In the year 2004 I had my first instructional design project. I was hired by a nonprofit organization to design and deliver learning for a Welfare-to-Work program, where Welfare recipients were to gain the skills and knowledge required for them to obtain and maintain employment. Once enrolled, each program participant had to attend a 4-week series of job-readiness workshops. They also had a Career Advisor assigned, who provided support and job placement services. There were 4 facilitators in charge of conducting the job-readiness workshops. The program also provided participants with the incentive of receiving a minimum hourly wage for the hours of job-readiness training that they received.
Welfare recipients who graduated from my cohort
I arrived at that job after acing the job interview and delivering a sample facilitated discussion with actual program participants, even though I hadn’t taught job-readiness skills before. I was already a seasoned facilitator, so I was able to transfer my communication and facilitation skills, combined with my own ability to research the topic, along with my own personal experiences in job search, interviewing and workplace skills. My instructional design skills at the time were not as developed as they are today; in many instances I was going by “instinct”, using my own experiences as a framework to design and deliver adequate learning for this target audience. That was the first time in my career where I felt that being a first-generation college graduate, and coming from the same underserved communities that most of these participants came from worked to my advantage.
The first thing that I did was study the current material that the facilitators were using for the workshops. I also attended several of the workshops to learn about the audience, the flow of the facilitation process, and the facilitators. I took notes about ways in which the workshops can improve. The materials provided to the participants, and the resources used by the facilitators, in my opinion, were not adequate for the audience, at least not the way they were used. For example, even though the vast majority of participants of this program were adult Welfare (SNAP or TANF) recipients who had no high school diploma, the examples of resumes that they were provided were of professionals with college degrees, and with job experience histories that perfectly matched the job descriptions of the example positions available.
The facilitators were, in my opinion (later supported by research), painting an unrealistic picture of the workplace, one where life is supposed to be better simply because “now you work”. There was no instruction about work/life balance, the nuances of day-to-day presence in the workplace, professional development or career management. Additionally, all instruction seemed based on the premise that employers, interviewers and the workplace environment were perfect, not presenting any possible challenging situations. Another problem was that the curriculum was oriented towards preparing people for office related work only, where many program participants had interests other than working in an office setting. When it came to the subject of technology, even though there was a computer lab available for participants, there was no training or even any mention of technology for job search. Finally, I noticed that each facilitator had their own materials and content. Each workshop was conducted as dictated by the facilitator; there was no consistency in the content of the curriculum. In fact, there was no curriculum at all. I had my work cut out for me.
In a way, that was good news to me since I had a blank canvass to design learning for this sector of the population as I saw it fit. I started by taking on the task of conducting one of the workshops using borrowed materials and ideas from my fellow facilitators. I decided that if there were changes to be made in the content and delivery of those workshops, it’s best if I had a solid foundation for the reasons for such changes. I chose the materials that in my opinion I found to be the least effective in order for me to make a case as to why they should rethink and redesign the curriculum. I confess, at the time I wanted to be a smart aleck and demonstrate hands-on how “bad and inadequate” those materials and ideas were (I was then on my own career path of growth). Today, experienced, mature me would have gone about it a little differently.
I selected three activities and materials from my fellow facilitators. One of the facilitators used to show the movie Working Girl, followed by a discussion that was intended to lead to a list of actions and behaviors that are appropriate for the workplace. I also borrowed the “workplace outfit fashion show” idea that another facilitator used to demonstrate appropriate job interview and office work attire, and to refer participants to an organization in charge of providing appropriate workplace clothing to Welfare recipients. A third piece of instruction I took from another facilitator was the “build your own company” role play activity, where participants were to assume the role of business owner with the objective of providing participants with an employer’s perspective, where they learn what employers expect from employees, emphasizing why employers must have a high level of professional behavior and responsibility from employees in order to remain in business. The only original idea and materials I integrated in that first try was a basic technology workshop, where participants learned to perform job search online and build their own resume as they learn basic technology skills.
Why did I think that those borrowed activities were ineffective? There were several reasons. First, the activities were too time consuming. The movie Working Girl is almost two hours long, just to watch. For the “create your own company” activity, the facilitator was taking 2-3 days to have participants arrive to the necessary part that addressed the activity’s main objective. The fashion show idea required time and effort scheduling people and selecting participants who wanted to “model”. Considering that the allotted time for the workshops was only 4 weeks, time was quite valuable; those activities as they were implemented were taking a large portion of time. In my professional opinion, there were better ways of reaching the objectives with better time ROI.
Another reason was the level of literacy required by the content. The level of literacy of program participants was not necessarily up to par with the level of literacy required to understand the content of the movie, or the basic elements required to run a company. Some participants got lost in the learning portion of the activities, even when they were engaged in watching the movie and participating in the fashion show. Then there was the “elephant in the room”. Really? “Working Girl”? Why that movie in particular? It was already 2004 and that movie was from 1989. Not only were the shoulder pads and big hair from the 80s already out of style (that point actually goes towards appropriate business attire), but the movie is about a secretary’s idea that is stolen by her boss, and then she seizes an opportunity to steal it back by pretending she has her boss’ job. In the movie, the characters crash a wedding, pretend to be a couple, deceive people by portraying themselves as the kind of professionals that they weren’t, and the main character flirts with the boss. That is, not to mention how the movie portrays the workplace environment. I wasn’t sure that this particular movie provided good role models for professional behavior.
I organized my workshops in two parts: job-readiness skills and technology skills. I figured that even participants who do not wish to work in an office setting still need basic technology skills to succeed. In the morning, I facilitated job-readiness workshops and in the afternoon, I moved program participants to the computer lab to teach them basic computer skills and how to organize the required documents for job search.
The first morning of the workshops was about introductions, setting the tone for the workshops, and expectations from participants. At the beginning of the first session, members of the institution’s senior leadership came to the classroom to welcome participants. The Executive Director started with the line “Welcome to your first day of work”, then other senior leaders introduced themselves and thanked them for “choosing” this program. After the introductions, the classroom was handed to me. Before introducing myself, and without saying a word, while all participants were looking at me waiting for me to say something, I picked a marker and wrote in the upper right corner of classroom board the following: “Ask me about my nonsense insurance policy”. The timing for writing that statement was very important for my purpose. I wanted them to ask about it before they started their introductions. I then proceeded to state my name and introduce myself as the facilitator.
One of the participants asked me about what I wrote on the board. “What is the nonsense insurance policy?” I answered: “I’m very glad you asked. Your nonsense insurance policy will give each person in this classroom fifty dollars in the event that I present something or deliver any activity that doesn’t make sense, doesn’t apply to anyone, or has no practical use. That’s how confident I am about the value of what I am going to be teaching. I will pay you if no one in the classroom finds what I deliver useful in any way. Every single thing that I will request from you has a purpose and helps you prepare to enter the workforce. That includes your personal introductions. Let’s start with standing up, one by one, state your name and say why are you in this program. Again, there is a specific reason why I’d like you to introduce yourself this way.” I used that activity to catch their attention and at the same time demonstrate that when in a job interview, all eyes are on the candidate, and they are expected to be talking about themselves and presenting themselves to their prospective future coworkers. There might be awkwardness, hesitation and shyness, but employers nevertheless expect candidates to speak up, talk about themselves and explain why they are qualified for the job. In reality, I got great introductions and a few displays of attitude (“Hello. My name is [name], and I am here because I have to. I can’t care less about any of this”). As I conducted the workshops, I took notes on things that spoke well to the learners, and things that did not. Most of the facilitated workshops were done in a socio-constructivist manner, which allowed learners to bring their own experiences and take what they learned to their own particular realities.
Through the remainder of the 4 weeks, I was able to implement my own spinoff of the borrowed activities. Before having participants watch the movie, I decided to have a discussion about what they were about to see. I asked them to take notes of what they found in the movie was not appropriate professional behavior. Then after the movie, we had a facilitated discussion based on their findings. For the workplace wardrobe workshop, instead of organizing a fashion show, I invited the outreach workers from the organization that provides clothing to Welfare recipients to talk about their services and the importance of having adequate work attire. Then for the build your own company workshop, I decided to shorten the time by eliminating details that did not add to the activity objectives. I created a list of guiding questions that led to reflections about the nuances of managing employees, and expectations of people in every role in the company. I had participants form “business partnerships”, though some decided to work alone. They had to use the guiding questions to report on their company idea and explain what they expected from their employees.
To my surprise, the participants’ report back after the movie was quite impressive. They pointed out the exact same things that I found inappropriate about that movie for the purposes of teaching job readiness. I guess it was a learning experience based on what not to do, how not to behave, and what kind of working environment is not appropriate. After the discussion about appropriate work attire, the guest speakers were able to answer questions regarding attire for work other than office settings, which proved to be very useful to participants who had no interest in office work. After finishing the “create your own company” activity, reaching the expected objectives of the activity was somewhat of a miss. Though the activity did not fully meet the original objectives, it was a great success in terms of promoting teamwork and relationship building among participants. In fact, I spun the activity around networking and building professional relationships, showing the importance of networking when job searching and career advancement.
The beginning of learning in the computer lab worked in the form of a cognitive apprenticeship, where more experienced participants provided support to those less experienced. I made sure that people remained on topic and busy, and I also provided additional support. At first, there were a few “trouble makers” who had little interest in learning, or who wanted to use the computers for different purposes. Having the correct computer lab setup (where I could easily see the screen of each computer from every angle) helped ensuring that learners received the support needed and were working on the correct tasks. Once learners showed an adequate level of comfort with the computers, I switched gears and started delivering formal instruction on job search and resume writing.
The next challenge involved the reality that knowing how to type a basic resume in Word did not mean that participants actually had things to write. What do you write in a resume when you have no basic education, no skills and no work experience? I had to get creative to have participants create resumes with content other than their contact information. Those who were in the process of obtaining their GED were able to put that in their education section. Then, I complied a list of qualities (based on job competencies), and had them choose a few qualities from that list. Finally, since they were in fact receiving an hourly wage for participating in this program, I recommended those who were assisting others to use the program as work experience. That helped some participants create a more substantial resume. However, at that point the wedge between those participants who had some education and experience and those who didn’t became clear. For the latter, I had to be even more creative. I started asking questions about activities, hobbies or events that they have been involved in, where they have helped others. A number of them have taken care of other people’s children, some were in programs that gave them opportunities of performing tasks while incarcerated, and some were involved in activities in their religious organizations. That provided them with a few skills that they can list and some experience that they can add to their resumes.
I wish I could say that those activities made the participants better prepared for the workplace. I figured that if they knew nothing before the workshops, after the workshops at least they had an orientation towards the right direction on entering the workforce. In my opinion (and later research supported my opinion), that was not enough to prepare program participants to enter – let alone stay in – the workforce. It was time for me to revise the curriculum.
The first step that I took was making sure that all materials were adequate for the level of literacy demonstrated by participants. I started designing workshops on the topics that are the most essential in conducting job search: job search, job applications, job interviews, professional attire, basic professional behavior. Then my curriculum design came to a sudden halt. We were called by the organization leadership to a meeting where we had to discuss a “crisis”. The crisis was that the Career Advisors were having a hard time with participants who were placed in jobs staying in the job. They “didn’t know the reasons”, they left, some program participants were leaving the jobs they were placed in less than a week after their starting date, making “all kinds of excuses” (in the words of the CA’s) for why the job wasn’t working for them. During that meeting, I limited myself to listen to the discussion. I took notes of what they were expressing the problem was, with the intent of addressing those issues through the learning that they should receive during the workshops. That communication resulted in a series of workshops on the topics of professional behavior, interpersonal skills, and appropriate ways of behaving in the workplace, including leaving the job.
The Welfare Reform of 1996
Did my new curriculum work? I guess it depends on how we look at it. Once the new curriculum was in full implementation, the program funding sources decided to change the model of the program. Instead of the 4-week workshops, now participants were supposed to learn “on the job”, meaning that instead of education, we were to provide “support” to participants as they actively searched for jobs. Suddenly our role as facilitators did not involve much facilitating. As I learned about those changes, my immediate thought was “what is the obsession with just sticking people in jobs?” At the time, inexperienced, naïve me wasn’t aware of the higher motive for those changes. Later I discover the reasons for the change: high performing states were to receive incentives ($1 billion over five years, to be exact) for placing Welfare recipients in the workplace. That shifted the focus from longer-term education and job-readiness training to rapid workforce attachment. Of course, that had consequences impacting the curriculum and the overall learning experience. That also impacted our role in the program. What does “support” mean in this context? Were we facilitators, trainers, coaches, advisors, mentors? What were we?
If we look at the curriculum implementation purely from an educational perspective, it was a success. The other facilitators and I did manage to have participants improve their job-readiness knowledge and skills in a short amount of time. However, if we look at the activities from the perspective of them being part of a larger program, then it was a miserable failure. The program participants did not possess the readiness required for them to stay in jobs, or to obtain jobs that made them self-sufficient. Very few of the program participants obtained jobs that paid above a livable wage, meaning that many of them were receiving almost the exact income that they were receiving from Welfare, but now they had to work for it. In addition, there were some participants that had severe barriers to employment, such as having a criminal record, disability (theirs or their children), mental health, transportation, and many others. The program was now imposing upon us to become job coaches and provide the necessary skills “on an as-needed basis”, meaning that there wasn’t any formal workshops to provide to the program participants. Also, the “support” provided by the agency (clothing, transportation allowance, etc.) was still enabling a culture of dependency in agencies – as opposed to self-sufficiency – for succeeding in the workplace.
I felt that my efforts to create a great learning experience for this sector of the population did not bear the results that it could have, mostly due to organizational changes, and inconsistencies that such changes created. Soon after those changes were implemented, I left. Within a year after I left, there were massive layoffs from that organization. To me that proved that the decisions made at a higher level were disconnected from the realities of the people who depend on Welfare to live (again, research also backs me up on that). Such disconnect caused many participants to leave, quit their jobs soon after starting, and choose other programs that provide better education and job-readiness. After research on the Welfare Reform, decades and billions of dollars later, it has been proven that the way it was implemented did not work. The Welfare system had to repurpose or make a shift on how they were making efforts to assist their recipients in bettering their lives, not just forcing them to attend these programs or forcing them into jobs that make them part of the working poor.
The biggest reward that I had from this experience was when later as I walked around downtown with my family, some former participants recognized me and thanked me for their learning experience. The other reward was the taste for instructional design and social justice that this experience gave me. This experience shaped my career, and left me wanting to do more, so I did.