[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
." Compared with LFA, the more costly HCD approach did not pro-duce additional long-run economic benefits (p.29), nor did it leadto greater earnings growth or increase the likelihood of employ-ment in good jobs (p.32).These results held for nongraduates aswell as graduates.It is important to note that HCD programs included in the NEWWSevaluation stressed basic and adult education much more than occupa-tional skills training.During the five-year period, 40 percent of all par-ticipants in the HCD programs participated in adult education for atleast one day, while only 28 percent participated in vocational training.Participation in vocational training, not surprisingly, was far higher forhigh school graduates than for non-graduates.HCD programsincreased adult education participation by fully 20 percentage points,but only increased participation in vocational training by 5 percentagepoints (p.17).The most effective program emerging from the NEWWS evalua-tion was the Portland program, a hybrid employment- and education-focused model.Over five years, participants in the Portland siteincreased their earnings by 25 percent and their average number ofemployed quarters by 21 percent, and also experienced more stableemployment and earnings growth than all of the other programs.Itsdistinctive features included the following:  an employment focus, theuse of both job search and short-term education or training, and anOleary training.book Page 86 Friday, September 17, 2004 8:56 AM86 Kingemphasis on holding out for a good job (p.36).21 Portland also limitedthe duration of participation in some types of adult education.Finally, Hotz, Imbens, and Klerman (2000) make an importantcontribution to our understanding of the duration of impacts from wel-fare employment and training program participation.They reanalyzelong-term impacts from the four California GAIN sites that were fea-tured in the MDRC evaluation (i.e., Alameda, Los Angeles, Riverside,and San Diego), using nine years of postrandom assignment outcomesdata the longest time period used in any random assignment evalua-tion conducted to date and accounting for county-level differences inparticipant populations.They conclude that  work-first programswere more successful in producing net impacts on employment, earn-ings and welfare reductions than  human capital accumulation pro-grams in the early years, i.e., one to three years after assignment.However, the relative advantage of these less expensive  work-firstinterventions disappears in later years.Based on their long-term re-analysis of GAIN program impacts, Hotz, Imbens, and Klerman (2000)conclude that:[S]hort-term evaluation of training programs can be misleading.The relative ranking of programs is not stable over time.Simpleextrapolations of early results to later results do not appear to bepossible.The relation of short-term results to long-term resultsappears to vary with program content in ways consistent with apriori expectations.(p.43)Without a doubt, we know more about the impacts of variousemployment and training interventions on the employment and earn-ings of welfare recipients than any other single group.High-qualityexperimental evaluations of both demonstration projects and ongoingprograms have been conducted over three decades in order to estimateimpacts for welfare women.Fortunately for policymakers, they haveyielded reasonably consistent results.First, most welfare employmentand training programs evaluated over the years have led to increasedemployment and earnings and reduced welfare payments for welfarerecipients, especially those with more education and some work expe-rience who were longer-term (though not necessarily longest-term)recipients and who volunteered to participate.Second, while low-intensity LFA approaches worked very well in the near term, moreOleary training.book Page 87 Friday, September 17, 2004 8:56 AMThe Effectiveness of Publicly Financed Training in the United States 87intensive ones tended to perform better over the long haul, especiallythose that stressed a mix of work and skill development.And finally,while employment and training programs have worked for all con-cerned for participants, taxpayers, and society most of the partici-pants have remained in low-paying, relatively unstable employment.Only a small share have escaped poverty.Before concluding, we should acknowledge just how much thecontext for welfare employment and training programs has changedover the time period in which these studies have been carried out.Women on welfare now encounter constrained service options (e.g.,work-first) and mandates to participate under the threat of sanctionsthat accompany welfare time limits and personal responsibility agree-ments, among other important changes.They are expected to work andattain economic self-sufficiency through earnings or possibly mar-riage rather than relying on public assistance.CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND LESSONS FORTRAINING POLICIES AND PROGRAMSWhat we know about the effectiveness of training can be summa-rized in a few brief statements, which are based on decades of experi-ence evaluating these programs with the most reliable methodavailable: an experimental design with random assignment to treatmentand control groups.These statements also incorporate results frommajor evaluations that were completed in the last two years, namely theNational Job Corps Evaluation and NEWWS.In general, we knowwith considerable confidence that:" Training as delivered in traditional employment and training pro-grams produces modest incremental impacts on employment andearnings (measured relative to other services available in thecommunity) for adult men and women.While statistically signifi-cant and often lasting for years, these impacts are insufficient tolift these individuals and their families out of poverty." Training as delivered in traditional programs does not result inpositive employment or earnings impacts for disadvantagedOleary training.book Page 88 Friday, September 17, 2004 8:56 AM88 Kingyouth.Training for youth that is delivered through intensive andexpensive programs like Job Corps does produce modest and last-ing impacts on employment and earnings as well as strong returnson investment, although not for all groups (e.g., Hispanics andyounger youth)." Employment-focused approaches tend to produce modest, signif-icant and near-term effects on employment and earnings for wel-fare recipients [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]