targeted to people for whom training will be most effective. Finally, significantly more work needs to be done estimating the general equilibrium effects of job training programs—the spillovers both positive and negative to determine whether these programs have costs or benefits that accrue to nonparticipants (i.e., Lise, Seitz and Smith, 2004; Crépon, et al. 2011).
Based on the results of the academic literature on human development in general and on job training in particular, we believe that our training proposal is likely to constitute an effective way to target training resources. We would focus new resources on low‐skilled workers who have shown a consistent labor force attachment. We would provide the steady‐ and‐reliable worker with flexible training resources to acquire the basic skills that they are not likely to acquire through on‐the‐job training in their current occupation and will allow them to move onto a better path for lifetime earnings. We would combine this with a determined new effort to evaluate the impacts of current and prospective job training programs.
Training seems to us to represent an appropriate response to the massive labor market dislocations of the Great Recession and the lingering slow jobs recovery.
Barnow, Burt S. 2011. “Lessons from the WIA Performance Measures.” In Douglas J. Besharov and Phoebe H. Cunningham (Eds.) The Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Experiences and Evaluation Findings, Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Bellotti, Jeanne, Andrew Clarkwest, Ronald D’Amico, Kate Dunham, Kenneth N. Fortson, Sheena M. McConnell, Karen E. Needels, Linda C. Rosenberg, Peter Z. Schochet, and Andrew Wiegand. 2009. The Workforce Investment Act Evaluation: Design Report. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Washington, DC. Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, NJ.