Stable Employment for the Disadvantaged: Employer Incentives vs. Intensive Intervention
An article in the January 15 edition of The Boston Globe reinforces conclusions of research on employing the disadvantaged that I discussed in two earlier posts.The earlier posts, dealing with the Cincinnati Works and Michigan Work First programs, reported on real-world experience indicating that people facing barriers, such as unstable work history, criminal convictions, and skills deficits, have the best chance of achieving full-time permanent employment if they receive a planned array of services to help overcome the barriers. People provided with intensive employment-readiness intervention are less risky for employers to hire than people selected from an off-the-street pool.
The Globe article reports that a distinctly different approach adopted by the State of Massachusetts has produced distinctly different, less positive results. The Massachusetts Full Employment Program offers wage subsidies and tax breaks to employers as incentives for them to recruit and hire welfare recipients. But
[e]mployers have said the risks of hiring welfare recipients — including high turnover and greater need for job training — are not offset by the tax benefits. They have also complained the program is overly bureaucratic.I will be watching to see what Massachusetts' next move turns out to be. One hopes they will learn from the experience of Cincinnati and Michigan.
Labels: Employee development, Hiring and getting hired
posted by Karen Nelson @ 11:05 PM
<< Home