Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
- The study's objective was to examine the net impact of 12 workforce development programs in Washington state on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses on the Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) programs at community and technical colleges. The author investigated similar research questions for the net impact of other programs, the profiles can be found here:
- WIA/WIOA Adult Program
- WIA/WIOA Dislocated Worker Program
- WIA/WIOA Youth Program
- Professional-Technical Education Programs
- Worker Retraining Program
- Basic Education for Adults Programs
- Private Career School Programs
- Aerospace Training Programs
- Registered Apprenticeships
- WorkFirst Program
- Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) Program
- The study used a difference-in-differences design with a matched comparison group. Using administrative data, the author conducted statistical models to compare the outcomes of the program participants and the comparison group members, before and after the intervention.
- The study found a significant relationship between the I-BEST program and higher employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt.
- This study receives a low evidence rating. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to I-BEST programs; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST)
Features of the Intervention
The Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) program is a workforce development program that provides instruction and training on fundamental topics and skills. The instruction and training cover literacy, work preparedness, and college readiness skills, such as basic English and math skills. The program aims to help participants toward a college degree and jobs with livable wages.
Features of the Study
The study used a difference-in-differences design to examine the impact of the I-BEST programs in Washington state on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt outcomes. The author matched I-BEST program participants to similar nonparticipants using propensity scores developed from socio-demographic information. The author did not provide sample size information or descriptive statistics of the sample’s demographic characteristics. 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 I-BEST programs.
The primary data sources were administrative data from the I-BEST programs 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 a significant relationship between the I-BEST program and higher employment rates and quarterly hours worked at both one year and three years after program exit.
Earnings and wages
- The study found a significant relationship between the I-BEST program and higher hourly wages and quarterly earnings one year after program exit. However, the study found no statistically significant relationships between the I-BEST program and earnings outcomes three years after program exit.
Public benefits receipt
- The study found a significant relationship between the I-BEST program and increased quarterly UI benefits receipt one year after program exit. However, the study found no statistically significant relationship between the I-BEST program and quarterly UI benefits receipt three years after program exit.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The author states that a comparison group was created using propensity score matching but did not provide any details about the study samples before and after matching. Preexisting differences between the groups—and not the I-BEST program—could explain the observed differences in outcomes. Therefore, the study is not eligible for a moderate causal evidence rating, the highest rating available for nonexperimental designs.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the author did not ensure that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to I-BEST programs at community and technical colleges; other factors are likely to have contributed.