Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Training with work experience for adults, not targeting welfare recipients
Workforce Development
Benefit-cost estimates updated May 2017.  Literature review updated November 2015.
Unemployed adults may receive job search and placement assistance, adult basic education, ESL and GED preparation, vocational training, or support services such as child care and housing support. All participants in these programs also receive some type of work experience, paid or unpaid. Most studies define the adult population to be age 18 and over. Treatment may be sequential, where participants first undergo training and then receive work experience, or follow individualized employment plans for each participant. Community organizations, Unemployment Insurance programs, or federally or state-funded programs administered by state, county, or local government agencies typically provide these services to dislocated workers or low-income individuals.* Programs last anywhere from two to 18 months.
*The low-income population may be defined in a variety of ways, including all workers in the 25th percentile of hourly wages, individuals at or below 130% of the federal poverty line, individuals at or below 200% of the federal poverty line, or an income that meets eligibility requirements for welfare or food stamps.
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2016). The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $2,394 Benefits minus costs $1,226
Participants $4,985 Benefit to cost ratio $1.30
Others $0 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($2,011) benefits greater than the costs 55 %
Total benefits $5,368
Net program cost ($4,142)
Benefits minus cost $1,226
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Benefits from changes to:1 Benefits to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Labor market earnings associated with employment $2,275 $5,010 $0 $0 $7,284
Public assistance $174 ($74) $0 $86 $186
Food assistance ($55) $50 $0 ($28) ($33)
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($2,070) ($2,070)
Totals $2,394 $4,985 $0 ($2,011) $5,368
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $4,102 2014 Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars) ($4,142)
Comparison costs $0 2014 Cost range (+ or -) 66 %
On average, these programs last about six months, although services may last anywhere from two to 18 months. We estimated the average annual cost of treatment per participant using data from studies in our meta-analysis that report cost estimates (Corson & Haimson, 1996; Decker et al., 2000; Farrell, 2000; Hollenbeck, 2009; Hollenbeck & Huang, 2003; Schochet et al., 2012). Costs vary by study but may include administrative costs, employment services, case management, eligibility-related services, foregone earnings, tuition payments, allowances, support services such as transportation assistance and child care costs, and wage subsidies.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (Non-Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in non-discounted dollars to simplify the “break-even” point from a budgeting perspective. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

*The effect size for this outcome indicates percentage change, not a standardized mean difference effect size.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic in order to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the types of program impacts that were measured in the research literature (for example, crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases.

Adjusted effect sizes are used to calculate the benefits from our benefit cost model. WSIPP may adjust effect sizes based on methodological characteristics of the study. For example, we may adjust effect sizes when a study has a weak research design or when the program developer is involved in the research. The magnitude of these adjustments varies depending on the topic area.

WSIPP may also adjust the second ES measurement. Research shows the magnitude of some effect sizes decrease over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. We also report the unadjusted effect size to show the effect sizes before any adjustments have been made. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Primary or secondary participant No. of effect sizes Treatment N Adjusted effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Earnings* 17 59470 0.045 0.021 47 0.000 0.018 48 0.048 0.031
Employment 15 48173 0.079 0.066 47 0.000 0.018 48 0.082 0.239
Food assistance 6 14460 0.007 0.030 47 0.000 0.018 48 0.007 0.827
Public assistance 6 14984 -0.012 0.026 47 0.000 0.018 48 -0.014 0.627
Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Bloom, H.S. (1990). Back to work: Testing reemployment services for displaced workers. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Corson, W., & Haimson, J. (1996). The New Jersey Unemployment Insurance Reemployment Demonstration Project: Six-year followup and summary report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service.

Decker, P.T., & Thornton, C.V. (1995). The long-term effects of transitional employment services. Social Security Bulletin, 58(4), 71-81.

Decker, P.T., Olsen, R.B., Freeman, L., & Klepinger, D.H. (2000). Assisting Unemployment Insurance claimants: The long-term impacts of the Job Search Assistance Demonstration. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service.

Hollenbeck, K., & Huang, W.-J. (2003). Net impact and benefit-cost estimates of the workforce development system in Washington State. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Hollenbeck, K. (2009). Return on investment analysis of a selected set of workforce system programs in Indiana. Indianapolis, IN: Report submitted to the Indiana Chamber of Commerce Foundation.

Maguire, S., Freely, J., Clymer, C., Conway, M., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Tuning in to local labor markets: Findings from the Sectoral Employment Impact Study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Miller, C., & Knox, V.W. (2001). The challenge of helping low-income fathers support their children: Final lessons from Parents' Fair Share. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Mueser, P.R., Troske, K.R., & Gorislavsky, A. (2007). Using state administrative data to measure program performance. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(4), 761-783.

Orr, L.L., Bloom, H.S., Bell, S.H., Doolittle, F., Lin, W., & Cave, G. (1996). Does training for the disadvantaged work? Evidence from the National JTPA Study. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Schochet, P.Z., D'Amico, R., Berk, J., Dolfin, S., & Wozny, N. (2012). Estimated impacts for participants in the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Program under the 2002 amendments: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.

Wiegand, A., Sussell, J., Valentine, E., & Henderson, B. (2015). Evaluation of the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (RExO) Program: Two-year impact report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

For more information on the methods
used please see our Technical Documentation.
360.664.9800
institute@wsipp.wa.gov