Transcript Primary Objectives of Workforce Development Program

The Collapse of the Teen Job Market in Massachusetts
and the U.S.: The Case for A Comprehensive Workforce
Development System Response
1)
2)
3)
4)
The steep declines in teen labor force participation and
employment rates in Massachusetts since 1999; the
unprecedented drop in teen employment rates in our
state and the nation since 2000.
Once a top performer, Massachusetts has fallen far
behind the leading states in providing jobs for teens.
The failure of teens nationwide to benefit from the
national jobs recovery beginning with the fall of 2003.
The sharp drop in employment rates among high school
students in Massachusetts since 2000; large gaps in
employment rates across gender, race-ethnic, and
family income subgroups in the state.
5)
What can be done to address this crisis?





Provide national, state, local leadership in addressing the
problem; absence of any national leadership from either
political party.
Expansion of in-school work opportunities for youth; more
support for school-to-career and connecting activities
programs.
Better school to work transition services for new graduates.
An expanded summer jobs program at national/state level;
resurrect the summer jobs program with wage subsidies for
private sector employers.
Employer tax credits for hiring participants in school-tocareer programs; costs to employers often far exceed
benefits that they will receive.
Trends in the Annual Average Civilian
Labor Force Participation Rates of Teens in
Massachusetts and the U.S., 1999-2006 (in %)
70
60
57.4
52.0
48.2 47.4
Percent
50
47.2
47.1
43.9
43.7
44.4 43.7
40
30
20
10
0
1999
2002
2004
2005
Year
Massachusetts
U.S.
2006
Trends in the Employment/Population
Ratio of Teens in Massachusetts, Selected
Years, 1999-2006
60
53.5
50
41.4
41.6
2002
2004
40
39.5
30
20
10
0
1999
2006
Comparisons of the Labor Force Participation
Rates of Teens in Massachusetts With Those of the Top
Five Ranked States and the Lowest Ranked State in
2006 (in %, Annual Averages)
80
70
66
65
61
60
59
60
44
40
35
30
20
10
State
k
Y
ew
N
M
as
sa
ch
u
se
or
tts
ka
N
eb
ra
s
a
so
t
ne
M
in
W
isc
on
a
ak
ot
D
So
ut
h
sin
0
Io
w
a
Percent
50
Comparisons of the Employment Rates of
High School Students (16+) in Massachusetts in
2000 and 2005, All and by Gender (in %)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Per Cent
Change
-21
-26
-16
Group
2000
2005
Percentage
Point Change
All
Men
Women
39.7
38.3
41.4
31.2
28.2
34.5
-8.5
-10.1
-6.9
Comparisons of the Employment Rates of High
School Students (16+) in the U.S. and Massachusetts
in 2005 by Race-Ethnic Group and Family Income
(A)
(B)
(C)
Massachusetts
U.S.
Massachusetts – U.S.
Race/Ethnic
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
18.4
17.1
24.8
35.0
17.4
18.6
22.8
33.0
+1.0
-1.5
+2.0
+2.0
Family Income
<20,000
20-40,000
40-60,000
60-80,000
80-100,000
100,000+
14.9
27.2
33.0
35.0
36.5
33.5
17.2
24.0
29.3
33.0
34.1
31.1
-2.3
+3.2
+3.7
+2.0
+2.4
+2.4
Group
Predicted Probability of Employment in 2005
Among Hypothetical Subgroups of Massachusetts
High School Students 16-19 Years Old (in Per Cent)
Characteristics of Group
Black, male, age 17 lives with mother only, mom
does not work, family income <$20,000
White, male, age 16, lives with mom and dad, one
parent works, family income under $20,000
White, female, age 16, lives with mom and dad,
both work, family income, $20-40,000
Black, male, age 18, lives with mom and dad,
both work, family income $60-80,000
White male, age 18, lives with mom and dad, both
work, family income $60-80,000
White, female, age 18, lives with mom and dad,
both work, family income $80 to $100,000
Relative difference in work probabilities between
top and bottom groups of high school students
Predicted
Probability
of Employment
8.1%
14.8%
29.7%
35.9%
48.3%
59.6%
7.4*
Comparisons of the Actual Number of Employed 16 and Older
High School Students in Massachusetts in 2005 with the
Number that Would Have Been Employed if Massachusetts Had
Matched the E/P Ratios of the Top Five States
Variable
Number
Actual Number and Per Cent of Employed
60,268
High School Students
Employment Rates of High School
Students in the Top Five Ranked States
New Hampshire
50.5
Nebraska
45.8
Minnesota
45.8
Montana
45.6
North Dakota
45.2
Simple Average of Top Five States
46.6%
Hypothetical Number of Employed High
89,980
School Students in Massachusetts in 2005 if
we Matched the Performance of Top Five
States
Increased Number of Employed High
+29,712
School Students in 2005
Per Cent
31.2%
46.6%
Primary Objectives of Workforce
Development Program Evaluations
1.
Identify who was served by the local and state
workforce development system


Did we serve the target groups as planned
Compare characteristics of those served with the
estimated universe of need for such services (the
potential pool of eligibles: disadvantaged youth or
adults, dislocated workers; the general jobless
population)
2.
Identify the types of services received by
participants in our workforce development
programs and the intensity of those services
(weeks and hours of participation)

Identify who gets what services; are certain
groups less likely to receive more intensive training
services (young dropouts, older workers (55+),
adult males from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds)?

Identify the numbers of individuals receiving
multiple treatments (basic education & training)
versus single interventions; past evidence that
basic skills services only improve outcomes when
combined with other interventions such as
occupational training or intensive job development;
very limited to no positive effect for most at-risk
youth from limited single shot interventions.
Heckman’s law of expected impact of zero for
disadvantaged youth.
3.
Identify outcomes for participants in both the short-run
and long-run; measure the employment status, weekly
earnings, quarterly earnings from the first quarter
following termination through the first 2-3 postprogram years; estimate trajectories in employment
and earnings over time

Want to identify trends in employment status and earnings
overtime; how high are job retention rates, do quarterly
earnings improve over time, especially for graduates from
longer-term education/training programs. National, regional,
state research on JTPA/WIA/welfare reform show that
training programs typically have more favorable (steeper)
earnings trajectories; impact evaluations of JTPA adult
programs show that earnings gains often do not evince
themselves until a year or so after completion of training.

4.
How do post-program outcomes vary across types
of program interventions? Less intensive
interventions (job search, job placement) must
show favorable short-term outcomes to be
effective. Their impacts fade over time.
What difference, if any, do workforce
development programs make in improving labor
market outcomes for participants? Answers to
this question require impact evaluations with
comparison/control groups.


Little to no national evidence for WIA programs;
no recent impact evaluations at the national level;
very little national evaluations of JTPA programs.
Several impact evaluations over past 3-4 years by
Commonwealth Corporation have showed
significant positive earnings effects for JTPA adult
training programs, vocational rehabilitation
occupational training by MRC, and very modest
earnings gains for participants from the Workforce
Training Fund (weak available data bases to
perform the analysis); we are not sure who
benefits from WTF. The jury is still out.
The Shortcomings of the Existing Workforce
Development Evaluation System Under WIA
and Other State Programs
1.
Some important programs, including the
Workforce Training Fund, lack a micro-record
data base on participants, services, and
outcomes; this is a major shortcoming

We cannot identify who are the beneficiaries of
training services, who got what services, or how
these services helped improve their occupational
skills, promotions, wages, or earnings. The state
should change this situation immediately.
2.
There continues to be substantive local differences in
procedures for registering individuals into the One Stop
System and tracking services and outcomes for
participants and employers. This lack of uniformity
limits our ability to track changes in local performance
over time and to compare performance across one stop
centers. There is a need for state uniformity in the
collection, processing, and tracking of intake, services,
and outcome data. The MOSES system also needs to be
linked to the UI wage records to allow longer term
tracking of clients in the one stop system and to
identify which labor market segments are being served
by the one stop system.
3.
The tracking of services to participants in youth, adult,
and dislocated worker programs under WIA needs to be
improved



Services from other agencies need to be better documented
The intensity of participation needs to be better measured;
hours of actual services from each component need to be
tracked as was the case under JTPA
Identification of occupational areas in which training was
provided; how close are the ties between occupational areas
of training, job placement, and job vacancy data by
occupation in the local labor market
4.
Post-program outcomes need to be more
uniformly tracked for longer periods of time for
WIA, adult basic education, and one stop
centers

Information on occupations of jobs obtained and
industries of employers needs to be collected in a
more detailed and accurate manner; establish links
between occupations and industries of jobs
obtained by our graduates and the occupations
and industries of vacancies across the state.

Identification of occupational areas in which
training was provided; how close are the ties
between occupational areas of training, job
placement, and job vacancy data by
occupation in the local labor market

Identify the longer-term employment and earnings
experiences of program terminees using the UI wage
records; investigate sharing of UI wage records with
neighboring New England states, especially for terminees
from adult and dislocated worker programs in WIBs on the
borders of surrounding states; we will miss up to 20 percent
of the job placements for such areas with the UI wage
records


Improve knowledge of ABE/labor market outcomes; we have
to justify the greater expenditures in recent years
Estimate the links between employment and earnings
outcomes and the types and identify of services received;
which interventions appear to be most effective in raising
earnings and employment

Past evidence has shown that classroom
occupational training and OJT appeared to have
most positive payoffs under JTPA (state and
national); mixing occupational training with basic
skills training also is effective; job search training
or basic skills education by themselves had
limited earnings impacts
More Impact Evaluations of Workforce
Development Programs Should be Promoted
The pool of individuals desiring training and
education services often greatly exceeds the
number of slots available – randomly assign
applicants to alternative treatment to derive a
control group with more limited services; do
the same for adult basic education programs
given their waiting lists
b. Test out WTF and career ladders initiatives
with comparison group firms who apply or
express interest for training grants but do not
get them.
a.
Test out benefits from intense job
development/specialized brokering units in one
stops.
d. More testing of the effectiveness of OJT
programs; frequent success in past, yet few
recent interventions.
c.
How to Get There from Here?
1.
The Governor is supposed to appoint a
Performance Accountability Task Force in the
near future to review information needs in
workforce development arena
Chinese Proverb:
“Talk doesn’t cook the rice”.
Andrew Sum Proverb:
“Talking about evaluation doesn’t get it done”.
How can a consortium of local WIBs work
together with the state, the regional office of
ETA, and foundations to build upon our capacity
to measure performance, test out new and
innovative ideas, estimate impacts, and learn
from one another in the process.