Economic Equity
The research is clear. All gains achieved in the decade prior to the pandemic relative to young adults engaged in the workforce, at least in New York City, have been lost.
While this is extremely upsetting, things were not as positive as the pre-pandemic statistics would have led one to believe. The fact is that those young people in employment at any given time prior to the pandemic were likely in part-time employment at minimum wage and without benefits. Thus, these young people likely found themselves in a more difficult financial position when working, especially if they had children. Further, these jobs did not afford any predictability of schedule, which prevented these young people from engaging in opportunities to advance educationally or vocationally. As a result, those who were employed at any point in any pre-pandemic study were likely not employed just 12 months later.
Working for New York City organizations that held almost every major contract for youth employment in the last two decades, I have developed the following recommendations for post-pandemic young adult workforce development programming.
Programs need to allow for young people to enroll as soon as they decide they are ready. Many think the cohort model is critical for young participants who often lack a positive, strong social support system outside of the program. However, most young people seeking such a program lack experience with positive social supports. Further, they often hold untreated trauma history, have challenging relationships with young people from other neighborhoods or boroughs, and self-medicate with substances and/or intimate relationships. These elements generally prevent the formation of healthy, positive, strong support systems with each other. What is more important is to capitalize on when a young person musters the energy and guts to ask for help and to quickly welcome the young person into the incredible support system created by a strong program team.
Young people should be allowed to take as long as they want in the program, coming and going as many times as they need, as all the competing priorities in their lives require. Additionally, the challenges facing these young people are complex and are likely to take significant time to address in a substantive enough way to allow for success to persist well beyond program graduation. Further, they often have faced a sense of repeated failure within prior education and/or employment settings, which takes more than 14 weeks, six months, or even a year, sometimes, to overcome. However, this is not the case for everyone. Some, at the opposite end of the spectrum, may be ready to take flight and should not be held back by a program timetable.
One of the most critical elements of a successful program is high quality, comprehensive case management and counseling. While barriers such as childcare, transportation, and stable housing are certainly barriers to achieving success within a program and future employment, mental health also belongs high on that list. Given the childhoods of many young people seeking a program such as this, establishing trust, particularly with adults, is generally very difficult. Thus, most prefer receiving all their support services from one trusted source. I recommend hiring master’s level direct service staff who can engage in biopsychosocial assessments within a motivational interview format, followed by the provision of comprehensive case management services directed at identified barriers to program participation and employment, as well as counseling services to begin helping young people process their trauma, build coping skills and resilience, and mitigate symptomatology. Often, programs also see these young people as independent adults, but when family is involved, family work is necessary to best set the young person up for future success.
Case management services also need to involve cash assistance. Program budgets or external partner organizations need to have capacity for financial assistance with food, childcare, transportation, housing, etc. These funds need to be accessible while the young person is enrolled in the program and after job placement, at least until a few payroll distribution dates have been achieved.
In addition to cash assistance, participants need to be paid for advancing their educational and vocational skills while enrolled in the program. Weekly stipends are a must for participants who have ongoing financial obligations and such a system can also teach the value of advancing one’s educational and vocational skills.
Programs cannot take just any employer into its employer partner network. Employers not offering entry level livable wages with at least a minimal set of benefits, structured, set schedules for part-time positions, and scaffolding to better paying jobs, without requirements for higher education, should not be considered as partners. Further, as with so many social statistics, current educational and economic conditions impact communities of color much more significantly. Therefore, employers who cannot demonstrate significant, tangible progress toward converting their work culture from one that embodies white supremacy values to one that values the power of diversity and collective, collaborative participation should also be denied partnership. Programs should partner with companies and organizations that value employee voice, youth voice, and strength in diverse perspectives and collective management. The young people these programs serve need a truly inclusive environment where they have equal status with other employees.
I believe these program design measures will best ensure we truly establish post-pandemic economic opportunities that provide all young people not only a pathway but a tangible and feasible on-ramp to truly livable wage employment necessary to support themselves and their families.