1、A M E R I C A N E N T E R P R I S E I N S T I T U T EGovernment-Supported Job Training in the USPATHS TOWARD REFORMING THE WORKFORCEPeter Mueser,Kenneth Troske,and Brent OrrellJULY 2023Peter Mueser,Kenneth Troske,and Brent OrrellGovernment-Supported Job Training in the USPATHS TOWARD REFORMING THE W

2、ORKFORCEContentsIntroduction.1Government-Supported Job Training in the US:The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Moving Forward by Peter Mueser and Kenneth Troske .2A Response to Peter Mueser and Kenneth Troske by Brent Orrell.12About the Authors.14Notes.151IntroductionThe Workforce Futures In

3、itiative is a research collaboration among the American Enterprise Institute,the Brookings Institution,and the Project on Workforce at Harvard Kennedy Schools Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy.The initiative aims to develop concise and actionable reviews of existing research for federal,state,

4、and local policymakers.Since August 2021,the group has provided a forum for researchers and practitioners to discuss policy ideas,evaluate evidence,and identify priorities for new research on the future of work and the public workforce system.As part of the Workforce Futures Initiative,the following

5、 reports analyze the effectiveness of federal programs funded through the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act,presenting options for experi-mentation at the state and local level.The first report,Government-Supported Job Training in the US:The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Moving For

6、ward by Peter Mueser and Kenneth Troske,notes that Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act programs continue to lag when it comes to positive outcomes for participants.These interventions are often bureaucratically cumbersome and inflexible in addressing emerging skill demands.Policymak-ers should

7、rethink budget and authority structures to work more collaboratively.Further,expanding our knowledge base regarding US programs will help poli-cymakers determine what programs and methods are most effective in the job-training space.The authors note that wise investment in improved outcomes can lay

8、the groundwork for future increases in federal government investment.The second report,A Response to Peter Mueser and Kenneth Troske by Brent Orrell,argues that Congress and the executive branch can support innovation through additional administrative flexibilities under Section 1115 of the Social S

9、ecurity Act.A limited num-ber of states would be allowed to submit reorganiza-tion and innovation proposals with additional federal resources to support implementation.Innovations would be carefully monitored and evaluated and,if shown to be effective,made available to other states for replication.2

10、Government-Supported Job Training in the USThe Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Moving ForwardPeter Mueser and Kenneth TroskeAlthough large-scale federal job-training programs were first introduced in the US during the Great Depression,the precursor to todays programs first appeared in 1962,

11、with the passage of the Manpower Development and Training Act(MDTA),followed by the 1972 Comprehensive Employment and Train-ing Act(CETA).As a share of gross domestic prod-uct(GDP),funding for these programs started fairly small(around 0.1 percent of GDP)but grew quickly,averaging about 0.29 percent

12、 of GDP during the 1970s.However,starting in the early 1980s,with the advent of the Job Training Partnership Act(JTPA),funding has shown a steady decline.Today,funding for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act(WIOA)and related programs in real terms is about a quarter of that for CETA and is

13、only a tenth as large when mea-sured relative to GDP.1(See Table 1.)In this report,we examine the WIOA programs current operations in light of this declining funding and suggest changes to the system that could allow it to become more efficient and successful.We suspect the declining funding for fed

14、eral job-training pro-grams is because previous research failed to find pos-itive impacts of job training,so,as part of our review,we examine more recent research that shows train-ing programs produce long-term positive impacts on participant-labor-market success.Based on these studies,we argue for

15、an increase in overall funding for the program.We also argue that the administrative burden of operating the system is not aligned with the current funding levels,and we make recommen-dations for realigning those.We further argue for more ongoing evaluation of the system to identify additional train

16、ing programs that work best for those who most need aid,partic-ularly the homeless,high school dropouts,and the reentry populationgroups that face daunting chal-lenges and are particularly hard to serve.The need for programs to help these groups join the productive labor force is particularly clear

17、during times such as the present when employers are facing a tight labor market.Finally,we argue that communication in the system needs to be more collaborative,incorporat-ing input from all levels of the system instead of the current top-down structure in which rules are often handed down from the

18、federal level to the state level and then to the local level.Whenever possible,we base our recommendations on research into the operations and performance of the WIOA system.However,given the paucity of such research,we also draw on our 25 years of experience evaluating the job-training programs at

19、the national,state,and local levels and our experience helping administer local programs.2 Our recommendations also draw on several interviews we conducted with state and local WIOA administrators.In the reports next section,we discuss changes in the funding of federal job-training programs over tim

20、e and administrative issues that result from the decline in funding.In light of these observations,we give recommendations to streamline the administra-tive structure of WIOA and improve the communica-tion and management structure in line with modern business practice.We then discuss the efficacy of

21、 job 3GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED JOB TRAINING IN THE US MUESER,TROSKE,AND ORRELLtraining and the recent literature.Recent studies sug-gest that government training programsand WIOA in particularare generally effective and point to ways to increase their returns.We emphasize the impor-tance of continuing t

22、o develop a knowledge base on which future program improvements can build.Budget Issues and Administrative BurdenTable 1 presents data on the training funding over-seen by the US Department of Labor(DOL)in inflation-adjusted dollars and as a share of US GDP.The earliest major training program in the

23、 modern era was the MDTA(active from 1962 to 1972),accounting for about 0.11 percent of the GDP during that period.Training funding expanded dramatically in the 1970s with the CETA,which more than tripled real expen-ditures and accounted for 0.29 percent of GDP.In contrast,the JTPA,active over most

24、of the 1980s and 1990s,cut expenditures to 0.08 percent of GDP,and the Workforce Investment Act(WIA)of the late 90s and early 2000s reduced expenditures to 0.05 per-cent of GDP.The WIOA program dates from 2014,and Table 1 presents annual expenditures since then.Compared to training funding under the

25、 CETA,fund-ing relative to GDP has fallen 90 percent through fis-cal year 2021,and compared to the first year of WIOA,relative funding has dropped by 21 percent.For almost any starting period and any of the programs,current funding for federal training programs is a fraction of what it has been prev

26、iously,whether measured in real dollars or relative to GDP.3Obviously,declining funding directly affects the funding available for training participants,but this decline in funding indirectly affects the dollars available to spend on WIOA participants.As with any federal program,WIOA is associated w

27、ith sub-stantial administrative requirements.These include the expenses of hiring administrators and staff and certifying that applicants are eligible to participate in WIOA.WIOA is also responsible for maintaining online job-search systems.Many administrative burdens are inherited from the WIA prog

28、ram.For exam-ple,as in the WIA program,WIOA administrators are responsible for overseeing the administration of the One-Stop Career Centers(now American Job Centers).Since administrative costs are partly fixedthey dont vary proportionally with the num-ber of participantsthey consume a larger portion

29、 of available resources as funding declines.So as the funding allocation to WIOA falls,a smaller propor-tion of the total dollars is available for spending in ways that directly benefit participants.Reducing Administrative Red Tape.Given the shrinking size of the program,we believe that Congress nee

30、ds to adopt administrative requirements more in line with current funding levels.Many of the cur-rent requirements were adopted years ago,when the program was larger.Another obvious solution is to increase funding levels for WIOA so they are more in line with existing administrative requirements.So

31、what are some of the more burdensome admin-istrative requirements,and what are some possible changes?To start,one administrative burden is the data requirements to determine if someone is eligible to participate in WIOA.Depending on the program,individuals may be required to provide work infor-matio

32、n(such as six months of pay stubs for every household member who has worked),verification of family size(such as a birth certificate or court decree for everyone in the household),verification of unem-ployment insurance and dislocated worker status ter-mination letter,verification of business closur

33、e,and other documentation depending on the individuals circumstances.4 Certainly,for many people who have had lim-ited contact with the labor market,collecting all this information can be challenging.Further,a caseworker needs to enter all this information as soon as it is provided.Based on conversa

34、tions with Workforce Development Board(WDB)directors,just entering all the information for an individual can take as long as 30 minutes,and explaining the program details can take another 30 minutes,so staff spend an hour sim-ply doing overhead to get someone into the program.Given other responsibil

35、ities,the typical WIOA staff person can process five to six individuals in a stan-dard day.4GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED JOB TRAINING IN THE US MUESER,TROSKE,AND ORRELLTable 1.Funding for Employment and Training Programs,Thousands of 2021 DollarsFiscal YearTotal Employment and TrainingaDislocated WorkersAdu

36、ltsYouth Except Job CorpsbJob CorpsE&T Programs as a%of GDPManpower Development and Training Act196272(average)7,719,122N/A2,404,3112,429,7671,568,0760.109Comprehensive Employment and Training Act197382(average)26,011,988N/AN/AN/AN/A0.289Job Training Partnership Act198399(average)9,961,8351,274,6905

37、,146,020*1,821,2560.081Workforce Investment Act200013(average)8,703,4482,149,9451,241,7131,623,1321,977,2370.049Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act20147,511,0271,375,454861,9601,010,5911,899,9260.03820157,009,7051,385,441870,3751,021,6671,892,1610.03420167,273,4821,379,348905,9501,064,3951,877,

38、0270.03520177,075,9651,338,763888,2611,043,6121,859,0510.03420187,011,5191,393,540901,9151,057,9301,864,0320.03220197,067,0381,370,592885,1191,039,4101,799,0710.03220206,951,4731,364,463881,5911,039,4121,797,9180.03220216,807,7501,342,412862,6491,017,6641,748,6550.030Note:Average annual training exp

39、enditures are the average of annual inflation-adjusted expenditures over the programs lifespan.Expenditures relative to gross domestic product(GDP)are the sum of annual inflation-adjusted expenditures divided by the sum of annual inflation-adjusted GDP.NA=Not available or not applicable.a Starting i

40、n 2014,this was calculated as the sum of Total Employment and Training Employment Services minus State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Security Operations.b Starting in 2014,this was calculated as the sum of Youth Activities and Youth Build.*From 1983 to 1999,the Adult and Youth programs were

41、combined(to form the Adults and Youth Except Jobs Corps),and spending on each program was not separated;total spending for the joint programs was$5,146,020.Source:19622008:Burt S.Barnow and Jeffery Smith,“Employment and Training Programs,”National Bureau of Economic Research,March 23,2015,152,Table

42、3.2,https:/www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c13490/c13490.pdf.20082013:US Department of Labor,Employment and Training Administration,Training and Employment Programs,“Summary of Budget Authority,FY 1984 to 2013,by Year of Appropriation,”March 24,2015,https:/www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/budge

43、t/pdfs/tepbah.pdf.201422:US Department of Labor,“FY 2014 Department of Labor Budget in Brief,”https:/www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/bud-get/pdfs/fy2014BudgetExcerpts.pdf;US Department of Labor,“FY 2015 Department of Labor Budget in Brief,”https:/www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/budget/pdfs/FY2

44、015_BIB_ETA_Excerpts.pdf;US Department of Labor,“FY 2016 Department of Labor Budget in Brief,”https:/www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/budget/pdfs/FY2016_BIB_ETA_Excerpts.pdf;US Department of Labor,“FY 2017 Department of Labor Budget in Brief,”https:/www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/budget/pdfs/F

45、Y2017_BIB_ETA_Excerpts.pdf;US Department of Labor,“FY 2018 Department of Labor Budget in Brief,”https:/www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/budget/pdfs/FY_2018%20BIB_ETA%20Excerpts.pdf;US Department of Labor,“FY 2019 Department of Labor Budget in Brief,”https:/www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/budget

46、/pdfs/FY2019BIB_ETAexcerpts.pdf;US Department of Labor,“FY 2020 Department of Labor Budget in Brief,”https:/www.doleta.gov/Budget/docs/FY2020BIB.pdf;US Department of Labor,“FY 2021 Department of Labor Budget in Brief,”https:/www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/budget/pdfs/FY2021BIB.pdf;and US Departm

47、ent of Labor,“FY 2022 Department of Labor Budget in Brief,”https:/www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/budget/pdfs/FY2022BIB_ETA.pdf.Price adjustment:CPI for all urban consumers(CPI-U),series CUUR0000SA0,annual.Gross domestic product:Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis,https:/fred.stlouisfed.org.5GOVERNM

48、ENT-SUPPORTED JOB TRAINING IN THE US MUESER,TROSKE,AND ORRELLAdministrative requirements are particularly bur-densome for the hard-to-serve population,such as the homeless(including homeless veterans),high-school dropouts,and the reentry population,so WDBs have an incentive to limit these types of c

49、ustomers.Suggested changes include requiring less-difficult-to-obtain information for determining eligibility,allowing someone to start the program with limited documentation,and collecting and entering the additional information at a later date.A related problem is that,given the declining funding,

50、some entrepreneurial WDB directors seek funding from private funding organizations(and other local,state,and federal funding)to provide services to the hard-to-serve population.Outside funding is necessary because these populations are expensive to serverequiring more direct attention and more skill

51、ed,highly paid staff who are experi-enced in treating these populationsand given the barriers they face,these populations are likely to pull down performance measures.On the bright side,many outside funding agen-cies want to help these groups,particularly homeless veterans and the reentry population

52、,because they feel that the dollars spent can potentially have a big-ger impact.However,if WDBs want to combine this funding with federal WIOA funding,then they must impose the same documentation requirements on potential participants and may face sanctions because of the lower success rate.This is

53、particularly problem-atic when some of the outside money comes from a private funding agency,since they expect that most of their contribution will go to support participants and not toward meeting federal documentation require-ments.In response,WDB directors choose either not to pursue outside fund

54、ing opportunities or to simply set up siloed funding streams to help this population,which is inefficient.One potential solution is to reward WDB directors who obtain outside funding by adopt-ing more lenient documentation requirements for pro-grams that are partially funded by non-WIOA funds.Clarif

55、ying Job Center Responsibilities.In the original WIA legislation,Congress set up what was then called the One-Stop Career Center,which was supposed to be a single place where someone could obtain job-search assistance associated with Unem-ployment Insurance(UI)and other support programs(such as Temp

56、orary Assistance for Needy Families and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)and determine eligibility for employment and training programs,such as WIA or WIOA,Trade Adjustment Assistance(TAA),and Vocational Rehabilitation pro-grams.Now renamed American Job Centers,the cen-ters remain an im

57、portant part of the current WIOA structure.Administrative responsibility for the cen-ters resides in the WDBs,but they have not been given the authority to require other programs to co-locate in the centers.In many states,if they do co-locate,notwithstanding formal requirements for cost shar-ing,the

58、 WDBs do not have the operational ability to require other programs to pay their share.This lack of clear federal guidance on whether agencies are required to participate in the cen-ters and the lack of authority on the part of the local WDBs to require agencies to pay their share of administrative

59、costs means that there is a great deal of heterogeneity across states,and even regions within a state,as to which agencies actually par-ticipate in the centers and their level of participa-tion.This is disappointing,since evidence suggests that these centers improve the systems efficiency,reduce adm

60、inistrative costs,and provide benefits to some participants.5 The issue is illustrated in Louisville,Kentucky,where the local UI office has chosen not to co-locate in the local job center,despite that one of the leg-islations main focuses was to ensure that WIA or WIOA job-training and job-search-as

61、sistance services(offered under the Wagner-Peyser program)were being provided in the same office.Given these kinds of problems,in many WDBs where other agencies choose not to participate,the local WDB runs the cen-ter on its own and covers all the administrative costs.One obvious solution is to prov

62、ide clearer federal guidance for which agencies must co-locate in a cen-ter and share costs and to provide the local WIOA officials with the ability to enforce cost-sharing rules.Finally,better outcomes would likely follow by improving in-person coordination among local,6GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED JOB TRA

63、INING IN THE US MUESER,TROSKE,AND ORRELLstate,and federal officials over expectations for local job centers.Coordination Between Levels of Government.A related issue concerns the lack of collabora-tion between the various levels of government involved in the workforce development system.Typically,Co

64、ngress passes rules governing the fed-eral job-training system,which then go to the DOL for interpretation and implementation.DOL then passes them down to state governments,which often also have wide leeway to interpret the rules and then impose these rules on the local WDBs,with little input from l

65、ocal officials over the new rules impact on their operation.Given the wide leeway to implement and interpret rules,this means that the“rules”can differ across states and over time as the people involved in the system change.One example from Kentucky concerns the abil-ity to move funds from the dislo

66、cated worker pro-gram to the adult program.The ability to move funds between the programs in the original WIA legisla-tion was based on the recognition that the number of participants eligible for dislocated worker funds var-ied substantially over the business cycle,resulting in years in which dislo

67、cated worker funds were available after adult program funds had been exhausted.Before 2015,Kentucky followed many other states in giving local WDBs free rein to move funds between these programs.However,starting in 2015 with a change in the administration in the governors office,the state started im

68、posing constraints on the ability to move funds between programs despite a falling unemploy-ment rate,leading to relative excess funding in the dislocated worker program.One improvement to the system would be for the different parties to view themselves as collaborators with the other parties in run

69、ning the system,where parties at all levels are understood to have a voice in determining how the rules are implemented.One way to accomplish this goal would be to hold annual meetings at the start of the program year,during which federal officials from the local work-force development region and st

70、ate and local offi-cials would discuss program operation details.This would also allow administrators from all levels of the system to provide input in setting goals and dis-cuss new ideas for ways to improve the systems.This type of meeting is consistent with research on mod-ern management techniqu

71、es such as Total Quality Management(TQM)or Continuous Improvement(CI),based on the finding that regular collaborative meetings between managers and employees produce more engaged and committed employees who ulti-mately add more value to the firm.Federal agencies should be pushed to follow the same p

72、ractices that most large businesses now follow.Another recommendation that involves several of these issues relates to dividing funds between the dislocated worker program and the adult program.Given the structure of current legislation,the dis-tinction between these programs is largely meaning-less

73、,particularly in periods with low unemployment and little job displacement.In addition,a good por-tion of the adult program population resembles the dislocated worker population in that they are cur-rently unemployed workers with relatively strong attachments to the labor market who are seek-ing add

74、itional skills so they can find new jobs with higher wages.In contrast,the hard-to-serve popula-tion that we described above has unique challenges,often requires longer and more focused assistance,and collectively is likely to rate lower on perfor-mance measures.Therefore,we recommend doing away wit

75、h the distinction between the adult and dislocated worker programs and instead propose dividing funds between the two groups of workers:those who have fewer employment barriers and are primarily look-ing to improve their skills so they can obtain bet-ter jobs and those who are the most challenging t

76、o serve,such as the homeless,high school dropouts,and the reentry population.These two groups would then have different standards for determining eligi-bility and different expected performance standard measures.They would also receive services bet-ter designed for their specific situations,and WDB

77、directors would be incentivized to search for addi-tional funding for the latter group.We provide additional details on this recommendation below.7GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED JOB TRAINING IN THE US MUESER,TROSKE,AND ORRELLProgram Efficacy and Expanding the Knowledge BaseWe make clear above that funding for

78、 job training in the USespecially as reflected in allocations to the core WIOA programs for adults,dislocated workers,and youthshas been declining for many decades.How one views this decline is clearly tied to whether the program is effective.We argue here that over the past two decades,a growing se

79、t of studies suggest that job training is of value and that we are better prepared than in the past to design effective programs.How Successful Is Job Training?Is It Worth Keeping?It has now been over three decades since a system of performance standards was established for job-training programs.App

80、lied to WIOAs core programs and most others under WIOA,the system requires that states report labor market and educa-tional outcomes for program participants,with states or programs not meeting negotiated standards being subject to sanctions.Although performance standards surely succeed in weeding o

81、ut many programs of no value,studies have shown that they do not meaning-fully assess a programs long-term value.6 Rigorous evaluations using experimental or quasi-experimental designs are necessary.Evaluations of the WIA program are a natural place to start in judging WIOAs effectiveness.7 Several

82、non-experimental studies examining WIA in the 2000s tended to confirm the effectiveness of counseling ser-vices and training in some programs.Using a match-ing methodology,studies by Carolyn J.Heinrich et al.8 and Fredrik Andersson et al.9 found that the services provided by the adult program substa

83、ntially affected earnings.In contrast,estimates of effects of training for the dislocated worker program were minimal.Paul T.Decker provides a review of several other early nonexperimental studies of WIA that supports these findings.10 These results parallel those of Peter Z.Schochet et al.s nonexpe

84、rimental study of the TAA,which provides training for workers certified as having lost jobs owing to competition related to foreign trade.This study found that participants in TAA,a popula-tion that substantially overlaps with WIOAs dislocated workers,were no more successfuland often less successful

85、in the labor market than comparable indi-viduals who did not participate in the program.11Although the above studies account for par-ticipants detailed prior employment histories,it is always possible that participants differ from comparison-group individuals in unmeasured ways.In an effort to obtai

86、n reliable estimates of program effects,DOL funded an experimental study of WIA,which used a random control trial design to examine the impact of various levels of services for WIA par-ticipants during 201113.Results showed that intensive counseling ser-vices for those seeking training provided subs

87、tantial benefits in terms of labor market success to partici-pants in the adult and dislocated worker programs.12 Analyses that attempted to examine the efficacy of training itself were inconclusive.13 In contrast,a well-executed experimental study in the late 1980s showed that WIAs predecessor,the

88、JTPA,provided training with at least modest labor market benefits to disadvantaged participants,a population similar to that of WIOAs adult program.14 No high-quality experimental study has examined the WIOA adult and dislocated worker programs.How-ever,evidence suggests that government-supported jo

89、b-training programs are effective.A meta-analysis by David Card,Jochen Kluve,and Andrea Weberbased on over 200 studies of job-search assistance and training programs,most for the period since 2000 found that programs increased employment by 510 percentage points around two to three years after par-t

90、icipation.15 Unfortunately,few of these studies looked at earnings,and a large share of them studied pro-grams in continental Europe,which were likely to be obligatory for those receiving unemployment benefits in contrast to WIOAs voluntary training programs.Experimental and nonexperimental studies

91、were included in the meta-analysis,and the authors argue that“the average program effects from randomized experiments are not very different from the average effects from nonexperimental designs.”16Recent studies have supported the view that,not-withstanding study results cited above,job training is

92、 valuable for dislocated workers.Laid-off workers who choose to enter a training program may have 8GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED JOB TRAINING IN THE US MUESER,TROSKE,AND ORRELLparticularly poor market alternatives,inducing bias in effects estimates obtained in nonexperimental studies.Benjamin G.Hyman address

93、es this issue by using variation in acceptance into TAA across DOL staff.His conclusion is that,over the 10 years after partic-ipation in TAA,training causes cumulative earnings to increase substantially,by approximately$50,000.17 Our knowledge of the effectiveness of existing WIOA programs for yout

94、hs is much more limited than our knowledge of programs aimed at adults.Because WIOA Youth funding supports a variety of disparate programs,no one has attempted to evalu-ate the overall benefits that accrue from that funding stream.Several experimental studies of various youth programs,including some

95、 supported by WIOA,sug-gest positive effects,but these are generally studies of small,localized programs.18Our best indication of impacts of WIOA programs aimed at youth is a high-quality experimental study of Job Corps,a long-standing program overseen by DOL with separate funding from the WIOA Yout

96、h stream.The study found that youths in the program were ini-tially more successful in the labor market than those in the control group,but the differences faded after several years,and the benefits were not enough to cover the programs costs.19 While these results open the possibility that training

97、 interventions for youth may be successful,Job Corps is much more inten-sive than most WIOA youth programs,so there are uncertainties in extrapolating these results in terms of costs and benefits.What Kind of Job Training Works?Who Benefits?In addition to evidence suggesting that job-training progra

98、ms are helping participants,we now have at least some indicators of the kinds of programs most likely to succeed.Returning to the meta-analysis of Card,Kluve,and Weber,we observe that job-search-assistance programs,which make no effort to provide skills of value on the job,tend to have only short-ru

99、n effects on labor market suc-cess.20 As valuable as such programs may be in help-ing unemployed participants get jobs,we do not expect they will be of much use in contributing to the lifetime earnings of disadvantaged workers.In contrast,whereas training programs usually lead to reduced earnings in

100、 the first few months after pro-gram entry,reflecting time in classroom or other training activities,their long-run effects are greater.Programs that appear to be of little value are those that provide employment in government jobs for unemployed individuals.Once individuals face the need to seek co

101、mpetitive employment,participants do no better than nonparticipants.CETA,the primary job-training program of the 1970s,included a large public employment component.These results do not justify reinstituting such programs.Perhaps more importantly,we now have experi-mental evidence that particular tra

102、ining programs are highly successful.The knowledge base is clearest in the case of what are often described as sectoral pro-grams,a training approach explicitly supported by WIOA.Lawrence F.Katz et al.summarize four experi-mental studies covering programs at nine sites,show-ing earnings gains of up

103、to 35 percent two or more years out.21 We also have recent evidence from two sectoral training programs funded through DOLs Workforce Innovation Fund.The first was a program in New Orleans,which provided training focused for medium-skilled jobs in the advanced manufacturing,health care,and informati

104、on technology industries.22 The second was a training program in Louisville to provide training in computer coding.23 Both programs found positive impacts of training on subsequent employment and earnings.All the sectoral programs evaluated have upfront screening,requiring minimum levels of skill to

105、 enroll.Although the overwhelming majority of par-ticipants in the sectoral programs reviewed above were Hispanic or non-white,such programs can-not help many of the most disadvantaged workers,including those failing the stringent screening.We see,for example,that only a small proportion of program

106、participants were high school dropouts.Aside from this issue,expanding sectoral programs presents several challenges.Many of the current studies are of well-established programs that have maintained relationships with employers over extended periods.They often have experienced program staff,and repr

107、oducing their commitment 9GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED JOB TRAINING IN THE US MUESER,TROSKE,AND ORRELLand knowledge with new staff may be difficult.Overall,successful programs may not be easily expanded or duplicated elsewhere.Notwithstanding these problems,we can say that job training works,and we have sub

108、stantial evi-dence of what kinds of job training are most suc-cessful.Table 2 provides a summary by program of the estimated effects of each.If it ever made sense to argue that WIOA could be shut down with no negative consequences,that claim is no longer tena-ble.The evidence does,however,argue for

109、support-ing new innovative job-training programs.Where alternative approaches are likely to produce greater benefits,we need to allow WIOA training funds to be diverted to such approaches.As we note above,the distinction between the adult and dislocated worker funding streams is artificial at best,a

110、nd it often creates unnecessary difficulties.Further flexi-bility is called for.Expanding Our Knowledge Base.The review above makes clear,however,that our knowledge is far from complete.Although we may have evi-dence that a program benefits the average partici-pant,we have much less information on w

111、hat kinds of participants benefit most.Matthew D.Baird et al.24 provide evidence that participants who are not employed when entering the program are most likely to benefit.That paper is an exception;most studies give us little more than general evaluations of a full program.We know little about the

112、 marginal benefits of various support services,especially in combination with alternative approaches.Despite the requirement in the WIOA legislation that states spend some portion of the state set-aside funds to conduct research to improve operations and better understand the most successful trainin

113、g pro-grams,25 the evidence indicates that few states are conducting evaluations.26 We acknowledge that,to date,DOL has made valuable strides in supporting state evaluations.The 2020 edition of DOLs“Eval-uation Toolkit:Key Elements for State Workforce Agencies”is an extraordinarily thoughtful and co

114、m-prehensive how-to guide to help states implement meaningful evaluations.27 DOL has also set up pro-grams to allow state staff to meet regularly with eval-uation experts and share their experiences with other states.Such capacity-building programs are crucial in developing state-level evaluations t

115、hat can contribute to our general knowledge.DOL has also attempted to support the devel-opment of longitudinal data at the state level and through sharing systems across states.The Work-force Data Quality Initiative(WDQI)has been in place for over a decade and has provided funding to states to estab

116、lish such systems;it is funded at the level of$6 million in the 2022 budget.DOL has also worked to support data exchange systems(most recently the State Wage Interchange System)allowing state agencies to examine labor market outcomes for program participants outside their home state.Table 2.Effectiv

117、eness at a GlanceWIOA Adult ProgramHigh-quality studies of closely related programs show counseling and training help participants increase earnings.WIOA Dislocated Worker ProgramEvidence has been mixed,with studies of the WIA dislocated worker program and the closely related TAA program showing lit

118、tle effect of training.However,recent evidence supports claims of positive impacts for counseling and training.WIOA Youth ProgramsNo direct evidence of effectiveness.Evaluation of the Job Corps program shows job training can work for youths;effects are modest.WIOA Youth programs are generally much l

119、ess intensive than Job Corps.Targeted Training ProgramsHigh-quality experimental studies show that“sectoral”programs are often highly successful in helping participants obtain employment in high-wage jobs.Source:Authors.10GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED JOB TRAINING IN THE US MUESER,TROSKE,AND ORRELLAs valuabl

120、e as these activities are,states often have relatively limited staff resources to allocate to evaluation;the staff time and expertise to implement a high-quality program evaluationeven if they can hire an outside firmare simply not available.In addition,although the data systems established under th

121、e WDQI undoubtedly have some benefit,they have not led to a large number of high-quality evaluation projects.Most commonly,they support efforts to improve performance measure estimates or address various state-level concerns.Without a clear research goal,the resulting databases may do little to faci

122、litate high-quality research.Given that careful evaluation research is a public good,with high costs but with benefits that accrue to multiple jurisdictions with training programs,it is not surprising that states seldom find the resources to undertake such projects.As part of allowing program flexib

123、ility,DOL needs to require stringent evaluations of new programs.Of course,if such requirements are simply imposed,the incentive to innovate would be seriously reduced.To avoid penal-izing states that develop new training programs,DOL needs to have a separate funding stream to support evaluation res

124、earch.States that implement promising new programs should be subsidized,so long as they undertake high-quality evaluations of those programs.Evaluation requirements should go beyond merely determining a programs overall effectiveness;they need to expand on what aspects of a program make it successfu

125、l.Simple estimates of average program effect on participants are valuable,but,as we are sel-dom in a position to consider whether to eliminate a program,their usefulness is limited.In contrast,an understanding of what makes a program work allows us to improve existing programs.It is also imperative

126、that evaluation efforts include participants from all parts of the system,particularly individuals from the local WDBs who are providing direct services to the customers.The people who interact with customers have the most knowledge about what customers are demanding,the challenges they face,and way

127、s to improve the programs.However,these individuals are seldom heard from when new programs are developed or evaluations are designed.DOLs most recent efforts to expand evaluations are a classic example.Federal officials are interacting with state officials,while many local officials have no idea th

128、at these efforts are even occurring.One of the fundamental princi-ples of TQM and CI,practices that have been prom-inent in the private sector for many decades,is that the workers on the front lines,who have the most interactions with the production process or custom-ers,are the ones with the most k

129、nowledge of how to drive improvement.It is important that these basic principles be applied to the Workforce Development System,particularly when developing new ways to serve clients and trying to evaluate existing programs.ConclusionGovernment support for job training in the US has declined quite s

130、teadily from the 1970s;even since WIOAs inception in 2014,total funding as a propor-tion of GDP is down by a fifth.Given its current size,WIOA needs to be streamlined,with modern man-agement tools put in place and needless red tape stripped away.Responsibilities for overseeing job centers need clari

131、fication,and procedures need to be developed and refined to facilitate communica-tions with the various levels of government that play a role in implementing the legislation.Even as funding for job training has declined,we are now seeing growing evidence that job-training programs produce valuable b

132、enefits.Equally import-ant,we have information that allows us to expand programs in ways to increase their effectiveness.We have a set of innovative programs that are no longer merely“promising”but have been proven success-ful based on rigorous evaluations.Still,just as tech firms need to invest in

133、research and development,WIOA needs to create processes that make invest-ments to ensure greater effectiveness accompa-nies its services expansion.A serious commitment to developing innovative approaches and accumu-lating basic knowledge is crucial.We need to go beyond mere evaluation studies of who

134、le programs to understanding what makes a program successful.11GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED JOB TRAINING IN THE US MUESER,TROSKE,AND ORRELLIn sum,we believe the US has much to gain by making a national investment in job training.With appropriate attention to the details of program structure and incentives,t

135、he potential exists to develop a job-training system that benefits partici-pants and the economy.AcknowledgmentsWe want to thank individuals at the federal,state,and local level who provided us with details about the operations of the Workforce Innovation and Oppor-tunity Act(WIOA)system and the Dep

136、artment of Labors efforts to facilitate evaluations.Their help was valuable in preparing this report,but we empha-size that all the conclusions are our own and should not be attributed to anyone who helped us.12Response to Peter Mueser and Kenneth TroskeBrent OrrellAs the Workforce Futures Initiativ

137、e(WFI)undertook its review of evidence surround-ing the effectiveness of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act(WIOA)programs,the princi-pal investigators were struck by a single important fact:WIOA programs do work,but they deliver weak results.As WFI researchers noted in a recent Forbes op-ed,“S

138、mall benefits at low lev-els of funding discourage higher levels of invest-ment by Congress;yet without additional funding,it is unlikely well see substantial improvement.”28 The WIOA system,as structured,is caught in an evidence-funding catch-22.WIOA programs need reform to improve wage,retention,a

139、nd advancement outcomes.The authors of this report,Kenneth Troske and Peter Mueser,have experience in evaluating WIOA program out-comes and,in Troskes case,helping oversee the strategy and implementation of local training and workforce development programs.Their review of the evidence includes impor

140、tant and detailed rec-ommendations on how to boost the effectiveness of WIOA training programs that should be studied closely by policymakers in Congress and the admin-istration as they pursue statutory and regulatory reforms to WIOA.But we need to do more than adjust and reform existing programs.In

141、 our dynamic,$25 trillion econ-omy,there is a constant and,I would argue,increasing need for innovations that make workforce develop-ment programs more responsive to changing technol-ogy and market conditions.WIOA is a legacy system built on decades of trial and error,parts of which date back to the

142、 New Deal era,that frequently render it poorly adapted to workers and businesses needs.At the same time,it is neither politically nor admin-istratively possible to revolutionize such a work-force system from the top.Further complicating the picture is the relative paucity of information on the types

143、 of programs and practices that might go into a high-performing workforce system.Humility in pol-icymaking is called for.To put it as simply as possible,if we want to get better returns from public investments in workforce development,we will need a period of innovation and evaluation to design,test

144、,and ver-ify new models of workforce program delivery.The best way to get these models is not to design and impose them centrally on our sprawling and diverse country only to see them swamped by local contingencies but to leverage the strengths of our federal system to incentivize entrepreneurial go

145、v-ernors and state legislatures in designing and test-ing workforce reform.Here are the key elements to how such reform efforts might proceed.Under Section 1115 of the Social Security Acta provision that dates back to the Kennedy administrationthe US governments executive branch has broad authority

146、to issue waiv-ers allowing states to experiment with programs to improve economic outcomes for low-income Amer-icans.29 From Medicaid to cash welfare to child sup-port,the federal government under Section 1115 provides flexibility to states to test new antipoverty strategies and approaches.Such waiv

147、ers need to be deployed to allow states broad flexibility in redesign-ing workforce program solutions.30This type of waiver program would contain the following key elements to balance flexibility,accountability,and incentives.13GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED JOB TRAINING IN THE US MUESER,TROSKE,AND ORRELL1.A

148、limited number of states should be per-mitted to opt in to the waiver process and be charged with developing a plan for workforce system redesign.Such plans would include proposed reform models,goals,and evalua-tion strategies.Once approved by the relevant authorities(Office of Management and Budget

149、,Department of Labor,and other key agencies such as the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services),states would receive necessary waiver author-ity to begin implementation.2.The federal government would support participating states via training and techni-cal assistance

150、.This might consist of federal agencies coordinating access to best-practice research and leading experts and practitioners from across the country to advise governors and state and local workforce agencies on waiver implementation.3.As noted above,an evaluation strategy would help the states and fe

151、deral government assess progress toward the agreed-upon reform and performance metrics.States show-ing adequate progress would be eligible for supplemental incentive funding to expand successful practices.4.Federally funded research activities would help consolidate successful reform practices to in

152、form future rounds of workforce system reauthorization and models of successful practices to other states not participating in the waiver demonstration.The virtue of this approach is that it combines state and local leadership,insight,and national-level expertise and oversight in a supportive rather

153、 than directive role.It is a tested mechanism that respects existing institutions,promotes federalism,and affirms locally led innovation.As we seek to improve the programs that are currently“on the books,”increasing flexibility and incentivizing innovation can help us write a new story.14About the A

154、uthorsPeter Mueser is chancellors professor in the Department of Economics and the Truman School of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Missouri.He studies training and labor market programs aimed at aiding low-wage workers and their families.Brent Orrell is a senior fellow at the Ame

155、rican Enterprise Institute,where he works on job training,workforce development,and criminal justice reform.Kenneth Troske is the Richard H.and Janice W.Furst Endowed Chair in the Department of Economics at the University of Kentucky.His recent research focuses on measuring the returns to workforce

156、training and other educational programs in the US.15GOVERNMENT-SUPPORTED JOB TRAINING IN THE US MUESER,TROSKE,AND ORRELLNotes 1.Burt S.Barnow and Jeffrey Smith,“Employment and Training Programs”(working paper,National Bureau of Economic Research,Cambridge,MA,October 2015),https:/www.nber.org/papers/

157、w21659.Also published as Burt S.Barnow and Jeffrey Smith,“Employment and Training Programs”in Robert A.Moffitt,ed.,Economics of Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States(Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2016),2:127234,https:/www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c13490/c13490.pdf.2.One of

158、the authors served on their local Workforce Development Board from 2016 to 2021.3.The US spends appreciably less than most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries on government-funded job training.See Barnow and Smith,“Employment and Training Programs.”4.US Department of Lab

159、or,“Attachment II:Source Documentation for Core/Non-Core Programs DOL-Only Data Element Validation,”O(jiān)ctober 25,2022,https:/wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/TEGL_23-19_Attachment_2.pdf.5.Jonah Deutsch,Katherine Allison-Clark,and Armando Yaez,The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act(WIOA)Rese

160、arch Portfolio:A Research Evidence Scan of Key Strategies Related to WIOA(Princeton,NJ:Mathematica,June 2021),https:/www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/evaluation/pdf/WIOA%20Portfolio%20Research%20Evidence%20Scan.pdf.6.James J.Heckman,Carolyn J.Heinrich,and Jeffrey Smith,“Do Short-Run Performance M

161、easures Predict Long-Run Impacts?”in The Performance of Performance Standards,ed.James J.Heckman et al.(Kalamazoo,MI:Upjohn Press,2011),273304,https:/research.upjohn.org/up_press/209.7.Although the inauguration of WIOA in 2014 represented a variety of important changes from the Workforce Investment

162、Act,especially in administrative details,the basic character of the services remained much the same.8.Carolyn J.Heinrich,Peter R.Mueser,and Kenneth R.Troske,Workforce Investment Act Non-Experimental Net Impact Evaluation,IMPAQ International,December 2008,https:/wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Docum

163、ents/Workforce%20Investment%20Act%20Non-Experimental%20Net%20Impact%20Evaluation%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf;and Carolyn J.Heinrich et al.,“Do Public Employment and Training Programs Work?,”IZA Journal of Labor Economics 2,no.6(October 2013),https:/ Andersson et al.,“Does Federally-Funded Job Training

164、Work?Nonexperimental Estimates of WIA Training Impacts Using Longitudinal Data on Workers and Firms,”Journal of Human Resources 58,no.1(July 2022),https:/jhr.uwpress.org/content/early/2022/07/06/jhr.0816-8185R1.10.Paul T.Decker,“Ten Years of WIA Research,”in The Workforce Investment Act:Implementati

165、on Experiences and Evaluation Findings,ed.Douglas J.Besharov and Phoebe H.Cottingham(Kalamazoo,MI:Upjohn Press,2011),https:/research.upjohn.org/up_press/211.11.Peter Z.Schochet et al.,Estimated Impacts for Participants in the Trade Adjustment Assistance(TAA)Program Under the 2002 Amendments,Social P

166、olicy Research Associates and Mathematica Policy Research,August 2012,https:/wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2013_10_Participant_Impact_Report.pdf.12.Sheena McConnell et al.,“The Effects of Employment Counseling on Labor Market Outcomes for Adults and Dislocated Workers:Evidence fro

167、m a Nationally Representative Experiment,”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 40,no.4(Fall 2021):124987,https:/ Fortson et al.,Providing Public Workforce Services to Job Seekers:30-Month Impact Findings on the WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs,Social Policy Research Associates and Mathe

168、matica Policy Research,May 2017,https:/www.mathematica.org/publications/providing-public-workforce-services-to-job-seekers-30-month-impact-findings-on-the-wia-adult.14.Larry L.Orr et al.,Does Training for the Disadvantaged Work?Evidence from the National JTPA Study(Washington,DC:Urban Institute Pres

169、s,1996),https:/webarchive.urban.org/publications/106499.html.15.David Card,Jochen Kluve,and Andrea Weber,“What Works?A Meta Analysis of Recent Active Labor Market Program Eval-uations”(working paper,National Bureau of Economic Research,Cambridge,MA,July 2015),https:/www.nber.org/papers/w21431.Also p

170、ublished as David Card,Jochen Kluve,and Andrea Weber,“What Works?A Meta Analysis of Recent Active Labor Market Program Evaluations,”Journal of the European Economic Association 16,no.3(June 2018):894931,https:/ JOB TRAINING IN THE US MUESER,TROSKE,AND ORRELL 16.Card,Kluve,and Weber,“What Works?,”3.1

171、7.Benjamin G.Hyman,“Can Displaced Labor Be Retrained?Evidence from Quasi-Random Assignment to Trade Adjustment Assistance,”Center for Economic Studies,February 2022,https:/mackinstitute.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FP0385_WP_2018Nov.pdf.18.Deutsch,Allison-Clark,and Yaez,The Workforce

172、 Innovation and Opportunity Act(WIOA)Research Portfolio.19.Peter Z.Schochet,“Long-Run Labor Market Effects of the Job Corps Program:Evidence from a Nationally Representative Experiment,”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21,no.1(January 2021):12857,https:/ Weber,“What Works?”21.Lawrence F.Kat

173、z et al.,“Why Do Sectoral Employment Programs Work?Lessons from WorkAdvance,”Journal of Labor Economics 40,no.S1(April 2022):S24991,https:/scholar.harvard.edu/lkatz/publications/why-do-sectoral-employment-programs-work-lessons-workadvance.22.Matthew D.Baird,John Engberg,and Italo A.Gutierrez,“RCT Ev

174、idence on Differential Impact of US Job Training Programmes by Pre-Training Employment Status,”Labour Economics 75(April 2022),https:/ Bollinger and Kenneth R.Troske,“Evaluation of a New Job Training Program:Code Louisville”(working paper,University of Lexington,Kentucky,January 2023).24.Baird,Engbe

175、rg,and Gutierrez,“RCT Evidence on Differential Impact of US Job Training Programmes by Pre-Training Employ-ment Status.”25.Employees Benefits,20 U.S.C.220(2021).26.Yvette Chocolaad and Stephen Wandner,Evidence-Building Capacity in State Workforce Agencies:Insights from a National Scan and Two State

176、Site Visits,National Association of State Workforce Agencies,February 2017,https:/www.naswa.org/system/files/2021-03/evidence-buildingcapacityinstateworkforceagencies.pdf.27.US Department of Labor,Employment and Training Administration,Office of Policy Development and Research,Evaluation Toolkit:Key

177、 Elements for State Workforce Agencies,September 2020,https:/www.workforcegps.org/Newsletters/2020/12/29/17/42/link.aspx?_id=00719B24D41E4961BDCDAB735A754C3E&_z=z.28.Harry Holzer,“What Works in Workforce Developmentand Making It Work Better,”Forbes,February 27,2023,https:/ 29.The Public Health and W

178、elfare,42 U.S.C.1315a 1115A.30.Brent Orrell,“From Agencies to Agency:Building a Workforce from Within,”American Renewal:A Conservative Plan to Strengthen the Social Contract and Save the Countrys Finances(Washington,DC:American Enterprise Institute,2022),https:/ by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.All rights reserved.The American Enterprise Institute(AEI)is a nonpartisan,nonprofit,501(c)(3)educational organization and does not take institutional positions on any issues.The views expressed here are those of the author(s).