Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 108
5
Effectiveness of Occupational Skills
Training Programs
Skills training programs are generally designed to impart skills
relevant to obtaining work in specific occupations. We found that few
youth programs exclusively devoted to skills training were undertaken
with YEDPA discretionary funds. Moreover, there is a paucity of YEDPA
evaluation reports on such programs relative to the number of reports
on other types of program. We are left, in effect, with only two
programs--the Job Corps (which was developed prior to YEDPA) and New
Youth Initiatives in Apprenticeship--that had substantial skills
training components and were sufficiently well evaluated and documented
to be subjects for our review. Yet each of these programs had special
features that limit its applicability to broad segments of the youth
population: the Job Corps is a residential program for out-of-school
youths that includes much more than skills training; and the apprentice-
ship program required a close relationship between employers and school
programs dealing with specialized skills. Table 5.1 presents the char-
acteristics of these two programs; Table 5.2 summarizes the research
design and results of their evaluations.
That few skills training programs were developed under YEDPA--which
is consistent with a frequently voiced criticism of all CETA programs
operating during the 1970s--apparently grew out of several concerns of
program administrators. One concern was the belief that below a certain
age young people tend to lack the seriousness to make good use of skills
training because they have not committed themselves to a particular
occupational direction. Another concern is that participants require a
sufficiently high level of academic preparation to be able to partici-
pate effectively in any but the most general training, and many program
applicants lack this level of preparation. In fact, as was noted in
Chapter 4 and is discussed in Chapters 7 and 8, some program efforts
initially designed to provide skills training were redesigned when it
became clear that participants were primarily in need of more basic
educational skills training.
108
OCR for page 109
109
U)
.. -
U)
U]
.,,
U]
· -
v
~:
o
·e
tn
o
,'
. -
E~
n
,'
U]
o
,,
Q4
:'
v
.
~;
E~
o
. -
.,'
.,
4
q~
o
s ~
C o
U)
. ~
~ U]
o .~4
k4
a
4~
U
~ ~s
cr ~
L4 ns
~ s
E~ C.)
a
s~
a'
q~
q~
o
U]
Q)
.,.
V)
~:
o
~:
o
~,
o
o ~
h 415
S {d
O ~
U)
U)
. - JJ
O
4~ U] ~
~ ~ ~ O
4~ ~ h C ~
4 Q C -- U)
C Q) Q) O
3 J~ ~ . - U]
V h
C
·_. ra ~ a
C Q U) ~ ~
U] Q5 ~ 1 ~ C ^
U)
~ U] U] U] C
4J ~ O U] . - ~
c 4U a' ~ Q4 J~ 4U
C C
O O
cn -
U)
y
aJ
3 u~
o
c ~a)
11 3
o
X a:
1 0 C
a'
U]
a'
:> ~a~ ~ C ~
1 '\ ~ a, ~
~1 - - S ~1 C 3
v ~ns
' -
O . - ~ ' - ~
4) 3 S C ~7
O ~H
1 ~ S
JJ S ~ C U]
U] ,- ~ '- ~ ~'- ~ S O
3 ~ Q ~C ~ ~ ~S
0 3 ~ ~ Y ~S ~
0 a) ~l a~ 0 ~ v Ql ~ 0 ~t~l O
O ~ a) ~ ~ Ll ~ ~ ~ ~ >1 ~CD
S ~ U] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ' - ~ O ~ S
~ ~s c c~ ~ ~ C n =: < - c~ cn ~
U] C ~ :, ~ ~ ~ ~ dP ~O . - m. -
3 =1 L4
O
O ~ ~ dP C oP dP 1 dP 1~ ~1~ dP dP d,°
1 n5 0 0 O ~ dP O U)U, ~ ~ tD 1
4~ u;~ C ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ I I I I ~ a~o~ m
~ · - ~4U C
O ~O · ~ · · · · · H · · ·
s ~a) a) ~
JJ ~U] ~ ~ C
~1 ~1 a) ~ ~ (L)
a' ~- - 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
s a) ~Y ~ ~ Ll ~ S
h ·' U1 3 Q~ ~ ~S U]
_ ~a~ ~1 a
·. ~ ~ C Y C ~ Q4 ~
- -
C O ~ ·'=
U] ~ O ·' ~ 3 ~ V ~ C ~
5 0 ~ ~ C 0 u~ C a~ c
c .Q ~ ~ ~ a' a' 0 0 ~ 0
O ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~--
s ·- ~ Q4 c a) ~l 0 0 ~ Q' ~
~ ~ ~ 3 - - ~ ~ ~ . - ~ . -
Ll ~ :D t,) ~ ~1 V u~ ~q
v ~ ~ c a' 0 c 0
O ~ ~ ' - ~ ~--
O ~
C 1
._1 ~ .,.C
CJ1 C ~ ~ O
c u' O c - -Q4 ~
1 C -l ~ 4 ~ JJ
~1 C C O J~ ·~1 54
' - ~ .-1
C ~ J~ ~ (V Q4
0 ~ ~ ~ ~a
. - JJ QJ u, JJ a) c L4
ns 0 u~ ~ (.) -_~ al J~
nS U] Q] C U~ ~ ~ C
C ~ ~ O ~ ~ U] U]
a~ ::) ~c a~ c~ ~ Q] J~ - ~ a~
~ 0 ~a) C) c Q5 c CJ) ~ J~J
.,4 ~ ~ - - O ~ O
U] O U] ~ ~ C
a\ J~\
U)
C
15 01 ~ ~ H
~a) JU
._d ~ C '
s ·r4 a'
U] (0 O S 4~ ~ U)
Q]
L4 a) ~ ~ ~ Q~
0 s ~ a' c ~O
u, a) ~ ' - ' -
~ 0 a) ~C c s
O ~3 ~ · - u]
Z
OCR for page 110
u]
4U
o
c~
a'
- ~
1 u,
3 C:
O
Q.
U]
0 a
~ ~r;
U]
U]
U]
S
S~
U.
a'
~;
·a
,1
-
E~
U]
y
U]
o
.~1
8
.
U~
U]
v
q~
h
o
>1
O
-
O
.o
O
a==
a
O
h Q
4J ~
o o
O V
O
C
O
4U
N ~
a' v
~ 4U
U) ~
o
P4
S
o
110
a
>1 L~
a
U] ~3 · -
O S
u~ ~ dP ~ a'
~ :) 3 a' ~ ~ ~ 3 ~
a' 1 a' Ll S ~ O O
~ 3 ~ a~ ·~ ~' LJ
O ~ 3 ~ ~ -
)- O ~1 3 (U
a' ~ ~ 0 ~
V O ~ ~ 4U 0 ~ O
q ~ ~ ~ U]
~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~
=, ~t(5 ~ ~ S
a~ ~q~ U] u
a' O s
:^ ~ ~ ~ O
1 ~ O ~ O ~ ~ C
~ O O
4J ~ ~P ~ S ~ ~ ~
' - O 4~ ° V 1 ~S ~5 0
u~ ~r tD U]
0 4
~:
s5
1 ~1
1 3 1
3 0 3 a' ~
O ~O O JJ O
dP dP O dg dP ~ dP dP
O ~ ~ ~ o ~ 0 ~ ~u,
q~ co ~ oo q~ ~ ~s u: ~
~ ~ ~ ~5
JJ11 11 C: 11 11 ~11 11 {: n
u,0 ~0
P~ c: v
. - ~s
cn E ~LD
~_
u, u,
U? ~r 4
Y ~u~ ~s::
1 a) 1 . ~ O
0 3 ' - q ~ ~
~I dP ~ O tU 05 a ~tI5
CO
+
Q) + ~S JU O V V
q ~- -
O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
0 a) a
n ~ n ~ n ~ u'
' O ~O
0 ~ ~ -- n -- 0 ~ a'
0
rs ~ - ·~ u~ 0 ~ u~
v ~ a' ~ :: ~ ~Q)
u, ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~a) 4
0 ~ r~ ~5 ~ u~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~V
o ~ a' ~ ~ ~ u~ ~C
· q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
- ~ V ~ v
~ tl~ + a~ - u~ ~ 0 ~ a
u~ u~ ~ a, 0 ~5 C: ~ a~ u ~ ~
~ 4J ~ m~ u~n~ a' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3
a' c ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ V ~ V ~ a'
Q) a' ~ c~
v ~ ~ v ~ ~ m-~ ~ ~ v v O
~ ~O ~O
H H (,) P:; ~H Z
U]
' 4~ V
5 ~ S U)
O ~ Q4 ~S
v ~ 0 3 ~
c: O s
~ 4U 0
O ~ on O
Ul ~ ~ O U)
·,1 Q, H) ns
C: ~ 3 ~ U,
~ O
Q] C: ~ ~ ~ ~
~ '- ~ ~ O
O ~ ~ S ~O ~
v ~ ~ 3 ~v ~ ~n
n ol ~
uc ~ P. O
~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ 0
s ~ O ~ ~s 0 s
v ~ ~ ~ c v ~ v
a) q~ ~ a' ~ ~ O?
X: ~
0 0
0 0
h -
a' ~
3
~r O
0 4~ ~0
0 ~ 0 0
a) ~ q~
r~
~Q
a, 1
. - a' ~,
u, s ~ ~ ~
4~ ~ ~ s
~ - - ~ u,
0 0 ~ ~ a
c' ~ ~ v
n 3 H.-
0 a
Z
U]
o
r~
a,
H
OCR for page 111
111
PROGRAM FOR OUT-OF-SCHOOL YOUTHS
Job Corps
The Job Corps is in many respects unique. It is distinguished by
the population it serves, the comprehensive nature of the services it
offers, its stability as a program, and the quality of the evaluation
that is available on it. We note that these last two points are
probably not unrelated.
The Job Corps is a largely residential program for out-of-school,
economically disadvantaged youths between 14 and 21 years old. It
provides a range of services including remedial (basic) education,
vocational skills training, and health care to enrollees for about 30
weeks (the average stay during the subject evaluation).
The Job Corps serves a severely disadvantaged population: about 90
percent of Job Corps enrollees were either from households below the
poverty line or receiving welfare benefits; more than 75 percent were
minorities, and 30 percent were female. Moreover, despite the fact
that the median age of Job Corps enrollees was about 18, median reading
levels were at or below the sixth-grade level.
The Job Corps has existed for 20 years; few programs have had such
stability. The program served about 102,000 youths in fiscal 1985 in
41,000 slots; enrollees averaged just under 5 months participation. At
the time of the evaluation we reviewed, about 70,000 participants were
being served per year.
Although the Job Corps has been substantially modified since it was
first established in 1964, most evaluations of the program prior to the
1982 study we reviewed were based on the experience of those who par-
ticipated in the Job Corps during the mid-1960s. A series of surveys
by Louis Harris and Associates served as the primary data source for
researchers attempting to estimate the impact of Job Corps. These
early studies had conflicting findings. For example, one study (Cain,
1968) found that participants earned $188 to $260 per year more than
"no-shows" (those who enrolled but never participated) 6 months post-
program. Another study (Woltman and Walton, 1968) found no significant
difference between the earnings of Job Corps enrollees and early
terminees (those who remained in the program less than 3 months) 18
months after participation. Taken together, these early findings
suggested that Job Corps had a short-term impact that decayed (faded)
fairly quickly (Goldstein, 1973~.
Our assessment of the Job Corps is based on an evaluation conducted
by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (Mallar et al., 1982~. This
evaluation was the most extensive and sophisticated of the studies of
the Job Corps undertaken over the years. And, unlike most evaluations
of other youth employment programs that we reviewed, this study:
· was based on a large sample of program participants (2,800)
and nonparticipants (1,000) who were similar in most respects to Job
Corps participants. The nonparticipants were youths eligible for Job
Corps who were residing in geographic areas where Job Corps enrollment
was low.
OCR for page 112
112
· gathered data on the participant and comparison groups for a
reasonably long time after the program so that it was possible to
establish the degree to which postprogram effects exist and persist or
decay. The third follow-up interview was conducted 42-54 months after
the program period.
· had low rates of attrition in the follow-up samples of
participant and comparison group members. The third follow-up survey
was completed by 70 percent of those who completed the original
baseline questionnaire (65 percent of participants and 75 percent of
comparison group members).
· took measurements on a wide variety of factors that could be
affected by, or affect, the Job Corps experience, including educational
attainment, the value of economic production by Job Corps participants,
receipt of welfare and other transfers, the extent of criminal
activity, unemployment rates, employment rates, hours worked, and wage
rates.
· used a comparison group methodology in a way that was as
careful and technically sound as the state of the art permitted.
The essential finding of the Mathematica evaluation is that the Job
Corps "works." In particular:
· On average, participants in the Job Corps were employed about
3 weeks per year (13 percent) more than nonparticipants up to 3-1/2
years postprogram, and their earnings gains after leaving the Job Corps
were estimated to be $567 per year higher in 1977 dollars (28 percent)
for enrollees than they would have been in the absence of the Job Corps
experience. The amount of time that Job Corps enrollees received cash
welfare or unemployment compensation benefits was lower by 2 weeks per
year and 1 week per year, respectively, compared with nonparticipants.
Table 5.3 presents evaluation results up to 4 years after Job Corps
participation.
· Participants' educational attainment increased substantially
while they were in the Job Corps: the probability that enrollees would
receive a high school diploma or its equivalent (General Equivalency
Diploma) within the first six months after leaving the Job Corps was
.24 for enrollees compared with .05 for comparison group members.
· Overall, the health of Job Corps participants was better than
that of nonparticipants after the program; participants reported about
1 week less per year of serious health problems.
· Criminal activity, as indicated by rates of arrest, was
significantly lower for participants during the period of the program,
and after leaving the program participants had fewer arrests for
serious crimes than nonparticipants.
· After an initial 6-month postprogram period, when enrollees
fared worse than the comparison group in terms of employment and
earnings, the aggregate positive effects of Job Corps emerged and
persisted at a relatively stable rate throughout the 4-year follow-up
period. This outcome suggests that the main effects of Job Corps do
not stem from job placement.
OCR for page 113
113
TABLE 5.3 Estimated Job Corps Effects on Employment and Earnings,
Including Military Sector: First Through Fourth Postprogram Years
Months After Employed Weeks Worked Hours Worked Weekly Earnings
Termination (fraction of time) per Six Months per Week (1977 dollars)
0-6
6-12
12-18
18-24
24-30
30-36
36-42
42-48
-0.018
0.070*
0.113*
0.081*
0.081*
0.075*
0.068*
0.040
-0.47
1.82*
2.94*
2.11*
2.11*
1.95*
1.77*
1.04
0.79
3.19*
5.19*
3.76*
3.44*
3.35*
3.20*
1.62
-0.21
10.27*
15.64*
9.42*
10.20*
11.59*
10.12*
5.47
*Statistically significant at the .05 level or below in a two-tailed test.
SOURCE: Data from Mallar et al. (1982:Tables IV.10 and IV.ll).
These overall effectiveness estimates included all participants,
early leavers as well as those who followed the Job Corps course to
completion. The study also provides estimates of differences in effects
according to categories of program completion. Program completers
composed 40 percent of the sample, while partial completers and early
dropouts each accounted for 30 percent. Program completers benefited
most. Partial program completers, those who stayed at least 90 days
and completed at least one specific segment of a vocational or educa-
tional program but not an entire program, benefited about one-third as
much as completers. Early dropouts were found to benefit little or not
at all. The authors note, however, that econometric methods for con-
trolling for bias in selection into the three completion categories
would not prove effective.
Program effects were estimated separately for males (representing
70 percent of corps members and 70 percent of the follow-up sample),
females without children (21 percent of the follow-up sample), and
females with children present (9 percent of the follow-up sample).
The estimated effects on employment and earnings are similar in
magnitude for males and females without children, though somewhat more
erratic over the postprogram period for females. For females with
children present, the employment and earnings effects are both lower
and more erratic than for the other two groups. The authors
hypothesize that the lower effect for women with children may be due to
the higher proportion of very young children among the participants
than among the comparisons. This difference is apparently due to
delays in childbearing by participants during the in-program period,
followed by a higher rate of postprogram births than among comparison
group members. The result is the presence of a greater number of young
children among participants in the postprogram period.
OCR for page 114
114
Effects of the program on crime are estimated from self-reported
arrest data gathered in interviews with participants and comparison
group members. The major effects are estimated to occur during the
period in which participants are in the program, when total arrests and
incarcerations were significantly lower for Job Corps members than for
the comparison group. In the postprogram period, the estimates show an
overall reduction in arrests (statistically significant for males), a
reduction in theft arrests, an increase in auto-related arrests, and no
effect on time in jail.
When the benefits and costs of the program were estimated--in a
quite detailed and sophisticated benefit-cost analysis--the study found
that from the view of society as a whole, the net present value of
benefits exceeded costs by $2,300 per enrollee (in 1977 dollars). From
the view of the participants, benefits exceeded costs by $2,400 on
average. For nonparticipants (i.e., private benefits and costs), a net
cost of $115 per enrollee was incurred, representing a net redistribu-
tion of resources from nonparticipants to Job Corps participants.
The estimated magnitude of the benefit-cost difference is
particularly sensitive to the assumptions regarding the magnitude of
the effect of the program in reducing crime. The evaluation assumes
that actual arrests were underreported by 70 percent among members of
the Job Corps sample; this assumption is based on a study done for the
evaluation of the Supported Work program.
Considerable attention has been devoted to the issue of the
correlation between self-reports and official reports of criminality
and arrests in the criminal justice field. There is no generally
accepted differential between self-reported and official data on
criminality that supports the use of any given numerical factor to
increase the self-reported incidence of arrests.) However, even when
it is assumed that no postprogram crime-reduction benefits are
associated with Job Corps, the net present value of the program to
society is still positive, about $500 per enrollee.
The Job Corps evaluation was extensively reviewed by outside
experts in 1982 at the request of the Office of Management and Budget
The reviewers did not find any major problems, though one had some
doubts about the adequacy of the selection bias corrections. We have
some remaining reservations about the Job Corps evaluation that are
largely technical in nature.
Random assignment to the Job Corps and to a control group was ruled
out by the Department of Labor at the outset. Given that constraint,
the comparison group strategy seems to have been well conceived and,
HA recent summary of research on the use of self-reported measures of
delinquency indicates widely varying estimates of underreporting
depending on method of administration (questionnaire or interview) and
sample characteristics (sex, race, socioeconomic background, school
status, and previous contact with police). Underreporting appears most
serious among black males with previous delinquent offenses (Hindelang
et al., 1981~.
OCR for page 115
115
for the most part, well executed. Comparison group members were drawn
from geographical areas that were similar to the home areas of Job
Corps members but that had low rates of previous enrollment in the Job
Corps. Within these areas, sample members were drawn with selection
probabilities in proportion to their similarity to Job Corps partici-
pants in terms of age, poverty status, race, and education.
Beyond controlling for measured characteristics when estimating
effects, the evaluation attempted to control for selection bias by
modeling the selection process using the methods suggested by Heckman
(1979~. While the selection bias correction appears to have worked
well, more detailed information than that available in the report is
required to remove some residual doubts as to whether this correction
dealt completely with self-selection problems. The efforts at correc-
tion go considerably beyond those usually applied when dealing with
comparison groups (rather than randomly assigned controls groupsJ, but
the nature of the comparison group renders the evidence of program
effects less convincing than it would be had a randomly assigned
control group methodology been used.
The Job Corps provides a comprehensive set of services and whether
the comprehensiveness is central to the effectiveness of the program
has not been directly evaluated. Apparently, earlier reports did
provide some estimates of the difference in impact according to the
members' exposure to particular components, but those results were not
reported in the Mathematica study and mention is made of selection bias
problems in making assessments. Since participants are not randomly
assigned to the various components, self-selection factors seem likely
to be confounded with the actual effects of the component in which a
participant is enrolled. We do not have sufficiently detailed evidence
that allows us to isolate the elements of the Job Corps program and
determine whether (or for whom) the residential element of the program
is critical; whether the health component is essential; or whether the
skills training offered adds to any effects that the basic education
elements may have created--or vice versa.
Since women represent about 30 percent of Job Corps enrollees, the
desire to obtain reliable estimates by sex led to the selection of a
comparison group that was 50 percent female. Unfortunately, it appears
that the enrollee and comparison groups for women were not adequately
matched on child-responsibility status. According to the final
follow-up report, almost none of the female corps member sample
initially had children present, but by the time of the final follow-up
interview approximately 50 percent of the women had children present.
Thus, female Job Corps members with children represented about 2 percent
of the sample in the first 6 months of the postprogram period and 15
percent of the sample during the last 6 months of the study period
(42-48 months after leaving the program).
In fact, baseline data from an earlier report indicate significant
differences between participant and comparison group members, particu-
larly among females (Kerachsky and Mallar, 1977~. Approximately 3
percent of the female participants were pregnant at the baseline com-
pared with 12 percent of comparison group females. Female participants
were significantly more likely to be black, Hispanic, or members of
OCR for page 116
116
other minority groups than females in the comparison group (84 percent
compared with 62 percent) and also more likely to never have been
married (94 percent compared with 73 percent).
The Job Corps studies are among the few we reviewed that did not
present data on the characteristics of participants and comparison
group members at various stages of the evaluation. Therefore, we are
not able to determine the levels of childbearing among comparison group
women over the study period. This makes the fertility and family-
formation outcomes of Job Corps particularly difficult to interpret:
since the participant and comparison groups were apparently not
initially comparable, later differences may indicate the presence of
self-selection bias. Other studies show that more highly motivated
women tend to postpone childbearing and marriage and that the presence
of children inhibits program participation. The evaluation design used
for the Job Corps does not allow one to determine whether Job Corps
participation actually induced delays in childbearing and family
formation (see Margaret Simms, in this volume).
The differences in measured characteristics between Job Corps
participants and comparison groups members suggest that there may also
be differences in unmeasured characteristics (e.g., motivation and
aspirations). The possibility of self-selection into the program is a
strong argument for the use of a random assignment experimental design,
since statistical techniques may not adequately control for the factors
that determine program entry and postprogram outcomes.
PROGRAM FOR IN-SCHOOL YOUTHS
New Youth Initiatives in Apprenticeship
The New Youth Initiatives in Apprenticeship program sought to pro-
mote the use of registered apprenticeship positions, outside the
construction trades, by developing linkages between the schools and
employers with registered apprenticeship positions. Employers were
provided subsidies for one-half of apprentice wages, up to a maximum of
$1,700 per student apprentice year.
The program began operation in four sites in 1977 under the sponsor-
ship of the Department of Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship Training;
one of those sites operated for only 1 year. Four additional sites
were funded by the Office of Youth Programs in 1978, bringing the total
number of sites operating in 1978 to seven. According to the evaluation
(Williams et al., 1981:6~: "The new [OYP] projects included targeting
economically disadvantaged students to participate as student appren-
tices, an activity not specifically mandated in the original demonstra-
tion effort. n Despite this, the data indicate that the newer projects
may have been less successful in enrolling minorities than the more
established projects.
The New Youth Initiatives in Apprenticeship program was reviewed in
two reports. The report by Williams et al. was more comprehensive and
competent, and we based our assessment on that report alone. The
follow-up analysis was based on samples of about 600 student
OCR for page 117
117
apprentices and 500 matched comparison group members. The data on the
student apprentices indicate that they were generally nonminority (80
percent) and male (89 percent) and had a grade average of B- in high
school and a high rate of graduation from high school (96 percent).
This program does not appear, therefore, to have reached the heavily
disadvantaged segment of the youth population. The results of the
participant-comparison group contrasts show, on average, small and not
statistically significant differences in annual earnings ($290 above
the $10,000 annual average) or wage rates. Apprentices tended to be
more concentrated in machine trades occupations and comparison group
members in clerical and sales occupations.
The evaluation study also surveyed several hundred employers of the
student apprentices in the eight sites where the program operated. The
employer survey indicated that three-fourths of cooperating employers
were small businesses, employing fewer than 50 workers. Employers
appeared to be more attracted by the screening and training functions
performed by the program than by the wage subsidies provided. Employers
were predominantly in manufacturing (44 percent) and services (38
percent); only 10 percent had unionized work forces. A multivariate
analysis indicated that the number of apprentices employed in the
postprogram period was positively and significantly related to four
factors: the total number of employees; being a manufacturing firm;
being a union firm; and the number of years the program had been in
operation in the site. Though the evidence was ambiguous, it suggested
that those employers who rated stipends as important retained fewer
apprentices.
Two aspects of the research design seem worthy of note. First, all
of the postprogram interviews were conducted in the last six months of
1980, which provided only 6 months of post-high school data for the 40
percent of the sample from the new sites and, at most, 1-1/2 years of
post-high school information for 14 percent of the group. With such a
heterogeneous group and relatively short follow-up period, one cannot
be sure whether sufficient time had elapsed for program effects to
emerge.
Second, the comparison group sample was drawn (after the program
began) from the same high schools as the participants. It is natural
to question whether there is some selection bias--despite matching on
characteristics--since the members of the comparison group presumably
either had an opportunity to join the apprenticeship program and did
not do so or were specifically not chosen to participate in the
program. Since so few significant findings emerged from the
participant-comparison contrasts, we did not pursue this issue further.
Because of the characteristics of the participants we cannot
determine whether this type of program might be more effective among
more disadvantaged youths. In addition, it is difficult to tell
whether the failure to enroll significant numbers of more disadvantaged
youths is inherent in the nature of the program or simply due to the
characteristics of the sites where it was implemented.
Given the character of the participant population and the nature of
the program, no generalizations can be drawn from the evaluation of the
OCR for page 118
118
New Youth Initiatives in Apprenticeship program to youth employment and
training efforts generally.
CONCLUSIONS
While it would be misleading to attribute the Job Corps results to
skills training efforts in general, the measured effects of Job Corps
indicate that effective skills training can be provided for
economically disadvantaged youths. At the same time it is clear on the
basis of both Job Corps and the less effective New Youth Initiatives in
Apprenticeship program that the staff capacity and other resources
needed to mount skills training efforts are not acquired quickly or
Inexpensively.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
skills training
