Skip to main content

The 2021 net impact and cost-benefit evaluation of Washington state’s workforce development programs (Dula, 2021)

Absence of conflict of interest.

Citation

Dula, C. (2021). The 2021 net impact and cost-benefit evaluation of Washington state’s workforce development programs. Washington Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board. [Worker Retraining Program]

Highlights

Intervention Examined

Worker Retraining Program

Features of the Intervention

The Worker Retraining program is a workforce development program that provides supports and services to various unemployed, dislocated, displaced, and transitioning workers. The program aims to help retrain these workers to start a new career through short-term “bridge funding” that allows individuals to find and receive training immediately while also providing supports and funding to aid continued education and training. Services include financial assistance for tuition, books, and supplies and support services, such as childcare and transportation. Program enrollment, program need, and industry focus vary depending on layoffs and recessions occurring. 

Features of the Study

The study used a difference-in-differences design to examine the impact of the Worker Retraining program in Washington state on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt outcomes. The author matched Worker Retraining program participants to similar nonparticipants using propensity scores developed from socio-demographic information. The comparison group members included individuals who registered to use Washington’s WorkSource employment centers and online job-search portals as part of the Wagner-Peyser federal program, but did not participate in the Worker Retraining program. The study sample included two cohorts. The 2014-2015 cohort included 7,064 individuals (3,609 intervention and 3,455 comparison) and was predominantly female (56%), White (63%), with an average age of 40. The 2016-2017 cohort included 7,040 individuals (3,628 intervention and 3,412 comparison) and was predominantly female (54%), White (60%), with an average age of 38.  

The primary data sources were administrative data from the Worker Retraining program and Washington's WorkSource employment centers and online job-search portals. The author conducted statistical models to examine differences in outcomes between the intervention and comparison groups at one year and three years after program exit. Outcomes included employment rate, quarterly hours worked, hourly wage, quarterly earnings, and quarterly Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits received.  

Findings

Employment

  • The study found that Worker Retraining program participants had significantly higher employment rates than comparison group members one year after program exit, but found no significant differences three years after exit. The program participants also had significantly more quarterly hours worked at both one year and three years after program exit. 

Earnings and wages

  • The study found that Worker Retraining program participants had significantly higher hourly wages and higher quarterly earnings than comparison group members at both one year and three years after program exit. 

Public benefits receipt

  • The study found that Worker Retraining program participants received significantly less in quarterly UI benefits than comparison group members three years after program exit, but did not find a statistically significant difference one year after program exit. 

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

The study reports a less stringent statistical significance level, considering p-values of less than 0.10 to be significant, though it is standard practice to consider statistical significance if the p-value is less than 0.05. Only results that demonstrate a p-value of less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this profile.  

Causal Evidence Rating

The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is moderate because it was based on a well-implemented nonexperimental design. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the Worker Retraining program, but other factors might also have contributed. 

Reviewed by CLEAR

April 2024