clasprpt lep 8-22-03 · training services under the workforce investment act more accessible to job...

languagethe of

Opportunity

CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICYCENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY

Heide Spruck WrigleyElise Richer

Karin MartinsonHitomi Kubo

Julie Strawn

August 2003

Expanding Employment Prospects for Adults

with Limited English Skills

languagethe of

Opportunity

Heide Spruck WrigleyElise Richer

Karin MartinsonHitomi Kubo

Julie Strawn

August 2003

Expanding Employment Prospects for Adults

with Limited English Skills

languagethe of

Opportunity

AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank those whose financial support made this report possible: the NationalInstitute for Literacy, the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Moriah Fund, the JoyceFoundation, and the Public Welfare Foundation. We are also grateful for other support for our workforcedevelopment efforts given by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and an anonymous donor. We would alsolike to thank John Comings of the National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy, ShawnFremstad of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Gayle Hamilton of the Manpower DemonstrationResearch Corporation, Tyler Moran of the National Immigration Law Center, Garrett Murphy of theNational Adult Education Professional Development Consortium (NAEPDC), and Johan Uvin of theCommonwealth Corporation, for reviewing a draft and providing helpful comments.

We are especially grateful to the staff and the students at the sites we visited for helping us learn abouttheir programs and these issues. In particular, we would like to thank the following individuals: at theCenter for Employment Training (San Jose, California), Erica Huey; at the Chinese American ServiceLeague (Chicago, Illinois), Ricky Lam, Edward Zita, and Lois Chen; at El Paso Community College (El Paso, Texas), Sara Martinez; at the Guadalupe Center (Kansas City, Missouri), Memo Lona; at theHIRE Center (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), Roger Hinkle, Bertha Gonzalez, and Anne Walsh; at the Institutodel Progreso Latino (Chicago, Illinois), Tom Dubois, Betsy Sweet, and Chris Carstens; at the InternationalInstitute of the East Bay (Oakland, California), Eve Castellanos and Carrie Parrish; at the InternationalInstitute of Minnesota (St. Paul, Minnesota), Jane Graupman and Michael Donohue; at LifetrackResources (St. Paul, Minnesota), Jan Mueller and Tom Cytron-Hysom; at Jewish Vocational Services (SanFrancisco, California), Jim Torrens, Crystelle Egan, and Tony Albert.

The Language of Opportunity: Expanding Employment Prospects for Adults with Limited English Skills was fund-ed in part under contract ED-02-PO-1535 between the National Institute for Literacy and NAEPDC. Anyopinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided funding forthis report. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Instituteor any agency of the U.S. Government.

About the AuthorsHeide Spruck Wrigley is a consultant associated with Aguirre International. She specializes in educationand training for language-minority adults and has recently completed a two-year study on language litera-cy and employment on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Elise Richer is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy. She researches and writesprimarily on issues relating to workforce development and public benefits.

Karin Martinson is a consultant based in Washington, D.C. She has a wide range of experience as both aresearcher and a policy analyst on many issues related to low-income families, including welfare reform,employment and training programs, and program operations and service delivery.

Hitomi Kubo is a Policy Research Associate who works on workforce development and welfare reformissues with the Center for Law and Social Policy. Much of her work has focused on program implementa-tion and service delivery for underserved populations.

Julie Strawn is a Senior Policy Analyst who works on workforce development and welfare reform issueswith the Center for Law and Social Policy. She focuses in particular on job advancement and access topostsecondary education for low-income adults.

Copyright © 2003 by the Center for Law and Social Policy, the National Institute for Literacy, and the National Adult

Education Professional Development Consortium. All rights reserved.

iii

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................5

Adults with Limited English Skills: Who Are They and How Are They Faring? ...................7

Can English Language and Job Training Services Make a Difference for Labor Market Success? ................................................................................................15

Creating Quality Job Training Programs for Adults with Limited English Skills ................19Recommendations for Program Design and Operations.................................................19Recommendations for National and State Policies...........................................................30

Endnotes.................................................................................................................................37

Appendix: Promising Program Models and Practices ..........................................................43

Table of Contents

Expanding Employment Prospects for Adults with Limited English Skills

1

Adults who have limited English skills repre-sent a significant and growing segment of theworkforce in the United States. More thaneight million working-age adults in the UnitedStates—5 percent of all adults—speak Englishvery poorly or do not speak it at all. Most areimmigrants representing a wide range of coun-tries and cultural backgrounds. Over the nexttwo decades, the percentage of Americanworkers whose English is limited will keepincreasing due to continued growth in immi-gration and to the aging of the native-bornworkforce. In fact, immigrants are projectedto account for all of the net growth in the 25- to 54-year-old workforce during this timeperiod.1 Immigrant populations are growingacross the nation, even in states and localitiesthat have not historically been immigrant destinations.

While some immigrants are highly educated,many lack education credentials and have lowlevels of literacy. As a result, they are concen-trated in low-wage work and many live inpoverty. Moreover, the 1996 welfare reform laweliminated some publicly funded supports forimmigrants, which may have worsened theireconomic condition.

Individuals with limited English proficiency(LEP) clearly need to improve their Englishlanguage abilities and acquire job-specific

skills if they are to advance in the labor mar-ket. Unfortunately little scientific research hasbeen conducted on the most effective ways todeliver English language, literacy, and jobtraining services to this population. The bestavailable data come from the extensive scien-tific research conducted on employment pro-grams for other groups of low-skilled individu-als, principally those receiving cash assistanceor welfare—a group that includes immigrantsand refugees with limited English skills as wellas native-born Americans. This research showsthat the most effective programs for movinglow-income individuals into work combine jobtraining with basic skills instruction or providea mix of services, including job search, educa-tion, and job training. These programs pro-duced larger and longer-lasting effects onemployment and earnings than programs inwhich the primary program activity was jobsearch or basic education.

More help is urgently needed. Currentresources for language and job training servic-es are dwarfed by the need. In addition, fewprograms focus on providing the nexus of language, cultural, and specific job skills thatis key to helping low-income adults with limit-ed English skills increase their wages and eco-nomic status—and to helping our nation’seconomy grow. Failure to assist immigrants in

Executive Summary

improving their language and job skills is like-ly to hurt workforce productivity over the longterm. Other key national priorities, such asmeeting high educational standards in ourpublic schools and helping welfare recipientsmove toward economic self-sufficiency, alsodepend in critical ways on expanding opportu-nities for individuals with limited English skillsand helping them gain the skills they need toget ahead economically and socially.

In this report, we provide recommendationsfor creating high-quality education and train-ing services for adults with limited Englishskills. Because scientific research on such serv-ices is so limited, only a few of these recom-mendations are drawn from scientific evalua-tions. Most of these recommendations aredrawn from other, non-experimental researchin the fields of adult English as a second lan-guage (ESL) and training and from site visitsand interviews with practitioners at promisingESL programs (see the Appendix for profiles of these programs). We provide rec-ommendations on ways to improve programdesign and operations and then suggest stepsnational and state policymakers can take toexpand and support effective services for thispopulation.

Recommendations for program designinclude:

■ Create programs that combine languageand literacy services with job skills train-ing. To make this approach work forimmigrants who speak little English, lan-guage instruction should be tied to train-ing in particular occupations and shouldincorporate key elements, including gener-al workplace communication skills, job-specific language needed for training, certification and testing, and soft skills tohelp navigate U.S. workplace culture.

■ Adapt existing education, employment,and training programs to the needs ofindividuals with limited English skills.These adjustments include using assess-

ments appropriate for measuring languageproficiency, not just basic skills, buildingon existing work experience and educa-tional background, hiring bilingual staff,and using “hands-on” training to make jobtraining more accessible.

■ Offer short-term bridge programs thattransition participants to job training andhigher education more quickly. Currently,LEP adults must typically follow a sequen-tial path through education and trainingthat starts with participation in a generalEnglish language program (which mayrequire completion of several levels),moves to the acquisition of a GED, andthen offers possible participation in a jobtraining program or higher education. Formost adults with little English and fewresources, this path takes much too long.

■ Create career pathways for adults withlimited English skills. Because wageadvancement is critical to long-term suc-cess in the labor market, staff should workwith participants to shift their focus from“getting a job” to “planning for a career.”

■ Consider the merits of bilingual job train-ing in areas where English is not neces-sary for job placement. In some areas inthe United States—for example along theU.S.-Mexico border and in large ethnicenclaves in Chicago or Los Angeles—English proficiency is not necessarily arequirement for entry-level jobs.

■ Provide bilingual advising and job devel-opment responsive to the needs of for-eign-born adults trying to adjust to theexpectations of U.S. society. Successfulprograms often include support and advis-ing conducted by bilingual individualswho are sensitive to cross-cultural issues,such as women being discouraged to takeon work considered to be a “man’s job” orfamilies living in crisis as a result of hav-ing been uprooted.

The Language of Opportunity

2

Specific actions federal and state policymakerscan take to improve labor market outcomesfor individuals with limited English include:

■ Make combined language, literacy, andtraining services to adults with limitedEnglish a key focus of federal adult edu-cation and employment and training programs.

■ Make federally funded employment andtraining services under the WorkforceInvestment Act more accessible to jobseekers with limited proficiency in Englishand provide referrals to appropriate training.

■ Give states the flexibility under the welfarelaw to provide low-income LEP parentswith services designed to increase theirskills and thus their earning potential.

■ Allow states to provide TemporaryAssistance for Needy Families benefits andservices to legal immigrants regardless oftheir dates of entry.

■ Address the needs of low-income LEPadults in federal higher education policies.

■ Fund scientifically based research on“what works” in training and educationfor adults with limited proficiency inEnglish.

■ Link federally funded English languageand job training efforts and promote pro-gram improvement through common defi-nitions for data collection and technicalassistance across adult education, ESL, andjob training programs.

■ Assist states and localities with new andgrowing immigrant populations to createan infrastructure of workforce develop-ment services for them.

■ Support the development of “ESL work-place certificates,” which establish Englishlanguage competencies needed in particu-lar jobs.

If federal and state governments and local pro-grams adopted the kinds of changes describedhere, and those changes were accompanied bysubstantially increased funding, many moreLEP adults could improve their employmentprospects. And increasing the economic well-being of our country’s large and growingimmigrant population would pay importantdividends not only for these adults and theirfamilies, but also for our nation as a whole.


3


4

Adults who have limited English skills, usuallyimmigrants or refugees, often face poor labormarket prospects. The number of such individ-uals in the U.S. workforce has grown dramati-cally over the past decade—accounting for halfof all workforce growth—yet the workforcedevelopment implications of this growth havereceived scant attention.2 Current resourcesfor language and job training services aredwarfed by the need. Moreover, few programsfocus on providing the nexus of language, cultural, and specific job skills that is key tohelping low-income adults with limited Englishskills increase their wages and economic status—and to helping our nation’s economy grow.

More help is urgently needed. Virtually all ofour nation’s new workforce growth for theforeseeable future will come from immigra-tion, so failure to assist immigrants in improv-ing their language and job skills is likely tohurt workforce productivity over the long

term. Other key national priorities, such asmeeting high educational standards in ourpublic schools and helping welfare recipientsmove toward economic self-sufficiency, alsodepend in critical ways on expanding opportu-nities for individuals with limited English skillsand helping them gain the skills they need toget ahead economically and socially.

In this paper, we describe the demographicsand economic circumstances of low-incomeadults with limited English proficiency (LEP)as well as the language and job training servic-es available to them. We summarize lessonsfrom scientific evaluation research on employ-ment programs for low-skilled adults and pro-vide recommendations for policy and practicethat would increase opportunities for LEPadults to gain access to higher-paying jobs.Finally, we profile several programs that illus-trate some of these promising practices.

Introduction


5


6


7

Adults in the United States with limitedEnglish skills are a diverse group. Most areimmigrants representing a wide range of coun-tries and cultural backgrounds, includingsome who are highly educated. Many of thosewith limited English skills, however, have lowlevels of literacy and formal education in theirnative languages as well. This section providesinformation on the size of the limited Englishproficient population, their education andskills levels, and their labor market prospects.

■ More than eight million working-ageadults in the United States—5 percent ofall adults—do not speak English well orat all.

The 2000 Census found that among adultswho speak a language other than English athome, 2.6 million do not speak English at all.An additional 5.7 million do not speak Englishwell, adding up to 8.3 million adults—nearly 5percent of the adult population—who speakEnglish poorly.3 Beyond this, another (7.2 mil-lion) have some English verbal skills, but stilldo not speak English very well. The majority

of these 15.5 million adults would likely beclassified as having limited English proficien-cy. (See Figure 1.)

Because there is little direct information avail-able about LEP individuals, however, in thispaper we generally use the foreign-born orimmigrant population as a proxy for thosewith limited English skills.4 The immigrantpopulation in the U.S. is over 32 million, mak-ing up over 11 percent of the country.5 (SeeBox 1.) The share of the adult population thatdoes not speak English well is greater in statesand cities with larger numbers of immigrants.In Los Angeles and New York City (whose met-ropolitan areas are home to one-third of allimmigrants in the U.S.6), large majorities(from two-thirds to three-quarters) of immi-grant adults do not speak English well.7 The2000 Census found a number of states whereparticularly large shares of the adult popula-tion have limited English skills, includingCalifornia (12 percent), Texas (8 percent),Arizona (7 percent), New York (7 percent),and Nevada (7 percent).

Adults with Limited EnglishSkills: Who Are They and How

Are They Faring?

■ Adults with limited English skills repre-sent a growing and critical segment of theU.S. workforce.

Half of the growth in our workforce duringthe 1990s was due to immigration. By contrast,in the 1980s, immigrants accounted for justone-fourth of workforce growth and, in the1970s, just 10 percent.8 (See Figure 2.)Further, over the next two decades, the per-centage of American workers whose English islimited will keep increasing due to continuedgrowth in immigration and to the aging of thenative-born workforce. Immigrants are project-ed to account for all of the net growth in the25- to 54-year-old workforce during this timeperiod.9

■ Many immigrants have arrived recently,as more people came to the U.S. in the1990s than in any other decade in ourhistory. Recently arrived immigrants aresettling in different states than earlierimmigrants, creating new workforceopportunities and challenges.

The Census estimates that over 13 millionlegal immigrants arrived between 1990 and2000, with about 58 percent arriving between1995 and 2000.10 New arrivals are particularlydiverse and are increasingly likely to comefrom countries where English is not the pri-mary language. In recent years, the most com-mon country of origin has been Mexico, butsubstantial shares also come from India, thePhilippines, China, Vietnam, the Caribbean,and European countries (including the for-mer Soviet Union). (See Figure 3.)

Overall, immigrants are still concentrated insix states that have traditionally been home tomany immigrants. California, New York, Texas,Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey are home toabout 70 percent of all immigrants, with atleast one million (and often several million)immigrants living in each state.11 Immigrantsalso remain concentrated in cities—95 percentof immigrants live in metropolitan areas—andin New York and Los Angeles in particular,


8

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

1990s1980s1970s

10.2%

26.7%

50.3%

Sum, A., Fogg, N., Harrington, P. with Khatiwada, I.,Trubb’sky, M., and Palma, S. (2002, August). Immi-grant workers and the great American job machine:The contributions of new foreign immigration tonational and regional labor force growth in the1990s. Boston, MA: Northeastern University.

Figure 2. Share of Workforce GrowthDue to Immigration in the 1970s, 1980s

and 1990s

Figure 1. Number of 18- to 64-Year-OldsWho Do Not Speak English at Home

(By Level of English Skills)

17.6million7.2

million

5.7million

2.6million

Speak English very well

Speak English well

Do not speak English well

Do not speak English at all

CLASP calculations from U.S. Census Bureau. (2002).Retrieved from tables produced at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_lang=enon September 25, 2002. Figures include the District ofColumbia, but not Puerto Rico or other territories.

where close to one-third of the country’simmigrants live.12 These states and cities needtargeted programs of a substantial scope ifthey are to help large numbers of immigrantsintegrate.

On the other hand, it appears that new immi-grants are increasingly choosing new places tolive. In the U.S. as a whole, about one-quarterof all immigrants in 2000 had arrived recently(since 1995 or later), but in several states—Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, and North Carolina—close to 40 percent of all immigrants hadarrived recently. A 2001 study identified 19states that did not traditionally receive largenumbers of immigrants, but have seen theirimmigrant populations grow faster than therest of the country. Between 1990 and 1999,Arkansas, Idaho, Minnesota, Nevada, andNorth Carolina saw their immigrant popula-tions rise by over 150 percent.13 In addition,many localities in some states, such as Virginiaand Tennessee, saw exceptionally high growthin immigration in the 1990s.14

Regions with a growing population of immi-grants face both workforce opportunities andservice challenges. To tap into this new laborforce, employers must be prepared to workwith employees with limited English skills.Demand for certain types of services—particu-larly English language and job training servic-es for individuals unfamiliar with the U.S.workplace—will also increase.

■ Recent arrivals tend to have lowerEnglish skills than other immigrants.Their limited English skills affect theirability to find work and earn enough tosupport their families.

The 1990 Census showed that almost half ofthe immigrants who had arrived within theprevious three years did not speak English,compared with one-quarter of all foreign-bornresidents.15 Simply remaining in the U.S. helpsmany immigrants improve their English lan-guage ability, although without formal instruc-

tion it is not clear what fluency level theyachieve or whether they will be able toincrease their literacy levels sufficiently toaccess higher wage jobs.

Spoken English appears to be an importantcomponent of economic stability and successin the U.S. Although few studies have collectedemployment rates for immigrants according toEnglish ability, those that have show a strongconnection. For example, the 1999 RefugeeSurvey shows that only 26 percent of refugeeswho did not speak English were employed,compared with 77 percent of those who spokeEnglish well or fluently.16 A review of LosAngeles’s welfare-to-work program found thatemployment rates for Hispanic and Asian participants proficient in English were 10 tonearly 30 percentage points higher thanemployment rates for Hispanic and Asian par-ticipants who did not speak English well.17


9

Other 3%Africa

3%

South America

6%

Caribbean 9%

Other Asia 14%

Philippines 4%

India 4% China

5%

Europe 16%

Other Central America

6%

Mexico 30%

Figure 3. Country or Region of Originfor the Foreign-Born Population, 2000

Source: CLASP calculations from U.S. Census Bureau.(2002). Table PCT027. Place of birth for the foreign-born population. Census Supplementary Survey 2001.Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov, on July18, 2003.


10

Box 1. Who Are Immigrants in the United States?

The foreign-born population is composed of three groups, which are described below. It is

important to keep in mind that most immigrant families (that is, families with a foreign-born

head-of-household) include members with a variety of immigration statuses. The Urban

Institute has found, for example, that 85 percent of families with at least one noncitizen parent

include a child who is a U.S. citizen. In fact, nearly 10 percent of all families with children in

the U.S. include a noncitizen parent and a citizen child.18

Legal immigrants. This is by far the largest group—the Census estimates the number of legal

immigrants at over 21 million.19 Legal immigrants come to the U.S. through a variety of chan-

nels, most commonly as relatives of other legal immigrants or citizens (close to two-thirds in

recent years). The remainder are most likely to enter as employees (having been recruited by

businesses) or as winners of the Diversity Visa lottery.20 Legal immigrants are eligible to

become naturalized U.S. citizens after three or five years of permanent residence, depending

on their circumstances. As of 1997, the Census Bureau estimated that 35 percent of the

foreign-born population had naturalized.21

Refugees. Refugees are legal immigrants who arrive in the U.S. under special circumstances.

Typically they have left their home country under duress, often after suffering personal and

material hardships.22 They are the only group of immigrants who arrive to an established, gov-

ernment-funded resettlement program, which guarantees them assistance, including English

classes linked to employment services, for at least four to eight months after arrival. Refugees

are also the smallest category of immigrants: from 1990 to 2000, less than one million refugees

entered the U.S.; thus, refugees make up only about 7 percent of all immigrant households.23

However, refugees are even less likely than other immigrants to speak English—only 8 percent

reported speaking English well at the time of arrival in the U.S.24 Applications to enter the U.S.

as a refugee have been scrutinized even more closely after the terrorist attacks on the U.S. in

September 2001, so fewer refugees are entering the country than previously. Refugees are eligi-

ble to become naturalized citizens after residing in the U.S. for five years.

Undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants are made up of two groups: those

who entered the country without inspection and have remained here without adjusting to a

legal status, and those who entered the country legally on a temporary visa (such as a tourist or

student visa) and who overstayed the deadline of their visas.25 Undocumented immigrants are

typically not eligible for most publicly funded services. It is very difficult to find accurate infor-

mation on the undocumented population, because, for the most part, members of the popula-

tion are reluctant to divulge much about their circumstances.26

The effect of learning English on immigrantworkers’ earnings is well-documented. Forexample, one review concluded that Englishfluency has roughly the same impact on immi-grants’ earnings as postsecondary educationhas on women’s annual earnings—an increaseof 17 percent, far more than increases attrib-uted to additional years of work experience.27

According to the 1992 National Adult LiteracySurvey (NALS), the average annual earningsfor immigrants who did not speak Englishwere only $10,441—less than half the averageannual earnings for native-born workers.28

Similarly, a recent analysis of 1990 Census datafound that, controlling for other characteris-tics, immigrants who are fluent in Englishearn about 14 percent more than those whoare not.29 Another study found that whenimmigrants first arrive they earn less thannatives, but that improvements in English lan-guage ability help narrow the earnings gap by6 to 18 percent.30

■ Beyond their limited fluency in spokenEnglish, immigrants often lack educationcredentials and written English skills criti-cal to advancement in the labor market.

Among foreign-born adults (age 25 and over),one-third lack a high school education—a pro-portion more than twice as high as amongnative-born adults. At the same time, however,roughly one-quarter of the foreign-born havea bachelor’s degree or higher.31 Thus, whilelack of education is clearly an issue for many,the population does include some highly edu-cated individuals who face English languagebarriers.

Not surprisingly, studies have also shown thatimmigrants have lower English literacy ratescompared to natives, probably an outcomeboth of less schooling and a lack of Englishskills. According to the NALS, approximately25 percent of the 40 million adults who pos-sessed the lowest levels of literacy proficiencywere immigrants.32 Given that this assessmentwas only administered in English in the U.S., it

is likely that these low scores indicate both alower literacy rate (unsurprising given thelower educational levels of many immigrants)as well as a lack of fluency in English.

Lack of educational credentials likely limits theearnings potential of LEP adults, since workerswithout a college degree have had fewer oppor-tunities in recent decades for wage increasesthan those with a degree.33 For example,between 1981 and 2001, average real hourlywages for workers with less than a high schooleducation fell from $11.02 to $9.50.34 Otherstudies find that low-skilled workers see onlyvery modest wage growth over time.35

■ Reflecting their low English literacy skillsand limited credentials, immigrants areconcentrated in low-wage work and manylive in poverty.

Immigrants are disproportionately concentrat-ed in low-wage jobs. Nearly one-quarter of theworkers in low-income families with childrenare immigrants, and about half of those immi-grant families have arrived recently.36 Lookingat occupational profiles, 19 percent of allimmigrants and 22 percent of recent immi-grants hold service jobs, compared with 13percent of native workers.37 The wages ofimmigrants have also fallen in relation towages earned by native workers. During theeconomic boom of the late 1990s, immigrants’unemployment rates fell faster than natives’,but their wages grew much more slowly. Forinstance, between 1996 and 1999, real medianhourly wages for white natives had risen from$11.50 to $12.31, while median wages forimmigrants rose from $9.47 to $9.62.38

Low wages add up to low earnings, evenamong full-time, year-round workers. In 2000,45 percent of male immigrants working full-time, year-round earned less than $25,000 peryear, as compared to less than one-quarter ofcomparable native workers. Earnings are low-est among the most recent immigrants, whoare the least likely to speak English: 57 per-cent of recent male immigrants working


11

full-time, year-round earn less than $25,000annually.39 More generally, low wages and verymodest wage growth mean that lower-skilledworkers’ earnings rise primarily as a result ofworking more hours. Earnings growth for low-skilled workers who stay on the job for a longtime is only a few hundred dollars per year—not enough to move a family out of poverty.40

Low earnings, combined with demographiccharacteristics such as large households, meanthat immigrant families are more likely to bepoor. Households headed by immigrants tendto be larger than natives’ households, partlybecause the immigrants are more likely to bemarried and have children. This means thatan immigrant worker’s income often has tostretch to cover more people, even thoughimmigrants often earn less. As shown inFigure 4, in 1999, the poverty rate of familiesheaded by immigrants was significantly higherthan that of native families (15 percent versus10 percent); families headed by recent immi-grants (those who arrived in 1995 or later)were more than twice as likely to be poor (21 percent) as natives.41 A study of immigrantfamilies in Los Angeles and New York Cityfound that they were generally poorer thannative families in those cities and that LEPimmigrant families were much poorer thanimmigrant families who spoke English well.42

■ Welfare reform eliminated some sup-ports for immigrants, which may haveworsened their economic condition.

The overhaul of the welfare system in 1996(which created the Temporary Assistance forNeedy Families [TANF] program), togetherwith a major immigration bill the same year,substantially changed which forms of assis-tance immigrants were eligible to receive andgave states significant discretion in decidingwho should receive assistance.43 Low-incomeimmigrants are less likely to receive cash assis-tance through the TANF program than com-parably poor native families. In 1999, threeyears after welfare reform, 12 percent of low-

income citizen families with children receivedcash assistance, compared to 9 percent of low-income immigrant families with children.44

The decline in the receipt of cash assistancesince welfare reform has been steeper forimmigrants than natives, which someresearchers have attributed to immigrants’increased employment during the economicexpansion of the mid-to-late 1990s.45

It is very difficult to isolate the effects of wel-fare reform on immigrant families who arenow ineligible for public assistance, becausefew studies collected data on the same familiesbefore and after welfare reform. A number ofstudies do suggest that immigrant families,especially those who arrived after the law wasenacted in 1996 and who are therefore leastlikely to be eligible for assistance, have facedgreater hardships since welfare reform,although it is unclear whether the increasedhardship is due directly to the changed law. In1999, one study found that children of immi-


12

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Recent immigrantfamilies*

Immigrantfamilies

Nativefamilies

10%

15%

21%

* Arrived in 1995 or later.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. (Date unknown.) Profileof the foreign-born population in the United States,2000 (detailed tables for P23-206). Retrieved fromhttp://www. census.gov/population/www/socdemo/foreign/ppl-145. html on September 23, 2002, Tables19-2A & 19-2B.

Figure 4. Poverty Rate Among NativeFamilies and Immigrant Families, 1999

grants were more likely to be poor and morelikely to suffer food insecurity than children ofnative parents. These hardships may be at leastpartially attributable to changes made inimmigrants’ eligibility for public assistanceprograms.46 Another study found that immi-grants were most likely to be adversely affectedby the welfare reform legislation and experi-

enced an increase in food insecurity after wel-fare reform took effect.47 Similarly, the studyof immigrants in Los Angeles and New YorkCity found they were using benefits less andhad needs in several program areas directlyaffected by welfare reform’s immigrant eligi-bility restrictions, including food, housing, andhealth insurance.48


13


14


15

Adults with limited English skills clearly needto improve their English language abilitiesand acquire specific job skills if they are toadvance in the labor market. Unfortunately, lit-tle scientific research has been conducted onthe most effective ways to deliver English lan-guage, literacy, and job training services tothis population; a key recommendation of thispaper is to increase federal funding for suchresearch. At the moment, though, the bestavailable data come from the extensive scien-tific research conducted on employment pro-grams for other groups of low-skilled individu-als, principally those receiving cash assistanceor welfare—a group that includes immigrantsand refugees with limited English skills as wellas native-born Americans.

Because of similarities in the employmentservices generally provided to welfare recipi-ents and immigrants, research on these welfare-to-work programs provides important lessons on what works best for the LEP popu-lation. For example, individuals receiving

welfare payments are generally required to participate in employment-related activities as a condition of receiving assistance. Whilethe specific activities can vary, job search andbasic education—which includes GED prepa-ration programs, adult basic education (ABE)programs for those below an eighth gradelevel, and English as a second language (ESL)programs—have been among the most com-mon. These services are very similar to the jobsearch and English language skill services typi-cally provided to immigrants with low skills.However, the results from welfare-to-work eval-uations are most applicable to LEP individualswho have low literacy and job skill levels,rather than those who are more highly educat-ed in their native languages.

■ Two scientific evaluations of a trainingprogram serving primarily Hispanic immi-grants found that integrating job trainingwith English language, literacy, and mathinstruction increased employment andearnings.

Can English Language and Job Training Services

Make a Difference for LaborMarket Success?49

Among scientific studies of employment pro-grams, the random assignment evaluations ofthe Center for Employment and Training(CET) program in San Jose, California, aremost relevant to the LEP population becausemost of CET’s participants were Hispanic andmany had limited English skills.50 In onemulti-site evaluation that focused on low-income female single parents, CET was thestrongest program by far. Participants at CETincreased their earnings by 45 percent morethan the control group over a two-and-a-halfyear follow-up period, primarily due to findingjobs with higher hourly wages and workingmore hours. In addition, overall earnings gainspersisted through five years of follow-up, eventhough a substantial portion of the controlgroup received services during this timethrough the state’s welfare-to-work program.51

In another multi-site evaluation that focusedon young high school dropouts, CET wasagain the best performer and increased earn-ings by 26 percent over four years.52

At CET, which was evaluated in the early1990s, individuals entered job training imme-diately (regardless of their educational levels).English language, literacy, and math instruc-tion was, for the most part, integrated directlyinto training for a specific job. Participantswere not considered to have completed theprogram until placed in employment. Trainingwas provided full-time, in a work-like environ-ment with participants generally completingthe training in six or seven months. Staff hadextensive knowledge of the local labor marketthat they used to determine which technicalskills would be taught in the program and tohelp place students after training was complet-ed. In addition, CET was accredited so that itsstudents could receive Pell Grants, a key factorin the program’s ability to provide a substan-tial number of hours of instruction, hire full-time instructors from industry, and provide anarray of supports. (See Appendix for adetailed description of the program.) In theevaluation of single parents noted above, the

CET approach was very different from theother sites in the evaluation (and producedmuch larger impacts). The other sites providedmore traditional and sequential services inwhich women generally were placed initially inbasic education and entered job skill trainingonly after they attained certain academicskills. One caveat to CET’s generally strongresults, however, is that the initially positiveeffects for those who entered the programwithout a high school diploma faded after fiveyears, suggesting a need for ongoing access toEnglish language and literacy services aftercompletion of a short-term training program.

■ In general, the most effective programsfor moving low-income individuals intowork provide a mix of services, includingjob search, education, and job training.53

Beyond CET, other research has also shownthat providing education and training within a program strongly focused on employment isa successful strategy. (LEP individuals partici-pated in these other programs to varyingdegrees, but were not as high a share of partic-ipants as they were in CET.) The largest ofthese evaluations—the National Evaluation ofWelfare-to-Work Strategies (NEWWS)—studied 11 programs in the mid-to-late 1990susing a random assignment research design.54

One of the sites in the NEWWS evaluation—Portland, Oregon—produced impacts that areamong the largest ever seen in welfare-to-workprograms. The program resulted in a 21 per-cent increase in employment and a 25 percentincrease in earnings compared to control groupmembers.55 These impacts far surpassed theother NEWWS sites as well as results from mostother evaluations for both high school gradu-ates and nongraduates. The Portland programalso resulted in the largest improvements in jobquality as of the two-year follow-up point—program enrollees experienced a 13 percentincrease in hourly wages and a 19 percentincrease in jobs with employer-provided healthinsurance—and was one of only four sites inNEWWS that had impacts in this area.56


16

The successful program in Portland empha-sized participation in a range of activities, tai-lored services to individual needs, and stressedjob quality. Portland substantially increasedparticipation in education and training programs—particularly job training and otherpostsecondary education—while maintainingan employment focus. Those who were mostwork-ready received help in finding “good”jobs right away—ones that paid more thanminimum wage, had benefits, and were full-time—while those with less education andwork experience typically participated in lifeskills, education and training, and job searchactivities.57 Overall, the program was very bal-anced in its use of job search and educationand training. In addition, job search partici-pants in Portland were counseled to wait for agood job, as opposed to taking the first joboffered.58

■ The “mixed services” programs per-formed better than programs in whichthe primary program activity was jobsearch or those in which basic educationwas strongly emphasized.

Programs with a “mixed strategy” (such asPortland and CET) that include education andtraining as well as job search have consistentlyoutperformed programs focused almost exclu-sively on immediate employment, which pri-marily provide job search assistance. Therecent NEWWS evaluation included severalsites that focused primarily on job search and,unlike the Portland program, did not vary theinitial activity according to participants’ needs.These job search-focused programs increasedemployment and earnings and reduced welfarepayments, as shown in Figure 5, but by sub-stantially less than the program in Portland.59

Another striking difference between Portlandand the other job search-focused programs inthe NEWWS evaluation is that this site contin-ued to produce unusually large earningsimpacts in the fourth and fifth years of follow-up, while impacts in most of the job search-

focused sites in the NEWWS evaluation dimin-ished after three or four years.60

The “mixed services” programs also per-formed better than programs that primarilyprovided basic education, such as “stand-alone” ABE or ESL classes.61 A review of eval-uations of these programs indicates that theearnings gains have been limited, with fewperforming better than mixed service or jobsearch-focused interventions.62 In addition, thebasic education-focused programs did notimprove job quality and were more expensiveto operate.63 These programs also have notconsistently increased basic skills test scores orattainment of the GED,64 although programsthat pay close attention to the quality of servic-es can produce better results.65

■ Job training and other postsecondaryprograms can substantially increase earn-ings and job quality.


17

0

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

Obtained job training

Acquired a GED

Increased reading skills

13.4%

30.5%

47.3%

Figure 5. Average Increase in EarningsOver Five Years for Three Welfare-to-

Work Strategies

Source: Hamilton, G., Freedman, S., Gennetian, L.,Michalopoulos, C., Walter, J., Adams-Ciardullo, D., etal. (2001). How effective are different welfare-to-work approaches? Five year adult and child impactsfor eleven programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Health and Human Services and U.S. Depart-ment of Education.

There is a growing body of evidence pointingto the importance of both job training andother postsecondary education in producingearnings gains and improving job quality, par-ticularly for welfare recipients. Even those withlower skills can benefit if basic education—including ESL classes—is closely linked to fur-ther skill upgrading. The mixed strategy pro-gram in Portland, which dramaticallyincreased earnings and job quality, increasedthe proportion of nongraduates who obtaineda high school diploma or GED and a secondeducation or training credential (usually atrade license or certificate)—a result no otherevaluated program has achieved.66

The NEWWS evaluation also suggested signifi-cant economic returns to job training forthose without a high school diploma.67 Thisnon-experimental research found that, forindividuals without a high school diploma, par-ticipation in basic education resulted in sub-stantially larger increases in longer term earn-ings if these individuals subsequently partici-pated in job training. Those who participatedin basic education and then went on to partici-pate in job training or other postsecondaryeducation had an additional $1,542 (or 47 per-cent) in earnings in the third year of follow-upcompared to those who participated only inbasic education.68 (See Figure 6.) While thepayoff is significant, it can take a substantialamount of time to complete both basic educa-tion and job training—more than a year onaverage.69

While some programs that have successfullyencouraged participation in job training andother postsecondary education have generatedpositive results, an ongoing issue has been that

few individuals without high school diplomasgain access to these activities. For example, inthe three NEWWS evaluation sites that pro-duced large earnings gains from job training(this substudy did not include Portland), only15 percent of those who participated in basiceducation went on to training.70 Low levels ofparticipation appear to stem from several fac-tors, including ineffective linkages betweenbasic education and training, training pro-grams that are not open to high schooldropouts or people with very low literacy orlimited English skills, and job search-orientedprograms that discourage extended participa-tion in education and training.


18

0

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

Obtained job training

Acquired a GED

Increased reading skills

13.4%

30.5%

47.3%

Figure 6. Increase in Earnings for AdultEducation Participants in Welfare-to-

Work Programs, by Educational Outcome

Source: Bos, J., Scrivener, S., Snipes, J., & Hamilton, G.(2001). Improving basic skills: The effects of adulteducation in welfare-to-work programs. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Servicesand U.S. Department of Education.


19

A national, bipartisan task force recently con-cluded that how we respond as a nation to thelarge and growing presence of immigrants inthe U.S. and their critical role in meeting ourworkforce needs will be key for determiningboth our future economic growth and howwell prosperity is shared among workers.71 Yetmost current education and training programsdo not have the capacity to meet the needs ofjob seekers and workers who speak littleEnglish, have had few years of schooling, andmay or may not be literate in their native lan-guage. (See Box 2.) In general, programs serv-ing adult immigrants are severely underfundedrelative to the need; English language servicesand job training are typically not linked; andrarely do programs provide the mix of ESL, literacy, job training, and employment servicesfound to be effective in the research de-scribed in the previous section.

In this section, we provide recommendationsfor creating high-quality education and train-ing services for adults with limited proficiencyin English. Because scientific research on suchservices is so limited, only a few of these rec-ommendations are drawn from scientific eval-

uations. Most of these recommendations aredrawn from other, non-experimental researchin the fields of adult ESL and training andfrom site visits and interviews with practition-ers at promising ESL programs (see Appendixfor profiles of these programs).72 We first dis-cuss ways to improve program design andoperations and then suggest steps national andstate policymakers can take to expand andsupport effective services for this population.

Recommendations for ProgramDesign and Operations

Conventional English language and job train-ing approaches generally do not seem to haveworked well for adults with limited Englishskills who are seeking to improve their long-term job prospects. To change this, new spe-cialized programs for adults with limitedEnglish must be created and existing pro-grams should be adapted to the needs of LEPindividuals. These recommendations are per-haps most useful for state and local programadministrators involved in program designand curriculum development for LEP students,although instructors can benefit as well.

Creating Quality Job TrainingPrograms for Adults with

Limited English Skills


20

Box 2. Existing Federally Supported Employment, Education, andTraining Services for Immigrants

Adults with limited English skills face a dauntingly complex and fragmented array of education

and training services. In particular, responsibility for employment, English language, and job

training services is typically divided between education and labor agencies at the federal, state,

and county levels, making it difficult to create programs that combine the three services and

for individuals to link the services on their own. Funding for both English language and job

training services is also quite low relative to the need.

Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), administered by the U.S. Department of

Labor, provides localities with resources to operate “one-stop centers,” which offer universal

job search services and access to education and training. Low-income adults, welfare recipients,

and laid-off workers have priority for job training, although the number of individuals receiv-

ing training has fallen by three-quarters compared with the previous program WIA replaced.73

Enacted in 1998, WIA provided about $2.5 billion in federal dollars for services to adults in

2000, with approximately 83,000 individuals receiving job training during this time. Despite

their over-representation in the low-skilled workforce, immigrants tend to be under-represent-

ed in this program, perhaps because of language barriers. In 2000, only 7 percent of all adults

receiving services through WIA had limited English proficiency (about 11,000 individuals). Of

this group, about 12 percent participated in adult education or literacy activities and over half

participated in skills training.74

Title II of the Workforce Investment Act (also known as the Adult Education and Family

Literacy Act) is the primary federal funding source for English language services, GED prepa-

ration, and other basic education services for adults who lack a high school diploma or func-

tional basic literacy skills. About $491 million flow annually from the U.S. Department of

Education to states in basic funding for these services, with an additional $70 million provided

for English language and civics education.75 The services are most commonly provided through

local K-12 public school districts, though in some cases community colleges and private, non-

profit groups operate them. English language services are the fastest growing component of

Title II, with participants accounting for 41 percent of all adult education students in 2000,

though most are concentrated in a few states.76 Nationally, the 1.1 million adults in Title II ESL

classes in 2000 represent about 13 percent of adults who reported speaking English not well or

not at all on the 2000 Census. Most ESL services are not focused on employment and do not

include job-specific training.

The Refugee Resettlement Program at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

funds voluntary agencies and state resettlement offices to provide ESL and job readiness servic-

es to newly arrived refugees, who are mandated to attend classes as part of their resettlement.

In FY 2000, Congress appropriated $426 million to assist refugees, of which about 40 percent

continued...


21

■ Create programs that combine languageand literacy services with job skills training.

As discussed earlier, research shows that link-ing basic skills education with job trainingresults in higher earnings gains for partici-pants in the long run than focusing on basic

skills alone. To make this approach work forimmigrants who speak little English, languageinstruction should be tied to training in par-ticular occupations and should incorporate keyinstructional elements, including general work-place communication skills, job-specific lan-guage needed for training, certification and

Box 2 Continued...

went to direct cash and medical assistance for over 90,000 arrivals during the year.77 Despite

the opportunity to provide English language training, only about one-fifth of the refugees sur-

veyed in 2000 by the Office of Refugee Resettlement reported receiving ESL services outside

of high school in the previous 12 months. Encouragingly, more recent arrivals were more likely

to be served—over half of this group reported having received English language training out-

side of high school in the past year.78 Fewer than 10 percent of refugees had received job train-

ing during this period, however.79

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant provides $16.5 billion to

states annually for cash assistance, employment and training programs, and other services to

low-income families. Since the passage of welfare reform in 1996, immigrants’ ability to access

TANF services has varied considerably from state to state. TANF funds may be used to pay for

ESL classes for low-income adults (even if they are not receiving cash assistance), but it does

not appear that most states have used the funds for this purpose because most welfare-to-work

programs emphasize job search activities and quick entry into the labor market.80 In FY 2001,

less than 2 percent of federal and state TANF funds were spent on education and training81

and only 5 percent of TANF recipients participated in these activities in the same year.82

(These figures include education and training for all participants, not just those with limited

English skills.) Time limits on cash assistance may also curtail the use of these funds to assist

limited English speakers: preliminary evidence suggests that LEP recipients are reaching their

lifetime limits on receipt of TANF assistance at higher rates than other recipients. For example,

a study in five California counties found that a majority of those reaching the lifetime limit on

assistance did not speak English as a primary language.83

The Higher Education Act (HEA) funds federal student financial aid programs. In FY 2003,

about $10.9 billion was appropriated for the Pell Grant program, which provides up to $4,000

per year to low-income individuals enrolled in eligible programs at postsecondary institutions.

Many of these individuals are enrolled in occupational certificate or associate degree programs

at community colleges and for-profit trade schools. Legal immigrants may apply for Pell grants,

but if they do not have a high school diploma or GED, they must pass an “ability to benefit”

test to demonstrate they have the skills to succeed in a program. In addition, they must typical-

ly pass English language proficiency tests.


22

testing, and soft skills to help navigate U.S.workplace culture. Employability skills, such asgoal setting, finding a match between personalpreferences and available jobs, job search andapplications, as well as strategies for handlinga job interview, should be included as well.(See Box 3.)

Approaches that combine language educationwith skills training show a great deal of prom-ise for immigrants and refugees eager to jointhe workforce. They offer a number of bene-fits: (1) participants gain important job skillswhile developing the communication skillsneeded to obtain jobs, (2) the language andcultural skills needed for job search and jobretention are more easily integrated into train-ing, (3) learning is both focused and contex-tualized and therefore more easily absorbedby participants who have little experience withformal schooling, and (4) motivation to learnremains high as participants see a clear endgoal.

Combined language and job training modelscome in various forms and may include any ofthe following: Vocational English as a SecondLanguage (VESL) plus training in specific job skills; hands-on skills training plus ESLsupport; or bilingual vocational training where the native language is used to teach job-specific skills and English is used to teach job-related language skills (see examples belowfor more detail). Another integral part of qual-ity models is the employment services thathelp immigrants navigate the job search systems and assist in job placement and retention.

This approach, however, is not a quick fix.Learning specific job skills and acquiring pro-ficiency in English will take many months—nine to 18 months is typical for those whospeak little English. Those who speak noEnglish and have very limited literacy skillsboth in English and in the native languagewill greatly benefit from ongoing participationin ESL classes.

In some cases, tailoring language services tospecific occupations may not be feasible andother models may need to be considered. Forexample, many general ESL classes includeworking adults who hold a variety of jobs, andfor them, training in one specific area is notpractical. In addition, workers are generallyonly able to attend courses part time; there-fore, full-time courses that focus on job-specif-ic training are not an option for them. Inthese instances, programs might offer a seriesof evening workshops or Saturday classes espe-cially designed for working immigrants. Thesecourses can emphasize the skills common to acluster of jobs (e.g., in manufacturing or inthe service industry), or they can teach thelanguage and vocabulary needed in demandpositions, such as health, transportation, orconstruction, for those wanting to retrain forbetter-paying jobs. Another option would be tointroduce general employment-related commu-nication, problem solving, and other essentialskills useful in any number of jobs. HoldingESL classes at a worksite in collaboration withemployers or unions can also be an effectiveway of reaching working adults. Finally, modelsthat help workers take advantage of entrepre-neurship opportunities by teaching them howto access small business loans, write bids forjobs, and learn simple accounting allow forincome possibilities outside of standard jobs.

■ Adapt existing education and trainingprograms not specifically geared towardindividuals with limited English skills tobe more responsive to their needs.

In many areas, education and training pro-grams originally designed for native speakersof English increasingly find themselves servingimmigrant participants who speak only mar-ginal English and who often have had littleformal education in their native language. Inorder to serve this new population well, sever-al adjustments may need to be made. Forexample, most conventional job skills trainingprograms require high levels of English profi-ciency. Quite often, the training is based on


23

Box 3. Language Skills Needed for Employment and Training

General workplace communication skills. Learning job-specific terminology is a necessary

part of job preparation, but it is hardly sufficient for job success. Teaching the vocabulary and

the oral fluency skills necessary to communicate effectively with peers, supervisors, and man-

agers at work is equally critical. In cases where individuals interact with the public, workplace

communication skills become especially important since differences in intonation can easily

make or break a service encounter (as when an employee says “May I help you?” in a tone that

signals annoyance). Effective ways of teaching workplace communication skills include dis-

cussing differences between work in the U.S. and the home country, learning what to say when

you do not understand, learning to give explanations and to speak up, and finding out what

you can do when you are not being treated fairly.84 Participants may also need practice on how

to share information about themselves and their families with co-workers so they can fit in

socially at work.

Job-specific language for training and testing. Immigrants preparing to enter the workplace

face a formidable task: they must acquire language specific to particular jobs or job clusters,

along with the general communication skills necessary to navigate an English-speaking environ-

ment. In addition, they must acquire the background knowledge necessary to pass job entry

tests, demonstrate necessary competencies (in safety, for example), or meet job certification

requirements.85 Participants are well-served by programs that conduct a needs analysis with stu-

dents to determine past experiences, present circumstances, and future goals—and then link

this information with a “job audit” that outlines the language and literacy requirements of a

particular job. Information from these needs analyses can then form the basis of a curriculum

that teaches language, literacy, and culture in the context of work in ways that are appropriate

for various groups of learners.

Soft skills related to navigating workplace culture. Soft skills include not only the skills associ-

ated with high-performance jobs (e.g., planning, decision-making, group interactions), but also

strategies for navigating the U.S. workplace, understanding how things work, getting along with

co-workers, and dealing with diversity. Workplace simulations and scenarios depicting “sticky

situations” are particularly effective in helping newcomers understand workplace cultures and

finding ways of fitting in without giving up too much of one’s identify or being taken advantage

of. Role plays in particular can uncover how different individuals interpret situations such as

being asked to contribute to multiple baby showers during a few months’ time or having to

deal with more serious issues such as sexual harassment. Besides offering opportunities for

understanding cultural differences, scenarios and role plays are ideal for the development of

both language and social interaction skills.


24

lectures and textbooks that require advancedlanguage skills. In many cases, the Englishrequirements for performing on the job aremuch less than those demanded for admissioninto a training program, keeping the languagethreshold artificially high. In addition, evi-dence of learning is often measured throughpencil and paper multiple-choice tests,86 a for-mat that is extremely difficult to negotiate forthose with weak literacy and few years ofschooling, even for those who have many yearsof work experience. The following suggestionsfor training providers are intended to maketheir programs more accessible to LEP adultsand supportive of their success. These sugges-tions apply equally whether a new program isbeing created or existing ones adapted:

❐ Use assessments appropriate formeasuring language proficiency, notjust basic skills. Select assessmentsthat provide information on at leasttwo dimensions of language proficien-cy: oral fluency (the ability to commu-nicate face to face and over thephone) and literacy (the ability todeal with written information). If par-ticipants are only given a pencil andpaper test, it is difficult to determineif their inability to complete the test isrelated to their not knowing anyEnglish or if it is indicative of theirdifficulties with reading and writing.

❐ Build on existing work experienceand educational background. Adviseparticipants who have professionalexpertise (e.g., attorneys, doctors,nurses, and dentists) about how theycan obtain the appropriate licenses towork in their chosen field. Find outwhat degrees are recognized in theU.S. (a local university can usuallyprovide this information) and what it takes for a professional to transi-tion to higher education. Work withgroups in the community who can

tell you to what extent work titles areequivalent.87

❐ Hire bilingual staff. Well-trained,bilingual staff can provide a programwith a full picture of participants’backgrounds and experiences relatedto employment. These staff can inter-view participants, conduct focusgroups in the native language to findout about participants’ issues and con-cerns, and otherwise run interferencethrough bureaucratic systems. Insiston the same quality of service thatyou would for other staff, but pay special attention to the person’s cross-cultural competence or the ability towork within and across different cul-tures, including the culture of yourorganization. If the staff person willdo translations, ask another person totranslate the information back toEnglish for you to get a check on thequality of the translation to ensure theaccuracy of the information and pre-vent embarrassment. Keep in mindthat many of the participants frompoorer countries (Latinos from ruralareas in Mexico or Central America,the Hmong, more recent refugeesfrom Western Africa) do not havestrong literacy skills in the native lan-guage and often do not have the back-ground knowledge to understand thewritten information being sent out. Ifyou cannot hire your own bilingualstaff person, link with ethnicallyfocused community-based organiza-tions or other agencies that have bilingual staff and can offer supportservices.

❐ Use hands-on training to make jobtraining more accessible. A way tomake training work for LEP partici-pants is through the use of hands-onlearning that focuses on tasks and

projects to be completed. Thisapproach, sometimes referred to as“action learning” or “situated learn-ing” allows participants to learn bydoing. Information is presented pri-marily through demonstrations andhands-on work, rather than throughlectures and manuals. In the end, theapproach is particularly effective withLEP participants with few years ofschooling for whom conventionalclassroom-based learning presents astruggle. Hands-on learning allowsthese workers to acquire English com-munication and other basic skills onan as-needed basis as they directlyengage work processes. English sup-port classes that focus on the lan-guage used when working with toolsand machines reinforce key conceptsand help participants internalize thelanguage skills they have learned. The Center for Employment Training(discussed in the previous section andthe Appendix) has been highly suc-cessful in the use of this approach formany years.88 (See Box 4.)

■ Offer short-term bridge programs thattransition participants to job training andhigher education more quickly.

Currently, LEP adults must typically follow asequential path through education and train-ing that starts with participation in a generalEnglish language program, which includesseveral levels (often as many as seven, frombeginning to advanced), moves to the acquisi-tion of a GED, and then offers possible partic-ipation in a job training program or highereducation. For most adults with little Englishand few resources, this path takes much toolong. A substantial number of those who startat the beginning levels of ESL drop out longbefore they acquire the proficiency necessaryto enter conventional training or other post-secondary education programs.

There is a tremendous need for programs that“bridge” the gap quickly between the skillsLEP adults enter with and the skills necessaryto succeed in a particular training or highereducation program. Bridge programs canintroduce specific job skills, reading and mathnecessary for an occupation, and build jobcommunication skills by increasing students’


25

Box 4. “Hands-On” Job Training

The MET program at El Paso Community College in Texas offers hands-on training in the con-

struction trades by having participants build a house in the parking lot behind the training

site. Participants, who vary in their English language skills from no proficiency in English to

fairly bilingual in Spanish and English, attend classes and do the construction work required.

The construction supervisor is a monolingual English speaker who gives directions and

explains processes in English, providing authentic opportunities for participants to communi-

cate in English and helping to build both the communicative competence and personal confi-

dence of the workers. Skills such as measurement and blueprint reading are learned in the con-

text of the work. Hands-on skills are acquired fairly easily, since what needs to be done is

either evident or can be demonstrated. Throughout the course, proficiency in English is

demonstrated through completion of classroom assignments and work tasks equivalent to those

undertaken on a regular construction site.

listening comprehension and technical vocabulary—for example, by having studentslisten to mini-lectures on topics related to thefuture course of study (e.g., health or technol-ogy). Students new to U.S. classrooms mayneed to learn study skills as well, includingstrategies for exam preparation. Bridge pro-grams are particularly effective when they areconnected to a clearly defined career pathwayof job and education opportunities. (Seeexamples in Boxes 5 and 6.)

■ Create career pathways for adults withlimited English skills.

Because wage advancement is critical to long-term success in the labor market, staff shouldwork with participants to shift their focus from“getting a job” to “planning for a career.” Thisis not an easy proposition—particularly for theLEP population. Individuals need to be able tosee, in very concrete terms, how they can movefrom an initial entry-level job along a pathwaythat eventually leads to a high-wage job. Settinga career pathway upfront provides a frameworkto align education and support services. A criti-cal aspect of this effort is to identify the eightto 10, high-demand, growth occupations in aregion and to work with employers and indus-

try representatives to chart out potential jobpathways and corresponding education andtraining opportunities.89

In developing career pathways, agencies andcolleges generally have been much more suc-cessful in offering customized training gearedtowards the needs of the LEP population thanthey have been in preparing participants forpre-existing training programs not gearedtoward LEP participants. In some areas, suchas Arlington, Virginia, and Boston, Massa-chusetts, adult schools have worked with community-based organizations and communi-ty colleges to provide a seamless, coherentpath that moves LEP students from native lan-guage literacy and beginning levels of ESL toEnglish language instruction and job trainingor employment. Such a system can also be aneffective way to provide “stop out learners”—those who need to leave education to go towork—with opportunities to continue theirschooling along a well-articulated pathway.Such models can easily incorporate “any time,any place” learning offered through a combi-nation of tutors, distance education, and smallgroup instruction at the workplace. “Exit andentry ramps” can be designed at various


26

Box 5. “Bridges” to Job Training and Higher Education

The Chicago Manufacturing Technology Bridge (CMTB) Program, operated by Instituto del

Progreso Latino, provides an opportunity to pursue skills needed for employment in manufac-

turing—primarily in occupations that provide potential for growth and advancement—along

with language and workplace skills in 16 weeks. Many of the classes for the CMTB program take

place at a local community college and students earn college credits—which provides a bridge to

further postsecondary education. In addition, the multiple opportunities to learn English in

contextualized settings—through workplace communication classes focusing on vocational

English and manufacturing-specific terminology, hands-on manufacturing workshops, and indi-

vidual computer-based learning—allow for targeted English acquisition to prepare students to

be proficient enough to enter and function in the workplace. Because the rapid acquisition of

technical skills, English, and an understanding of workplace culture can be stressful, program

participants have access to counseling, case management, and job placement assistance and

retention follow-up.


27

Box 6. Portland Community College High Tech Career Pathway90

This career pathway begins with a bridge program for LEP adults. Students enter different

trainings based on their skill levels. Once students complete a training component, they can

move to the next training, or they can obtain employment and pursue the next level of train-

ing later, or they can combine work and training.

Students can enter

here

Students can leave with jobs as

production operatorsearning $8-$8.50/

hour

■ working in high tech■ safety■ diagram reading■ statistical process

control

■ communication■ employer expectations■ reading, writing, and

math for the job■ computer skills

Limited English Proficiency—High Tech SkillsTraining (LEP-HTST)

Skills and topics taught:

Students can enter

here

Students can leave with jobs as

production operatorsearning $8.75-$9/

hour■ intro to micro-

electronics■ math review

■ writing■ computer skills

Intensive Semiconductor Manufacturing Training—Part 1 (ISMT—Part 1)


"

"

#

"

"

Students can enter

here

Students can leavewith jobs as produc-

tion operators/technicians earning$12.50-$14.50/hour

PCC Microelectronics TechnologyDegree Program

Students completing ISMT Part 1 or Part 2 do nothave to retake credits earned in those programs.

[108 college credits, 2 years]

Students can enter

here

Students can leavewith jobs as produc-

tion operators/technicians earning

$10-$11.50/hour

Intensive Semiconductor Manufacturing Training—Part 2 (ISMT—Part 2)


[8 college credits, 11 weeks]

■ intermediate algebra■ graphic calculator■ expository writing ■ digital systems■ tools and equipment

■ statistical process control

■ clean room■ industry visits■ math and writing

tutoring

#

"

"

"

"

#


28

points in the system to allow learners to leavewith a clear set of skills at designated pointsand return at a later time. (See Box 6.)

In several states, advocacy by local providersand immigrant rights groups has resulted inthe establishment of “LEP pathways,” particu-larly in job search-focused programs for wel-fare recipients. These are program modifica-tions that allow individuals new to Englishwith no job experience to bypass an initial jobsearch and directly enter a training programthat combines job preparation and English. Inmany cases, skills preparation is part of themix as well. For example, the VIP program atSan Francisco Community College combinesvocational ESL, computer training, and jobexperience as part of an intensive six-weekcourse.

■ Consider the merits of bilingual job training in areas where English is not necessary for job placement.

In some areas in the United States—for example along the U.S.-Mexico border and in large ethnic enclaves in Chicago or LosAngeles—English proficiency is not necessarily

a requirement for entry-level jobs. This is par-ticularly true for jobs in the ethnic economywhere immigrants work for other immigrants,although both advancement and lateral move-ment are often severely limited in these cir-cumstances. In communities where two lan-guages are commonly spoken, some serviceproviders have started delivering job skillstraining in the native language concurrentlywith ESL classes. This model, sometimesreferred to as bilingual-vocational training,has distinct advantages for adults who findlearning English difficult. (See Box 7.) Olderadults may benefit the most—particularly dis-placed workers who possess only marginal lit-eracy in Spanish and speak little English, inspite of having worked for many years beforejob loss occurred.91 At the Literacy WorkforceDevelopment Center at El Paso CommunityCollege, for example, a number of trainingprograms use such an approach—bilingualtraining in child care, injection molding, andconstruction. Continued access to ESL servicesafter the completion of the bilingual trainingprogram are important, however, to ensurethat limited English skills do not hurt partici-pants’ advancement prospects later on.

Box 7. Bilingual Job Training

The Milwaukee Spanish Tech Track, run by the HIRE Center, is a fully bilingual training pro-

gram in Computer Numerically Controlled Machining and Industrial Maintenance Mechanics.

After detecting a shortage in the local labor market for these services, the HIRE Center devel-

oped a training program oriented toward higher paying jobs with career ladders in these fields

for the primarily Spanish-speaking community in the area. For 16 weeks, students engage in

a compressed manufacturing and technical training and graduate with knowledge of math,

blueprint and schematic reading, and other skills, including electricity and electronics, basic

hydraulics and pneumatics, power transmission, and welding. It is possible to attain needed

skills in this relatively short amount of time because all classes are held in Spanish with transla-

tion of key terms in English. Although students attend an occupational ESL course concurrent-

ly with the technical training, math and other skills are taught in Spanish in order to facilitate

quick learning (and also because it is not necessary to teach math in English). All course mate-

rials are provided in Spanish with English translations and all instructors are fully bilingual

instructors, not interpreters.

■ Provide bilingual advising and job devel-opment responsive to the needs of for-eign-born adults trying to adjust to theexpectations of U.S. society.

Successful programs often include supportand advising conducted by bilingual individu-als who are sensitive to cross-cultural issues,such as women being discouraged to take onwork considered to be a “man’s job” or fami-lies living in crisis as a result of being uproot-ed. In programs where participants speak dif-ferent languages, finding bilingual supportcan be a challenge, but many programs havebeen successful in finding individuals who can do such advising either by working withcommunity-based organizations that focus oncertain ethnic groups or by sharing an advisoramong agencies. (See Box 8.)

In some agencies, bilingual advisors aretrained to represent the interests of the partic-ipants to the agency and to other social serviceproviders. At the Refugee Women’s Alliance inSeattle, Washington, for example, bilingualadvisors are trained as client advocates, withstaff encouraged to listen to and respond toparticipants’ concerns. Such training is espe-cially necessary for bilingual advisors fromcountries with hierarchical structures whomight have the tendency here to focus exclu-

sively on the interests of the agencies, disre-garding the needs of the participants (pushingfor quick job placement, for example,although the client may not have the Englishskills necessary to function at the job).

As a rule, agencies that turn job developmentover to another provider appear to have beenmuch less successful than those that take onthe responsibility for placing LEP participantsthemselves. Since most participants will not befully proficient in English even after training,a job developer who is able to negotiate place-ments for immigrant participants and advo-cates on their behalf is invaluable. Employersreluctant to take an employee who still strug-gles with English will be more likely to givesomeone a chance if a job developer vouchesfor job performance and work values and canpoint to evidence from the client’s educationand training experience.

Practical field placements for hard-to-placeparticipants tend to be most successful whensupervisors share the responsibility of support-ing the participants’ efforts to understand lan-guage and rules and customs that govern theU.S. workplace (in general and those directlyrelated to a specific job). Programs that provide these transition services can offer suggestions to supervisors on how to assist in


29

Box 8. Cultural Adjustment Issues as Part of Job Training

The mission of the Caregivers Job Training and Placement Program at the International

Institute of the East Bay in Oakland, California, focuses on helping immigrant and refugee

women adjust to life in the United States, as well as finding employment. To meet this goal, the

curriculum emphasizes workplace communication, civic participation, and personal develop-

ment, in addition to skills training and ESL classes. The program provides students with an

informal support network for addressing adjustment problems and other areas of concern, as

well as a forum to share their stories. Group work and role-playing are important elements of

the teaching style that reinforce the supportive environment. Career and personal development

and civic participation classes cover a wide range of topics including self-esteem, self-sufficien-

cy, worker’s rights, interviewing, resume writing, housing rights, navigating the social service

delivery system, conflict resolution, and interpersonal communication.


30

language learning. Strategies might includepreparing co-workers by distributing informa-tion about the culture and language of thenew employee, encouraging conversations thatallow the employee to use English in non-threatening ways, demonstrating work tasks,and checking understanding by asking thatinformation be repeated.

Recommendations for Nationaland State Policies

While education and training services for LEPadults are provided at the local level, nationaland state partners play a critical role in provid-ing funding and guidance on program struc-ture and practices. This section addresses specific actions federal and state policymakerscan take to improve labor market outcomesfor individuals with limited English. (See Box2 on pp. 20-21 for brief descriptions of rele-vant federal programs.)

■ Make combined language, literacy, andjob training services to LEP adults a keyfocus of federal programs under theWorkforce Investment Act (WIA).

In Title I of WIA (employment and training),Congress should require state plans todescribe how the service needs of LEP adultswill be met; allow state reserve funds to beused for grants to create or expand combinedESL and job training services; make assess-ment of English proficiency part of core serv-ices; add ESL to the list of activities that canbe provided in conjunction with other trainingactivities for adults; and take into account theextent of limited English proficiency in thepopulation served when adjusting expectedlevels of state and local performance. Sequen-tial eligibility should be eliminated so that thefull range of services can be provided at anypoint in time, based on an individual’s needs.Finally, training performance measuresshould count English proficiency and literacygains, as well as credential attainment, whencoupled with job placement.

In Title II of WIA (adult education), Congressshould include increasing English proficiencyfor immigrants and preparing individuals forpostsecondary education or training amongthe explicit purposes of adult education fund-ing. States should be required to describe how,at the regional level, adult education will helpprepare people with limited English skillsand/or low basic skills to enter job trainingand other postsecondary education and facili-tate those transitions. The federal peer reviewprocess for state plans should include ESLexperts and service providers on the peerpanel. In addition, the list of criteria to beused by states in awarding grants to local serv-ice providers should be simplified and moresharply focused, with an overall emphasis onincreasing quality, such as hours of instructionand number of full-time teachers, and withparticular attention to increasing English pro-ficiency and to preparing individuals to enterjob training and other postsecondary educa-tion. Finally, vocational ESL and vocationaladult education should be added to the list ofcategories for required local activities.

In both Title I and Title II, Congress shouldallow national research and demonstrationfunds to be used to create or expand, andevaluate, employment programs for LEP indi-viduals that combine job training, ESL, and literacy services. Programs that combine jobtraining, ESL, and adult education, andreceive both Title I and Title II funding underWIA, should be allowed to report on just oneset of performance measures, either those ofTitle I or Title II, but not both as is currentlyrequired. Congress should also require statesto report the number of combined job train-ing and adult education programs fundedthrough contracts under Title II or certified aseligible programs under Title I. Simply track-ing this information over time will allow thefederal government to better gauge the capaci-ty of the field to provide these services, and tosee whether various initiatives and incentivesto create more combined services are havingan effect.


31

■ Make federally funded employment andtraining services under WIA more accessi-ble to job seekers with limited proficiencyin English and provide referrals to appro-priate training.

Often services at the one-stop centers operat-ing under WIA are not geared toward theneeds of LEP job seekers. Services such ascareer counseling and vocational assessmentare often only available in English,92 or iftranslated, are above the native language read-ing level of clients. Computer-based systemsfor job search and career information requirea level of both English and technologicalexpertise that immigrants with few years ofschooling generally lack.

Quite often, group counseling or assistance isonly available in English or in the language ofthe majority of the non-English speaking par-ticipants. In some cases, there may be limitedreferrals to training programs appropriate forLEP job seekers, either because there are noprograms that combine ESL and training, thereferring person is not aware of them, thebenefits of training and education (comparedto job search only) are not recognized, orlocal policy prohibits longer term combinededucation and training options. Efforts needto be undertaken to make certain that servicesprovided by the one-stop centers are appropri-ate for adults who do not speak English andthat adequate training opportunities areoffered for this growing population. Thiscould be done through technical assistanceprovided by the Department of Labor at thenational or state level. WIA policy on the useof contracts should be revised to clarify thatcontracts are appropriate when specializedservices for LEP adults—such as services thatcombine ESL, literacy, and occupational train-ing—are not readily available in a community.Finally, LEP adults in need of training shouldbe able to receive those services immediatelyafter an assessment determines such trainingis appropriate, rather than having to move

through a sequence of core and intensive serv-ices before reaching training.

■ Give states the flexibility under TANF toprovide low-income LEP parents withservices designed to increase their skillsand thus their earning potential.

The TANF welfare reform block grant pro-vides states with federal funds to operate cashassistance and employment programs for low-income parents. Recent research from welfare-to-work evaluations suggests that for thosewith low skills initially, at least a year and oftenlonger is required for individuals to upgradenot just their basic skills but also obtain theoccupational skills that qualify them for higher-paying jobs.93 Over the next few years, helpinglow-income parents achieve economic self-sufficiency will take on renewed urgency asmany parents will face the prospect of runningout of eligibility for TANF due to the 60-month lifetime limit, even if they have beenworking and receiving only a small, supple-mental TANF check. States need to have anarray of policy choices at their disposal toachieve this goal, including extended employ-ment-focused language and job skills training.

Specifically, LEP adults need enough time ineducation and training programs to gain theEnglish, literacy, math, and job skills to obtainwork that allows them to support their fami-lies, which often requires a recognized occupa-tional certificate at minimum and possibly adegree. The current 12-month TANF limit onfull-time education and training is often notenough time to allow them to complete a pro-gram; Congress should extend it to 24 monthsand allow states the option of aiding a smallnumber of low-income parents over a longerperiod so they can obtain bachelor’s degrees.In addition, more capacity is needed at thelocal level to provide training that is linked toemployers and is accessible to those with limit-ed English. The Business Linkage grants pro-posed in the Senate would help increase thiscapacity and should be included in final TANF reauthorization.


32

■ Allow states to provide TANF benefitsand services to legal immigrants regard-less of their dates of entry.

The 1996 welfare reform law was the first timefederal law regarding public benefits treatedlegal immigrants substantially differently thancitizens. Legal immigrants are now federallyrestricted in their eligibility for TANF: mostlegal immigrants entering the U.S. after theenactment of welfare reform on August 22,1996, are barred from receiving TANF benefitsand services for five years. Furthermore, statesare not required to serve immigrants whoentered before enactment, although almost allstates have chosen to do so. (A smaller shareof states has chosen to provide state-fundedbenefits to eligible immigrants during theirfive-year bar from federal assistance.) Becauseof these changes, low-income immigrant par-ents may be unable to receive services such asjob training or ESL classes funded throughTANF. These services—along with TANF, cashaid, child care, and related health care—wouldallow them to improve their employmentprospects and retain work, and thus to bettersupport their families (which may include citizens).

Since TANF’s primary goal is to provide need-ed services to help low-income families enterthe workforce, it is counterproductive to denythose services to a large share of low-incomefamilies, simply because they entered thecountry after a certain date. Therefore, theTANF statute should be modified to bar dis-crimination against legal immigrants in theprovision of TANF benefits and services.

■ Address the needs of low-income LEPadults in federal higher education policies.

The federal Higher Education Act (HEA) pro-vides funding for student aid programs, suchas Pell Grants and student loans, and alsoincludes a number of initiatives aimed at help-ing postsecondary institutions improve theirperformance. Congress should revise HEA to

better meet the needs of low-income, LEPadults. For example, changes in Title IV inhow financial need is calculated could improvethe ability of student aid programs to supportlow-wage workers with limited English who arecombining work and school. Another Title IVchange that would help LEP adults is to givecolleges the option of allowing students wholack formal high school credentials to demon-strate their ability to succeed in school notthrough an “ability-to-benefit test” but throughactual academic performance during a trialperiod. Evidence from an experimental studyby the U.S. Department of Education showsthat students who initially failed the ability-to-benefit test but were allowed to receive finan-cial aid after successfully completing six cred-its went on to have higher GPAs and to com-plete more credits than the students who ini-tially passed the test.94

Federal leadership and funding could alsohelp postsecondary institutions to tailor theiroccupational programs to the needs of LEPadults through other titles of HEA that sup-port program improvement, especially atHispanic-serving institutions. Modificationsthat could help LEP students to succeedinclude providing bridge programs for LEPstudents who are new to academic work; creat-ing well-articulated transition programs thatlink adult education programs or non-creditcollege classes to credit-bearing courses; deemphasizing lectures and offering more“hands-on” learning; and allowing students todemonstrate what they’ve learned in appliedsituations rather than relying primarily onpencil-and-paper tests. This is a particularissue for high-demand jobs in health that drawa significant number of LEP students whohave the requisite knowledge but have difficul-ties dealing with decontextualized tests. As inWIA, federal higher education policy shouldencourage colleges to implement models thatcombine ESL with technical skills training.

■ Fund scientifically based research on“what works” in training and education


33

for adults with limited proficiency inEnglish.

Providers of language and training services toLEP individuals desperately need scientificallybased research that tells them “what works”for those with low levels of education whospeak little English.95 The educational commu-nity could greatly benefit from research anddevelopment efforts that investigate what ittakes to combine English instruction and jobtraining and what results will be if such mod-els are implemented with various populationgroups. Studies are needed that use rigorousresearch techniques to examine the relation-ship between different kinds of training prac-tices and participant outcomes. Two types ofoutcomes should be considered: (1) increasesin job-related language and communicationskills and (2) employment-oriented results,such as job placement, employment retention,and wage increases.

Such research could either be conducted inestablished programs or new “lab schools” thatare specifically designed to develop and testan integrated model that focuses specificallyon adults with limited proficiency in English.Such a model could reflect what “shouldwork,” given what we know from previousresearch and provide clear findings on “whatdoes work.” A demonstration model of thiskind could be linked to the existing labschools for Adult Basic Education (RutgersUniversity) and ESL (Portland State Univers-ity), both funded by the U.S. Department ofEducation’s Institute of Education Sciences(IES), formerly known as the Office ofEducational Research and Improvement(OERI).96

■ Link federally funded English languageand job training efforts and promote pro-gram improvement through common def-initions for data collection and technicalassistance across adult education, ESL,and job training programs.

Currently, there is no one office in the federalgovernment that coordinates information onLEP individuals or education and trainingservices for them.97 A start would be to havethe key programs that serve adults with limit-ed English collect participant information.This should include asking about where theywere born (nativity), how much education theyhad in their native country, when they arrivedin the U.S., and some measure of English lan-guage ability (ideally a test score but at leastthe same type of questions that the CensusDepartment asks).

In addition to this lack of basic data, there isno one source of information on research andpromising practices for serving LEP adults inadult education and job training programs.These adults are subsumed under the generalprogram guidelines for a range of other pro-grams, such as WIA or TANF. Local providershave difficulty accessing specific informationon how to best serve the increasing numbersof participants who want jobs or better jobsbut whose English skills are too low for con-ventional job training.

The system could greatly benefit from an ini-tiative that links information from variousagencies and programs outlined in Box 2 (pp.20-21) such as the Employment TrainingAgency in the U.S. Department of Labor(responsible for Title I of WIA), theAdministration for Chil-dren and Families inthe U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices (responsible for TANF and the Officeof Refugee Resettlement programs), and theOffice of Adult and Vocational Education inthe U.S. Department of Education (responsi-ble for Title II of WIA). Such an initiativecould significantly improve the delivery systemfor this population and benefit both LEP par-ticipants and employers. The purpose of theinitiative would be to collect information onmodels that work, make recommendations forpolicy and practice, commission papers anddigests,98 and disseminate information specifi-

cally focused on education and training forparticipants who have limited proficiency inEnglish. It would be important for such an ini-tiative to be a collaborative effort between therelevant agencies, rather than being adminis-tered solely by any single one of them, so thatall the necessary expertise is brought to bearon the issue.

States can also help improve service deliveryfor LEP participants by designating an officeor a person to guide the field in providingservices for those adults in the workforce whodo not speak English well. Such an office canhelp coordinate services and collect informa-tion from the field so that effective modelscan be designed. The need is especially greatin states relatively new to immigrants. In theseareas, policymakers need to create an infra-structure for services that helps prepare educa-tion and training providers for a new group ofparticipants with unique needs related toEnglish language acquisition, acculturation,and job readiness.

■ Assist states and localities with new andgrowing immigrant populations to createan infrastructure of workforce develop-ment services for them.

As noted earlier, new immigrants are increas-ingly choosing new places to live, and in theseareas the infrastructure of services for them isless well developed. States such as Arkansas,Idaho, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota,Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, andVirginia generally have not traditionallyreceived immigrants. Lacking the infrastruc-ture to serve immigrants, these states andtheir workforce systems are not always well-prepared to assist newcomers in their quest forfinancial stability, including services to helpthem enter and advance in the workforce.

Federal funding and technical assistance isneeded to help these areas create an infra-structure of services to meet the language andjob skill needs of immigrants and of the localemployers who need skilled workers. Such an

infrastructure should include systems for train-ing teachers and providing resources on effec-tive models and structures for disseminatingresearch and linking such research to prac-tice. These new immigrant states will alsoneed help in setting up collaborations thatallow job training providers, employers, andagencies that provide English training to worktogether to develop education and trainingpaths that are not dependent on individualsfirst completing ESL and GED programs.Funding for these purposes could be added toWIA Title II.

Finally, states are likely to need technical assis-tance on how to build the skills of immigrantsand refugees from the poorest areas of theworld, since participants are likely to face mul-tiple barriers, including those related to access(child care and transportation) and training(little schooling, no or marginal levels of liter-acy, and little experience with industrializedwork, including technology). Immigrants frompoorer areas are also likely to need compre-hensive services related to health, safety, andfamily crises, which are services that must beprovided in a language that participantsunderstand. As a result, states must focus onhiring qualified staff and working effectivelywith bilingual community workers in culturallydiverse environments.

■ Support the development of “ESL work-place certificates,” which establishEnglish language competencies needed inparticular jobs.

To date there are no standards for workplacecommunication that outline the language com-petence necessary to succeed in particularwork environments (e.g., service industry,health, technology). ESL teachers, most ofwhom are part-time, are often left to their owndevices in deciding what to teach. In addition,there is very little employer or labor involve-ment in outlining the kinds of communicationtasks that are most common or most impor-tant in the workplace. Immigrants who sign


34


35

up for classes have very little guarantee thatthe program in which they participate is ofgood quality or reflects current research inteaching work-related English skills.

The ESL training field could greatly benefitfrom a standard-setting effort that lays outwhat adults new to English need to know andbe able to do to succeed in particular job clus-ters. These standards could then guide bothpre-employment programs focused on lan-guage acquisition and training programs serv-ing immigrants and refugees. Linked to thesestandards, workplace certificates could bedeveloped that certify that a particular level ofcompetence or proficiency has been achieved.Such certificates could provide job seekers andincumbent workers, as well as employers, withassurances that certain English proficiency lev-els, along with work-related cross-culturalskills, have been attained. This type of certifi-cate could act as an alternative to the GED forthose immigrants who completed their school-

ing in another country as well as for those whohave less than a high school education.Possibly foundation-funded standards could bedeveloped by agencies such as the NationalInstitute for Literacy, which is spearheadingefforts to establish a general Work ReadinessCertificate and/or the Center for AppliedLinguistics, which previously did work in thearea of employment-related communication.99

* * *If federal and state governments and local pro-grams adopted the kinds of changes describedhere, and those changes were accompanied bysubstantially increased funding, many moreLEP adults could improve their employmentprospects. And increasing the economic well-being of our country’s large and growingimmigrant population would pay importantdividends not only for these adults and theirfamilies, but also for our nation as a whole.


36


37

1 Ellwood, D. (2002). “How we got here” in Growfaster together. Or grow slowly apart. Washington,DC: The Aspen Institute.

2 Sum, A., Fogg, N., Harrington, P., withKhatiwada, I., Trubb’sky, M., & Palma, S. (2002,August). Immigrant workers and the great Americanjob machine: The contributions of new foreign immi-gration to national and regional labor force growthin the 1990s. Boston, MA: NortheasternUniversity.

3 CLASP calculations from U.S. Census Bureau.(2002). Retrieved from tables produced athttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_lang=en onSeptember 25, 2002. Figures include theDistrict of Columbia, but not Puerto Rico orother territories.

4 Sometimes the immigrant population is catego-rized as citizen and noncitizen, as opposed toforeign-born or immigrant and native. Natural-ized citizens are more likely to speak English asthey must have passed the citizenship test andresided in the country at least three and usuallyfive years. It is important to note, however, thata share of the LEP population is native-born.Probably the largest such group is people bornin Puerto Rico or other territories, althoughthere are also some born to non-English-speaking families within the 50 states. Someresearchers believe this group is growing, butfew hard data are available. The 2000 Censusestimates that 5.6 million native-born Ameri-cans over age 5 speak English less than “verywell.”

5 Estimates of the foreign-born population rangefrom 30 million to over 33 million. The latest

Current Population Survey estimates the popu-lation to be 32.5 million. See Schmidley, D.(2003, February). The foreign-born population inthe United States: March 2002. Washington, DC:U.S. Census Bureau.

6 Schmidley, A.D. (2001, December). Profile of theforeign-born population in the United States: 2000.Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, p. 16.

7 Capps, R., Ku, L., Fix, M., Furgiuele, C., Passel,J.S., Ramchand, R., et al. (2002, March). Howare immigrants faring after welfare reform?Preliminary evidence from Los Angeles and NewYork City. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

8 Sum et al., 2002.

9 Ellwood, 2002.

10 CLASP calculations from U.S. Census Bureau,2002.

11 CLASP calculations from U.S. Census Bureau,2002.

12 Schmidley, A.D., & Gibson, C. (1999). Profile ofthe foreign-born population in the United States.Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, p. 16.

13 Passel, J.S., & Zimmermann, W. (2001, April).Are immigrants leaving California? Settlement pat-terns of immigrants in the late 1990s. Washington,DC: The Urban Institute, Table B.

14 Camarota, S.A., & Keeley, J. (2001, September).The new Ellis Islands: Examining non-traditionalareas of immigrant settlement in the 1990s.Washington, DC: Center for ImmigrationStudies, p. 1.

Endnotes

15 Carliner, G. (1995, August). The language abilityof U.S. immigrants: Assimilation and cohort effects.Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of EconomicResearch, Tables 2 and 3.

16 Office of Refugee Resettlement. (1999). Annualreport to Congress — 1999. Retrieved from http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/orr/policy/99arc9.htm#_Toc519582113 on September 23,2002, Table 5.

17 Freedman, S., Knab, J.T., Gennetian, L.A., &Navarro, D. (2000, June). The Los Angeles Jobs-First GAIN evaluation: Final report on a work firstprogram in a major urban center. New York:Manpower Research DemonstrationCorporation, Table 4.6.

18 Fix, M., & Zimmermann, W. (1999, June). Allunder one roof: Mixed-status families in an era ofreform. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, p. 4.

19 U.S. Census Bureau. (2001, September). ESCAPII: Demographic analysis results. Washington, DC:Author. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/ReportRec2.htm on April 10, 2002.

20 The Diversity Visa program provides visas torandomly drawn winners of a lottery of appli-cants who come from countries with low rates ofimmigration to the U.S. Currently 55,000 visasper year are provided under this program.

21 Schmidley, 2001, p. 20.

22 In order to be admitted, refugees must provethat in their home country they have a “well-founded fear of persecution” based on theirrace, religion, national origin, political opinions,or membership in a particular social group.

23 CLASP calculations from U.S. Immigration andNaturalization Service. (1998). 1997 statisticalyearbook of the INS. Retrieved from http://www.ins.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/Immigs.htm on April 10, 2002, Table 4, and U.S.Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2002).2000 statistical yearbook of the INS. Retrievedfrom http://www.ins.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/Immigs.htm on September 23, 2002,Table 4; Fix, M., Zimmermann, W., & Passel, J.(2001, July). The integration of immigrant familiesin the United States. Washington, DC: The UrbanInstitute, Figure 6.

24 Office of Refugee Resettlement. (2002). Annualreport to Congress — 2000. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/policy/arc_00.htm on February 6, 2003, Table 4.

25 Note that when the Census measures the pres-ence of the foreign-born, they also capture“temporary” migrants such as students or long-term visitors, who do not actually intend toreside or work in the U.S.

26 Some research data collected on immigrants donot distinguish their status, so the informationand analysis may include the undocumented.

27 Fremstad, S. (2001). Immigrants and the TANFprogram: What do we know? Washington, DC:Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

28 Greenberg, E., Macias, R.F., Rhodes, D., &Chan, T. (2001, August). English literacy and lan-guage minorities in the United States. Washington,DC: National Center for Education Statistics,Figures 4.3 & 4.4.

29 Chiswick, B.R., & Miller, P.W. (2002). “Immi-grant earnings: Language skills, linguistic con-centrations and the business cycle.” Journal ofPopulation Economics, 15, 31-57.

30 Carliner, G. (1996, September). The wages andlanguage skills of U.S. immigrants. Cambridge, MA:National Bureau of Economic Research, p. 20.

31 Schmidley, 2001, Figure 14-1.

32 National Center for Education Statistics. (Dateunknown). The 1992 national adult literacy survey: Low literate adults (population diversitywithin the lowest literacy levels). Retrieved fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/naal/design/lowdiversity92.asp on April 10, 2002. The 1994 InternationalAdult Literacy Survey (IALS) also confirmedthe relatively lower levels of literacy proficiencyof the foreign-born, finding their literacy ratessignificantly lower than that of the native-born.See Sum, A., Kirsch, I., & Taggart, R. (2002,February). The twin challenges of mediocrity andinequality: Literacy in the U.S. from an internation-al perspective. Princeton, NJ: Educational TestingService.

33 McMurrer, D.P., Sawhill, I., & Lerman, R.(1997). Welfare reform and opportunity in the low-wage labor market. Washington, DC: The UrbanInstitute. Available at www.urban.org.

34 Mishel, L., Bernstein, J., & Schmitt, J. (2002).The state of working America, 2002-3. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press, Table 2.17.

35 For a summary of recent research on this, seePoppe, N., Strawn, J., & Martinson, K. (2003).Whose job is it? Creating opportunities for advance-ment. Forthcoming as a chapter in Workforce


38


39

intermediaries in the 21st century. R. Giloth (Ed.).Temple University Press. Currently available atwww.clasp.org.

36 Acs, G. (1999, May). A profile of low-wage workers.Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/history/herman/reports/futurework/conference/lowwage/lowwage_toc.htm on September 26, 2002, Table 11. Notethat “low-income” is defined as an annual familyincome below $24,600.


38 Fix, M., Zimmermann, W., & Passel, J.S. (2001,July). The integration of immigrant families in theUnited States. Washington, DC: The UrbanInstitute, Figure 13.


40 See U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices. (1999). The low-wage labor market:Challenges and opportunities for economic self-sufficiency. Washington, DC: Author, for a reviewof relevant literature.

41 U.S. Census Bureau. (Date unknown). Profile ofthe foreign-born population in the United States,2000 (detailed tables for P23-206). Retrieved fromhttp://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/foreign/ppl-145.html on September23, 2002, Tables 19-2A & 19-2B.

42 Capps et al., 2002.

43 Most notably, states now have the option of pro-viding federal TANF assistance to qualifiedimmigrants who arrived before welfare reform’senactment on August 22, 1996, and to thosewho arrived after enactment once they’ve beenpresent in the U.S. for at least five years. Statesmay also provide state-funded TANF to immi-grants who arrived after enactment during the“five-year bar.” A number of states have availedthemselves of these options: 49 provide federalTANF to pre-enactment immigrants, and 19states provide state-funded TANF to post-enact-ment immigrants, although many of the state-funded programs are very restrictive regardingwhom they serve.

44 Fix, M., & Passel, J.S. (2001, September). Thescope and impact of welfare reform’s immigrationprovisions. Washington, DC: The UrbanInstitute, Figure 3.

45 Lofstrom, M., & Bean, F.D. (2001, July). Labormarket conditions and post-reform declines in wel-

fare receipt among immigrants. Irvine, CA:Authors.

46 Capps, R. (2001, February). Hardship amongchildren of immigrants: Findings from the 1999National Survey of America’s Families. Washing-ton, DC: The Urban Institute.

47 Borjas, G.J. (2001, May). Food insecurity and pub-lic assistance. Retrieved from http://www.jcpr.org/wpfiles/borjas_foodinsecurity.pdf onDecember 15, 2001, p. 37.

48 Capps et al., 2002.

49 Much of this discussion is drawn from Martin-son, K., & Strawn, J. (2003). Built to last: Whyskills matter for long-run success in welfare reform.Washington, DC: Center for Law and SocialPolicy, the National Institute for Literacy, andthe National Adult Education ProfessionalDevelopment Consortium.

50 In the Minority Single Parent Demonstration,which included the CET program and focusedon low-income female single parents (primarilywelfare recipients), roughly 80 percent of theparticipants were Hispanic. See Zambrowski, A.,& Gordon, A. (1993). Evaluation of the minoritysingle parent demonstration: Fifth-year impacts atCET. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica PolicyResearch, Inc. In the JOBSTART evaluation,which also included CET and focused on younghigh school dropouts, over 70 percent of theparticipants were Hispanic. See Cave, G., Bos,H., Doolittle, F., & Toussaint, C. (1993). JOB-START: Final report on a program for schooldropouts. New York: Manpower DemonstrationResearch Corporation.

51 Zambrowski & Gordon, 1993.

52 Cave et al., 1993.

53 Gueron, J.M., & Hamilton, G. (2002). The role ofeducation and training in welfare reform. WelfareReform and Beyond, Policy Brief #20. Washing-ton, DC: The Brookings Institution. Available atwww.brookings.edu/wrb.

54 Other evaluations have shown that programsthat provide a range of services—primarily education, training, and job search—producethe best results. Most notably, the RiversideGAIN program, which operated in the late1980s, had a strong employment focus but alsoallowed participation in education activities (60percent participated in education or training)and produced impacts similar to Portland. In

addition, both the San Diego SWIM programand the Baltimore Options program, which alsooperated in the 1980s, produced substantialearnings impacts through job search as well aseducation and training.

55 Hamilton, G., Freedman, S., Gennetian, L.,Michalopoulos, C., Walter, J., Adams-Ciardullo,D., et al. (2001). How effective are different wel-fare-to-work approaches? Five year adult and childimpacts for eleven programs. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Health and Human Services,Administration for Children and Families andOffice of the Assistant Secretary for Planningand Evaluation; and U.S. Department ofEducation. Available at www.mdrc.org.

56 Freedman, S., Friedlander, D., Hamilton, G.,Rock, J., Mitchell, M., Nudelman, J., et al.(2000). Evaluating alternative welfare-to-workapproaches: Two-year impacts for eleven programs.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, Administration forChildren and Families and Office of theAssistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation;and U.S. Department of Education. Available atwww.mdrc.org.

57 Scrivener, S., Hamilton, G., Farrell, M., Freed-man, S., Friedlander, D., Mitchell, M., et al.(1998). The national evaluation of welfare-to-workstrategies: Implementation, participation patterns,costs, and two-year impacts of the Portland (Oregon)welfare-to-work program. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Health and Human Services andU.S. Department of Education. Available atwww.mdrc.org.

58 Scrivener et al., 1998.

59 Earnings gains ranged from 8 to 17 percent($1,500 to $2,500), and the reduction in monthson welfare ranged from 8 to 14 percent.

60 Hamilton et al., 2001.

61 For example, in the NEWWS evaluation, effectswere smaller for the basic education-focusedprograms than for the employment-focused pro-grams, with earnings gains in these programsranging from about 4 to 13 percent ($800 to$2,000) and reductions in the time spent onwelfare ranging from 4 to 14 percent.

62 Hamilton, et al., 2001; Strawn, J. (1998). Beyondjob search or basic education: Rethinking the role ofskills in welfare reform. Washington, DC: Centerfor Law and Social Policy. Available at www.clasp.org. Pauly, E., & Di Meo, C. (1995). Adulteducation for people on AFDC: A synthesis of the

research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and Office of theAssistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation;and U.S. Department of Education. Available atwww.mdrc.org.


64 Evaluations of welfare-to-work programs havefound that the majority of welfare recipientswho enrolled in basic education did not obtaina GED, and most programs studied did notraise welfare recipients’ scores on a test of basicskills. Further, no clear relationship can be seenin this research between programs that raisedtest scores or increased GED receipt and thosethat raised earnings. This is consistent withresearch on adult education programs moregenerally. See Pauly & Di Meo, 1995; Beder,H.W. (1998). The outcomes and impacts of adultliteracy education in the United States. Cambridge,MA: National Center for the Study of AdultLearning and Literacy (NCSALL).

65 Service quality appears important for education-al outcomes. San Diego County—the only oneof five California GAIN county programs stud-ied that raised recipients’ test scores—haddeveloped an entirely new system of learningcenters just for welfare recipients, which fea-tured computerized instruction, speciallytrained staff, off-campus locations, and morehours of instruction per week than regular adulteducation classes. See Martinson, K., & Fried-lander, D. (1994). GAIN: Basic education in a welfare-to-work program. New York: ManpowerDemonstration Research Corporation.


67 This analysis did not include Portland butrather relied on three education-focused siteswhere fewer individuals made the transition topostsecondary education or vocational trainingthan in Portland.

68 Bos, J., Scrivener, S., Snipes, J., & Hamilton. G.(2001). Improving basic skills: The effects of adulteducation in welfare-to-work programs. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, Administration for Childrenand Families and Office of the AssistantSecretary for Planning and Evaluation; and U.S. Department of Education. Available atwww.mdrc.org.

69 Bos et al., 2001.

70 Bos et al., 2001.


40

71 Domestic Strategy Group. (2002). Grow fastertogether. Or grow slowly apart. Washington, DC:Aspen Institute.

72 This includes an ongoing study for the Depart-ment of Labor on the U.S.-Mexico border. See Spruck Wrigley, H., & Powrie, J. (2003).Language, literacy, and employment on the U.S.-Mexico border. San Mateo, CA: AguirreInternational.

73 Frank, A., Rahmanou, H., and Savner, S. (2003,March). The Workforce Investment Act: A first lookat participation, demographics, and services.Washington, DC: CLASP.

74 CLASP analysis of The Workforce InvestmentAct Standardized Record Data (WIASRD),Program Year 2000. Data not included from AL,LA, NY, and PA.

75 U.S. Department of Education. (2001).Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/AdultEd/2003allot.html on July 7, 2003.

76 Murphy, G. (2003, January). The nation’s adulteducation and literacy system. Washington, DC:The National Coalition for Literacy and theNational Adult Education ProfessionalDevelopment Consortium.

77 Note that voluntary agencies generally continueserving refugees beyond their first year in thecountry.

78 Office of Refugee Resettlement. (2002). Annualreport to Congress—2000. Retrieved fromhttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/policy/arc_00.htm on February 6, 2003, Table 4.

79 Office of Refugee Resettlement, 2002, Table 6.

80 Holcomb, P., & Martinson, K. (2002). Implement-ing welfare reform across the nation. Washington,DC: The Urban Institute.

81 Greenberg, M., & Richer, E. (2003). How statesused TANF and MOE funds in FY 2002: The pic-ture from federal reporting. Washington, DC:CLASP.

82 Greenberg, M., & Rahmanou, H. (2003,March). TANF participation in 2001. Washing-ton, DC: CLASP.

83 California Budget Project. (2002, December).Timing out: CalWORKs recipients face the state’sfive-year time limit. Sacramento, CA: Author.Retrieved from http://www.cbp.org/2002/bb021231timingout.pdf on March 24, 2003,Table 2.

84 Research in England in workplace communica-tion has stressed the need for immigrants toacquire social language used at work along withthe technical language of the job. Refugees whowere not able to make small talk or connectwith others during break were seen as stand-offish and were less likely to be promoted thanothers whose use of social language signaledthat they were “fitting in” with their co-workers.A trainer in Chicago once mentioned that theability to respond appropriately to questionssuch as “How about them Cubs?” could go along way in helping a person to be accepted bythose native to the city.

85 The Center for Employment Training, forexample, uses a competency-based model thatallows workers to complete competencies attheir own pace, and participants are eligible forservices until they meet all competenciesrequired to complete training. Individuals workin pairs or small groups and bilingual instruc-tors or more advanced participants help trans-late occasionally. All “book learning” is linkeddirectly to job tasks.

86 One of the greatest barriers to success in train-ing programs for LEP participants are pencil-and-paper tests. Especially problematic are mul-tiple choice tests that require savvy test takingskills (such as knowing that the obvious answeris quite often the wrong answer designed totempt those who know very little). In addition,multiple choice tests often demand sophisticat-ed linguistic and cognitive skills such as under-standing sentences with double negatives(“Which of the following is seldom not true?”),skills that those who don’t speak English welland have not gone through the U.S. school sys-tem seldom have. Programs that work for LEPadults often take a dual approach. They designassessments that rely, at least in part, on demon-stration of actual skills, such as Nursing Assist-ant students taking blood pressure, and/or provide training in test taking skills so that participants can pass licensing exams.

87 A Russian engineer, for example, may havecompleted only short-term technical trainingand may have worked as an electrician or amaintenance person. In this case, his creden-tials would not be equivalent to the U.S. educa-tional level for engineers.

88 See also Social Research and DemonstrationCorporation. (1999). An evaluation of work-basedprograms for youth: A report to the NationalLiteracy Secretariat. Ottawa, Canada: Author; U.S.


41


42

Department of Labor. (1995, January). What’sworking (and what’s not): A summary of researchon the economic impacts of employment and trainingprograms. Washington, DC: Author.

89 This is drawn from Poppe et al., 2003.

90 This figure is reprinted from Poppe et al., 2003.

91 See also Spruck Wrigley, H., & Powrie, J. (forth-coming). Meeting the challenge on the border.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, areport on language and literacy on the U.S.-Mexico border.

92 See also Wonacott, M.E. (2000). Preparing limit-ed English proficient persons for the workplace,ERIC Digest No. 216.

93 See Martinson & Strawn, 2003.

94 U.S. Department of Education. (2002, October).Summary of the 2000-2001 experimental sites ini-tiative analysis report. Washington, DC: Author.

95 While the Department of Education has fundeda five-year study on “What Works in Adult ESLLiteracy” (Condelli and Wrigley, forthcoming),the study did not examine employment trainingprograms for LEP adults or programs focusedon Vocational English as a Second Language(VESL).

96 For more details on these lab sites, see theNational Center for the Study of Adult Learningand Literacy at Harvard at www.gse.harvard.edu/~ncsall/labsites.html.

97 The service system for immigrants and refugeesin the United States is highly fragmented. Thereis no single policy that speaks to the educationand training of LEP adults; rather, there is apatchwork of services provided by a variety ofdepartments, including the Department ofLabor, the Department of Education, and theDepartment of Health and Human Services,along with various state initiatives. See alsoChisman, F., Spruck Wrigley, H., & Ewen, D.(1994). ESL and the American dream. Washing-ton, DC: Southport Institute of Policy Analysis.

98 The ERIC Clearinghouse on Career andVocational Education tends not to address LEPissues in its publications, while the clearing-house that deals with adult ESL (the NationalClearinghouse ESL Literacy Education[NCLE]) has not published a digest of a paperon employment or training since 1997.

99 See NCLE issues papers related to “vocationaland workplace ESL instruction” at www.cal.org/ncle/NCLEISU.HTM.


43

This appendix provides short descriptions ofsome programs that provide innovative servic-es to LEP individuals, using many of the poli-cies and practices recommended in this paper.These programs use a range of approaches toproviding services, including bilingual pro-grams (which teach skills training in thenative language of the participants), integratedprograms (which teach both English and skillstraining concurrently), and sequential pro-grams (where individuals begin with Englishlanguage classes and progress to skills trainingafter a certain level of English proficiency isattained). The programs profiled here allserve individuals with limited English profi-ciency, but they vary in their goals, targetingdifferent populations and tailoring programsto the skill levels of their participants. The

common link among the programs presentedhere is the effort to combine language and jobtraining instruction in a single program forLEP individuals.

Most of the programs in this appendix havenot been rigorously evaluated, but they areincluded because they use approaches thatpush the boundaries of traditional programdesigns. These programs are typically small;taking such models to a larger scale will be acritical challenge for the field. The outcomespresented for each program are those report-ed by program staff. They are not comparableacross programs because of differences in pro-gram models and services, populations served,and data collection techniques. The profilesare presented alphabetically.

AppendixPromising Program Models

and Practices


44

BILINGUAL PROGRAMS

Organization Location Program

HIRE Center Milwaukee, WI Milwaukee Spanish Tech Track

Instituto del Progreso Latino Chicago, IL Chicago Manufacturing Technology Bridge Program

INTEGRATED PROGRAMS


Center for Employment San Jose, CA Currently offers 17 occupational and Training areas

Chinese American Service Chicago, IL Chef Training ProgramLeague

El Paso Community College El Paso, TX Motivation, Education and Training (MET)

Guadalupe Centers, Inc. Kansas City, MO Culinary Arts Institute

SEQUENTIAL PROGRAMS


International Institute of St. Paul, MN Nursing Assistant ProgramMinnesota

International Institute of the Oakland, CA CAREGIVERS ProgramEast Bay

Jewish Vocational Services San Francisco, CA Office Technology & Communications Program

Lifetrack Resources St. Paul, MN Functional Work English Program

Seattle Jobs Initiative Seattle, WA Manufacturing-Focused Adult Basic Education/English as a Second Language Training


45

Center for Employment and TrainingSan Jose, California, and other locations

Program goals: From its inception in 1967,the primary goal of Center for EmploymentTraining (CET) has been to assist hard-to-serve clients obtain stable employment andself-sufficiency. They do this by providing acomprehensive program that consists of hands-on job skills training that is integrated withthe basic skills and English communicationskills required to succeed on the job. AlthoughCET serves students from all ethnic groups,the majority of its training centers are locatedin and serve largely Hispanic communities.Over the past 35 years, CET has trained andplaced over 100,000 people into jobs.

Program size and funding: CET is one of thenation’s largest non-profit employment train-ing organizations. It encompasses a network of33 training centers operating in 12 states. CETreceives funding from federal and localsources, principally through the WorkforceInvestment Act. With funding from the U.S.Department of Labor’s National FarmworkerJobs Program, CET is the nation’s largestretrainer of migrant and seasonal farmwork-ers. Accredited by the Western Association ofSchools and Colleges, CET’s courses areapproved for federal student financial aid,such as Pell grants.

During the 2001-2002 fiscal year (July 1,2001–June 30, 2002), CET served 5,056 stu-dents. Its largest training center, known as theSobrato Center, is located in downtown SanJose, California. The data provided belowreflect the services provided only at this siteduring the last fiscal year.

Population served: During the last fiscal yearat the Sobrato Center, CET served 932 stu-dents. Of these, 508 were women and 424were men. The majority of the students wereHispanic (84 percent). Asians and PacificIslanders (11 percent), African Americans

(2 percent), Caucasians (2 percent), andNative Americans (1 percent) were alsoserved. Sixty-seven percent of the students hadnot completed high school (315 had droppedout between grades 9 and 12, and 305 had an8th grade education or less). CET reports that71 percent of their students were limitedEnglish speaking. Based on an initial assess-ment using the Comprehensive Adult StudentAssessment System (CASAS) tests, nearly two-thirds of enrollees scored below the 8th gradein reading and math.

Program design: CET is noted for its “contex-tual learning model” in which job training,basic education skills, and language educationare integrated. CET simulates on-the-job con-ditions by requiring students to comply withstrict attendance rules, punch in on a timeclock, and attend classes Monday throughFriday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Job training isbased on a hands-on model in which studentsuse equipment and materials similar to whatthey will find on a job. Basic skills and ESLare taught along with and, to the extent possi-ble, directly in the context of vocational skillstraining. CET employs job developers to workwith employers to help place students in train-ing-related jobs.

Training is individualized and self-paced.Students may enter the program at any time(admissions are open entry, open exit) andcomplete the program when they have suffi-cient skills to find a training-related job. Theprojected average training times for coursesvary based on the complexity of the courseand the needs of the typical students. Forexample, a course in automated office skills isprojected to last an average 810 hours (23weeks), the child care provider course is pro-jected at 900 hours (26 weeks), and the PCtechnician course is 630 hours (18 weeks).Most courses are open to all applicants whomeet funder eligibility requirements withoutregard to their initial education or English literacy levels.


46

Training options available at the San JoseSobrato Center:

■ Account Clerk/Bookkeeper

■ Automotive Maintenance Technician

■ Automotive Specialist

■ Building Maintenance

■ Building Maintenance Service Technician

■ Computerized Accounting

■ Child Care Provider

■ Commercial Food Service

■ Data Entry/Computer Operator

■ Electronic Assembly

■ Medical Assistant

■ Machine Tool Operator

■ Machine Setup Operator

■ PC Technician

■ Printing/Graphic Arts

■ Sheet Metal Fabricator

■ Shipping, Receiving, Warehouse Operator

Program outcomes reported (July 1, 2001–June 30, 2002):Terminations: 570

Placements: 484 (85%)

Training-related placements: 406 (84%)

Average entry wage: $10.83/hour

Contact for more information: Erica Huey,Program Analyst/Internal Auditor, Center for Employment Training, 9960 IndianaAvenue, Riverside, CA 92503, (909) 351-3100, [email protected]


47

Chinese American Service League Chicago, Illinois

Chef Training Program

Program goals: The purpose of the ChefTraining program is to prepare immigrantpopulations with the basic knowledge andskills needed to enter the food service industry. In addition, a secondary goal is tofind meaningful employment and achievelong-term financial security for program participants.

Program size and funding: This program isfunded through the Mayor’s Office of Work-force Development, Department of Commerceand Community Affairs, and Workforce Invest-ment Act funding. The budget for this pro-gram is approximately $350,000 per year, andit serves 100 individuals annually.

Population served: The population servedthrough this program is mostly Chinese withabout 85 percent of students originating fromChina. The remaining 15 percent are Africanimmigrants and refugees, African Americans,and Hispanic Americans. Most of the partici-pants have limited English skills, and all arelow-income. The amount of formal educationin their native countries varies significantlyfrom none to master’s degrees; most studentshave prior work experience.

Program design: The Chef Training programis a 16-week class consisting of 12 weeks ofcooking skills training and four weeks of paidon-the-job training. The students attend class-es Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m.until 4:00 p.m. The Chinese American ServiceLeague (CASL) uses the Test of Adult BasicEducation (TABE) for assessment purposes,and students generally improve two levelsthroughout the program. The program hasbeen in operation for over 14 years.

In the morning, associates attend hands-oncooking skills classes where they learn basiccooking skills, food preparation, sanitation,

and menu planning. In the afternoon, theyattend vocational ESL (VESL) classes in whichthey cover appropriate vocabulary, as well asjob search and interview skills. All classes arein English; however, the VESL instructorattends cooking classes and co-teaches withthe chef instructor to facilitate the hands-onlearning.

The program has strong ties to potentialemployers through field trips to potentialwork sites, visits to various restaurants, andchef guest speakers, in addition to the fourweeks of on-the-job training. In addition,CASL offers many support services to help stu-dents complete the program and succeed inthe workplace, which include free transporta-tion to and from class, on-the-job counseling,and follow-up services after placement. AsCASL is a comprehensive, multi-service organi-zation, chef training associates have access toother support services, such as child care,social and mental health services, and housingassistance. At the completion of the program,graduates generally secure employment inhotels, restaurants, and hospitals.

Program outcomes reported:Program completion: 90-95 percent

Job placement: Historically, 80 percent (has varied significantly in the last two sessions because of the econo-my in Chicago)

Placement wages: Range from $6.90-$10.50, average $8.50/ hour

Gains in literacy and/or language proficiency: 2-3 levels (TABE test)

Job retention: 60 percent (90 days)

Job advancement: Generally pay increases yearly

Contact for more information: Ricky Lam,Manager of Employment and Training, Chi-nese American Service League, 310 West 24thPlace, Chicago, Illinois 60616, (312) 791-0418.

Motivation, Education, and Training El Paso, Texas

El Paso Community CollegeMotivation, Education, and Training(MET) Construction Program

Program goals: The purpose of the METconstruction program is to prepare formerfarm workers for jobs that have promise in thecurrent economy. The Introduction to theConstruction Manager training program isdesigned to build the job skills needed for thetrades, along with the literacy, math, and voca-tional English skills necessary to succeed intraining and at the worksite. Applied technolo-gy skills are integrated as well, as is documentreading, such as interpreting blueprints.Numeracy skills related to measurements andother job-specific tasks are included as well.

Program size and funding: The MET pro-gram is funded through the Department ofLabor as part of the Migrant and SeasonalFarm Workers grants. Funds go to public agen-cies and non-profit groups to provide trainingand other employability development servicesto economically disadvantaged families whoseprincipal livelihood is gained in migratory andother forms of seasonal farm work. The grantsare partially funded through the WorkforceInvestment Act. MET operates throughout theUnited States and provides training, rehabilita-tion, job development, and family assistance.Eligible farm workers receive stipends for par-ticipation in the MET program. El PasoCommunity College runs one of the trainingprograms for MET in Texas. Since 1997, morethan 450 farm workers have been trained inplastic injection molding. In January 2002,MET training shifted from plastic injectionmolding to construction in response to shiftsin employment demands. Since then, 135 farmworkers and members of their families havecompleted the training. So far this year, METhas spent $500,000 in stipends and supportiveservices to their clients (July 2002-March

2003) and $210,000 in tuition for additionalvocational training to serve 55 individuals(July-March).

Population served: The population servedthrough this program consists predominantlyof Latino farm workers who need retraining.Ninety-eight percent are Hispanic and 2 per-cent are Anglo (Caucasian non-Hispanic); 92percent of the foreign born farm workers arefrom Mexico, and 6 percent are from theCaribbean and Central American countries; 98percent of participants speak Spanish, and 87percent have limited proficiency in English.The average level of schooling is three years ofelementary education in Mexico; a fair num-ber have never attended school. Eighty-fivepercent do not have work experience outsideof farm work and the vast majority has anannual household income below $5,000.

Program design: The construction programrepresents an integrated training model thatcombines basic skills (primarily math),English communication skills, and the SpanishGED (when funds are available) with job-specific skills training in construction. TheIntroduction to the Construction Managerprogram is a 28-week class consisting of eightweeks of Spanish GED and computer skills(taught bilingually), with 20 weeks of Englishfor Specific Purposes (ESP) and job skillsclasses related to construction in the areas offoundations, roofing, drywall, framing, exteri-or and interior painting, and entrepreneur-ship. Construction training is mostly hands-on.Basic principles are covered in the classroomfollowed by hands-on application as studentsbuild a house in the college parking lot.

The students attend classes Monday throughFriday, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. After com-pletion of the college training, the studentscontinue with a local employer where theyreceive on-the-job training for an additional 12weeks. Construction classes are held in themorning, before the desert heat makes hands-on work difficult, while English and math are


48


49

offered in the afternoons. These classes usebilingual support to get information across,although the construction supervisor uses pri-marily English on the job.

Participants in the training program receiveassistance for a wide array of personal needs,including comprehensive housing services(home ownership assistance, rehabilitation/repair, emergency lodging, leveraging funds,etc.), medical care, emergency food needs,transportation assistance, and other servicesthat address individual barriers to employment.

Program outcomes reported:Program completion: 96 percent (varies from

year to year)

Placement: 84 percent

Placement wages: Range from $6.50-$9.75/hour

Gains in literacy and/or language proficiency: Moreno Spanish

literacy test: 4 gradesCASAS: 5 points


Job advancement: Numbers not available, but pay generally increases yearly

Contact for more information: SaraMartinez, Motivation, Education, and Training(MET), El Paso Community College, 4191North Mesa, Room 234, El Paso, TX 79902,[email protected]


50

Guadalupe Center, Inc.Kansas City, Missouri

Guadalupe Center’s Culinary ArtsInstitute

Program goals: The Culinary Arts Instituteaims to place Hispanics and other urban coreresidents into local food service industry jobsto both reduce unemployment and underem-ployment in the urban core community and toreduce long-term food service industry jobvacancies.

Program size and funding: The program,which began July 1, 2000, is funded by a three-year, $2 million earmark grant from the Depart-ment of Labor’s Employment and TrainingAdministration. To date, the program hastrained over 360 individuals and placed 215 inemployment in the food service industry.

Population served: The Culinary ArtsInstitute program serves all urban core resi-dents; however, the program is approximately60 percent Hispanic, 20 percent AfricanAmerican, 15 percent white, and about 5 per-cent Asian/Pacific Islander. More than half ofthe trainees, referred to as associates, arewomen between the ages of 25-35. Associatesmust have a basic understanding of English,and two language assistance courses areoffered (day and evening). In addition, theServsafe exam, a national certificate issued bythe National Restaurant Association, is offeredin both English and Spanish.

Program design: The training program isnine weeks and is comprised of three parts:Servsafe (classroom setting), basic culinaryskills (kitchen setting), and job search. Classesare four days per week and associates areexpected to clock in and out of training as ifthey were on the job in order to prepare themfor the workplace. The LEP population isabout 30 percent of the total population, andLEP associates usually attend evening classes,although they can opt for the day program. In

the evening, a translator attends the classesand provides both oral and written support inSpanish. All of the culinary institute associatesare assigned case managers and undergointense assessment in order to identify andameliorate any barriers to completing the pro-gram, including child care, transportation,housing, and mental health concerns. For thenine weeks of training (four days per week),the program will pay for child care andarrange for transportation to and from class.

For six months post-graduation, the center willassist with child care (the center operates achild care facility for children between twoand five years of age), provide indirect finan-cial assistance for equipment (knives, etc.) andtransportation, and will provide follow-up casemanagement to ensure job retention and tohelp ease the transition to work life. In addi-tion, all staff are trained to be culturallyappropriate when working with LEP clients;discrimination on the job (how to recognize it,what are workers rights) is discussed. The pro-gram has strong links to area employersthrough its Advisory Board, which consists ofexecutive chefs of major hotels and restau-rants. The program established working rela-tionships with over 1,000 local employers.Associates also make several site visits duringthe course to various job sites to becomefamiliar with different types of positions avail-able in the food service industry.

Program outcomes reported:Program completion: 85 percent who

complete program passthe Servsafe exam

Job placement: ~67 percent

Placement wages: Average $9/hour (range $7.25-$13/ hour)

Credentials attained: Servsafe (nationally recognized certificate)

Job retention: ~70 percent (after 6 months)


51

Contact for more information: Memo Lona,Associate Director for Adult Education andEmployment, Guadalupe Centers, Inc., 1015

Avenida Cesar E. Chavez, Kansas City, MO64108, (816) 472-4770


52

HIRE CenterMilwaukee, Wisconsin

Milwaukee Spanish Tech Track(MSTT)

Program goals: The goal of the MSTT pro-gram is to provide bilingual training toSpanish-speaking dislocated and incumbentworkers in the field of manufacturing and toprepare them to enter hard-to-fill jobs withMilwaukee-area manufacturers.

Program size and funding: The MSTT wasdesigned and directed by the HIRE Centerusing federal funding through a Departmentof Labor demonstration grant. The HIRECenter is a consortium of the Private IndustryCouncil of Milwaukee County, the StateDepartment of Workforce Development, theAFL-CIO Labor Education and TrainingCenter, Milwaukee Area Technical College(MATC), and the United Way of GreaterMilwaukee. The program began in 1999 with a$1 million federal grant awarded to 10 com-munities and then was continued with addi-tional Department of Labor funding awardedto five communities in 2001. Approximately 70students have graduated from the programsince its inception.

Population served: The MSTT program par-ticipants are Spanish-speaking, both male andfemale, and the average age is 35 years.Initially, funding was primarily for dislocatedworkers; however, the second grant helpedexpand the program to include an incumbentworker component.

Program design: The MSTT offers two differ-ent bilingual programs for dislocated workers,Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC)Machining and Industrial MaintenanceMechanic (IMM). In about 600 hours over 16weeks (37.5 hours per week), students engagein a compressed manufacturing and technicaltraining in Spanish that includes approximate-ly 100 hours of occupational ESL in a course

entitled Machining Communication Skills. Allstudents take a pre-math course prior to thebeginning of the technical training that pre-pares them to work with decimals, fractions,units of measure, and simple formulas. Toenroll in the training program, students mustbe able to compute the four basic operationswith whole numbers. The requirements forentry into the CNC machining and IMM dif-fer slightly. The Comprehensive Adult StudentAssessment System (CASAS) ESL appraisaland the CASAS Spanish Language Proficiencytests are administered to determine a student’slevel. For CNC machining, no minimum levelis formally set. For IMM, a student generallyneeds to be functioning at a fourth to fifthgrade level in math and Spanish to be able tosucceed in the program.

With an intensive and long daily schedule atthe MATC, students study math, occupationalEnglish, and machine blueprint and schematicreading, in addition to taking technical train-ing courses. IMM students study electricity andelectronics, basic hydraulics and pneumatics,IM power transmission, IM rigging, and IMbasic welding. Classes and materials are all inSpanish with English translations providedand verbal translation during class to familiar-ize students with English terms. All instructorsare fully bilingual and are instructors, notinterpreters. The HIRE Center has strong con-nections with the industry and potentialemployers to assist graduates with job place-ment. The program reports 100 percent wagereplacement (graduates earn as much in theirnew jobs as they had prior to the program)and high retention rates.

Program outcomes reported:Program completion (both programs): 82 percent

For CNC Machining:

Job placement: 92 percent

Placement wages: $10.53/hour (average)



53

For IMM:Job placement: 75 percent

Placement wages: $11.77/hour (average)


Contact for more information: RogerHinkle, HIRE Center Manager, or BerthaGonzalez, Project Manager, HIRE Center, 816W. National Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53204,(414) 385-6958


54

International Institute of MinnesotaSt. Paul, Minnesota

Nursing Assistant Program

Program goals: To prepare individuals tobecome certified nursing assistants.

Program size and funding: The programserves approximately 140 students per year. Itis funded by the Office of Refugee Resettle-ment, the United Way, the McKnight Found-ation, and private grants.

Population served: More than 90 percent of the students are originally from Africa—primarily Ethiopia, Liberia, and Somalia. Mosthave received formal education in their owncountry. Seventy percent of the students arewomen.

Program design: The International Instituteof Minnesota offers two Nursing AssistantPrograms—one is eight weeks and the other is11 weeks. The 11-week program is for thosewho require more intensive English languageinstruction. Classes meet five days a week from8:30 am to 2:30 p.m. Individuals must pass arelatively rigorous intake process that includesan initial phone interview, an entrance test(reading, writing, and listening in English),and an interview (with a focus on verbalskills). There are 12 students per class, andthere is generally a waiting list to get into theprogram.

They use the curriculum developed by thestate for nursing assistants and supplement itwith instruction on English language, life

skills, and cultural workplace issues. They havefound that preparing individuals for culturalworkplace issues that can arise is importantfor retention. Classes are co-taught by a nurseand an ESL teacher. After the training pro-gram, an employment specialist helps studentsfind jobs. Generally, the jobs are full-time withbenefits and pay approximately $10.50 to $11per hour.

The Institute also offers two other programsfor students who finish the Nursing AssistantProgram. The Academic Skills for MedicalAdvancement is a 20-week preparatory coursefor students interested in obtaining more med-ical training at a technical college to become,for example, a licensed practical nurse.Students spend four hours per day, four daysper week intensively studying academic writ-ing, reading, and vocabulary. The MedicalCareer Advancement Program is designed tobuild students’ confidence in navigating theAmerican higher education system in the med-ical field, to improve their success in medicaleducation programs, and to provide somefinancial assistance.

Program outcomes reported: In 2002, 93 per-cent of those who enrolled (114 out of 123)completed the training, and 100 percent ofthose who completed the training were certi-fied. Most graduates are still working as nurs-ing assistants six months after beginning work.

Contact for more information: MichaelDonahue, International Institute of Minnesota,1694 Como Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, (651)647-0191, ext. 318

International Institute of the East BayOakland, California

Caregivers Job Training andPlacement Program

Program goals: The primary goal of the program is to assist immigrant and refugeewomen in becoming self-sufficient throughincreasing their English skills and job skills inthe area of early childhood education.

Program size and funding: The CaregiversProgram is in its 18th year with a budget of$250,000. Funding is largely foundation-basedand in-kind collaboration with Merritt College,the Oakland Unified School District, and theJesuit Volunteer Corp. For the past three years,The International Institute of the East Bay hasreceived federal welfare funds (known inCalifornia as CalWorks) to help support thisprogram. The program serves approximately75 women per year.

Population served: Although open to every-one, the program has only served women,largely immigrants and refugees. The womenare from various countries, including those inLatin America, Africa, Southeast Asia, and alarge contingent from Bosnia. The average ageof the women is 39, and most have school-agechildren and previous work experience. Hist-orically, the entrants have little to no formaleducation and low English proficiency,although this changes from year to year.

Program design: The Caregivers Program hastwo tracks and four components. Individualsare assessed during an orientation and intakemeeting using an in-house assessment. Duringthis process, an individual plan is drawn upwith a case manager according to the learninggoals of the client and the results of the lan-guage assessment. The case manager makesappropriate referrals for additional supportservices, such as mental health services. Thefour components of the full track are vocation-al ESL (VESL), early childhood education

(ECE) classes, career and personal develop-ment (CPD) classes, and an internship. VESLclasses are open entry, open exit to allowthose who need additional language supportto attend prior to beginning ECE coursework.In addition, clients with previous work experi-ence in child care may choose a “fast track”where they can opt out of the internship.

Classes meet four days per week from 9:00a.m. to 2:30 p.m., and one day per week stu-dents attend an internship at a daycare center.All classes are taught in English. The ECEclasses are taught by teachers from MerrittCollege, so students earn college creditsthrough the program. VESL classes focus on“workplace” skills, such as ECE vocabularyand communicating with supervisors and co-workers, through peer learning and group activ-ities. The CPD class covers a wide range of top-ics, including self-esteem, self-sufficiency, work-ers’ rights, interviewing, and resume writing.The program has established important link-ages with local employers both through a histo-ry of successful placements and the internshipprogram. Former participants often return totalk with current students about the ECE field.The focus is on empowerment, as well as jobskills that support job retention and continuededucation and training.

Program outcomes reported:Program completion: 82 percent

Placement in further education/training: 76 percent

Job placement: 23 percent (most continue on to college to take the additional credits needed forplacement in the field)

Placement wages: $7-$15/hour depend-ing on type of placement

Credentials attained: 6 ECE (college-level) credits (required in CA for ECE providers)



55


56

Contact for more information: CarrieParrish, Caregivers Program Specialist,International Institute of the East Bay, 297 Lee

Street, Oakland, CA 94610, (510) 451-2846,ext. 307


57

Instituto del Progreso LatinoChicago, Illinois

Chicago Manufacturing TechnologyBridge Program (CMTBP)—BilingualComponent

Program goals: To prepare native Spanishspeaking adults for jobs in the manufacturingsector and “bridge” them to other educationalprograms.

Program size and funding: CMTBP began in1997; however, the bilingual component (BC)began in January 2001. Funding for the bridgeprograms comes from a variety of sources,including the Workforce Investment Act andstate and city workforce development funds.The BC serves approximately 130 studentsannually.

Population served: The BC serves Latinos,mostly Mexicans. The average age of the par-ticipants in the first graduating group was 38years, and 82 percent of the students werewomen. The range of formal educationobtained prior to the program was one to sixyears. The students had varying degrees ofEnglish proficiency, but for the most part, theinitial English proficiency level was quite low.However, the students generally enter the pro-gram with extensive work experience.

Program design: The BC is 16 weeks. Forthose with very minimal English skills, a 14-week Vocational ESL (VESL) component runsprior to the BC manufacturing bridge classes.Within the VESL classes students learn basicmath, English, and computer skills. TheInstituto del Progreso Latino has a large com-puter center and many software programs forlearning basic skills. In the BC, studentsattend 16 hours per week of VESL and thenspend 24 hours per week in manufacturing

courses. The manufacturing classes are held atWestside Technical College and are conductedin Spanish with a lot of back and forth transla-tion between Spanish and English. The basicmath skills and computer skills components ofthe VESL classes are also conducted inSpanish, but introduce English terms. TheVESL instructors at Instituto have spent agreat deal of time adapting the VESL programto fit the needs of the students and to empha-size vocational language and skills particular tomanufacturing. They emphasize the need fora high level of connection and integration ofthe manufacturing skills and language skills.In addition to the skills classes, students attenda workplace communication course thatincludes resume writing, role-playing conflictresolution, and mock interviews. Often peoplewithin the manufacturing industry will attendand participate in mock interviews to preparestudents for the job search and interviewprocess in the most realistic scenario possiblewhile still in training. Students in the programalso benefit from counseling, case manage-ment, job placement assistance and follow-up,and the first steps to advanced certificate/associate degree programs in manufacturingtechnology, if they so choose.

Program outcomes reported:Program completion: About 98 percent

Job placement: Men: 57 percent Women: 42 percent

Placement wages: Men: $12.12/hour Women: $8.84/hour

Gains in English proficiency: 2-3 levels

Contact for more information: Betsy Sweetor Tom Dubois, Instituto del Progreso Latino,2570 S. Blue Island Avenue, Chicago, IL60608, (773) 890-0055


58

Jewish Vocational ServicesSan Francisco, California

Office Technology & Communications(OTC) Program

Program goals: The primary goal of the pro-gram is to train newcomers to the U.S. in com-puters, keyboarding and 10-key punch, work-place acculturation, job search and retention,and language skills necessary to attaining self-sufficiency. In addition, the program strivesfor an 80 percent job placement into positionssuch as general office clerk, administrativeassistant, receptionist, file clerk, and process-ing clerk.

Program size and funding: Initially all thefunding for the program came from theOffice of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) andthe San Francisco Private Industry Council(PIC). Currently, the program is funded byORR, PIC, CalWorks (California’s welfare program), and more recently, WorkforceInvestment Act funding for dislocated workers.The budget for OTC is $4,400 per participant;27 participants were served last year.

Population served: The OTC program partic-ipants are about 80 percent female, ranging inage from 18-62 with an average age of 40.Currently, the majority of students are from theformer Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,although there are students from Africa,Indonesia, and Vietnam in the program.Students from the former Soviet Union tend tohave postsecondary education in their nativecountries and previous work experience.

Program design: The OTC program is divid-ed into two programs, day and evening. Theday program is 18 weeks, 35 hours per week.The evening program is 20 weeks, 20 hoursper week. The last four to six weeks of bothprograms are internships for 20 hours perweek. All participants must be at a SPL level of4 (language proficiency out of a 0-8 scale)before beginning training. Those wanting toenter the OTC program with lower levels of

proficiency can attend vocational ESL (VESL)classes first. All potential participants have anindividual interview with the program coordi-nator to discuss personal goals and determineif the OTC program is appropriate. Potentialparticipants also take the ComprehensiveAdult Student Assessment System (CASAS) testto determine language proficiency and anagency-based test on American work culture.

Participants attend daily computer and VESLclasses from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Classes aretaught through a variety of methods, empha-sizing group learning and role playing.Participants learn skills including filing andbusiness correspondence, conflict resolution,job search and retention, and all basic comput-er software. The internship is an importantcomponent of the program as students areable to put theory into practice. Furthermore,Jewish Vocational Service (JVS) has extensiveconnections with employers and maintainsstrong relationships with past employers whoprovide valuable feedback on the program.Many employers participate in mock inter-views with students to ready them for the jobsearch process. Last year, seven studentsentered employment at their internship site.The development of relationships with thebusiness community has enhanced the successof JVS graduates because JVS is able to deter-mine the needs of the business communitythrough communication and feedback.

Program outcomes reported: Program completion: 88 percent

Job placement: 74 percent

Placement wages: Average: $10.42/hour Range: $10-$14/hour

Gains in literacy and/or English proficiency: 1-2 SPL levels

Job retention: 80 percent (6 months)

Contact for more information: Crystelle Egan,Program Coordinator/Office Training, JewishVocational Services, 77 Geary Street, Suite 401,San Francisco, CA 94108, (415) 782-6233

Lifetrack ResourcesSt. Paul, Minnesota

Functional Work English Program

Program goals: The primary goals of the pro-gram are to teach the English language andwork skills necessary to integrate smoothlyinto the U.S. workforce. This includes under-standing American work culture and theactions necessary to successfully adapt to it.

Program size and funding: The FunctionalWork English program is funded primarily byTemporary Assistance for Needy Families(TANF) funds (77 percent), and the remain-ing funding comes from the state and varioussources. It began operation in 1994 and servesapproximately 300 students per year. LifetrackResources contracts with a community-basedorganization, the Community Literacy Consor-tium, to operate the classes.

Population served: The program serves avaried population. When the program started,the students were primarily Hmong. It nowserves Hmong, Somali, Russian, Latino,Vietnamese, Burmese, Ethiopian, Sudanese,and other populations. Approximately three-quarters of the students are receiving cashassistance (TANF). The educational back-grounds of the students vary, but a large pro-portion—about half—are at a pre-literatelevel.

Program design: The program has 13 classesin different locations in St. Paul, Minnesota,including offices of TANF employment servic-es providers, a St. Paul public school adult edu-cation center, public housing projects, andemployer worksites. Classes are offered at dif-ferent levels, and students are placed based ontheir performance on the Basic English SkillsTest (BEST) and Comprehensive AdultStudent Assessment System (CASAS) test.These tests are also used as post-tests to meas-ure progression in English skills. Classes lastsix months and are 20 hours per week (both

morning and afternoon sessions are available).Students can stay in class longer than sixmonths if the teacher and the TANF casemanager believe it would be beneficial.

Classes are taught in English, primarily byteachers who are not fluent in the language ofthe students. The curriculum focuses on lan-guage needed in the workplace and to preparefor work—including helping students exploreand apply for possible jobs, understandingworkplace culture, and assisting with “lifeskills” issues, such as health and housingissues. The initial curriculum has beenchanged and improved continuously over time,particularly when new ethnic groups enter theprogram. Staff view the continuous improve-ment as critical to its success. The classes areself-paced, focus on speaking skills, use arange of teaching methods, and provide accessto a computer lab that the students use on aregular basis. The program also is involved inthe early stages of a project involving diagnosisof learning disabilities in the non-English population.

The program contains several work-orientedfeatures. Classes take field trips to visitemployers every Friday to help students learnthe types of jobs available, the culture of workin the United States, and the language usedon the job. Work-related elements are used inthe classroom, such as mock interviews, timeclocks, and want ads. The program also has a“bus coach” that helps individuals learn howto navigate the public transportation system.The program also recently added an “advance-ment specialist” who helps students who havefound a job navigate internal career ladders orlook for better jobs at different employers.Teachers have developed a strong network ofemployers who hire individuals with limitedEnglish and help students find jobs. Cash assis-tance recipients also work directly with theirTANF case managers to find employmentwhile they are attending classes. Lifetrack staffprovide written progress assessments to TANF


59


60

job counselors monthly, with an extensive writ-ten assessment with recommendations provid-ed at six months.

Program outcomes reported: About 23 per-cent obtain employment while in the class,

and following completion, about 45 percentfind jobs.

Contact for more information: Jan Mueller,MFIP Director, 709 University Avenue, St. Paul,MN 55104, (651) 265-2321

Seattle Jobs InitiativeSeattle, Washington

Manufacturing-Focused Adult BasicEducation (ABE)/English as a SecondLanguage (ESL) Training

Program goals: The Seattle Jobs Initiative(SJI), in partnership with South SeattleCommunity College, has implemented a short-term manufacturing training program in weld-ing. The goals of the program are to link low-income Seattle residents with good-paying jobsand to provide employers with skilled workers.The program’s goal is to place people in jobspaying at least $9 per hour, with 60 percent ofthose who leave the program still employedafter one year.

Program size and funding: The programserves a cohort of 22 people at a time andserves two to three cohorts per year. All fund-ing comes from general revenue provided bythe city of Seattle. The annual budget in 2002for the manufacturing-focused training was$247,000.

Participant characteristics: The program isopen to any Seattle resident age 18 and overwith income at or below 175 percent of thepoverty line. The program cannot take partici-pants who are illiterate in their native lan-guage; individuals need to be able to read atat least 3rd-4th grade level when entering thefirst component of the program.

In 2002, most participants were male (83 per-cent) and nearly 80 percent were non-white(including 42 percent African American, 18percent Asian, and 7 percent Hispanic). Tenpercent had difficulty with English proficiencyat enrollment in 2002 (a decrease compared topast years). Other significant barriers includecriminal history (54 percent) and homeless-ness (21 percent). Most (71 percent) hadannual income below $9,000 at point of pro-gram entry. Forty-three percent did not com-plete high school. Most (62 percent) did notwork or worked less than 29 weeks in the past

year. Program staff indicate that over time,they find that the number of barriers (e.g.,English proficiency, criminal history, homeless-ness) is often significantly higher than dis-closed by participants at intake; staff indicatethat as many as 40 percent may actually belacking in English language proficiency.

Program design: South Seattle CommunityCollege provides hard skills training in itswelding program. SJI coordinates employerrelations, job placement, soft skills training,case management, and retention services. Fivecommunity-based organizations providerecruitment, assessments, and case manage-ment. Manufacturing employers help designthe curriculum, are members of an advisoryboard, serve as guest speakers during training,and hire graduates.

Initially, participants attend nine days of “bootcamp” (for three hours a day, three days aweek) intended to address any immediatecrises. During boot camp, a goal is to ensurethat those participants who entered the pro-gram below a 5th-6th grade reading levelreach that level, as the program has found thattrainees need to be able to function at thatlevel in order to successfully complete the pro-gram. The program’s assessment process relieson the Comprehensive Adult Student Assess-ment System (CASAS) test, and includes customized assessment for reading, writing,and math. All individuals, including thosewhose first language is not English, areassessed using English-language assessmentinstruments.

If at the end of the nine days, the individualhas passed a drug test, and housing and childcare have stabilized, the individual will go onto the manufacturing site, for a five day week,six hours per day program for 14 weeks. Thecourse includes basic welding, blueprint read-ing, shop safety, forklift training, and firstaid/CPR. SJI contracts with two instructors tocarry out the SJI manufacturing ABE/ESLtraining—one is a specialist in English and


61


62

the other is focused on mathematics. Duringtraining, individuals attend ABE/ESL instruc-tion two hours per day, four days a week.Tutoring is available two days a week beforethe start of the training day for those lackingEnglish proficiency.

The training is individualized and geared tomove trainees up two to three grade levels. Inaddition, the ABE/ESL is taught within amanufacturing context. Math and readingdrills relate directly to what occurs on themanufacturing shop floor. An IndividualLearning Plan (ILP) is developed for each student based upon test results and interviews.The ILP includes areas of strengths and weak-nesses as well as an action plan for continuingeducation. Trainees begin with a full review ofbasic skills and instructors are made aware ofeach trainee’s needs, which assures maximumutilization of valuable training time. The train-ing itself is conducted in English. There is ran-dom drug testing throughout the program. Anexit assessment tests for proficiency in ABE/ESL. In addition, participants who completethe training qualify for 15 community collegecredits, and training completers can qualify fora Washington Association of Building Officialscertification.

Employers are extensively involved in the pro-gram. The program has an employer advisoryboard, and there are three site visits byemployers to the training site during the 14weeks. During their site visits, employers cometo the classroom and do mock interviews. An

employer liaison works with participants onresumes, provides job leads, acts as a refer-ence, and helps ensure that resumes reflectthe skill sets acquired in the training.

Program outcomes: Since the manufacturingABE/ESL was first implemented in 2001, atotal of seven training cohorts have beenthrough the program. Approximately 100trainees have been through the training and 70percent completed the course. Ninety-five per-cent of the trainees who completed achievedproficiency in decimal and fraction conversions.Seventy percent achieved proficiency in basicalgebra and 75 percent in geometric calcula-tions related to volume and area. Also, 10 per-cent achieved proficiency in trigonometry. Eachtraining cohort's subject content retention rateis at or above 75 percent.

For program placements, the average manu-facturing placement wage was $10.92 as ofDecember 2002. The job retention rate forprogram placements is 65 percent at threemonths and close to 50 percent at six months.SJI works closely with the ManufacturingIndustrial Council, and recent graduates haveobtained employment at firms such as AlaskanCooper, Todd Shipyard, Exotic Metals,Kvichack Marine, and Seattle Boiler Works.

Contact for more information: ShermanWilkins, Director, Operations and BestPractices, Seattle Jobs Initiative, 8th AvenueSouth, Suite 120, Seattle, Washington 98104,(206) 628-6975

1015 15th Street, NW, Suite 400Washington, DC 20005

202.906.8000 main 202.842.2885 fax

www.clasp.org

CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICYCENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY

clasprpt lep 8-22-03 · training services under the workforce investment act more accessible to job...

Documents