JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT (JTPA)

OVERVIEW

The Job Training Partnership Act of 1983 was designed to improve the employment status of disadvantaged young adults, dislocated workers, and individuals facing barriers to employment.  Program components include on-the-job training, job search assistance, basic education, and work experience, and improving participants’ occupational skills.  An experimental evaluation shows that participation in the Job Training Partnership Act increased the receipt of employment and training services, and, for females only, increased levels of educational attainment.  However, there were no net benefits for youth, as certain outcomes that participation in the program did not impact (short- and long-term earnings, males’ educational attainment) or impacted negatively (arrest rates of never-before-arrested males).   In the follow up study, wages of male youth arrestees and educational attainment of both men and women were discussed more thoroughly.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target population: Adults and out-of-school youth who are economically disadvantaged, dislocated workers, or who are facing significant employment barriers

The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), which took effect on October 1, 1983, provided job-training services for economically disadvantaged adults and youth, dislocated workers and those facing significant employment barriers.  JTPA was designed to move individuals without jobs into permanent, self-sustaining employment, and to improve participants’ wages.  The Act relied upon local government and business sector support and has roughly 1 million participants every year.  JTPA sought to improve the employment status of its participants through improving their occupational skills and providing on-the-job training, job search assistance, basic education, work experience, and miscellaneous other services. 

The Job Training Partnership Act served over 1 million people each year.

EVALUATION(S) OF THE PROGRAM

Study 1: 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.

Evaluated population: 15,981 out of 20, 601 adults and out-of-school youth in 16 service delivery areas: that is, the 30-month earnings sample, which differs from the full experimental and 18-month samples.  Results are summarized only for out-of-school youth ages 16-21.  This sample included 4,777 youth in three subgroups: 2,657 females, 1,704 males without an arrest record, and 416 males with an arrest record.

Approach: Measurements used included: the background information form (completed at application, first, and second follow-up survey interviews), enrollment and tracking data from the 16 service delivery areas, state unemployment insurance records, state welfare agency records, administrative records of service delivery areas, published sources, and telephone survey of selected education and training organizations.

Participants were randomly assigned to control or experimental groups. The experimental group received services through one of three primary service strategies, as recommended by program staff:  (1) classroom training in occupational skills (could include other services but not on-the-job training)*; (2) on-the-job training (could include other services, but not classroom training in job skills)* (3) other services not including 1 or 2 above. *Eventually, people in these groups received both classroom training and on-the-job training.

Results: (Note: results summarized only for youth ages 16-21 at the time of assignment to the program.)

Job training: 

Employment and training services received by out-of-school youth were increased beyond what they would have received in the community.  Participants in all three subgroups were more likely to receive employment and training services than control group members: among females, 66 percent vs. 44 percent; among male non-arrestees, 63 percent vs. 35 percent; among male arrestees, 55 percent vs. 27 percent.

Earnings: 

No significant impact was found.  For females and male non-arrestees, there was no significant difference in total earnings during the follow-up period.  This outcome was not measured for male arrestees. 

Education: 

Female participants in the program group were significantly more likely than control group members to obtain a high school diploma or GED during the follow-up period (39.4 percent vs. 31.7 percent).  There were no significant differences between male participants and control group members (for male nonarrestees, 36.8 percent vs. 36.3 percent; for male arrestees, 29.9 percent vs. 28.9 percent).

AFDC and food stamp receipt:

No significant impacts.

Arrest rates: 

Male participants with no arrest record before entering the program experienced a significant increase in arrest rates at both follow-ups.  At the full follow-up period, 35.8 percent of participants vs. 18.7 percent of the control group had been arrested.  There were no significant impacts for the other two subgroups.

Findings by service strategy:

There were no statistically significant impacts on long-term earnings of participants compared with the control group for any of the three service strategies.

The only group for which JTPA significantly increased total hours of employment and training was young women who received classroom training (2,569 hours for program participants vs. 2,309 hours for control group members).  For other subgroups, the added hours of training came primarily at the expense of time worked, implying that hours of employment lost during the program, if any, were not made up after the program ended.

Study 2: Bloom, H. S., Orr, L. L., Bell, S. H., Cave, G., Doolittle, F., Lin, W., et al. (1996). The benefits and costs of JTPA Title II-A programs. The Journal of Human Resources, 12(3), 549-576.

Evaluated population: A total of 20,601 Title II-A applicants at 16 local JTPA programs were randomly assigned to a treatment group or a control group.

Approach: Eligible applicants were assessed to determine their employment and training needs. Each applicant was placed in classroom training, a mix of on the job training and/or job assistance, or other services based on their need.

Data was collected using background information forms, JTPA enrollment, tracking, and expenditure records, two waves of follow-up surveys, state Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records, and state AFDC and food stamp records. Other information was collected using telephone surveys of vocational/technical schools and published data on the instructional costs of high schools and colleges.

Results: It is important to note that the control group did not receive assistance from the JTPA but may have received assistance from non-JTPA sources.  Therefore, the data presented represents the incremental effect of the JTPA services compared to the participants not receiving JTPA services, rather than receiving no service at all. 

JTPA had modest positive impacts on earnings experienced by adult women and men. For youths who are out of school, JTPA members did not make consistent earnings gains across several major studies.  For female adults and youth, a statistically significant amount (11.6% and 10.6% respectively) of enrollees received their GED certificate or high school diploma during the 30-month follow up period, and adult males had an almost statistically significant number of enrollees in this category.

Differing data was presented regarding the impacts of JTPA on wages for male youth arrestees.  Survey data suggested a very large negative impact on earnings, but UI wage data indicated no impact in this category.

Limitations of the study included difficulty interpreting results for out-of-school youth.

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

References

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.

Bloom, H. S., Orr, L. L., Bell, S. H., Cave, G., Doolittle, F., Lin, W., et al. (1996). The benefits and costs of JTPA Title II-A programs. The Journal of Human Resources, 12(3), 549-576.

Program also discussed in the following Child Trends publication(s):

Hair, E., Ling, T., & Cochran, S. W. (2003). Youth development programs serving educationally disadvantaged youth: A synthesis of experimental evaluations. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Program categorized in this guide according to the following:

Evaluated participant ages: 16-21 years

Program age ranges in the Guide:  15-21

Program components: clinic-based, provider-based, or miscellaneous; service or vocational learning

Measured outcomes: education and cognitive development; life skills

Program information last updated 10/9/2006.

© Child Trends 2004