County briefs committee on 2025 Summer Youth Enrichment Program; funding, capacity and training discussed

Prince George's County human resources and workforce staff briefed the Education, Workforce and Development Committee on June 30 on the 2025 Summer Youth Enrichment Program (SYEP), which county staff said will run a six‑week period beginning July 1 and serve approximately 1,070 youth with $1,000,000 allocated by the Office of Management and Budget.

David Williams, workforce development manager, described the SYEP and the Youth at Work programs and introduced program staff. Williams said placements span government, nonprofit and for‑profit worksites and include public safety, culinary and hospitality, IT, business/finance and legal services. He said the county has more than 70 employer partners and about 35 nonprofit organizations participating this year.

Program instructor Simone Harrison, a Prince George's County native who participated in the county program as a teenager and later returned as staff, described the program's impact on participants’ skills and career paths. "At just 15, I got my first job through the summer youth enrichment program," Harrison said. She described moving from a youth participant to a thousand‑hour employee and later being hired full time after advocacy and extension of her placement.

County staff described the program's two compensation models: stipend paid opportunities (for example, $300 for eligible 14–15 year olds; $400 for 16–17; $500 for 18–24 in stipend tracks) and hourly paid placements (16–17 at $13/hour; 18–24 at $15/hour). Staff noted the Maryland Department of Labor requires that some youth wages be set at 85% of local minimum wage for younger participants and said the county's stipend and hourly rates are at or above that baseline.

Committee members raised several substantive questions. Members asked why the program’s capacity has fallen sharply from 4,495 participants in 2024 to about 1,070 in 2025; staff attributed the change to lower funding this year and said agency and partner capacity also constrained placements. Members also asked whether weekly job‑readiness training includes customer service, resume writing, career assessments and exposure to emerging technologies; staff said the program has a revitalized job‑readiness curriculum that includes career and personality assessments, resume help and workplace skills training and that the county is exploring partnerships to expand training on AI and other emerging technologies.

Committee members asked for additional data and follow‑up materials. Staff said the SYEP publishes an annual report with historical partner lists and that the county can provide applicant and selection statistics, geographic location of placement sites and, on request, data about the gender balance of participants (staff said a follow‑up indicated roughly 60% of participants are female in recent years). Members asked whether the program tracks long‑term outcomes, such as permanent hiring from summer placements; staff said the county does not currently track permanent hires systematically for SYEP, though the Youth at Work internship program has documented hires and the team said they would explore capturing that data for SYEP.

Council members urged staff to pursue additional employer partners and suggested coordinating with the Economic Development Corporation, Park and Planning and county education liaisons to expand placements, particularly in southern parts of the county and to mitigate the loss of traditional large partners that previously absorbed many participants. Staff agreed to follow up with supplemental data and to explore strategies for expanding employer contributions and post‑SYEP placements.