Citation
Hollenbeck, K., & Huang, W-J. (2006). Net impact and benefit-cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington State. (Upjohn Institute technical report no. TR06-020). Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. [Community and Technical College Worker Retraining Program]
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Community and Technical College (CTC) Worker Retraining program on the employment rate, earnings, and public benefit receipt of long-term unemployed and dislocated workers in Washington State.
- The authors used a nonexperimental design to compare the short-term (3 quarters after program exit) and long-term (9 to 12 quarters after program exit) employment, earnings, and public benefit receipt between those who took part in the CTC Worker Retraining program and those who registered for employment services at the state Labor Exchange.
- The study found that, compared with those in the comparison group, participants in the CTC Worker Retraining program had higher employment and earnings, and lower public benefits receipt.
- The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors compared the treatment and comparison groups at different follow-up points and the groups were therefore not equivalent. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to CTC Worker Retraining program; other factors are likely to have contributed.
- This study also examined the effectiveness of other workforce development programs. Please click here to find CLEAR profiles of those studies.
Intervention Examined
Community and Technical College Worker Retraining (CTC WR) Program
Features of the Intervention
This CTC Worker Retraining program provided skills training, similar to that of the CTC Job Preparatory Training program, at community and technical colleges for long-term unemployed and dislocated workers. To be eligible to participate in this program, workers must have been currently unemployed or have received notice that they were to be laid off. In addition, workers must have been eligible for or have exhausted their unemployment compensation benefits within the previous 24 months. Those in the program might have received financial assistance to offset the cost of tuition and might also have received assistance with child care and transportation costs.
Features of the Study
The authors used a nonexperimental statistical procedure called propensity-score matching to create a comparison group of people who registered for services at the Labor Exchange and were similar to CTC Worker Retraining participants in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, age, educational attainment, location, and employment history. The authors collected Unemployment Insurance records for those who had exited the CTC Worker Retraining program or Labor Exchange from July 2001 to June 2002 to estimate the long-term impacts of the CTC Worker Retraining program in quarters 9 to 12 after program exit. They also collected Unemployment Insurance records for those who exited the CTC Worker Retraining program or Labor Exchange from July 2003 to June 2004 to estimate the short-term impacts in the 3 quarters following program exit. The 6,031 CTC Worker Retraining participants who exited in 2001–2002 were matched to a sample of 4,795 comparison group members, which was drawn from the 179,583 adults who registered at the Labor Exchange. The 7,519 CTC Worker Retraining participants who exited in 2003–2004 were matched to a sample of 5,386 comparison group members, which was drawn from the 151,842 adults who registered at the Labor Exchange. The authors then compared the employment, quarterly hours worked, quarterly earnings, hourly wages, and public benefits receipt of the CTC Worker Retraining program and comparison groups. Program participants were on average 36 years old; 60 percent of participants were female and about 58 percent were minorities.
Findings
Employment
- The authors reported that, compared with those who registered for services at the Labor Exchange, the percentage of quarters employed for those who took part in the CTC Worker Retraining program increased by 7.8 percentage points 3 quarters after program exit and by 4.6 percentage points 9 to 12 quarters after program exit. The average number of hours worked increased for those who participated in the training program, with an average increase of 39.5 hours more worked 3 quarters after exit and 29.8 hours more worked 9 to 12 quarters after program exit.
Earnings
- The authors reported that average quarterly earnings increased for those who took part in the CTC Worker Retraining program compared with those who registered at the Labor Exchange, with an average increase of $342 3 quarters after program exit and $271 in quarters 9 to 12 after program exit. The hourly wage also increased for the treatment group, with an average increase of $0.70 more per hour 3 quarters after program exit.
Public benefits receipt
- The authors reported that, compared with those who registered for services at the Labor Exchange, the percentage of CTC Worker Retraining program participants receiving Unemployment Insurance and food stamps decreased by 1.0 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively, 3 quarters after program exit. The amount of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits and food stamps received among the training group also decreased 3 quarters after program exit (by $8.70 and $13.20, respectively). The percentage of CTC Worker Retraining participants who received Unemployment Insurance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits, and food stamps increased 9 to 12 quarters after program exit, and the average amount received for each program was higher than for the Labor Exchange group. The percentage of CTC Worker Retraining participants who received Medicaid also increased more (by 1.2 percentage points) than the comparison group 9 to 12 quarters after exit.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
Although the authors accounted for many characteristics of the treatment and comparison groups in their analysis, the decision to define the groups based on their date of program exit rather than program entry is problematic. For example, if the average length of participation was 6 months for the CTC Worker Retraining group compared to one month for the Labor Exchange group and we compared the groups’ earnings 6 months after their recorded exit dates, we would see CTC Worker Retraining participants’ earnings about 12 months after they started receiving services and Labor Exchange participants’ earnings about 7 months after they started receiving services. If everyone stayed on their original upward-sloping wage trajectory, it would appear as though the CTC Worker Retraining participants earned more 6 months after their exit dates. However, this would not be attributable to receiving CTC Worker Retraining program services; it would be caused by the difference in elapsed time across the groups (12 months for CTC Worker Retraining participants versus 7 months for Labor Exchange participants). Therefore, studies defining the groups based on exit date instead of entry date without accounting for program length can only receive a low evidence rating.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors compared the treatment and comparison groups at different follow-up points and therefore the groups were not equivalent. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the CTC Worker Retraining program; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Additional Sources
Hollenbeck, K. (2011). Short-term net impact estimates and rates of return. In D.J. Besharov & P. H. Cottingham (Eds.), The Workforce Investment Act: Implementation experiences and evaluation findings (pp. 347-370). Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.