Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Dunham, K., Hebbar, L., Kheman, D., Comeaux, A., Diaz, H., Folsom, L., & Kuang, S. (2016). ShaleNET Round 2 TAACCCT grant third-party evaluation final report. Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates.
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the ShaleNET program on earnings and employment.
- The study used a nonexperimental design to compare the outcomes of students who were in ShaleNET program to a matched comparison group of individuals receiving other federally funded employment services.
- The study found no statistically significant relationships between ShaleNET program participation and employment or quarterly earnings.
- The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not ensure that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the ShaleNET program; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
ShaleNET
Features of the Intervention
The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) program provided $1.9 billion in grants to community colleges to improve skills and support employment in high-demand industries, notably manufacturing, health care, information technology, energy, and transportation. Through four rounds of funding, DOL awarded 256 TAACCCT grants to approximately 800 educational institutions across the United States and its territories.
The ShaleNET initiative was created using TAACCCT funds to develop capacity for the workforce training system and for college students within the oil and gas industry. The program sought to enhance career pathways trainings, support students, and create partnerships with educational institutions, industry, and the public workforce system. The ShaleNET program added and improved training programs by enhancing curricula, learning opportunities, and equipment; provided academic, career, and employment support for students, enhanced recruiting and marketing efforts, and fostered collaboration with employment centers and other industry stakeholders.
Features of the Study
The study used a nonexperimental design to compare the outcomes of students who participated in the ShaleNET program to students who did not participate across four colleges: Pennsylvania College of Technology (PCT), Westmoreland County Community College (WCCC) in Pennsylvania, Stark State College (Stark State) in Ohio, and Navarro College (Navarro) in Texas. The treatment group included 353 students who enrolled in ShaleNET noncredit programs between fall 2012 and fall 2015. The authors matched treatment students to a pool of 5,777 comparison students who received federally funded employment-related services other than training, and who entered and exited between the third quarter of 2013 and the fourth quarter of 2015. Outcomes included the likelihood of employment and quarterly earnings one quarter after program completion. Using data from the ShaleNET hub and state unemployment insurance (UI) wage record databases, the authors conducted statistical models to examine differences in the outcomes between the treatment and comparison groups.
Findings
Employment
- The study found no statistically significant relationship between ShaleNET participation and the likelihood of employment.
Earnings and wages
- The study found no statistically significant relationship between ShaleNET participation and quarterly earnings one quarter after program completion.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The treatment group was formed from students who underwent community college classes and other ShaleNET initiatives, while the comparison group was formed from those who accessed other federally funded workforce services. The authors do not provide information on the specific details of services accessed or note if the individuals accessing these alternate services were in college. Thus, treatment group participants who self-selected into the college ShaleNET program could differ in observable and unobservable ways from the comparison group, affecting the observed outcomes. Lastly, while the authors created a matched group of non-participating individuals to compare to ShaleNET students, they did not account for other factors that could have affected the difference between the treatment and comparison groups, such as pre-intervention levels of employment or earnings. These preexisting differences between the groups—and not the ShaleNET program—could explain the observed differences in outcomes. Therefore, the study is not eligible for a moderate causal evidence rating, the highest rating available for nonexperimental designs.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not ensure that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the ShaleNET program; other factors are likely to have contributed.