IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/upj/weupjo/03-92.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Net Impact Estimates of the Workforce Development System in Washington State

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This study estimates the net impacts and private and social benefits and costs of nine workforce development programs administered in Washington State. Five of the programs serve job-ready adults: Community and Technical College Job Training, Private Career Schools, Apprenticeships, Job Training and Partnership Act (JTPA) Title III programs, and Community and Technical College Worker Retraining. Two of the programs serve adults with employment barriers: Community and Technical College Adult Basic Skills Education and JTPA Title II-A programs. The other two programs serve youth: JTPA Title II-C programs and Secondary Career Technical Education. The net impact analyses were conducted using a nonexperimental methodology. Individuals who encountered the workforce development programs were statistically matched to individuals who did not. Administrative data with information from the universe of program participants and Employment Service registrants (who served as the comparison group pool) supported the analyses. These data included over 10 years of pre-program and outcome information including demographics, employment and earnings information from the Unemployment Insurance wage record system, and transfer income information such as Food Stamp and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipiency and benefits. A variety of estimation techniques were used to calculate net impacts including comparison of means, regression-adjusted comparison of means, and difference-in-difference comparison of means. We estimated short-run net impacts that examined outcomes for individuals who exited from the education or training programs (or from the employment service) in the fiscal year 1999/2000 and longer-run impacts for individuals who exited in the fiscal year 1997/98. Short- run employment impacts are positive for seven of the nine programs and negative for the other two. Short-run earnings impacts are insignificant for four of the programs, negative for two, and positive for the remaining three. The longer-run impacts are more sanguine. Employment impacts are positive for all nine programs, and earnings are positive for seven and insignificantly different from zero for the other two. The benefit-cost analyses show that all of the programs have discounted future benefits that far exceed the costs for participants, and that society also receives a positive return on investment.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin Hollenbeck, 2003. "Net Impact Estimates of the Workforce Development System in Washington State," Upjohn Working Papers 03-92, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:upj:weupjo:03-92
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=up_workingpapers
    Download Restriction: This material is copyrighted. Permission is required to reproduce any or all parts.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ashenfelter, Orley C, 1978. "Estimating the Effect of Training Programs on Earnings," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 60(1), pages 47-57, February.
    2. Rajeev H. Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, 1998. "Causal Effects in Non-Experimental Studies: Re-Evaluating the Evaluation of Training Programs," NBER Working Papers 6586, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Betcherman, Gordon & Olivas, Karina & Dar, Amit, 2004. "Impacts of active labor market programs : new evidence from evaluations with particular attention to developing and transition countries," Social Protection Discussion Papers and Notes 29142, The World Bank.
    2. Christopher J. O'Leary & Randall W. Eberts, 2009. "Employment and Training Policy in the United States during the Economic Crisis," Upjohn Working Papers 10-161, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    3. Kevin Hollenbeck, 2004. "Some Reflections on the Use of Administrative Data to Estimate the Net Impacts of Workforce Programs in Washington State," Upjohn Working Papers 04-109, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    4. Steven Raphael & Michael A. Stoll, 2006. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Massachusetts Workforce Development System Using No-Shows as a Nonexperimental Comparison Group," Evaluation Review, , vol. 30(4), pages 379-429, August.
    5. Elena Ragazzi & Lisa Sella, 2013. "Migration and work: the cohesive role of vocational training policies," CERIS Working Paper 201316, CNR-IRCrES Research Institute on Sustainable Economic Growth - Torino (TO) ITALY - former Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth - Moncalieri (TO) ITALY.
    6. Douglas J. Besharov & Phoebe H. Cottingham (ed.), 2011. "The Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Experiences and Evaluation Findings," Books from Upjohn Press, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, number twia.
    7. Kevin Hollenbeck, 2008. "Sensitivity Testing of Net Impact Estimates of Workforce Development Programs Using Administrative Data," Upjohn Working Papers 08-139, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ravallion, Martin & Galasso, Emanuela & Lazo, Teodoro & Philipp, Ernesto, 2001. "Do workfare participants recover quickly from retrenchment?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2672, The World Bank.
    2. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    3. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    4. Peter R. Mueser & Kenneth R. Troske & Alexey Gorislavsky, 2007. "Using State Administrative Data to Measure Program Performance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(4), pages 761-783, November.
    5. Bart, COCKX & Jean, RIES, 2004. "The Exhaustion of Unemployment Benefits in Belgium. Does it Enhance the Probability of Employment ?," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2004016, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    6. Kluve, Jochen & Lehmann, Hartmut & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2008. "Disentangling Treatment Effects of Active Labor Market Policies: The Role of Labor Force Status Sequences," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 1270-1295, December.
    7. Hoek, Jasper, 2006. "Life Cycle Effects of Job Displacement in Brazil," IZA Discussion Papers 2291, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Larsson, Laura & Lindqvist, Linus & Nordström Skans, Oskar, 2005. "Stepping-stones or dead-ends? An analysis of Swedish replacement contracts," Working Paper Series 2005:18, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    9. Almus, Matthias, 2001. "Evaluating the impact of public start-up assistance: results from an econometric approach," ZEW Discussion Papers 01-23, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    10. Ravallion, Martin, 2008. "Evaluating Anti-Poverty Programs," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 59, pages 3787-3846, Elsevier.
    11. Alberto Chong & José Galdo, 2006. "Does the Quality of Training Programs Matter? Evidence from Bidding Processes Data," Research Department Publications 4451, Inter-American Development Bank, Research Department.
    12. Martin Eichler & Michael Lechner, 2000. "Some Econometric Evidence on the Effectiveness of Active Labour Market Programmes in East Germany," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 318, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    13. Andrea Pufahl & Christoph R. Weiss, 2009. "Evaluating the effects of farm programmes: results from propensity score matching," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(1), pages 79-101, March.
    14. Harrison Hong & Ilan Kremer & Jeffrey D. Kubik & Jianping Mei & Michael Moses, 2015. "Ordering, revenue and anchoring in art auctions," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(1), pages 186-216, March.
    15. Raúl Junior Sandoval-Gómez & Jesús Antonio Álvarez-Cedillo & Edgar Ivan Castellanos-Sanchez & Teodoro Álvarez-Sánchez & Rebeca Perez-Garcia, 2023. "Development of a technological innovation and social entrepreneurship training program to generate services in a Mexican public entity," Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, PC TECHNOLOGY CENTER, vol. 6(13 (126)), pages 74-87, December.
    16. Angrisani, Marco & Atella, Vincenzo & Brunetti, Marianna, 2018. "Public health insurance and household portfolio Choices: Unravelling financial “Side Effects” of Medicare," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 198-212.
    17. Matias Busso & Patrick Kline, 2008. "Do Local Economic Development Programs Work? Evidence from the Federal Empowerment Zone Program," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1639, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    18. Scott A. Imberman, 2011. "Achievement and Behavior in Charter Schools: Drawing a More Complete Picture," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(2), pages 416-435, May.
    19. David Card, 2022. "Design-Based Research in Empirical Microeconomics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(6), pages 1773-1781, June.
    20. Jeffrey Smith, 2000. "A Critical Survey of Empirical Methods for Evaluating Active Labor Market Policies," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 136(III), pages 247-268, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Washington; State; workforce; development; system; Hollenbeck; Upjohn; Institute;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H43 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Project Evaluation; Social Discount Rate
    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:upj:weupjo:03-92. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/upjohus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.