How the Senior Community Service Employment Program Influences Participant Well-Being: A Participatory Research Approach With Program Recommendations

Abstract

The federal Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) provides on-the-job training to people 55 years and older with incomes at or below 125% of the federal poverty level with multiple barriers to employment. This study examined the processes by which SCSEP may influence participant financial, physical, and mental well-being. We engaged 15 SCSEP participants and case managers over four virtual and one telephone session using a participatory research method called community-based system dynamics. Activities included identifying key problem trends, variable elicitation, developing a causal map, and identifying changes to the system to increase participant well-being. Respondents identified how individual, organizational, and program and policy factors relate to participant well-being (e.g., SCSEP participation reduces social isolation, which increases desire to participate) and suggested program and policy recommendations to strengthen SCSEP (e.g., benchmarks of success should include health and well-being outcomes). These findings highlight the benefits and potential of this long-running program.

Introduction

The share of older workers in the U.S. labor force continues to increase. Bureau of Labor Statistics data estimates that about one in eight (13%) workers were ages 55 and older in 2000, increasing to nearly a quarter (24%) in 2020; by 2030, the share is projected to increase slightly to 25% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2021b). Yet older adults often fare poorly in the job market. About two-thirds of full-time, full-year workers employed in their early 50s have been shown to be involuntarily separated from their jobs before retirement (Johnson & Gosselin, 2018). Regardless of education, gender, race, or ethnicity, the most common reason for job separation was due to a layoff or business closing; poor health was also a major reason among those with a high school degree or less as well as African American and Hispanic older adults (Johnson & Gosselin, 2018). Unplanned retirements have accelerated among older workers since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (Davis et al., 2021).

This particularly vulnerable group of workers represents some of the older adults who may rely on the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP, pronounced “see-sep”), the only federal work-based job training program for older adults. SCSEP provides on-the-job training—similar in many respects to internships—through a network of state and national grantees and host agencies to nearly 70,000 people ages 55 years and older with incomes at or below 125% of the federal poverty level each year (Halvorsen & Yulikova, 2020a; Mikelson, 2017). Host agencies are either public or nonprofit organizations where participants often work in clerical, janitorial, and customer-facing roles while earning a minimum-wage stipend (Social Policy Research Associates & Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. [SPR & Mathematica], 2012). Participants must not be considered “job ready,” using the Department of Labor’s definition that they “require further education or training to perform work that is available in his or her labor market” (SCSEP, 2010, p. 53,789). Relatedly, participants also face multiple barriers to employment, such as having a disability, being age 75 or older, having low English proficiency, and experiencing homelessness or being at risk of homelessness, among others (U.S. Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration [DOLETA], 2020b). While individual SCSEP participants may have any number of these barriers to employment, including no barriers, in practice this is rarely the case. This is because grantees also work to meet the Department of Labor’s nationwide target average of 2.88 barriers per participant in 2019; the actual 2019 nationwide average of 3.13 barriers per participant exceeded this target (DOLETA, 2020b). Complementing SCSEP’s hallmark on-the-job training, participants are also offered classroom training, particularly to learn computer skills (SPR & Mathematica, 2012).

While SCSEP has been in existence since the Older Americans Act of 1965 (Older Americans Act of 1965, 2020) and is currently funded at around $400 million per year (U.S. Department of Labor, 2022), few independent studies have been conducted to assess the processes by which SCSEP may influence individual-level outcomes. The purpose of this participatory study was to examine these processes to gain a better understanding of how SCSEP may influence participants’ financial, physical, and mental well-being, while deriving a set of program and policy recommendations to strengthen SCSEP from the viewpoint of participants and case managers and to contribute to theory on the employment of low-income older workers.

Literature Review

Profile of Senior Community Service Employment Program Participants

SCSEP participants include members of groups who often face more difficult employment outcomes. By law, all participants are over the age of 55 years, and in 2019, 39% of SCSEP participants were over the age of 65 and 17% were over the age of 70 (DOLETA, 2020b). In 2019, SCSEP participants were about two-thirds (65%) women, with 12% reporting Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin and 44% identifying as Black or African American. Further, 60% of participants reported having a high school degree or less. About a quarter of participants each had a disability, low literacy skills, and lived in rural areas. Further, about three in five reported being homeless or at risk of homelessness, with a similar number reporting that they were receiving some other form of public assistance (DOLETA, 2020b). These characteristics are all related to reduced employment opportunities (e.g., Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 2020; 2021a; Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2019; Metraux et al., 2018), highlighting participants’ needs for employment services. Qualitative research has shown that a majority of respondents had experienced a lifetime of disadvantages that led to their need for later-life job training, such as less formal education, poor health, and jobs that were physically demanding (Gonzales et al., 2020). However, a sizeable minority of respondents had higher levels of education, health, and lifetime employment, yet sought the services of SCSEP due to unexpected unemployment, poverty, and other financial or health shocks (Gonzales et al., 2020). In summary, SCSEP participants are an incredibly diverse group on many factors who all are experiencing significant employment vulnerabilities.

Conceptual Frameworks

Social Policy and Older Worker Employment

In their conceptual model of productive aging, Bass and Caro (2001, fig. 3.2) described how three sectors—environmental (e.g., the economy, political developments), situational (e.g., organizational circumstances, socioeconomic standing), and individual (e.g., sociodemographic characteristics, aptitude)—influence participation in productive activities in later life, including employment. They also stressed how social policies can influence and be influenced by these sectors, thereby leading to individual- and population-level changes in employment.

SCSEP is an example of a social policy that interacts with environmental, situational, and individual sectors to increase older worker employment rates. Considering SCSEP’s role in the environmental sector (Bass & Caro, 2001), the program seeks to increase the economic opportunities for low-income older workers by providing work-based job training specifically for this group (Halvorsen & Yulikova, 2020a). Through the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000, Congress was also responsive to political developments by creating clear performance indicators that applied to all state and national grantees while revising the purpose statement of SCSEP to focus more on the employment goals of the program (U.S. Department of Labor, 2001).

Considering SCSEP’s role in the situational sector (Bass & Caro, 2001), the program helps to improve the circumstances at host agencies through its provision of part-time, federally subsidized older workers, increasing organizations’ capacity (Morrow-Howell et al., 2017). The job training offered through this subsidized employment then prepares participants to reenter the workforce through unsubsidized positions (Carolan et al., 2018).

And considering SCSEP’s role in the individual sector (Bass & Caro, 2001), the Older Americans Act focuses on racial and ethnic disparities through its mandate that the Department of Labor prepares an annual report on the participation and outcomes of “minority individuals” served by the program (Older Americans Act of 1965, 2020). In practice, these reports compare participation rates and employment outcomes by race (White, Black, Asian, American Indian, and Pacific Islander) and Hispanic ethnicity among both state and national grantees (DOLETA, 2021a, 2021b). By listing each of the national nonprofit and state grantees by name, these reports also provide an impetus for improvement by highlighting when grantees’ enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities and their respective employment outcomes fall below that of the SCSEP-eligible population overall (DOLETA, 2021a, 2021b).

The Bass and Caro (2001) conceptual model of productive aging, through its use of arrows to indicate circular causality between the sections of the model to create a system “without a predetermined or defined sequence of events” (p. 48), is an early illustration of the feedback perspective in productive aging.

Systems Thinking and Older Worker Employment

Morrow-Howell and colleagues (2017) extended this framework using a system dynamics approach, which considers how variables influence each other through a complex system of feedback loops to drive changes over time within a set of boundaries (Richardson, 2011). They illustrated the importance of key feedback loops between the employment of older adults and their human and social capital, the capacity of organizations, programs and policies that support productive engagement, and attitudes and expectations of older adults (Morrow-Howell et al., 2017). Enhancing the Bass and Caro (2001) conceptual framework, this system dynamics model also illustrated a clear link from employment to individual health and well-being factors, highlighting the reciprocal relationship between work and well-being. Overall, this system dynamics model shows how variables at the individual, family, organizational, policy, and societal levels all play important roles in promoting—or hindering—the productive engagement of older adults, and that changes to any one variable have the potential to change variables throughout the system.

This system dynamics model also illustrated the processes by which programs and policies can support the employment of older workers (Morrow-Howell et al., 2017). Using SCSEP as an example, the authors’ stock and flow diagram depicts how the program might lead to reductions in age bias within organizations and society overall, increase the capacity of the public and nonprofit agencies that host the participants, and provide education and training to the older workers themselves as well as build their families’ resources over time. Changes in these variables then lead to changes in other variables at the individual, family, organizational, and societal levels, ultimately leading back to future changes in programs and policies like SCSEP.

Combined, the Bass and Caro (2001) and Morrow-Howell and colleagues (2017) conceptual frameworks illustrate the potential of programs and policies like SCSEP to increase the abilities of older adults to secure and retain employment and the ramifications of that employment.

Previous Evaluations

While SCSEP has been in existence since the Older Americans Act of 1965, few independent studies have been conducted to assess the individual-level outcomes of this program. Congressionally mandated annual reports show that in 2019, 37.7% of participants who exited the program were in paid employment in the second quarter after exiting and 32.3% were in paid employment in the fourth quarter after exiting, under the respective goals of 42% and 34% (DOLETA, 2020b). These employment outcomes did not differ between White, Black, and Asian participants; however, White participants had significantly higher rates of post-SCSEP employment than American Indian and Pacific Islander participants, and Hispanic participants had significantly higher rates of post-SCSEP employment than non-Hispanic participants (DOLETA, 2021a). Among those who were employed in the second quarter after program exit, the median value of their earnings was $3132, under the goal of $3369 (DOLETA, 2020b). Among those employed, Black and Asian participants earned significantly more in the second quarter after program exit than White participants, with no difference by Hispanic ethnicity (DOLETA, 2021a). While there is no set program duration, the maximum number of months in SCSEP for any individual is 48 months, or four years, with exceptions (DOLETA, 2020a). In 2019, the average number of months per participant nationwide was 18.8, or about 1.5 years (DOLETA, 2020b).

Analysis using 2015 data by the Urban Institute found that, on average, participants earned more income in their first year of post-SCSEP employment than the annual per-participant cost to the federal government for funding the program, suggesting that the benefits of running SCSEP outweigh the costs (Mikelson, 2017). Social Policy Research Associates and Mathematica Policy Research (2012), in a major evaluation of the program, found that the likelihood of securing unsubsidized employment after exiting SCSEP was negatively associated with age, identifying as non-Hispanic Black or African American, being disabled, being homeless, and living in counties with higher unemployment rates, and positively associated with educational attainment. Yet few studies have been conducted that aim to assess a more holistic view of participant experiences and outcomes that focus not only on employment, but broader physical, mental, and financial well-being.

Given the long existence of SCSEP and its prominence as the sole federal job training program for older adults, relatively little research has been conducted on the program that aims to explicate the processes by which SCSEP may influence a holistic set of individual-level outcomes. Using a community-based system dynamics approach is a useful method to better understand participant outcomes, as it combines the focus on feedback loops within complex systems (Morrow-Howell et al., 2017; Richardson, 2011) with the lived experiences of those functioning within the systems under consideration while developing their capabilities in systems thinking and action identification (Hovmand, 2014b; Langellier et al., 2019). As such, our aims were threefold: First, to map the role of SCSEP in the well-being—broadly defined—of participants over time. Second, to develop program and policy recommendations based on this research and directly informed by both SCSEP participants and case managers to strengthen the program. And third, to contribute to theory on the productive engagement of low-income older adults.

Research Design

Recruitment and Human Subjects Considerations

We recruited respondents by providing information about our study during two regularly scheduled Massachusetts Executive Office of Elder Affairs meetings in late July 2020. The first, by phone, primarily included SCSEP participants; the second, by videoconference, primarily included SCSEP case managers and local program administrators. (A note on terminology: Because “participant” is a term used to describe the older workers who take part in SCSEP, we have intentionally used the term “respondent” to describe the SCSEP participants and case managers who took part in our study.) Recruitment consisted of asking the SCSEP participants and case managers to consider joining our study, as well as for them and local program administrators to spread the word to potential respondents not in these meetings. We chose to recruit SCSEP participants and front-line case managers because both groups would have a detailed understanding of participants’ experiences in the program as well as the formal and informal program structures and policies that might shape these experiences.

Our intention was to recruit 12 SCSEP participants and 10 case managers for separate in-person sessions, at the midpoint of group-size recommendations in the community-based system dynamics method (Hovmand, 2014a). We planned to spend five hours with each group: two 2.5-hour sessions with case managers one week apart to accommodate their work schedules, as well as a single 5-hour session with the participants. However, due to our need to switch to virtual and telephone sessions during the first summer of the COVID-19 pandemic and our resulting need to provide more one-on-one technological troubleshooting, we reduced our recruitment goal from 22 to 15 respondents while simultaneously increasing the number of groups from two to four and reducing the time commitment for each session. Reducing the total number of respondents and the total time per session may have somewhat reduced the amount of information gleaned. However, our concurrent increase in the total number of sessions, which increased the amount of time each person could spend responding to discussion prompts with fewer respondents per session, likely buffered that loss. Of the 15 respondents who joined the study, five were case managers only, seven were SCSEP participants only (“general participants”), and three were dual-role SCSEP case managers and participants (“dual participants”). Dual participants are common in the SCSEP program (SPR & Mathematica, 2012). The Boston College Institutional Review Board granted an exemption for this study and all respondents provided consent and received a $35 Visa gift card for each session they attended.

We made the decision early in the study to keep limited data on the individual respondents. Because this was a small pilot study and the Massachusetts SCSEP network is relatively close-knit, we strove to create a research environment in which all respondents felt comfortable providing honest information about their experiences with SCSEP. Therefore, we did not track demographic data on the 15 respondents. However, due to the program eligibility requirements, all SCSEP participants were at least age 55. Further, most respondents presented as female and White. Lastly, some case managers were relatively recent to SCSEP while others had worked with the program for multiple years.

Community-Based System Dynamics

Our research design was informed by a participatory form of research called community-based system dynamics (CBSD). Part of the larger field of system dynamics, CBSD is an approach to understanding complex problems holistically by exploring how factors interact within a system to drive key trends over time (Hovmand, 2014a). CBSD uses group model building to engage stakeholders in the process of developing system dynamics models that capture their unique perspectives of complex social problems (Hovmand et al., 2012). Further, it places an emphasis on building stakeholders’ capacity to understand and change systems by reframing the way they think about problems. Thus, CBSD uniquely encompasses aspects of the participatory, intervention, and policy research paradigms. Systems approaches like CBSD have been used on topics such as public health, mental health, and human services reform (e.g., Fowler et al., 2019; Langellier et al., 2019; Werner et al., 2021), but rarely regarding older adults (Morrow-Howell et al., 2017).

We facilitated activities with respondents to map interactions between factors related to participant well-being, with the explicit goal of clarifying what role SCSEP plays in influencing financial, physical, and mental well-being over time. To do so, we engaged respondents using structured small-group activities called “scripts” that were tailored to explore SCSEP’s interactions with participant well-being over time (Hovmand et al., 2012).

CBSD Design and Data Collection

The core research team (Authors 1-3) led the design of the virtual sessions with regular communication and feedback from the state SCSEP director (Author 4). All sessions were held in August 2020; virtual sessions were held over Zoom while utilizing the virtual whiteboard program, Mural, which allowed for interactive modeling. All five SCSEP case managers attended two virtual meetings about a week apart (first: 1.5 hours; second: 1 hour). After the case manager sessions, SCSEP dual and general participants chose to attend one of three (two virtual, one telephone) 1.5-hour sessions. After consulting with the state SCSEP director, we decided to begin with the case managers to elicit a broad overview of the program, including how the program and policy environments may shape participant well-being. Next, we held two virtual sessions with separate groups of SCSEP participants to add more detail on their individual and organizational experiences. We then held the telephone session as an opportunity to describe the model to a final group of participants, elicit their feedback on our findings, and further refine the model. While visual modeling is a key aspect of community-based system dynamics, we included this telephone session to increase inclusion for participants with poor internet access or low comfort with technology. All sessions were in English. No SCSEP administrators joined these meetings to increase the comfort level and honesty of respondents.

We utilized the following scripts during the sessions: negotiating a reference mode (the first session only), variable elicitation, initiating and elaborating a causal loop diagram, and action ideas. All scripts were tailored to the project and adapted for use in virtual sessions, as needed. Table 1 provides brief descriptions of these four scripts, and fuller descriptions can be located through the Scriptapedia wiki (see Hovmand et al., 2015).

Table 1.

Scripts, in Order of Action.

1. Negotiating a Reference mode Facilitators drew a simple graph depicting changes in participant well-being over the course of SCSEP and adjusted the trend line according to respondent feedback. (Technology: Google Slides.)

2. Variable elicitation Facilitators asked respondents to consider what factors influence or are influenced by changes in participant well-being over time. Respondents typed variable names onto virtual sticky notes, which facilitators then grouped into themes. (Technology: Mural virtual whiteboard.)

3. Initiating and elaborating a causal loop diagram Participants described connections between the listed variables while facilitators placed these variables within a causal loop diagram. During subsequent sessions, facilitators asked respondents validating and probing questions to refine the causal loop diagram and edit it in real time. (Technology: Stella modeling software.)

4. Action ideas Facilitators displayed the causal loop diagram and asked participants to identify places to intervene within the illustrated system to improve participant well-being using “blue sky” thinking. (Technology: Stella modeling software.)

Note: Except for the single telephone session, all sessions were held virtually over Zoom. During these Zoom sessions, the technologies listed were displayed to respondents via screen sharing with the exception of the Mural virtual whiteboard, which respondents utilized themselves.

During the discussions to generate respondent-driven program recommendations, the research team took notes and developed the final list after our sessions. To be as objective as possible, the research team grounded all final recommendations in the causal loop diagram and our anonymously collected notes. Author 4, who reviewed the list of recommendations and offered additional context, did not have a part in their development due to the potential conflict of interest in being the state SCSEP director. The importance of the resulting list of recommendations is that they were driven by participants and case managers and not by program administrators or researchers, providing a useful and alternative lens through which to consider program and policy changes.

Member Checking

Between each session and after the final telephone session, the core research team met to refine the causal loop diagram based on our session notes. This iterative process resulted in a near-final causal loop diagram and set of recommendations that we presented to respondents for feedback as a form of member checking in September 2020. In total, eight of the 15 respondents reviewed our results. In general, they stated that our diagram accurately represented the role of SCSEP in the health and well-being of participants and that our recommendations accurately represented our discussions. They offered helpful guidance for better communicating important SCSEP-related phrases (for example, using the phrase “Stipend from SCSEP” in our model to indicate the program’s temporary nature instead of our previously used “Income from SCSEP” phrase). The study’s PI (Author 1) then presented the findings to more than 50 SCSEP administrators across the country in December 2020 (mostly Massachusetts-based administrators) and January 2021 (more geographically dispersed administrators), with our findings generally validated.

Results

Reference Mode: Trends in Well-Being

In our first session, we asked case managers to describe how participant well-being changes before, during, and after their involvement with SCSEP. This activity was only necessary in our first session, as the results helped us identify the key problem trend to explore with system dynamics modeling and therefore frame follow-up questions in future activities. Respondents noted that older workers who approach SCSEP are often experiencing great personal and professional difficulties and that the program must consider this while forming participant goals and supports. One respondent noted, “It’s an emotional roller coaster for participants who are going through the SCSEP process. Even their intake interview is nerve-racking because this is often their first interview in years.” Many are close to experiencing homelessness and some, one respondent noted, are “couch surfing.” Others are attempting to rejoin the workforce after major health shocks, including after cancer treatment; during their placements, one respondent noted, many realize that “they are not as strong as they thought they were” due to their health issues. Others have experienced personal shocks: One respondent noted that “people come into the program and are depressed because they just lost a child or had some other major trauma. They are like ‘walking zombies’ at this point and we are trying to help them find normalcy.” The simple act of “helping them get out of bed every day and to do something that feels meaningful and to feel valued” is especially important during the first three to nine months or so of being in the program, the same respondent noted.

After exiting SCSEP, “those who become employed through their host agency have wonderful trajectories,” as do those who find jobs outside of their agencies, noted one respondent. Yet others noted that participants who do not secure a paid job often “have a downward trajectory for social and mental well-being.” This is also true for those who leave the program due to medical reasons, one respondent noted.

Variable Elicitation and Causal Loop Diagram

Variable elicitation activities resulted in several themes related to drivers and impacts of participant well-being over time. These included personal finances (e.g., financial insecurities and housing affordability), personal mindset (e.g., feeling useless, willingness to engage with technology), physical well-being (e.g., health, food access), social well-being (e.g., meeting new people, friends), supportive services (e.g., connecting with social service agencies, accessing mental health treatment), and host agency circumstances (e.g., responsive and knowledgeable staff, quality of host agency supervision). These themes and variables were then used to help develop and refine the causal loop diagram.

The causal loop diagram, shown in Figure 1, depicts how factors interact to drive change in participant well-being over time. The map highlights SCSEP’s role in participant well-being in the context of individual experiences and organization, program, and policy environments. The diagram can be interpreted as follows. Changes in variables lead to changes in other variables over time, as indicated by arrows. Arrows that have a positive sign indicate that as one variable increases, so will the next variable. (And as one variable decreases, so will the next variable.) Arrows that have a negative sign indicate that as one variable increases, the next variable decreases. (And as one variable decreases, the next variable increases.) Combined, these relationships create a system of feedback loops. Feedback loops labeled with an R and circled by an arrow are called reinforcing feedback loops. This means that, left alone, the variables in these loops continue to increase or decrease without stopping in what are often called virtuous or vicious cycles. Feedback loops labeled with a B and circled by an arrow are called balancing feedback loops. In balancing loops, an initial increase in one variable feeds back around the loop leading to a decrease in that same variable, and vice versa, leveling off over time. Variables in italics are duplicates of those found in another location in the diagram and are added to increase the ease of reading the diagram.

Figure 1.

Causal Loop Diagram. SCSEP’s role in participant well-being in the context of individual experiences (blue arrows in the online version), organizational environments (yellow arrows), and program and policy environments (green arrows).

Figure 1 identifies three key themes that are ultimately related to participant well-being. The top section (with blue arrows in the online version), Participant Experiences, shows how SCSEP participation can lead to improved financial security, health, confidence, and social engagement as well as decreased social isolation. Illustrative feedback loops are shown in the top section of Table 2. An example reinforcing feedback loop is “Awareness of Health Support,” which shows how participation in SCSEP leads to increased awareness of and access to social supports and benefits that are not a part of SCSEP, which leads to improved health and, ultimately, increased likelihood of continuing in SCSEP.

Table 2.

Exemplar Feedback Loops.

Participant Experiencesa
R1. Financial Independence
Through SCSEP, participants receive a stipend that increases their sense of financial security and confidence, increasing their desire to participate further in SCSEP’s on-the-job training and continue to receive stipends. Conversely, as participation decreases, so does the stipend and feelings of financial security, lowering confidence and the desire to further participate
R2. Awareness of Health Support
Through their exposure to the work of program administrators and host agencies, SCSEP participants learn about and access non-SCSEP related supports, which increases their health and ability to participate further in SCSEP’s on-the-job training and continue to learn about social supports. Conversely, as participation decreases, so does the awareness of other supports, leading to reduced health and SCSEP participation
R3. Fighting Isolation
The interaction gained through SCSEP placements decreases isolation and increases social engagement for participants, leading to increases in confidence and further interaction at participants’ placements. Conversely, as the interaction in SCSEP placements decreases, isolation increases and social engagement decreases, leading to reduced confidence and SCSEP participation
Organizational environmentb
R4. Performance Confidence
As performance at their SCSEP placements increases, participants’ confidence increases in turn, leading to further performance enhancements. Conversely, as one’s performance decreases, their confidence and future performance decreases in turn
Program and policy environmentc
B1. Selective Enrollment to Meet Employment Goals
As the number of participants who find gainful employment after exiting SCSEP increases, the gap between the employment goals and actual metrics decreases, leading to less selective enrollment and, in turn, a lower likelihood of post-SCSEP employment. This leads to fewer numbers of participants who find employment and an increase in the gap between the employment goals and actual metrics, leading to more selective enrollment
B2. Hypothetical Funding to Meet Demand
As government funding for SCSEP decreases, the total number of slots available decreases in turn, which increases the gap between slots available and slot demand. To meet this need, government funding would hypothetically increase; however, funding has declined over the past decade

Note: These exemplar feedback loops are located within the (a) top, (b) middle, and (c) bottom sections of Figure 1. Feedback loop labels that begin with R (e.g., R1) describe reinforcing feedback loops, whereas those that begin with B (e.g., B1) describe balancing feedback loops.

The middle section of Figure 1 (with yellow arrows in the online version), Organizational Environment, shows how key variables relate to the quality of the on-the-job training and job performance. An illustrative reinforcing feedback loop, “Performance Confidence,” is shown in the middle section of Table 2. This shows that increased confidence can lead to improved job performance, which in turn further increases one’s confidence; however, if confidence decreases from ageist stereotypes and biases or a poor fit in one’s placement, as examples, this in turn reduces one’s job performance, which can further erode one’s confidence.

The bottom section of both Figure 1 (with green arrows in the online version), Program and Policy Environment, illustrates how program and policy variables influence program outputs and outcomes, including the total number of SCSEP enrollees and key employment goals. Illustrative feedback loops are shown in the bottom section of Table 2. An example balancing feedback loop is “Selective Enrollment to Meet Employment Goals,” which shows that as the percentage of participants who find employment after exiting SCSEP decreases, local and state programs are not meeting their employment goals, creating a post-SCSEP employment goal shortage. As a result, respondents noted that some programs will selectively enroll participants who they believe would be more likely to find post-SCSEP employment, which, in turn, increases the total number employed after SCSEP, helping them to meet their goals and over time, less selectively enroll. (We wish to note that in the last virtual presentation during member checking, one administrator outside of Massachusetts stated that it was not allowed to selectively enroll participants in SCSEP. However, other administrators responded that the program goals and enrollment policies conflicted with one another, creating the incentive to do so.) Like the middle Organizational Environment section, respondents noted that ageist stereotypes and beliefs also play a role in the Program and Policy Environment. For example, ageism among hiring managers when SCSEP participants are seeking employment may reduce their likelihood of securing employment as well as their earnings potential.

Combined, our conversations with SCSEP participants and case managers revealed their perceptions of how these three key areas of the program interacted to influence changes in participant well-being over time. These conversations also revealed respondents’ perceptions of how SCSEP influences a wider range of outcomes important to participants’ well-being than are officially tracked.

Respondent-Driven Program and Policy Recommendations

Informed by takeaways from the “action ideas” script and related conversations with SCSEP participants and case managers, our research team developed a set of 13 recommendations to strengthen the program. We combined our recommendations into larger themes, which we summarize next. The complete list presented during the member checking process is provided in the Appendix.

Funding and Support

Increase Funding for Additional SCSEP Slots

Respondents overwhelmingly stressed that additional funding is needed to meet the high demand from unemployed and low-income older adults in seek of work, including older adults they had spoken to in their communities. In a time of fiscal constraints, funding may need to come from sources in addition to the federal government.

Increase Support for Organizational Capacity Building

Respondents shared that due to tight organizational budgets (the program operators and host agencies are either nonprofit or public agencies), there is little financial support to increase the capacity of program operators and host agencies to better support participants. Building organizational capacity could lead to several positive outcomes, such as the development of enhanced case management by hiring social workers to holistically support the needs of SCSEP participants.

Institute Pay-for-Performance

Respondents shared that working part-time at minimum wage in SCSEP is hard to live on, especially in areas with higher costs of living throughout Massachusetts. Several proposed increasing participant stipends after clear goals are met (e.g., passing technology trainings) to decrease financial stress while increasing skills.

Reduce the “Benefits Cliff.”

Respondents shared that after some participants exit SCSEP for unsubsidized jobs, they lose important benefits, such as housing and SNAP benefits, health insurance, family support programs where they begin to build up a nest egg, and other benefits. Respondents recommended extending some of these benefits for a short period of time after exiting SCSEP for unsubsidized employment to decrease the incentive to remain in SCSEP, as well as to communicate what programs and benefits participants may be eligible for after leaving SCSEP.

Training

Require Training and Education for Host Agencies

Respondents noted that some host agencies do not understand that SCSEP is primarily a jobs training program. As a result, some host agencies focus less on the skills, knowledge areas, and confidence they can help participants to develop through the training experience.

Streamline Technology Trainings

The level of technology training offered to participants varies depending on the program operator. Having some baseline technology training available to all participants would promote more skilled individuals for today’s economy.

Provide Individualized Support

Respondents noted that SCSEP programs need additional resources to provide individualized support for the diverse group of SCSEP participants with different backgrounds, experiences, and needs. For example, English language classes would be helpful for some participants.

Collaborate with American Job Centers

Respondents noted that many SCSEP staff and employees at career centers (“American Job Centers”) do not have a good understanding of each other’s programming. Regular collaboration and communication will increase knowledge about the programs and supports that older workers can utilize to seek training and employment.

Programmatic Goals and What is Considered “Success”

Reconsider Benchmarks of Success

Respondents noted that SCSEP participants face very high barriers to employment and, despite this, many fare well on the job market. Yet some program administrators at the federal and other levels do not see SCSEP as a success when analyzing post-SCSEP job attainment and average wage data. Respondents noted that the significant barriers faced by SCSEP participants should be considered when analyzing programmatic outcomes.

Expand Markers of Success

Respondents noted many other benefits of SCSEP participation that currently are not assessed to indicate the success of—and funding for—the program. These include participants gaining access to secure housing, SNAP benefits, and health care; increased social engagement and decreased isolation; increased confidence; and an increased sense of financial independence and reduced financial stress.

Focus on Identifying Participant Strengths

Some respondents noted how deflating the barriers-to-employment tracking is during the first interview. Utilizing a strengths-based perspective will be more empowering to participants while increasing opportunities among staff to build off participant strengths.

Engagement and Identity

Increase Opportunities for Social Engagement

Respondents noted that social engagement and relationship building opportunities vary among programs. Considering the benefits of SCSEP, such as decreased isolation, efforts to increase the capacity of program operators to facilitate such relationship building may lead to better overall outcomes for participants.

Develop a Shared SCSEP Identity

Several respondents used other names besides SCSEP to name the program, some participants saw themselves as staff of a local agency and not SCSEP participants, and many noted that there is low awareness of SCSEP in their communities. While some of these examples have positive implications, they also reduce the SCSEP program awareness and potential knowledge of the purposes and benefits of the program.

Discussion

This participatory study had three aims: First, to map the role of SCSEP in the well-being—broadly defined—of participants over time. Second, to develop program and policy recommendations based on this research and directly informed by both SCSEP participants and staff to strengthen the program. And third, to contribute to theory on the productive engagement of low-income older adults.

Aim 1: SCSEP’s Influence on Multiple Domains of Participant Well-Being

The results of Aim 1, shown in the causal loop diagram in Figure 1 and in the exemplar feedback loops in Table 2, illustrate respondents’ perceptions of how a set of participant experiences and the organizational, program, and policy environments all influence one another to shape participant well-being over time. Respondents—SCSEP participants, case managers, and dual participant/case managers—all noted how important SCSEP is to not only participant financial well-being, but also to their mental, social, and physical well-being. For example, respondents noted how SCSEP helps to decrease social isolation, a notable threat to public health (Leigh-Hunt et al., 2017). They also noted how SCSEP participation can lead to more awareness of non-SCSEP social supports. Because SCSEP administrators and host agencies are public and nonprofit agencies, participants are often exposed to other social and health programs that these agencies offer or link clients to. Related evidence was revealed in a recent study of older volunteers, in which the least wealthy (many of whom would likely be eligible for SCSEP) experienced the greatest gains in health when volunteering at nonprofit organizations (Kim & Halvorsen, 2021).

Our results echo those from other studies, highlighting how SCSEP influences participant physical, mental, and social health (Carolan et al., 2018; Gonzales et al., 2020) and their social networks, job skills, and self-confidence in finding and keeping jobs (Aday & Kehoe, 2008). These dynamics also underscore how a disruption to SCSEP participation can trigger vicious cycles that may harm well-being and create barriers to further participation in the future. For example, if a negative health event limited participation in the program, participants may experience social isolation, feelings of financial insecurity, and less awareness of additional supports available. These negative consequences could further harm their health and limit their desire and abilities to work in the future.

Respondents also noted how host agency and policy variables interact to influence participant well-being. For example, case managers noted how they are asked to enroll participants who are experiencing multiple barriers to employment to meet the program’s “most in need” goals (DOLETA, 2020b). Yet to quantify these barriers for each participant, case managers conduct interviews that, many noted, focus mostly on what is going wrong for the older job seeker. This dwelling on negative experiences can decrease participant confidence and performance at the placement, further limiting their desire to participate and social engagement. In fact, many older adults with eligible barriers to employment are reluctant to say so (SPR & Mathematica, 2012). Using the strengths-based approach common in social work (Graybeal, 2001) and motivational interviewing (Halvorsen & Yulikova, 2020a) may improve the experience for enrollees in the initial interview while helping them and their case managers to identify strengths to build upon.

Further, several respondents noted how the federal employment goals are at odds with the “most in need” goals, in that enrolling participants with more barriers to employment will likely result in a decrease in their likelihood of employment, a tension also noted in previous research (SPR & Mathematica, 2012). As a result, respondents noted that some case managers selectively enroll participants whom they believe are more likely to find a job so that their program’s performance metrics remain high, which would increase the likelihood of future funding. Respondents noted that performance metrics that consider more than job attainment and mean earnings—such as physical, mental, and social well-being outcomes—would more accurately indicate the success of SCSEP as a program that strives to provide some of the most difficult-to-place older job seekers with on-the-job training.

Aim 2: Respondent-Driven Recommendations to Strengthen SCSEP

The results of Aim 2 include recommendations generated through discussions with SCSEP participants and case managers for local program operators, host agencies, state and federal grantees, and the federal government. These recommendations relate to funding and support, training, programmatic goals and what is considered “success,” and participant engagement and a shared SCSEP identity. Some recommendations are more actionable by the federal government, such as reducing the “benefits cliff” in which safety net benefits can be dramatically reduced with small increases in income, leaving recipients worse off financially (Albelda & Carr, 2017). Some are more actionable by program administrators, such as increasing opportunities for social engagement among participants. And others are actionable by both the federal government and program administrators, such as changes to training supports for host agencies. Using “blue sky” thinking and in light of limited time in our sessions, we did not discuss the feasibility of these recommendations with respondents; however, many would require increased levels of funding from the federal government or alternative sources to be completed.

We shared these recommendations, based on feedback during facilitated activities and discussions, with our respondents and a larger group of more than 50 SCSEP administrators throughout the U.S. (We shared our results to the national group of SCSEP administrators in part to build more confidence in our findings, which are based on a small and geographically limited sample of 15 respondents.) It is important to note just how much agreement we experienced while sharing these recommendations. Respondents in our study felt like their voices had been heard and were hopeful that these recommendations, if enacted, would further strengthen the program. Many of the national administrators, with little pushback, voiced their support and hope that many of these recommendations would be considered. Yet given the size of the program’s budget, number of participants, broad geographic reach, and administrative and funding complexity of SCSEP, it is important that these recommendations be further considered and refined. Specifically, additional stakeholders who were not a part of this study but should be involved in future discussions include more geographically diverse program administrators at the local, state, and national levels as well as host agencies and additional participants and case managers.

Aim 3: The Role of the Workplace in Enhancing Low-Income Older Workers’ Well-Being

The goal of Aim 3 was to contribute to theory development on the productive engagement of low-income older adults. Respondents’ description of the interplay between SCSEP and their health and well-being identified three key components of the overall system: participant experiences, the organizational environment, and the program and policy environment. The three levels of the model and many of the factors and links within the model would likely be true for workers regardless of income (e.g., social engagement through work, feelings of financial security from work income, ageist stereotypes and biases influencing self-confidence). Yet our findings also revealed factors important to low-income older workers and, in particular, older workers in job training programs. An important contribution to theory is the role of the workplace itself—particularly in public and nonprofit human services organizations—in increasing awareness and access to external social supports (shown in the top section of Figure 1). Given their income, SCSEP participants and low-income older workers not in the program are eligible for a variety of safety net supports, such as SNAP benefits, housing supports, and home fuel assistance. Respondents noted that it is through their local SCSEP offices and host agencies that many participants learned about these supports, leading to increased access. This complements research on the fit and usability of organization-provided work-life supports when considering diverse worker populations, including by age (Halvorsen et al., 2020), in that it highlights how workplaces can connect particularly vulnerable older workers to external safety net supports.

The role of the workplace is also highlighted in the middle section of Figure 1. Many low-income older workers need additional job training, a role that community colleges have traditionally filled due to their affordability and convenience for students (Dikhtyar et al., 2021). Yet in SCSEP, the bulk of the training is not completed in the classroom, but rather on the job (Halvorsen & Yulikova, 2020a). Our findings explicate the importance of organizational capacity in engaging and training older workers (Morrow-Howell et al., 2017), identifying how host agency capacity influences the quality of supervisor relationships, job training, and fit in the placement, which all influence a participant’s job performance and confidence. Our findings also highlight how a poor fit in a placement can exacerbate ageist stereotypes and biases.

Given that this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, we had informal discussions with respondents about their experiences as they remained at home. While those discussions are not a part of this study, similar findings of participant experiences as well as the immediate response by some state and federal SCSEP officials to the pandemic, including the provision of paid sick leave, are discussed by Halvorsen and Yulikova (2020b).

Study Innovations and Limitations

This project is innovative in its use of the CBSD method in three key ways. First, this is the first time that CBSD has been used to examine the role that SCSEP plays in the lives of participants. Second, this is one of the first studies to engage older adults in CBSD on an aging-specific topic. Third, while there are some early examples of engaging stakeholders in virtual modeling due to the constraints and opportunities posed by the COVID-19 pandemic (Wilkerson et al., 2020; Zimmermann et al., 2021), this is one of the first studies to adapt CBSD methods to virtual and telephone environments with a particular emphasis on addressing technology access issues to enable participation.

A limitation of this study is that it engaged SCSEP participants and case managers within a single state, Massachusetts, leading to findings that may not reflect the experiences of participants throughout the U.S. To limit this potential bias, however, our member checking process included a presentation to state administrators throughout the country, who overwhelmingly indicated that our study’s results were reflective of their experiences. Further, Massachusetts SCSEP participants include many whose primary languages are not English, including Spanish, Haitian Creole, Portuguese, Vietnamese, Cantonese, and Mandarin, among others. Although we had offered to provide respondents with no-cost translation services, we ultimately received interest from respondents who were comfortable engaging in English. As a result, our findings may be missing variables and nuances from participants who felt most comfortable speaking languages other than English (Ballard et al., 2021). In future studies, we plan to conduct more explicit outreach to these individuals. Further, future studies could convene additional stakeholder groups such as host agencies, other service providers serving older adults, or policymakers to understand their unique perspectives. Future studies could also expand the scope to include additional states and territories.

In our pivot to virtual sessions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we attempted to creatively adapt CBSD activities in ways that limited technology barriers. This included engaging fewer respondents per session (thereby increasing our one-on-one technological troubleshooting capabilities and the amount of attention each respondent could receive during each session) and reducing the time spent per session. It is difficult to assess the full implications of our switch to virtual CBSD given how few virtual applications of this method currently exist. Yet given that a central aim of the CBSD approach is to build communities’ capabilities to empower them to understand and change systems (Hovmand, 2014a), our virtual environment and reduced session times may have resulted in decreased respondent capabilities to use these methods without facilitators. This reduction was likely buffered by the increased individual attention through our smaller groups. Despite this potential reduction in capability development, the virtual sessions also enabled us to engage participants from across Massachusetts, instead of the initially planned Boston region. We suggest that future studies using a CBSD approach balance the pros and cons of virtual sessions, adding them when they might increase the breadth of stakeholder involvement without minimizing participation.

Conclusion

This study highlights the benefits and potential of the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), a program that has been in existence since 1965 and that helps nearly 70,000 older job seekers each year (Mikelson, 2017). Based on discussions with SCSEP participants and case managers on their experiences and perceptions of the program, we identified several pathways for how SCSEP influences the financial, physical, mental, and social well-being of participants. We also documented respondents’ perceptions of how the organizational, program, and policy environments shape participant outcomes. This pilot project sets the stage for future research to more fully understand how SCSEP influences participant outcomes, administrator and host agency experiences, and community impact.

Author Biographies

Cal J. Halvorsen and Olga Yulikova are experts on older workers and the Senior Community Service Employment Program.

Kelsey Werner and Elizabeth McColloch are experts on community-based system dynamics.

Appendix. Recommendations to Strengthen the Senior Community Service Employment Program

Based on our conversations with SCSEP participants and case managers, our research team developed the following sets of recommendations. As a form of member checking, we shared these participant- and case manager-informed recommendations back to our study’s respondents as well as a group of approximately 50 SCSEP administrators throughout the country. Respondents and administrators largely agreed to the following list:

Funding and Support

1. Increase funding for additional program slots from the federal government and state, local, and private sources. Respondents overwhelmingly stressed that there is far more demand for SCSEP slots than supply. In a time of fiscal constraints, funding may need to come from sources in addition to the federal government, enabling funding for additional slots to be more responsive to unmet demand.

2. Increase funding to build organizational capacity for program operators and host agencies to strengthen supports for SCSEP participants. Respondents shared that due to tight SCSEP budgets, there is little financial support to increase the capacity of program operators and host agencies to better support participants. Supporting the organizations to build their capacity could lead to several positive outcomes, including better support for participants’ needs and better participant outcomes. For example, some respondents noted the need to develop enhanced case management by hiring social workers to more holistically support the needs of SCSEP participants.

3. Increase participant stipends after certain goals are met. Respondents shared that working part-time at minimum wage in SCSEP is hard to live on, especially in areas with higher costs of living throughout Massachusetts. Several proposed “pay for performance” ideas, such as increasing participant stipends after clear goals are met (e.g., passing technology trainings) to decrease financial stress while increasing skills.

4. Continue wraparound benefits after program exit. Respondents shared that after some participants exit SCSEP for unsubsidized jobs, they lose important benefits, such as housing and SNAP benefits, health insurance, family support programs where they begin to build up a nest egg, and other benefits. This was described as a “benefits cliff.” Communicating with existing and former participants regarding programs and benefits they may be eligible for after leaving SCSEP—such as the federal Family Self-Sufficiency program for low-income individuals receiving housing assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development—was noted as one way to help. As was the idea of extending some of these benefits for a period of time after exiting SCSEP for unsubsidized employment, decreasing the incentive to remain in SCSEP.

Training

• 5.Provide initial and ongoing training and education for host agencies as a requirement of continued participation in SCSEP. Respondents shared that some host agencies do not understand that this is, first and foremost, a jobs training program. As a result, some host agencies focus less on the skills, knowledge areas, and confidence they can help participants to develop through the training experience.
• 6.Help program operators to provide additional technology training, both prior to and during placement in host agencies. The level of technology training offered to participants varies depending on the program operator. Having some baseline technology training available to all participants would promote more skilled individuals for today’s economy. In addition to basic computer skills, the technology training should be responsive to the current and future work environments by training participants on strategies for remote work, including virtual meeting software and using the cloud.
• 7.Help program operators to provide more individualized support for training and education as needed. SCSEP participants are a diverse group of people with different backgrounds, experiences, and needs, and a “one size fits all” approach will not always address their specific needs. For example, some respondents noted that language barriers are an issue for SCSEP participants whose primary language is not English. In this case, English language classes could be helpful.
• 8.Promote regular collaboration between SCSEP and American Job Centers (called MassHire Career Centers in Massachusetts) at the federal, state, and local levels. Respondents noted that employees at career centers do not always have a full understanding of the goals of SCSEP and the needs of the older adults it serves. Further, local SCSEP staff, who sometimes work at the career centers to meet with potential SCSEP participants, do not know much about other available career programs. Regular collaboration and communication between SCSEP and American Job Centers will increase knowledge about the programs and supports for older workers seeking training and employment.

Programmatic Goals and What is Considered “Success”

• 9.Reconsider benchmarks of success on current program goals. Respondents noted that the older adults whom SCSEP is designed to support face very high barriers to employment—in an economy where older adults of all socioeconomic backgrounds have been documented to experience ageism, difficulty finding work, and high chances of losing their jobs. Despite this, some program administrators at the federal and other levels do not see SCSEP as a success when analyzing post-SCSEP job attainment and average wage data. Yet our study’s respondents—considering the same data—often see SCSEP as a successful program. In fact, as the program is currently designed, the “most-in-need” goals are working directly against employment goals, as those most in need of SCSEP training are, by design, individuals who face the most barriers to finding work. Respondents noted that the significant barriers faced by SCSEP participants should be considered when analyzing programmatic outcomes.
• 10.Expand what success looks like for program administrators to include a broader look at financial, mental, physical, and social well-being. The focus on post-SCSEP employment and mean hourly pay is important. Yet respondents noted many other benefits of SCSEP participation that currently are not assessed to indicate the success of—and funding for—the program. These include participants gaining access to secure housing, SNAP benefits, and health care; increased social engagement and “getting out of the house” and decreased isolation; increased confidence; and an increased sense of financial independence and reduced financial stress.
• 11.Focus on identifying participant strengths. Some respondents noted how deflating it can feel for new participants when case managers focus so much on participants’ barriers to employment in some of their initial interviews. Utilizing a strengths-based perspective that is common in the field of social work will be more empowering to participants—building confidence—while increasing opportunities among staff to build off participant strengths.

Participant Engagement

• 12.Increase opportunities for social engagement and relationship building among participants. Respondents noted that while some program operators create opportunities for social engagement and relationship building, others do not. Considering the potential social benefits of this program—such as decreased isolation—efforts to increase the capacity of program operators to facilitate such relationship building may lead to better overall outcomes for participants. For example, during the pandemic, some noted how much they appreciated the regular virtual meetings that have been held by program administrators.

Branding and Self-Identification

• 13.From the federal to local levels, focus on developing a shared SCSEP brand or identity. Several respondents used other names besides SCSEP to describe the program. Many focused on the needs or requirements of the organization they receive their funding from—a “grantee”—instead of the federal program itself. Some participants saw themselves as staff of a local agency and not SCSEP participants. Further, many respondents noted that there is low awareness of SCSEP in their communities. While some of these examples have positive implications, they also reduce the SCSEP brand awareness and potential knowledge of the purposes and benefits of the program. Promoting a larger SCSEP brand or identity may help. Just as AmeriCorps members—who are placed throughout the country in community service roles—self-identify as members and alum, so, too, could SCSEP members. Further, just as the AmeriCorps logo is a clear symbol of the program from the federal to local levels, so, too, could a SCSEP logo.

ORCID iD

Cal J. Halvorsen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9184-633X