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. [Comm. and Tech. ABE]
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Community and Technical Colleges Adult Basic Education (ABE) program on the employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt of low-income adults.
- The authors used a nonexperimental method to compare the short-term (3 quarters after program exit) and long-term (9 to 12 quarters after program exit) employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt between those who took part in the ABE program relative to those who registered for services at the Labor Exchange.
- The study found that, compared with those who registered for Labor Exchange services, ABE program participants had higher employment and earnings, and lower public benefits receipt.
- The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not ensure that the groups compared were similar before program participation. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the ABE 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
The Community and Technical Colleges Adult Basic Education (ABE) Program
Features of the Intervention
Participants in the ABE program were adults who had demonstrated deficiencies in basic academic skills. Community-based organizations or community and technical colleges offered training to improve adults’ literacy, knowledge, and skills for employment and self-sufficiency; facilitate training in education to parents for supporting their children’s education; and support adults in completing high school-level education.
Training included literacy classes, family skills, workplace skills enhancement, English language classes, citizenship classes, basic skills education, high school equivalency preparation, and alternative high school diploma programs.
Features of the Study
The authors used a nonexperimental statistical approach called propensity-score matching to create a comparison group of people who registered at the Labor Exchange and who were similar to ABE program participants in terms of demographic characteristics, including gender, age, race, and employment and earnings history. The authors collected Unemployment Insurance records for those who had exited the ABE program or Labor Exchange from July 2001 to June 2002 to estimate the long-term impacts of the ABE program in quarters 9 to 12 after program exit. They also collected Unemployment Insurance records for those who exited the ABE program or Labor Exchange from July 2003 to June 2004 to estimate the short-term impacts in the 3 quarters following program exit. The 13,478 ABE participants who exited in 2001–2002 were matched to a sample of 7,269 comparison group members, which was drawn from the 188,172 adults who registered at the Labor Exchange. The 7,815 ABE participants who exited in 2003–2004 were matched to a sample of 5,852 comparison group members, which was drawn from the 164,811 adults who registered at the Labor Exchange. The authors then compared the employment, hourly wages, quarterly hours worked, quarterly earnings, and public benefits of the ABE and comparison groups before and after participation. Program participants were on average 31 years old; 60 percent of participants were female and about 58 percent were minorities.
Findings
Employment
- The study found that, compared with that of those registered for Labor Exchange services, the employment rate for the ABE program group increased by 5.9 percentage points more 9 to 12 quarters after program exit. In addition, compared with that of those registered for Labor Exchange services, the number of hours worked per quarter for the ABE program group increased by 11.8 hours more 3 quarters after program exit and 18.5 hours more 9 to 12 quarters after program exit.
Earnings and wages
- The study found that average quarterly earnings increased by $182 more in the third quarter after program exit for those who took part in the ABE program compared with that of those registered for Labor Exchange services. The average hourly wage for the ABE program group also increased by 56 cents more in the third quarter after program exit.
Public benefits receipt
- The study found that, compared with those registered for Labor Exchange services, the percentage of participants in the ABE program group who received Unemployment Insurance benefits decreased by 0.8 percentage points more 3 quarters after exit and by 1.3 percentage points more 9 to 12 quarters after program exit. The amount of Unemployment Insurance benefits received in the ABE program group also decreased by $10.70 more 9 to 12 quarters after program exit. Compared with the Labor Exchange group, the percentage of ABE participants who received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits increased about 2.5 percentage points more and the amount received increased by about $40 more 3 and 9 to 12 quarters after program exit. The findings were similar for food stamp benefits; the percentage of recipients and the amount received increased more for ABE participants than for the comparison group 3 and 9 to 12 quarters after program exit (4.3 percentage points and $43 more, and 6.4 percentage points and $67 more, respectively). Compared with those registered for Labor Exchange services, the percentage of participants in the ABE program group who were enrolled in Medicaid increased by 5.3 percentage points more 3 quarters after exit and by 6.0 percentage points more 9 to 12 quarters after program 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 ABE group compared with one month for the Labor Exchange group and we compared the groups’ earnings 6 months after their recorded exit dates, we would see ABE 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 ABE participants earned more 6 months after their exit dates. However, this would not be attributable to receiving ABE services; it would be caused by the difference in elapsed time across the groups (12 months for ABE 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 receive only a low evidence rating.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the treatment and comparison group were compared at different follow-up points and therefore were not equivalent. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to ABE 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.