Economic Opportunity in a Volatile Economy

Project Overview

Research Team

Acknowledgements

What's in this Report?

Why Silicon Valley and Milwaukee?

Project Data and Method Overview

Market Meeters vs. Market Makers

Major Findings

Recommendations for Practice and Policy

Building on our Work

Interested in more details?

See the PDF file of our Final Report

See other project documents

Major Findings


1) Overall use is high and widespread

Role of intermediaries is widespread in both regions: More than a quarter of all workers in each region had held a job in the last three years that they got directly through an intermediary.

LMI users are not just the unemployed: A greater portion of LMI users were already employed and used an LMI in the hopes of getting a better job or career.

LMI use is not limited to disadvantaged workers: Workers at all income levels and from a variety of ethnic groups use intermediaries.

2) Intriguing differences exist between Milwaukee and Silicon Valley

While overall intermediary incidence looks quite similar in Milwaukee and the Silicon Valley, the intermediaries in the two regions appear to function in very different ways.

Milwaukee has slightly higher use of intermediaries: To the extent that one believes LMIs to be a product of the "new economy," it may surprise some that the use of intermediaries was slightly higher in Milwaukee than in Silicon Valley (29.8 percent vs. 26.3 percent of workers had held a job in the last three years that they got through an intermediary).

Intermediaries in Milwaukee are much more focused on disadvantaged workers. In Silicon Valley, intermediaries are more consistently pervasive across labor market groups. Milwaukee's slightly higher overall LMI use was driven by substantially higher LMI use among Milwaukee's disadvantaged workers (whether "disadvantaged" is defined by income, education, or race). Clearly in Milwaukee, LMIs and especially temporary help agencies had found a niche in working with disadvantaged workers. Fewer relatively advantaged workers in Milwaukee used LMIs. In Silicon Valley, LMI use was more broadly and consistently spread across the population.

There are related differences in industry and occupational characteristics of intermediary users: Given that Milwaukee's intermediaries are more focused on disadvantaged workers, it is not surprising that the occupations appear substantially different in the two regions. In Silicon Valley, LMI use was significantly higher among Professional/Specialty Occupations (12.9 percent vs. 3.7 percent) and Technicians and Related Occupations (6.7 percent vs. 2.7 percent). In Milwaukee, LMI use was significantly higher among Machine Operators, Assemblers, and Inspectors (15.6 percent vs. 2.8 percent) and those in Transportation and Material Moving Occupations (17.5 percent vs. 7.8 percent).

Differences exist among specific intermediaries and groups of workers: Temporary agencies in each region seem to have significantly different constituencies. In Silicon Valley, temporary agencies are surprisingly missing from the Hispanic population - only 5.7 percent of Hispanics had held a job in the last three years that they got through a temporary agency, compared to 15.6 percent of whites and 19.9 percent of Asians (the black population is very small in Silicon Valley). In Milwaukee, in contrast, temporary agencies are connecting strongly to the black population: 31 percent of blacks held a job in the last three years that they got through a temporary agency, compared to 11 percent of whites.

3) Among intermediaries, temporary help agencies stand out

Temporary agencies are the most widespread intermediary: In both Silicon Valley and Milwaukee, temp agencies accounted for about half of all intermediary use.

Temporary agencies provide the least services: The service mix offered by temporary agencies appears relatively weak. For instance, more than 60 percent of non-profit agency or other LMI users reported receiving assistance in job-hunting skills, compared to approximately 30 percent of temporary agency users.

At an aggregate level, intermediaries seem to have slight impact on wages; temporary agencies, however, appear to affect access to health insurance: Even after controlling for workers' characteristics, those who use temporary agencies are much less likely to find jobs that provide health insurance.

4) Social networks affect intermediary use

Strong social networks lead to less LMI use: Using a measure of "social connectedness," we found that those who are more socially connected are less likely to use LMIs than those who are less socially connected, and more likely to use friends to find jobs.

Social network also lead to use of better LMIs: Of those people who do use LMIs, those with strong social connections are more likely to use "better" LMIs - unions, professional associations, and community colleges - than temp agencies.

Social networks are less effective in low-income areas: Within low- income areas, social networks may be strong, but they appear to be limited in their ability to lead to better employment outcomes.

5) Case studies reveal that links between certain types of intermediaries in a collaborative approach have positive impacts on career opportunities

The most promising intermediary efforts involved community colleges linked with networks of intermediaries, or membership-based associations: Unions and networks that include community colleges provided the most promising models of intermediary activity. Specific characteristics include:

  • targeting particular occupations or industry sectors
    maintaining communication with workers over an extended period
  • building strong relationships with employers
  • focusing on workers' long-term needs
  • providing both formal training and informal on-the-job learning opportunities over extended periods of time

Improved career outcomes are most likely in cases where LMIs can affect the demand side of the labor market by bringing both incentives and pressures to bear on employers: In a few cases, intermediaries we studied had the ability to change the quality of available jobs, by working closely with both workers and employers around training and productivity. Clearly this can have a significant impact in improving outcomes for both workers and employers, but intermediaries that try to have a positive impact on job quality are facing an enormous challenge.