By Site in Florida

Within Florida, the demonstration eligible population varied greatly across the sites. One apparent

difference was the age of the claimants. Claimants in Fort Lauderdale, Davie, Hialeah, Miami, and Clearwater

tended to be older than the claimants in the other sites. The average age of claimants in these five sites ranged

from 44 to 47 years, compared with 39 years in Pensacola and 41 to 42 years in St. Augustine, Orlando,

Lakeland, and Fort Pierce.

The racial and ethnic background of claimants also varied widely. More than 90 percent of the claimants

in Clearwater were white and non-Hispanic, compared with less than 20 percent of Miami claimants and less

than 10 percent of Hialeah claimants. Sites with high proportions of African American claimants included Fort

Pierce (25.7 percent), Miami (24.7 percent), Pensacola (24.1 percent), and Lakeland (19.2 percent). Sites with

high proportions of Hispanic claimants included Hialeah (83.4 percent), Miami (58.1 percent), Davie (19.9

percent), and Orlando (18.7 percent).

Some of the Florida sites served claimant populations with limited educational backgrounds. In Hialeah

and Miami, more than 40 percent of the claimants determined to be eligible for the demonstration had not

completed high school. College completion was less than 5 percent among Hialeah and Fort Pierce claimants.

Educational attainment was higher in other Florida sites. The high school dropout rate was lowest among

claimants in Pensacola (14.2 percent) and Orlando (15.0 percent). College completion was more than 10

35

Although the proportion of claimants from manufacturing in Florida was low overall, more than 20

percent of the claimants in Lakeland and Hialeah were from manufacturing. In contrast, less than 10 percent

of Pensacola claimants were from manufacturing. Pensacola had a much higher proportion of claimants from

public administration (15 percent) than other Florida sites (less than 5 percent). This difference is probably

because of the presence of major military bases near Pensacola, whose employees would be classified as being

in public administration. Since the demonstration was operating during a time of military downsizing, a

substantial proportion of the Pensacola claimants were former employees at the military bases. Fort Pierce

and Lakeland were noteworthy for having relatively high proportions of agricultural and mining workers--10

percent in Fort Pierce and 4 percent in Lakeland. No other site had more than 2 percent of claimants from

37

III. PARTICIPATION, TIMING OF SERVICES, AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Understanding claimants’ participation in services is important for two reasons. First, data on participation in demonstration services and the timing of services provides important information on the extent to which the demonstrations were administered as designed. Unusually low participation, participation in services out of sequence, or delays in participation would indicate that administration of the demonstrations was not entirely successful. More importantly, each of these potential problems would suggest that the implemented demonstrations may be testing a service package that differs from the one intended, and that estimated demonstration net impacts should be interpreted cautiously. Second, knowing how many claimants participated in specific services and the types of claimants that participated is also important for interpreting estimated net impacts. If more or fewer claimants had participated in services or if different types of claimants had participated, then the estimated net impacts might have been different. In addition, understanding what services claimants felt helped them the most is important for designing more efficient services for ongoing programs.

We find that the demonstration was generally implemented as designed. A substantial proportion of claimants assigned to the structured JSA (SJSA) treatment attended each of the service components, and the timing of each component was generally as expected. A substantial proportion of claimants in the individualized JSA treatments (IJSA and IJSA+) attended the orientation and assessment interview, and the assessment interview occurred shortly after the orientation, as designed. Relatively few claimants in the individualized programs attended the job search workshop or testing. While it is not surprising that participation rates in the individualized programs were lower than rates in the structured program, since the services were provided on an as-needed basis

38

in the individualized programs, they were lower than expected. It was anticipated that demonstration staff would be more aggressive in assigning claimants to services.

Relatively few claimants in the IJSA+ treatment were referred to or received training. Reluctance on the part of EDWAA staff to aggressively serve claimants in this treatment by providing greater access to limited training resources may explain this finding. The proportion of claimants who received training was nearly equal in all treatment groups, indicating that the EDWAA training component of the IJSA+ treatment was not fully implemented as designed. In both states, however, the proportion of claimants who received training was higher in the treatment groups than in the control group. Hence, the demonstration increased the frequency of EDWAA training receipt. Relatively few claimants in the demonstrations received services outside the demonstrations that were similar to those provided as part of the demonstrations.

Overall, participation in services was higher in D.C. than in Florida. This difference in participation rates arose primarily because claimants in Florida went back to work more rapidly than claimants in D.C. Claimants in Florida were also less likely to be assigned to specific services and were more likely to be excused if they were assigned to a service than were claimants in D.C. However, the primary reason claimants did not attend services was because they were working, and the primary reason claimants were excused was because they were job attached (either found a job or had been placed on recall). Overall, failure to participate without being excused was very low. Demonstration participants were generally satisfied with the services they received. More than three-quarters of demonstration participants reported that they were very or somewhat satisfied with the JSA treatment they received. Participants in D.C. reported somewhat greater satisfaction than participants in Florida. There is no consistent difference in reported satisfaction by treatment group.

39

However, substantial proportions of claimants were not satisfied with the job search workshop for helping them find job openings.

Participation in the JSA treatments and in specific services varied consistently along several claimant characteristics. Claimants with more education, job tenure, and prior employment in manufacturing industries and in professional occupations were more likely than other claimants to participate in the demonstration services in both Florida and D.C.--that is, claimants from these groups made up a larger proportion of the claimants participating in services than of the claimants not participating. They were also more likely to participate in each of the specific demonstration services. In contrast, claimants with prior employment in construction industries and blue-collar occupations were less likely to participate.

We begin with a description of the services provided as part of the demonstrations and the process by which they were provided in each of the treatment groups. We then discuss assignment to and participation in services and the timing of services by treatment group for each state. Subsequent sections cover training services received outside of the demonstrations, claimants’ satisfaction with the services received, and finally, reasons claimants gave for not participating in assigned services.