Each of the ten AWI projects operated within a unique context determined, in large part, by the characteristics of the people residing in its service area and the economy of the region.
Demographic Features
As required by the SGA, projects were limited to serving individuals who were at least 55 years of age. Below we provide data on the proportion of the population 65 years of age and over, which is a useful indicator of the concentration of older individuals in the general population.47
As shown in Exhibit II-3, the proportion of the population that was 65 years of age or older ranged from 10.7 percent in the area served by the Louisiana project to 16.3 percent in the area served by the Maine project. For five projects—those in Indiana, Maine, Pennsylvania,
Vermont, and Wisconsin—the proportion of older individuals in the project service area was higher than it is in the nation as a whole.
Five projects served local communities in which the percentage of non-white residents was above the average for the U.S. as a whole (22.8 percent). The projects in Louisiana, Maryland and Texas served the communities with the highest percentages of non-white residents (over 38 percent). The area served by the project in Texas served the area with the largest proportion of residents of Hispanic or Latino origin (35.3 percent).
45 The recession affected all of the AWI grantees by increasing the demand for public workforce investment
services; the level of training funds available from public workforce development programs was often insufficient to meet the increased number of customers seeking services from American Job Centers.
46 In addition to concentrating its services in a smaller geographic area, this project also shifted its service area to
include several parishes within the New Orleans metropolitan area (e.g., Orleans and St. Tamany Parishes).
47 These data for 65 and older were readily available from the 2010 Census. The proportion of those 55 and older
Exhibit II-3
Racial and Demographic Composition of Demonstration Communities (Percentages)
IN LA ME MD MI PA TX VT WA WI U.S. 65 years of Age or Older 13.4% 10.7% 16.3% 12.6% 13.2% 14.5% 8.6% 15.0% 10.8% 15.0% 13.3% Race White Only 87.9% 59.8% 95.4% 62.1% 70.1% 82.6% 60.2% 95.5% 71.9% 94.1% 78.1% Black or African- American Only 4.7% 35.6% 1.3% 28.7% 22.8% 10.2% 17.2% 1.1% 5.6% 1.3% 13.1% Other Race (Only One Race)* 5.3% 3.4% 1.8% 6.6% 4.8% 4.9% 19.5% 1.8% 17.1% 3.3% 7.7% (Two or More Races) 2.1% 1.2% 1.5% 2.5% 2.2% 2.4% 3.0% 1.7% 5.3% 1.3% 2.3% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino (of any Race) 4.8% 3.4% 1.4% 4.6% 3.9% 4.7% 35.3% 1.6% 9.0% 4.3% 16.7% Individuals Under the Federal Poverty Level** 15.9% 18.0% 12.6% 9.9% 14.3% 8.9% 13.7% 11.1% 10.6% 10.7% 13.8%
U.S. Census Bureau 2010 (http://factfinder2.census.govaccessed on September 7, 2012). For the projects in
Maine and Vermont, we have provided state-level data. The following MSAs were used to compile the
information in Exhibit II-4: Kokomo and Lafayette, IN MSAs; Baton Rouge, LA MSA; Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA; Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI MSA; Harrisburg Carlisle, PA MSA; Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA; Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA MSA and Fond du Lac, WI MSA. Race categories add to more than 100% because race categories are not mutually exclusive (individuals can identify with more than one race category). * “Other Race” includes individuals who identified themselves as American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Asian,
Native Hawaiians, or Other Pacific Islanders.
** “Individuals under the Federal Poverty Level” includes individuals who are 18 years of age or older who income in the last twelve months is below the federal poverty level. This information is based on the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.
In all but two projects, more than 10 percent of individuals 18 years of age or older had incomes below the federal poverty level. The average poverty rate was equal to or higher than the U.S. rate of 13.8% in three project areas—Indiana, Louisiana, and Michigan.
Economic Conditions
As Exhibit II-4 shows, unemployment rates changed dramatically over the demonstration period for all grantees. While grantees designed their projects to take into account local and economic conditions in November of 2008, they were facing very different economic conditions by the time the grants were awarded in the summer of 2009. The severe economic downturn dramatically affected local economic conditions, particularly the ability of employers in the designated high-growth industries to offer jobs to AWI project participants.
Exhibit II-4 depicts the economic conditions at three points in time, in approximately two-year intervals: when the applications were submitted to ETA, at the end of the first year of the grant operations, and at the time of the final evaluation site visit. At the time the AWI grant
applications were written, unemployment ranged from a low of 4.5 percent in the Louisiana project service area to a high of 9.8 percent in the Michigan project service area (the regional economy in Michigan was already beginning to decline in late 2008 due to the collapse of the automotive industry and the secondary and tertiary effects of that decline on the economy of the region).
By the time the AWI grants were awarded and projects were being implemented, unemployment had increased across all ten projects by an average of 2.4 percentage points. During the first site visits, unemployment rates across all ten project sites ranged from 6.2 percent in Vermont to 12.1 percent in Michigan. All ten projects faced challenges resulting from the recession, including, most significantly, the evaporation of employer demand for new workers, even in the
occupations and industries designated as high-growth sectors in the regional economies. In addition, the economic recession created a sharp increase in the demand for workforce
development services by customers of the American Job Center network. AWI grantees reported that serving the large numbers of dislocated workers became the central priority for many
American Job Centers, relegating the AWI projects to secondary status.48
48 Furthermore, grantees found that local WIBs often placed a higher priority on spending American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds than on spending AWI project funds. (This was because the ARRA funds were more substantial and had to be spent quickly over a shorter duration of time.)
Exhibit II-4
Unemployment Rates by Grantee During the AWI Project Period
6.9 4.5 6.4 5.4 9.8 4.9 5.4 5.2 5.9 5.8 9.6 7.5 8 8.1 12.1 7.3 8.5 6.2 9.7 7.2 7.5 6.4 7.2 6.9 8.7 6.4 6.5 4.6 6.9 6.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 IN LA ME MD MI PA TX VT WA WI
Grant Application (November 2008) 1st Round Site Visit (November 2010) 2nd Round Site Visit (April 2012)
5.0 U.S. Average 11/08 9.8 U.S Average 11/10 8.1 U.S U.S Average 4/12
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Metropolitan Service Area At-A-Glance Tables
(http://data.bls.gov, accessed on July 31, 2012). The information in Exhibit II-4 was compiled using the
metropolitan service area(s) (MSAs) most closely aligned to the project service areas of the individual AWI grantees. State-level data were used for the projects with statewide service areas (Maine and Vermont). The following MSAs were used to compile the information in Exhibit II-4: Kokomo and Lafayette, IN MSA; Baton Rouge, LA MSA; Baltimore-Towson, MD MSA; Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI MSA; Harrisburg Carlisle, PA MSA; Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX MSA; Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA MSA and Fond du Lac, WI MSA.
By the time of the second evaluation site visits in the spring of 2012, all ten AWI projects saw modest improvements in their regional unemployment rates. Unemployment decreased an average of 1.7 percentage points between the first and second evaluation site visits. The AWI project in Maine showed the smallest improvement (the state’s unemployment rate dropped 0.8 percentage points to 7.2 percent), and the project in Michigan showed the largest improvement (unemployment dropped 3.4 percentage points to 8.7 percent). Interestingly, by the time of the second evaluation site visit, unemployment rates were below the national average of 8.1 percent in the service areas of nine of the ten projects (the lone exception being Michigan). Even with
these improvements in local unemployment rates, many projects still reported that employers were reluctant to hire new employees because there they were uncertain about the pace of economic recovery.