KentuckyDistrict of Columbia TennesseeVirginia AlabamaNorth Carolina MississippiSouth Carolina ArkansasGeorgia LouisianaOklahoma TexasWest Virginia

Montana NevadaIdaho WashingtonWyoming OregonColorado CaliforniaNew Mexico AlaskaArizona HawaiiUtah

tr U.S. GOVERNMENT MINTING OFFICE 1990 0- 620-216'Ll88 REGION 3-1

1) · Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America Boy Soy s of America. 4. national network

Documents