Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
- The study's objective was to examine the net impact of 12 workforce development programs in Washington state on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt outcomes. This profile focuses on aerospace training programs. The author investigated similar research questions for the net impact of other programs, the profiles can be found here:
- WIA/WIOA Adult Program
- WIA/WIOA Dislocated Worker Program
- WIA/WIOA Youth Program
- Professional-Technical Education Programs
- Worker Retraining Program
- Basic Education for Adults Programs
- Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) Programs
- Private Career School Programs
- Registered Apprenticeships
- WorkFirst Program
- Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) Program
- The study used a difference-in-differences design with a matched comparison group. Using administrative data, the author conducted statistical models to compare the outcomes of the program participants and the comparison group members one and three years after program exit.
- The study found that aerospace training program participants were significantly more likely to be employed and earn more than comparison group members at both one year and three years after program exit.
- This study receives a moderate evidence rating. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects are attributable to aerospace training programs, but other factors might also have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Aerospace Training Programs
Features of the Study
The study used a difference-in-differences design to examine the impact of aerospace training programs in Washington state on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt outcomes. Aerospace training programs are workforce development programs that provide science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)-focused certificates and degrees to individuals seeking high-skilled, high-paying jobs in the aerospace industry.
The author matched aerospace training program participants to similar nonparticipants using propensity scores developed from socio-demographic information. The comparison group members included individuals who registered to use Washington’s WorkSource employment centers and online job-search portals as part of the Wagner-Peyser federal program, but did not participate in the aerospace training programs. The study sample included two cohorts. The 2014-2015 cohort included 3,561 individuals (1,840 intervention and 1,721 comparison) and was predominantly male (87%), White (64%), with an average age of 33. The 2016-2017 cohort included 2,965 individuals (1,530 intervention and 1,435 comparison) and was predominantly male (86%), White (61%), with an average age of 34.
The primary data sources were administrative data from the aerospace training programs and Washington's WorkSource employment centers and online job-search portals. The author conducted statistical models to examine differences in outcomes between the intervention and comparison groups at one year and three years after program exit. Outcomes included employment rate, quarterly hours worked, hourly wage, quarterly earnings, and quarterly Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits received.
Findings
Employment
- The study found that aerospace training program participants had significantly higher employment rates and more quarterly hours worked than comparison group members at both one year and three years after program exit.
Earnings and wages
- The study found that aerospace training program participants had significantly higher hourly wages and higher quarterly earnings than comparison group members at both one year and three years after program exit.
Public benefits receipt
- The study found no significant differences in quarterly UI benefits receipt between the groups at one year or three years after program exit.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The study reports a less stringent statistical significance level, considering p-values of less than 0.10 to be significant, though it is standard practice to consider statistical significance if the p-value is less than 0.05. Only results that demonstrate a p-value of less than 0.05 are considered statistically significant in this profile.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is moderate because it was based on a well-implemented nonexperimental design. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects are attributable to aerospace training programs, but other factors might also have contributed.