Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

Implementation of the PRIDE Program

New York City’s Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) was an ambitious program — possibly the first attempt to provide employment services to individuals who had work-limiting medical conditions and to serve them within the context of a large-scale welfare-to-work program with mandatory participation.

The program had a complex organizational and staffing structure that sought to link the welfare and vocational rehabilitation systems, and its implementation exposed important philosophical differences between the two systems. Because the welfare agency had primary responsibility for PRIDE, it is perhaps not surprising that the program looked more like a traditional welfare-to-work program than like a vocational rehabilitation program. Aside from tailoring work activities and job placement services to ensure that participants did not aggravate their health conditions, PRIDE looked similar to New York City’s mainstream welfare-to-work programs, with unpaid work experience as the central program activity.

A multistep process was used to identify welfare recipients who were “employable with limitations,” to evaluate their medical conditions, and to plan an appropriate set of employment activities. There were some bottlenecks in this process, and many members of the PRIDE group did not start receiving employment services until months after they had entered the study.

Despite these operational issues, PRIDE was able to deliver employment services to a large and very disadvantaged group of welfare recipients who had previously been exempt from working requirements. Ultimately, data from the city’s Human Resources Administration (HRA) show that about half the PRIDE group were placed into one of the program’s service tracks. Some of those who never entered a track were eventually found to be fully employable and, presumably, were referred to regular employment services. Others were revaluated and were found to be unable to work, illustrating the difficulty of precisely evaluating the employability of large numbers of individuals whose chronic medical conditions wax and wane over time. Finally, a large proportion of the PRIDE group was considered to be out of compliance with HRA work requirements, and many recipients were sanctioned by having their welfare grant reduced or canceled.

The Framework of the PRIDE Program: Structure and Staffing

Organizational Structure

PRIDE was a very large program with a complex organizational structure. The program was developed and managed by a consortium of agencies including the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA), which administers the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Safety Net programs in New York City; the New York State Education Department, which houses the Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID), the state vocational rehabilitation program; and the New York State Department of Labor, which administered the Welfare-to-Work block grant, a key source of funding for PRIDE.1

HRA often contracts with other agencies to deliver employment services to welfare recipients, and this was also true in PRIDE. Program services were delivered by four nonprofit organizations that had experience serving individuals with disabilities: Federation Employment and Guidance Service (FEGS), the National Center for Disability Services, Goodwill Industries, and the Brooklyn Bureau of Community Service.2

Although these organizations (known as “vendors”) worked most directly with HRA, they were under contract to the New York State Education Department. Each of the vendors served participants from a specific geographic area of the city, and each, in turn, worked with other organizations to deliver services to PRIDE participants. The vendors were paid a fixed amount of $750 per client for completing the initial assessment, and then they received an additional payment of $26 per day for each individual actively participating in program services. Performance-based payments were made for job placements as well as for job retention periods of 30, 60, and 90 days.

Finally, an HRA contractor conducted medical evaluations that determined which public assistance recipients were appropriate for PRIDE and identified their work limitations.

Staffing

Three broad groups of staff played key roles in the PRIDE program. First, a specialized unit of HRA/PRIDE staff was created to confirm recipients’ appropriateness for PRIDE, arrange necessary support services, refer clients to a vendor, monitor their participation, and respond to noncompliance. Although all PRIDE group members were assigned to a case manager in the specialized unit, many were also assigned to a welfare eligibility worker in one of HRA’s district offices.3 There was a plan to outstation HRA staff at each of the PRIDE vendors, but this did not occur during the study period.

Second, PRIDE vendor staff delivered or arranged the PRIDE vocational services, including assessment, unpaid work experience, education and training, and job search assistance. The specific staffing configuration varied somewhat from vendor to vendor but tended to be quite specialized. The typical organization included (in addition to administrative staff):

• A unit of staff responsible for administering the initial intake and assessment process

• Specialized staff responsible for developing unpaid work experience positions and for matching PRIDE participants with these slots

• Case managers who monitored clients’ activities and helped them overcome barriers to participation (Some vendors had separate units of case managers for clients in the two PRIDE service tracks, while others combined the two tracks.)

• A unit of staff responsible for identifying unsubsidized jobs and helping participants with their job search

• A unit of staff specializing in postemployment follow-up of participants who had been placed in unsubsidized jobs

• Instructors for education classes and workshops

Each vendor assigned several dozen staff to PRIDE, and each participant interacted with many people and experienced several “handoffs” as he or she moved through the stages of the program. It is important to note that while all the vendors had organizational experience in serving individuals with disabilities, the line staff who were assigned to PRIDE did not necessarily have such experience.

Third, two or three VESID vocational rehabilitation counselors were stationed at each of the vendor sites. These staff determined which PRIDE participants qualified for vocational rehabilitation services, enrolled participants into VESID’s management information system, helped the vendor staff develop an Individual Plan for Employment for each person (including, for example, skills training opportunities), and monitored participants’ progress. These staff worked closely with PRIDE vendor staff (and less so with PRIDE participants) but reported to supervisors in the VESID field offices.

PRIDE’s Services

Overview of Participant Flow

As shown in Figure 2, the main steps involved in identifying and serving PRIDE clients were as follows:

• Initial identification. Public assistance recipients who asked to be exempted from work requirements for medical reasons were referred by their caseworker to the HRA contractor for a medical evaluation.

• Medical evaluation. After conducting a medical exam focusing on the condition(s) reported by the client, the contractor assigned a Functional Assessment Outcome (FAO) to each client. Some participants were deemed fully employable and were referred to regular welfare-to-work activities; others were temporarily deferred or exempted from work requirements (and, if appropriate, were helped to apply for Supplemental Security Income [SSI]); and still others were deemed “employable with limitations.”4

• Screening and referral. Recipients who were deemed employable with limitations were scheduled for an appointment at the special HRA case management unit.5 HRA staff there conducted a brief interview with the recipient and determined whether he or she was ready to participate in PRIDE. Those who were considered ready to participate went through the random assignment process.6 Those who were randomly assigned to the PRIDE group were scheduled for an initial appointment at the PRIDE vendor serving their borough.7 Control group members were informed that they were excused from work requirements.

• Assessment and track assignment. Once the recipient showed up at the PRIDE vendor, staff conducted another assessment to determine whether she or he would be assigned to the Work Based Education (WBE) or the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) track.

• Preemployment services. Individuals in the WBE track were generally assigned to unpaid work experience three days per week and to a classroom-based education activity two days per week. Those in the VR track were also assigned to unpaid work experience, but their other activities were more individualized. Once considered “job-ready,” participants in both tracks got help looking for jobs.

• Postemployment services. Vendor staff attempted to follow up with participants for six months after placement in an unsubsidized job.

 

[D]

 

A vendor could refer a participant back to HRA at any point if the person failed to attend required activities or if there was a significant change in his or her medical condition. As discussed further below, this may help to explain why many participants did not complete the vendor assessment process.

As shown near the bottom of Figure 2, the evaluation design measures the effectiveness of PRIDE by placing the point of random assignment just prior to the time when individuals were referred to a vendor. However, as discussed further below, being “employable with limitations” is not necessarily a static condition. After entering the study, some people in both groups were subsequently revaluated as being fully employable and were referred to regular (non-PRIDE) employment services; others were reevaluated as being fully exempt.

Intake and Assessment

PRIDE was intended to serve an “in-between” group of welfare recipients — those whose medical problems were too serious to allow participation in regular work activities but not serious enough that the recipient would qualify for SSI benefits. Thus, the first tasks were to identify recipients who were employable with limitations, to determine the type and severity of their medical problems, and to craft an appropriate set of employment services.

As summarized above, HRA developed a three-step process to identify and assess PRIDE clients. MDRC did not collect detailed information about the first two steps in this process (the medical evaluation and the appointment with HRA/PRIDE staff), since these occurred before individuals entered the study, but it did focus in some depth on the third step: the vendors’ assessment of participants.

The Assessment Process

The assessment process worked somewhat differently at each vendor, but typically recipients began by attending a group orientation, taking a reading and math skills assessment test (for example, the Tests of Adult Basic Education [TABE]), and providing information on their education and work history. Based on information from the medical evaluation (if available) and an interview by vendor staff, recipients whose medical conditions were clearly less serious were assigned to the WBE track.8 Those with more serious medical problems began the VESID eligibility determination process, since participants who were assigned to the VR track needed to meet state requirements for vocational rehabilitation services. The entire assessment process was supposed to be completed within 60 days.

According to VESID rules, in order to be eligible for vocational rehabilitation services, individuals must have a “medically diagnosed physical, developmental, or emotional disability” that creates “significant impediments” to the person’s ability to work. In addition, there must be a “reasonable expectation” that VESID services will enable the individual to work, and VESID services must be “required” to enable him or her to work. Vendor staff, with assistance and guidance from the outstationed VESID counselors, prepared the required application packet.

Assessment Outcomes

Data from HRA’s citywide tracking system show that a large proportion of the PRIDE group never completed the vendor assessment process. Within two years after random assignment, only about half the PRIDE group members were ever placed in one of the PRIDE service tracks, and the average time between random assignment and placement was about six months.

A case file review conducted in 2002 tells a similar story. This review followed about 100 cases for four to five months after random assignment, using a variety of data sources. It found that about 90 percent of the sample members who were referred from the case management unit to a PRIDE vendor actually showed up at the vendor’s. However, only about one-third of the 100 cases completed the vendor assessment and were assigned to a service track within four to five months.9 Most of the sample members who were not assigned to a track were referred back to HRA, either because the recipient failed to comply with the assessment process or because the vendor felt that the recipient was not employable.

These data do not necessarily mean that only half the PRIDE group received any employment services through HRA. First, at least two of the PRIDE vendors scheduled participants for job readiness workshops during the assessment period. Second, 55 percent of the PRIDE group became nonexempt at some point within two years after random assignment, and these individuals may have participated in employment activities outside the program. Overall, 76 percent of the PRIDE group either were assigned to a PRIDE service track or became nonexempt.10

Nevertheless, field research conducted by MDRC found that there were some significant bottlenecks in the assessment process. First, vendor staff consistently complained about the medical evaluations, asserting that they frequently arrived late, were out of date, or were of poor quality. Further, staff reported that many of the evaluations were superficial or “cookie-cutter” templates and did not provide useful guidance on job-related limitations. Finally, they noted that many recipients reported medical conditions that were not mentioned in the evaluation report. While acknowledging that some recipients were “playing the system” by reporting different medical problems to different people, vendor staff were understandably reluctant to place recipients in work activities without definitive and detailed information on their medical conditions. In many cases, the vendors directed recipients to obtain medical statements from their personal physicians — a step that could add weeks or even months to the assessment process — even though the HRA medical evaluation was supposed to take precedence over such statements.

Second, the vendors reported that many recipients did not fully comply with the assessment process. It was straightforward to deal with recipients who did not show up at the vendor’s at all (they were referred back to HRA), but partial compliance — for example, missed appointments and missed deadlines — could cause significant delays.

Third, it was clear that some cases fell through cracks in the vendors’ complex intake processes, and some of the vendors reported that there were not enough VESID staff on-site to handle the volume of applications.

To some extent, these bottlenecks and operational issues may be attributed to the sheer volume of clients coming into the PRIDE program, as well as to the program’s unusually rapid startup. PRIDE started very quickly in 1999, targeting 21,000 welfare recipients who had been deemed temporarily exempt from work requirements. Some vendors reported that they were overwhelmed by the large number of referrals and that they never fully recovered.

More generally, however, the problems reflect the complexity of the task at hand. By their nature, many chronic medical conditions tend to wax and wane and are difficult to diagnose with precision. Going a step further, to specify how these conditions affect the kinds of work that a person can do, can be even more difficult. Doing so in the context of a very large, mandatory welfare-to-work program serving recipients who have asked to be exempted from work activities is daunting.

Employment and Education Services

Although PRIDE was designed to serve recipients who had work-limiting medical conditions, the core employment activities — built around unpaid work experience — were similar to those in New York City’s regular welfare-to-work system. PRIDE did not provide clinical services. The program was designed explicitly for recipients whose medical conditions were stable, and the vendors were not expected, for example, to check whether participants were taking their medications or were keeping their appointments with physicians.

The Service Tracks

HRA’s data show that from 60 percent to 65 percent of the PRIDE group members who completed the vendor assessment process were assigned to the WBE track and that the remainder were assigned to the VR track. Vendor staff reported that many WBE participants had relatively mild medical conditions but very low literacy levels and/or limited English language proficiency. Participants in the VR track had more severe medical problems.

The WBE track was highly structured. All recipients were required to participate in activities for seven hours per day, five days per week, for up to six months (with a second six-month period if necessary). Typically, three days were spent in an unpaid work experience position, and the other two days were spent in an education activity, usually adult basic education or English as a Second Language (ESL) classes. In some cases, WBE clients could participate in short-term skills training courses instead of education.

Recipients in the VR track were required to participate for as few as 25 hours per week. Under VESID rules, each participant developed an Individual Plan for Employment. Outside of PRIDE, the plan for a VESID client might include a wide range of activities. In PRIDE, consistent with HRA’s emphasis, clients were expected to participate in unpaid work experience as their central activity. Vendor staff were not able to provide specific information about the other activities in which VR clients participated. Some mentioned training opportunities, but very few respondents to the ERA 12-Month Survey reported participating in any vocational training. It appears that the most common activity, apart from unpaid work experience, was individual or group job search or job readiness activities.

Both VESID and vendor staff spoke frequently about the sharp differences in philosophy between the welfare and the vocational rehabilitation systems. The VR system, which grew out of a 1920 federal law funding employment services for disabled war veterans, typically serves individuals who come forward seeking help, offers a broad menu of possible services, and is able to work with individuals for long periods. In contrast, the welfare system –– in New York as in many other places –– makes work mandatory, allows a fairly narrow set of services, and pushes for quick outcomes.

As a result, VESID staff reported that the VR track in PRIDE looked very different from typical VESID services delivered outside the program. They also noted that typical PRIDE participants did not necessarily have more serious medical conditions than typical VESID clients but, not surprisingly, tended to be much less motivated and to have more nonmedical problems, such as family crises and unstable child care.

In the end, many provider staff reported that, other than the differing number of required hours of participation, there was not a sharp distinction between the services provided in the WBE and VR tracks; both tracks typically involved a mix of unpaid work experience and educational activities, along with job placement assistance. As noted earlier, all the vendors mixed WBE and VR participants in work experience sites, and two of the four mixed the two tracks within the caseloads of individual case managers.

Work Experience

New York is one of the few large municipalities in the country that makes heavy use of unpaid work experience, and it has done so since at least the 1980s. This activity is designed to serve several purposes: to assess how recipients function in a work environment, to help recipients build their résumés, and to enforce the notion that welfare is a mutual obligation.

Each of the PRIDE vendors developed a set of work experience positions geared to the program’s specialized population. The PRIDE slots –– separate from the pool of work experience positions for the general welfare population –– were designed for individuals with medical problems. For example, there were slots that did not require heavy lifting that might aggravate back problems and slots that did not require the use of chemicals that might cause problems for people with respiratory conditions. There were also slots for participants who did not speak English; for example, one vendor had several slots geared to monolingual Spanish and Cantonese speakers. Three of the four vendors reported that they had 100 or more slots available in all, generally in nonprofit organizations. At least two of the vendors maintained work experience slots within their own agencies.

Most of the vendors had specialized staff who were responsible for identifying work-site placements for both WBE and VR participants. (There were not separate slots for recipients in each track.) These staff also matched participants with available work sites, considering such factors as geography, work limitations, language barriers, and career interests.11 Some work-site supervisors interviewed participants before “hiring” them, while others did not. Generally, once a participant had been placed on a site, it was up to the case manager to monitor his or her attendance and performance. Work sites agreed to report on participants’ attendance and progress, and it appears that vendor staff were able to track participants’ attendance fairly closely.

Education and Training

As noted above, almost all WBE participants and some VR participants enrolled in education activities. All the PRIDE vendors offered classes to prepare for the General Educational Development (GED) exam as well as classes in adult basic education (often called “pre-GED”) and English as a Second Language (ESL). Scores on the initial reading and writing tests administered during the intake process were used to place participants at the appropriate level. More advanced participants who were interested in clerical jobs could also enroll in computer classes that taught them how to use basic office software. Three of the vendors employed instructors for the education courses, while one subcontracted with another organization to operate its classes. Observations by MDRC staff suggest that the education activities were well run but generally were typical of adult education programs that one might find in the community.

Job Development and Job Placement

All the PRIDE vendors had a mechanism for identifying participants who –– based on their performance in work experience and/or education –– were deemed “job-ready.” In most cases, this was a subjective decision made by case managers and other staff, but several vendors said that they started to consider job readiness after participants had been at a work site for one to two months. Once considered job-ready, the participant began working with a group of vendor staff specializing in job development and job placement. The specific activities included a mix of one-on-one meetings with job developers, who would refer participants to specific jobs, and group classes or workshops focusing on job search skills, including how to develop a résumé and how to interview for a job. As with unpaid work experience, the vendors aimed to identify and place participants in jobs that were appropriate, given their medical conditions.

Postemployment Services

PRIDE followed up with participants for at least six months after placement in a job, to try to promote employment retention. MDRC’s field research suggests that the vendors’ postplacement components were not very well developed; the key goal was to verify that participants were still employed.

Responses to Noncompliance

Vendor staff reported that PRIDE participants frequently failed to show up for assigned activities. If follow-up letters and phone calls failed to engage such a recipient, the vendor would initiate the enforcement process by notifying HRA. According to HRA’s database, about three-fourths of the PRIDE group had at least one instance of “failure to comply,” and most such infractions related to the program’s requirements. Unlike in PRIDE’s successor program — WeCARE –– the PRIDE vendors were not expected to reach out to noncompliant recipients. (“WeCARE” stands for the Wellness, Comprehensive Assessment, Rehabilitation, and Employment program; see Box 1.)

Vendor staff frequently complained that, in their view, PRIDE’s participation mandate had “no teeth,” because recipients who were sent back to HRA as noncompliant were frequently referred to the same vendor and were not sanctioned. HRA staff reported that they followed up on noncompliance according to the agency’s regulations, which include due process protections for recipients. In fact, sanctioning was quite frequent: About 32 percent of the PRIDE group were sanctioned within two years after random assignment. (Sanctions are common throughout New York City’s TANF program. In fact, HRA data show that, during the study period, the sanctioning rate for TANF clients in PRIDE was lower than the rate for the general TANF population.)

How PRIDE Staff Spent Their Time

To better understand the nature of case management in employment retention and advancement programs, MDRC administered a staff “time study” in most of the ERA sites. The study collected detailed information on the nature of staff-client interactions and on the topics covered in those interactions. In addition, the study collected information on how ERA case managers typically spend their time each day. The PRIDE time study was administered in July 2003; all four PRIDE vendors participated, and 38 case managers completed the study.

The PRIDE vendors’ case managers had an average caseload of 42 participants during the period when the time study was administered. Over half the case managers had caseloads of between 41 and 60 clients, and very few reported larger caseloads. As expected, given the design of the intervention, few participants were working in unsubsidized employment.

 

Box 1 After PRIDE: HRA’s WeCARE Initiative In 2004, PRIDE was phased out and replaced by the WeCARE (Wellness, Comprehensive Assessment, Rehabilitation, and Employment) program, an even larger and more ambitious initiative. WeCARE serves a similar population — welfare recipients with work-limiting medical or mental health conditions — but is structured differently than PRIDE. Under the new program, a wider set of services and populations are brought under one roof by two main vendors (each with a number of subcontractors), each serving particular boroughs of the city. Recipients who report that they have a medical condition that prevents them from participating in regular work activities are referred directly to one of the vendors, which conducts a comprehensive “biopsychosocial assessment” that includes a medical exam. Unless the recipient is found to be fully employable, she or he remains with the vendor, which provides a range of services. The vendor develops a “wellness plan” for individuals with untreated or unstable medical conditions, performs diagnostic vocational evaluations to assess functional limitations, provides tailored employment services and intensive case management, and provides assistance with the SSI application process when appropriate. HRA estimated that 45,000 people would be referred to the WeCARE vendors each year.

 

[D]

Figure 3 shows that 39 percent of PRIDE case managers’ time was spent in contact with clients; this is relatively high, compared with the other programs in the ERA project. Time not spent with clients was typically spent on administrative duties, like general paperwork (23 percent of total time), and on monitoring clients’ participation in services (7 percent of total time) and attending staff meetings (6 percent of total time).

As shown in Appendix Table G.2, the majority of client contacts (60 percent) were in person and, as expected, were almost all office visits. The lower rows of the table show that most client contacts (67 percent) were initiated by staff rather than by clients.

Finally, as shown in Appendix Table G.3, during all client contacts, the most common topics addressed were participation and sanctioning issues (33 percent of all contacts), general check-ins (22 percent), personal or family issues (18 percent), and assistance with reemployment (16 percent).

Services for the Control Group

Recipients who were assigned to the control group were treated as they would been treated before PRIDE was created. They were not referred to a PRIDE vendor, and they were exempt from participation in work activities unless their medical status changed.

For much of the study period, control group members were assigned to one of a few designated HRA caseworkers who understood the control group status. Immediately after random assignment, recipients assigned to the control group met with one of these caseworkers, who explained the meaning of the assignment and gave the individuals a list of community agencies that offered employment services that might meet their needs. As noted above, however, individuals in the control group were not required to participate in these (or any) services unless their status changed to “nonexempt.”

HRA staff created a special code to prevent the data system from automatically generating introductory letters or scheduling control group members for appointments related to work activities. Although this system did not work perfectly (perhaps because caseworkers did not code all cases correctly), the tracking system shows that less than 2 percent of control group members were placed in a PRIDE service track within one year after random assignment and that less than 5 percent were so placed within two years after random assignment. (As noted above, about half the PRIDE group were placed in a service track within two years.)

Although very few control group members were erroneously served by PRIDE, about 33 percent of the control group became nonexempt at some point within two years after random assignment. (As noted above, the corresponding figure for the PRIDE group was even higher: 55 percent became nonexempt at some point.)12 These individuals were probably scheduled for work activities through HRA’s regular welfare-to-work program — as would have occurred in the absence of PRIDE. The control group ceased to exist in September 2005. At that point, control group members who were still receiving welfare and were still considered employable with limitations were integrated into HRA’s new WeCARE initiative. (See Box 1.)

---

1 Created by Congress in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Welfare-to-Work Program provided special funding to serve hard-to-employ welfare recipients. (back)

2 Established in 1934 by the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies, FEGS has evolved into a very large, diverse human service organization with operations in more than 250 locations. The National Center for Disability Services (now known as “Abilities!”) was founded in 1952 and is based in Albertson, New York. The Brooklyn Bureau of Community Service was founded in 1866 and provides a range of social services to more than 12,000 people per year. Goodwill Industries of Greater New York and Northern New Jersey, one of the oldest Goodwill affiliates in the United States, serves 75,000 people per year in a wide range of programs. There was a fifth vendor, Fedcap Rehabilitation Service, but its contract ended around the time this study began. Research sample members who were assigned to this vendor were transferred to one of the others. (back)

3 In some cases, the eligibility worker was stationed in the same building as the case manager. (back)

4 There were eight FAO levels: FAO 1 (nonexempt), FAO 2 (nonexempt — limitations), FAO 3 (nonexempt — extensive limitations), FAO 4 (substance abuse), FAO 5 (HIV), FAO 6 (temporary deferral from work activities, for example, during a high-risk pregnancy), FAO 7 (exempt — for an unstable medical condition requiring a “Wellness or Rehab Plan”), and FAO 8 (potential SSI recipient). In general, PRIDE was designed for those who were assigned an FAO 2 or FAO 3. (back)

5 Initially, the PRIDE caseload also included recipients who were receiving help applying for SSI benefits. Individuals in this category were not included in the evaluation. (back)

6 If the only reason an individual was not ready for referral was child care issues, the individual was randomly assigned and was provided with assistance to address child care needs if assigned to the program group (control group members could also obtain assistance if requested). If there were other reasons the individual was not ready to be referred, the worker would determine with the individual how to resolve the issues and would schedule a return appointment. (back)

7 A sophisticated automated system managed the scheduling process. HRA workers would check the system to see whether any intake slots were available in the near future at the provider serving the participant’s borough of residence. If not, the recipient would be referred to another provider. (back)

8 Some vendors reported that they occasionally fast-tracked PRIDE participants directly into job search activities instead of assigning them to one of the two tracks. (back)

9 As noted above, about half the PRIDE group were assigned to a PRIDE service track within two years after random assignment. The case file review followed cases for only four to five months, finding that about one-third were placed in a track during that shorter period. (back)

10 Within the two-year follow-up period, about 80 percent of the PRIDE group were either placed in a track, reevaluated as being nonexempt, or sanctioned for failing to comply with program rules. (back)

11 Some vendors allowed participants to identify their own work sites, for example, by contacting local nonprofit organizations that were looking for volunteers. (back)

12 MDRC does not have detailed information on the process used to reevaluate clients’ exemption statuses. However, it is notable that individuals in the PRIDE group were substantially more likely to have had their status changed to nonexempt during the study period. It seems likely that their exposure to PRIDE’s requirements may have triggered more frequent reevaluations. (back)

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next