Catholic Charities Community Services (CCCS)

    Our Report

    Catholic Charities Community Services' response to the GiveWell review:

    We are very grateful for the honest and direct response from the Clear Fund staff. The comparison with The HOPE Program has been useful to us in thinking how we can take next steps to further improve our services and have greater impact.

    Ultimately, if a workforce development program is to have the greatest positive impact, the program must be funded with a mix of private funding (which is often more flexible) and government contracts (which impart an ability to go to scale, allow for cost-of-living increases and long-term sustainability). The issue of scale is of critical importance at a time when new, boutique nonprofits, promising innovation and impact for a select audience are popping up. In New York City, this is especially acute as boutique programs drain resources from larger, more established programs, which if provided with the proper mix of resources could have a profound, large scale impact on poverty.

    CCCS participates in the Adult Employment Program through a contract with an intermediary, the non-profit organization SEEDCO. SEEDCO's EarnFair Alliance program leverages support from private foundations in addition to directly contracting with the New York City's Human Resources Administration (HRA) to support 16 community-based organizations throughout New York City. As a member of the Alliance, CCCS must adhere to HRA's policies which require community partners to “engage” all eligible recipients in planned, constructive activities, in the belief that doing so will reduce down time, dependency and increase employability.

    Participants come to our door because they are seeking public assistance, which includes cash assistance, food stamps, Medicaid and housing vouchers. Receipt of those benefits is the immediate goal, not necessarily employment. Our inability to “cream” or recruit willing participants combined with their significant personal barriers impacts our ability to place more individuals in employment. However, our results, when compared to similar government-funded, welfare-to-work programs are within normal limits.

    Catholic Charities Community Services' response to the GiveWell review:

    We are very grateful for the honest and direct response from the Clear Fund staff. The comparison with The HOPE Program has been useful to us in thinking how we can take next steps to further improve our services and have greater impact.

    Ultimately, if a workforce development program is to have the greatest positive impact, the program must be funded with a mix of private funding (which is often more flexible) and government contracts (which impart an ability to go to scale, allow for cost-of-living increases and long-term sustainability). The issue of scale is of critical importance at a time when new, boutique nonprofits, promising innovation and impact for a select audience are popping up. In New York City, this is especially acute as boutique programs drain resources from larger, more established programs, which if provided with the proper mix of resources could have a profound, large scale impact on poverty.

    CCCS participates in the Adult Employment Program through a contract with an intermediary, the non-profit organization SEEDCO. SEEDCO's EarnFair Alliance program leverages support from private foundations in addition to directly contracting with the New York City's Human Resources Administration (HRA) to support 16 community-based organizations throughout New York City. As a member of the Alliance, CCCS must adhere to HRA's policies which require community partners to “engage” all eligible recipients in planned, constructive activities, in the belief that doing so will reduce down time, dependency and increase employability.

    Participants come to our door because they are seeking public assistance, which includes cash assistance, food stamps, Medicaid and housing vouchers. Receipt of those benefits is the immediate goal, not necessarily employment. Our inability to “cream” or recruit willing participants combined with their significant personal barriers impacts our ability to place more individuals in employment. However, our results, when compared to similar government-funded, welfare-to-work programs are within normal limits.