Work
serves both direct and indirect functions for persons who are homeless and have
been out of the labor force. Working
affirms directly the employee’s participation in an accepted community
role. Indirectly, working enhances
independence through increased income and improved functioning. For many homeless persons, regaining a work
role is a foundation for regaining residential and social stability.
Transitional work
programs help many homeless persons to reap these benefits even as they provide
shelters and other service organizations with an available and economical labor
force. However, in spite of these
potential benefits, many homeless persons do not participate in available work
programs or do not complete them. Some
transitional work participants begin to see their shelter-based job as adequate
in itself, and lose interest in competitive employment.
The
1996 Transitional Work Study
The 1996 Transitional Work Study was
part of Boston’s Homeless Services’ ongoing efforts to evaluate and refine
transitional work programs for homeless persons. The study focused on orientation to work at
the Long Island and Woods-Mullen shelters, with orientation to work conceived
in terms of work-related attitudes and behaviors. Primary study goals were to describe guests’
work orientations and to identify guest characteristics associated with these
orientations.
More specifically, we
report on the distribution of shelter guests across work programs, the
proportion of guests who are working or looking for work, and the level of
interest in job training and in help with finding a job. We describe the degree of satisfaction with
the work programs as well as with the shelters in general. In addition, we examine the association
between these aspects of work orientation and guest sociodemographic
characteristics, work experience, health problems, and social supports.
Work Programs at Long Island &
Woods-Mullen Shelters
The Long Island Shelter was opened in
1983 and now is Boston’s largest single adult homeless shelter, with beds for
356 (and 25 more in overflow accommodations) guests. The Woods Mullen Shelter, managed like Long
Island by Boston’s Homeless Services, has 160 beds. At both shelters, 60 beds are reserved for
women. In order to stay at Long Island Shelter, which is on an island in
Boston’s harbor, clients must first pass through a preliminary intake at the
Woods Mullen Shelter (at Boston City Hospital) and then board a bus.
Four work
programs operate out of the shelters. Each is geared toward a different range
of client need and functioning. The Work
Experience Program at Long Island and the Work Experience Program at Woods
Mullen emphasize rudimentary job readiness and are designed for clients who are
motivated to break out of their cycle of homelessness but lack the skills and
experience to do so. These programs are
considered the first step toward outside employment and are primarily focused
upon providing a structure of employment for the clients by establishing work
schedules, assisting in money management, and encouraging clients to confront
personal issues.
The Serving
Ourselves Program is the largest work program at the shelters (designed for 32
individuals, with 2 formerly homeless mentors).
It is located at the Long Island Shelter and targets individuals who
already have some degree of work skills and experience, allowing them to
participate for 6-12 months, with an additional 3 months of follow-up. The goals of Serving Ourselves are to
increase the residential stability, skill level and income of program
participants and to create greater self-determination through self-esteem and
personal responsibility. Specialized
skills training is offered in the areas of culinary arts, basic kitchen,
inventory control, laundry and maintenance.
The program provides food and laundry services for the City of Boston’s
emergency shelter system as well as to other institutional clients.
The
Employment Services Program offers job placement services and contract beds for
shelter guests who already work outside of the shelter or are actively looking
for employment. It is designed as a
system of support for clients who do not necessarily need increased experience
or skill and provides numerous services for the various needs of its
clients. For those who have jobs outside
of the shelter, it provides contract beds and Individual Service Plans
outlining goals and activities to assist clients moving into permanent
housing. For individuals who are not
employed but are actively looking for work, it provides job search assistance,
contract beds and Individual Service Plans.
The
Literacy and Adult Education Program at the Island Shelter provides tutoring,
classes, assessment, educational counseling and referrals, and assistance with
college applications and financial aid.
Classes in adult basic reading, writing and math, preGED, ESL, and
computer literacy are available in a special classroom at Long Island. Tutoring is tailored to the needs of
students who are in prevocational programs as well as those with learning
disabilities. Classroom staff seek to
maintain a flexible, individualized approach and a supportive environment for
all participants.
At the time
of the survey, the Long Island Shelter had just opened a new transitional
housing program for work and training program participants. Project S.O.A.R. provides transitional
supportive housing on Long Island for up to 70 homeless men and women. The program offers comprehensive services to
help program participants move successfully out of the shelter into the
community.
The Data Collection Process
All survey
participants were interviewed by graduate students with an approximately
45-minute interview schedule. The
interview schedule was designed through the compilation of existing measures as
well as the incorporation of information obtained through open-ended interviews
with clients and a staff focus group.
The questionnaire sections included: Demographic Information, Service
Satisfaction, Educational History and Needs, Residential History, Employment
History and Needs, Physical Health, Social Support, Mental Health, Substance
Abuse and Legal Issues. Work program
participants were questioned about their level of program satisfaction. Non-participants were questioned in more
detail about their work interests and history.
Several
shelter guests and staff participated in focus group discussions or intensive
interviews at an earlier stage of the study.
Comments from some of these discussions and interviews are included in
several report sections.
Measures
Five aspects of work orientation were
measured, some of them being appropriate only for work program participants or
non-participants. The perceived
importance of job training was measured for all survey respondents as was
participation in the transitional work programs. Work orientation of non-participants was
further measured by whether or not they were looking for work. Non-participants were also asked whether they
were currently employed, either full or part-time; for some analyses, these
responses were combined with work program participants’ answers to the question
of whether they had been working before they joined the work program. (Specific questions and response choices are
in the appendix.)
Guest
characteristics identified as possible influences on work orientation were age,
gender, education, race, physical health, work history, substance abuse, social
support, length of time since first coming to the shelter, feelings of
distress, and belief that luck is not the primary reason for obtaining a
satisfying job. (Specific questions and
response choices are in the appendix.)
These measures are individually cross-tabulated with the measures of
work orientation. Only relationships that are statistically significant at the
.1 level (using Pearson’s chi-square test) are reported.
Sampling
All available work program
participants were interviewed, with a total of 50 participating (see figure
1). This number represented 54% of the
individuals registered in these programs during the study period; others could
not be reached for interviews. The rate
of participation was highest for the Work Experience Program participants (73%
at Long Island and 62% at Woods-Mullen), but relatively low for the Serving
Ourselves Program (41%). An almost equal
number (48) of non-work program participants were selected randomly from
nighttime bed lists. Responses were then
weighted by race, sex, shelter and program participation to increase the
correspondence of the sample characteristics to those of the actual shelter
population during this period.
Because the
work programs target different populations, the general characteristics of the
participants vary. However, due to the
small sample size, distinctions between the programs are not made in most of
the analyses reported here. Other
programmatic boundaries also influence the characteristics of the transitional
work program population. In order to
participate in any of the shelters’ work programs clients are prohibited from
using drugs or alcohol. If substance
abuse is an issue for them, they are required to attend Alcoholics Anonymous or
Narcotics Anonymous meetings. As many of
the jobs require physical activity, guests with significant physical
disabilities or poor health cannot participate.
Due to concerns that the guests may become overly comfortable in the
shelter setting, clients who are very young or very new to the shelter system
are generally prohibited from participating.
Figure 1
Analysis
The report is organized in four sections:
work involvement, reactions to the work programs, satisfaction with the shelters
in general, and characteristics of shelter users. The first two sections are the focus of the
report. The work involvement section
describes the extent of participation in the work programs, the prevalence of
working outside of the programs, frequency of job hunting, and interest in job
training. Graphs summarize the
distributions of each of these measures for work program participants and other
guests at the two shelters.
Crosstabulations are then used to show the relationship between these
measures and other personal characteristics.
Relationships are examined with indicators of guest social backgrounds,
orientations, and health. Specifically,
these indicators are gender, education, race, age, physical health, substance
abuse, social support, depression, time since arrival at the shelter, and
belief that finding a satisfying job is a matter of luck (“locus of
control”). Only those relationships
judged to be statistically significant are presented in the report. Because of concerns expressed by shelter
management, special attention is given in these analyses to the role of
gender. Results of these analyses
involving gender are presented in the summaries for the first two major
sections.
The next section also uses graphs to
describe the distributions of responses to the program satisfaction questions
asked of work program participants. In
the final section, graphs display the distribution of satisfaction with the
shelters for the work program participants and for other guests using the two
shelters.
Work
Involvement
Work
involvement is described in terms of participation in work programs, working
outside of the programs, self-reported job search, and interest in working.
Participation
in the Work Programs
The
weighted sample approximates the distribution of shelter guests across the work
programs and the two shelters.
Two-thirds of the guests stayed at the Long Island Shelter (figure 2). One in five guests participated in one of the
work programs, most at Long Island.
Figure 2
Serving Ourselves was the largest
work program at either of the shelters, with 8% of the guests (figure 3). Three percent of the guests at either shelter
were enrolled in the Long Island Work Experience Program, while less than 2%
were in this program at Woods-Mullen.
while only 4.7% reported participation in Employment Services.
Figure 3
Compared to other shelter guests, work
program participants were more likely to be of minority ethnicity, younger, and
in much better health (table 1). They
also were less likely to believe that getting a satisfying job was mostly a
matter of luck. They did not differ in
terms of gender, education, substance abuse and level of perceived social
support.
Table 1. Participation in
Work Programs by Age, Locus of Control, Health
Age** JOB DUE TO
LUCK PHYSICAL Health
|
Work training programs |
20-29 |
30-39 |
40-49 |
50+ |
No |
Yes |
Very good |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
|
No |
70.7% |
61% |
89.8% |
97.8% |
59.5% |
89.4% |
24.4% |
54.4% |
71.4% |
77.8% |
|
Yes |
29.3 |
39 |
10.2 |
2.2 |
40.5 |
10.6 |
75.6 |
45.5 |
28.6 |
22.2 |
|
Count Total |
16 100% |
45 100% |
24 100% |
13 100% |
54 100% |
33 100% |
41 100% |
33 100% |
14 100% |
9 100% |
x 2=22.75, p=.000 x 2=7.10, p=.008 x 2=15.95, p=.001
Work program participants were also more
likely to have worked full time in the past, to have low (but not very low)
symptoms of depression, and to have been at the shelter longer (table 2).
Table 2. Participation in
Work Programs by Job History, Depression and Time Since Arrival at the Shelter
Job history Depression Scale** Time since arrival*
|
Participation in Work Training Programs |
No |
Yes |
Very Low |
Low |
High |
Very High |
0-3 mos. |
4 mos-1 year |
1+ to 2 years |
Over 2 years |
|
No |
96.3% |
79.9 |
94.6% |
56.5% |
79.1% |
94.3% |
95.6% |
67.5% |
88.3% |
76.9% |
|
Yes |
3.7 |
20.1 |
5.4 |
43.5 |
20.9 |
5.7 |
4.4 |
32.5 |
11.7 |
23.1 |
|
Count Total |
8 100% |
90 100% |
17 100% |
21 100% |
45 100% |
12 100% |
16 100% |
32 100% |
17 100% |
33 100% |
x 2=5.75, p=.016
x 2=16.68, p=.001 x 2=
8.49, p=.037
* p<.05
** p<
.01
Working
Outside of the Work Programs
Work
experience differed markedly between the shelters and program
participants. Half of the work program
participants had been working before they started the program (figure 4). One in four of those not in a work program at
Woods-Mullen were working outside of the shelter, compared to just 5% of those
who were not in a work program at Long Island.
Figure 4
Among shelter guests who were not
work program participants, those who were white or Hispanic, and those in good
physical health, were more likely to be working.
Table 3. Employment by Race and Physical Health: General Shelter
Race* Physical
Health*
|
Currently Employed |
Black |
White |
Other |
Very good |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
|
No |
92.1% |
79% |
20% |
100% |
40% |
75% |
100% |
|
Yes |
7.9 |
21 |
80 |
0 |
60 |
25 |
0 |
|
Count Total |
14 100% |
17 100% |
5 100% |
5 100% |
15 100% |
8 100% |
7 100% |
x 2=7.21, p=.027 x 2=111.33, p=.01
Guests who reported some symptoms of substance
abuse were more likely to be working than those who reported many symptoms or
no symptoms of substance abuse (table 4).
Working was also more common among those who reported a lower level of
social support.
Table 4. Employment Status by Substance Abuse, Social Support:
General Shelter
Population
Substance abuse** Social Support *
|
Currently Employed |
None |
Some |
Many |
Low |
Med. |
High |
|
No |
98.7% |
60.3% |
84% |
64% |
82.7% |
100% |
|
Yes |
1.3 |
39.7 |
16 |
36 |
17.3 |
0 |
|
Count Total |
12 100% |
13 100% |
11 100% |
12 100% |
14 100% |
9 100% |
x 2=12.05, p=.002 x
2=6.16, p=.046
* p<.05
** p<.01
Interest
in Working
Among those guests who were not current
work program participants, interest in working was more common at Woods Mullen
than at Long Island. Most striking, more
than 40% of the Woods-Mullen guests who were not in a work program were looking
for work, compared to fewer than 15% who were looking for work among the
non-work program guests at Woods-Mullen (figure 5). Interest in help with finding work was more
widespread, expressed by about half of the guests, but again more common at
Woods-Mullen. About one-third of the
guests at both shelters reported that they would like to get into a job
training program.
Figure 5
Among those in the general shelter
population who were unemployed, looking for work was more likely for those who
had been staying in the shelter for at least one year, rather than for more
recent arrivals. None of the recent
arrivals were looking for work, compared to one-third of those who had stayed
at the shelter for at least one year (table 5).
Table 5. Propensity to Look for Work by Job History, Substance
Abuse, Social Support, Depression and Time Since Arrival at Shelter:
Unemployed General
Shelter Population
Time
since arrival
|
Looking for Work |
0-1 year |
Over 1 year |
|
No |
100% |
66.4% |
|
Yes |
0 |
33.6 |
|
Count Total |
13 100% |
10 100% |
x 2=2.85, p=.092
* p<.05
** p<.01
Among those in the general shelter who
were already employed, looking for work was more common among those who had at
least a high school, those who reported being in good physical health, and
those who had been staying at the shelter for at least one year. In fact, none of those with less than a high
school education, who were in poor health, or who had first arrived at the
shelter within the past year said they
were looking for work (table 6).
Table 6. Propensity to Look
for Work by Education, Physical Health, Time since arrival
Employed General
Shelter Population
Education** Physical Health* Time
since arrival
|
Looking for Work |
Less than H.S. |
H.S. or more |
Good |
Poor |
0-1 year |
Over 1 year |
|
No |
100% |
5.5% |
75% |
0% |
100% |
39.3% |
|
Yes |
0 |
94.5 |
25% |
|
0 |
60.7 |
|
Count Total |
7 100% |
5 100% |
9 100% |
2 100% |
5 100% |
7 100% |
x 2=8.40, p=. 004.
x 2=4.27, p=.038 x 2=4.28, p=.038
Experience
in Other Programs
Shelter guests who were not
participating in a work program were asked whether they had used the
educational services at the Long Island Shelter. Just two percent of the guests at Long
Island, and 8% of those at Woods-Mullen, said that they had (figure 6). (Many Woods-Mullen guests have stayed
previously at the Long Island Shelter.)
Figure 6
About
half of the guests at both shelters who were not currently in a work program
said that were familiar with the work programs (figure 7). At Woods Mullen, about half of the guests who
were familiar with the work programs had in the past been program
participants. However, at Long Island
almost none of the guests who knew about the work programs had previously been
in a work program.
Figure 7
A
substantial minority of shelter guests who were not participating in a work
program had applied to one in the past—almost one in five at Long Island and
one in three at Woods-Mullen (figure 8).
Figure 8
Project SOAR, the residential program at
Long Island, had only begun several months before the survey. No one in the Woods-Mullen sample had heard
of it (figure 9). Almost two-thirds of
the Long Island guests were aware of SOAR, as were fully 80% of the work
program participants. A majority of the
work program respondents were also SOAR participants.
Figure 9
Importance
of Job Training
Job training was rated as extremely
important by almost two-thirds of the work program participants, but by just
15.6% of the general shelter population.
About half of the general shelter population rated job training as not
at all important, compared to about 12% of the work program participants. On average, work program participants said
that help with finding a job and with job training was considerably important
(figure 10). Most disagreed that finding
a satisfying job was mostly a matter of luck. However, members of the general
shelter population only attached moderate importance to help with finding a job
and not much than slightly importance, on average, to job training. Many believed that finding a satisfying job
was a mostly a matter of luck.
Figure 10
Importance
attached to job training by work program participants was lower for those who
were high school graduates than for those with more or less education (table
7). More importance was attached to job
training by those who were black than by those who were white or Hispanic.
Table 7
Perceived Importance of Job Training by Education, Race
Work Program
Participants
Education * Race
|
Importance of job training |
Less than H.S. |
H.S. Grad |
More than H.S. |
Black |
White |
Hisp. |
|
Not at all |
14.3% |
7.3% |
11.4% |
13.2% |
12.5% |
0% |
|
Somewhat |
16.7 |
48.9 |
0 |
11.8 |
58.3 |
0 |
|
Extremely |
69 |
43.7 |
88.6 |
75 |
29.2 |
100 |
|
Count Total |
23 100% |
15 100% |
12 100% |
35 100% |
11 100% |
4 100% |
x 2=11.49, p=.021 x 2=7.858, p=.096
* p<.05; ** p<.01
Importance attached to job training
by shelter guests who were in a work program was higher among those who thought
getting a satisfying job was not just a matter of luck, among those in better
health, and among those who felt they had less social support (table 8).
Table 8
Perceived Importance of Job
Training by Gender, Education, Race, Age, Locus of
Control and Physical Health :
General Shelter
Population
Locus of Control** Physical Health* Social
Support**
|
Importance of job training |
Internal |
External |
Very good |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
Low |
Med |
High |
|
Not at all |
68.9% |
25.8% |
8.3% |
57.1% |
40% |
100% |
16.8% |
67.5% |
85.7% |
|
Somewhat |
7 |
59.4 |
66.7 |
24.1 |
60 |
0 |
64.5 |
19.2 |
0 |
|
Extremely |
24.1 |
14.8 |
25 |
21.4 |
0 |
0 |
18.8 |
13.3 |
14.3 |
|
Count Total |
17 100% |
17 100% |
10 100% |
18 100% |
6 100% |
3 100% |
13 100% |
18 100% |
6 100% |
x
2=12.9, p=.002 x 2=12.81 p=.046 x 2=20.15, p=.000.
Work
Involvement Summary
Many shelter guests participated in one
of the work programs, but a much larger number did not. Would more guests participate if the capacity
of the work programs was expanded? Do
guests who currently are uninvolved want to participate? Would they be able to participate?
Roughly half of the shelter guests who
were not in a work program at the time of the survey were interested in working
or a work training program. There was a
considerable difference between the two shelters. Many of the Woods-Mullen guests who were not
in a work program were working at the time of the survey, compared to few of
the Long Island guests who were not in a work program. Almost half of the Woods-Mullen guests who
were not in a work program were looking for work, compared to a small
percentage of the Long Island guests.
Interest in help with finding a job was also higher at Woods-Mullen than
at Long Island, although about a third of the guests at both shelters rated job
training as very important. Clearly
there is room for expansion of work programs at both shelters and, particularly
at Woods-Mullen, for increasing assistance with job hunting.
Different aspects of work involvement
varied with a variety of guest characteristics.
Although several of these correlates of work involvement, age, race,
physical health, and substance abuse were associated with each other, their
relationships with work involvement were mostly independent of these
interrelations.
Self-reported physical health was the
most consistent correlate of work involvement.
It was associated with participation in work programs, working outside
of the work programs, looking for work, and the importance attached to job
training. Of course the shelter screened
applicants for work programs to make sure that they were physically able to do
the work required, so this could explain the association between physical
health and work program participation.
However, the associations between each of the other work involvement
variables and physical health suggest that this is a more generally important
influence on work involvement and should be viewed as a potential barrier to
work involvement for many shelter guests.
Further research is needed to determine how well self-reported health
captures variation in illness and disability and to identify those aspects of
physical health that interfere with working.
In any case, expectations for work involvement must take into account
the problems created by physical health problems.
In addition to physical health problems,
other health problems, substance abuse and mental illness, appear to diminish
work involvement. Guests who had many
symptoms of substance abuse were less likely to be employed. Those who were more psychologically
distressed were less likely to participate in a work program. When attention is given to health problems
that inhibit employment, strategies for treating mental illness and substance
abuse should also be considered.
Race was associated with several aspects
of work involvement, in a way that may reflect larger labor market
patterns. Black and Hispanic guests were
more likely to participate in shelter work programs and to rate job training as
important. However, white guests were
more likely to be employed outside of the shelter. These different relations might reflect
greater employment opportunities for homeless persons who are white, either due
to more prior training or to labor market openings. The result could be that black and Hispanic
guests turn to the work programs to increase their employability or, perhaps,
to take advantage of an opportunity for employment that would be less
attractive if they had more opportunities in the labor market outside of the
shelter. More intensive analysis of this
issue should take account of prior job training, job offers received by shelter
guests, and the association between race and shelter of residence (as
statistics presented later indicate, interviewees at the Woods Mullen shelter,
which is more convenient to jobs in the city, were more likely to be
white). It is also important to take
into account the relative attractiveness of residing at Long Island compared to
guests’ home community. For some, Long
Island can provide an escape from problems of crime and substance abuse.
The implementation of SOAR, the shelter’s
new transitional residence program, has already taken steps to reduce these
problems. Direct transportation is
provided to and from the shelter for SOAR participants who are in job training
or community jobs (one-half of the SOAR participants work in the city). This reduces the problem of isolation on the
Island and may spur more effective community job search activities.
Guests who had only recently arrived at
the shelter were less likely to be in the work programs, but were also less
likely to be looking for work. Current
shelter policy is to try to tailor the job search assistance given to recent
arrivals to their interest in working.
Perhaps a more proactive policy should be considered to stimulate work
interest among these guests short after they arrive.
Employment outside of the shelter and
importance attached to job training were associated with lower levels of
perceived social support. This may
reflect fewer social opportunities for employed guests or those actively
looking for work. It may also be that
high levels of social support indicate a longer history of shelter use and a
degree of “settling in” to shelter life.
Some efforts to create opportunities for social interaction for those
employed outside of the shelter setting might help to counteract such a tendency.
Observations in one of the computer
classes conducted at the Long Island Shelter indicate the value of this resource
and suggest its appeal.
The students in the computer class seemed
comfortable and motivated. I wondered if
this motivation stemmed from their interactions with their supportive
teacher…. [T]he students supported each
other. It was almost as if a women’s
network or support group had formed.
Perhaps this is because the students are working together towards a
common goal, to learn how to use computers.
Perhaps it is because they have become like a family to each other.
It may be that this training meets
particular needs of the group of women who were observed in this particular
class, but it seems likely that many men should also benefit from this type of
experience. Although Serving Ourselves
participants are required to participate in shelter educational programs, among
the general population, none of the men reported having participated in an
educational program at the shelter, compared to 38% of the women.
There were several other gender
differences in work involvement. Men
were more likely to have worked full time in the past (84%) than were women
(60%). The types of jobs they reported
having had were also different, with women mentioning office work more than did
men. In addition, men were more likely
to have heard of the work programs from graduates of the work program (45%)
than were women (29%). However, women
were more likely to be familiar with the work programs (69%) than were men
(47%), they were more interested in help with finding a job (90%) than were men
(43%), and they were more likely to want information about the SOAR program.
In spite of these gender differences, the
similarities were more striking. Male
and female guests were as likely to have used these programs in the past and
they were as likely to have had some job experience. On balance, the survey provides little basis
for designing different programs for men and women, although if it is to take
maximum advantage of prior experience, the particular types of skills training
offered should not be identical for men and women. It seems clear that women are as motivated,
perhaps even more motivated than men to participate in work and training
programs.
Participant Attitudes Toward Work
Programs
Almost
nine in ten work program participants rated the quality of work training they
received as good or excellent (figure 11).
There was some room for improvement, as “excellent” was the choice of
25%.
Figure 11
Motives
for Work Program Participation
Work
program participants reported keen interest in improving their
employability. Half strongly agreed that
they wanted to learn a new skill and almost 90% either agreed or strongly
agreed (figure 12).
Figure 12
On the other hand, almost 80% reported
that they were not in the program for the money (figure 13).
Figure 13
Three-quarters of the work program
participants stated that they were somewhat or extremely comfortable with
conducting a job search (figure 14).
Figure 14
On average, work program
participants agreed that the training they were receiving in the work program
was preparing them for their next job (figure 15). They also agreed, on average, that the
shelter staff get along with the program’s workers and that the workers in the
program get along with each other.
Figure 15
Satisfaction
with Work Programs
Overall, 75% of the participants
were satisfied or very satisfied with the work program (figure 16).
Figure 16
Work program participants reported a
high level of satisfaction with the program staff and with the program overall
(figure 17). There was slightly less
satisfaction with the type of work respondents did on the job training
program. Dissatisfaction was more
evident with pay levels, with the average satisfaction level falling between
satisfied and dissatisfied.
Figure 17
Levels of satisfaction with the type
of work and the program staff were similar across the four specific programs
examined (figure 18). Pay generated the
most dissatisfaction across all four programs, but particularly among the
Woods-Mullen Work Experience participants.
Figure 18
Impressions of the quality of
training and of the job program overall were similar across the four programs
(figure 19). Work Experience
participants at Long Island were somewhat less satisfied with their ability to
get a job than participants in the other programs.
Figure 19
Feelings About Specific Work Programs
Motivations for the program and
perceptions of its value were similar across programs (figure 20). However, WEP participants at Woods-Mullen
were less confident in their ability to secure a job than were participants in
other programs.
Figure 20
Program
Attitudes Summary
Across
all four work programs, participants were satisfied with the program itself,
with the training they were receiving, and with social relations in the
program. In addition, they felt prepared
for a job. They wanted to learn new
skills in the program and rejected the notion that they were in the program
only for the money. Pay levels were the
only source of some dissatisfaction.
Observations in a Work Experience
Program meeting provided additional evidence of participant motives.
The one thing that I heard repeatedly was
that no one felt as if they were owed anything.
Most of them were there because they needed and sincerely wanted to put
their lives back together. They all
wanted to regain their dignity.
Intensive interviews conducted six
work program participants indicate the diverse bases for satisfaction with the
work programs. From cleaning the shelter
to serving food or janitorial work, everyone responded positively. Working made one participant “feel more
responsible now.” One respondent had
trouble getting along with others and was pleased to work alone. Some enjoyed receiving a paycheck, having a
bank account and an ATM card. Another
liked the work because “it is easy”; another liked giving orders. One emphasized the training he received and
the greater self-esteem he felt. Another
liked his job because he was able to “focus on people’s level…[and to see]
where they’re coming from.”
An interview with a work program
supervisor emphasized how the programs mix personal support and rehabilitation
efforts with work training. One example
mentioned was of a participant in the Culinary Arts program (Serving Ourselves)
who had “mental health issues that made it difficult to interact with
people.” “The loose environment [in the
kitchen’ along with the teamwork and positive bonds that the other staff
members portray have helped this clients speak more, interact and even laugh
along with the joking of other kitchen workers.” Work programs thus met different needs for
different guests.
Staff comments in a focus group give
more insight into the basis for guest satisfaction with the work programs.
“Saving lives is number one… We offer stability to those who have never
had it in their lives. We acknowledge
their pain for the first time. We treat
them justly. You know when it makes a
difference. Most of the clients have
been abused. It helps and is rewarding
to say that what was done to them was wrong.
It makes a world of difference to them that their behaviors are
understandable.
Participants in the Work Experience
Program at the Woods-Mullen Shelter were distinctive in some of their attitudes
toward work. They were more dissatisfied
than others with their pay and less optimistic about their ability to get a job
after leaving the program. Since
employment outside of the shelter was much more common at Woods-Mullen than at
Long Island, these more negative attitudes may be a consequence of comparing
themselves to employed guests, rather than to unemployed shelter users. These attitudes may also result from the
narrower array of work and service programs at Woods Mullen compared to Long
Island. A support group for work program
members and for employed guests might help to share job search and retention
information, thereby turning the presence of many employed guests into an
advantage for work program participants.
Staff comments in a focus group
suggested other bases for more pessimistic attitudes among work program
participants at Woods-Mullen. “In the
city…, there is more negativity and negative influences: substance abuse, female abuse, estrangement
from children, a lot of pressures.” In
response, the program staff try to connect clients to services and get them
back into the community, so they can [among other goals] reestablish their
connection with their children.
Again, gender differences were explored
but none were identified. Men and women
were roughly as satisfied with the work and educational programs and reported
similar motivations for program participation.
Of course, some possibilities for direct comparison are limited by the
exclusion of women from the Work Experience Program at Woods Mullen.
Satisfaction
with the Shelters in General
Overall,
guests were satisfied with the shelters (figure 21). Half of the sample rated their shelter as
better than others and few rated them it as worse. About one in five said they did not know
about other shelters.
Figure 21
Only
a small fraction of the guests expected to be at the shelter more than one
year, although just one in ten expected to leave within a week or two (figure
22).
Figure 22
Work program participants and
Woods-Mullen guests felt their shelter compared more favorably to other
shelters than did Long Island guests who were not in a work program (figure
23). There were no differences in likelihood
of leaving the shelter across the two shelters or between work program
participants and others.
Figure 23
Satisfaction with the shelters
was generally high. Work program
participants were particularly satisfied with staff and particularly
dissatisfied with their proximity to stores and shopping (most were on Long
Island and would have had the opportunity to go into the city less often than
the other guests) (figure 24).
Figure 24
Work
program participants were also somewhat more satisfied with physical
conditions, space, and furnishings (figure 25).
There was a high level of dissatisfaction with the level of privacy at
the Woods-Mullen shelter.
Figure 25
Summary
of Shelter Satisfaction
Overall,
satisfaction with the shelters was high, as it was with most specific shelter
features. However, many guests at Long
Island reported they had no basis for comparison to other shelters. Most guests planned to stay at the shelter
between one month and one year, suggesting that programs requiring enrollment
for this length of time could have a steady enrollment.
Work program participants were more
satisfied with staff and with physical conditions than others, but were much
less satisfied with the proximity of the shelter to stores and shopping. There clearly is a tradeoff between the
advantages of participating in work programs at Long Island and losing
convenient access to urban amenities.
Some regular plan for transit to the city, or perhaps a commissary on
the island might reduce some of these complaints [by the time this report was
finished, a new van was already in service to make it easier for SOAR
participants to commute to the city].
The major complaint at Woods-Mullen shelter was the lack of adequate privacy. Greater attention to possibilities for
creating private spaces in this very densely populated shelter could result in
more satisfied guests.
Conclusions
Transitional
work programs at Long Island and Woods-Mullen shelters offer a vital service to
a large number of guests. Guests who participate
in these programs are very satisfied with the work programs, with program
staff, and, more generally, with shelter services. Work program participants report a high level
of interest in improving their skills, believe that their ability to get a job
is not just a matter of luck, and feel well prepared to search for
employment. Program staff are viewed
very positively by program participants.
The benefits of the work programs
extend beyond the immediate impact of employment. The support they provided for many
participants helped to increase confidence in achieving longer term goals and
using some of their unique experiences in productive ways. One intensive interview provides an
illustration:
[He] confided that he would like to be a counselor, particularly for
troubled/at risk kids who had not yet dropped out of school. … [He] feels that he has a message to convey. Here, he speaks from experience. He told us that he had hung out with a group
of older kids, and that doing so pulled him away from school prematurely…. Although he’s a father, [he] missed out on a
lot of his kids growing up, so working with kids would be like another chance
at parenthood. …[He] feels that although
he’s not old, that he has done a lot of things wrong is his life and that he
doesn’t have much time to do things right to keep from being [defined] a
failure.
There is enough interest in the work
programs to warrant their expansion. As
one program participant argued in an intensive interview,
The only thing she would change about the
program would be to increase the opportunities.
….She says the shelter contracts out some services and she thinks it
would be better if they got the clients involved in providing those services instead. She said even if they have the [clients]
paint the walls at least that would be something.
Physical health problems seem to be the
most important barrier to work program participation for many guests. Further investigation of the nature of health
problems in the general shelter population are called for, as are efforts to
develop vocational rehabilitation programs that are suited to individuals with
physical health problems. Providing
services to substance abusers and those experiencing high levels of psychological distress should
also bring some guests into work programs who would otherwise be unable or
unwilling to participate. Nonetheless,
flexible management of the work programs can help them to meet the diverse
needs of guests, as indicated in one intensive interview:
He was very happy with the program. He had started out working in the
kitchen. However, he said he had trouble
with that job. He says he has a very bad
temper and that he doesn’t work well with other people, so he asked to be
changed to a different job. Now he works
as a janitor. He very recently had used
a floor buffer for the first time and was very excited about learning this
skill. He prefers this job because he
gets to work alone and no one gives him orders.
Long Island and Woods-Mullen shelters
have developed somewhat different social patterns which may influence the work
involvement of shelter guests.
Woods-Mullen facilitates entry of guests into competitive employment,
while Long Island supports many more work program activities on site and has
few other employed guests. Because of
Long Island’s distant location from the city, it may be hard to change this
pattern. However, it is important to
prevent the development of a self-sustaining ethos of service dependence that
could undermine efforts to return shelter guests to regular employment. More job search assistance efforts at Long
Island and greater monitoring of guests’ job search efforts may help to
overcome these liabilities. Staff
members participating in a focus group suggested some changes to overcome the
isolation of Long Island Shelter work program participants--integrating the
program with the outside community and having a support group to relieve job
stress, especially during the winter.
At the same time, the greater exposure of
Woods-Mullen work program participants to guests working outside of the shelter
may be the reason for somewhat greater pessimism about their own prospects for
finding a suitable job. More job
counseling or support group activities may be useful.