Declining Industry Leavers and the Job Training Services Received 1 Data Availability for the Job Training Services Impact Analyses

The data necessary for assessing the wage and job search impacts from GDOL job training services included: 1) wage data and employment history for individual workers, 2) industry data by SIC for their employing firms; 3) verification of unemployment status (Unemployment Insurance records); 4) job training data for individual workers; and 5) cost data for specific job training services. Most of the data were supplied to this

research by the GDOL for the study period, 1999-2003, the exception being the cost of Skills Upgrade training obtained from subcontractors.

During the study period, the WIAs did not systematically segregate cost

accounting data or report the cost of providing specific job training services to individual trainees, as required by the cost-effectiveness analysis described in the Chapter 3

Methodology section of this research. The WIAs, and therefore the GDOL, tracked costs by program source (Adult & Youth, Dislocation, Title II and III, etc.) and not by the specific job training service rendered. From the Atlanta Regional WIA12, affiliated with the Atlanta Regional Commission, this research received limited cost data by job training service rendered for a cross-section of the Atlanta Regional counties.

The Atlanta Regional WIA supplied data for Core and Intensive services which had been combined into a single category13 even though the services were provided in- house at the WIA One-Stop offices. For reasons of accounting to the USDOL, the Atlanta Regional WIA also had data for Occupational Skills training even though the service was supplied in-house under contract with external firms. The other training service categories were not available from the Atlanta Regional, or any, WIA contacted14_.

Information on Skills Upgrade training was obtained directly via an Atlanta Regional WIA list of eligible job training service providers who were able to supply detailed cost data. The listed training service providers provided data for Skills Upgrade training but

12 _{Interviews with Mark Hannon White and Hayden Braithwaite of the Atlanta Regional}

WIA between July and September of 2007.

13 _{Relatively few Core services records were evident in the statewide GDOL datasets}

even though the WIA program requires passage for all clients through this lowest tier of the training services system.

14_{Other potential sources of the job training service cost data—DeKalb, Cobb, and}

provided no data for others (Mentoring, for example). Fortunately, the training

categories for which data were available comprised 82.2 percent of the total number of the job training participants tracked in the GDOL data.

Table 4.8 presents descriptive statistics for the primary variables in the regression analysis for declining industries as a group. The long-term unemployed (LTU)

population was 3.5 years older than the non-LTU population and slightly more female (5.8 percent) and non-white (6.5 percent). The LTU workers also participated in job training at a rate three times the non-LTU population. Importantly, the LTU population experienced a drop of $914 in wages when re-employed compared to the non-LTU group who gained $586 in wages. The LTU group required over three quarters longer to find new work.

This research addressed the efficacy of GDOL job training services for workers leaving the declining industries identified in Table 4.7. Workers leaving these industries and regaining stable employment for a period of six months or more had the choice of availing themselves of GDOL training or not. Table 4.9 summarizes the counts of exiting workers by industry and by the job training services they completed. The eight job training services categories are listed across the top of the table (COR = Core services, INT = Intensive, REM = remedial/basic skills, OJT = on-the-job training, MEN = Mentoring, JOB = extended job search, and SKI = skills upgrade training services). Because many workers received more than one job training service, a composite category (JTR) was created to provide a non-redundant count of workers receiving at least one training service. Table 4.9 is divided into workers not experiencing long-term

unemployment and those unemployed for six or more months prior to regaining stable employment.

4.2.1.2. The Non-LTU Worker Population

The count of non-LTU trainees with a period of six or more months of stable employment both pre- and post-transition from all declining industries was 15,663 from a total of 378,355 non-LTU worker records; an average of 4.1 percent received training services. By definition, the non-LTU worker population regained employment relatively quickly, which explains in part why only one in twenty-five workers elected GDOL job training services. Workers leaving the manufacturing sector received training services at a 5.4 percent rate. The higher uptake of job training services for the former workers

reflects the higher difficulty in finding new employment after leaving a steeply declining sector. The variation in the rate of services received was large: from a low of 3.7 percent in the Machinery Manufacturing industry to 6.4 percent in Electrical Equipment

Manufacturing.

The Manufacturing super-sector accounted for 4,491, 45.3 percent of all workers trained. Within Manufacturing, the Textiles industries accounted for 36.0 percent of trainees. The largest numbers of workers transitioning from declining non-manufacturing industries to stable employment were in the Administration and Support Services, Food and Beverage Retail, Hotels and Motels, and the General Merchandise industries. This result was consistent with the shift-share analysis which found that the Administration and Support Services industry lost more net employment than any industry with Textiles and the Food and Beverage industry also losing large numbers of workers.

The employment transitions measured in Table 4.9 counted workers exiting a declining industry and regained stable employment, not including new workers entering the industry (no growth component), while the shift-share analysis was based on the smaller change in net employment (includes growth component) during the study period. The count of net employment loss in declining industries identified in the shift-share analysis and the count of worker transitions are thus consistent.

For some industries the count of workers receiving job training services was inadequate to guarantee statistical validity and, in some cases, limited the findings that could be inferred from the data. Particularly, the Core Services, Remedial Skills and Mentoring job training service tracks had few cases and, for some industries, such as Machinery Manufacturing and Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing, the

number of cases in some training tracks was insufficient for statistical validity in the regression analyses. The number of training cases reflected both worker choice and the requirement of this research that workers have stable periods of employment both pre- and post-employment transition.

4.2.1.3. The LTU Worker Population

The number of LTU workers was smaller than the non-LTU population, 3,919, reflecting the fact that most workers found employment relatively quickly. The count of workers electing GDOL job training services was proportionately higher for LTU workers compared to non-LTU workers; 12.2 percent compared to only 4.1 percent. Similarly, the rate of participation in job training services for LTU workers leaving the manufacturing sector was 14.7 percent compared to 5.4 percent for non-LTU workers. The finding that LTU workers participated in job training at relatively high rates reflects their position in the job market and their perceived need for training to enhance their appeal to employers.

The count of job training participants was highest in the Administration and Support Services, Food and Beverage Retail, and Textiles industries. The Electrical Equipment and Transportation Equipment industries had the fewest number of participants. The participation rate in job training services was highest in Electrical Equipment Manufacturing (17.9 percent), the Textile industries (17.9 percent), Hotels and Motels (14.8 percent), and Machinery Manufacturing (16.1 percent). Relatively low participation rates were observed for Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing (2.7 percent) and Administration and Support Services (5.6 percent).

Even though training rates were higher for the LTU population compared to the non-LTU population, the numbers of workers electing job training service was lower, reflecting their comparatively smaller numbers. Thus, statistical significance in the regression analyses was lower, limiting the findings that can be inferred from the data.