We conducted the survey with 131 employers who participated in the TSE program from July 2011 through June 2012, some of whom had also participated in earlier versions of the program. Los Angeles was the only location in the study where the majority of employers (59 percent) were non-profit agencies. Just over one-third (35 percent) were for-profit firms and 7 percent were government agencies. More than one-third of employers (37 percent) were in the social services industry. The next two most common industries were finance, insurance, and real estate (12 percent) and educational services (8 percent). Just over half of employers (54 percent) had fewer than 20 employees; 30 percent had 50 or more.
Los Angeles had the most employers with ten or more subsidized workers (35 percent) of any of the five study locations. Another 43 percent of Los Angeles employers had three to nine subsidized workers, and only 23 percent had one or two. Non-profit employers had a median of seven subsidized workers compared to three among for-profit firms. Nearly all of the employers said that the desire to help people struggling to find work contributed “a lot” or “some” to their decisions
to take part in the program (see Figure 4.8). Like in Wisconsin (the other site that
subsidized 100 percent of wages and did not require employers to place subsi- dized workers on their payrolls), the other most common factors in the decision to participate in TSE were the opportunity for free or low-cost labor and the chance to try out an employee before making a commitment. Three-quarters of the employers in Los Angeles created new positions to bring on subsidized workers—as opposed to filling existing positions—the highest percentage across the five study sites.
Figure 4.8 How Much Each Factor Contributed to Employers' Decisions to
Take Part in the TSE 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 A Positive Experience with the Agency in the Past The Opportunity to Get Assistance with Recruiting
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 63% 57% 52% 47% 37% 23% 26% 25% 24% 28% 78% 16%
When asked to compare the subsidized workers to those they would normally hire for similar positions, 70 percent said the subsidized workers had less work experience and 59 percent said they had less education than the people they typically hire. Most (71 percent) said the subsidized workers were about as likely to be from a minority racial or ethnic group as other employees in similar positions. Asked how subsidized workers’ job performance compared to that of employees usually hired for similar positions, about half (51 percent) said the subsidized workers’ occupational skills were weaker but 66 percent said the subsidized workers were as dependable or more dependable than other workers in terms of attendance and punctuality.
Three-quarters 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 employers were more likely than non-profits to hire at least one subsidized worker, and they hired a higher percentage of the workers (40 percent versus 24 percent). Smaller
employers (with fewer than five employees) were less likely than larger employers to hire at least one of the subsidized workers. When asked how important vari- ous factors were in decisions not to hire subsidized workers, more than half (56 percent) said that not having the financial resources to keep the workers was very important—the highest percentage across the five study sites. The next most com- mon reasons were that workers did not perform well enough in their jobs (36 per- cent) or had poor attendance (34 percent).
Employers realized a number of benefits from participating in the subsidized
employment program (see Figure 4.9). Most (87 percent) said the program had a
very or somewhat positive effect on productivity. Los Angeles had the highest per- centage of employers across the study sites who said the program had a very posi- tive effect on employees’ satisfaction with their workloads. Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of employers said they realized savings as a result of taking part in the program. Employers expressed high levels of satisfaction with various aspects of the program. After Mississippi, employers in Los Angeles were more likely than those in other locations to say they were very satisfied with the quality of the candi- dates the program sent. Most employers (86 percent) said they would be very likely to participate in the program again; another nine percent said they would be some- what likely to do so.
Figure 4.9 How Employing Subsidized Workers Affected TSE Employers
Had a Very Positive Effect Had a Somewhat Positive Effect Productivity
Business Profits/Service Levels The Number of Workers the Business Employs Employees’ Satisfaction with their Workload Customer Satisfaction The Ability to Recruit Qualified Workers
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 41% 45% 44% 46% 33% 43% 38% 37% 32% 44% 49% 38%