FORMULACIÓN DE LA PROPUESTA DE SOLUCIÓN
3.2. Opinión personal
About 760 employers participated in the subsidized employment program between September 2010 and June 2012. We interviewed a sample of 300 from across the
state.13 Sixty-three percent of the employers interviewed were for-profit firms, 31
percent were non-profits, and six percent were government agencies. The top indus- tries represented were social services (18 percent), manufacturing (14 percent), and wholesale and retail trade (12 percent). Sixty-three percent of employers had fewer than 20 employees.
More than half (59 percent) of the employers had one or two subsidized workers; only 12 percent had ten or more. When asked how much various factors contributed to their decisions to participate in the program, the most common factors employ- ers cited were the desire to help people struggling to find work, the opportunity for free or low-cost labor, and the chance to try out an employee before committing (see
Figure 4.18). Nearly two-thirds (66 percent) of employers created new positions to employ the subsidized workers. The other 34 percent filled available positions. When asked to compare subsidized workers to those they would typically hire for similar positions, just over half of the employers (56 percent) said the subsidized workers had less work experience and nearly half (48 percent) said they had less education. When asked to compare the subsidized workers’ job performance to that of employees they generally hired for similar positions, about half (51 percent) said the subsidized workers’ occupational skills were weaker, but 58 percent said the subsidized workers were as or more dependable than other workers in terms of attendance and punctuality.
7 to 9
Up to 3 4 to 6
Figure 4.17 Percent Employed in the 4th Quarter Pre- and Post-Program by Number of Months in Subsidized Position
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Q4 Pre-Program Q4 Post-Program 24% 38% 23% 47% 36% 48%
Sixty percent of the employers interviewed said they hired at least one subsidized worker after the subsidy period ended. Overall, employers reported hiring 27 per- cent of the subsidized workers after the subsidy period ended. For-profit firms were more likely to hire at least one worker, and they hired a higher percentage of the subsidized workers than non-profit or government agencies (39 percent versus 19 percent). Employers with fewer than five employees were less likely than larger employers to hire at least one worker. When asked how important various factors were in their decisions not to hire subsidized workers, the most important factors employers cited were that the workers did not perform well enough (43 percent) or had poor attendance (41 percent), and that the employer lacked sufficient financial resources to keep them on (34 percent).
More than three-quarters of employers (79 percent) said they realized savings as a result of taking part in the program. More than two-thirds said the program had either a very or somewhat positive effect on productivity and employees’ satis-
faction with their workload (see Figure 4.19). Nearly two-thirds of employers (66
percent) said they would be very likely to participate if the subsidized employment program continued or is offered again in the future; 24 percent said they would be somewhat likely to do so. Employers expressed high levels of satisfaction with most aspects of the program—72 percent were very satisfied with the communica- tion from program staff. However, only about one-third (32 percent) said they were very satisfied with the quality of the candidates the programs sent; another 44 per- cent said they were somewhat satisfied.
Figure 4.18 How Much Each Factor Contributed to Employers' Decisions to Take Part in the TJ Program
A Lot Some
A Desire to Help People Struggling to Find Work The Opportunity for Free or Low-Cost Labor The Opportunity to Try Out an Employee The Opportunity to Grow or Sustain Operations The Opportunity to Get Assistance with Recruiting A Positive Experience with the Agency in the Past
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 61% 48% 34% 33% 34% 24% 35% 36% 24% 15% 66% 23%
Conclusions
r
The TJ program successfully reached populations disadvantaged in the labormarket. Forty-eight percent of subsidized workers were Black men, 39 percent had felony convictions, and 62 percent were among the long-term unemployed when they enrolled in the program. These groups experienced significant increases in employment and earnings in the year after program participation.
r
As a whole, individuals with felony convictions were as likely as their non-feloncounterparts to be hired by their host employers, and they had similar increases in employment and earnings in the year after the program. However, this varied between men and women, with male felons faring less well than their non-felon counterparts.
r
Employers realized a number of benefits from participating in the TJ program,including savings and increased productivity. However, TJ program employers were the least likely of any at the study sites to hire workers after the subsidy period ended.
r
Program staff noted that because the subsidized jobs paid the minimum wage of$7.25 an hour and program eligibility criteria excluded TANF recipients and indi- viduals eligible for unemployment compensation, most people attracted to the program had limited work histories and few skills. Given the barriers to employ- ment the participants faced, staff would have preferred to offer more support, training and individualized attention than they were able to given the available resources and the large number of people they were expected to place in subsi- dized positions.
Figure 4.19 How Employing Subsidized Workers Affected TJ Employers
Had a Very Positive Effect Had a Somewhat Positive Effect
Productivity Employees’ Satisfaction with their Workload The Number of Workers the Business Employs Business Profits/Service Levels Customer Satisfaction The Ability to Recruit Qualified Workers
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 29% 23% 18% 27% 19% 41% 43% 48% 38% 36% 29% 46%