Employment Programs; Federal Programs; Job Training That

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 241 725 CE 038 465

AUTHOR; Mailer, Charles; And Others TITLE Evaluation of the Economic Impact of the Job Corps Program. Third Follow-up Report. INSTITUT:ON Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, N.J. SPONS AGENCY Employment and Training Administration (DOL), Washington, D.C. Office of Policy, Evaluation and Research. PUB DATE Sep 82 CONTRACT 23-34-76-06 NOTE 309p.; For related documents, see ED 203 060-061 and ED 206 865. PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC13 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Cost Effectiveness; *Economically Disadvantaged; *Employment Programs; Federal Programs; Job Training *Program Effectiveness; Youth Problems; *Youth Programs IDENTIFIERS *Economic Impact; *Job Corps ABSTRACT This.report presents data and findings on the economic impact of Job Corps on its participants and analyses of the program's benefits in relation to its costs. Findings are based on postprogram experience of individuals enrolled in the`Job Corps in 1977, compared to a group of disadvantaged youth not in the program. The first three chapters introducei the rep'ort, review the Job Corps program and the evaluation, and discuss the estimation procedures used in the data analysis underlying subsequent chapters. Chapters .4 through 7 present the empirical findings on whether Job Corps is successful in (1) increasing employment and earnings; (2) improving future labor market opportunities through higher education, military training, and other human capital activities; (3) reducing dependence on welfare assistance and other public transfers; and 14) reducing criminality among former Corps members. The comparative evaluationlbf Job Corps benefits and costs is summarized in chapter 8. Chapter 9 examines issues pertaining to drawing general inferences about Job Corps from the existing data and discusses the'generalizability of the findings. Chapter 10 offers some concluding remarks. It confirms that JobCorps had a positive and sizable impact on participants and that its economic benefits for society are greater thanits costs. (YLB)

*************************************1********************************* * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * ,. from the original document. * *********************************************************************** tin

Contract Number 23-34-76-06 . (NJ r- Authors: Charles Mallar r-4 Stuart Kerachsky Craig Thornton C\I David 'Long

LL.1 Editor: Thomas Good

Research Assistants: Kwo-Long Lai Gary Labovich

PROJECT REPORT

EVALUATION OF THE ECONOMIC-IMPACT OF THE JOB CORPS PROGRAM

THIRD FOLLOW-UP REPORT SEPTEMBER 1982

Prepared for:

Office of Pdlicy Evaluation and Research Employment and Training Adm1 istration U.S. Department of Labor Washington, D.C. 20213

Prepared by: 1.1 R. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION r Dto A Id 0.611 4I SitilH. I'. e4P 4111MA 11(1 Mathematics Policy Research, Inc. It'0144tm P.O. Box 2393 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 ,

THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATION AND RESEARCH OF THE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADhIN;STRAT/ON, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. ORGANIZATIONS UNDER- TAKING SUCH PROJECTS UNDER GOVERNMENT SPONSORSHIP ARE ENCOURAGED TO STATE THEIR FINDINGS AND EXPRESS THEIR JUDGMENTS FREELY. THEREFORE, POINTS OS VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. 41.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THIRD FOLLOW-UP REPORT OF THE EVALUATION OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE JOB CORPS PROGRAM 4 ti

This is the third fellow-up report of a study designed to provide

the Department of Labor with a comprehensive evaluation of the economic

impact of the Job Corps program, a program that provides economically

disadvantaged youths between 16 and 211 years of age with basic education,

vocahtional training, and related services in a residential setting in an

attempt to help the youths become more productive workers, improve their

lifetime earnings prospects, and, help them become more responsible

citizens. The report addresses three major issues: (1) the short-term

economic impact of Job Corps on program participants, (2) the longevity of

these program effects, and (3)'whether the benefits of Job Corps outweigh

the costs of the program.

The information provided in this report is based on the most

comprehensive data yet available to conduct a study on Corpsmembers.

The first detailed personal interviews were conducted in the spring of 1977

with a sample of Corpsmembers thenparticipatiigin the program and with a

comparable group of disadvantaged youths who had not attempted to enroll in

Job Corps. At periods 9, 244 and, most recently, 54 months after the

',baseline survey, reinterviews were conducted with all of the youths in the

comparison group and With Corpsmembers who had been out of the program for

a sufficient length of time to provide the needed postprogram information.

The baseline survey obtained detailed information on the demo-

graptic characteristics of the youths, their socio-economic backgrounds,

and their work histories and related activities beginning 6 months before

the Corpsmembers enrolled in the program and continuing up to the date of . \\ the interview, which, on average, represented approximately 6 Months of program ekperience. The three follow-up surveys continued to collect detailed information on work histories and related activities dUring the postprogram period after Corpimembers had been out of the program from 42 to 54 months altogether.

The fourth survey (the third follow-up interview) provides the new information for this resort. Occurring nearly two and one-half years'after the second follow-up survey, this third follow-up greatly extends the postprogram observation period, thereby yielding the most comprehensive data set y t available to conduct a study on the postprogram behavior of

Corpsmember,. The third fallow-up survey increases the average length of observed postprogram experiences for Corpsmembers from just over 18 months

to nearly 48 monthsmore than doubling the length of the postprogram observation peribd. Over 3,900 youths were interviewed for the third follow-up, which represents nearly TO percent of the baseline observitions and just over 90,percent of the second follow-up observations. Altogether,

the data base for this evaluation contains both baseline and some follow-up data on approximately 5,200 youths.

On average, from the information obtained in the baseline survey

through the second folloi-up, Job Corps was found to be successful in the

short term at achieving its primary objective - -to improve the economic

prospects of Corpsmembers. However, the usefulness'of this finding was

severely constrained by the short/length of the postprogram observation

periodbetween.12 and 24 months, with an average per Corpsmember of

approximately 18 months. The estimated time trend in participant impacts over the first two postprogram years showed a rapid increase in employment

and related benefits for Corpsmembers during the first few months after

11 5 leaving Job Corps and then relatively ,opstant effects throughout the

remainder of two-year period.

Little, if anything, was known about the economic impact of Job

Corps on participants after the second postprogram year. On the one hand,

it was thought that the effects might decline, as had previously been found

for some adult employment and training programs. Op the other hand, it was

thought that the effects might grow furtherover time--especially for a

youth program such as Job Corps, which, by causing participants to increase

postprogram investments in human capital (e.g.,.there were observed

* increases in postsecondary education and military service), could lead to

future increases in earnings. With the additional follow-up data, we now 9. have a unique opportunity (i.e., a sufficient sample oven four postprogram

years) to obtain empirical evidence on the duration of Job Corps benefits

beyond the second postprogram year.

The findings covered in this report are based on estimates of the

differences between the postprogram behavior of Corpsmembers and what their

behavior would have been had they not participated in Job Corps (which

includes some amount of alternative education,, training, and work

experience that they forego in.."favor of participating in Job Corps). The

most important of these findings can be highlighted as follows:

1. The estimated effects of Job Corps on former participants' postprogram behavidr are generally consistent with hypothesized economic impacts and the important program goal of improving Corpsmembers' economic prospects. During the first four postprogram years, we find that Job Corps is at least moderately successful overall in achieving its desired effects: (1) increasing employment and earnings, (2) improving rutdre labor-market opportunities through' work experienci, military service, higher education and training, better health, and geographic mobility, (3) reducing dependence on welfare assistance and other public transfers, and (4) reducing criminality.

iii 6 2. In terms of size and statistical significance, some of the. most noteworthy effects of Job Corps on the behavior of former participants are (on t per-Corpmmember basis, including military jobs, and averaged over the four-year observation period, see further in Table 1):

o an Increase in employment of over three weeks per year

o an- increase in earnings of approximately $655 per year and overa 15 percent increase (controlling for npnlinear trends)

o a very substantial increase-in theprottabili ty c' of having a high school diploma or equivalent degree (a fivefold increase) e

o higher college attendance

o a decrease in high school attendance associated with the effects of high, school degrees obtained in Job Corps

o better health, with a reduction in serious health problems of an average of over one week per year,

o a reduction in the receipt of financial welfare

assistance, amountingto an average of over - two weeks per year, and

o a reduction in the receipt of Unemployment Insurance of nearly one week per year.

The crime effects (not shown in Table 1) are erratic over 4

the postprogram period and, in'aggregate over the entire . periods show no $ffect on arrests; however, there is a significant shift from more to less serious wiles.

3. The positive, overall impacts generally persist throughout the four years of post program observation.The trend over the four -year post program observation period (see Figure1 and 2, and Table 1) appears to be an Increase in program, benefits during the first few months-(especially for employment and earnings during the transition, from center life to re-entering the regular labor market), and then relatively stable effects throughout(t'he rest of the four-year period. \

4. We believe that the most prudent conclusion about the longevity of the Job Corps effects is that the effects persist at a relatively stable rate from approximately three months after termination until the'end of the four-year Observation period; beyond that point, our abi),.ty to extrapoliate is very limited. The evidence is

iv onlymixedshrinkingtrend civilianas tois towardwhetherassumed jobs the are thefor end considered programthe of economy, the effects observationand the,empiricala wer.esimple growingperiod: linear estimates ortime When However,earningsshowtrendsthey a shouldsubstantial inwheneffects tick be)military economy, forand shrinkage thebetter jobs fourththe are accountofemployment includedpostprogramthe employmentis takeneffects (As year. weof and arebelievethe time a rowrelatively 1).Show4 in aTable sizable-i21 constant 1, and for-thepercent)Figure 2),fourth growth and postprogram the(see earnings row 8:13: year effects Table Furthermore;(see for males--the largest group of malesweadequateCorpsmembers48 find to for 51a observations bothsignificantpostprogrim (70 employment percent upturntomonths extendofand all in(asearnings theourCorpsaembers)--we in estimatedanalysisFigures during 1 further, thateffects'forand have2);time from erraticwithfemalesperiod.but children,are thanwithout more for erratic; thechildrenmales..) smalles.group, the are estimated similar are oneffects much average lower for to females andmales, more (Through month 48, the estimated effects for 5. relativelyassociatedDifferentialbeing in larger withmilitary impacts seximpacts andservice among child on Corpsmembersmales(more raczponsibility. forthan the doubled are probability found by theto beofend of We find impactsandhaveInsurance,the the noobservation onreceiptchildren females while of present period)whorelativelywelfare. have areand children foundlargerthe receipt for livingimpacts education, of with onUnemployment femalesthem\ health, are who The estimated Job Corps O femalesgenerally withcut much lesschildren. positive than for either males or This latter finding can . constraintslikelyCorpswomen,thempossibly someto havebe timefromsuch attributed been duringpregnancythat temporarily those theto (which observationwh faced also witholabor-market increasesperiod are their more have children living with childbirth among 6. Wechildrenreportingof also findduring healthdifferential the problems)period programof andpostprogram-observation. fromimpacts having among very categories young particularlyProgramandcorrelationof..program the proportioncompleters completion. existsin terms ofconsistentlybetween theof employment,Job the-estimated Corps benefit program earnings, the Job.Corps completed.most, and welfareimpacts A substantial, positive appear.programthedependence. program average.to benefit are generally little ormore not than at all.twice Furthermore, the overall The impact estimates for youths who cor_plete In contrast, early program, dropouts 8 -

these differential impacts by completion category' seem to be at lease partially attributable to the effect of staying in the program longer and completing the program; which indicates the potential for additional benefits to the program from increased lengths of stay &nd greater numbers of completions.

7. In examining the sensitivity of our findings to alter- n4tive econometric specifications, we find that (1) adding controls for differences in marital status (eyen pre- enrollment values) makes the estimates consistently more favorable for Job Corps among all three major sex and family-responsibility groups (males, females without children, and females with children), (2) adding controls for differences in the age composition of children makes the findings much more positive for females with children, () accounting for Job Corps effects on fertility and childbearing increases the estimated' benefits to females, and (4) not conProlling for any differences between the Job Carps and comparison groups makes the findings much less favorable for males and much more favorable for females with children, and changes -the findings only slightly for females without children.

The findings summarized in Table 2 from a comprehensive evaluation of the social benefits and costs of the Job Corps program suggest that the program is a worthwhile public investment,Our benchmark estimate is that in 1977 social benefits exceed costs by over $2,300 per Corps- member (nearly $3,500, in 1982 dollars), or,equivalently, by approximately 45 percent of costs. Thus; Job Corps is, an economically efficient use of public resources in the sense that the program provides greater value to society than the value of the resources it uses up. Because over '40,000 youths enrolled in Job Corps during fiscal 1977, our benchmark estimate of the net social benefit for the entire program exceeds $90-million forthat year.

9. The information obtained from organiz4.ng all of the estimated program effects into a systematic comparison of

the benefits and costs is much more powerful than can be . summarized by a few aggregate numbers on the economic efficiency to society. Therefore, we have been careful to provide adequate detail in the report to ensure that informed palicymakers can form their own judgments and value the estimated effects in alternative ways. However, under a wide range of alternative assumptiOns, estimated effects, and.values, we find that the program is economically efficient without including the unmeasured benefits shown in Table 1.

VI. I

10. Over 50 percent of the estimated social benefits are derived from increases in the Value of output produced by Corpsmembers. Another 40 percent of the social benefits are attributable to reductions.in criminal activities among Corpsmembers, particularly murder, robbery, and larceny' (including very-largereductions during'the program).

11. In assessing the distribution of benefits and costs, we find a net transfer from non-Corpsmembers as a group (everydne.in society other than Corpsmembers) to Corps- members. The primary economic benefits to Corpsmembers are derived from increased earnings (approximately 70 percent of the benefits) and transfers they receive while in Job Corps. The primary economic benefits to non- .. Corpsmembers are derived from reductions in Corpsmembers' criminal activities, Corpsmembers' reduced use of transfer programs, and increased tax payments.

,12. The estimated timing of benefits suggests that thi average social investment per Corpsmember is paid back in approximately three years. Counting only the estimated benefits for the observation period (the first four postprogram years),,Job Corps has an internal rate of return of approxiMatbv 18 percent (i.e., under the assumption that no further benefits occur after that point).

13. Alternative benefit-cost estimates are madefor a wide range of assumptions. A sensitivity analysis based on this range of alternatives generally confirms that Job Corps is an economically efficient program. As long as displacement in the labor markets that Corpsmembers enter is not severe and thd observed crime reductions are minimally valued, Job Corps is estimated to be an economically efficient investment.

14. The benefit-cost findings based on the additional data

S from the third follow-up survey Ire very close to those estimated in the Second Follow-Up Report:. the social net presentialue estimates are now higher but by :less than 3 percent. However, because benefits are'pow estimated tc exceed costs without extrapolating benefits into the future, we feel that. more confidence can now be placed in the overall finding that Job Corps is an economically efficient investment.

While the estimates presented above are not exact; and while any

single number will not generalize very well, after a careful analysis we

are relatively confident about the broad implications of our findings on

) . if disadvantaged youths .n general and tine doliCbrps prograp in Particular.

In the report, we present much more supportive evidence and mere detailed discussions of all of the findings summarized above.

Chapter I introduces the report and briefly indicates the . availability of other reports from our evaluation of the Job Corps program.

Chapter II provides an overview of the Job Corps program and our evaluation. Chapter III discusses the estimation procedures used in

the data analysis underlying subsequent chapters.

Chapters IV through VII present the empirical findingi on whether 4 Job Corps is. successful in, respectively, (1) increasing employment and earnings, (2) improving future labor-market opportunities through higher

education, military training, and other human-capital activities, (3)

reducing dependence on welfare assistance and other public transfers, and

(4) reducing criminality among former Corpsmembers. In_these uhapters we

present findings that include youths who were in the military (as well as

findings for civilians).;'and we consider the differential effects for major

subgroups, the time duration'of effects, and\the sensitivity of findings to

alternative econometric specifications. rs, Chapter VIII summarizesthe comparative evaluation of Job Corpd

benefits and costs. Chapter IX examines issues that pertain to drawing

general inferences about Job Corps -from the existing data, and discusses

the generalizability of the findings presented in preiious chapters.

Finally, Chapter X offers some concluding remarks and thoughts.

a C 4g 0

"Z2

.3.741Afft Ftmcus FC2 :1e. LL -INC'S PER =129411231 CH .211 ass

&Meted .at idled Esticatacl tette:net .1oo:arm Effects Job Ccrps Effects Jab Ccrpo EfP-tcts Jan 0.rpe Effects ForFirst Year Fcr Sicced Tear Year For Fcuth Year Liraril. - . -72Gmattio-leam11===

imam emplafed, 1.56 .1.94 3.12 1.35 2. ;ker. eactiorA; xntralltrai fc /vans. =.-r..lzaps 1.75 .4.20 2.60 2.35

7! . 'elfic .col,c.ect i z.1.1.:,:ary '25 5.:4 .36 2..51

4. *re maw*, owtrotangfc rats}- =sei time Sidle, civilians & adi..tar7 1.53 5,37 3.69. 3.5i c

5.Earrards, Ill C6 N 56* 8385 a 77 5. arremse asms-1111/4 to =Lime t.:me J errata. cd/riiians . 1571 5603 35It2 .5320

Eaframme. civiliamvi military 5376 37l 2625 5533

8. Ammo, ccutrollini fcr3111/11111r t1 tillat,civiliaao & military - $515 $667 $767 C3652 tr, 9.Priliedeltry or tzlme adze/ citplami c GED 0.239 C.265 N.A. 0.215 a; C."4eseci in college, zi.r4L1ans 0.39 2 T. 0.65 1.05

11.Weeksin maim, civilians & ellitary 0.16 .04:9 0.34 0.65

12.. Henke In MO sadist. civilian, -1.51 . -1.33 -0.68 -0.60

13.deice in titximol,.artuarst & milAtary -1.22 -0.59 -0.55 -0.26 le. Armorsr a*math prialmh curpJacm . !... -1.01 -t.07 -122 -1.09 . / 15, Ada qf swims boat& ^IOUs, civilians & military -0.96 -1.07 -1 22 -1.12

16.=Maady cametleiferet. -2.99 -1.87 -2.31 -1.46

17.daft received any era welfare, r cif/lieu & ELLItary -2:96 -1.87 -2.77 -1.51 18. Hee* received Verplcvanot Inearesce, cl.r13-101 .. -1.07 -05 -0.75 -0.70 19. '"Omarreceived Undetclosot Inerexe, .ZviLLies 4 military -1,04. -0.65 -0.75 -0.75

;\ TABLE 2

EJ'::MA7E.D PREOZNI 7414= PER SC1IPSMEMbER UNDER ;RE 3E4CHMARK ASSUNPTICNS '977 :CLLARS)

Feranent'vel/

. Sonia]. 'ion-Cornsmember Cortamember

BENEFITS

I. Output Produced by CorPsuenbers o :a-program output 3 757 3 673 3 83 o Increased postprogram employment output 3.276 0 3.276 o Increased postprogree tax payments 0 596 -596

Reduced :ependenoe on Transfer Progreme I Reduced public transfers 0 791 -791 , Reauced administrative . costs 172 172 Q 0 :stressed utilitY frca reduced aelfare dependence . . .

Reduced Criminal Activity o Reduced criminal Justice system costs (.253 1,25: 0 o Reduced Personal injury and Property damage 1.366 1.366 0 o Reduced stolen property 300 462 -1t2 o Reduced psychological coats + .

4. Reduced Drug/Alcohol Abuse o Reduced drugia.schol treatment coats 31 31 o Increased utility frOm redUced drug/alcohol dependence

S. Reduced Utilisation of Alternative Services o Reduced costs of training and educative progress other then Job Corps 244 244 0 o RedUced training allowances 0 33 -33

6- Other Benefits . o Increased utility from redistribution o Increased utility from improved well-being of CorPelmembers total Benefits 1L-19.1 15,1221 1L 7 r7

COSTS

L, Program Operating Expenditures o Canter operating expenditures, excluding transfers to Carpi:members 32.796 82.796 3 0 o Transfers to Corpsnembars 0 1.208 -1.208 o Central administrative coats 1,347 1,347 0

2, Opportunity Cost of CorPonenher Labor During the Program o Foregone output 881 0 881 o Foregone tax payments 0 153 .153

3. Onbudgeted talmaditures Other then Corimmember Labor o Resource costa 46 46 o Transfers to Consmembers 11 -Total Costs AU= 11411 JR IlLiMieeRLIala (Benefits minus Coats) P.= ALM AL.W. gat NOTE: Details may ant Sus Wlentlr to totals because or rounding.

A/In addition to the value to society as a whole, the estimates are calculated from the non-Corpasember and Corpamember perspectives is order to indicate redistributional effects.In doing so, Corpsmembers are treated as nontaxpayers (except for their owe taxes) to simplify the exposition, and 00s-Corpseembers encompass everyone is society other than Corpfteabers,

1/The numerators for theheneflt-cost :atlas include all of the benefits listed In this table as either positive benefits or negative costs, and the denominator includes all of the zest, listed In this table as either positive tosts.or negative benefits.

13 REST COPY AVAM.(31E FIGURE 1

ESTIMATED OF TINE PONS OF NET INGRESSES IN FENCENT OF TIME EMPLOYED, INCLUDING MUTANT SECTOR: MALES

Peroent of Time Employed

Jot

./0 lot ../ . ."-- -' . # "'..,:_ *o --- lk .0. / - - ."..,. /i '...e.-- --/ \ -.. / '.'-. -47.. i -. ,-/'...i Hontba Out of Job Corps 12 IS Id 21 24 36 39 42 4S" SI

- lot

-pH

Program Compiotera Partial Completer* Early Dropouts 409 (relative to not participating)

h. 14 FIGURE 2

ESTIMATES Of TIME PATHS Of NET Imailuses IN PERCENT OF TIME EMPLOYED, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR AMU CONTROLLING FOR NONLINEAR TIME TRENDS; MALES

Percent of User ftployed

401

! ..1° 1 / ... ..,.,.. / 11/4 / .0 / .. 1 ,....°--... '. -...... ":"IN. ....,N ... '. ....,/ { I / ''' / % ,'i .I., /... ..0 '... a / / Nu. . %,4 / ,... ./. 1- U Y m°3oCorps la ' 3 le al 14 27 3 39 42 45 4U 91 , -N../

It\

-to. 15

Program Completer* Partial Completer* Eariy Dropouts -401 (relative to not participating) Se.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

While I had primaryreapOnsibilityfor the authorship of this

report, Stuart Kerachsky, Craig Thorntbn, and David Long shared the

analytical effort with me, as well as the writing. Thomas Good provided

editorial assistance Throughout the report. Kwo-Long Lai deieloped and

maintained the data base and provided research assistance. Substantial

research assistance was also provided by Gary Labovich. Helpful comments NN~ on.a.. preliminary draft of the report were provided by:Farr& Bloch,

Michael Borus, Seymour Brandwein, John Elliott, and Ernst Stromsdorfer.

Numerous people made extraordinary contributions to the four

nationwide surveys of Corpsmembers and comparison youths, that were

conducted as part of this evaluation project. At'NPR Julie Moran and

Audrey McDonald directed and managed the four surveys. The large

interviewing staff was supervised on a day-to-day basis by Joanna Cerf,

Michael Floyd, John Homrighausen, and David Keuter {Reuter on the baseline

survey, Floyd and Homrighausen on the first and second follow-up surveys,

and Cerf on the third follow-up survey). The efforts of these key staff

and the numerous people who worked under them were essential to our

success in maintaining the longitudinal samples and in obtaining the high

quality of data underlying the empirical analysis presented in this report.

In addition to the above-mentioned staff, David Kershaw, Charles

Metcalf, and David Zimmerman made valuable contributions to the design of

this projeat at Mt and Patricia Lapazynski and Judy Wayno contributed

importantly to the implementation of that design. Assistance in project

management was provided by Anne Freeman, Jerilyn Weber, Louise Shaw, and Gay Rowe over the course of the project. Finally, my administrative assistant, Carol Szul, helped schedule this report and ensured that the project: ran smoothly.

The contributions from the staff at the Department of Labor (DOL) were equally significant. Our projept officer, John Elliott, deserves special recognition for all of his efforts in providing.us with timely feedback and comments, in overseeing the federal clearance process for all four surveys, and in making necessary arrangements with countless federal, state, and local officials. Seymour Brandwein also merits special A recognition for providing us with his valuable comments, advice, encouragement, and general support on this project. Other past and present members of DOL staff who provided assistance include John Amos, Burt

Barnow, Harris Foster, Stanley Leibner, Charles Malley, Richard Pervis,

Ernst Stromsdorfer, Robert Taggart, and Frances Wattenberg.Finally, we would like to thank all of the regional directors of ETA, all of the directors of the Job COIrP3 centers, the several officials from Job Corps subcontractors who provided assistance, and the directors of the local employment-service offices in the local education agencies in the comparison-group sites.

Charles Mailer Project Director

17 xiv CONTENTS

Chaottc tut

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. OVERVIEW OF JOB CORPS AND THE EVALUATION ...... 9 A. THE JOB CORPS PROGRAM IN 1977 AND SINCE ...... 9 1. Institutional Setting 10 2. Enrollees in Job Corps 13 3. Types of Services Provided at Centers 14, 4. Size of Job Corps 18 5. Current Trends 19 B. THE EVALUATION DESIGN 22 1. Policy and Research Issues 23 2. Analysis of Participant Impacts 25 3. Comparative-Evaluation of Benefits and Costs. 32 4; Evaluation Design 32

ESTIMATION PROCEDURES 44 A. DATA ARRAYS 44 B. ECONOMETRIC METHODOLOGY J17 1. Justifications for Using a Comparison Group

' Strategy and for Controlling for Observed and Unobserved Differences Between Corpsmembers and Comparison Youths 47 2. The Comparison Group Methodology 50

3. Controlling for Observed Differences Between lr Corpsmembers and Comparison Youths 52 4. Controlling for Unobserved Differences Between Corpsmembers and Comparison Youths 55 C.liSAGGREGATIONSUSED IN THE ESTIMATION 65 D. DETAILS OF REPRESENTATIVE ESTIMATES 74

IV. IMPACT OF JOB CORPS ON EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS . . . . 110

A. BACKGROUND ON THE COMPUTATIONS 110 , B. OVERALL eINDINGS FOR CIVILIANS AND INCLUDING MILITARY SERVICE 115 C. DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS AMONG SUBGROUPS OF CORPSMEMBERS 123 1. Differential Impacts by Sex and Child Responsibility 123 2. Differential Impacts by Category of Job Corps Termination 125 D. LONGEVITY OF ESTIMATED EFFECTS 127 E. SENSITIVITY OF ESTIMATES TO ALTERNATIVE ECONOMETRIC SPECIFICATIONS' 131

xv 1 S' CONTENTS (continued)

Cie DI= Zara

V. IMPACT OF JOB CORPS ON INVESTMENTS IN HUMAN CAPITAL . . 156 A. EDUCATION AND TRAINING 156 B. OTHER INVESTMENTS IN HUMAN CAPITAL 161

VI. IMPACT OF JOB CORPS ON PUBLIC-TRANSFER DEPENDENCE . . 177

VII. IMPACT OF JCB CORPS ON CRIMINALITY 193

VIII. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS 208 A. BENEFIT-COST METHODOLOGY 209 B. BENEFIT CI,MPONENTS 216 \\.. 1. Output Produced by Corpsmembers at Centers and .1 in Postprogram Employment 216

2. Reduced Dependence on Public Transfers . . . 224 3. Reduced Criminal Activities 228 4. Reduced Drug and Alcohol Abuse 235 5. Use of Alternative Training and Education Programs 236 6. Other Benefits 239 7. Benefits After the Observation Period 239 / C. COSTS 244 1. Program Operating Expenditures 244 2. Opportunity Cost of Corpsmember Labor 246 3. Nonbudgeted 'cats Other than for Corpsmember Labor 247 D. OVERALL FINDINGS FOR NET PRESENT VALUE 247 E. SUMMARY4MCONCLUSIONS 259

IX. GENERALIZABILITY OF THE FINDINGS 262 A. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE SAMPLE 263 B. PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES 264 C. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGES 265 D. THE VALIDITY OF THE COMPARISON SAMPLE STRATEGY. 266 E. DATA QUALITY 267 F. OVERALL 269

X. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 270 A. LONGEVITY OF EFFECTS 271 B. CONSISTENCY OF FINDINGS WITH HYPOTHESIZED EFFECTS, 273 C. NOTEWORTHY EFFECTS 1 273 D. DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS 274 E. RCBUSTNESS OF IMPACT ESTIMATES 275 F. BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE PROGRAM 275 1. Timing of Benefits 275 2. The Distribution of Benefits 276 3. Numerical Findings 276 G. SUMMATION 277

REFERENCES 278

ti xvi 19 3

LIST OF TABLES

Table Pau

I SUMNAHY OF MAIN FINDINGS FOR OVERALL IMPACTS PER CORPSMEMBER ON AN ANNUALIZED BASIS ix

2 e ESTIMATED NET PRESENT VALUES PER CORPSMEIVER UNDft THE BENCHMARK ASSUMPTIONS

SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES FOR PROGRAM IMPACTS ON II:1' ( PARTICIPANTS 28

III.1 GLOSSARY OF EXPLANATORY VARIABLES 79

PROBIT ESTIMATES FOR THE PROBABILITY OF BEING IN THE JOB CORPS SAMPLE:MALES . 83

111.3 PROBIT ESTIMATES FOR THE PROBABILITY OF BEING IN THE JOB CORPS SAMPLE: FEMALES WITHOUT CHILDREN 84

111.4 PROBIT ESTIMATES FOR THE PROBABILITY OF BEING IN THE JOB CORPS SAMPLE: FEMALES WITH CHILDREN 85

111.5 REGRESSION ESTIMATES FOR IMPACT ON FRACTION OF TIME EMPLOYED, INCLUDING MILITARY: MALES 86

111.6 REGRESSION ESTIMATES FOR IMPACT ON FRACTION OF TIME EMPLOYED, INCLUDING MILITARY: FEMALES WITHOUT CHILDREN 88

111.7 REGRESSION ESTIMATES FOR IMPACT ON FRACTION OF TIME EMPLOYED: FEMALES WITH CHILDREN 90

111.8 REGRESSION ESTIMATES FOR IMPACT ON FRACTION OF TIME IN COLLEGE, INCLUDING MILITARY:MALES 92

111.9 REGRESSION ESTIMATES FOR IMPACT ON FRACTION OF TIME IN COLLEGE, INCLUDING MILITARY: FEMALES WITHOUT CHILDREN 94

III.10 REGRESSION ESTIMATES FOR IMPACT ON FRACTION OF TIME IN COLLEGE: FEMALES WITH CHILDREN 96

III. 11 REGRESSION ESTIMATES FOR IMPACT ON FRACTION OF'TIME RECEIVING ANY CASH WELFARE, INCLUDING MILITARY: MALES 98

111.12 REGRESSION ESTIMATES FOR IMPACT ON FRACTION OF TIME RECEIVING ANY CASH WELFARE, INCLUDING MILITARY: FEMALES WITHOUT (-aILDREN' 100

xvii LIST OF TAWS (continued)

REGRESSION'ESTIMATES FOR IMPACT ON FRACTION OF TIME

5 RECEIVING ANY CASH WELFARE: FEMALES WITH CHILDREN . 102

111.14 REGRESSION ESTIMATES FOR IMPACT ON NUMBER OF ARRESTS

PER SIX MONTHS, INCLUDING MILITARY:MALES 104 , v. r i 111.15 REGRESSION ESTIMATES FOR IMPACT ON NUMBER OF ARRESTS PER SIX MONTHS, INCLUDING MILITARY: FEMALES WITHOUT i

CHILDREN 106 i

1 , 111.16 REGRESSION ESTIMATES FOR IMPACT ON NUMBER OF ARRESTS PER SIX MONTHS: FEMALES WITH CHILDREN 10e

/V.1 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS FOR OVERALL /MUM ON EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS, PER CORPSMEMBER ON AN ANNUALIZED BASIS

1V.2 ESTIMATES OF CORPSMEMBERS' EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS HAD THEY NOT PARTICYPATED IN Top CORPS:FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 133

Iv.3, ESTIMATES OF CORPSMEMBERS' EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS HAD THEY NOT PARTICIPATED IN JOP CORPS:THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 134

ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS-ON EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 135

ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS t:TkCTS ON EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS: THIRD AND FOURTH nOSTPROGRAM YEARS 136

ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ONEMPLOYMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES, FOR CIVILIANS: FIRSTAND SECOND \ POSTPROGRAM YEARS 137

. IV.7 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ONEMPLOYMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES, FOR CIVILIANS: THIRDAND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 138

1V.8 ESTIMATES OF ;CORPSMEMBERS' EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS" HAD THEY NOT PARTICIPATED IN JOB CORPS, INCLUDING

MILITARY SECTOR: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS . . 139

w. LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table 2

IV.9 ESTIMATES OF CORPSMEMBERS' EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS HAD THEY NOT PARTICIPATED IN JOB CORPS, INCLUDING,

MILITARY SECTOR: THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS . . 140

IV.10 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 141

IV.11 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 142

Iv.12 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON EMPLOYMENT - RELATED ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 143

IV.13 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON EMPLOYMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS . a 144 4 IV.14 ESTIMATES OF DIFFERENTIAL IMPACT ON FRACTIONOF TIME EMPLOYED, BY COMPLETION CATEGORIES and INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS . . 145

Iv.15 ESTIMATES OF DIFFERENTIAL IMPACT ON FRACTION OF TLC EMPLOYED, BY COMPLETION CATEGORIES and INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS . . 146

IV.16 SENSITIVITY OF EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES TO ALTERNATIVE SPECIFICATIONS, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 147

IV.17 SENSITIVITY OF EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES TO ALTERNATIVE SPECIFICATIONS, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 148

SENSITIVITY OF EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES TO ALTERNATIVE SPECIFICATIONS, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: FIFTH POSTPROGRAM YEAR 149

v.1 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS FOR OVERALL IMPACTS ON HUMAN

CAPITAL, PER CORPSMEMBER ON AN ANNUALIZED BASIS . . . . 158

V.2 ESTIMATES OF CORPSMEMBERSt EDUCATION AND TRAINING HAD THEY NOT PARTICIPATED IN JOB CORPS, FOR CIVILIANS: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 163

x" 22 6

LIST OF TABLES Lcontinued)

la Zan.

V.3 ESTIMATES OF CORPSMEMBERS' EDUCATION AND TRAINING HAD THEY NOT PARTICIPATED IN JOB CORPS, FOR C/VILIAKS THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 164

V.4 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON EDUCATION, FOR e

CIVILIANS: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS . . . 165

V.5 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON EDUCATION, FOR CIVILIANS: THIRD AND FOURTH.POSTPROGRAWYEARS 166

V.6 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON TRAINING, FOR' CIVILIANS: FIRST AND SECOND POSliRCGRAM YEARS 167

V.7 ESTIMATES., OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON TRAINING, FOR CIVILIANS: THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS . .. 168

V.8 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTON HEALTH, MOBILITY, AND MILITARY SERVICE: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 169

V.9 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON HEALTH, MOBILITY, AND MILITARY SERVICE: THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 170

V.10 ESTIMATES OF CORPSMEMBERS' EDUCATION AND TRAINING HAD THLY NOTIRSICIPATED IN JCS CORPS, INCLUDING

MILITARY CTOR: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS . 171

V.11 ESTIMATES OF CORPSMEMBERS' EDUCATION AND TRAINING HAD THEY NOT PARTICIPATED IN JOB CORPS, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTORf THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS . 172 a. V.12 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON EDUCAT INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR:FIRST AND S COND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 173

V.13 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON EDUCATION, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR:THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 174'

V.14 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON TRAINING AND HEALTH, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: FIRST AND SECOPD POSTPROGRAM YEARS 175

XX LIST OF TABLES (continued)

, W V.15 ESTIMATES OF JOBCORPS IMPACTS ON TRAINING AND HEALTH, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 176

' VI.I SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS FOR OVERALL IMPACTS ON PUBLIC TRANSFERS, PER OORPSMEMBER ON AN ANNUALIZED BASIS 178

V1.2 ESTIMATES OF CORPSMEMBERS' RECEIPT OF PUBLIC TRANSFERS HAD THEY NOT PARTICIPATED IN 40B.CORPS, FOR CIVILIANS: FIRST AND $ECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 181

VI. 3 ESTIMATES OF CORPSMEMBERS' RECEIPT OF PUBLIC TRANSFERS HAD THEY NOT PARTICIPATED IN JOB CORPS, FOR CIVILIANS: THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 182

VI.4 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON RECEIPT OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, FOR CIVILIANS: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 183

VI.5 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON RECEIPT OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, FOR CIVILIANS: THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS .... 184

VI.6 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON RECEIPT OF OTHER PUBLIC TRANSFERS, FOR CIVILIANS: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 185

VI.7 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS OteRECEIPT OF OTHER PUBLIC TRANSFERS, FOR CIVILIANS:, THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 186

V1.8 ESTIMATES OF CORPSMEMBERS' RECEIPT OF PUBLIC TRANSFERS HAD THEY NOT PARTICIPATED IN JOB_ CORPS, .,,INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: FIRST AND SECOND 187 POSTPROGRAM YEARS

41.* ESTIMATES.OF CORPSMEMBERS' RECEIPT OF PUBLIC TRANSFERS HAD THEY NOT PARTICIPATED IN JOB CORPS, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR; THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 188

VI.10 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON RECEIPT OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR:FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 189

xxi 2,4 LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table 41,

VI.Il ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS op RECEIPT OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: THIRD AND FOURTH' .POSTPRCGRAM YEARS 190

VI.12 ESTIMATES OF JCB CORPS IMPACTS ON RECEIPT OF OTHER PUBLIC TRANSFERS, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 191

VI.13 ESTIMATES;OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON,RECEIPT OF,OTHER PUBLIC TRANSFERS, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: THIRD AND FOURTH .POSTPROGRAM YEARS ' 192,'

VI/.1 ESTIMATES OF CORPSMEMBERS, CRIMINALITY HAD THEY NOT PARTICIPATED AM JOB CORPS, FOR CIVILIANS: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 196

VII.2 ESTIMATES OF CORPSMEMBERS' CRIMINALITY HAD THEY NOT PARTICIPATED IN JOB CORPS, FOR CIVILIANS:, THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 7 197

VII.3 ESTIMATE'S OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON OVERALL CRIMINALITY, FOR CIVILIANS: FIRST AND :SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 198'

V11.4 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON OVERALL CRIMINALITY, FOR CIVILIANS: THIRD AND FOURTH "1 POSTPROGRAM YEARS 199

a VII. ESTIMATES OF JOB 'CORPS IMPACTS ON NUMBER OF ARRESTS BY ARREST CHARGE, FOR CIVILIANS: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 6 200

Va.() ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON NUMBER OF ARRESTS BY ARREST CHARGE, FOR CIVILIANS: THIRD OD FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 201

VII.7 ESTIMATES OF CORPSMEMBERSt CRIMINALITY HAD THEY NOT ?ANTICIPATED IN JOB CORPS, INCLUDING MILITARY

SECTOR: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS ...... 202

VII.8 ESTIMATES OF CORPSMEMBERSt CRIMINALITY HAD THEY NOT PARTICIPATED IN JOB CORPS, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: THIN' AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 203

VII.9 ESTWrIES OF JCB CORPS IMPACTS ON OVERALL CRIMINALITY, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAM YEARS 204 4

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table

VII.10 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON OVERALL CRIMINALITY, INCLJDING MILITARY SECTOR: THIRD AND FOURTH 'POSTPROGRAM YEARS 205

VII.11 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS ON NUMBER OF ARRESTS BY ARREST CHARGE, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR:FIRST AND SECOND POSTPROGRAA YEARS 206

VII.12 ESTIMATES OF JOB CORPS IMPACTS OM NUMBER OF ARRESTS BY ARREST CHARGE, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR:THIRD AND FOURTH POSTPROGRAM YEARS 207

ViII.1 COMPONENTS OF THE JOB CORPS BENEFITCOST ANALYSIS . 215

ViII.2 EST/MAT VALUE OF INCREASED POSTPRCGRAM OUTPUT AND TAXES PER CORPSMEMBER 222

VII/.3 ESTIMATED VALUE OF BENEFITS PER CORPSMEMBER FROM REDUCED PUBLIC TRANSFERS 226

ViI/.4 ESTIMATED VALUE OF BENEFITS PER CORPSMEMBER FROM

REDUCED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF TRANSFER PROGRAMS . . . 227

VII/.5 ESTIMATES OF AVERAGE SOCIAL COST OF CRIME PER ARREST, BY ARREST CHARGE 230

VII/.b ESTIMATED VALUE OF SOCIAL BENEFITS PER CORPSMEMBER FROM REDUCED CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES 233

VIII.? ESTIMATED VALUE OF SOCIAL BENEFITS. PER CORPSMEMBER FROM REDUCED UTILIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE TRAINING AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS 238

VIII.8 -....)TIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF SOCIAL BENEFITS PER CORPSMEMBER 243

VIII.9 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED VALUE OF COSTS PER CORPSMEMBER, BY ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVE 245

VIII.10 ESTIMATED NET PRESENT VALUES PER CORPSMEMBER UNDER THE BENCHMARK ASSUMPTIONS 248

VIII.T1 ALTERNATIVE. EST/MATES OF NET PRESENT VALUE PER - CORPSMEMBER 253' LIST OF FIGURES

Elm= LIU

1 ESTIMATES OF TIME PATHS OF NET. INCREASES IN PERCENT OF TIME EMPLOYED, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: MALES

2 ESTIMATES OF TIME PATHS OF NET INCREASES IN PERCENT OF TIME EMPLOYED, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR AND CONTROLLINGOR NONLINEAR TIME TRENDS: WES xii

IV.1 ESTIMATES OF TIME PATHS OF NET INCREASES IN PERCENT OF TIME EMPLOYED: CIVILIAN MALES 150

IV.2 ESTIMATES OF TIME PATHS OF NET INCREASES IN PERCENT OF TIME EMPLOYED: CIVILIAN FEMALES WITHOUT CHILDREN . . 151

IV.3 ESTIMATES OF TIME PATHS OF NET INCREASES IN PERCENT OF TIME EMPLOYED: FEMALES WITH CHILDREN 152

IV.4 ESTIMATES OF TIME PATHS OF NET INCREASES IN PERCENT OF TIME EMPLOYED, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: MALES . . 153

IV.5 ESTIMATES OF TIM PATHS OF NET INCREASES IN PERCENT OF TIME EMPLOTtD, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: FEMALES WITHOUT CHILDREN 154

IY.6 ESTIMATES OF TII PATHS OF NET INCREASES IN PERCENT OF TIME EMPLOYED, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR AND CONTROLLING FOR NONLINEAR TIME TRENDS: MALES 155

XXIV 2( REPORTS FROM AN EVALUATION OF TEE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE JOB CORPS PROGRAM

I. INTERIM IMPORT

II. AN EXAMINATION OF JOB CORPS PARTICIPATION

III. FIRST FOLLOW-UP REPORT

IT. SECOND FOLLOW-UP REPORT

V. THIRD FOLLOW-UP REPORT

VI. TECHNICAL REPORTS

A. SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR AN EVALUATION OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE JOB CORPS PROGRAM

B. SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS FOR THE BASELINE AND FIRST FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS

C. ECONOMETRIC MODELS AND METHODS FOR THE IMPACT ANALYSIS

D. A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF JOB CORPS AFTER SEVEN MONTHS OF POSTPROGRAM FOLLOW-UP (superceded by Technical Report 10

E. VALUE OF OUTPUT IN WORE ACTIVITIES

F. SPECIAL STUDIES OF RESOURCE USE AT JOB CORPS CENTERS

G. THE EXPERIMENT WITH PAYMENTS TO SURVEY RESPONDENTS (=pomaded by Technical Report I)

H. SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS FOR THE SECOND FOLLOW-UP INTERVICIIS

I. THE EFFECTS OF MONETARY INCEN'TIVIZ ON SURVEY RESPONSES: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FROM A LONGITUDINAL STUD/ OF ECONOMICALLY DISADVAN--ED YOUTHS

J. AO ANALYSIS OF PROGRAM OPERATING COSTS

E. A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF JOB CORPS AFTER EIGHTEEN MONTHS OF POSTPROGRAM OBSERVATION (superseded by Technical Report Q)

L. AN ANALYSIS OF NONRESPONSE TO JOB CORPS EVALUATION INTERVIEWS

M. COMPARISONS OF JOB CORPS WITH OTHER YOUTH PROGRAMS

N. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DATA FROM THE JOB CORPS MIS AND INDEPENDENT INTERVIEWS OF CORPSMEMBERS

O. THE DISTRIBUTION OF JOB CORPS EFFECTS.ON. PARTICIPANTS:EVIDENCE FROM THE SECOND FOLLOW-UP FINDINGS ON CIVILIAN EARNINGS

P. SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS FOR TEE THIRD FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS

Q. A COMAPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF JOB CORPS . AFTE FORTY-EIGHT MONTHS OF POSTPROGRAM OBSERVATION

NOTE: All r ports are available from the Office of Publications at MP! for the ost of reproduction.

XXV I. INTRODUCTION

This is the Third Follow-Uo Report of a study designed to provide the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor

(DOL) with a comprehensive evaluation of the economic impact of the Job

Corps program, a program that provides economically disadvantaged youths between 16 and 21 years of age with basic education, vocational training, and related services in a residentialsetting.11 The evaluation was designed to examine whether Job Corps was successful at achieving its objectives of helping youths become sore productive workef.s, -improving their lifetime earnings prospects, and helping them become more responsible citizens. This report addresses three major issues:.(1) the Short-term economic impact of Job Corps on program participants, (2) the longevity of these program effectsr&nd (3) whether the benefits of Job Corps qmtweigh the costs of the program. t. L. 9 the information used to prepare this study is dra01 primarily from four surveys that collected relevant data from both Corpsmembers and a comparison sample of youths who did not participate in the program, but who were similar to Corpamembers in terms of other characteristics.21 me first survey (the baseline interview) was administered during April-June

11This studyfocuses on the residential Job Corps program and does not include the relatively small segment (approximately 5 percent in 1977, the base year for this evaluation) of Corpsmembers who receive Job Corps services but do not reside at a center.

2/wCorpsmembers" is used throughout this report to refer to participants or former participants in Job Corps. 197p4 a cross-section of Corpsmembers (who were then in Job COrps and residing at centers) and to the comparison sample. The second survey (the first follow-up interview) was administered approximately 9 months later to the same comparison sample and to youths in the Job Corps sample who had been out of the program for at least 5 months. The third survey (the second follow-up interview) was administered approximately 15 months after

'40 thel'irst follow-up survey, again to the same comparison sample, butNhis time to all youths in the Job Corps sample who fiad been out of the program for at least ja months. For the second follow-up, sampled Corpsmembers had ben out of the program between 12 and 24 months, with an average per

Corpamember of slightly over 18 months.

The fourth survey (the third follow-up interview) followed the same youths as the previous one and provides the new information for this report. Occurring nearly two and on -half years after the second follow-up survey, this third follow-up greatly extends the postprogram observation period, thereby yielding the most comprehensive data set yet available to conduct a study on the behavior of Corpsmembers. The prior survey data covered approximately one-and-one-half years of postprogram experience, which the third follow-up extends to nearly four years.Over-3,900 youths were interviewed for the third follow-up, which represents nearly 70 percent of the baseline observations and just over 90 percent of the second follow-up observations. Altogether, the data base for this evaluation contains both baseline and some follow-up-data on approximately 5,200 youths.

The. questions in the four surveys were designed to obtain detailed longitudinal information on the following topics:

30 2 o General demographic characteristics.,

o Socioeconomic background

o Employment and earnings

o Military service

o Education and training

o Geographic mobility

o Health status

c. Receipt of public assistance

o Receipt of Unemployment Insurance and Workers' Compensation

o Antisocial behavior (drug use and criminal activities)

In addition, information was obtained from Corpsaembers on how they rated the program (see Mailer et al., 1978), on job placements by the program

(ibid.), and on tbe extent to whiob Job 'ores education and training helped them obtain employment (ibid.). Finally, information was obtained on where all respondents could be reached for future interviews.

On average, from the data obtained from the first survey tbrough the second follow-up, Job Corps was found to be successful in the short term at achieving its primary objective of improv ing tbe economic, prospects of Corpaaembers. However, this finding was limited by the short length of the postprogram observation period--an average of approximately 18 months.

The estimated time trend in participant impacts over the first /two postprogram years showed a rapid increase in employment and related benefits for Corpsmeabers during the first few months after leaving Job

Corps and then relatively constant effects tbrou out the remainder of the two-year period.

31 3 Little, if anything, was known about the economic impact of Job

Corps on participants after the second postprogram year. On the one hand, it was thought that the effects might decline, as had previously been found for some adult employment and training programs. On the other hand, it was thought that the effects might grow further over time for a youth program such as Job Corps, which was also found to cause increases in postprogra investments in human capital (e.g.r increases in postsecondary education and military service), which, in turn, should lead to future increases in earnings. With the additional follow-up data, we now have a unique opportunity (i.e., a sufficient sample over four postprogram years) to obtain empirical evidence on the duration of Job Corps benefits beyond the second postprogram year.

Chapter II provides an overview of the Job Corps program and our evaluation. The first part of Chapter II describes the program setting in which the evaluation takes place, including descriptions of the goals of the program, the main Job Corps institutions, the clientele served, the types of individuals who are served by the program, the types of services provided at centers, the size of the program at the time of our study, the changes in the program since our study began, and the current direction of changes in .Job Corps. In particular, this discussion focuses on the program's goal of increasing the employability of youths who began the program with severe employment problems, and on what approaches are used in

Job Corps to achieve that goal.

The second part of Chapter II summarizes our evaluation design in the context of the three main analytical components:the impact on participants, the time duration of effects, and the benefit-cost

4 32 comparison. This discussion in Chapter II focuses on the policy and research issues underlying the evaluation, our conceptual approach and the

theoretical underpinnings, and the sample design and survey implementation..

Chapter III discusses the estimation procedures used in the data analysis underlying subsequent Chapters. The discussion begins with background information on how the data were arrayed; next, it consicerS the

specific procedures that were used to control for both observed and unobserved differences between the Joh Corps and comparison groups; it then focuses attention on the disaggregations necessary to obtain adequate overall estimates and to understand the findings; and finally, it presents

samples of the details of the actual regression estimates.

Chapters IV through VII present the empirical findings on whether

Job CorpS is successful in, respectively, (1) increasing employment and earnings, (2) improving future labor-market opportunities through higher education, military training, and other human - capital activities,

(3) reducing dependence on welfare assistance and other public transfers,

and (4) reducing criminality among former Corpsmembers. The findings in

these chapters encompass both civilian youths and youths who were in the military; we also consider the differential effects for major subgroups,

the time duration ;of effects, and the sensitivity of findings to

alternative econometric specifications.

Chapter VIII summarizes the comparative evaluation of the benefits.

and costs of Job Corps. This chapter develops estimates of the value of

Job Corps effects by combining the estimates of postprogram impacts from

Chapters IV through VII with secondary data on the valuls, or prices, of

these effects. Program costs are then estimated with financial data from

5 the Job Corps financial reporting system, from supplemental information we collected at individual centers, and from information provided by the U.S.

Office of management and Budget. An overall estimate of the program's net 4

Present value is computed under a benchmark set of estimated values and assumptions, including tie rate of discount for future benefits and the

Pattern of impacts projected beyond the observatiOn period. The robustness of this overall estimate is then examined by testing its sensitivity to varying the most speculative of the underlying assumptions.Finally, the chapter also presents estimates of the distributional impact of Job Corps, the payback period for the program, and its internal rate of return.

Chapter IX examines issues pertaining to our ability to draw inferences about Job Corps from the existing data, and discusses the generalizability of the findings presented in previous Chapter's.

Specifically, tie discuss the interpretation.of our findings in the context of a changing program and changing labor market, the accuracy and reliability of our overall approach (from sampling to data collection to econometrics), and the limited length of.postprogram observation. Finally,

Chapter X offers some concluding remarks and thoughts.

Currently available are several other reports that were generated from this evaluation of the economic impact of the Job Corpa program; the interested reader should consult all appropriate volumes:"These additional reports are listed by title after the contents page, and many are

1/Allreports are available from MPR's Office of Publications for the cost of reproduction.

6 34 referred to in the text of this report. Those available include three.

other primary rioorts and seventeen supplemental technical reports.

The four additional primary data reports include (1) the jntertg

Report"(which covers baseline data and assesses'the adeqUacy of the

comparison sample), (2) An Examination of-ilob Corns Fartioloatio4 (which

describes Corpsmembers and examines their ratings of the program), (3) thek,

First Follow-Up Report (which covers the first postprogram findlogs based

on the first follow-up survey), and (4) the ,Second Follow.Uo Report (which 0 covers postprogram findings through the second follow-up survey).

The seventeen supplemental technical reports cover a wide range of

topics that can be grouped into three broad areas: (1) sampling and survey

procedures (five reports.: Technical Reports A, B, H, L, and P); (2) the

details and derivations of evaluation findings and econometric procedures

from the main follow-up reports (seven reports: Technical Reports C, D, E,

F, J, K, and Q); and (3) secondary topics that are outside the main focus`

of the evaluation, but which are of Important policy interest and can be

addressed with the data collected as part of our evaluation of Job Corps

(five reports: Technical Reports G, I, M, N, and 0).

The five reports on sampling and survey procedures include one on,

sample design and implementation, three on survey methods and results, and 4 one on nonresponse to the interviews. The seven technical reports that

provide additional detail include one on econometric methodology, three on

comparisons of benefits and costs, one on the value of output in work

projects, one on resource usage at centers, and one on program operating

costs. The five reports on secondary topics include two on an experiment

that provided incentive payments to survey respondents, one on comparisons

35 7 between Job Corps and other youth programs, one on Job CorpsMISdata, and

one on the distribution of Job Corps effects. -

I.I'

.ts

k6, II. OVERVIEW OF JOB CORPS AND THE EVALUATION .

'Job Corps is a major public program that attempts to alleviate the

severe employment probleMs faced by disadvantaged youths in the Unite&

States0-especially those who live in poverty areas.i/ Youth employment

problems, while always a serious concern, have been more-severe in recent

years because of the growth in the teenage population and the persistent

downturn in the demand for labor in youth labor markets. During the time

period covered by our analysis (1977 thrOugh 1981), an average of four out

of every ten black youths between the ages of 16 and 21 who were in the

labor market were unemployed. Moreover, recent surveys and other data

sources have shown that fewer than two out of every ten black youthiin the

poverty areas of central cities bold jobs.2/

A. THE JOB CORPS PROGRAM IN 1977 AND SINCE3/

The Job Corps approach is to piovide a comprehensive set of

services that include "vocational skills training, basic education, health

'The term disadvantagedis used throughout this report to refer to the set of youths who have employability problems caused by their socioeconomic background. Thus, it embodies several factors related to age,. educational level, income status, race-ethnicity, employment history, previous social behavior, etc., that limit the ability of young men and women to obtain and hold productive jobs.

2/For example,see the various recent bulletins on the general employment situation and on youth employment from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, as well as Freeman and Wise (1982).

This chaptertdraws very heavily on three sets of documents prepared by the national Job Corps staff of DOL: (1) Job Corns ia Drier. from various fiscal years; (2) A Planning Charter for the Job Corps., 1978; and (3) The Expansion and Enrichment of the Job Corps., 1978. The interested reader should refer to these papers, as well as to 'Kerachsky and Maller (1978) and Mallar et al. (1978), for further details.

, Also, Levitan and Johnston (1975) have summarized the first ten years (1964- 7+1) of Job Corps operations.

9 37 1' care, and residential support for young people who 'e poor,, out of school

and out of work. Its aim is to break the cycle pf poverty permanently by

improving lifetimeearningbprospects."/ Job Corps i3 designed to serve

youths who currently live in such debilitating environments that, for the

most part, they Must be relocated to residential centers and provided with

residential support in order to benefit from bksicoeducation, vocational

training, and ancillary aervices.2/ Education and training .conducted in a

supportive environment are the key elements of the program 's effort to

' improve the employability of disadvantaged youths, which, in turn, is

expected to help the youthS become more productive and responsible

citizens.

1. Institutional asnang

The Job Corps program was originally established by the Economic

Opportunity Act of 1964. In 1969, control of the program was, transferred

from the Office of Economic Opportunity to Da, and Job Corps was

eventually incorporated without changes as Title IV in the Comprehensive

1/Quoted from The_Exfianslon and Enrighment_Of the Job Corps. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1978, p. 1.

Some of the Job Corps centers in urban locations added a few nonresidential slots (f.e:, enrollee positions) during the 1970s. However, the nonresidential components of Job Corps were not, included in our evaluation and, hence, will, not be considered in this report. Tle nonresidential components were excluded because of an earlier ,judgment that the limited funds available for this'proje0 would be more productively allocated to the residential slots. Nonrealdentiai Corpsmembers accounted only for approximately 5 percent of all Corpsmembers: In-order productively to study nonresidential Corpsmembers, most ofthem who were enrolled during the spring of 1977 would have todhave been sampled, at great cost in terms of both the dispersion of the sample and the number of residential observations foregone.

10 38

1. Emplpment and Training Act (CETA) as enacted in 1973 and as amended in

97$. While-a general decentralization and decaegorization of the other

employment and training programs under CETA has taken-place, Job Corps is tbs. st*11 administered primarily at the federal level,, at least in part because

of the widespreadnatuft:6f youth, employment problems and the specific

target population for the program. Job Corps' incorporation into CETA,

however, has result..d in the transfer of direct responsibility for program

operations and center contracting to DOL's regional employment and training

offices.

Even though Job Corps is one 'of the mo:;t- centralized of the DOL

programs administered under CETA, it has a complex operational structure.

Job Corps encompasses multiple lefels of administrative responsibility,

several-distinct program components, and numerous contractors and

. subcontractors. Some Job Corpscenters are administered under interagency

agreements with the departments of Agriculture and Interior, while others

are administered under local contracts through DOL's regionalwiffices.

Within the confines of the basic program treatment, different combinations

of program services are provided to different groups of youths at different

Job Corps-centers. Finally; multiple contracts and subcontracts have been

enacted at both the national and local levels to recruit eligible youths,

to provide vocational training, basic education, and ancillary services at

Job Corps centers, and to provide former Corpsmembers.with placement and' 4 other postprograe services.

Job COrps centers fall under two main types of administration

those operated by private contractors. who are selected in a competitive

bidding process conducted by the regional offices, and those located. on

p.tblic lands (predominantly in national parks and forests) and operated by

11 39 et.

the. Department of AgricultUie or the Department'of the Interior.' The

former centers are usually reTerred to as. "contract centers,"'and the t latter as "civilian conservation centers" (CCCs).In fiscal 1977,

sixtY-one centers were in operation, located in thirty-two states and

Puerto RiCo: ,twenty-seven CCC4iy two CCC-type centers operated by the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; thirty centers operated under contracts with

private business firms, nonprofit organizations, and state and'local

government agencies; and two extension centers' for advanced vocational

training operated by uniona.11 Two contract centers had *Just opened during

the - year --a new center in Mississippi and a relocated center In NewYork.2/

Recruitment and placement activities are carried out under

contracts with employment service offices, various unions, local schools, Ii volunteer agenbies such as Women in Community Service, Inc.'(WICS).and

Joint Action in Community Service, Inc. (JACS), and dispeCial private

agencies,31in addition to the efforts of individual centers and the

One of these'extension centers is operated by:the. Brotherhood of . Railway Airline and Steamship Clerks (BRAC) of the AFL/CIO; the other is operated by Stewards Training and Recreation, Inc., of the Marine Cooks and Stewards Union .of the AFL/CIO. In additionvseveral unions (particularly in construction trades) have contracts 4o provide training at'the other. centers (at all CCC5 and some of the contract centers).

'Othercenters have since opened in an effort to enable Job Corps to achieve an expansion goal of doubling the number of slots compared to fiscal 1976 (see further in Section A.5 below).The MPR evaluation of Job Corps and this report focus on all centers operating ia the continental United States during year- 1977. The last part of this chapter (Section 13.4) and Technical Reports A and B present more detailed discussiont of the , . sample used in this evaluation.

1'Private contractingagencies, such as the separate GATE -house' ,(Graduate Aid to Employment for Ex-Corpamembers) contractors, were operating in six densely populated metropolitan areas--Atlanti, Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, largt numbers of ex-Corpsmembers reside after they leave ihe centers.

12 4o p regional offices. The placement groups (especially the volunteer agencies

and special private agencies) often provide other support services to

youths who have recently left Job Corps, to facilitate their transition

from center living to a job and regular living arrangements.

2. Enrollees in Job Cornsii

Data gathered as part of this evaluation show that the youths

served by Job Corps are severely disadvantaged. In addition to being

'members of predominantly low-income and minority families,. the Corpsmembers

generally have low levels of educational attainment and weak employment

histOries:prior to enrolling in tre program. Relatedly, they generally

have.had high incidences of welfare dependence, and many have had brushes

with the law prior to enrolling. The.combilled effect of these character-

istics limits their ability t6 obtain and hold productive jobs.

A review of the socioeconomic Characteristics of youths in Job

Corps during the spring of 1977 shows that--

o Approximately one-half of the Corpsmembers were under age 18 at the time they enrolledc and nearly one - quarter were age 16 (the statutory age limits were and continue to be 14 to 21, but very few youths under age 16 were then or are now admitted).

o Approximately 70 percent of the Corpsmembers were male (this continues to be the case despite efforts during the 19703 to increase female participation to 50 percent of the total enrollment).

o Over 75 percent came from 'minority backgrounds-59 percent black, 11 percent Hispanic, 5 percent American Indian, and less than 1 percent Asian or Pacific Islander.

1/Fora more detailed description of Job Corps participants in 1577, see Kerachsky and Mailer (1978).

I3 41 $

o Between 85 and 90 percent of the Corpsmemrs had not completed high school at the .time they enr led,

oAlmost all Corpsmembers bad experienced difficulties in

obtaining and holding jobs; moreover, when they did find , work, the jobs usually did not pay well. Over one-third of the enrolleeshad never held a job at whiCh they worked at least twenty hours_per week and which lasted-for at least one month. Inthe six months before enrolling in Job Corps, the typical Corpsmember was employed less than one-third of the time and averaged fewer thy 12.5 hours of work per week at an average wage rate of112.81, which, was only slightly above the federal minimum wage rate.

oAlmost all Corpsmembers had experienced poverty, welfare dependence, or bath; in the six months before enrolling in Job Corps, over 90 percent either had incomes that were below the poverty line or were receiving welfare assistance."

o While many (28 percent) had attempted to enlist in the military service, most of them failed to qualify (85 percent of those who attempted).

oMany Corpsmembers had experienced a brush with the law--at

least 38 percent had been arrested at some time before i enrolling, and 19 percent had been convicted (i.e., approximately one-half of the 38 percent of Corpsmembers who had been arrested had also been convicted).

Also, despite the fluctuations in the scale of the program, the ',character-

istics of Job Corps enrollees have remained relatively constant over the

years.'011

TVDOLIof Servic_ea _Provided_ at Centers

To help Corpsmembers overcome the problems highlighted above, Job

Corps attempts to provide a comprehensive program that is tailored and

1/Quoted from the Zmolovment and Training Report of the President. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1980, p. 37. For further documentation, see Mallar et al. (1980), Chapter VIII.

14 42 flexible enough to meet the individual needs and problems of each disadvantaged youth. The components of the Job Corps program include remedial education, high school equivalency classes, vocational, training; health care and education, residential living, counseling, and other ancillary services. Specific services from each of these components are supposed to be incorporated into a unified framework tailored seParatelY to meet the indiVidual needs of each youth.

Education. The Job Corps education program has evolved with the purpose of correcting the varied deficiencies in the backgrounds of Corps?, members and enabling them to proceed at the maximum pace commensurate with their abilities. The education program includes remedial education

(emphasizing reading and mathematics), World of Work (including consumer' education, driver education, home and family living, health education, and programs designed for individuals whose primary language is not English), and a General Educational Development (GED) program of high school equivalency for Corpemembers who are academically qualified.State educational agencies recognize the GED certificate as the equivalent of a high school diploma. The Job Corps encourages and emphasizes the GED program "for those who are academically quilified. In fiscal year 1977, over 4,000 enrollees were awarded' the General .2ducation Development

Certificate.'ll

Vocational Skills Training. Like the education program, the, training program at Job Corps centers is designed to (1) meet individual

1/Job Corps in Brief. FY-77,p. 3.

15 needs and problems' and (2) enable Corpsmembers to advance at the maximum pace commensurate with their abilities.- Therefore, all training programs provide for an open entrance and exit capabili and are continually being reviewed and revised in order to keep pace with both the changing needs of Corpsmembers and the changing labor market.

Some notable differences exist between vocational training programs at CCCs and those at contract centers. The training programs at CCCs are often operated by unions and tend to be of a "hands-on" workproject nature, involving actual construction and production and emphasizing the construction and building trades .2/ In contrast, the training programs at contract centers are more often operated by the centers themselves or by individual private subcontractors, and the training tends more often to be of a classroom-instruction, shop-type, or "mock -up" nature, with some work- experience positions available upon the successful completion of the training.

Health Care and EOucation. Comprehensive health services are provided to all enrollees, including medical examinations (with follow-up treatments, if necessary), immunization, dental examinations (for all

Corpsmembers who stay at least ninety days) and dental treatment,

1/For example,,because approximately 20 percent of all, new Job Corps enrollees are functionally illiterate, there must be a corresponding number of vocational training slots that do nbt have reading as a pre- requisite. 7 -Most of the union instructors use curricula approved fpr the first two years of the union's apprenticeship program.

16 44 professional help for emotional and other mental-health problems, and instruction in basic hygiene, preventive medicine, and self-care. Job

Corps also places great emphasis on health education in an attempt to prepare Corpsmembers "to make responsible decisions regarding health and health - relate attars by providing them with relevant, factual information.'"/

pesidential Livins. Residential living is a key component of the

Job Corps program and distinguishes it from most other publicemployment and training programs, in terms of both a programmatic difference and higher costs for Job Corps. The concept behind residential living is that

the target population comes from such debilitating environments that they need a new and more supportive environment to derive the intended benefits of the vocational training and education courses.

The residential-living program includes meals, health services,

dormitory life, entertainment, sports and recreation, center government,

center-maintenance, and other related activities. This program is "planned

to help new Corpsmembers adapt to center life, motivate and support

constructive attitudes and lifestyles and prepare them to function

effectively in the outside world. . . . It involves such complex areas as

relationships among racial and ethnic groups, motivation of alienated or

discouraged young people, adaptation to unfamiliar group living situations,

adult-youth cooperation in an institutional setting, and the role of peer

groups in influencing conduct andattitudes:"21

ilijob.Corps in Brief. FY-77, p. 3. ,.

2Jab Corns in BriefFY-77, pp.$ and 5.

17 45 Counseling and Other Ancillary Services. The centers provide counseling services and residential advisors both to help Corpsmembers plan

their educational and vocational curricula and to offer motivation and

create a supportive environment. Some of the other support services

provided by Job Corps (for example, during recruitment, placement, and the

transition to regular life and Jobs) were discussed above.

4. Size of Job Corps

At the start of fiscal 1970 the Job Corps program was cut back

drastically in terms of both financial expenditures and the number of

youths served, with the center capacity cut nearly in half, from slightly

under 40,000 slots, or enrollee positions, to slightly over 20,000. From

then until fiscal 1977 the budget was held roughly constant in nominal

amounts, and the number of youths served stabilized at approximately 21,000

to 22,000 slots and 45,000 new enrollees annually. (Corpemembers stay in the

program approximately six months on average).Over the same time period

(1970 to 1977), however, inflation greatly eroded the real purchasing power

of that budget, which was being held fixed in nominal amounts.Consequent-

ly, capital equipment was allowed to deteriorate in order to serve the same

number of youths within the more restrictive purchasing power.

With the decision in fiscal 1977 to renovate and expand Job Corps

(see the next section), the budget and number of slots in the program were

increased greatly. In fiscal 1977 the budget was increased by 58 percent

in nominal terms, to $274-million, while the applied funding (i.e., the

costa actually incurred rather than budgeted) increased by 23 percent, to

$231-million. Some of the additional expenditures began to be allocated

for planned expansion, actual expansion, improvements in services,

18 IC increases in staffing, and the repair and replacement of capital equipment that had beef allowed to deteriorate during the previous seven years.

Similarly, the number of slots in the program rose 7 percent in fiscal

19T7, to 22,225 slots, with the addition of one new center and a small amount of expansion at some existing centers. However, the number of new youths enrolled declined slightly in fiscal 1977 because the turnover rate fell; hence, the average length of stay in Job Corps and the proportion of program completers increased during that year (conceivably as a result of improvements made possible by the additional resources).

5. current Trends

The recent trends in Job Corps (i.e., since fiscal 1977) have been dominated by a large expansion of the profram under the Carter Adminis-

tration and considerations of whether and how to scale back the program under the general budget reductions of the Reagan Administration. Job

Corps began increasing its capacity in fiscal 1977 in response to a con- gressional authorization to double the size of the program, as recommended by DOL under Secretary Marshall--from its fiscal 1977 level of 22,000 slots

to 44,000 slots by the end of fiscal 1978. The actual expansion proceeded more slowly, but the program capacity had been increased to 41,000 slots in

fiscal 1981, where it remained for fiscal 1982. Major funding considera-

tions for fiscal 1983 include whether and how to cut the number of slots and the average cost per slot. These potential cuts in funding are being

considered in the context of the Administration's broad curtailments of

employment and training programs.

Several factors were taken into account in deciding how beat to

provide the additional program slots for the expansion between 1977 and 1981. First, position7 were allocated across the country according to the relative needs of the various regions; need was determined from regional data on the incidence of poverty and unemployment among youths.Second, in allocating the new slots, consideration was given to the two existing types of center administration, as well as to other potential new types of

administration. As a result, the contract centers received the bulk of the

new slots; the CCCs received only about 5 percent of the new growth. Thus,

the proportion of =Cs declined.

Another 5 percent of the new slots were to be devoted to industry

work-experience programs, and approximately 15 percent of the new slots were to be in the Advanced Career Training program, which allows qualified

Corpsmembers to attend junior college or technical school under Job Corps

sponsorship. For the most part, Corpsmembers in those programs were

assigned, at least for administrative purposes, to a regular contract

center or CCC. I/ During the general expansion of Job Corps, DOL emphasized nine

"improvement" , areas for the program, as follows (quoted from the

Minipvmentand Training Report of the President 1971. p. 170):

1. Arrangements have been made with prime sponsors and with the Armed Forces for referrals to Job Corps. Increased outreach is needed tr-, recruit sore young women. Screening procedures should b' simplified wherever possible while they should also ar ;re that youth who can most benefit from Job Corps are .dentified.

2. Only a minority of Corpsmembers complete training and are placed directly into-training-related jobs. Better linkages are needed with the labor market. The Industry Work Exporience Program and a variety of newly developed advanced career training programs should assist in this effort.

20 46i 3. New reading and GED programs have been developed and are being introduced, and an experimental college program has been implemented. An Educational Improvement Effort will experiment witb alternative education approaches. I 4. The world-of-work program to provide Corpsmembers with jobseeking and jobholding skills needs to be strengthened. Alternative systems are now being tested.

5. A formula for living and readjustment allowances has been derived in response to a congressionally authorized increase while attempting to balance the effects on recruiting', retention, performance reward, readjustment, and equity. This fomula is now under review by Job Corps and the Department.

6. Comprehensive health services are provided at Job Corps centers, and for 1 in 7 enrollees a previoumlf undetected health condition is identified.

7. Food in Job Corps centers is nutritionally sound but apparently not as appealing to most Corpsmembers as could be desired. The elimination of the statutory ceiling on center operating costs will permit modest increases in the amounts spent on food.

8. Needed and long-delayed improvements have been made in center facilities to enhance the quality of life in Job Corps:

9. The placement system must be reexamined in the coming year with the aim of more closely linking jobs and training as well as shortening the readjustment period.

Under active consideration for fiscal 1983 is a plan to scale back the program to 22,000 slots (the approximate size of Job Corps in fiscal 1977), including the closing of the 30 federaligt operated CCCs. The closing of CCCs is consistent with our previous findings that (1) the beneficial effects of the program on Corpsmembers' subsequent employment 4 are lower for CCCs, although the difference is notsatatistically,significant (see Mailer et al., 1978, Chapter.1) and (2) the cost of operating

CCCs is higher because of their smaller size and emphasis on training in, the construction industry, which is relatively expensive (see Mailer et

49 21 al., 1980 Chapter VII). In addition to the CCCs, however, several contract centers would have to be closed or scaled back in order to accomplish a reduction in the number of positions from the current 41,000 slots to the prior number of 22,000 slots.

B. THE EVALUATION DESIGN,

The Job Corps program has survived over fifteen years of changing attitudes toward social problems and has emerged as an important component of the current effort to train and employ disadvantaged youths. However, given the relatively large investment of nearly $6,000 in federal financial costs per enrollee in 1977 (or 02,000 per year of service for participants who stay an average of six months),.surprisingly little was known about the magnitude of most of its economicimpacts.I/ Of importint concern were the following issues: Does the program provide economic benefits to participants Ala society? What are the magnitudes of the primary benefits?Do some Corpamembers benefit More than others?What are the durations of Job

Corps effects?Do some variants of the program work better than others?

Does the total dollar value of benefits outweigh the costs?

In order to design an evaluation to answer the above questions, we constructed a detailed list of policy and research issues from the hypothesized effects of Job Corps. (These issues are described in the next

1/Aside fromprogram data, only the survey conducted by Louis Harris and Associates between 1966 and 196 9 has provided economic data on a reasonable-size sample of former Corpsmambers (i.e., with any reasonable degree of statistical precision). For a comparison group, however, both program data and the Harris (1969) survey are limited to either early- dropouts from the program or *no shows" (i.e., youths who signed up for Job Corps and were admitted, but who never attended).-Furthermore, the Harris data are obviously outdated given the subsequent changes in both Job Corps and youth labor markets. (For further details, see Louis Harris and Associates, 1969.)

22 5 0 section of this chapter.) We then used the policy and research issues as a s, guide to develop an evaluation design (see further below).

1. folicv and Research 1331183

The objective of our evaluation is to provide DOL with a compre-

hensive assessment of the economic impacts of the Job Corps program. To meet this objective, we must focus on concrete policy and research issues.

The issues addressed are as follows:

1, The extent to which the Job Corps program provides early economic benefits to its participants in terms of gains in employment, earnings, and other related measures of economic well-being

2. The extent to :which participation in Job Corps influences subsequent decisions and the ability to enter school, training or work-experience programs, or the military. service

3. The extent to which the Job Corps program affects participants' receipt of transfer payments

$. The extent to which participation in Job Corps reduces various forms of antisocial behavior, particularly criminal activities and drug abuse

5. The length of time[for which Job Corps effects can be expected to last

6. The existence of differential program impacts by participant characteristics (age, race, sex, prior educational level) , by duration of participation in the program, by center type (size, location, operator), and by program component (education received, vocational training, etc.)

7. The extent to which program benefits (both during and after program participation) outweigh prbgram costs,

8. The satisfaction of Cob Corps participants with their program experience, and their assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the program (see Mallar et al., 1976)

23 51 The first six items on this research agenda show the range of

::Aptential benefits to participants based on a hupan-capital approach which

suggests that training will improve subsequi,nt earnings potential. The

magnitudes of economic impact will be measured by comparing the postprogrma.

behavior and economic status ofCorpsmemberra.withwhat they would have been

bad the youths-not participated in Job Corps. grItem 7 requires valUing,

program benefits and comparing them to the costs. -This benef47.cost

comparison (or set of comparisons, ai we describe in Chapter VIII) is made

by aggregating estimates of the dollar values of postprogram benefits with

similar measures of in-program benefits, and comparing the total dollar

value of program benefits to the total dollar value of program costs.

Thus, the benefit-cost research builds upon the impact analysis by

assigning dollar'values to the Estimated program benefitsand,'absts.2/

Item 8 on the researckagenda, which foCuses on'Corpamemberso.,perceOtione

of the program impacts and their assessments of program- related

experiences, was completed as part'of the first Follow-uP Report (see

Haller et al., 1978).

'Note that this isnot a Job Corps vera4 peroprogram-treatment comparison. Rather., it is a comparison of Job COIrps effects to the, effect resulting from the average constellation of alternative programs--education, training, workexperience, etc.--that the Corpemembers would haYee!' obtained in the absence of Job Corps. 41asi 2/Abenefit-cost analysis has thialickantaga of providing s ry measures that can be used to judge the vottob of thd program in terms of 'economic efficiency. However, it is ditricult to value and aggregate all of the benefits from programs. In addition to proyiding inputs into the benefit-cost calculations, the impact analysis hii'the advantage of being able to show program effects that cannot -realily be valued in dollar : 426 amounts, and allows readers to make their awn judgments about the vale of

various program benefits., .( : 2 Analysis of Participant impacts

The theopyof economic choice underlies many studies of employment

and training peogrags. The theory suggests that individuals choose among

competing demands oln their time according to the wage rates they can

receive, other prices, and souse4s of nonemployment income that are

available. A person's wage rate is hypothesized to depend on his or her

productivity,. which increases with education and vocational training. By

providing education and vocational training, Job Corps should increase

participants' productivity, wage rates, employment opportunities, and

economic incentives to work.1/ 'However, institutional labor-market factors

such as the minimum wage might cause an excess supply of labor in the

markets for disadvantaged youths, so that another effect of Job Corps might

be to increase the employment of Corpsmeibers (because they have increased

. productivity) without affecting their short-term wagerates.2) Also, the

self-selection of some of the more productive Corpsmembers into college and

military service will reduce the observed impacts on wages in the short

run.

"The effect of an increase in wage rates'onreconomic incentives to work is not completely unambiguous, because higher wages might afford some individuals the opportunity to spend more time iniactivities other than work. HoweVer, most studies of youth labor supply have found that work effort is positively associated with wage rates.

.Under,Under this example, the minimum wage bolsters the average wage

4 rate received by disadvantaged youths mho are employed, while increasing their overall unemployment rate.' In such-a labor market, Job Corps training could help Comp. Corpsmembers reach the front of the queue for employment when an excess supply of labor exists, in which case they displape other disadvantaged youths'in the short run.owever, Job Corps training is geared toward adoring participants from occuOctions, industries, and geographic areas in which an excess auorav of labor existsto those in

. which an excess of demand for labor exists..

25 53 Chapters IV through VII discuss the'effects of Job. Corps on several imPortant postprogram activities. 'These activities can be categorized into

. . four broad areas. The first includes labor-market activities, such as

labor-force status, emplofmedt, hours worked, wage rates, and earnings. .

Improvement in this area is considered to be the primary objective of Job.

Corps. ,.rhe second area includes additional training and education.

Improvement in this -area is an important short-term objective because it is expected to increase employment and earnings in the long-run.The third area.is dependence on welfare and other public transfers. The final area is antisocial behavior. The anticipated changes in these last two areas relate to the changes in employment and earnings'(and in training and educational activities). As better opportunities arise in the labor market-

(and scholastically), we expect a decline in welfare dependence and antisocial behavior.

One complicating factor in terms of hypothesizing Job Corpsi*acts

is thit our base or comparison is not Jobeorps versus a zero program

treatment. Rather, it is a comparison or-Job Corps'effects Lo the effects

resulting from the average configuration of alternative programs--educa-

tion, training, work experience, etc.--that the Corpsmembers would have

obtained'ie the absence of Job Corps. The hypothesized effects of Job

Corps in each of the four areas are discussed briefly. below and are

summarized in Table II.1.

liquagamenttansLidarnifiga,The primary hypothesis is that, other

things being equal, young adults who obtain Job Corps training will become

more productive and, hence, will gain more employment and receive higher

26 5tA:

or: I

earnings than those.who donot.li The increased productivity is expected

to lead to improved employability (as measured by increases in labor-force-

participation, employment, hours worked per week, and the proportion of

weeks worked), as well as to higher wage rates and higher earnings. This

hypothesis is based on previous research on the effects of training and

education on labor-market activities. /) In addition to the short-term impactsafter leaving Job Corps,

subsequent reinforcing effects or a depreciation, of the ort-term findings

m igh t occur. For example, regular employment often provides n-the-job

training and a record of worker reliability that, in turn, is rewarded with

even higher wage rates and earnings in the future. In contrast, the

impacts of Job Corps could fade out over time as the influence of the

program becomes 1E33 significant the farther removed former Corpsmembers

become from the program in time. The time duration of Job Corps effects is

one of the primary concerns of our analysis.

'Each of the hypotheses developed inthis section is based on the difference between the postprogram behavior of Corpsmembers and what their behavior would have been had they not participated in Job Corps. For ease of presentation, the discussion is sometimes presented as if there were,no underlying differences between the Corpsmember and comparison groups, so that the impacts of Job Corps can be characterized by direct contrasts between the behavior of Corpsmembers and that of comparison-group members. Of course, the statistical techniques used (see Chapter Ill) attempt to compensate for any underlying differences between the Corpsmember and comparison groups. In addition, all the hypotheses discussed herein are weakened when allowances are made for the alternative training and education programs available to youths. In most of the empirical sections of this report we measure Job Corps impacts relative to :what Corpsmembers' activities would have been had they not participated in Job Corps. In the absence of Job Corps, many Corpsmembers would not have obtained zero training and related services but, instead, would have received some amount of alternative education, training, and work experience that they foregp to participate in Job Corps.

27 TABLE II.1

SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES FOR PROGRAM IMPACTS ON PART/C/PAv'S

Relative to their nonparticipation in the program, participants will--

1. Employment and Earnings

o Have more employment o Have more stable employment o Have higher earnings o Have higher wage rates

2. Znvestments in Human Capital

o Be more likely to have productive work experiences o Be more likely to return to school or to continue their education in other ways, especially at higher levels of education o Be more likely to participate in training programs o Be healthier o Be more geographically mobile o Be more likely to qualify for military service

3. Dependence on Welfare and Other Public Transfers

o Have reduced receipt. of cash transfer payments o Have reduced receipt of in-kind transfer payments

4. Antisocial Behavior

o Be less likely to engage in criminal activities o Be less likely to abuse drugs and alcohol

28 56 Investments in Human Capital. Economists define "investments in human capital" as current activities that lead to future increases in productivity and, hence, earnings potential (indirect program effects on productivity and earnings). In this evaluation we will consider six types of investments in hudan capital: (1) work experience (see above), (2) education, (3) training, (4) improved health, (5) geographic mobility, and

(6) military service.

Work-experience, education, and training programs are important placement alternatives to regular employment for Job Corps terminees, especially for younger Corpsmembers. Many of the younger terminees could still profit from additional work experience, schooling, and training after they leave Job Corps; moreover, job placements are often difficult for them to obtain. Therefore; both the impact and benefit-cost analyses must take into account any postprogram increases in such investments in human capital. While increased employment and higher earnings continue to'be the long-run goals of both the program and participant, work-experience, education, and training programs are important short-term, intervening factors that might lead to increased employment and higher earnings in the future.

We hypothesize that former Corpsmembers have greater probabilities of participating in higher levels of work-experience, education, and training programs than comparison-group members. However, to the extent that Job Corps succeeds in improving immediate postprogram labor-market opportunities (thereby increasing the opportunity cost of time spent in human-capital programs), this hypothesis is weakened. In any case, it is expected that former Corpsmembers will be more likely to participate in higher-level programs than would youths in the comparison group and will be

29 57 more likely to complete any given level (i.e., more likely to obtain advanced degrees or certificates).

An additional hypothesis that fails into the category of ,human - capital investments is that participation in Job Corps increases geographic mobility. This is supported by the tact that the Job Corps. program provides services that help terminees relocate to areas in which employment opportunities exist. We also expect that the additional income from earnings, as well as the health education and treatments provided by

Job Corps, will lead to the improved health status of former Corplmembers relative to youths in the comparison group.

The expected effect of Job Corps on enrollment in the military is somewhat ambiguous; it is unclear whether former Corpsmenbers should be more or less likely to enlist in the military. They might be more likely to enlist for the human-capital investments associated with military service (e.g., for the vocational-training aspects and broadened experiences), or they might be less likely to enlist because of the increased opportunity cost of their time (i.e., better job opportunities in the civilian labor force). However, we do hypothesize that JOb Corps terminees who take the Armed Forces Qualifying Test are more likely than comparison-group members to pa's the test. In addition, military service is'an etfITeit placement target for some Corpsmembers, and GED training in

Job Corps should increase both the opportunity toleplist and the rewards for doing db.1/

-'The working relationshipbetween Job Corps and the military, which was initiated by the signing of a memorandum of understanding by the Department of Labor and the Department of Defense on January 13, 1978, should facilitate the enlistment of Job Corps terminees into the military service.

30 58 t

Demtndence on Welfare_and Qther Public Transfees. A set of hypotheses that are closely related to labor-market activities concernsthe effects of Job Corps participation on welfare dependence.Of course,

Corpsmembers experience a reduction in welfare receipt while they are at the centers. In addition, because of increased earnings atter leaving Job

Corps, former Corpsmembers are expected to receive fewer transfers -- including AFDC, General Assistance, Food Stamps, public housing, Unemploy- ment Insurance, and Workers' Compensation--than they would have received otherwise during the postprogram period.

These transfer-payment effects of Job Corps might be attenuated

(or possibly reversed) if participants become more knowledgeable about the nuances of transfer programs and, consequently, increase their participation in them. In addition, those Corpsommbers who seek additional training or education in the postprogram period might obtain a temporary increase in their transfer payments. Nevertheless. on balance, the amount of transfer V payments received by Corpsmembers is expected to be lower than that received by the comparison group both during the program and in the postprogram period.

Antisocial Behavior. Corpsmembers are expected to reduce drug and alcohol abuse and have lower probabilities of engaging in criminal behavior as a result of the program. While the Corpsmembers are at the centers, both of these responses should be very large because their activities are greatly restricted, their behavior is closely monitored, and their maternal needs are met; consequently, they have few opportunities and less incentive to engage in drug abuse or crime. After Corpsmembers leave the program, these reductions in antisocial behavior' are expected to continue, but probably at a smaller rate. The postprogram reductions in antisocial

33. 59 behavior stem from the entire Job Corps effort to increase employability in

order.tc prombte more regular lifestyles- -from vocational tiaining and

educational services to general qounseling and center living. Training and

education are important because, to the extent that Job Corps increases the

employability and the educational abilities of Corps:members, legitimate

activities become increasingly more attractive than illegitimate

activities.

3;Comparative Evaluation_pf tenefits and Casts

The purpose of the comparative evaluation of benefits and costs is

to determine whether 'program benefits outweigh costa; Does society have

more gpods and services at its disposal because of the investment in Job

4 4 Corps?The hetefit-cost analysis, which is presented in Chapter VIII,

builds upon the results for participant benefits and compares the dollar

values of benefits and costs. Implementing a benefit-cost assessment is

especially difficult for a program such as Job Corps, which has a wide

range of potential effects that could occur ever several years. The key

elements of our benefit-cost analysis are summarized in Chapter VIII and

presented in more detail in Technical Report Q.

4. Evaluation Design

The previous sections summarized the objectives in an evaluation of

the economic impact of Job Corps. It should be clear from.the discussion

that the study design must.be comprehensive in order to address all of the

relevant policy and research issues. This section summarizes. the

evaluation design we developed to meet the objectives of the study.

Comparison-Group Methodology.During the design phase of this

study,' much effort was devoted to selecting an appropriate comparison

I 32 - group. Program operational considerations and the need for quick

turnaround of findings prohibited the random assignment of potential Job

Corps enrollees to nonparticipant status. Therefore, it was necessary to

devote considerable effort in developing a suitable group of

nonparticipants and appropriate statistical procedures with which to

compare Corpsmember behavior, so that the hypothesized impacts of the

program could be tested and the magnitude of the effects of the program

estimated, and so as to increase the reliability of estimates (i.e., reduce

the sensitivity of estimates to reasonable changes in the underlying

assumptions).

within the constraint against randomization and the budget and time

limitations for-the evaluation, we had to develop a sample design that

would both minimize bias' and maximize efficiency in estimating the effects

of Job Corp.'s1 We had to take into account two important factors--

(1) that Job Corps was geographically clustered in terms of both:the home

areas in which Corpsmembers lived and where the centers were located, and

(2) that in order to obtain findings quickly enough for DOI, we would have

to sample from Corpsmembers already enrolled in the program.The

comparison-group procedure we judged most efficient called for sequential

matchingfirst obtaininvappropriate comparison sites and then finding

1/The fundamental objective ofour comparison-group design, survey data collection, and econometric procedures has been to obtain consistent and precise estimates of program effects in the absence of an experimental design. However, only with an experimental design is it possible to ensure a knowledgeable degree of statistical confidence without relying on some modeling assumptions. Our attempt has been to design the evaluation so that the necessary modeling assumptions are minimal and plausible (for more details, see Chapter III).

33 61 appropriate youths within those sites. Finally, we included in the baseline questionnairedetailediinformation.about the Corpsmemberai socioeconomic backgrounds, so that the comparability of the Corpamembir and comparison groups could be tested and any important differences could be controlled with statistical techniques.

The first step waa to eliminate a few program sites in order to reduce the probability of self-selectior biases (e.g., more highly motivated youths, or leas employable youths, enrolling in Job Corps).

These few eliminated sites were defined as geographical areas that are saturated by Job Corps participation, where youths not entering Job Corps

could not be preaumed to be similar to Corpsmembera (e.g., very high

proportions of eligible youths entering the program from the site of or a s_ location near a Job Corps center, so that those not entering are likely to

be systematically efferent from Corpamembers). In practice, this meant

that three-digit ZIP code areas in which Job Corpa centers were located

were excluded as potential comparison-groupsitea.1/ The nonsaturated

areas were then assigned selection probabilities in proportion to their

similarities to the home areas of Corpsmembers, based primarily on the

poverty and racial composition of the areas as determined from Cenaua

data.2/

1/Ofcourse, there was some (varying) amount of Job Corps participation within the comparison-groUp sitea and some overlap in the realdential locations of our Corpamember and comparison samples.

2/Socioeconomic characteristicsof the home areas of recent Job Corpa participanta were uaed to select the locations of the comparison - group altos. The Primary Samnling Units (PSU3) were five-digit ZIP code areaa in urban locations (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas) and three-digit ZIP code areas in rural locations. Data from the 1970 Census on population density, geographic location, percent of poverty families, mean family income, housing quality, percent of young (16- to 21-year-old)

34 62 Once the control sites were chosen, youths living in those areas

were assigned selection probabilities in proportion to their similarity to

Job Corps Participants (i.e., actual participants and not just Job Corps

eligibles), based on their poverty status, age, race, and educational

status. Names of youths,. their personal characteristics, and addresses.

were obtained from school dropout lists and from local employment-service

offices. Together, these two list sources provided an adequate sampling

frame from the universe of youths who participate in Job Corps. School

dropout lists identified young recent dropouts who were similar to

approximately 70 percent of the Corpsmembers, and the active files at local

employment services provided older youths who had been out of school for a

- longer time and were similar to the other 30 percent of Corpsmembers.

A stratified random sample of youths was chosen from the lists for or* inclusion in the comparison group, with proportional sampling within

strata, except that females were oversampled relative to their proportion

adults, percent of Hispanic youths, percent of black youths, and youth unemployment rates in the PSUs were used to assign selection probabilities. Regression analysis was used to determine which.of these variables would best predict the home regions of Corpsmembers. For both three-digit and five-digit ZIP nodes, the best predictor was the percent of families in the region whose income was below the poverty level and which were headed by someone younger than 54 year of age. The second best predictor was the percent of minority youths in the region. The percent of poverty families by itself explained nearly 30 percent of the variances in the proportion of Job Corps enrollments by ZIP code regions. Probabilities of selection were then assigned to all of the nonsaturated ZIP code areas in the United States, proportional to their similarity to the home,areas of Job Corps participants, as measured by the percent of poverty families. Proportional stratifications by race and region of the country were also. maintained (see Technical Reports A and B for more details).

35 63 1/ to increase the efficiency .of estimates computed separately by sex.

This quasi-experimental design seems appropriate for our evaluation and,

together with the data we obtained on individuals and our econometric procedures (see further'in Chapter III), should lead to reasonably accurate estimates of the economic impact of the program.The assumptions necessary

to calculate unbiased and relatively efficient estimates of the program

treatment effects seem plausible provided that appropriate statistical

techniques are used (see further in Chapter III).2/No overlap was allowed

between the Job Corps and comparison-group samples, and after statistical

controls (see further in Chapter III), the Corpsmember sample should differ

from the comparison group primarily in terms of access to Job Corps centers

and knowledge of the program.31

Sample Size and Selection. The sample-selection procedutes were

based on the necessity of balancing the evaluation, operational, and cost

"The targetfor the male:female ratio was 50:50 in the comparison group, as opposed to the 70:30 split for the Job Corps sample, in order to obtain increased precision in separate estimates for females.

2/As used here, "unbiased*'means that, on average, the estimator should yield a value close to the "true', one. In other words, any biases are both likely to be small and unlikely to affect the, substantive findings of our evaluation. Of course, all estimates are biased to some extent because all statistical models only approximate reality. 'Efficiency" means that the estimator has a smaller variance than any other with the same (or smaller) amount of bias and using the same data.

"Thecomparison-group methodology is further explained and assessed in Technical Reports A and C. Also, seeKerachsky and Mallar (1978).

36 64 considerations.I/ ,For the Job Corps sample, the strategy we chose was to select a random sample of participants in the program at a point Lb time.

For analytical purposes, an enrollment-based sample would have had more appeal, but would have been much more expensive, would have yielded many early dropouts, and would have greatly delayed the research findings.

The sample size was targeted to be large enough to ensure a high probability of observing' statistically significant impacts if the "true*

Job Corps effects are large enough to be policy-relevant. Specifically, the sample size was chosen to be large enough to have a 90 percent chance of obtaining statistically significant Job Corps effects for employ 2ent and related activities if the *true* net present value of 'fob Corps training is positive (i.e., if the *true" benefit-cost ratio is greater than one).If the Job Corps program is economically effiCient, we should, and do (see

Chapters IV through VIII), observe many statistically significant effects of Job Corps on employment and related activities. The sample size for

Corpamembers was targeted to be larger than for the comparison group because of interest in estimating differenti21 program impacts among subgroups of Cdrp3MeMbetrS.21

To obtain an area probability sample, we used standard procedures to randomly select approximately one-third of the Corpsmembers in the

1/The sampledesign was chosen to minimize the cost of obtaining the desired level of statistical precision for estimates of Job Corps effects (see Technical Report A).

"Forfurther details and justification, see Technical Report A.

37 65 -J program during April 1977. Each Corpsmember then at a center had an equal probability of being selected (approximately ane-third).1/ For the base-

line survey, 5,297 Corpsmembers were selected, and 5,133 of thOse were interviewed (completed interviews) during April and May of 1977. The:first

follow-up sample of Corpsmembers included everyone from the original sample who had left Job Corps before October 15, 1977 and, hence, who had been out

of Jcb Corps for at least five months (2,887 youths), and 2,417 Corpsmember

interviews were completed.

Tb^ second follow-up Sample of Corpsmembers included all those who

had left Job Corps before April,15, 1978 (4,347 youths), and 3,042 Corps-

member interviews were completed.2/ The third follow-up sample of Corps-

members was the same as the second, excluding 13 .Corpemembers who died

(thus yielding a total of 4,334 youths), Snd 2,791 Carpathember interviews

were completed. survey response rates for Corpameibers between

the three follow-ups were, respectively, 84, 79, and 92 percent, and the

4/Therewere only two excluiions from the sampling frame- - youths or centers outside the continental United States, and nonresident Corpsmembers. Justifications for these sample exclusions are presented below.

2/By the second follow-upsurvey, 85 percent of the baseline Job Corps sample had been included in the follow-up sample. The 15 percent who had.not been included were composed of partial and full , completers with long stays in the program. Their exclusion is cost- efficient for three reasons: (1) they have a short postprogram experience, (2) our sample sizes are adequate for these groups without them, and (3) leaving them out approximately offsets any biases from a point-in-time survey that overrepresents long-term stayers within the completion categories.

38 66 cumulative response rates from baseline were, respectively, 84, 70, and 65 pereent.1/

For the comparison sample, 1,496 youths were interviewed at baseline, but 39 wera.lost over time due to deaths and attempts to enter

Job Corps. All of the cempirison-group obseriationswere attempted at each follow-up, and the numbers of completions were, respectively, 1,306; 1,267, and 1,118. Thus, the survey response rates between the, three follow-up surveys for the comparison samples were, respectively, 87, 97, and 89 percent, and the cumulative response rates from baseline were, rappec- tively, 87, 85, and 75 percent.

Note that Corpsmembers who drop out of the program early are less likely than program completers to be at a center at any point in time; hence, they will be underrepresented by point-in-time sampling such as ours.2/ Witb our point-in-time sampling, there are proportionally more

'Over time,the base for these completion rates includes more and , more eases that cannot be interviewed (e.g., deceased youths), anddthe real base shrinks.over time. The completion rates are lower for the Job Corps sample at the second follow-up, because one-half of the sample was ohntacted solely by telephone (for further details, see below, as'well as Technical Reports B, H, and P).

2/For our purpose, the fundamental difference between "enrollees" and "participants" is that Corpsmembers who stay in the program a lbng time (i.e., program completers) will be overrepresented in participant samples compared to all enrollees. Among Job Corps enrollees, a Vgh proportion (approximately 40 percent) leave the program within nineti days. These early dropouts are replaced continuously by new Corpamembers, so that a sample of participants at a point is time has a higher proportion of completers than found among enrollees. For the MPR evaluation of Job Corps, a high proportion of program completers is desirable because the impact of the program on early dropouts is probably negligible and differential impacts for different programs and Corpsmembers could occur among program completers. In Chapter III we explain how the observations are reweighted to obtain unbiased estimates applicable to all enrollees..

39 67 .41.)

%),

program completers in-the sample of Corpamembers than would:generally.be. obtained from a sampling frame based on all enrollees.For all enrollees in fiscal 1977, approximately 40 percent were classified as early dropouts

(terminated during their first ninety days), 30 percent were classified as having completed only a portion of the .program, and 30 percent were classified as having completed a full program; the,corresponding percent-

, ages for our second follow-up sample are, respectively, 9, 35, and 56 -) percent. To obtain estimates that are applicable to an average enrollee will necessitate reweigbting the data (see further in Chapter III). 'Fa Two exclusions were Made from the Job Corps sampling frame-

Corpsmembers in centers or from regions outside of the continental United

States, and those not residing.at centers. This was done for two reasons:

(1) those two groups represent only a. small proportion of Corpsiembers

(less than 1 percent and approximately 5 percent, respectively), and (2)_ their backgrounds' and program treatment seem systematically different from the main group, which would probibly.require separate analyses (which would.necessaily be imprecise for these two additional groups) and would reduce the priCision of estimates for the main group.

Data Collection All three primary research topics (short-term impacts, duration of effects, and benefit -coat estimates) require in-depth data on each sample member that must be obtained from persona/ interviews.

Alternative interviewing strategies were examined to identify the method that would. best minimize response errors, cost, and analytical difficulties. We adopted a strategy that consisted of 'administering four setsof interviews. The first set.was administered in person to Corpsmembers at centers and to the comparison sample in their limes. The purpose of the

68 POO 40 first interview was to collect baseline data on the pre-enrollment period

for the Job Corps sample and the same data over a similar period for the

compagpon sample. The timing of these interviews represents a compromise

between minimizing the length of the recall period and maximizing the

length of the observation period.

The first follow-up intervieui were administered in person approxi-

oately nine months after the baseline. The entire comparison sample and a

subset of the Job Corps sample were reinterviewed. The subset of the Job

Corps group included all members of the original sample who had terminated

from the program at least five months prior to the first follow-up inter-

view (an effective cut-off date of leaving Job Corps by October 15, 1977).

This criterion ensured an adequate period of postprogram observation within

the constraints of the overall budget and the time permitted for the First

Follow -fin Report (Aallar et al., 1978). The first follow-up sample of

Corpsmembers had been out of the program for a time ranging,from five to

nine months, an average of seven months at the time of the survey.

For the second follow-up survey the Job Corps sample size was

Increased by extending the cut-off date of Job Corps termination from

October 15; 1977 to April 15, 1978 (yielding a lal.ger sample size by

including 1,462 additional Corpsmembers compared to the first follow-up,

and excluding only very long-term stayers who had been overrepresented at

baseline). The second follow-up sample of Corpsmembers had been out of the

program for up to two years and ateast one full year; an average of

eighteen months at the time of the survey. The third follow-up sample

69 41 was essentially the same as the second,l/ except that torpsmembers had been

out of the program between three-and-one-half and four-and-one-half years,

an average of nearly fouryears.2/

The only major change in survey ,procedures between the first and

second follow-up surveys involved two deciiions--(1) to use a mixed-mode

interviewing strategy and (2) to switch the primary interviewing mode from

in-person interviewing to telephone interviewing.3/ However, in oNter to

"Thesame identical sample was pursued in the third follow-up survey as in the second, except for sample members who )ad died by the time of the second follow-up and comparison youths who had attempted to --enroll in Job Corps. A reduced sample size could have seriously jeopardized the number of observations and the precision of estimates, because the response rate was already expected to be substantially' ower for the third follow-up than for the second because of the length of the intervening time period. Furthermore, the only way to increase'the.sample size would hive been to add more of the Corpsmembers who had been in the program too long to'be included at the second follow-up.However, it would have been very expensive to find them (they had not been interviewed since baseline), and they were all very long -term stayers in the program who were already overrepresented in our sample.

"The increasedtime period.between the second and third follow-up surveys is advantageous because it greatly extends the length of the postprogram observation period. However, it places greater burden on the survey procedures, because of the added risks of reduced response rates and increased recall errors. Therefore, the questionnaire and related survey- procedures from the second follow-up were carefully reviewed and modified based both on our experience from the previous Job Corps surveys and on recent evidence from other survey research. 'The same basic questions were asked in the interview, with only slight modifications in order to (1) allow for the longer time period (e.g., more activity grids, multiple changes in marital status, changes-in wage rates within jobs, etc.), (2) encourage better recall (e.g., basing the questions on a major event, such as January 1, rather than on previous interview dates), and (3) clarify a few wordings that had caused minor problems in the second follow-up.

This survey process is described further in Technical Reports B, H, and P. The desirability of telephone interviewing at the second and third follow-up surveys is documented in Technical Reports H and P and is supported by the analysis of nonresponse (seeChapter IX and Technical Report L).:

42 reduce the nonresponse problems associated with conducting a telephone sur7ey of a sample that contains a large proportion of disadvantaged youths, in-person interviews were also attempted for sample.members who either could not be located by telephone or were located but did not respond to a telephone attempt. The cost-efficient design for the second follow-up led to the targeting of all the comparison-group sites and one- half of the Corpsmember sites for in-person interviews if telephone attempts were unsuccessful. At the third follow-up,'we attempted to interview everyone in person (except for a pew youths living in remote areas) it they could not be interviewed by telephone.

The comparative evaluation of benefits and costs required additional data. Data on program costs were provided by the national Job

Corps office. These cost data were supplemented with information from Job

Corps centers on center expenditures that were not included in Job Corps financial data and from the Office of Management.ind Budget on federal administrative costs that were not included in the Job Corps financial data. In addition, special studies were made of a. random

selection of Job Corps work projects in order to value the products and services produced in the projects.1/Finally, dollar values for many of

the benefits had to be imputed from secondary data sources.2I

1./Thiswork is described further ih Technical Reports D, E, F, K, and Q.

2/SeeChapter VIII and Technical Reports D, K, and Q. for more details.

43 4.

III. ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

Before presenting our findings on the economic impact of Job Corps,

we first discuss the underlying procedures used to estimate the effects of

Job Corps on participants' hehavidr. The purpo'm of this chapter is to

document, explain, and justify the qUantitative techniques that were used.

,Thus, by necessity, this chapter deviates somewhat from the objective of'

making this report readily accessible and comprehensible to a wide audience

of informed policymakers who are interested in eduPation and training

programs for disadvantaged youths. Readers who have only a limited

understanding of or interest in econometrics might wish to skim this

chapter or proceed instead to the substantive findings in Chapters IV

through VIII.

We begin this chapter by providing background information on how

the data were arrayed. Next, we discuss the regression techniques used to

adjust for both observed and unobserved differences between the Job Corps

and comparison groups, and then discuss the disaggregations necessary to

obtain adequate overall estimates and to understand the overall findings.

We conclude by Presenting samples of the details on the actual regression

estimates.

DATA ARRAYS

The additional data from the third follow-up survey enable us to

obtain more accurate estimates of Job Corps effects than were previously

possible, due to the substantial increase in the length of the postprogram

observation period. By the time of the third follow-up survey, the sampled

Corpsmembers had been out of the program from 42 to 54 months, with an

44 72 average per Corpamember of nearly Z$8 months. This represents a 167.percent increase in the length of the postprogram-time period compared to the data set at the end orthe'second follow-up survey, at which time the sampled

Corpsmembers had been'out of the program fiom 12 to 24 months, with an average per Corpsmember of approximately 18 months.

The sample for the third follow-up survey wes the same as for the second, and, as with the previous follow-up surveys, we attempted to obtain detailed between-interview histories of youths' employment and earnings, education andstralning, receipt of public assistance, 'criminal behavior, and related activities.1/ The full panel of postOrogram observations-- incorporating all relevant data from the first, second, and third follow-up surveys--was organized into quarterly aggregates for each'youth who was ever in the evaluation sample. Quarterly aggregates were used because they are straightforward, preserve most of the variation in the data over time, allow estimates of the several potential Job Corps effects to be computed at feasible cost, and allow the time trends of interest to be examined.

The data were, arrayed into quarterly aggregates by calendar quarters according to seasons -- summer (June, July, and,Auguit), fall

(September, -October, and November), winter (December, January, and -

February), and spring (March, April, and:May); this delineation of quarters

1/Infact, the time frames for the fellow-up interviews overlap. In order to encourage better recall, the beginning dates for the questions were always an earlier, more salient calendar date (e.g., January 1 of the relevant year), rather than the date of the Previous interview, which would have been unlWely to have had much intrinsiA meaning, to respondents. In setting up data arrays and constructing analysis files, we always used the data that embbdied the least amount of recall. Examination of the overlap data indicates that there are substantial recall errors, but they do not appear to result in any systematic biases (i.e., they appear.to add only "white noise").

45 73 differs from the usual fiscal quarters but enables us to take better account of the influences of seasonality. The first quarter For which we obtained any postprogram data for any youth was spring 1977; the last quarter was fall 1981.Therefore, for each youth, we have up to nineteen quarterly observations in the postprogram period that can be pooled in the statistical analysis. The average for someone who was interviewed in each of the follow-ups is approximately seventeen quarters of observations, including partial quarters at the beginning and end-of the overall observation period.

Many of the quarterly outcome variables were defined as the fraction of time in the quarter during which the youth was in an activity (for example, the fraction of time employed). The fraction of time provides a very flexible specification that can easily be translated into any desired units of time per time period. For example, to obtain the number of weeks on an annualized basis, we would simply multiply the fraction of time by 52, the number of weeks in a year.

. In addition to the fraction of time in important activities, outcome variables were defined' as the average or total over the quarter for commonly used unitsfor example, averages of hours worked per week or earnings per week, and total numbers of arrests per quarter (on a six-month basis, since we disaggregated Impact estimates on that basis).For explanatory variablesth are not constant over a quarterly time period

(i.e., age, calendar t e, and length of time out of Job Corps), the quarterly arrays used the value of the variable at the midpoint of the quarter.

46 74 B. ECONOMETRIC METHODOLOGY

The objective of our comparison-group and our other econometric procedures 13 tp obtain unbiased estimates of the impact of Job Corps on participantbehaviorl/and as precise estimates as possible within the constraints of the project. Since an experimental design 'was not feasible

. _ for this evaluationstudy,2Isome degree of modeling and assumptions will

be necessary 1n order to draw statistical inferences. Our overall study design has been developed to minimize the amount and maximize the plausibility of the modeling and assumptions underlying the estimates.

10, In this section we first present the justification for using a

comparison-group strategy and establish the necessity of .controlling for

observed an d)u nobserved differences between the Job Corps and comparison groups. We then outline the actual procedures we used to select the

comparison group, to control for observed differences, and to control for

unobserved differences, respectively.

1. Controlling for Observed and Unobserved Differences Detweea Corosmembers and Comparison 'Youths

An experimental design was not feasible for this evaluation study

because of operational considerations (exacerbated by an on -going program)

1/Weare using "unbiased* here to mean .asvmototicallv unbiased; under usual assumptions, the estimators we develop have the large sample Property of statistical consistency.

21Anexperimental design was not feasible due to the difficulties associated with an experimental intervention into the selection process of an on-going national program like Job Corps, and due to the necessity of obtaining postprogram findings within a very short time frame (nine months

after baseline), such that any program completers would still be in Job . Corps with a new cohort of enrollees. For further details, see Kershaw, Mailer, and Metcalf (1976).

75 47 and because the sponsoring agency wanted findings more quickly than could

be obtained by following a new cohort of enrollees. As discussed in our

previous reports, participants could not serve as their own controls.

Before-after differences for participants are inadequate measures of

program impacts for youths whose behavior will change naturally with aging

and for otherigroups whose pre-enrollment behavior reflects a transient

state and, hence, for whom substantial changes in behavior can be expected

to take place over time in the absence of any program impact. Therefore,

if an experimental design is infeasible, an effective comparison-group

strategy must be devised in order to draw reliable Itatistical inferences

about program impacts.

Even with an efficient comparison-group design and implementation,

however, simple program/comparison-group differences in sample means are

unreliable estimators of program effects because observed and unobserved

differences can be present. In general, with the absence-of random

assignment, it is not possible to ensure the elimination of unobserved

differences with any measurable degree of certainty. Some modeling and

assumptions are necessary in nonexperimental contexts in order to draw

statistical inferences, and the plausibility of the modeling and

assumptions is somewhat judgmental.

Generally, before-after differences would greatly overstate the

beneficial economic impact of youth training programs because youths are

just beginning to enter labor markets, and their economic prospects would

improve substantially with age even in the absence of any training program.

In contrast, both the direction and magnitude of bias with simple program/

comparison-group differences would be unknown a priori, even if there are

48 76 no observed differences between the groups. Youths with the greatest likelihood of participating in Job Corps could be dominated either by those

7 who, for unobserved reasons, perform inordinately well in training programs

(i.e., enter Job Corps because they will receive relatively large benefits) or by those who, for unobserved reasons, perform especially poorly outside the program(i.e.t enter Job Corps because of poor labor-market performance, causing a low opportunity cost to reducing their effort in the regular labor market and entering the program).Thus, given these competing factors in self-selection and recruitment into Job Corps, youths who choose to parlicipate in the program could be more or less-productive in unobsoirved dimensions than observationally similar nonparticipants.1/

Given the above considerations, it seems clear that a multiple- variable statistical approach is necessary--one that controls for both' observed and unobserved differences between the Job Corps and comparison groups. In our First Follow-Up Report we relied heavily on a relatively simple regression adjustment that was based on the change over time in program-comparison differences in sample means (or, equivalently, on the program-comparison differences in changes in sample means over time). In addition, we were able to show that our basic findings were not changed substantially for a wide range of more and less complicated econometric techniques based on very different assumptions, although the estimated dollar value of the benefits did vary considerably (see Mailer, 1979).

However, the change-in-differences methodology assumes that if

Corpsmembers had not entered Job Corps, the growth rates in the outcome

"Furthermore,we cannot infer that the biases are smell in magnitude simply because the direction is ambiguous.

49 variables of interest would be the same over time on average for the

Corpsmember and comparison groups- -and such an assumption becomes less tenable as the period of postprogram observation lengthens. Further, with added observations (i.e., more degrees of freedom) and recent developments in computational procedures, less restrictive techniques (which are more complex computationally) become practicable. Therefore; in the analysis

for both the Second Follow-Up Report and the present report, we revession approaches that control for both observed and unobserved differences between the Job Corps and comparison groups, but which have

less restrictive'underlying assumptions than the change-in-differences

techniqUe.

2. ThrCaliarlaiLfazu

Our comparison-group strategy was designed to yield a sample of

youths who were similar to Corpsmembers, but who did not enter the

program largely because they had little or no knowledge about the program.

The basic comparison-group procedure entailed the random selection

of eligible nonparticipants who were similar to Corpsmembers in observed

characteristics and who lived in geographic areas similar to the neigh-

borhoods where Corpsmembers lived before entering Job Corps centers.1/

In addition, sites that were very proximate to centers--neighborhoods

within the three-digit ZIP code areas where centers were located--were

eliminated from consideration as comparison sites. The rationale for

eliminating these sites was based on the fact that participation in and

knowledge of the Job Corps program was likely to be prevalent in these

sites, so that youths who lived there out who did not participate in Job

1/Formore details, see Section 8 of Chapter II. so 78 Corps were suspected of being dissimilar to Corpsmembers. This con-

Parison strategy was feasible for four reasons: (1) there were large numbers of eligible youths who were similar in observed characteristics to participating Corpsmembers but who did not attempt to enter Job Corps,1/

(2) program participation was geographically clustered bedause of historical locations and liMited recruitment, (3) there were many areas of the country where Job Corps did not recruit heavily but which were otherwise similar to the recruitment areas, and ('I) most Corpsmembers first learned about the program from friend$ or relatives (see Kerachsky and

Mailer, 1978).

A comparison-group procedure yielding a sample of youths who are similar in observed characteristics to Corpsmembers but who do not participate largely because they do not know about the program should yield a relatively efficient comparison group (see further below). Members of the comparison sample should be similar to Corpsmembers, and, as a result, estimatelof program effects should be less sensitive to varying the assumptions about observed and unobserved differences between the program and comparison groups than under other Potential comparison -group methodologies (see Haller, 1979). However, the comparison sample could still differ substantially tram Corpsmembers either in observed characteristics, by chance, or in unobserved dimensions, by chance, or because Corpsmembers come from an extreme tail of the distribution of important unobserved factors, while the comparison sample is drawn more randomly across the speotrum.

"Forexample, the National Commission for Manpower Policy (1978) estimated that 132 eligible youths were available for every Job *Corps. slot.

$1 79 3. Controlling for Observed Differences Between Corbsmembers and CDonlaiison Youths

Our basic econometric model of behavior suggests that the behavior

of interest (e.g., employment and related activities) is affected by Job

Corps treatments, -other observed explanatory variables, and unobserved

factors. This can be approximated by a single-equation, linear regression:

Y 6,X + ' + E it I -.it it'

th where Y is the economic behavior of interest for the i indlVidual it th during the t time period; the Ps are coefficients for explanatory

Variables; the X's are explanatory variables (exogenous) and lagged values

of dependent variables from pre-enrollment that explain the behavior of

interest; the y's are program.effects on the behavior of interest; the T's

are program-treatment variables; and c ip an error term. 1

Table III.1 documents the explanatory variables that are included

in our regressions as direct controls for observed differences between

Corpsmembers and comparison youths. These variables are based on factors

that have previously been found to affect productivity, employment, and

related behavior. They control for age (5 variables); pre-enrollment

education (3 variables); race/ethnicity (4 variables); pre-enrollment

health {1 variable); seasonality (3 variables) and time trends (1 variable);

1/Thetypes of behaviors of interest in this study are related. . Therefore, some gains in statistical efficiency could be achieved by using a multiple-equation technique that accounts for correlations in error terms across equations, such as a seemingly unrelated regression procedure. However, the gains in. statistical efficiency' with a seemingly unrelated regression approach would be small at best, because the explanatory variables are nearly identical fru' all of the types of behavior that we examine.

52 80

I and pre-enrollment experiences with employment (1 variable), welfare

.(1 variabie),'illegal activities (1 variable), anddmg.use (2 variables).

The explanatory variables will. adjust for any observed differences in these

dimensions and will also yield smaller estimated standard errors for the

coefficients of the Job Corps treatment variables by reducing the estimated

standard error of the regression. (These are good arguments for using the

regression approach, even when an experimental design is implemented.) Even

though our earlier findings (see kerachsky and Mallar, 1977) suggested that

the Job Corps and comparison'groups,were'reasoqably well matched on

observable variables, it is still prudent to control for any remaining

differences.

In developing thexplanatory variables,' we used current values

only for factors that absolutely could not be-affected by Job Corps

participation. If Job Corps participation could Conceivably affect the

explanatory variable, then a pre-enrollment value was used. This ensures

that the coefficients for theJob Corps variables measure the total impact

of program treatments and are not diluted by other variables that

indirectly measure part of the impact (although at some cost in terms of

less explanatory power and larger standard errorslfor the regressions).

The correlation of error terms for the same individual over time

was accounted for in an error-components (or variance-components) model.

This model should yield greater efficiency for coefficient estimates and

more accurate estimatesof standard errors than ordinary least.squares

(OLS) estimates (for more' details, see Maddala, 1971; Nerlove, 1971a and

53 f

1971b; and Wallace and Hussain, 1969).1/ A two-stage procedure was used with the variance component for individual youths, estimated'fro6 a first- stage OLS regression and then substituted into a second-stage generalized least squares framework.2/

The computational routine that we used enabled us to include individuals with varying lengths of postprogram observation, and allowed individuals to have missing periods of data (early, late, or intervening quarters) .3/ Allowing for varying lengths of time and missing quarters is an essential feature of our application, since Corpsmembers left Job Corps at different times, and, hence, their postprogram data start at varying points in time (as much as one year apart). Also, different youths missed various interviews or-could not recall an intervening date or other piece of information that affects some quarters but not others, and we want to use all available information. Seasonality and time trends across

1/The point-in-time probabilitymodels with binary dependent variables (e.g., the probabilities of military service during the survey week, of having a high school diploma or GED by the survey week, and of being in jail during the survey week) were estimated with probit maximum likelihood techniques, with one observation per individual youth.

2/The lagged values of dependent variables from pre-enrollient cannot reasonably be assumed to be strictly predetermined when we pool observations for individual youths over time. These lagged dependent variables are generally endogenous if we assume (as we must) that equation error terms are correlated over time for individuals. However, using estimators of error variances and covariances from ordinary least squares residuals will still yield consistent estimators of coefficients in a second-stage generalized least squares technique when the error-components model is appropriate, as we assume in our estimation procedure (for more details and prriofs, see Wallace and Hussain, 1969, and Nerlove, 197.1a and 1971b).

3/For documentation of the computational routine, see Avery (1975).

54 82 individuals are specified explicitly in the regression equations (the error term for our econometric model includes only an individual component, and no time component).

4. Controlling for Unobserved Differences Between Corosmembers and Comparisonpaths

In addition to controlling for observed factors that affect the

Llehavior of interest, we should use.i..n econometric methodology that controls for unobserved differences between samplesspecifically, in this application, to control for unobserved differences between youths in the

Job Corps and comparison groups (for example, unobserved differences in employability, trainability, and motivation).With the technique we use

to control for unobserved differences, the basic procedure entails modeling and estimating program participation and then including in the regression equations a control variable that is a function Of the/estimated probability of program participation.

With a nonrandomized control group (a comparison group) the program -

treatment variables, T'3, in equation (1) are potentially correlates with

the error term, e. Many important unobserved variables that affect the economic behavior of interest are also likely to affect individual decisions about whether to participate in the program and, benne, the T's.

Therefore, the T's are potentially endogenous with respect to the behavior of interest, in which case least squares (LS) regression estimators will generally be biased.

As an example, variables such as innate ability and motivation are

not observed directly; however,, they undoubtedly affect both employment-

related behavior and the decision about whether to participate in Job Corps

(or in other similar programs).If Ywtbs are motivated to maximize their

55 83 incomes, then any variable that affects employment and income will also affect decisions' about whether or not to attempt to participate in Job

Corps. Thus, the same unobserved variables can be important elements ill the error terms for bot::. X and the T's with a comparisdn group. This is in contrast to the situation with a randomized control group, in which unobserved (as well as observed) variables should tend to be orthogonal to

(or uncorrelated with) the T's. When a comparison group is used, the T's will generally be correlated with Co and the program variables should be treated as endogenous. Furthermore (as is well known), LS estimators will generally be biased when endogenous variables are included in regression equations, unless the correlation between the endogenous variables and the error term (e) can be netted out.

Different procedures for selecting comparison groups in the absence of randomization will lead to varying levels of (1) statistical inefficiency from correlation between the X's and T's, because the program and comparison groups do not match well with respect to observed variables, and (2) LS bias from correlation between the T's and c when the groups do rot match well with respect to unobserved variables and when program effects, the Y's, are estimated via LS. Some procedures that have been used to obtain comparison samples yield very poor matches and, hence, lead to very inaccurate estimates for the Y's with either difference-in-samplemeans or LS estimation procedures (e.g., evaluations that use the pre- enrollment experience of participants as a comparison and rely on before- after comparisons for youtbs or other new entrants or re-entrants to the labor force, those that use individuals who enrolled but did not show up for the program, and those that use individuals who dropped out of the program very soon after entering).

56 84 However, our comparison-group procedure outlined above.shbuld be relatively efficient and have relatively little LS bias. If, as designedi, comparison group members differ from Corpsmembers primarily in terms of

random access to information about the program and random proximity to the

program, then the X's and T's and the Vs and E should be weakly corre-

lated. In this casep_estimates of program effects will not differ too much, depending on whether we control for.observed differences between the 0 Job Corps and comparison groups, unobserved differences, both (observed and unobserved differences), or neither.11

Even with the rigorous comparison - group procedures that we

developed, interview data and any available secondary data should be used

to control for both observed and unobserved differences,that remain between

the comparison and program-participant groups. Only in that way can we

ensure against bias in the estimates of progra0 effects. In principle,

consistent estimates of program effects can be obtained by controlling for

observed differences directly and by controlling for unobserved differences

indirectly through a model of the participation decision.24

.111.111=

1/Some of the disCussion isphrased as if there were only one (binary) program variable, which might or might not be the cass. However, the results generalize to multiples T's, es is the case for our application (see further below), as long am the selectivity being modeled is only be.ween the Job Corps and comparison groups. It becomes much more difficult', in Practice, to control'for selectivity into various types of program treatments. - Often,, the same factors affect the decisions about whether different program services are received; hence, the statistical identification of mode?, of selectivity into multiple components of programs is almost always difficult and oftep impossible.

2/Formore details, seeleckman (1979), Barnow, Cain, and Goldberger (1978), and Mallar (1979).

57 If a normal distribution is assumed for the error term in equation

:1), that error term can then be decomposed into two componentsan estimable component that is correlated with the T's, and another component that is uncorrelated with the T's and has the properties of an LS error term. Thus, equation (1) can be rewritten as:

'21 + y'T + &Ai +wit , (2) 2 -it - it and

f(a'Z ) f(a 'Z ) p (1 tp, ) (3) F(u'I ) 'J.' 1 - F(20;4)

where Pis a binary program-participation variable that equals one for

Corpssembers (zero otherwise); f() denotes the standard normal density

'unction for program participation; F() denotes the standard normal distribution function for program participation; the 2's are explanatory variables that affect program participation; and & and the a's are coefficients.

We can estimate A for each individual youth (Job Corps .or com-

1 parison group) by estimating the a's with a probit equation for participation in Job Corps. The estimated values of will be close to zero for Corpsmembers who have a high estimated probability of partici-

pation in Job Corps and for comparison youths who have a low estimated probability of participation. In other words, X will be close to zero for

cases that are correctly classified by the participation model and, thus,

that have small errors in the probit eqUation estimated for P.

The estimated values of A will become progressively larger positive

numbers for Corpsmemberi who have lower estimated probabilities of

58 '86 participation (i.e., youths who participate in Job Corps for unobserved

.41 reasons) and, hence, who have larger positive errors in the probit equation a

estimated for P. Similarly, the estimated values of X will become pro-

gressively more negative for comparison youths who have higher estimated

probabilities of participation (i.e., xouths who do not participate in Job

Corps for unobserved reasons) and, hence, who have more negative errors in

the probit equation estimated for P.

The sign of 6 is determined by the correlation of the errors (e.g.,

from omitted variables) in the underlying equations for Y and P.If the

estimated value for 6 is positive, it indicates that individuals who have

higher values of A and are more likely to participate in Job Corps for

unobserved reasons will also have higher values of Y, on average, for

unobserved reasons. Therefore, when 6 is positive, the failure to adjust

for sample selectivity (i.e., unobserved differences) will bias program

effects in a positive direction for Y, because riths with high Y's for.

unobserved reasons will tend to be program participants for unobserved'

reasons.1/ Similarly,tif the estimated value for 6 is negative, it

indicates that individuals who are more likely to participate for unobserved reasons will have lower values of Y, on average, for unobserved.

reasons, in which case the failure to adjust for sample selectivity will

-bias program effects in a negative direction for Y.

1/Anotherway to see the direction of LS bias from not controlling for unobserved differences between Corpsmembers and the comparison group is to note that a positive correlation exists between the T's and X. There- fore, if 6 is positive (negative) and we do not control for unobserved differences--the SXi term is.amitted from equation (2)--then part Of the positive (negative) effect of the unobserved differences--the omitted term, dki--will incorrectly be attributed to the T's.

3? 87 As noted previously, when estimating Job Corps effects on employment and related activities, the bias stemming from the failure to adjust for sample selection could be in either direction. A positive 6 and positive (i.e., upward) bias for the Y's from omitting A will occur for

employment and earnings if there is a predominance of youths with higher . unmeasured abilities who are more likely to participate in Job Corps (e.g., because they benefit more from the training opportunities).*A negative 6 and negative bias for the Y's from omitting A will occur for employment and earnings if there is a predominance of youths with lower unmeasured abilities who are more likely to participate in Job Corps because it costs them less (i.e., fewer opportunities outside of Job Corps).

If a consistent estimate of F() is obtained tbkougb probit procedures, then consistent estimates for all of the coeff ents in equation (2) can be obtained from LS,by substituting the resulting predicted values or A into equation (2). However,, the standird'errors and t-statistics for the estimated coefficients might be biased slightly if the predicted, A's are :iced `in a typical regression Package. The .ypical. regression Programs will not account for the implicit heteroscedasticity involved in controlling for unobserved differences between Cor0Smembers and the comparison sample via the Heckman (1979) approach of using predicted

A's. In practice, however, the standard errors and t-statistics from the typical regressi' packages are usually very close to their unbiased counterparts, especially when the coefficients for the adjustment variables are mall and/or statiallcally insignificant (which is often the case with our estimates)

A. Therefore, the standard errors and t-statistics from typical

regression packages are approximately accurate and are indicative of the

true values of these statistics.Maximum likelihood estimates could yield

some gains in terms of (1) the statistical efficiency for coefficient

estimates and (2) unbiasedness for estimates of the standard errors. With

our large sample sizes, however, maximum likelihood estimation would be

prohibitively expensive for gains that are likely to be only very small.

Another issue that arises when using the above procedures to

control ror unobserved differences between program and comparison groups

I is whether equation (2) is statistically identified when predicted values 'of X are used, as they must be because X is inherently unobservable.

Conceptually, as suggested by Barnow, Cain, and Goldberger 1978), equation

(2) is statistioaly identified by the inherent nonlinearities in the model

for X and Y, even if the X's and Z's are identical. In practice, however,

these nonlinearities by themselves often turn out to be ineffective for

statistically identifying behavioral models, and they can lead to multi -

collinearity if used alone .11 Parameter restrictions are necess, .y for

ensuring identification in models like those represented by equation (2).

The parameter restrictions amount to obtaining Z variables that can

. reasonably be modeled as affecting the decision to participate in Job

Corps, P, but that do not directly affect the behavior of interest (i.e.,

are not'among the X variables in equations (I) and (2J).

Variables associated with youths' knowledge about Job Corps

(information, perceptions, etc.) are potential candidates for identifying

1/Tbe Xfunction is nearly linear across a broad range of probabilities, .P (from approximately 0.2 to 0.8).

61 8 0 the employment and related behavior of interest to this study. Differen- t tial knowledge about Job Corps will undoubtedly affect youths' decisions about whether or not to participate inthe program, 'and, by itself, such

knowledge should not have a direct effect on eiaployr,nt and related

behavior. Based on our earlier findings that recruitment for Job Corps

differs substantially across geographic areas (see Kershaw, Mailer, and

Metcalf, 1976) and that friends and relatives are by fai the most important

sources of information about Job Corps (see Kerachsky and Mallar, 1978), we

developed two proxy variables for knowledge of Job tarps from the pre-

enrollment addresses of Corpsmembers and comparison youths. These two

proxy variables (#JCMEM-75 and %JCME14-75) indicate, respectively, the

number and fraction of youths from pre-enrollment neighborhoods who

participated in Job Corps during the period just prior to when our sample

was deciding whether or not to attempt to enroll in Job Corps.More

specifically, these two knowledge proxies are obtained from data onirb

Corps enrollments by three-digit ZIP-code areas during fiscal 1975.

The greater the number of previous Corpsmembers from a'youth's

nel.ghborhood, ceteris paribus, the more likely the youth is to know about

Job Corps and, hence, to participate in the program.Therefore, these

knowledge proxies should be important variables for explaining observations

about whether or not youths participate in Job Corps.V. Furthermore, the

amount of Job Corps participation in youths' pre - enrollment neighborhoods,

1/The high correlationbetween the knowledge proxies and Job Corps participation for our sample is partly an artifact of the sample design (i.e., ib Corps saturation areas proximate to centers were aot allowed to be comparison sites). However, that statistical artifact has only a positive effect on the suitability of the knowledge proxies as identifying variables.

62 per se, should not have a direct effect upon their postprogram employment 1/ and related behavior, so it is plausible to exclude #JCMEM-75 and %JCMEM-

75 from the list of X variables. Therefore, LICHEN-75 and %JCMEM-75 appear to satisfy the properties of variables to identify equation (2)--they belong in the set of Z variables but not in the X variables.

Even if these knowledge proxies or other characteristics of

-re- enrollment neighborhoods are added to the estimating equations for employment and related behavior, they generally will not affect the estimates of Job Corps impacts .2/ By design, the pre-enrollment neighborhoods of Job Corps and comparison youths should be similar in terms of the labor-market characteristics and other relevant factors for the employment and related behavior ofyouths.3/ Our previous findings (see

Kerachsky and Mallar, 1977) substantiate these expectations of labor-market similarities. First, the earlier findings show that the pro-enrollment neighborhoods of the Corpsmember and comparison samples are, on average, very similar with respect to important dimensions such as population density, local youth unemployment, numbers of youths,' income; non-aged welfare dependence, education, race/ethnic composition, etc.Second, the earlier findings indicate that the omission of characteristics of

/The postprogram period is two to six years later, and most of the Corpsmembers no longer even lived in these neig_torhoods. 2/ However, the standard errors of impact estimates would be much sie larger if the knowledge proxies were added to the equations for emplc-ment and related behavior, because only slight nonlinearities in the probaAlity equation would be statistically identifying the model.

"The localcomparison sites were drawn randomly but with systematic protedures that helped ensure comparability to the neighborhoods of Corpsmembers in terms 'Depopulation density, geographic dispersion, non- aged welfare dependence, and race ethnicity.

63 ri 7 pre-enrollment neighborhoods from the equations for employment and related behavior will not affect the estimates of Job Corps impacts.

For estimating Job Corps impacts, the pro-enrollment labor markets can be viewed as similar across observations, and the lack of explanatory; variables to control for differences in pre-enrollment labor markets cannot be uaed as anargumeneto include in the employment and related equations local variables--such as 0JCHEM-75 and %JCMEM-75--that do nbt otherwise belong there. Because the local proxies for knowledge of Job Corps are not expected to affect the employment and related behavior of yogths directly, they can be omitted from the employment and related equations. Thus, by providing a comparison sample with pre-enrollment labor-market backgrounds that are similar to those of Corpsmembers, our comparison-group design helped ensure the plausibility of the one critical assumption used in our empirical model to control for unobserved differences between Corpsmember and comparison youthslt-namely, that MCME24-75 and %.1CM0.145 can be omitted from the employment and related equations.

The other explanatory variables used in the Job Corps participation equations are very similar to those used in the equations for employment and related behavior (identical, except for slight differences in functional form; see Table 111.1). The primary difference,between the Job'

Corps participation equations and the equations for employment and relatad behavior is that the proxy variables for knowledge of Job Corps are

1/The otherassumptions or maintained hypotheses of our model are more commonly used in econometric analysis--the explanatory variables included in equation (2) other than A, the normality of error terms, ,the error-components model of the correlation of individuals' error terms across time periods, etc.

64 92 included as explanatory variables in the Job Corps participation equations

but are omitted from the equations for employment and related behavior.

Thus, the proxies for knowledge of Job Corps help statistically identify

the employment and related equations, in addition to the statistical

identification provided by the inherent nonlinearities in the model.

With the econometric procedufes outlined. above we should obtain

consistent estimates of air impact of Job Corps on participant behavior.

Thus, in principle, the estimates of Job Corps effects presented in

subsequent chapters are based on differences between groups of Corpsmembers

and comparison youths that have similar compositions in terms of both

observed'and unobserved characteristics. These procedures should also

enable US to obtain unbiased estimates of what Corpsmembers' activities

would have been had they not participated in Job Corps, by netting out

'(i.e., subtracting) estimated Job Corps effects from the observed sample

means for Corpsmembers.

C. DISAGGREGATIONS USED IN THE ESTIMAtION

Whil, 'is report focuses on the overall effects of Job

Corps on participants' behavior, some disaggregations are necessary in

order to obtain accurate LArerall estimates, as well as to better understand

the overall estimates. Disaggregations and reweighting are essential to

ensure accuracy when the unweighted sample overrepresents some segments of46

Corpsmembers and underrepresents others and when the behavior of interest

8differs among subgroups. Two general typeS of disaggregations. were

undertaken in our analysis: (1) separate estimates of regression equations

for subgroups of the population-that have completely different behavioral

relationships for the activities of interest, and (2) decompositions of the

65 93

1 program-treatment specification to capture hypothesized differentials in observed Job Corps impabts within subgroups whose behavior is otherwise sf-ilar.

tabmrouos of the Pooulation. In general, we hive pooled observations across individuals and time to take full advantage of the

0 panel nature of the data (ditscussed further below).However, ;separate eatimates are computed for three subgroups of youths, based on their personal characteristics with respect to sex and child responsibilities, as follows: (1) males, (2) females who have no children present for whom they are responsible, and (3) females who have children living with them for whom they areresponsible.11 Our previous research (see Mallar et al.,

1978) found t,-at the behavioral relationships of interest were substantially different for these three subgroups, based on statistical tests

(Chat/ tests) for any differences in parameters among subgroups. With -an appropriate specification, however, we found that obser'vations on youths could be pooled together across other demographic classifioations, such as child responsibilities for males, age, race/ethnicity, and maritalstatus.2/

Males represent the largest of 'these COrpsmember subgroups--approximately 70 percent of all Corpsmembers. Females, who represent only 30 percent of all Corpsmembers, were intentionally overrepresented in the comparison group (approximately a 50/50 split between males and females in

a./Inaddition to at least one child living with the female, these subgroup definitions for females depend on whether or not the female and/or her spouse are the parent or legal guardian of the child(ren).

2/We found thatthe primary differences in behavior for these latter subgroups can be captured with simple specifications (e.g., dummy variables for age, race/ethnicity, and marital status).

66 rl /(k the ,tomparison group) in order to increase the precision or separate -,; estimates for feiales; Howevei., the sample sizes for the, female subgroups

arse relatively small, in part bedause the necessity of disaggregating the

female subgroup by presence of children was not uompletely anticipated. SL Unexpectedly, the comparison group, relative to the Corpsmember sample,

overrepresents females who have-children living with them) which

exacerbates the need for separate estimation but provides some added

precision for this smallest subgroup or Corpsmembers (see further below).

For the overall postprogram ohservation period; the Job Corps

sample consists of. approximately 70 percent males, 21 percent femal

without Children, and 9'percent females with children present (the

corresponding average numbers of observations per time pekod are,

respectively, 2,700,l00, and 350)..However, the female,Corpsmember sample

begins with almost no children piesent and wOrks its way up to approxi- , mately one -half having children .present (15 percent of the overall

sample) by the end of the four-year obsetvation periodThe corresponding

overall percentages for "le comparison group aPe 48, 25, and 27 percent

for, respectively, males, females without children, and females with

children (the corresponding average numbers of observations per time

period are, 'respectively, 650, 340, and 360). Only the male subgroup has

adequate numbers of observations to achieve very precise estimates, fe

espmpially when the Job Corps samples and estimates are broken dm:. zy

completion categories -- program completers,' partial coipleters, and early

dropouts (see further below).

:The appropriate Job Corps proportions, by time period for females,

are used for weighting Separate estimates to obtain the overall estimates

of Job Corps effects. However, the female subgroups pose additional

67 94: problems for analysis. First, we have uldertaken only a limited

exploration of the impacts of Job Corps on marriage and on the fertility of

Corpswomen (e.g., timing and numberiof births), and further observation and

researchon these topics are necepsarY. Potentially, some of the largest

: . impacts of Job Corps on females' behavior could come from ,decreases in

fertility (delayed timing of births and reduced number or' births) ,' which

could lead to increases in employability and reductions in welfare

: dependence. Separate estimates based on the presence and absence of '

1 .s" . i children completely miss'tihe impacts of J.7.b Corps that are caused by . - ' .. changes in the child-responsibility status under, which former-CorpswoMen 1

are observed. Also, COrpswomen with children are more likely toexhibit

delayed marriage and childbearing and, hence, to be just starting

'faralies. Consequently, Corpswomen with children will tend to have very'

young children during our observation period, which, in the short run,

greatly limits. their ability to work and will cause the estimates to be'

.biased downiard (in a negative direction) for females witt ildren.

The second problem in the analysis of impacts on females is the

extremely small sample sixes and the concomitant instability of estimates

for Corpswomen, especially for those who have children living with them.

ForeXample, during the postprogram period we observe only fifteen females

Who were;early dropouts from Job Cor and who had children living with

them by the time of the second follow-up survey. As a result, it is not r. surprising to find that the estimates of Job Corps impacts on employment

and earnings fluctuatf.; erratically for the subgroup of females with

children, and, for them, the estimates are very sensitive to changes in the

-specifications of the control variables in the regression equations.

96 2rnizralirealment Specifications. Two disaggregations of Job Corps statuses among participants are used to improve the overall accuracy of estimates and to explicate the findings: (1) separate estimates by completion category and (2) interactions with the length of time since leaving the program. The program effects are expected to vary both across completion categories and by length of time out of the program. In addition, the postprogram sample contains distributions that are unrepresentative of all Corpsmembers In both of the above dimensions (and, hence, which will require some reweighting), and for Corpsmembers, on average, the postprogram observation period is, shorter the greater the length of stay in the program.

As discussed briefly in Chapter II, our sample design overrepresents program completers because youths who remain in Job Corps for a long period of time have a highe'r probability of being at centers at any point in time ancWspecifically, when the sample was drawn. The three program- completion categories used by Job Corps--program completers, partial completers, and early dropouts--are convenient to use for reweighting because data are readily available on their actual proportions among all

Job Corps enrollees: However, a perfect correlation does not exist between length of stay in Job Corps and these completion categories, since, given the individualized and self-paced nature of Job Corps instruction, some youths can complete the program faster than others.

A program completer is, as the designation indicates, a Corpsmember who completes an entire vocational and/or education program in Job Corps.

A partial completer is defined as a Corpsmember who remains in the program for at least ninety days and who completes at least one specific segment Of a vocational or education program, but not an entire program. Early

69 97 dropouts are defined as youths who terminate from Job Corps before the end of their first ninety days at a center and who do not complete any specific component of the program.

For fiscal 1977 the proportions of all Job Corps enrollees who become program completers, partial completers, and early dropouts are, respectively, approximately 30, 30, and 40 percent. In contrast, the proportions of program completers, partial completers, and early dropouts in our postPrograa sample are, respectively, approximately 56, 35, and 9

Percent. Therefore, in order to obtain impact estimates that are applicable to the average for all Job Corps enrollees, we must use our knowledge of the "correct" proportions by completion statuses to reweight the observations. Estimates are computed separately for program completers, partial completers, and early dropouts, and are then added together with weights of, respectively, 0.30, 0.30, and0.40.1/ The

1/To obtainestimates that are representative of all Corpsmembers, we reweighted the separate estimates by completion statuses as follows:

Estimated effect for all enrollees 0.30*(estimated effect for program completers) + 0.30*(estimated ,effect for partial completers) + 0.40*(estimated effect, for early dropouts).

In addition, note that the relationship between the unweighted estimate for the sample and the separate estimates by completion categories is as follows:

Unweighted estim e for sample 0.56*(estimated effect for program completets) + 0.35*(estiaated effect for partial completers) + 0.09*(estimated effect for early dropouts).

;his clearly shows how the unweighted estimate overtipresents Corpsmen bers who are completers. Because the estimated impacts of Job Corps are usually much larger for completers, the effect of the reweighting to obtain estimates that are representative of all enrollees (and, hence, giving completers less weight than in the sample) is to lower the overall estimates compared to unweighted estimates.

70 98 unweighted estimates would generally overestimate job Corps benefits,

because the overrepresented group of program Completers is usually observed

to do better in the labor market than the other groups.

The small sample of early dropouts, together with their relatively

large weight,cause some instability and erratic fluctuations in the

estimates. Essentially, our sample design assumed a zero effect for early

dropouts, and they were included primarily as a check on our econometric

techniques to test whether we obtain a zero effect for them. Generally,

our estimates for early dropouts are insignificantly different from zero

but are erratic because of the small underlying sample. We would obLain more stable and more precise estimates by imposing the assumption of zero

effects for early dropouts, which would.also yield more accurate estimates

(increased precision with no added bias) if both that assumption and our modeI.'were "correct.'

With the data available, we have not been able thus far to

\obtain reliable estimates that control for unobserved differences among

Corpsmembers by completion category, due to identification problems in modeling multiple completion statuses simultaneously with employment or

other related behavior. However, even though some biases might exist among

completion categories, the weighted estimates for overall impacts should be

unbiased. (We know the 'true" proportion necessary for reveighting each

category.) Furthermore, the evidence supports the conclusion that the

observed differences by completion category are at least in part

71 90 attributable to a program effect from staying'longer and completing more of the program.1/

With quarterly data for an average of nearly four years of postprogram observation, we arc, able to learn a great deal about the timing

4.0 of impacts after Corpsmembers leave the program. Our examination of the timing of effects hab already been fruitful both in identifying transition problems as Corpsmembers leave the centers and re-enter the regular labor market and in noting little change over the first two postprogram year9 after this transition. Furthermore, with the third follow-up data. we are better able to test for the alleged quick "fadeout," or "decay," of Job

Corps effects that has been suggested previously with less rigorous techniques and less accurate data. Estimates of the interactions between completion categories and length of time out of Job Corps are also important, because we have fewer observations as the length of the postprogram period inoreases, and because the observations that we do have for the longest postprogram periods are for youths who had shorter Stays in

Job Corps than the average.

We pool all of the quarterly observations for each individual youth c and estimate two types of specifications by length of time out of the program-(1) six-month averages (nine variables for each completion category, although only eight are typically tabulated because we have so

Briefly, we obtain statistically significant and moderate - size effects for the program as a whole; the estimated effects for the group with near zero treatment (early dropouts) are close to zero; we control for a wide range of important variables that are observed; and the potential sources of remaining bias work in opposite directions.

72 160 N

few observations for the niath time period), and (2) a more flexible,' continuous time pattern (a piecewise linear specificatiov that allows the slope to change periodically--at first monthly and then quarterly - -at twenty points in time and tat is based on twenty-one variables for each completion category.1' The six-month averages are presented in tables, discussed extensively in the text, and form the basis for the- benefit -cost estimates in Chapter VIII. The more continuous tithe patterns are presented in figures and provide the most comprehensive evidence both on the general timing of effects and, specifically, on the duration of Job Corps impacts

(how long they are maintained, how quickly they fade out, or how much

-b. further they grow).

Underlying the estimates presented in tables tbrouebout this report, Job Corps effects by program-completion status--program completers, partial completers, and early dropoutswere obtained (see below in Tables

111.5 through 111.16) separately for each six-month postprogram time period

(eight or nine six-month time intervals altogether for the four postprogram years), and separately for each of the three subgroups of.sex and child responsibilitymales, females who have no children present, and females who have children living with themwhose behavior is so different as to necessitate completely separate estimations. For each six-month

I/Correlations of individual errors over time are adjusted in a two-stage error-components (or variance-components) model that should yield greater, efficiency than ordinary least squarei (for, more details, see Maddala, 1971; Nerlove, 1971a and 1971b; and Wallace and Hussain, 1969). The computational program used enables us to include individuals with varying lengths of time (essentialfor our application) and allows individuals to have missing periods of data (early, late, or intervening 41,14rtere). For documentation of the computer routine, see Avery (1975). As noted above, seasonality and time trends across individuals are specified explicitly in the regression equations.

oi j 7 3 postprogram period, we then Obtained estimates of job Corps effects and the correspond &ng levels of statistical significance for each_of the three subgroups of sex and child responsibility by complUtingthe weighted average of the estimates by completion status, using the Job Corps population weights--0.30, 0.30, and 0.40--for, respectively, pr'ogram completers, partial completers, and early dropouts.

.Next, for each six-month postprograa period, we obtained overall

Job Corps'eatimates (representative cif all Corpsmembers as a whole) and. the corresponding levels of statistical significance by,computing the weighted average of the estimates by subgroup, using the Job Corps population vi- weights for males, females without children, and females withchildrerl.-11

Finally, simple averages overthe sj.x -month time periods werethen,computed to obtain annual estimates.

D. DETAILS OF REPRESENTATIVE ESTIMATES

Tables 111.2, 111.3, and 111.4 show the probit estimates for the probability of being in Job Corp* for, respectively, males, females withe4t

% children, and females with children. The two most imporant points to note are that (1)theidediifying variables (IFJCMEM-75 and $JCMEM-1) are highly significant and, hence, adequately identify the equations for employment and related behavior, and (2) these probability estimates are exceptionAly

"St 1/The appropriateweight for males is 0.70 for all nine of the six- month time periods. The appropriate weights for females withoUt children decline over time as moM0 of the COrpswomen have children; these weights are 0.28, 0.26, 0.22, 0.21, 0.20, 0.18, 0.15, 0.15, and 0.15 across the nine respective six-month time periods. Correspondingly, the appropriate weights for females with children are 0.02, 0.04, 0.08, 0.09, 0.10, 0.12, 0.15, 0.15, and b.15 across Pie nine respective six-month time periods.

74 102 goon predictors of who in our sample is in the,Job Corps program versus the

comparison group, as evidenced by the exceptionally high chi-squarestatis-

tic for the equation. As expected, youths who lived in ne.ghborhoods 44th 4 a greater number of previoui Jab Corps pirticipants were more likely to

participate themselves (expected as a result of their greater awareness and

knowledge of Job Corps' and because of our sample selection procedures).

Tie other opefficients%are diffIcult:to interpret and vary from one

subgroup to another1 but they do show some oth er statistically significant. le'differencesbetween the J ob Corps and comparison groups (which is not

surprising given our sample sizes and the explanatory power of the

knowledge variables.

Tables 111.5 through 111.16 show representative estimates for the

employment and related behavior of interest to this study; Tables 111.5e

111.6, and.111.7 show the details of regression estimates for employment;

Tables 111.8, 111.9, and 111.10 show the details of regression estimates

for college attendance; Tables 111.11,, 111.12, and 111.13 show 'the details

of regression estimates for any cash welfare; and Tables 111.1k, 111.15,

and 111.16 iehti the details of regression estimates for number ofarrests.11

The coefficients on the Job Corps variables in these representative 'regres-

sion equations. are those used to construct the tables of impact estimates

in subsequent chapters.'

'The standard errorsand t-statistics given iv Tables 111:5 through /11.16 might be biased slightly because the estimates of the standard errors were obtained from a regression program which dpes not account for the implicit heteroscedasticity when controlling for unobserved differences between Corpsmembers and the comparison sample via thejleckman (1979) approach:. In practice, however, the standard errors and t-statistics from the regression program are usually very close to their unbiased counterparts, especially witen the coefficients for the adjustment variables

75 103 The coefficient estimates for the lambda variables (i.e., 6)

are often small and statistically insAgnificant. However, it is important

to consider them because in some instances (e.g., male employment and

earnings) they can nave a substantial effect on the estimates of Job Corps

impacts. For employment and college attendance, the coefficient estimates

for the lambda variables are negative for males and females without

children. This indicates that these groups of Corpsmembers would tend to

be less employable (especially males) and to have lower college attendance

than the comparison sample in the absence of Job Corps, and that smaller

estimates of the positive Job Corps effects would have been obtained had we

not controlled for unobserved differences between the Corpsmember and

comparison groups. The opposite was true of females with children (i

relatively large and significantly positive 6, which indicates greater

employability and higher college attendance for unobserved reasons, and

more poSitive estimates had we omitted A and not controlled for unobserv.

differences between the Corpsmember and comparison groups).

The coefficient estimates for the lambda variables in the welfare

and arrest equations are positive for all three groups, although generally

small. This indicates that Corpsmembers would tend to be slightly more

welfare dependent and criminally inclined than the comparison sample in the

are small or s attsilcally insignificant (which is often the :case with esttmetes). Therefore, the standard errors and t-statisties.shmin are approximately accurate andare indicative of the true values of these statistics. Maximum likelihood estimates could yield slight gains in terms of statistical efficiency for coefficient estimates and of unbiasedness for estimates of the standard errors. With our large sample Sites, however, maximum likelihood estimation would be prohibitively expensive, with little gain in terms of the statistical,propertieS.

76 104

. a. . . absence.of Job Corps, and that slightly smaller estimates of reductions in

5 i welfare and crime for Corpsmembers would have been obtained had we not

controlled for unobserved differences between the Job Corps and comparison

groups.

Overall, asconsistent pattern for males and females without

children exists: (1) for unobserved reasons, Corpsmembers would do less

well than the' comparison group in the absence of Job Corps and.(2) con-

trolling for these unobserved differences will make the estimates /6f Job

Corps impacts more positive (i.e., higher estimated benefits). This"

Indicates that for males and females without children those enrollingin

Job Carps were predominantly youths who would have had trouble obtaining

gainful employment and, hence, for whom the opportunity cost of enrolling

in Job Corps' as low. For females with children, the evidence is mixed; it

appears that these Corpsmembers would fare much better in employm,ptlpr

unobserved reasons (lower estimated beneficial impacts). and would perform

slightly better in college, bilt would do plightly'xorae terms of welfare

dependence and criminality.

There are also interesting aspects to theother-Ontrolvariables, Pt which will not be fully developed herej.because they are not of primary

.r- 'interest. Some of these other effects for disadvantaged youths can be r highlighted briefly as follows: (1) youths generally perform better in the. L labor market and commit fewer crimes as they become older; (2) youths with

higher pri-enrollme educations generally perform better in the labor

market and also havehighercollege attendance than those with lower pre-

enrollment educations; (3) minority youths generally perform worse than

whites inn the labor market;' (4) for youths, employment is highest in the

PhD

77 105 .1% summer and fall, and collegeattehdance is lowest in the summer; (5) the employability of youths was improving and welfare dependence.was declining

C over the short postprocam time period (but, as discussed later,,employ

ability increased at a slower rate as time passed); (6) youths who had

better preenrollment wori\and related histories generally performed much

bitter than_, other youth in those activities during subsequent time

periods; and f7). youths with greater welfare dependence and oriminality at

preenrollment generally exhibited'similar tendencies over time.

78 4-106 TABLE 111.1

GUMMY GE EXPLANATCRY VARIABLaile 4'

J Variable-Lai:P.1W

the youth', age in years.

1 if the youth is at least eighteen years 'old; 0 otherwise (slims for an intercept change at eighteen).

AGE minus la if AGE is greater than eighteen; 0 otherwise (allows

for a slope change at eighteen): , -

1 if theyouth is at least bwenty-cue years old; 0 otherwiv Oklows for an intercept change at.bmanty-one).

mindS.21 if AGE is greater than twenty-one; 0 otherwise (allows for a slope chafes at -twenty -one).

ECUCAV.CII-Ei2CV= the youthfs highest grade of formal education in years ompleted before the Job Corps enrollanart. date (pre-enroilmentdefined as six months. befcre the baskline interview for theCCMPari3On sample).

D.1.71.09,-PRE= 1 irthe Youth had a high whoa diploma or equivalency (allows for an intercept change with. high mhool diploma cr equivalency) .

EDUC.ATMV12-FEECV= 1 if the youth had completed at least twelve years of formal 1 education at preerralleant (allows ttr an additional intercept change at high school diacala).

EMATER122PREgi= EDUCLIICN-PRE min 12 if EGUCATICN-EREisgreater than 12; 0 otherwise (allows for an intercept Change at halve).

ELACKW* 1 if the youth is black and not of Hkspinio origin;-0 otherwise.

HISPANICIC l'if the youth is a person of Phxican Puertc.Rican, Cuban, Central or'South American, or other Hispanic Culture or origin, meridiem of ram; 0 otherwise:

PIERICAN =AO= 1 if the youth is an American Indian or Alaskan native; 0 otherwise°.

ODERRACE/El 1 if the ,youth is iron arace/ethnicityother tham1WHIIE, BLACK, HISPANIC, or PPERICAN INDIAN (mostly Asian or Pacific Islander); . 0 otherwise.

HEALIFIERCD-B;E= 1 if the youth reported a saricuS health prOales,in the baseline interview that both limited the kindormount or wark.that (s)he could do and W¢ lasted for at least cm year (this misem health problems present at pre-err:11mM that were cured before tne.base line interview and includes acme health problems that developed Ong. this FIN:gran Fericd); 0 otherwise.

FALL = 1 if tnegiertar in during the fall season (1.,pbember, October, And November); 0 otherwise.

7g ( Table _Z11.1'contira:ed)

Variable _Label-W Definitis#

.71E2ri. 1. if the quarter is during the winter season (December, January, and Fehruarr); 0 otherwise. .

.S111.12d1= I if the carter Is during -the spring season (march, April, and YaY); 0 otherwise. */ KIIER-41= the niter of eontlis since April 197 (allows far time trends).

AVEMFLOY-PRZII= if the yOuth was employed any time during the six, months are enrollment; 0 otherwise. . the crol.::rtiai of weeks th4t the !faith was employed during the six months before enroll:mot. ' 1 if the youth 'received any welfare payments during the six months before enrollment; 0 otherwise. - the proportion of =Um that the yaith received welfWe peyaant.s during the six mcnths before enrollment. a 1 if the youth was ever wrested' OW coo ar mare arrests) during the six.ornths before enrollment; C.* ott:twise. 1 if the youth ever used marijuana or zia..val before ewe. great; 0 otherwise. tO 1 if the youth' ever used =airs ar heraLnimethedara before enrollment; 0- otherwise. the totai Timber of 'youths ft= the pre-errolimant neighborhood who enrolled in Job Ccrps during fiscal 1gT5 (bawd an the three-digit ZIP core of the youth's haw address before enrollsent). the fraction of yosthe from the pre-errollment raighborhood who enrolled in Job Corps during fiscal 1gT5 (based an the three- digit ZIP code of the youth's home address before erraLlmant). a Motion of the Mdbability,of being in the Job Carp ample that controls far Linobseeved differences between Corpassaibers and the CalierieCe magpie (the deraity divided by the distribution fcr CtrP5g6a=and thenegativeof the density divided byone minus the r , text-for mcra\detail.butian ()motion far the comparison szaPle--see the CAT! 0 TD 614 1 if the youth is as program ommleter and the quarter is zero to six Martha after (s)he terminated fry Jdb Corps; 0 otherwise. .4 CA71 6 70 12V= .1 if theicuttr is a program comp 1:ter and the quarter is six to twelve =the after (s)he terminated fru; Job Caps; 0 otheryi.v. CATI 12.10 18fi '1 if tie youth is a prwan completer and the quarter is twelve to eighteen months after (s)he terming& froa Job Corpb; 0 otherwise:

C1T1 18 ID VW:: 1 the youth is a ircgran completer and the quarter is" ighteen to ttianty-faalP months after (s)he terminated fron Job Corp; 0 otherwise. .,_ - or 24 TO 30riz 1 1r thermal is aworm completer and theqUarter 13 tlielltrair to thirty=atlas after-(s)be terminated from Job Corps;0 otherwise. - CAil BO 10 36fir. 1 if the youth is a prover oompleter and the quarter is thirty to thirty-size:nth,after(s)he terminate:1fromJobCorps;0 otherwise. CAI 36 TO 14211z 1 if theyouthisaprcgrace oampleter and the quarter iS tbirtr-SiX to forty-DAmcnthsafter (s)he Leta/noted from..10b Corps; 0 otherwise

CA:1 42 TO 4g1.4 1 if the youth is a program, =pater and the quarter is forty-two to forty-alga meths after (s)be tereirated Me Job Corps; 0 . otherwise. .

CA71 48 TO 541= 1 if the youth is a program completer and the quarter is forty-osgt to fifty-far troths after(s)he tereinated from Job Corps; 0 otherwise.

CAT20T3 6f1s .1 if the yeuth ISaparti al completer and the quarter iszeroto six 1193hth&after (s)heteminated frOSJob Corps;0 OtberWine. CATS 6 TO 12E1= 1 ifthe youth isa partialoompleter and the quarter is StK tO twelve tenths after (s)heterminated fromJobCorps; 0 otherwise. CAI2 12 TO 184. 1 if the youth is a pedal et ard the Quarter is twelve to eighteen months after (s)he tessinated from Job Crps; 0 therwise.

1 if CAT2 18 TO 21;1T. the youth/3a partialComnplebarani the quarteriSeighteen to twehtY-Nir maths after (s)he terminated trot Job Ccirlx1;0 otherwise. CA/2 24TO 30;l: 1 if the youth i3a partial completer arc! the quarter is twenty-Nur tothirty months after (s)hemetedtrialJab Come; 0othenwise.

CA72 30 /t)36112 1 ifthe pistilISa partialcompleterand. the quarter is thirtyto thirty-sixexitte after (s)hetenminated eras JOb Corp;0 otherwise.

CA72 36 104412" 1 if the youth is a partial =Pieter ad the Quarterla thirtr"gl tO f.'s:ell-4W 1102013 after (s)hetend:staid fronalcb Gyps;0 OttarRiSS.

CA7242 T3 48t1.1 1 if the ycuth ia a partial comaeter and the quarter i3 fOrpftt/A0 tO

0 . fOrt7otig2tMOOtS3after (s)he terminated from Job Corps; otherwise CAL 48 TO 54=. 1 1. f Ecuth_ partial ocePleter and the quarter ia feel- eight to fifty-ftratabs after (s)he tesmdrated froa Job Corps;0 .-midse

CAT3 0 TO 611s 1 if theyouth is anmarl;dkopout andtheWerter is zero to six months after(s)he terminatedfrOX Job COrpS;0 otherwise. CATS 6TO 12:1: 1 if the youth is an early drama ard the quarteri3six to eve months atter Wile terminated frcm JohCorPe; 0 hthendise CA13 12 10 /eFI: 1iftheyouthis an early dropout andthe quarteris Wave to eignteen mathsafter(s)heterminated fromJobCorps; 0 otherwise.

a1 169 Table TIE 1 (continued)

7ariable _Late.11/ Zeanition-C1

CATS le 10 241. 1 if the youth is an early dropout and the quarter is eighteen to twenty-four:piths after (s)be terminated from Jcb Corps; 0 otherwise.

CAT3 24 TD 34/7- if the youth is an early dropout and, the quarter is twenty-fair , to thirty months after (s)he terminated from Jab Corps; 0 otherwise.

CAT3 30 TO 36 = 1 if the youth is an early dropout and the quarter is thirty to thirty-six months after (s)he terminated from Jcb Corps; 0 otherwise.

CAI3 36 TD 421/= 1 if the youth is an early dropout and the quarter is thirty-six to forty-tiro manths after (s)he taximeter! from Job Corps; 0 otherwise.

CAT3 42 10 48(1= 1 if the youth is an early dropout and the quarter is forty-two to forty-eight months After (s)be terminated from Job Corps; \otherwise.

CAT3 48 10-9441= 1 if the youth is an early dropout and the quarter is forty-eight to fifty-four Months after (s)he terminated from Job Corps; 0 otherwise.

A/The lagged values of dependent variables tr ire-enrollamnt cannot reasonably be moaned tote strictly Medetennined when we pool observations for individual youths over time. These lagged dependent variables are generally endogenous if we amass (as we must) that equation error terms are correlated over time for individuals. Balmier, the use of estimators of error variances and oovariances from ordinary least squares residuals will . still yield oansistent estimators of coefficients in a secomi-stag. gemrralizel least squares technique when the (mai-components model is appropriate, as we Mains in our estimation procedures (for more details and proofs, age Wallace and Hussain, 1969, and Nerlove, l9T1a and 1911b).

The explanatory variables are arranged in this table in approndmately the same order as the findi ngs presented in subsequent tables.

The pre-enrollment period is definedas six earths before the baseline interview far the oomparison sample, bemuse Corpsnenbars had been in the ;norm approximately six months on average when the comparison youths were interviewed. ,The data are arrayed into quarterly aggregates by calendar quarters acomriing to the eamons-astamer (June, July, and August), tall (September, October, and November), winter (December, January, and February), and spring (Herch, April, amillay)--which differ (ran the usual fiscal quarters but provide better controls for seasonality. Tbee-dependent variables--such as those related to age, calendar time, and length of time cut of Job Carps --are defined for the midpoint of each quarter-

Siilbese acplanatoryvariables were included =l in the Job Carpe probability (Tables 111.2 thrmigh=1.4) in the regressions far impact estimates (Tables /11.5 through 111.16):

i/These coPlanatoryvariables were included may in the Jcb Corps probability equations (Tables =2 through 111.4) andigg,in the mgressions (Cr *mitt estimates (Tables EIL5 through I11.16).

SiThese acplanatoryvariables were included nay in the regressions (Cr impact estimates (Tables LEL 5 through D2.16) and mt. in the Jcb Corps protetd.Ii ty equations (Tables 1:11.2 through ILEA).

a2 110 TABLE 3:17.2

PRIMIT =MATES FOR THE PRCB BEING IN 'fl E JOB CORPS SWYLE:

__igareg___1;11.411u",.__au2.10LariensoLarsaCoefficient Standard Partial Derivati

CI:1=W -2.29T 1.047 -2.193 -0.3T5 AGE 0.214 0.064 3.329 0.035 IGE18 -0.006 0.083 -0.070 -0.001 OVER18 -0.521 0.117 -4.464 -0.0E5 ME21 -0.681 0.281 -2.425 -0.111 OVEF21 -0.344 0.171 -0.201 -0.0% =CAI:CR-PRE -0.133 0.025 -5.420 -0.022 DEFLCH-PRE -0.278 0.144 -1.932 -0.045 ErUCA110112-PRE 2.588 4.623 0.560 0.423 ECI0VER12-PRE 1.021 0.172 5.945 0.167 LACK -0.014 0.061 -0.225 -0.002 IMPANIC -0.067 0.091 -0.689 -0.011 PIERICAN MAN 0.342 0.147 2.319 0.056 HEALTEIFECB-BASE 0.133 0.130 1.020 0.022 ANITHIOT-FRE 0.131 0.055 2.507 0.022 AN ELF -PRE 0.060 0.104 0.575 0.010 PleAFNESTS-FIE 0.183 0.069 2.593 0.029 MWALOWL-PRE 0.055 0.064 0.872 0.009 CCICE/EROI44RE 0.516 0.100 5.149 0.084 ICHEM-75 0.002 0.0004 3.989 0.04 SA113475 0.006 0.0004 13.663 0.001 Reber of observations =4,155 14an of dependent variable = 0.829 Chi-Square statistic for equation = 698.134 o Degrees of freed= s 20 o SliarIC2323 level = > 99% statistical confidence

iltimdmula likelihoodestimates are coneutad t4r an iterative Norton-Raphesce prooecre. For definitions of 04:amatory variables, see Table ta.1. Slyb-statistic equals the coefficient estimate divided by its standard error. However, the minters in this column are mare accurate than can be obtained from the preceding two column, because of less rounding error. "The change in ;volubilityassociated witt a marginal change in the relevant explanatoey variable equals the coefficient estimate times the vat* of the density ftoction, bitch 13 obtained here with the mean values for all eaclanatory variables (i.e., the poi= of weal). Fix binary taplanatary variables it is more appropriate to use the difference between the distribution function values with and without the relevant coefficient, with all other explanatory variables at their mean values.This latter approach is used in this report to obtain impact estimates for im-cbability variables.

83 TAME mpg''

PR= ESM4ATES FORT PlICEARILITY CF 711THE JCS CORPS SAME: MILES 1ff Ed=

Explanatopi Coefficient Standard Partial Vaniablew Estimate Error comarr -3.525 1.312 -2.687 -0.624 NZ 0.191 0.080 2.3et 0.034 M3E18 F0.204 0.111 -1.838 -0.036

CUER18' -0.153 0.156 -0.983 -0.037

AGE21 1.641 6.995 0.235 0.291 OVEN21 0.302 0.280 1.079 0.054

EUCATICH-FRE -0.C6 0.043 -1 .96 9 - .0.015 DIFLCMA-EVE -0.065 0.229 -0.28 5. -0.012 ECOCA22D112-FRE 0.021 0.353 0.060 0.004 ETCWEE12-FRE 1.064 0.253 4.207 0.188 ELM:K 0.592 0.092 6.419 0.105 IMFANIC 0.719 0.148 4.857 0.12T AtERSCANINDIAN 1.151 0.243 4.738 0.204 HF.ALTHERCB-BASE 0.060 0.193 0.313 0.011 AKMDS.Of-PRE 0.235 0.084 2.809 0.042 ANY1432-PRE -0.223 0.149 -1.494 -0.040 ANIARRESTS-PRE -0.085 0.198 -0.430 -0.015 MYALCOHCL-FRE 0.218 0.087 2.512 0.039 COMEAHEROIN-FRE 0.381 0.156 2.442 0.067 CCMEM-75 0.003 0.001 4.498 0.001 %..KIJEW75 0.007 0.001 8.886 0.001 NUaber of observation =1,710 Meanor dependent variable = 0.760 Chi-Spare statistic for equaticn = 555.672 o Degreesoffreed= a 20 o Significance level a >99% statisticalmaiden:le

11/Nhaimul estimates are a:mutedby an iterativeNalcoaaphesonprocedure.

11/For definitionof smianatory variables, see Iable I11.1.

-°1121e t-statistic equalsthe coefficient estimate divided ty its standard error. However, the masters in this calm are more accurate than can be cbtained from the preceding two columns, bemuse of less rounding error.

'The changein irtbabiLity associated with a marginal change in the relevant explanatcry variableequals thecoefficient estimatetimes the value of the density flmotion which is obtained here with the =n uveil= for allexplaratcry variables(i.e., the coin; of means).For 1 binary eclanatcry variables it is mcre aptavixdate to use the difference between the distribution tomtits values with and without therelevantcoefficient, with all otherecialanatay variablesat theirmean values. This letterapprcathis used in this report to obtain impact estimates for probabilityvariables.

84 112 TABLE 332.4

FR331D EMMAUS FOR THE PRCBAILMITY OF 31, DI THE JCS 03RPS SNARE: FLYALESWIDI 11 171D

Coefficient Standard Partial Eeritv:avats Estimate _Errtr T-Statisticgi at Point of CCNSTANT -4.732 3.549 -1.333 -1.862 ME 0.260 0.215 1.211 0.102 AGE18 -0.097 0.242 -0.402 -0.038 (1 18 -0.602 0.341 -1.766 -0.237 if.&1 -0.074 0.585 -0.126 -0.029 OVER21 -0.176 0.331 -0.532 -0.069 .EDUCAIICH-FRE -0.213 0.062 -3.444 -o.oe.14 DIPLOMA-ENE - -0.019 0.317 -0.059 -0.007 EDUCAV-CN12-ESE 0.270 0.768 0.352 0.106 EDOWER12-ERE 0.822 0.363 2.267 0.324 BLOC 0.609 0.200 3.045 0.240 PISPANIC 0.352 0.305 1.155 0.138 AMERICAN INDIAN 0.116 0.422 2.754 0.458 HEALIXESCB-BLIE -0.211 0.375 -0.564 -0.083 ANISIWY-PRE 0.427 0.140 3.058 0.168 ANIVELF-FRE 0.211 0.144 1.467 0.083 MANESS-PRE 0.406 0.276 1.472 0.160

WALCCNCL-PRE 0.154 0.141 0.061 0.061 CCIVIENGUN-PRE 0.983 0.293 0.392 0.387 WM:4-75 .0.002 0.001 2.507 0.031 LXMEN-75 10.439 1.335 7.817 4.107 Number of observation 2516 Haan of decemient variable 2 0.421 Chi-Square statistic for equation 2 216.043 o Degrees of Meal= 2 20 o Significance levels > 99% statistical confidence

A/Maxleue likelihoodestimates are computed trf an iterttive Newton-RaPheson ;rowddy.e.

definiticms of explanatory variables, see Eattle

'The t-statisticequals the ooefficient estimate divided w its standard error. Hamer, the webers in this colueneremore aomirate than COO be cbtained fro' the ixecedirg two columns, because of less roundire error.

Aille changein probability also:Wad with a marginal change in the relevant explanatory variable equals the coefficient estimate times the vats ct the density fUncticn which is obtainedbewith the me values far all explematay variables (i.e., the point of seems).For binary explanatiry variables it is more appropriate to use the difference between the distribution function values with and without the relevant coefficient, with all other explanatory variables at their mean values. This latter approach is used in this rep(grt to obtain impact estimates far probability variables.

85 113 TABLE 321.5

FEOPESEICN ESTUARIESKR DIPACT CN CF INCLUDDG KCLXTARY:

Ectianatoo Coefficient Variable Estate T-AStatisticW

CCNSTAKT -0.943 0.342 -2.756 ACE 0.074 0.020 3.692 ACE16 0.014 0.024 0.582 0VER18 -0.085 0.020 -4.199

-0.003 -0.008 -0.451 CVER21 0.408 0.004 1.786 ECUCATION-PRE 0.011 0.005 2.328 DIPLOMA-PRE 0.070 0.029 2.369 EDUCATICN12-PRE -0.014 0.034 -0.409 BLACK -0.101 0.012 -8.135 KLSPARIC -0.006 0.018 -0.348 AMERICAN 1RDIAN -0.130 0.029 -4.534 OTHER RACFAT -0.097 0.049 -1.989 IFALINIKIWIASE -0.011 0.024 -0.467 FALL 0.008 0J005 1.706 WINTER -0.019 0.005 -3.875 SERINO -0.006 ,)0.005 -t.217 HOMERS 0.003 0.0003 7.653 IEKLM-ERE 0.134 0.014 9.519 SHELF-PRE -0.052 0.027 -1.940 ANYARRESTS-PRE -0.036 0.014 -2.634 HLVALCCHCL4RE 0.003 0.012 0.280 CUE/HEROIN-PRE -0.019 0.017 -1.107 LAMA -0.048 0.022 -2.139 CA71 0 TO 6 0.067 0.037 1.812 co 6 70 12 0.188 0.037 5.126 CATI1270 18 0.201 0.037 5.454 CA71 18 ID 24 0.1134 0.037 4.985 CATI 24 70 30 0.160 0.037 4.865 CA71 30 TO 36 0.183 0.037 4.909 co 36 ID 42 0.157 0.038 4.15g CA7I 42 70 48 0.160 0.038 4.217 CA71 48 ID 54 0.170 0.042 4.065 CAI2 0 101 6 -0.031 0.037 -0.818 CA72 6 ID 12 0.082 0.038 2.198 CAT2 12 70 18 0.I0e 0.038 2.736

86.114 of with a whirls we the ow 17 individual (see estimate stained West approach. for error. 1.702 2.005 1.692 1.633 0.773 2.035 -1.457 0.788 1.871 1.668 2.354 2.056 1.173 1.117 probability` worn with the T-Statist 0 to obtained model the proems are alightlY unobserved (1979) case standard from are consistent bias coefficients the here statistics. separate mey be far regression its attributable regression the a DV regression He the these by obtained civilians on Using tut table a the the when usually presented be 0.039 0.039 0.043 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 .017 0.047 0.051 !meld Table floe cantralling vie raw Is of divided can 0.038 0.038 0.038 0. 0 for estimates this *Jen Wilds values than 6=0 errcryarianoe used, see in obtained setae especially error-ccemonents previously. t-statistics true estimate error. 87 Ceenderee estimates given of an is were t-statistics and the accurate coefficient variables, comparison and 11.888 squares of LAMA discussed below). Insignificant of more rounding of errors cortewts, ernrs coefficient s (proportion the statistical cf c t-statistics betercealdricity errers are icient 0.064 0.076 0.065 0.063 0.030 0.089 0.035 0.083 0.074 0,107 0.097 0.055 0.008 0.057 381527 least sample and the less Estimate -0.063 3,245 periods 99.% amomption indicative 0.611 estimate footnote explanatory and standard standard colt= of z 39.571 50; conistatxy standard weed are 38,578 time s L. > the Corps implicit statistically equals = (see of the because coefficienti generalized the arm their the and this s of levels under Job of the Corpsamoters the are variable freecne in Irztivideals consistent the to ember equation affect definition standard for accurate (continuedi 0.35T of In estimates between Imwever, close Tnerefore, -t-statistic meters column, of carelatial A t-statistics 24 30 42 48 54 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 observations for grooedure rot For account variables two 36 dependent being TO 10 10 TO 10 TO 10 II) TO ID Mater Avery r Degrees Sigatlearne A/Consistent 1975). the very lifThe the 111.5 10 10 13 610 TO tr.: will and 'The 18 24 30 36 42 48 6 12 18 24 30 36 48 of of . of not iractioe, Variable' o 0 0 F-Statistic o two-stage apgrodmately Table aplaratog CA12 CA12 CA12 CA12 CA12 CA12 CAT3 CA:3 CAT3 CAT3 CAT3 CAT3 rA73 CAT3 CAT3 Master to Intreciass camxnent) Man Avery, model LNIE1DA err= because does differences In =ally adjustment estimates). However, ;receding p

TABLE 111.6

RELliMiCtI FreIt-TACT Cti FRACTICti CF T1FE MIMED, MUD= MCLITP.RY: MAUS ICBM CEILDIVil

to Darl:R Ccetricint

Var. Estimate TVA 1Latatistic4/

=STANT -1.133 0.459 '62.469 AGE 0.069 0.027 !.565 GE18 -0.053 0.035 -1.533 CV1R18 -0.063 0.028 -2272 ME21 -0.003 0.013 -0.222 OVER21 0.016 0.008 1.978 SON -PRE 0.024 0.008 2.975 DIPLCMA-PFE 0.073 0.043 1.684 ECUCATIC112-PPE -0.003 0.049 -0.052 ELACK -0.120 0.022 -5.566 HISPANIC -0.045 0.031 -1.436 AHERICAN INDIAN -0.057 0.051 -1.918 CTKER RACFIEIE 0.009 0.0f5 0.108 HEALEIERCB-BASE -0.079 0.037 -2.119 FALL 0.030 0.008 3.893 WIN/E2 0.005 0.008 0.638 SPRING -0.008 0.008 -0.955 1434TBS 0.001 0.0005 1.852 %Egtor-PRE 0.122 0.021$ 5478 OALF-FIRE -0.125 0.031 -4.040 ANYARREM-FRE -o.oE5 0.040 -2.129 AVALODHOL-PRE 0.021 0.017 1.270

CCUAREROIN-PRE 0.021 0.031 0.694 LAMA -0.003 0.025 -0.124 CAT1 0 T36 0.060 0.041 1.471 oal6 13 12 0.169 0.041 4.142 CA11 12 10 18 0.210 0.041 5.081 CAT1 18 1024 0.189 0.042 4.526 CAT1 24 10 30 0.158 0.042 3.749 CAT1 30 10 36 0.189 0.043 4.355 oal36 1042 0.223 0.05 4.991 CATS 42 10 48 0236 0.046 5.099 CAT1 48 13 54 0.244 0.061 3.975 CA72 0 T36 -0.030 0.043 -0.698 CAT2 6 13 12 0.046 0.044 1.066 CAT2 12 10 18 0.081 0.044 1.811

88 410 116 4 re\, Table 1126 (=timed) ac:laratn, 0:efficient s Standard Estimate Emcee T-Statistical

CAI2 18 10 24 Q.071 0.045 1.562 CA22 24 10 30. 0.042 0.046 0.909 C.Al2 30 To 36 chino cow 1 690 CAT2 36 1t 142 0.052 0.050 1.144 CA12 le TO 48 0.100 0.052 1.927 CA12 48 10 54 -0.026 r 0.070 -0.368 CAT3 0 10 6 -0.064 0.059 -1.081 CC3 6 10 12 -0.074 0.061 -1.204 CAT3 12 TO 18 0.093 0.0611 1.459 CAT3 18 TO 24 -0.009 0.067. -0.139 CAT3 24 10 30 -0.035 0.067 -0.518 CAT3 30 TO 36 -0.03; 0.069 -0.565 CA13 36 10 42 0.213 0418 2.718 C.A1 3 42 TO 48 0.114 0.079 1.454 CA13 48 TO 54 0.0104 0.091 0.478 ri Number of cbservaticts = 13,553 o Ntabw Of individuals s 1,489 o Average meter of time periods g 9.100. Intreolass carrelaticn ecefficient (crocorticn of error varianceattributable to Indivicksil comPcnoz) = 0.398 Nearadependent variables 0.435, F- Statisticfor equrwiai =17.145 o Degrees of freectm250; 13,502 o Significance level = > 99% statistical our idenoe 0

//Consistentgeneralized least squares estimates for civilians are obtained with a two stage ;romadure under the asetapticns of an ervir-caspcnents regression =MI (see Avery, 19r5).A oceri.stent estimate of LOMA is used, based cm the separate pr cbability model of being in the Jab Corps simple discussed previcmly. Using a consistent estimate of LINDA will not affect the canedstarcy of coefficient estimates but may bias the standard errors and t-statistics (see footnote 0 taw).

Far defiant= of eaplanatceyvan See 'fable III.1. 'Thestandard snare and t-etatiztice given in this table MY be eUgetlY biased tee the estimates of the standard errors Were obtained try a regressial ;metes utitd3 does rmt account itr the implicit beterascedesticity when xntro.U.ing far unobserved . differences between Orremmatere and the ccemeriscn.areple via the Redman (1979) aprrcach. In practice, however, the standard emirs and t-statistics frtm the ingression megrim we usually very close to their' unbiased comterperts, eememially itien the coefficients for the adjustment variables are statistically ineledficent (which is =ally the awe with cut estimates).Therefore, the standard errors and t-statistIce 'resented here are aPirociastely 'accurate and are indicative of the true values of these statistics. 41/ The t-statisticequals the =efficient estimate divided by its standard error. However, the =lbws in this column, are more accurate than can be obtained trim the preceding two calumet because of lessminding err.

89 117 I r TAR I7CE.7 ,

RFORESID-MMATES FUR ])1PACT CN FRAO17,s 7 TINE EMPLOYED: FEMALES 141111

Coefficient Estimate

CONSTANT 0.468 0.984 -0.476 /GE -0.023 0.058 0.39? XE18 a 0.006 0.068 0.085 CVER18 s 0.021. 0.058 0.459 "CE21 0.013 0.015 0.895 OVER21 0.003 0:009 0.379 EllICLIICN-PRE 0.005 0.009 .0.582 DIPUMA-FEE 0.059 0.056 1.049 EDUCATICN124RE 0.048 0.062 0.764 MACK 0.042 0.025 1.6110 HISPANIC 0.026 0.038 0.712 AMERICAN DIDIAN 4.043 0.0% -0.765 OTHER RR /ED! 0.116 0.176 0.6% HEALTHPRCBREAM -0.011 0.047 4.238 FALL 0.006 0.009 0.7148 1,01ER 0.004 0.009 0.051 SP= -0.008 0.009 -0.914 KST8S 0.003 0.0006 4.724 '%E -PRE 0.160 0.030 5.283 PELF-PRE 0.010 0.025 0.393 ANYARRES1S.ERE 4.0111 0.043 -0.938 141/AUXKL-PRE 0.013 0.02D 0.683 -COEE/HERCaN4RE 0.031 0.043. 0.727 LAKE& 0.061 0.041 2.383 CAT1 010 6 -0.105 0.050 -2.100 CAT1 610 12 0.001 0.046 0.010 CAT1 12 10 18 0.012 0.042 0.2811 CAT1 18 ID 24 4.022 0.041 4.542 CAT1 24 10 30 -0.032 0.01e -0.760 CAT1 30 10 36 -0.016 0.041 .. -0.385 CAT136 io ie -0.015 0.041 -0.359 CAT1 12 10 48 4.055 0.043 -1.316 CAll 48 1054 -0.078 0.061 -1.277 CA.12 0 M6 -0.105 0.0% -1.892 CA12 6 10 12 -0.153 0.092 -2.959 CAT2 12 10 18 -0.060 0.045

90 118 6

.41.

Table III.7 (continued' laratonvi Coefficient Variables' Estimate T-Statistic"/

CA12 18 TO 24 -0.117 0.044 -2.628 CA12 24 TO 30 -0.108 0.0115 -2..402 CA12 30 M 355 -0.059 0:045 -1.294 CA12 36 10 42 -0.0911 0.045 -2.111 CA12 ie 10 48 -0.133 0.046 -2.868 CA12 48 TO 54 A0.108 0.059 -1.823 CA13 0 TO 6 -0.177 0.055 -1.862 CAT3 6 10 12 4.254 0.101 -2.525 CAT3 12 10 18 -0.008 0.082 -0.096 CA73 18 TO 24 -0.103 0.072 -1.429 CAT3 24 10 30 -0.209 0.074 -2.819 CATS 30 10 6 36 . *N-0.27 0.077 -3.568 CAT3 36 1042 - -0.235 0.07o -3.355 CAT3 1e 10 48 -0.264 0.071 -3.715 CAT3 48 TO 54 -0.345 01081 -4.275 aster of observations-. 9,479 o Water of individuals = 1,002 o Average maker of time periods a 9.1157 Intraclass =relation coefficient (pr qxrtion of error variance attributable to individual cam:amnt) a 0.440 L Veen of dependent variable 0.2E2 F-Statistic fa- equation = 5.74,k, jp,' o Degrees of freedom = 50; 9,428 o Significance level = > 99% statistical confidence 4.

A/Consistentgeneralized least spares estimates for civilians are obtained with a two-stage procedure ur3der theeseemytions of an erIvr-ccoccnenta regression model (see Avery, 1975). A consistent estimate of UNIX is used, based on the separate probability andel of being in the Job Corps ample discussed ;Enviously.Using a consistent estimate of LAMA will it atTect the consistency' of ooefficient estimates tyt may bias the standard errors and t-statistics (see footnote c below). Far donations of explanatory variables, NO 'able III.1. 'The standarderrors and b-atatistice given in this table may be slightly biased because the estimates of the standard errcre were obtained from a regression frogman which does not m000tzt for the layuat heterovedasticity Wien controlling Dr unobserved differentss between Oorpementers and the ocreparimm sample via the Beckon (1979) ;Arcade. In rractice, however, the standard WPM'S and t-statistics from the regression ;mom avk usually-very close to their unbiased ocurterpertz, especially when the coefficients far the adjustment veriablei are statiatically insigatficant (whidi is usually the case our estimates).Therefore, the standard errors and t-statistics ;resented be arenth ancradiataly accurate and are indicative of the true values of these statistics.

The fr-statistic equals the coefficient estimate divided ty its standarderror. Hummer, the numbers in this columnaremare accurate than can be obtained fmat the preceding two columns, because of lessrounding error.

91 119 TABLE ni.a

Far.ass.lai ESTIMATES FOR lina mintizAw TIME IN alura4 itiammtlISTARY: 4

Wars Cceffietent Variab 1:13timate

CONSTANT -0.007 0.081 ' -0.083 KEE -0.0009. 0:005 -0.194 scii8 0.004 6.006 0.077 OVER18 0.003 0.005 0.656 PC.M1 -0.002 4 0.0O2 -1.225 OVER21 -0.003 0.001 -2.841 4, EDUCATICN-FRE 0.002 0.001 1.884 DIFLCMA-FNE -0.003 0.007 -0.482

ECUCK1IC*112-PRE .0.011 . 0.008 1.349 &AM -' 0.001 0.003 0.215

HISPANIC *0.011 . 0.004 2.487 maircAN INDIAN 0.004 0.007 0.513 c OMER RACE/1:311 0.017 0.012 1.1129 'HEALIELFWB-BASE 0.005 0.006 0.914 FALL 0.006 0.001 4.893 =TER 0.006 0.001 5.471 SMUG 0.005 0.001 4.579 KIM S 0.00008 0.00008 0.905 %DELCS-F.E 0.003 -1.172

PIELF-518 -0.0I7T 0.006 -1.105 AIKARRESTS-PRE 0.004 0.001; 1.106 MUALCCEICL-FTE -0.00' 0.003 -0.393 CCWHEROIN-FRE 0.009 0.004 2.202 LAMA -0.001 0.005 -0.096 CAT1 0 10 6 0.005 0.009 0.580 CAT1 6 TO 12 0.011 0.009 1.222 CAT1 12 1018 6.010 0.009 1.109 CAT1 18 10 24 0.003 0.009 0.3t3 CAT1 24 'IVO 0.002 0.009 0.238 CAT130 0.00T 0.009 0.808 CAT1 36 10 42 0.017T 0.009 0.817 ,CAT1 42 10 48 0.003 0.009 0.360 CV 4810 54 -0.017T 0.010 -0.686 CA12 0 TO6 -0.001 0.009 -0.112 CAI26 '10 12 0.002 0:009 0.176 CA12 12 10 18 0.003. 0.009 0.316

92 120. ;able m.8 (continued) .. 0 2Anlace:1pm" 0:efficient .S=sy Variable' Es. to T-Statisticli q) - CA12fell) 21$ -0.001 0.009 :.-0.055 .). CA22 24 30 -, -0.002 0.009 -0.180 CAI230 10 36 -0.002 0.009 40.0.251 CA22 36lo 42 0.001 0.009 0.094. CA72 42 10 48 0.004 0.009. 0.1106 CAI2 118 10 54 0.002 0.011 .0.1 cAT3 0 ID 6 -0.003 0.011 -0.281 CAT3 6 10 12 0.004 0.011 0.3l CAT3 12 1018 0.004 0011 0.292 CAT318 1024 -0.005 0.011 -0.449 CAT3 24 1030 -0.002 0.011 -0.207 . CAT3 30 10)36 -4.0004 0.011 -0.01 CA13 36 10 42 0.016 0.011 1.443 CAT342 To 48 0.001 0.011 0.130 CAT3 118 10 54 0.007 0.012 0.601 Weber ce cbservaticro *38,578 o Amber of individuals * 3,216 o Average meter of time periods * 11.888 Intraclaes merelaticn coefficient (prq:crtion of varianceattrib.ttabis to indivickal . =moment) * 0.372 Veen .of dependent variable * 0.012 FrStatiski,c for equaticn * 3.062 o Degrees of feed= * 50; 38,527 0 . o Significance level' s >99$statistics/ confidence 4

J/Consistent generalized least mimesestimates (Cr civilians are ,obtained with a two-stage procedure-under the assumptions of an ertcy-mancrents regression model (see Avery, 1975).A' estimate of LAMA is used, bawd co the_seperate prcbahility =del of being in the Jcb Corps simple discussed previously./ iladneri consLstent estimate of LAMM will not affect the consistency of coefficient estimates but may bias the standard errcrs and t-statistics (see footnotec belcw). biFor detizzibicmiof explanatory variables, see liable za:.'1. Silt* standaiderrors and t4tatistics given in thLs table may be slightly biased teOluse the estimates of the Standarderrcrs were obtained from a Miami= wag= which does cot account fa' the implicit hetemecedasticity" when cartrollirg far unobserved differences between Corpsoesters ani the camariscn angle via the Heckman (1979) appvech. In practice, havever, standard errs ani t-statistics fraa the regressicn prcgras are mealy very clove to unbiased-counterputs, especia.U.y when the coefficients(Crthe adjustnpszt variables we tisbicelly insignificant (wilicb ismealythe case with our estimates),Therefor4, the standard &rem and t-statistics presented here are appevecimately acs ate, and are indicative of the true values of these statistics:

.The. t-stailsticequals the coefficient estimate divided by its standard emir. however, the ratters in this coltion are roue accurate than can be cntained frcm the 'I:receding two calms, because of le.; rounding errcr. TABLE m..9

:=7.EMICt1 =A.r. Et R 2,2:1Cr CN FRACELCN CF =LEGE, OiNCLODAG 111LITARY:' Farials wnEcur

Biplanaboo Ccefficient Variable &blasts T-StatisticeW =sun -0.091 0.18T- -0.489 AGE 0.002 0.011 0.159 AGE18 0.010 0.014 0.712 C1/ER18 -0.011 0.011 -0.966 t.113E21 0.0001 0.605 0.027 OVER21 0.012 0.003 3.542 EDUCATION-Pk' 0.005 0.003 1.1146 DIFLOMA-FRE 0.026 0.018 1.448 ECUCATICN12-PRE 0.010 0.021 0.1193 . BLACK -0.001 0.009 -0.1112 HISPANIC 0.003 0.613 0.209 *EATON INDIAN -0.010 0.021 -0.468 OMER RACE/E1E 0.009 0.036 0.2111 HEAL BASE 0.009 0.016 0.585 FALL 0.022 0.003 6.767 WDI 0.019 0.003 5.931 SPRIAD 0.017 5.063 KNIFE 0.0003 0.0002 1.238 mitatiot 0.021) 0.010 1.936 %WELY-PRE 0.020 0.013. 1.503 ANYARRES1S-PPE -0.013 0.017 -0.762 111/A1.01EL-PRE -0.005 0.007 -0.751 CCM:EMMEN-FRE 0.008 0.013 0.615 LAMA -0.007 0.011 -0.6110, CAT1 0 It) 6 0.017 0.691 CAT1,6 113 12 0.038 0.017 2.193 CA11 12 T) 18 0.036 0.017 2.075 CAT1 18 10 24 0.032 0.018 1.802, CAT1 24 10 30 0.031 0.018 1.767, CAT1 30 II) 36 0.034 0.018 1.895 CAT1 36 10 112 0.035 0.019 1.889 CAT1 112.10 118 0.021 0.019 1.066 CAT1 48 le 54 -0.036 0.025 -1.409 CA12 0 TO 6 0.002 0.018 0.124, CAS 6 23 12 0.018 0.018 0.988

CA22 12 10 18 0.013 0.019 ,. 0.712

122 I Table III (aatizued) Z.:pia/etcei Coefficient

V.Al2 t8 10 24 0.008 0.019 0.1102 CAI2 24 TO 30 -0.008 0.019 -0.1117 CA/2 30 10 36 -0.015 0.020 -0.779 1 CA/2 36 T3 42 -0.001 0.021 -0.067 CAI2 42 TT 48 0.029 0.0M 1.364 CAI2 48 13'54 -0.018 0.029 -0.615 CAI, 0 TO 6 -0.014 0.025 -0.5411 CA73 6 TO 12 -0.001 0.026 -0.048 CAT3 12 10 18 0.004 0.027 0.1118 CAT3 18 10 24 0.032 0.028 1.139 cA13 211 TO 30 0.057 0,028 2.021 CAT3 30 TO 36 0.111 0.029 3.858 CAT3 36 TO 42 0.139 0.032 4.300 CAT3 42 TO 48 0.1111 0.033 4.343 CAT3 48 TO 54. 0.036 0.037 0.972 Hunter ce cbservatiam 7. 13,553 o Winer of individeals = 1,489 o Aver' weber of time periods 2 9,100 Int/edam correlation coefficient (martial or error variance attributable to individual comment) = 0.422 Vass of dependent variable s 0.039 F-Statistic for equations 5.648 o Degrees ct freed= = 50; 13,502 o significance level > statistical confidence

dConsistentgeneralized least squares estimates for civilians are obtained with a two-stage procedure wader the aseraptices of an ermr-caapanenta regression model (me Avery, 17T5).A canasta* estimate ar LIMA is used, timed on the =prate probability andel of being in the Job Carps sample wed grevicusly. Ming a consistent estimate of LOMA will not affect the consistency of coeffialent estimates but raw bias the standard emcee and t-statistics (see footnote c beltw). Veor deflaticasor mplaratcry variables, see Table 1:11.1. 2/Thestandard errors. and t-stitistice given in this table may be slightly biased beamme the estimates at the standard errcre Were obtained flan a regzessial ;Ewan whi.ch does not account for the Implicit beteroscedasticit7 wise] controlling far unobserved differenoss between Oncisrembere and the onerieca ample via the lieclanan (1979) &arced'. In practice, hammer, the standard errors ant t,-statistics from the regressicn Irwin are usually very close to their unbiased ocenterperts, especially when the osetfielents far the adjustment variables are statistically insigrdficent (144.ch is usually the case with cur etItimates).'therefore, the standard errcrs acid to-statistics re anted here are aproximately accurate and are indicative ct the true values of these statistics. "The t-statistie equalsthe coefficient estimate divided by its staniard error. Howeve, the Timbers in this col= are more acclimate than can be obtained frail the Fteceding two cams, because of less rounding error. \123 95 ,

oft

TABLE ZEI.10 , REI-AMS1.01 =IAA= FOR Do= al a. 1111E DI COLLEGE: FEMALES W1331

0)of Ticlat Ehjfittabreg fttimate '1=E1 i-statisti, 02MANT 0.693 0.304 2276 !GE -0.043 0.018 -2.394 ICJE18 0.037 0.021 1.781 CVER18 0.045 0.018 2.505 :021 -0.009 C.005 -2.017 OVER21 -0.006 0.003 -2.130 ITVC4I1CN-FRE 0.004 0.003 1.254 DIPLOMA - FRE 0.053 0.019 2.830 ECUCATICK12-ERF -0.009 0.021 -0.438 BLACK 0.008 0.009 0.9e8 RESPANIC 0.008 0.013 0.614 AMMAN MCLEAN 0.010 0.019 0.535 4 OM FtACE/ED1 -0.005 0.059 -0.091 11BALIIIPBCS-Etta 0.006 0.016 0.39) FAIL 0.011 0.003 4.194 MIER 0.006 0.003 2.0 SR= 0.004 0.003 1.480 MIMS 0.0002 0.0002 1.085 %EMELOY-PRE 0.011 0.010 1.114 %WELF-ESK -0.001 0.008 -0.078, PAYARRESTS-PRE -0.008 0.015 -0.539 14J/ALCCE1CL-ERE 0.001 01CrT 0.101 COKMEROIN-PRE 0.010 0.015 0.675 U?EA 0.011 0.009 1.224 CAT1-0 TO 6 -0.019 0.016 -1.195 CAT1 6 TO 12 -0.006 0.015 -0.405 CAT1 12 10 18 0.011 0.014 0.814 CAT1 18 10 24 -0.009 0.014 -0.634 CATS 24 M 30 -0.018 0.014 -1.280 CAT1 30 M 36 -0.0003 0.014 -0.026 CAT1 35 M 42 0.001 0.014 0.095 CAT1 2e TO 48 0.011 0.014 1, 0.804 CAT1 48 10 54 0.053 0.020 2.733 CA12 0 TO 6 -0.004 0.018 -0.234 ,C/C12 6 10 12 -0.016 0.017 -0.974 CA12 12 M 18 0.001 0.015 0.0E5

1124 96 a of which are the with biased or indivickeal (We estimate standard approach. far error. 0.085 0.892 0.490 -0.163 -0.317 0.050 -1.118 -0.791 -1.187 -1.187 -1.258 -1.295 -1.478 -1.387 -1.110 probability ;nose with the T-StatisticW * to obtained model the iroirma bias slightly emobserved (1979) case are standard true are separate camdstent be coefficients the here statistics. mei, far Heckman regressiai its tained attributable lea:Passim the a but 'may regression the the usuaU.y these by civilians CO Using Lath table a the when ;resented be /Toe controlling from of can variance fcr based Thble via is divided 0.015 01015 0.015 0:015 0.015 0.019 0.030 0.032 0.026 0.024 0.024 0.025 0.023 0.023 0.026 estimates this when (which values than S error see in obtained NEW especially 25. erremwstspenenta used, previously. t-sthtistics estimate confidence estimates given t-statistics true error. 97 of an is efficient were and the LAKIDA a: teicw). variables, cowl= and et* mere-accurate 1 9.457 'L, squares of disarmed of irsignificant 5 minding c emirs comiterparts, errors coefficient = (procorticn the statistical of t-statistics betertecedestiatty errcrs are less 0.001 0.013 0.007 -0.002 -0.005 0.0009 -0.034 -0.025 -0.031 -0.004 -0.030 -0.033 -0.034 -0.032 -0.029 1,002 9,420 least =emptied:es simple and indicative the Coefficient tstisate periods 99% footnote emplaretcry and standard semendard alltsm of 0419 estimate consistency unbiased 9,479 2 time = 2.503 50; = > the Caps (see implicit standard statistically equals coefficient a the of errors the the this because a generalized their 2 of level under Jab of the 0:rpementers the care variable freed= cameintemt in Individuals equation tent. the affect tiatics far to mobs' eefird.ticns exurate`entere t-statistic (contirmed) 0.1196 of in not sten:Lull estimatee between hewever, close Therefore, rioters colums, oserelaticn A of - variables 24 30 36 42 48 54 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 observations 2 dependent far mama* two ISC.10 ID ID ID TO ID ID 6ID 10 ID ID TO ID ID ID ID of Hunter Average Degrees Significance ). will and VFor WM6 the very "The the 18 24 30 36 42 48 12 18 24 30 36 le 48 of 1 of rot pactioe, Variable o "abrade= canixsztat) o two-stage LAMBDA ammo differences adjustment estimates). aPrradmately preceding Table CA12 CAM CAM CAM CAM CAM CAT30 63CA1 CAT3 CAT3 CAT3 CA13 CAT3 CAT3 CAT3 Number o rsan F-Statistic o Avery, model ' because noes In usually Hamer, TALE D2.11

REGIESSIGN ESENAIIS FOR 32.1PACICN EBACTEN CF 1:11 ANY CAM WELFARE, .111CLIMIIG KILITARr:

Coeffic Lent Variable 11 Datinate =0 T-Statisti, mon 0.228 0.090 2.533 -0.009 0.005 -1.788 ICIE18 0.013 0.006 2.1o5 OVER18 0.016 0.005 3.029 /G>1 -0.006 0.002 -3.009 OW121 -0.006 0.001 -5.088 ECUCATECN-PRE -0.003 0.001 -12.356 DIELCI$A-FICE -0.003 0.009 -0.369 ECUCATICN12-ERE 0.009 0.010 0.840 BLACK 0.008 0.004 0.203

HISPMIC 0.003 . 0.005 0.4E6 PH:RICAN MEAN 0.004 0.009 0.509 01B0 RACE/EDI 0.014 0.015 0.993 fiFALTHFRCB-BASE 0.006 0.007 0.815 FALL -0.0001 0.001 -0.084 W3N1ER 0.003 0.001 2.053 SAM 7 0.002 0.001 1.509 MIDIS -0.0006 0.0001 -5.746 $1,800Y-ESE -0.013 0.004 -3.098 PELF-PRE 0.045 0.008 5.625 ANIARRESTS-?RE -0.0003 0.004 -0.078 PU/ALOCHCL-FRE -0.0004 0.004 -0.117 CCMLIEERCON-PRE -0.004 0.005 -0.737 LIMA. 0.005 0.007 0.749 CAT1 0 TO 6 -0.033 0.011 -3.016 CAT1 6 TO 12 -0.029 0.011 -2.663 CAT; 12 10 18 -0.025 0.011 -2.292 CAT1 18 10 24 -0.025 0.011 -2.2E2

CATS 241030 1 .0.023 0.011 -2.115 JCATI 301036 0.011 -2.341 CATS 361042 -0.018 0.011 -1.644 CATI 421048 -0.018 0.011 -1.592 CATS 4810e -0.014 0.012 -1.134 CA12 010 -0.034 0.011 -3.014 CAM 6 10 12 -0.036 0.011 -3.020 CAM 12 10 18 - -0.023 0.011 -2.000

98 126 Table m.11 (continued) Expiate Coefficient Variab Esthete T-Statisticgli

CA12 18 10 24 -0.016 0.011 -1.434 CA22 24 10 30 -0.012 0.011 -1.084 CA12 30 10 36 -0.016 0.011 -1.386 CA1236 TO 42 -0.003 0.011 -0.258 CA72 42 10 48' 0.001 0.011 0.046 CAI248 10 54 -0.0003 0.013 -0.027 C11230 TO 6 -0.022 0.013 -1.681 CA73 6 TO 12 -0.025 3 0.013 -1.952 CAT3 12 TO 18 -0.015 0.013 -1.166 CAT3 18 TO 24 -0.019 0.013 -1.483 CA73 24 10 30 -0.033 0.013 -2.474 CAT3 30 TO 36 -0.028 0.014 -2.074 CAT3 36 TO42 -0.019 0.014 -1.381 CAT3 le TO 48 -0.022 0.014 -1.581 CA73 48 TO 54 -0.025 0.015 -1.700 Rater of oteervaticns = 38,578 o timber of individuals = 3,245 o Average natter ce time periods = 11.888 Wroclaw Carelatica coefficdent (proportion of error variance attributable to individual 03ePteent) = 0.434 Man of del netvariable = 0.015 F-Statistic for equation = 4.873 o Degrees of i'ree±se = 50; 38,527 o SISaficame level = > 99% statistical confidence

iiCasiistent gereralized leastsquares estimates for civilians are obtained with a boa-stage procedre under the astampticne at an errtrotscalenta regreeeicn model (sea Avery, 1975).A olielstant estimate of LAMBDA is used, based an the =prate lxvbability endel of being in the. Job Corps ample discussed previously.Using a consistent estimat4 of LAMBDAwi31 notaffect the consistency of coefficient *Wastes but may bias the standard entre and t-ehatistice (see footnote a belay). Fcr definitions of esplaratory variables, see Table M.1.

11111e&ardent errors and b-statistice given in this table MY be slightly Weed because the estimates of the starched errors were obtaired trap a regsgeaddat1 which does not aoasuit far the *Wait betaticeasdasticity when ccsitro13.ing farunobserved differeoces between Corp era and the caoperlace mole via the Hackman (1579) anzxedu In ;notice, Weever, the standard errors and t-statistics trap the regression programare molly very close to their unbiased octiterparts, especially Ases Use oceffleients far the adjustment variables are statistically insignificant (which is usually the case with cox estimates).Therefore, the standard errors and t-statistics presented here are earcocimately acarate and are indicative of the true values of these statistics. Milneb-statistic equals the coefficient estimate divided try its standard envy. However, the ambers in this cation are more accurate than can be obtained from the ;receding two columns, because of less rounding errs.

99 127 gek 8Z4.9-6l£'S-£z6.1r- ';" IrarIZO*0GEM 0 60£1.*G. W#51'0. 0- 81 01 ZI znoztai 9 ZIVO9 at 0 MD OLS9-860L-81S.9-1tL0SS- 0- 100',0533*0LW' 0 RCLLI.*LS 0- I.' 0- zites!'OL45 01as 84 9Eat L111 1.73ura 201,'199.9-19S 9- 9- ." - Ez00I7O0 *1/51..0-161'0-I/gt9; 0- leCC9E atCiLQL et 1gCC txra imp I= fa'OF.6cr 906*11 " ear°. ITLO*0Gm'ear° 0 M.0*110.0 8f QL et proel 01 9 9an CIL - 0 un Etrtr0 010'0EZO*0L10'0 IWOSL'O.10.0- 0 3113-XEMEIRMEO31111-SIZOIVINV3111-133:01V/D1 Man SIOLSg18 V , £000*0 Q10.041.00 Z000'0 9LO'Cr9LL0 3E10-x0 ise% 311i-ZBI.% SHEATH rt SLtr2-wetEgeCP0ar0 #00'01/00*04000 803'0600LOTCP. o- =BE1131XEN 711/1 ttl:cerz o 6ZO*0840'0Lan 010.0SEO*090'0 NVIDICEasva-amindif113/33VH /EKED 169'1SEo1911'1/910' 8ZO*0ZLO*0810.0 itO*0SOT810.0 313-Z INDIEVD11:3 3INVCD1 NDV1111 arQ6*1.1.8- 1- 1700*0ten600.0 MO'600.0940'0- CP' . 3113-1031/01123 3lid-VIC/1113 81ST695z6957564'0- 910.0Etwo903'0 040.0£E0.0£000- taw81.317fLEAD239/ Iragrirtir-s E9re261r 1- Ammo imam salmi MR= aliarIMNI "3111//13/4 MD XXV S 0 IlmATA"):0 4,41,41g3 Or610' 0 0* 4TcluPeiT1NVISICO '-' MAIM $ iEL =MU ND MK Hai S2ELVREIS2 NDIZZEMEI Z1.1:1:1 9 Table m.12 (catinued) Upla.ratono; Coefficient Var iable Estimate

CA12 18 10 24 -0.117 0.025 -4.731 CAI2 24 TO 30 -0.097 0.025 -3.879 CAT2 30 10 36 -0.125 0.025 -4.845 cia236 TO 42 -0.135 0.027 -5.063 CA12 12 10 48 -0.137 0.027 -5.012 CAM 48 TO 54 -0.154 0.035 -4.408

CAT3 0 1D 6 -0.123 0.032 1-3:782014 CAT3 6 10 12 -0.1Z 0.033 CA13 12 TO 18 -0.115 0.034 -3.363 CAT3 18 10 24 -0.103 0.035 -2.891 CA13 24 TO 30 -0.086 0.036 -2.428 CAT3 30 TO 36 -0.101 0.036 -2.774 CA73 XI 10 42 -0.143 0.040 -3.586 CAT3 12 TO 48 -0.155 0.040 -3.864 CAT3 48 10 54 -0.148 0.045 -3217 timberacbeervaticns = 13,553 o Mater ce iralividuals = 1,489 o Average rimier at' tiro periods = 9.100 Tameless carrelaticn coefficient (prqtrtricei of errs variance attritutable to individual comment) = 0.525 Mean of dependent variable = 0.054 F-Statistio far equaticn a 8.841 o Degrees of freed= = 50; 13,502 o Significance level = > 99$ statistical =rider=

iiCansistent mineralizedleast squares estimates for civilians are attained with a two-stage procedure =ler the e. tints of an error-cosp:nents regressicn model (see Avery, 1915). A consistent estimate of LAMA is used, based an the separate pr obeldlity model d being bathe tIch Ccrps simple discussed previcusl.Using a consistent estimate of LASDA will act affect the carmistancy d acatficlent estimates tut may bias the standard avers arid t-statistics (see footnote c telav). For definiticns of explaratary variables, see Table l:11.1. 'The etanderdarras and to-statistics given in this table may be slightlY awed teasuse the estimates ct the sten:ard 'mars were cbtained Pm a regress:1m Irwin *ion *es not &met far the implicit heterceoedasticity when catrollirg far unchserved differences batmen Corpmembers and the =prism sample via the Heck= (1979) approach. In pectic), bower, the standard emirs cad t-statistics frcm the ragressial mcgrem are usually very dose to their massed osztercarts, especially when the coefficients fir the adjustment variables are statistically insignificant (heath is usually the case with ear estimates).Therefcre, the staniard errors anct t-statistics presented here are approcimately activate and are indicative at the true values of these statistics. SliThe t-statisticequals the coef'ficient estimate divided by its standard errata. ficaaver, the rasters in this colt= are more accurate than can be obtained fryer the rreceding two whams, because of less rarcting if 2 9 TAME 111.13

WRESSIal =MIES FoR IMPACT CN FRACTION CF REOEMOVANT CASH WELFARE: MALES WLfl 4

Explat oefWficent T z7d1t 1 a t

CONSTANT 1.965 0.914 2.153 AZ -0.106 0.054 -1.968 A0E18 0.321 0.063 5.139 0VER18 '0.119 0.054 2.204 WJE21 -0.030 0.014 -2.172 CVER21 -0.020 0.008 -2.400

EDUCAT/CN-PRE -0.001 i 0.010 -0.077 DEPL0M4-PRE 0.009 0.058 0.159 ..' EDUCATICN12-FIE -0.083 0.065 -1.215

SLACK 0.1116 0.027 5.496 HISPANIC 0.025 0.039 0.642 AMMAN INDIAN 0.024 0.059 0.407 OM ER 1167,M11H -0.147 0.184 -0.800 HEALMM3B-BASE 0.04$ 0.049 0.975 FALL 0.008 OMB 1.048 WINTER 0.0118 0.008 5.4552 SPRING 0.038 0.001 4.598

NEHIRS -0.007 0.0006 - 12.0112 MiCar-ERE -0.063 0.032 -2.623 $WELF-FRE 0.0E6 0.026 3.291 ANIAHREZIZ-FRE -0.017 0.016 -0.375 NU/ALCOHCWIE -0.002 0.021 -0.105 CCICE/HERCON-PRE 0.080 0.045 1.775 LAPEL: 0.024 0.027 0.913 CA11 0'10 6 -0.314 0.05) -6.267 CAT1 6 10 12 -0.140 0.046 -3.035 CAT1 12 10 18 -0.082 0.043 -1.924 CAT1 18 TO 24 -0.082 0.043 .-1.925 CAT1 24 10 30 -0.109 0.03 -2.532 pal 30 10 36 -0.063 0.043 -1.4e4 CAT1 36 10 42 -0.022 0.042 -0.515 CAT1 42_,10 48 0.010 0.044 0.238 CAT1 118 10 54 -0.055 0.059 -0.917 CA22 0 10 6 -0.071 0.055 -1.291 CA72 6 10 12 0.019 0.051 0.375

CAI2 12 10 18 0.011 0.0116 1.007

102 130 it

Table =11 (=timed) Expiareibp Coefficient Variable J' Estivate CAM 18 10 24 0.001 0.015 0.029 CA12 24 10 30 4.03 0.046 -0.930 CA M 30 10 36 -0 .024 0.046 4.508 CAM36 10 42 0.024 , 0.046 0.528. CAT2 42 10 48 . 0.033 0.04 0.69/ CAM 48 10 54 0.034 0.058 0.581 CAT3 0 10 6 -0.025 0.0 ;-0.272

CA13 6 10 12 0.138 D.Og/ C7 1.416 4. CAT3 12 10 18 0.268 0.081 3.316 CATS 18 10 24 0.141 0.073 1.938 ...CAT3 24 10 30 -0.065 0.074 -0.880 CATS 30 10 36 -0.047 0.077 -0.609 CATS 36 10 42 0.036 0.071 0.504 CA13 42 10 48 0.044 0.072

CAT) 48 10 54 0.058 0.080 . 00.712113 Number of observations= 9,479 oNumber of individuals= 1,002 oAveraap number af Use periods= 9.4573 Int= less correlation aefficient (rrocortion of erzor variance attributable to inlivickiel caeponent) = 0.516 Wan of dependent variable = 0.255 F-Statistic far equation 2: 11.076 o Degrees of freedom = 50; 9,428 o Siedficuxe level = > 9911 statistical coreidetre

I/Consistentgeneralized least squares estimates for civilians are obtained with a heo-eta. Franck/re wear the assureptions of an error-comments regression model (see . Avey, 1915).A =Blatant estimate of LiM3DA is used, Weed on the separate probability model of being in the Job Cone simple discussed previously.thing a consistent estimateat LAKIDA will rut affect the consistency of coefficient estimates but may bias the standard errors and t-statistics (see footnote a team). VFor definitials ofexplanatory variables, see Table 'The standarderrors alai t-statistion given in this table me be sliehtlY aimed teams the estimates of the standard errors wee obtained Al= a rep water ;mg= which does mit accomit for the implicit betarcecedesticity, when actriolLing fcr unobserved differences between Corpsembers and the comparison ample via the Heckman (IWO appvedi. In plastics, hmeter, the standard senors and t-statistios from the regression ircgree are =ally very close to their unbiased comiterparts, especially 'Alen the coefficients fc the adjustment variables are statistically insignificant (*kith is usuall.y the case with our estimates).Therefore, the standard errors and tmstatistits ;resented here are agradmately accurate and are indicative of the true values of these statistics. A/The tmstatisticequals the coefficient estimate divided ty its sta.ndard errcr. !haver, the meters in this col= are we accurate than can be obtained frau the preceding two causes, because of less rotating error.

103 131 47

TABLE Z12.14 -..,,, REGRESUCN ESTRUM FOR IMPACT ON MlesER OF :!:5p PER=rams, . ... ,-.:... INCLUDING MUDDY:, .

IrenAb2i roaffiaterit Estimate. t-statisticw

cmslawr 0.156 0.358 0.436

AGE -0.002 0.4i61 -0.093 AGE18 -0.022 0.026 -0.867 .1; CMER18 -0.004 0.022 -0.202 -0.001 0.008 -0.130

k?. 0.004 0.005 ' 0.788 -0.004. 0.002 -1.760

-0.009 0.014 _.,'"----:0.621 EPEE 0.003 0.017 0.157 _% . m,neac -0.013 0.006 \, -2.116 HISWIC -0.010 0.008 k .4.170 AtERICAtfINDIAN 0.021 0.014 1.481 CaHER NIC1711 0.008 0.023 0.341 HEAL11521E8143ASE -0.009 0.012 -0.758

FALL Is -0.002 0.006 4.440 WINTER 0.008 0.006 1.401 SPRIEU -0.013 0.006 -2.3111,1 KRIM 4.0002 0.0003 -0.80V'--. %134LOL-HE -0.001 0.007 -0.128 %WELF-FEE 0.008 0.013 0.693 ANTAIMEMB-FRE 0.027 0.007 4.056 HO/ALCOHCL4RE 0.023 0.006 3.957 CCICE/HEROIN4HE 0.021 0.008' 3.23 LAMBDA 0.006 0.011 0.581 on 0 10 6 -0.0214 0.019 -1.253 CA21 6 10 12 -0.011 0.019 -0.581 CAT! 12 10 18 0.014 0.019 0.728 an 18 10 24 -0.013 0.019 -0.656 am 241030 -0.010 0.019 4.526 um 301036 -0.009 0.020 -0.465 CAT1 361042 -0.009 0.021 -0.421 CAT1 421048 0.020 0.021 0.934

CAll 4810514 0.072 0.029 2.4E6 CA72 0 7016 0.013 0.020 0.667 CAT2 6 10 12 0.009 0.020 0.440 CAT2 12 T3 18 0.031 0.020 1.532

104132 .

Table 111.14 (continued) Zxplanatcp Coefficient Variable Estimate S=0 T-StatisticW

CA72.18 10 24 0.041 0.020 2.015

CA2224 TO SO 0.002. 0.020 . 0.097

CAM 30 10 36 0.025 0,022 1.169,. CA1236 1942 -0.005 0.022 -0.244 CA72 42 10 48 0.019 0.022 0.832 CA72 48 TO 54 -0.010 0.b32 -0:315 CAT3 0 TO6 -C.0002 0.027 -0.007 CAT3 6 '10 12 -0.008 0.027 -0.296 CAT3 12 10 18 -0.011 . 0.028 0.409 CA13 18 '10 24 0.019 0.028 0.685 CAI324 ID30' -0.009 0.028 -0.302 CA13 30 13 36 0.002 0.030 0.077 CA73 36 TO 42 0421 o.033 0.640 CAT3 42 TO 48 0.035 0.033 1.056 CA234810 54 -0.014 0.039 -0.365 Mod*.if cheervaticns.r. 38,578 o Water ce Individuals 2 3,216 oAverage nuober of time periods 2 11.888 Intraclase ammo-UM:1i =efficient (proportica of errcr variance attributable to individual component) 2 0.031 ... Mean of deprAent variable 2 0.057 F-Statistic far equation 2 4.401 oDegrees of freed= a. 50; 38,527 o SterlifiCeri38 level. a > 9% statistical Confidence

liCamistentgeneralizedleast sauares estimates fen civilians are obtained 4th a two-stage pccedure under the eclair ptias of an errcr-ccencranta regressicr model (see Avery, 1975) .A acesistent estimate cC LAMA is wed, based an the separate Wobabililty model cC being in the Jot Caw maple discussed wevicusly.tieing a moistest estimate or 1..ffiDA will riot affect the comisbroy of coeffialest estimatee tut vier bias the stamierl arms and t-statistics (see footnote c belay).

12/For definitionof explanatory variables,see Table32I.1.

4/Tehstartoonderrors and t.atatiatobis given in thistables?,be slightly biased because the estimates of the etawahoderraswere obtained frmoa re iceprogram which does notwax=for the implicitlietercecedesticity then =trolling for =beamed diffamcces tetueen Ca Temeitersand thecaged=simple via the Heckman 0979)app nd% In practice, &saver, the standard errcrs andt statistice froa the regreesicnprcgraa are =allyvery close to theirunbiased cguaterparta, especiallywhen thecoefficientsfor the adjustmentVariablesare statistically ineignifloane (which is usually the case with our estimates).Therefore, the standard errors andt-statiaticepresented here are aPPtocimmtely aLouretaand are indicative of the true values of thesestatistics. t-statisticequals'thecoefficient estimate divided by its standard error. &waver, the nmbers inthis solo=sare mereaccurate than can be obtained from the preceding twocams, becauseof lessrcundingerrcr.

105 133 CAT2 CA12 CA72 CAT) CATI CA.11 CATI CAT1 CAT1 CA11 CAT1 CATT FALL CWEErl /GE I OMR BLACK evElei G1 PriE18 .118 USDA !CMS 2R13+0 MTh HISPANIC 03NSIPITT 12 142 36 30 24 18 12 010 KWELF-ERE . MINIM TO TO0 TO %1:141.131-PHE Variable' 713 713 713 713 713 713 8 Explaratao 6 TO 10 6 ralurta-in ECUCA1704-PRE 12 118 211 12 147/AL4X!ICL-FRE AMIARRESTS-ERE RAM.,/EDI 18 6 54 42 36 30 18 6 COKE/HEROIN-PRE HEALER:73-B= DOW ECUCATIL4112-ERE

MiGHESSICR

-; DICUIDAG ATES 0.017 -0.0111 -0.010 0.013 -0.020 -0.020 -0.020 -0.013 -0.016 -0.014 -0.007 0.007 0.016 0.004 -0.002 -0.003 0.001 0.003 0.002 -0.010 -0.050 -0.003 0.009 -0.003 -0.001 0.001 0.026 -0.019 0.336 FOR -0.0302 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 0.016. Oiler/awe t.ITLITAiff: 314,Acr 106 - ON TABLE S MALES NURCF E12.15 134 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.020 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.008 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.0002 0.003 0.003. 0.003 0.006 0.015 0.00% 4.004 0.008 0.007 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.010 0.013 0.010 0.168 %MOT . r, PMESTSP anumar .A - MCN1HS, 1.714 -1.508 -1.179 0,.644 -1.771 -1.931 1.987 -2.170 -1.524 -2.165 -1.707 -0.817 1.584 2.985 1.480 -0.323 -0.497 -% 1.445 0.161. 0.864 0.625 0.027 -0.705 5.340 -0.732 -0.894 1.100 -0.44i -1.018 9.350 0.045 1.597 1.929 -1.859 2.00 t. TableUL 15 (continued) Exp,anatocy, Coeffielent V4riableu . Estimate SZ? T-Statisticill .1 sa CA12 18 11) 24 0:oes- 0.010 0.456 CA2224 JD 30 -0.018 0.011 -1.850.

Ck1230 10 36 -0.015 0.012. -1276 CA12 X36 1) 42 ,r)-0.023 0.013 -.1.787 CA12 12 10 48 0.011 0.014 0.807 FA32 48 TO 54 -0.024 0.024 -1.021 CAT3 0 DD 6 -0.022 U.014 -1.500 0 CATS61012 , -0.024 0.016 -1.5W3 CAT3 12 10 18 -0.021 0.017 -1.1S5 CAT3 18 10 211 0.011 0.019 0.579 CAT3 21; 10 30 -0.020 0.019 -1.072 CAT3 30 ID36 -0.021 0.020 -1.044 dAT3 36 10 42 -0.019 0.025 -0.773 CA13 12 10 48 -0.020 0.025 -0.805 CA13 48 10 54 -0.019 0.031 -0.609 Nutter cf oteervaticas 213,53 V o ranter of individuals .I: 1,489 .. .., o Average amber of time periods = 9.100 Intraclass correlation coefficient (Froportica of sever variance attributable to individual ammarent) 2 0.021 Veen of dependent variable = 0.009 F-Statiatic fcr eqinticn = 2.314 o Degrees of freed= 2 50; 13,502 0 Significance level a > 99% statistical cf:andence

AlCornistentgeneralized least. vans estimates fa* civilian are obtained with a two-stage procedure under the assimmticatigt: errxr -of:comments regression model (see Awry,i9r5).A ocasistent estimate or is used, towed on the separate probabilitt model or being in the Job Corps maple discussed previously. Mira a oansistent estimate ad) L/H3DA will not affect the canistency d a:efficlent estimates but may bias the standard eras and t-statistice (see footnote c telcw). VS:definition of ciplanatcry variables, see Table 3=.1. 2/Tae standardsates and b.statistioe Wren iii this table mat be alightlt biased beasne the estimates of the standard errors were 'cbtained *cm a regression warm which does not account far the impliaLt hetercecedaatiaLty %Oen ccatroLling for urobeerved differences tetimen Ccrpmeeeters and the carmerisca sample via the Heckman (1879) apprcedi. In pectins, however, the startled arms cad t-- statistics *cm the regression rrcgrest are usually very close to their unbiased a:unterperts, especially when the coefficients far the adjustment variables are statistically insignificant (which is usually the case with cur estimates).Therefcre, the standard errors ai s! t-statistics presented he are . approm1mately ens:trate and are indicative of the true values of these statistics. - sitThe t-statistic equals the coefficient estimate divided by its standard error. Ha.erer, the setters in this col= are mere accurate than can te.cbtained &cm the peceding two coltzanstecause of less rainding error.

107 . s. t REGREMICN =MIS FUR 32,15ACF CN 4.1143E11 CF VILE =.16 PER SIX MONTHS: Coefficient FINALES WTlFI . - AGEMOUNT Estimate-0.296 0.018 0.390 Tagistiall -0.757 .1021OVER18PGE113 -0.001-0.035-0.019 0.0060.0230.028 -1.272-0.207-0.8300.785 DIPLCMA-PREETWATECM-ITIE.CVER21 -0.0002 0.0190.0006 .0.0030.0100.002 -0.0840.4101.912 'HISPANICMACKECILICAI/0112-ice -0.014 0.0030.007 0.0040.0110.006 -1.229 0.455.1.6-54 FAILHF.AL71511CB-BASEOMERPliEREpa RACE/1:111 DEAN -0.003 0.0050.0040.006 0.0080.0320.0040.010 0.6.%0.1310.661 1011}13SP=WNW 0.00020.0040.002 0.00020.004 -0.75k0.621.1461.112 APLARRESIS.4.PRE%IiELF-IST 110Y-ERE -0.007 0.0030.009 0.0270.0040.005 -1.0020.6%1.851 CAT!LAMACCM/MOM-PREMWAUXIICL-PRE 0 10 6 -0.019 0.0100.00020.005 0.0150.01340.0080.003 - -1.290 2.11550.5940.069 CAT1 1824612 10 1310 12 243018 -0.019-0.011 0:008 0.0100.012 -1.977-1.967--1.146 0.628 CAMCATI'leCAT1 ,48.10 3630 1010 48423654 -0.012-0.008-0.019 0.0100.0210.0100.009 -1.220-1.950-0.884 ak12cAl2CA12 p.6 10iro 12 12610 18 -0.017-0.019-0.020-0.013 0.0110.0150.017 -1.533- 1.274-1.199 P 108 136 Table =16.UB:0U/wed) Egplaratog Ce2efficient Variable" Estimate tV 16Sta flag( CA32 18 10 24 -0.009 0.011 -0.810 ,.0' " CA! 24 10 30 .0.018 0.011 -1.632 CAT2 30 10 36 -0.019 0.011 -1.619 CA12 36 10 42 -0.018 0.011 -1.725 CA.12 42 10 48 0.0006 -0.012 0.055 CA12 48 10 54 -0.018 0.020 -0.912 CA13 0 10 6 0.132 . 0.033 3.999 CATS 6 10 12 -0.024 0.036 -0.676 CA13 12 10 18 .0.019 0.026 43.722 CATS 18 10 24 0.017 0.020 0.831 CAT3 24 10 30 -0.020 0.021 -0.943 CATS 30 ma 36 -0.025 0.024 -1.060 CAT3 3610 42. -0.010 0.019 -0.964 CA73 112 10 48 -0.023 0.020 -1.189 CA13 48 10 54 -0.019 0.026 -0.747 timber ce aservaticns = 9,479 o fluter of individuals = 1,002 o Average natter of time periods = 9.457 Intreclass correlaticn ocefficient (gqxrtical of err cr variance attributable to individual ccoecrent) = 0.019 Haan at dependant variables 0.006 F-Statistic fcr aquatic= 1.236 411 o Degrees of freed= = 50;9,428 o Significance level. = > 99% statistical. caifidence

A/Coneistentgeneralized least squares estimates Par are obtained with a ism -stage pccedre uncles- the asomptian of an errmr-ccepccents reeresaiai model (see Avery, 19T5).A consistent estimate of LAMEIDA is used, based an the separate model of being in the Jab Corps ample discussed peaviously.Using a consistent estimate of 1.1143DA wilt trot affect the consistency of coefficient estimates but say bias the startled eras and t-statistics (see fcotnote a bettor} For definitions of explanatory variables, see Table DLL 242e standarderrors and t-statiatice given in this table may be slightly biased because the estimates of the standard errata were detaixed frail a regreesice Irwin which does not account for the impLictt heteasoadesticity when exeitrallis tar uroteerred differences between Chrpeoembers aid the caweriebi ample via the Beckman(1m)as:reach. In practice, tmweve, the standard errcrs and t-statistios trim the reeyereicsi pkgme are umaall get7 close to their unbiased coutarpets, especially when the ccefTiciects_fc the adjustment variables are statistically ireignificent (bitch is usually the awe with ar estimates).Therefore, the standard errors and t-sta.tistics presented here are approximate/1 accurate aid are indicative of the true values of these statistics. 'The t-statistio equals the coefficient estimate divided bi its standard error. Hamer, the limbers in this colons are we accurate than can be obtained ft the preceding two clause, because of less rounding error

109 13 IV. IMPACT OF JOB CORPS ON EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS

The short-term postprogram impact of Job Corps on the employment

and earnings of former Corpsmembers is obviously an important measure of

whether or not the Job Corps program is achieving its primary objective--to

improve the lifetime economic prospects of its participants. As one of its

most prominent and immediate goals, Job Corps is designed to increase the

employability of participating youths. The hypothesized economic effects

of Job Corps outlined'in Chapter II are generally consistent with that

goal. In this chapter we present our empirical evidence on the impact of

.Job Corps on employment and earnings.After providing some background on

the computations, we present our overall estimates for civilians and for

youths in the military, and, in turn, discuss our findings on (1) the

differential impacts among major subgroups, (2) the longevity of the

estimated effects, and (3) the sensitivity of the estimates to alternative

econometric specifications.

A. BACKGROUND ON THE COMPUTATIONS

Table IV.1 summarizes our overall findings, and, at the end of the

chapter, Tables 1V.2 through IV.18 provide detailed documentation.The

more detailed tables include thefollowing:1/ (1) estimates of what

Corpsmembers' postprogram behavior would have been had they not

1/Tables IV.2 throughIV.7 present the detailed findings on civilians; Tables-IVA through IVA8 provide detailed findings on civilian and military jobs together.

110 138 I

:ALE p.m A....,-" &limn Cr !JAM =WS FM MUM Me= at Dr-CI'VC MID EARIDCs, ?ER =SIM CM All AVM= MIS

Estimmesd Fatimated Estimated rousted Job Came Effects Job CateEffects Job Caps =acts Job Carts Effects Far First Year Far Simard Year For 'Mud Yea Far Forth Year

1.Weems employei. civilians 1.56 LIP 3.12 1.35

2.4402 41d1lcess, ad trollirm tar =Warr tat weans. mvillaim 1,75 2.80 2.0s

3.zumes employe:1. tvilsans and :CURT 1.35 4.06 2.81 L. *la employed. camtraLlat far =War time Mavis, civilian I .53 4.37 349 3.51 and militory

5. Wasp, amities. SO Siam MS 177

6. Unstop in I917 dollars, ci.viliamas sal 05 33112 $24 7. 'Etristrip, ccatralling fin rmallarr Use weeds. clsillace 16T1 S6013 tet2 3370

6. &r amp, civilian add militay 06 $71:6 SEZ 3531

9.ramify is 1917 dollars, drillers an military $ Q62 164 $557 005

10.Elmira', osocroUlmi far tonlizaw Elms trans, avi/Jae add atlas,* 1515 SW Etig 3797

11.Prcambility in as IWI 0.019 0.039 m.e. 0.010

r. #:"... -A .. ft.. . , ....: 1 & . f )

111 139 participated in Job Corps (Tables IV.2, IV.3, IV.8, andIV.9);1" (2)more refined breakdowns by major subgroup and time period than are presented in the summary table (Tables IV.4, IV.5, 111.10, and IV.11); (3) estimates for additional measures of employment and related effects (Tables IV.6, IV.7, 4 IV.12, and IV.13); (4) alternative estimates derived from varying the underlying econometric specifications (Tables IV.lk through IV.18); and (5) estimates for employment related activities that are denominated as the fraction of time spent in the various activities, which can readily be converted into any relevant time units (all of the detailed tables--Tables

IV.2 through IV.18).2/

Using the equations presented in Chapter III, we.obtaine0 estimates of Job Corps effects by program-completion status (program completer's, partial completers, and early dropouts) ror each six-month postprogram time period (eight six-month time intervals altogether for the four postprogram years),3/ and separately for each of the three subgroups ofsex and child

1/Tables IV.2, IV.3, IV.8, and IV.9 provide backgroundon what we estimate would have happened to Coromembers' employment and earnings had they not participated in Job Corps (akin to sample means), and, hence, are the backdrop against which Job Corps effects should be considered.

2/Forexample, the estimates for *weeks worked per six months* in the various tables are obtained by multiplying the estimates for the fraction of time "employed* in the relevant, six-month period by 26. Similarly, to obtain estimates for weeks worked on an annual basis, we would simply multiply the fraction-of-time estimates by 52.

3We actuallyhave nine six-month intervals (see Table IV.18) and a postprogram time interval of up to 5k months (four-and-one-half years). However, we have so few obseriations beyond 48 months that reliable estimates cannot be computed for the postprogram time period of 48 to 54 months. However, we do present such estimates in Table IV.18 as an alternative measure of what was occurring toward the end of our observation period.

1/2 140 responsibility (males, females who have no children present, and females who have children living with themand whose behavior is so different frcm each other that they necessitate completely separate estimation).For each six-month postprogram period, we then obtained estimates of the averageiJob

Corps effects and the corresponding levels of statistical significance for each subgroup of sex and child responsibility. These estimates of average subgroup effects were obtained by computing the weighted average of the subgroup estimates by completion status, where the weights used were the

Job Corps population fractions for each completion status--program completers, partial completers, and early dropouts (respectively, 0.30,

0.30, and 0.40). The top three panels of Tables IV.2 through IV.18 show the estimates of the average Job Corps effects for each of the three subgroups.

Next, for each six-month postprogram period, we obtained overall estimates (representative of all Corpemembers as a whole) and the corresponding levels of statistical significance by computing the weighted average of the estimates by the three sex and family status subgroups and using the Job Corps population weights for males, remales without children, and females with children.1/ The bottom panels of Tables IV.2 through

IV.18 show the estimates of the overall Job Corps effects. Finally, we

"The appropriateweight for males is 0.70 for all eight of the six-month time periods. The appropriate weights for females without children decline over time as more of the Corpswomen have children; the weights are 0.28, 0.26, 0.22, 0.21, 0.20, 0.18, 0.15, and 0.15 across the eight respective six-month time periods. Correspondingly, the appropriate weights eor females with children are 0.02, 0.04, 0.08, 0.09, 0.10, 0.12, 0.15, and 0.15 across the eight respective six-month time periods. '

.. thep. computed simple averages overthesiix-conth time periods to obtain the 4 . - . -.- . . r -.. . . annual estimates, ay.summarized in Table IV.1^.1

Table TV:1* iresehts summary findings both on civilians only

(eicluding youths in thi military services) and on all Corpsmembers,

including both those in the Military services and civilians. (Tables IV.2

through IV.? are restricted to civilians, while Tables IV.8 through /V.18

include observations on youths in the military services, well as

civilians.) 'When youths with military jobs are included, we assume that--

o They are employed

o They work 40 hours per week (which is probably too low)

o Their earnings and promotions are made at a relatively low rate, similar to the rate observed for recent enlistees from disadvantaged backgrounds (which could be too low for Corpsmembers, compounded by the fact that we do not fully capture the added nonwage benefits from military employment)

oThey are not enrolled in any education or training programs (although military service and the education and training that it typically entails for these youths will be considered separately as an investment intheir human capital)

oThey are not receiving any public transfers outside the military (i.e., no welfare payments, Food Stamps, Unemployment Insurance, etc.), and,/

o They do not commit any crimes outside the juris- diction of the military services while they are in the military

While these assumptions are somewhat crude, they enable us to integrate the

military effects directly into the regular analysis and to obtain better

estimates of Job Corps effects than would otherwise be possible. In addi-

Lion, this integration yields estimates that are necessary for benefit-cost

114 142 purposes, without having to Undertake any additional imputations to incorporate military effects.

B. OVERALL FINDINGS ON CIVILIANS AND INCLUDING MILITARY SERVICE

As expected, our estimates of what Corpsmembers, behavior would have been had they not participated in Job Corps indicate that the economic 0 prospects for these youths would have improved somewhat over time as they grew older (see Tables IV.2, V.3, IV.8, and IV.9)1/On an absolute scale,

however, consistent with our earlier findings on the disadvantaged status of Corpsmembers at pre-enrollment (see Kerachsky and Mallar, 1978), the

economic prospects for these youths would have been bleak had they not

Participated in the program. The employment rate (as a fraction of all youths) would have risen over the four-Year Postprogram period, but only

approximately from 40 to 50 percent. When employed, most of the youths worked full time (approximately 40 hours per week), so that the time trend t. In hours worked per week reflects primarily the changes in employment

(which is generally the case with our estimates)21

This natural improvement over time, although at a small annual rate, provides further confirmation of an upward bias in using before-after comparisons to estimate program effects for youths (by the fourth postprogram year, such bias would have been considerable).

2/The pre-enrollment and during-program time periods show even worse prospects, since the youths were even younger (many of whom under the age of 18).

This phenomenon (i.e., that the estimates for hours worked per week reflect primarily the employment rate) is pervasive throughout the findings. Consequently, as a measure of time at work, we will focus primarily on employment.

115 143 Earnings would have increased approximately from $2,500 per year in

the immediate postprogram time period to $5,500 four years later. However, approximately one-half of this growth in earnings appears to be associated with general inflation, and the bulk of the remaining half is associated

with increases in employment.11 The implicit real growth in hourly wage

rates above inflation would have been less than 12 percent-approximately

from $3.31 to $3.70 (in 1977 dollars)--and the increase rAiork time would

have been approximately 45 percent. Enlistments in the military would have

grown initially, approximately from 3 percent at six months to 5 percent at

eighteen months, but would have then declined to under 3 Percent by tte end

of the four-year observation period. When military jobs are aggregated

together with civilian jobs, the findings are very similar to those for

civilians (which is generally the case with our estimates). All in all,

there would have been subitantial room for improvement in the employment

opportunities for Job Corps youths.

In comparing the employment and earnings of Corpsmembers during the

postprogram period to what they would have been had they not participated

in Job Corps,2i we find that the program did lead to increases in employ-

ment and earnings for former Corpsmembers. Rows 1and 2 of Table IV.1 show

an estimated gain in civilian employment of approximately three weeks per

1/ TheGNP deflator was use_ to convert nominal dollar amounts into 1977 dollars in order to obtain the estimates of the proportion of earnings gains related to general inflation over the four-year period.

.21Again, it should be emphasized that this is not a-comparison of Job Corps to "no proiram. If the Corpsmembers had aot participated in Job Corps, they would have obtained some amount of education, training, and work experience through alternative programs during the program period.

1" 144 year--an average estimated gain of just under three weeks per year for the

entire rot; -year postprogram period, and just over three weeks per year

after the first feu' postprogram months (when Corpsmembers, employment and

earnings wert low, as they were making the transition from center life to

the regular labor market). As indicated by comparing rows 1and 2 of Table,

1V.1, these estimated employment gains are, on average, affected very

little by whether our estimating equations contain a simple linear time

trend or a more flexible nonlinear time trend to control for trends in the

underlying (employment) behaVior in the absence of the impact of Job

Corps. Across the postprogram time period, however, the estimated

employment effects for civilians are much flatter (i.e., more nearly

constant) whenthe nonlinear specification is used to control for

underlying time trenez (see further in Section Iva).

The detailed tables (Tables IV.& and /V.5) indicate that the

increases in civilian employment generally are statistically significant

(i.e., they are unlikely to be caused by chance) .2/ As with previous

1/For the estimates reportedas "controlling for nonlinear time trends," the squared value of MONTHS (the number of months since April 1977) was added as an explanatory variable. We also experimented with. adding a cub term-in addition to the squared term; however, the cubic specificatiod yields virtually the same results as the quadratit, but at much greater computational cost because of near multicollinearity. Most of our estimates also excluded the squared term because of added computational costa with the resulting .high degree of multicollilearity when the squared term was included for some dependent variables.

Largeirthan-usual confidence levels for twq-tailed statistical teats and their one-tailed test equivalents are shown in all of our detailed tables, the purpose of which is to provide aglditional'information on the Variances (or standard errors)'of estimates in a convenient format, and because it can be argued that one-tailed tests are appropriate, since participation in Job Corps is not expected to have deleterious -.effects on behavior:

117 145 estimates (see Mailer et al., 1978 and 1980), the detailed breakdowns.in

Table 17.4 show a pattern that exhibits a large growth in estimated Job

Corps effects on employment during the first few postprogram months,

beginning with some negative effects (as compared to what the youths'

employment would have been at that time bad they not participated in Job 4 Corps) as Corpsmembers make the transition from center life to re-entering

the regular labor market. Some transition pioblemi are expected in light

ro of the fact that many of the Corpsmembers have recently been out of the

labor market because of their participation in Job Corps. Boweverl.the.

magnitude of the transition problems (see Mailer et al.,'1978 and 1980)

suggests that the main impacts of Job Corps do not stem from job'place-

ments. In comparing the details of our estimates of the imeact of Job

Corps on civilian employment ( shown in Tables IV.4 and IV.5) to the

corresponding details of our estimates of what Corpsmembers',employment

would have been in the civilian sector had tbey'not participated in Job

Corps (shown in Tables IV.2 and IV.3), we find an average increase in

civilian employment rates of approximately 6 percentage points for

Corpsmembers--increasing approximately from 45 percent to 51 percent.11

The estimates also show a substantial increase in military jobs for

former Corpsmembers (e.g., see row 11 of Table IVO). The estimated

military effects are large and statistically significant. By the time of

the third follow-up survey, we estimate 'that Job Corps more than doubles

: L ne observed samplemeans for Corpsmembers can be obtained by adding the estimated program effects (e.g., as in Tables IV.4 and IV.5) to the estimated values for Corpsmeibers had they not participated in Job Corps (e.g., to the values for corresponding variables in Tables IV.2 and IV.3).

118 146

Ns. the rate of military service -- approximately from 2.8 perCent to 6.8 percent

(a 143 percent increase).

When military jobs are integrated with civilian jobs, the findings

onAmtployment and earnings are very similar to thoim for civilians, except

that the effects are somewhat larger. Aside from the lower first year

effects,: the estimated overall increase in employment for torpsmeebers is

nearly four weeks per year when both military and civilian jobs are

combined. Also, the est'iloated effects which include the military sector

havegreater statistical significance than for civilians alone. The time

patterns of estimated Job Corps effects and the influences of controlling

for ilonlineartime trends are similar to those for civilians--a time path

for estimated jib Cidrpeeffeeps that shows aUbstantial increases in the

first few poatprogram months, and effects that, on average, are

approximately the same,butthat are morn: nearly constant °Vet time when controlling for nonlinear time trends rather:than controlling only for a

simple linear time trend.'

The average,eatimated.increase in earnings for Corpamembers is in

the neighborhood of $400.per year (or approximately 10 percent) for

civilians and $600 per year. (or..approximately 15 percent) when youths in

the military service are included Zee* rows 5 through 10 in Table IV.1).

These stimated Job Corps effects on earnings generally are statistically

significant and follow a pattern aver time that is simner to the P

employment effects (see TatlesTV.4, IV.5, IV.10, id IV.11). /The primary

difference between the estimated earnings seine and the employment gainsis\

that the .earnings effect; are much more sensitive to the controls for

underlying time trends. When the earnings 'time trend in the absence of Job

119 14 Corps is allowed tobenonlinear, the estimated Job Corps effects on earnings are not only much more equal over time, but are also approximately

$100 per year higher on average and very much higher and Mach more significant in the fourth postprogram year (see further in, *ectipn Iv.D).

Using the GNP deflator, we also computed estimated earnings gains

sp based on earnings denominated in constant 1977 donna. As stiould be expected, theee estimates are somewhat lower than those in currentaollars

(increases of approximately $300 and $500 for, respectively, civilians and with military jobs included). However, the levels of statistical significance are approximately the same and, if anything, are somel bat , improved with thp constantldollar estimates.

Which particular deflator shogld be used. to obtain constant dpilar .$ . estimates depends on one's 'objectives', but does not affect our basic results. We used the GNP deflator because our primary purpose was to' obtain constant dollar estimates to be used in the benefit-cost analysis, which focuses on resource benefits and costs to sodietycas a whole. For resource values to society as a whole* the GNP deflatorseeie(iosti appropriate to us.1/

Before ending our discussion on the impacts of 46 Corp* on employment and earnings, we must highlight one potential' anomaly lurking

f 1/Theestimates underlying row 9 of Table VA are those used in the benefit-cost analysis. Since these estimates did not dontrol for the nonlinearity of time trends in the absence of Job Corps, it could be argued that they are approximately $100 per year on the low side., However, we relied primarily on the linear time trend because, we wantlit all of our estimates to be based on the same basic equation;ad4 because, for some cases, the underlying computations became very difficult and costly when .e, trying to control for nonlinear, time trendi Ithe;underlying data matrices became ill-conditioned beciuse of near, multicollpearity).

12, 148-.

4 behind the numbers. From the estimated effects on employment and earnings, a we can infer that little if any gains occur with respect to hourly wage rates. However, this uoul, Je explained by one of thre# factors: (1) with increases in employment and military service as ng Corpsmembers, those who are employed or who are in oneof the military servicesare drawn increasingly from the lower end of the ability spectrum, (2) the gains in earnings among youths in the military service have been undervalued

(especially by not taking full account of their extra nonwage benefits and various bonuses), or (3)-youth labor markets contain effective constraints,

(particularly minimum -wage, legislation) that tend to equalize the observed hourly wage rate for young age groups.1/

Tables IV.6, m7,-Iv.12, and IV.13 present estimates. of other employment-related Job Corps effects. These other measures include activity rates (employed, in school, or in training), actively looking for work, participating in the labor force (employed or actively looking for work), keeping house,:being employed in a union job, and being employed in a CETA public-service emaoyment (ME) job that provides publicly

subsidized employment. The findings for activity rates mirror those for

employment in terms of both.size and statistiCal'sisnificance, which

indicates that Job Corps leads to increased employment activity but has

little effect on the-overall amount of time spent in school or training

1/Thefederal minimum wage was *wised from $2.30 per hour ito $2.65 in January.1978, to $2.90 in January 1979, to $3.10 in January 1980, and to. $3.25 in January 1981.,,The federal minimum equalled approximately two- thirds of the average comparison wage throughout the observation period, with many of, the youths being-At or near tbis minimum. 9.

41)

' : during the poStprogram period (see the further confirmation of this

phenomenon in Chapter V).

Estimated reductfoie a. eobtained for the amount of time spent, 1 actively looking for work; theseestimated effects are genei.ally Stati3m

tically'significant. Furthermore, these reductions in job search are of

approximately"he same magnitude as the estimated increases in employment.

As a result of the offsetting findings for employment and looking for work,

the estimated Job Corps effects on labor-force participation are virtually

nil (i.e.i,very small; changeable in direction, and statistically insignif- de7

icant). This Observed reduction in job search is perhaps an artifact of

. the increased _employment combined with little change in school:Or training,

so_that when interview respondents are forced to report some activity they

.tend to report looking for work when they aro not engaged in employment,

school, dr, training:

Tge'estimated effects of Job Corps on the amount of time spent

keeping house shows an interesting time pattern over the postprogrgm

period --initially some statistically significant reductions' that

increasingly become positive over, time and are positive and marginally

significant byethe end of the fourth 'postprogram year. This time pattern

can be explained by-the Job Corps effects on childbirths - -they are

initially delayed, thereby necessitating fewer family, responbibilities, but

they eventually become increasingly prevalent, thereby necessitating

increased family responsibilities amOng.Corpsmembers (see 'further-in the

next seotion). 1

Finally, the estimated Job Corps effects on the amount of time

spent in union jobs (a positive activity that could lead to future

'122 F50 increases in employment and earnings) and PSE jobs (a publicly subsidized activity which indicates failure in the regular labor market)show

virtually zero impact. The estimates for both union jobs and PSE jobs are small in magnitude, changeable in direction, and statistically insignificant.

C. DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS AMONG SUBGROUPS OF CORPSMENBERS

In this section we consider the empirical evidence on the

differential impacts among subgroups of Corpsmembers by sex and child

responsibility and by Job Corps completion statuses. Differential impacts

among different program treatments. have been explored in earlier reports

(see Mallar et al., 1978 and 1980) and will not be pursued further here.1/

The estimates underlying our discussion are presented in the detailed

tables (Tables /V.2 through IV.18) and in graphic fora in Figures /V.1

through IV.6.

1. Differential impacts by Sex and Child Responsibility

Differential impacts among Corpsmembers are found to be associated

with sex and child responsibility. The estimates indicate that males and

females without children consistently benefit much more in tos of

'Some of the most important ofthese earlier findings include larger beneficial impacts for completing a CED program and for residing at centers that provide a more equal coed environment. Differential impacts were also found to be associated with the type of vocational training received, although the cause of the latter correlations could not be inferred directly from the data (e.g., whether due to the programs or to selectivity in assigning participants to training componentsfor example, assigning youths who cannot read or who have other employability problems to certain components). 4

123 15.1 employment, earnings' and related activities khan do females with children.

With resr,ect to estimates of job Corps effects on employment and earnings,

the primary difference between males and females without children is :at

a much larger impact on the probability of being in a military job occurs

for males. However, for femalas without children, the impacts on

employment and earnings are larger than for males on a percentage Oasis, in

Part because the females start from a much lower base4(i.e., compared to

males, females would have had less employment and earnings in the absence

of Job Corps).

The estimated Job Corps impacts for females who have children

living with them are generally much more negative than for either males or

females without children. This can be attributed to delayed childbirths

among Corpswomen during the in-program and early postprogram periods, such

that those who had children living with them at some time during the

postprogram period are more likely to have been faced temporarily with

labor-market constraints from pregnancy (which also accounts for their

higher reporting of health problems) and from having very young children

during the ensuing period of postprogram observation (see Maliar et al.,

1980, Chapter The fact that the negative estimated effects for

females with children disappear and even become slightly positive when we

take into account differences between the Job Corps and comparison groups

in terms of the presence of very young children (ibid.) provides empirical evidence of this explanation for the observed negative impacts on females

with children.

In previous reports, females with children bad little bearing on

the overall Job Corps estimates, since they comprised such a stall fraction

124 152 0

of Corpsiembers. However, the fraction of Corpswomen with children grew considerably over the course of the postprogram observation period

(approximately from 2 percent of all Corpsmembers during the first six months to 15 percent during the last six months). Thus, throughout this report, we have inclUded their negative effects in the overall estimates.

Our estimation procedures probably impart negative bias to the findings on females f^r at least two reasons. First, the negative effects for females without children might simply be temporary and might disappear if we control for the presence of very young children due to delayed childbirths. Second, we do not include the increased employment and earnings from delayed and reduced childbirths, which leads to the presence of a greater number of female Corpsmembers without child constraints and, as a result, who have higher employment and earnings. If the observed differences in fertility patterns between Corpsmembers and the comparison group would have occurred nonetheless in the absence of Job Corps, then our estimation procedures are appropriate. However, to the extent that Job

Corps reduces fertility and delays childbearing (as it appears to do), we have underestimated Job Corps benefits. Unfortunately, our study was not designed in a way to obtain reliable estimates of reduction in fertility and delays in childbearing.

2. Differential Impacts bar Cateaory of Job Corns tgrminatinn

We also find differential program impacts among Corpsmembers by categories of program completion (see Tables 1V.14 and IV.15 and Figures

IV.1 through IV.b). A substantial positive correlation exists between

the estimated Job Corps effects and the proportion of the Job Corps program completed. Program completers consistently benefit the most in terms of

1251t-, .1.03 employment and earnings (much larger estimated effects--more than twice as

Large as the overall estimated impactsthat are uniformly positive and statistically significant). Early dropouts are found to benefit little or not at all (generally po$itive but small and statistically insignificant effects). The intermediate group, partial campleters, are found to benefit an intermediate amount (uniformly po$itive, small, and marginalli significant effects and approximately one-third the size of impacts for program campleters).1/

Differences in impacts by completion category are important in-this evaluation for two reasons.First, we oversampled program ccmpleters and must estimate the impacts for each completion oategory $o that we can reweightthem to obtain overall impact estimates that are indicative of the average for all Job Corps enrollees (see Chapter III and Section A of this

for more details on this prooftlure). Second, as measures of the effects of changing the length of stay in Job Corps or the degree of programcompletion,ethese differential impactsare pertinent to improving program operations.

An important issue in drawing inferences for program operations i$ whether the estimated differential effects are attributable to program completion or to underlying differences among Corpsmembers who self-select

"The period-to-periodfluctuations in estimates for partial campleteri and early dropouts and their low levels of statistical- significance are caused, in part, by their small sample sizes.

2/As explainedin Chapter III, completion category i$ not perfectly correlated with length of stay because of the individualized and self-paced nature of Job Corps instruction.

126 .5 and are selected into different completion statuses (i.e., the sample aelectivity Problem). As mentioned in Chapter III, we have been unable to obtain reliable estimates that control for unobserved differences among

Corpsmembers 0 completion category. For a number of reasons, however, we 1 believe that the differential effects can plausibly be attributed, at least in part, to program completion.

First, the pattern of effects by completion category is reasonable; in particular, the effects estimated for the group with near-zero treatment

(early dropouts) are close to zero. Second, we control for a wide range of observable variables, some of which might also be proxy controls for the effects of unobservable characteristics. Third, any remaining causes of selectivity bias are likely to work in opposite directions and to be at least partially offsetting; for example, the Job Corps completion category includes both youths who are highly motivated and able (i.e., high benefits to staying. in the program) and youths who have little initiative and poor labor-market opportunities (i.e., low opportunity coats to staying in the program). Thus, the benefits from Job Corps can be improved by retaining

Corpsmembers longer and having more of them complete the program.

D. LONGEVITY OF ESTIMATED EFFECTS

The best evidencb on the timing of Job Corps effects is provided graphically in Figures /V.1 through IV.6. These graphs are based on a 1 piecewise linear specification of the timing of effects during the postprogram observation period, which includes 21 variables for each

-completion statusan intercept term (1 variable), slope changes by month during the first quarter (3 variables), and slope changes by quarter

127. 1t t_ 4.) during the remainder of the postprogram observation periods (17

vsriables):1/

The pattern of findings for the early postprogram period 13

generally consistent with that reported earlier (see Mallar et al., 1978 . .

and 1980). After some initial downfall *during the transition from center

life. to the regular libor market (and after having been out of the regular

labor market from A few days for early dropouts to up to two years for

program completers), the Job Corps effects on employment and earnings

become increasingly positive over the first few postprogram months. t"- Furthermore, the current findings for the short-term pOstprogram period are

similar in magnitude to those reported previouply--overall, approximately

`a 10 percentage-point increase in employment. The estimates average out to

near zero for the first six months of postprogram observation and then

becomespositive thereafter--at approximately a 10 percentage-point increase

in employment (See detailed tables also). (The sources of Job Corps

impacts still appear to stem from those other than initial job placement.)

Any small differences between the current findings for'the short-term

postprogram period and those reported earlier are attributable primarily to

the greater precision in the current estimates--due to added observations

/ The longestwe observed anyone was nearly 18 quarters (54 months> for the handful of Corpsmembers who were interviewed early at baseline, left Job Corps soon thereafter, and were interviewed late during the second follow-up (2 partial quarters at the beginning and end, and 17 full quarters in.between).

128 156 and a longer observation period that help control for spurious events and nor. -Job Corpsinfluences.11

The most interesting new finding from the extended postprogram observation period is the relatively stable estimates of employment and earnings gains among Corpsmembers, especially program completers, .for months 3 to 48 in the postprogram period (and similarly on out to 51 months for males, the group for whom we have adequate data to extend the graphs from 48 to 51 postprogram months) .2/ The positive, overall impacts generally persist throughout the four years of postprogram observation.

The trend over the four-year postprogram observation. period appears to be an inc.fease in progr benefits during the first few months and then relatively stable effectthroughout the rest of the four-year period, with little evidence of fadeout (especially when military jobs are included and nonlinear time trends in the economy are taken intoaccount).3/

1/We findno support for the quick fadedut that was previously. inferred (see Coldstein,1972) from comparisons of Cain's (1968) six-month findings to Woltman and Walton's (1968) eighteen-month findings. This is not particularly surprising, since the ,program has undoubtedly changed, and because both of these earlier studies were based on much less adequate data, whicb prevented researchers from undertaking the type of rigorous statistical analysis which underlies our findings.

2/The figures end at 48 months of pdstprogram observations for females and 51 months for males, because we have too few observations to provide reliable estimates beyond that point. The more erratic fluctuations for the early dropout group (and, to a lesser extent, the partial.completer group) can be at.tributed to the small number of observations.

3/Inthe absence of the nOnlinear term, the Job Corps variables pick up part of the downturn.in the economy towards the end of the observation period. Au.

129 1 $ 'it The evidence is mixed as to whether the program effects were growing or shrinking toward the end of the observation period. When only civilian jobs are considered and a simple linear time trend is assumed for

the economy, the empirical estimates show a substantial shrinkage of the employment and earnings effects for males and overall.during the fourth

postprogram year. However, when military jobs are included (as we believe

they should be) and better account is taken of the time trends in the

economy, the employment effebts are relatively constant for the fourth

postprogram year (see row 4 in Table,IV.1 and Figure IV.6), and the

earnings effects show a sizable (21 percent) growth (see row 10 in Table

Furthermore, for males- -the largest group of Corpsmembers (70

percent of all Corpsmembers)--we have adequate observations to extend our

analysis further, from 48 to 51 postprograLmonths (as in Figures IVA,

ITA, and IV.6); we find a significant upturn in the estimated effUta for,

males for both employment and earnings during that time period. Through

month 411, the pattern of estimated effects for females without children

(see Figures /7.2 and IV.5) is similar on average to males, but shows no

downturn in the fourth postprogram year; the estimated effects for females

with children, the smaller group, are such lower and more erratic than

males (see Figure IV.3).

Tables /V.14 and IV.15 show that the pattern of overall effects is

much flatter and more nearly constant over time when the insignificant but

erratic effects are assumed to equal zero for the early drop-out group with

few observations. Similarly, when six-month average effects are computed

for months 48 to 54 (see Table IV.18), we find that, overall, they are

130 158 again positive and statistically significant (and do not show signs of

fadeout compared to the previous months). We believe that the most

prudent conclusion about the longevity of Job Corps effects is that the

effects peraiat at a relatively stable rate from approximately three montha

after termination until the end of the four-year observation period; beyond

that point, our ability to extrapolate is very limited.

E. SENSITIVITY OF ESTIMATES TO ALTERNATIV: ECONOMETRIC SPECIFICATIONS

In checking the aenaitivity of our estimates to alternative

econometric specificationa, we obtain a number of interesting findings (see

Tables IV.1, IV.16, 1V.17, and IV.18). First, allowing the time trend for

the economy to be nonlinear makes the overall employment effects more

nearly equal throughout the poatprogram period, changing the level only

slightly; however, it does make the earnings effect aubatantially larger on

average (see the earlier discussion). Without the nonlinear term the Jail,

Corps variables tend to pick up the downturn in the economy toward the end

of our observation period.

Second, adding controls for differences in pre-enrolltent marital .

status makes the estimates consistently more favorable for Job Corps among

all three major sex and child-responsibility groups (males, females without

children,-and females with children) .1' Similarly, as reported earlier,

adding controls for the presence of very young children completely

reverses the negative findings for females with children (see Mailer et

al., 1980, Chapter IV). Finally, not controlling for differences between

Adding controls for the contemporaneous marital statue makes the Job Corps effects even more positive, but has clear endogenity problems. the Job Corps and comparison groups makes the findings much less favorable A for males, much more favorable for females-with children, and changes the findings only slightly for finales without.obildreh (see Tables IV.16,

IV.17, and IV.18), so that the overall benefits are reduced by a little more than one -$alf. However, we believe that the controls are necessary, because we have a comparison group and not a random control groqp. In our

- judgment, the most reliable estimates are those based on the estimating I equations outlined in Chapter III and which we have emphasized in this chapter and will continue to-emphasize throughout the remainder of the report.

132

. 160 7212 :11.2 17M91.1:5 fV 72Pallf:E8S, 341 -CIIM."7 Lamas111.1) '2AM VCT PARTECLPATED 111,103 0:PPS: 4.1.=.r r..7.71:02,21

Job Ccrps 1Isem Job Giros Paws JO carp Mara Job Caw ?Sara 0 to 6 M a t h s 6 t o *2 H a s t e 12 t o is M a s t s m o t s

L MILES

1. Civialii enamors aisl corning 0 2110194c1 (fnctice of Ulm) 0.418 0.445 0.474 0.409 o Weis lasted pr six maths 10./37 11.56 12.33 ..12.71 o liars larked pr seek , r 15.70 17.19 18.71 19.69 o Earn:Mos pr tank In current dollars 55.06 66.72 00.12 99.49 o Wm. pr welt In 1977 dollars 54.92 41.66. 49.55, 7337 . 2. Pretsiallry In ELIMET Orin intirrlas 'ask .

11 flEPIION 112H it 131:11.ERE1 and orPlrige . 1 avikiinIMPLCIAM* . o &played (tract-Sal of tlan) 0.298 0.309 0.331 0.358

o skew agreed ;or six oaths 7.711 8.03 8.61 A. 9.32

o Mors maid Pr writ 11,36 12.30 13.36., 14.68 o Dram, pr west In currisz'dolLis v.a\' 38.95 44.58 5141 ."- o Earroses pr wok In 1917 dollars 30.96 34.44 38.18 42.69 2. Prctotoury In eilltsry Orin InterrIsio wok .. c-FEHILEs was mum 1. Cimino ap/ogort and eurniro o alplcgoi (Itantico of tars) 0.291 0.309 0.300 0.317 o Pelts inlaid pr sls motto 7.65 8.04 7.79 8.23 o Hers wcteiti Pr molt 11.13 11.40 11.09 11.79

o WW1. pr wilt In wrest ckillars 30.39 38.35 36.7e 11.$31 o Omar pm' welt In Key dollies 29.11 30-82 31.23 33.76 2. ProbstIllry In 81.1.4ary Grin UgaTivi snit 0. OVERALL 1. arwan anion= atclalrInailli oNaomi! (rrectica or Slur; 0.382 0.401 0.429 .0.446

o Welke screed pr =axed* 9.93 10.50 11.15 11.60 o liars wraps pr seek 14.40 15.69 16.92 17.93 o braises pr welt In turmt dyke 48.18 58:10 68.91 77.28 o&rause perbook M 1917 &agars 47.69 53'35 59.59 b3.72 2. Probebillry In MUSE" Orin IntwrIneweeit 0.033 0.051

Arl 133 BEST Cr 161 :=2 =91= 7 0:871213831451 at?1.17 ?JR:x.4. lappir. PARTICIPAIED21 ,X11 CMS:

ccros Yearn Jcb Corps lbws Jab Cone mom .:cb Orrn Mums 1211421.0 30 Itano21 Arto 3610.1= igart0r=langlorn Agarcorrta Miura via 1. Civilian Inpiosint and earrings Oalarmed (fracticn gt Lut) 0.52D 0.525 0.547 0.554

44* oWINKSucrAzd pm- six of 13.66 14.22 14.39 . 3.52 o Aar, roriard per ;mit 21.49 21.82 22.75 23.29 o Earns* ar umex ir. alrrerlG =liars 1C3.28 107.45 117,13 124.2!

firr-rsp pr went in '77 :airs 81,35 453.45 s8.32 91.18 2. PrcosniLtty -In military arla4 i/Xaroiniwelt 0.Q36

:11UP "..r 14.-Vo on 10 1.-CiviLum immune Ind asrvdran A (Cractios d Una) 0.359 0.318 0.441 o.isso

.9 Fens r.crinpipsr" six sznins 9.59 9192 11.117 11.43 o Hors mien pr soak 15.36 15.97' 18.31 18.65 . o Prr0414-taat ionic in cirrus cloliarn 55%52 40.35 72.88 76.8T °Earn:Lap Per welt tot .§17'011111 44.74 u6.95 55.42 56.44 3 2. PrcbablXit, In railway *x8/ incikvio 0.0111 C _MYLES VON CIULDRIM 1. Civilian aspioyokstp.ossi arum" o Enplane! (finctior ilins) \ 0.316 0.353 0.383 0.399 oLimwind prIsiz iarke : 8.95 9.18 9:gr T0.37 t_ o Horn wind pr 441k, 0. 12.89 13.17 14.39 15.00 o &Mies per weak in arms ckals.. WA 49.41 55.98 . 59.46 o brills. pr weak in'10 a*.tra .31.56 38.31 12.64 44.46 2. trottaiit, la allitpry cirlse Interview wok 0.0 D. OVERALL 1. Civilian 4.1.1:0=4 mid minims .

o 81p14411 Mom= ct lima 0.472 0.478 0.501 0.513 o Wales 4crian per six wino t2.26 12. 13.17 13.34 . o Sara waled pr wait ., 19.39 1 .73 20.84 21.35 o MU.' Per walk la curries Oolls'n 88.33 .01 101.32 107.28 o Eska. pr wank I sr 19170o7.1s43 69.65. 7.1e7 76.54 78.97 2. Psminktlits la silitery arses istArrum4111 0.028

134 162 72LL M=17.25 .1:13 =EFS :331.7"'-31 317,...Cl'12!" ZAK.TCS: M.F.! IX!) agalD..frX7E1CG141.1ES.RS

-Caw =acts Jcb Carpi arects.00 .1-tects400 :.ffects 6 *moo 6 to 12 liras 12 10.10 rondo) 18 to..24 Mats

A. MILES 1. ',:ivUlaa CIO IC ant soroires aoplood (frootiot at tem) -0.004 0,084mo. 0.124 0.0914 o Asks wcolocl per six undo -0.10 2.550.0. 3.224ess 2.520 o liars sorlod per look ) 11.71 6.01400* 4.6610 0 Farrow per wok 1.0 oorort dolloo 5.46 16.97 19.83" 10.83 I. Eorroreps per woe to 1977 collars .58 13.92 17.334" ?.72 2. Pr2o01.114 to atLitary ttriog Istorrime wok 0.02Oft 0.C56000 AlliALN- gap= COURM 1. ^Svsiian aptceora and sonOxes o r>tplgad (fraIRICID dUM) -0.018 0.032 0.13) 0.06/° loraod per sLx meths 4.47 0.83 3.120000 1.70 o Harm weed per woelt -0.81 -0.12 3.6608 1.37

Firetogo per romeic to curroot dollars 0.43 2.78 12.7/ 7.76 , o Tannage per um* in 1977 dallav -0-26 2.68 11.8344 7.02 2. Protatalitf in ottleal7 dal* totorolos mole , 0.018 0.0003 S c MOMS WM araXille 1. Ciotti= eogioemot and orrageli o 141110/01 (frocttal d Lies) -0.1340 -0 . 147 -0.018 ..0.083 o Woo larked per WS mantle -3.48444 -3.432000* -0.47 -e.1610 o Hare wren! per woe 4.39.0" 4.43"ese -0.81 -2.8101* ofarm. ;or wok to comae claLlsi -14.2110 -75.79. ;6.71 -12.901* o Earnings per auk to 1977 *los -13.40460 -13.79". )-4,90 -9.190. 2. PretoOLLIP, is ofIttery arta' lot cries wok 0.0 0.0 D. OVERALL 1. Civilian oploy=z and "ire o Ileptayol (imago at UM) -0.011 0.071 0.112 0.07440 o veto waist per ads amain -0.29 1.85s0* 2.910 1.124m. o Bars %triad per bask 0.97 445ms' 3.29". o Swam rat- auk is currom Ocilors 3.66 11.11* 16.01 0.08 o Emu. car auk In 1977 dollars 0.11 9.09' 14.34 7.40 2. Pro:Wally in ciliary tarifa laterria malt 0.m 0.039000 9 Stsaillcrally 48171reat frta two at tba de Ural of statistical coarldome M ft, a too-tikil toot)). Stgatticeatly Wilma five =a at tbe 95 Isla 1Cstatistioli ozeleamo V5iItr. a calwati Usti He Stopeitlootly Olfferatt erva tiro at tb 95 ismi at =UAW* =flaws 91.5% DT a orio-tall caw). 41e Statticabaty

"11 BEST CV.( f.' r

135 V

=WES CF JCS =PS ZiPAL3 Ca afi.C9d1177 21D WI= 21:IRD MISTFIICGIOMlffi 8S

.41) Johtarp Maces 7de -Cmps Mans An Cam Waco 24 to 0 140ntiat 30 to 35hetes 36 to la !Sethi 42toSe Moths After Liss Aft tianAttar TeseinetichAfter lanaitiro LMU'S 1.4:iy1lleo melons* ,s12 hrillop ... 4 o Mame* (friction ct tan) mores. 0.005 0.054. 0.018 o Worm mond per six writes 2.680444 . 2.21440 1.404 (.. 0.47 0 Fora wailed per soak 0.190os 4.05.4. 3.ZMI '1.23 o Earnitgpper Imes In current Sills. 12.76 12.55 3.71 4).60 , EmT11P0 ParWINE An1977 dillms I1.0 11.0 6.58 -1.55 2. Frctatelgirf in, iallits7 drIng lasarrist ark. 0.0554444 a. FEMILESsITECITrailLMEN

I.I C.trillooloplopontand aornipp Ms o Mama(trIMI= ce UM) 0.035 0.051 0.159444 0 0.1358,* o Waits %orielpm,six maks 0.91 1.33 4.13"e 3.5eanes o Hors warred For weak -0.31 -0.17 2.60 2.14 o Eirretappm, wokan =ran dolly. 0.88 2.53 11.211* 13.53 o Earnings pr ark In1977 chilli's 1.31 2.24 7.82 8.47 2.Fran flips In silltory'during=wrist took 0.006 C. area kum maize; 1. Civilian mammacad essEihe o &Owed(gym ct Una) -0.125848* -0.133444 -0.1274444 -0.16208m o Walks horned par six aintb ....3.258.4. -3.416448* -3.30"" 4.21esoo .6.34so4 o Haws masapr' weak -4.30481 -Cams .4.211so o Earnings Par ran In a.rrrit Jolla. -16.62444- -17.81. -17.11144 ..11.3114 -12.84448 -13.794" -19.74seso o fruitypm, seek In 1917 CeillArs -13.91.10 .. 2. Frobabillw In militarydurum intsvisi week '0.0 . . D OVERALL

i`..Civillao aployarit aptlimns o Baeleanal (erica= of Mar) 0.06744 0.0004 0.04311 0.009 o Wass wind par six=Six 1 :Mom t.3840 1.12' 0.23 o Hors warned pro week 0 2.65m 2.3040 2.064 0.23 ojam 1 g.far ran in arrant. dopes 7.45 7.38 5.17 -2.19 c >~ rein. pr'wale in 1977 dollars 6.71 6.45 3.71 -2.78 2. ProtataLtw In ailliary" tiring Intarries ark 0.0404110,

I Stestrialatty Wrest Mosier° at too SOS loyalofstatistical canflania M far a ar-tall taut). 4,1 Significantly deferent fro zero at Ur 93 lord cf statistical orrlanna 951 fcr a cns-tailtut/ .09 Significantly different me at ter loyal af statistical ccalletsccs 9T .5 far a cra-tail. teat). ma Signatioretly different fro zeere at tgo 9919 loyal of statistical cartinsoca99.511 far a aeotail tout/.

164 136 1:212 ZI.6

117.72-A:ES Cr .; CCM .1414C:5 CN 01P-MElfr-MAII) AC=ES. ECK CIM:2145: =LT F.:m=1112MM

Jab 12re--'ctsvacuicts 0 to It rate 6 to 2 tterla 12 to 18 ftnthe la to 4 Months

1. Inplayad. in =Mal. or lo training Maxim ar cum) -0-037 0.07144 0.0E5244 0.06504

2. Actively /Adam for lark Effusion of tau/ -040854" -0.1090sea 43.110404e 4.074

.1 3. 3apin5lea mr Imam for work (fraction ar tt2o) -0.0690m -0.030 -0.028 0.024 4. Meow; bum !fraction or Lisa) -0.005 -0.0002 0.014 0.028

5. an*cboli In =ft ;00 ;:racttul of Isbal -0.06344 -0.0480, -0.04580 -0.030

6. 3apbayea in ME :co .fraccun of Lis') -0.0284 -0.004 43.002 0.0002

S. rffialEs 103H3r CHEUREtt

1.V.ira.1 gesscull. cr in trainiss -0.054 0.064 0.136eme 0.10044*

2. kniimay looking for work (friction or tau) 0.0624* - 0.010 -0.022 0.003

3. lutcyaol cr luting Az, wart (faotios or tire) 0.042 0.005 0.039 0.051

4. Keeping tam (fractious or tau) -13.tinfaft .0.154,ue .0./a5eeee 4.1610m*

6: 31ployld is mica jab (tnution or taw) 0.021 0.0304 0451110 0.0531"

6. Loped In PM jab (fraction ct Use) 0.004 0.016 0.0112444 0.021 =1§9EITIEBri=M

' ?mi= 2 iliVtf "tritill4 4.1618008 -0.160444, -0.027 40.0734 2. Actively lamina tor hark (friction or tine) 0.08340 0.1364004 0.09144 0.051

cl laicise for work (fro= or Wm) -0403 0.0* 0.022 -0.041

4. rations ball' (Orapciom et Wm) -0.107" -0.073 -0.0794 .o.cee

5 abused io mob= jab (fracnino ar gene) -0.014 -0.077 0.003 0.036

6. !Waren Is FIE job (rehottm at tuna) -0.015 0.021 0.0117141, 0.048 0._ 1- salad. in utcal, cr in orsinice (ma= of floor) -0.010411 0.0604 0.087141, 0.060444

2. actively luting far uark (fracMoo of t2m1) -0.0404 -0.0684444 43.075141, -0.0460,

3. Wand or lambs' for werk (fraction or um) -0.05104* -0.014 -0.012 0.011

4. ZOOM. bum Mutt= or tan) -0.0564044 43.043een .0.0370, -0.019 5. %blared in wawa lab (francium* Use) -0.0390°4 43.0264 40.020 -0.009

6. employed In FIE jab (fraction of ton) ..0.01911 0.012 0.012 0.009

suroneomay donna fluters at She 8011 level or mail-ft:Loa coodloace (9og ttp acce-tall en signuicarzu, donront emu:mat the 903 lewd of statistics/ confidare (551 Ow tailabit).eat). 000 Slealictently different fruiter° at She 961 lowel at statistical =Mem (43.511 Mar acne-tail tast). 114m Significently different from zero at tee 995 level of statlst.i L =Macre (59.51 ttr a onwtail test ).

10.411

: .. .. .

137 I 6 TABLE IV.7 7.7=XITS 7 :CB COWS :12PACM14 nuPLZDENT.AELA2D AC7rIZTA'S FOR .7.72..=: Pa.dai

Jom 40 1271=0 Job corps EffectsJoocors-Erfects 24 to Meats Months .* 42 Pteefte 42 to 46 Months Urinate After Wm AfTar lirminaummArtm, Tersinauta L MILES

I. Babloye l. in stboall, ar In Vietnam 'franca= or tam) 0.070" 0.0574 0.040 -0.003 2. Actively Iceiarg !trim*(rnxtiosar tam) .0.10240044' 0.091041.t -0.06701 .0.022 3.Beamed or lolling far emit ,.rrecticn ar tam) 0.010 -0.036 .0.006 .0.001

4. Keeping home (tread= of tam) 0.0117444 0.0471401 0.058*" 0.orre4ee 5. Boplcycl to anion :ob crreation of tlime) 43.033 :4.33646 -0.0444 .0.05248 5. &played to PSE :ob (fl eat= of tame) 0.005 .0.004 -0.011 -3.015 misEsiorsEtrfaimiREN 1. Wand.In =bad. ar latraining (Vaasa= ar tam) 0.07341 0.100490 0.171004 0.1810010

2. Actively lacicavg for twit Moamar tam) .0.036 -0.050 .0424 A-0.007 3. Osgoodor Icecap' Cu' wont (Creation at UM) .0.020 -0.027 0.105000 0.05$e 4. Keeper, beim (freoLUme ar tam) .0.13241m - -0.121444 -0.142440 .0.773me 5. 81pLoyaltsunami Job(factionof tam) 0.0241.0 0.054484 0.09~ 04414 5. geplopel to FM job (emetlas or tam) 0.0295 0.0260 -0.002 -0.003 C. Favus IIEIN MILDEW 1. auployal,Insastal. a` 14 0.101411 anal= of time) -o.lcsilpm -0.0734 -0.121em! .0.1e0.ee

2.Actioaly Imamsfor lark(fraction of =mi. 0.0624* 0.0551 0.078046 0.07040 3.lImployed or1=104tar work (rrentaam or tam) .051 -0001 .0.036 -0.01644 4.Leming home (rreatial or this) 4.0034 0.021 0.033 0.02 5.Bepleyed to anal job (treatban or tame) .0.001 -0.006 -0.009 -0.012 6. Elap loyal In Pi jcb (Ma= ar tin) 0.036444 0.020 azor -0.008 D. OVERALL

1. &Oared, Ln ar im treUaeg rcocoa yegm. 0.05344 0.050e4 0.0368 0.004 2. Actively laming Cu'it(Ireotian of thee) .13.177290 .0.0680." -0.0391 -0.0% 3, ample me ar lodging Cu' waft (rreatim or tam) -0.036 -0.0204 0.00e -0.001 4. Leith, Wimp (rreatimi of dm) 0.037 0.008 0.018 0.03644 5.Beamed in elan JO (rrectime or Cam) -0.013 -0.016 -0.025 -0.0324 6. Els:loyal In PA jab (fraction at tam) 0.014 0.004 -0.037 .0.012

I Siszificently affront*, from spa at tba 806 Level a( statiatica =Made rip a as-tau tom. " Slanricarzly diffenas frail two at ima 90% Levet statistiool confidstce Cu' a tortail tow). 444 Sificitia=ly different frail stoat tbe 06 level ofof statistical tadidonce 97.51 Ms. aone.tail elm Signiflaarlyal/rev=from sore atOne 99%1owei of statistical comelibro (99.$ 6 Cu' a cts-tail. tenet

138 166 =LT .77.6 -.7."L".:=. 7 7..1LM.T.Er.7:5. 21"-:.:.3.rtILF.4.7-..7_17.7-7.:.77 'M "aw 214 1=16 :11-7ART A: 7.75

oon c Wag 4Cto Carp Nora ctrCawMons 0:0 Glom Mans 0 to 6&Ma 6 to :2 Mamba 12 to 18 Swiss 18 co 24 &grabs t .

MALES

1. &atom Mecum at Um) 0.4119 0.457 0.9:0 0.505 2.*EC par tenths 11.68 12.40 13.06 13.13 1. =kir, ecriod NE* wink 6.i0 18.23 19.43 23.02 4.famines tar war In as ootwa 60.19 71.39 83.13 91.03 5. &rungs pa- war in 1977 siaLIam 59.45 65.8? 71.92 74.81 3TM' L eruar 1. angoAd (fraction ot Una) 0.301 0.312 0.334 0.366 2. ilaaho tarts/ tor .x=MD 7.83 8.12 8.68 9.50 3. liars waled Pr welt 11.45 12.113 13.415 114.96 4. brir./Ippar !oak in arrent-dollze 32.79 39.50 , 45.61 54.18 5. &romp par !oak In 1951 eollars 31.63 35.37 39.00 44.43 C. 721/iLM WECH CULME71

1. Bloom (traction at Ws) 0.294 0.3096 0.299 0.3167 2. Amos wcrilid gar An accoas 7.65 8.05 7.78 8.23 3.*WS wcrlmdpi !oak 11.13 11.40 11.08 11.79 1. Ihristr. par tank In arreot GriLire 30.39 34.35 36.78 411.80 r,. par wart in 19/7 dollars 29.11 30.83 31-23 33.75

,y)-r, 1

1. agaormi (treotico d dm) 0.1100 0.427 0.114 0.1585 2. 'desks worion gar An mitts 10.52 11.11 11.63 11.93 3. Hours locriod ir !oak 15.12 16.45 17.11 18.22 I. tartan. gar!Aft is CURIESdollars 51.93 61 .62 71.17 78.86 5. brow par took in 1977 aaLlors 51.05 58.49 61.12 64.76

1 6b

139 ..

Ta31.2 7/.9 172'.1= 7 7.:11.1" 1"5.V.S' ?A77:=PAr= .:CB 7.11.15. .211:L=10 14Z-7.1.NY =7:11: itUrdiK.C.Woratto.MARS

.ab carp Mars o:b wan Carps Mtn Jab Win Kum to=ale lap %NW* 112.11:011* tO 118 Smiths amanlit Attar ticn clan l'arrefatita Attar Tarrathatina k HOLM 1. boLaytd (tracticn attzaw 0.529 0.530 0.5w1 0.550 2. Wads wrist pc air 13.74 1347 14.21 14.29 3. Hays mind par week 21.44 ' 21.64 22.41 22.81 per went la airre.r1 .101.1orr. '..)1 .06.44 115.23 121.45 3rr"-.4) Dar maw in 'Or laZi..rs SG.61 a 1 .88 85.33 87.83 d. EDIALrM_a=1:LT CIMZ1EN 1.Wow' (trio:Lim of use) 0.382 0.392 0.461 0.461 2. Ada, ocrind or AA aralths 9.92 10.18 11.98 11.99 3. iimm salon Far Wok 15.e2 16.59 19.23 19.58 4. army or wok in currant OaLsra 60.36 64.89 79.72 12.81 5. &M op or wok in 1977 claims 47.54 50.18 59.84 61.1S MILES dr51 121/LEHEN 1. Ward (tractlen at law) 0.3008 0.390 0.3831 0.3967 . 2. Volga %/MEd pa. six Rasta 8.9548 9.1718 9.950 10.3662 3. Para wrist) pr soak 12.54 13.17 14.40 15.00 4.Elms.gar %ma in arm* deltora 117.85 49.41 55.98 59.46 5. fuming Dr volt In 1977 doLlars 37.57 38.37 4244 44.45 D. 04E/IJILL. 1. astoui (a.actun at Una) 0.481 0.1181 0.509 0.514

2. Wash" holed pr as maw 12.50 12,58 13.211 13.36 3. pars holed pc wale . 19.16 19.72 20.73 21.15 4. &mugs pa, volt inanYINItclitlzu 6849 92.12 1c0.93 106.36 5. bruins. pc 1011 in 1977 daLlara 69.69 70.95 75.45 77.33

!if !f 01;

1.40168 E.77-.40:3 .:C5 M1P5 21PertS tie 0111.01.11037 t.11) WNW; =LIMO 191.1:Met WM: .0.1) MZ2Z PCSIRCON4 7.413

1. 3zeLoyel 'freote.ea of tale) -0.015 0.095 0.1211" 0.1011 2. 'Asia wield pr salt sous -0.39 2.417 3.22 2.706 ;;ass wzread ter week 1.56 e85.14. 6.29 523" 21,23180 A Ears.nga per meek in anent dollars 3.115 17.07" :3.4I 5. Zarrlrep pr weak in 1977 dollars 0.13 14.37" 19.08 12.41 3.iUIL ;111-91.aui....1EN .24.--fect :I" 'Zoe? -0.C;11 0.035 1214" 0.0'1x" 2. karea larked per sit =um -0.44 0.91 3.22Ns 1.11 3. Hours acruel per week -0.70 0.04 347 1.69 Arrripp pr soak IA current dOilro 0.71 3.11 13.06" 8.18

5. Urningp per week in 1977 dollars -0.14 2.911 12.18 C rOSAear51 =UM 1. Splayed (frectio) of time) -0.1342" 4,11,fsess -0.018 -0.083" 2. Aim melee pa. ausmcathe -3.4.8sso -3112 -OAT 3. Hors tome pa. weak -5.39ems -5.1130' -0.81 -2.1311" n.Emerge par weak in ern= Sollars -45:791 -6.71 -12.511" 5. Elirrtn. Pe weak In 197 dollar .134;10 13.79me -11.90 -9.79" IIIERALL 1. BRUM Cfractico cg' thee) -0.018 0.070 0.113" 0.1181" 2. 11a10 womb! pr alit maths -0.47 1212 2.948" 2.11"" 3. /tars lariat pr wok 0.79 3.1900 5.190e" 3.76"" 4. Earogase pr weak 1a current cicalas 2.33 12.130* 17.21 947 5. Canary pa' week is 197 trains -0.21 1027" 15.64ese 9.42

sunetaway arrame frail zero at thelKS landel statistical czafleatea U ice. a amotall. tast). " SLaztficeeLty aurora from zero at the 50 Ion/ el statietioa eeafideere011 fer aage- teat. StscricKely differ= true zero at Os 95% lard ar statistical artiderma 97.91toa castalletaet). 1.1. Zlepd.ficsatly differete trot zero at the 9% Ian/ of statletioIL Isoaltacza99.59 fcr a cro-tag teat)).

4.` LIST ONi1f1`%11.311.

141 l 63 :ALE r.r.:1 S= X .3:11 OXETS mpg= al MOM!' AND EAROGS. INCLUIMG tar..Are ,;!Z Prn IsAps

.0:6 Meets Job Effects Effect*AO Corp Effects 24 to 0 lisitto limas to42tiMaIS 42 to toonts 7aelahla after osuotioe Towirationafter Itroicatiaa mosS I. &Owed (frectica 4( time) O. 1330000 0.113fog 0.088444 0.061 2. ileila salad per aLa egors 3.124444 2.911444* 2.29944 1.59 IP 3.liars Israelipr Milt 5.481111111 5.4140411 4.71110044 9.100 4. Esriatos per seek is current (tame 17.53" ap.486011 18.6re 12.73 5. raMlnp pr wow in 1917 dollars '5.86 17 .82 15.13 9.46 azN4si..a_al..iicur CuatiEN 1. Hoilcal {fraction ac Use) 0.046 0.065 0.169sess 0.1474444 2. Valescrod garaLa mato 1.20 1.69 4.39"" 3.824444 flora wend per work 0.16 0.39 3.174 2.67* &Male PIP loft in oral= do/Iars 2.02 4.81 111.6704 18.334 $. Eames. Mr lark la Mr dollars 2.63 4.37 10.65 12.04" 0. t'ESSLics WEER COILEIEN 1. 11.14r4d (fraolSco of Una) -0.125444 -0.13r. -0.17744, - 0.162" 2. *Els waled per sla =do -3.4700* .3.30OSIM .4.214061, 3. Oars wend or mot -4.261149 At.21444 .6.3401,0 4. farcd.agspip seer is carat roams -16.5218* 7.41444 .zolaise 5. Wms pip sank in 1917 down -12.64"6 43,91,10 -13,Tree 11).71SO44 13._04EIOLL 1. amploped (fractita ac tam) 041144" 0.0754184 0.0684 0.0104

2. *is wind per six =Ma 2.114440 1.6ui 1.71444 1.0114 3.Mows serled.par wok mango 3.35eeee 3.2044 1.62 1.arena wr wilt 101 current daLlayi 11.020 19.07" 12.63" 7.37 S. Ewt lt. pa* witIn 1917 doljav 10.22" 11.594* 10.124. 5.47

Significesly difTwes free twoat toeWI 1u etSUCLICI.Clil oattlawes 0 far a "s -tail WC). 114 Stoificeotly different free zero at tto 90% lard ofstatistical =Mom 935 ter a110-1111 tenth as =Wes free two at tte 93 legal et'statist:tail=Warm 9T.55 fcr a cm.tall east). ism Stelfloontly airfares free two at toe935 Isool 4( statistical cooflaarca W.% fa* a acetail Met).

142 170 7.23IE IX 12 21.-.F.I. 7 .733 =PS 13,111-C4.3131T-Eri-M ,t^...ZiRY =1: T.7.5": ;ND z.0;02) ep=ett2nc mos

A-11eLlts 1.cloyed. in whoame, ter in training glectice of ta) -0.043 0.0T2000 0.0930°° 0.073"' 2. Actively lagcuss for eat (frecilan of thne) .0.pygse -0.1114010 -0.1160000 -0.0810000 3 0111garai as Itaang fa- lark (fraction of tua) -0.070000 -0.028 -0.024 0.024 7.4eina teun tfleetica of -ine) -C.011 -0.009 0.003 0.014 5. Smola/ea in anal job (freesia of tire) -0.361400 -0.01,704 -0.045es -0.031 6. gloom in Pi jab (fraction of tine) -0.M16* -0.004 4).032 -0.0339 -1L-11110121rgriemur-anumme &goyim. in =cal, ar in avian' tract=anttlin0 4 452 0.0650 0.13810 0.11:504 .1 2. Actively locking tar ere (tract-ice of tees) 0.05900 0.006 -0.0213 -0.004 3. alas ad er lacking fa. %ark (fraction of tiara) 0.040 0.003 0,038 . 0.051 4. tiepins MUM (fructice at tine) -0.1824000 -0.1551000 4.I8601140 -0.16200r 5. gobiceva in alias job (freesias of tan) 0.022 0.0300 0.05004 0.032000 6. &Pagel In PS 31:b (Trial= of Ma) 0,005 0.016 0.0Ie0 0.020 C FRW. 16321-CHILEIRE/1 1, !splayed. in =oil, a- in training titietiat oft ar) -0.161988 -0.1800000 -0.027 -0.0f30 2. Actively la lcing fir it Mention of tune) 0.083 0.1360m 0.091m 0.05110 3. RepLeyea ar lookira for Marc (fraation of Use) -0.023 0.026 0.0:2 -0.041 4, Limn bane (frestias at tins) 1177 4.073 -0.0790 4.02 5. 61picyai In mien job (freesias of May) -04111 -0.007 0.033 0.008 6. Basloyed in In jab (freeti of tine) -0.015 0.021 0.0100040 0.0480 L OVERALL

1. gobloyid, in =oil, r in *VA= A fratr-ices ct ter) 4.04 0.0606 0.091000° 0.067 2. Actively laSting for lark (frectica of me) -0.0330 4.071aois 43.083 4.0% 3- aigarld ar lookka for lark (freemen of tine) -0.0370 -0.018 -0.07T 0.0211 4. Keeping WAS (Malta ct tine) -0.0614ese -0.06.71010 -0.0(5000 -0.0290 5, &Owed In we= job (fraction of tine) -0.03700 4.025, -0.020 -0.010 6. Worm In PTE jab (frsetica of Um) -0.0/711 OAR 0.011 0.006

SiositiontLy different Cram zero at the aos Iola of statistical carielsase ( fcr a ass-tail test). a Ziesifiartly diffsrint Cram zero at tbe 50% level af statistical catidente ( ftr a cra-ta1.1 tut). 000 Significrstly cliff Ma zero es the 55% lavel at :statistical aktinenee (.% fcr a als-tail test). l Slasiflometly different Pen zero at tee 991 level of statiatical =MK= (.5% ttr a aiitall teat).

r (0k.t".!"' 4: I "

143171 rt.13 :A= 7.:06 =1:5 .PAC Q7 elm...7-1V7r-412-47:: 7.1C1=1C 1.12-7ARY MiCMR: MFG «lAj F3JR/H MRS

JoD s JO Effects -Job rage Ftfecto Jab Caw Effects 24 to Meths to Maas 36 to 42 Maw 42 to41amxtbs Mts. Mar Teidnities Attar Thatioation 46.811.11. I. alp law, is mica. a- so trlifiLD1 ;fraction a tab) 0.001448 0.005400 0.07040 0.040 2. a:Unix laicize for malt (frictia1 d uos) -0.11134m -0.1144464 -0.0S54010 -0.057 3. &Wm* ar 1cabtrig tar lark Mimeo cif tars) o.ato 0.011 0.013 0.02) Keeping hers (fraction of tam) 0.0294 0.0264 0.03704 0.064440 S. 7.atioral In atlas dab (fracticn cif Wm) 4405 -0.039° 445044 -0.C540411 5. SaggedIn PS Jab(tracts= of time) 0.003 -0.007 -0.014 -0.017 k1,41;, 1. Brolerai. to school. or Jo omaimag (fraction a Ms) 0.0824. 0.117444 0.1224,4* 0.18134444 2. actively taking tor writ (MIMS= cif tiro) -0.0N3 -0.%504 -0.033 -0.017 3. 21411ciod or loolc101 fly Ida* Meal= a %IWO -0.015 -0.018 0.112004 0.09784 4. twolos ham (AIM= cif um) .0.130.4* -0.1954804 -0.174461? 5. Wood to tam job (hica= of time) 0.051" 0.0520* 0.0654000 o.o3p 6. &plowed is P91 job (Masson at dm) 0.0274 0.024 -0.003 0.003eses 'r 1. haplasi. Jo Moil, or Jo traitazet rractics asa) -0.105400 -0.ar34 -0.12111004 -0.140440 2. Amami, /edam tor lark (traction a time) 0.06244 0.0554 0.078044 0.07044 3. lleployes a" lailais ftr writ (trodden of *Ms) -0.057 -0.0r04 4.0513 4.084 4.rareang exam (treatiesa* this) -0.00011 0.021 0.033 0.02 5. aspicsis fa mks jot. (fraotiai of Uwe) -OM -0.006 -0.009 -0.012 6. swops hi jeb ft:balm of thw) 0.036" 0.007

D. 04f8iii. 1 . Seployes. Jo salsa. er in traising (fru:tics of tas) 0.068444 0.0T2444a 0.0*1440 0.035 2. Actively lcdeing for lark Macaw or time) -0.011544a -0.005"" -0.060 -0.032 3. aslant) a" Dalai* tor lark (tract/at or ties) 0.006 -0.034 0.012 0.019 4.ltesplas Moe (troche at' ape) -0.006 -0.006 0.003 0.019 5. 1110/0140 01 (alai Jab (traction of Lisa) -0.014 -0.019 0.0274 -0.03444 6. Boilored In 1,16 job (fraction of time) 0.011 0.002 -0.009 -0.014

4 Sasestioestly Otiltreet ryes zoo at we MI last of statistics/ =Maras 901 for a ers-tail test). "Steratiossly ettilarat fro zero at tse 901 Iola CC stattitIOIL =Moon ri for a aw.tail ton). 444 Sigettriattly di/Tweet rtIza taro at this 991 144/141. a statiatimi =ado= 71.5 far a 00-taLlteat). 4444 Shwitiaitsty tarrerant fres zero at Lb, 991 Lend of statistics/ =Maas 59.9i fa a ons-tail testa.

144 1 7 r) 141 72MINCIAL BAIT QI FRic--74 Tmbxem m E± 14KGoRerclLAa culamsand=ma ni--TArt m7a: =00A1:3 F2r: 7

Jcb Corps Whets AG-Carps 12Taots ab cons =tettJob Grp Mona 0 to 6 Myths -6 to 12 ?tabs.12 to 18 Ittala 18 to 24 Mxtbs - 1. NILES 1. Overall. bmitogle -0.015 0.03060 0.1240100 0.1040048 2. Prelate =pleura 0.06704 O. 1680000 0.2010000 0.1940.001 3. Partial ccalastars -0.031 0.083060 0.1050e84 0.064

4.brlyOrcp2=0 -0.063° 0.035 0.08304 0.07404. 5. Werell, =mats sso rcr early dnopmr4, 0.01 0.0810100 0.0910000 cuipme 6. Orwell, intuits' may Irmo 0.018 p./35 0.152.400 0.1240404

ElFEMALES =KEN CHILIEN

1. Cowell taratost -0.017 0.035 0.124000 0.024414 2. Prosra amplatirs 0.0604 0.169 02100000 0.189~ 3. Partial caligters -0.030 0.0* 0.08104 0.071* 4.rarly cram= -0.064 -currti 0.0930 4.1:09 5. 00440.1. miming taro saw early Irmo 0.009 0465 0.08T0408 0.0780000 6. OdaraLl. saluting awls drcgo.as 0.015 0.10806 0.110408 00304044 tv FE/VLI-C YOH 0111ESEH 1. Ossrall bastark 4:134440 -0.1470408 -0.018 -0.0030 2. Prcarm termiatara .43.105000 0.0004 u.012 -0.022 3. Partial cagiletar -0.10504 -0.1530400 -0.1:600 -0.117040. 4. Dirty &VIM. -0.17704 .0.25gasa -0.008 -0.103* 5. Creep, mamba two tc sarly drossita -0.063040 -0.04504 -0.014 -0.04200 6. Oneall, calailzal arty boas= -0.105004 .o.arps -0.024 -0.070 D. 000a1J- 1. OnwaLl tarcimat -0.018 0.070444 0.1130400 0.0811444 2. Finns calblatar. 0.061444 0.1760400 0.1870408 0.1660 3. Partial caagiaara -0.032 0.054060 0.0850044 0.0490 4. Early drortut.t -0.06604 -0.005 0.0f8004 0.041 5. Oerall, amita taro tcr airly drop= 0.009 0.0720000 0.0820000 0.045004 \ 6. °mail, aW.D111ra awl,/ Orttasta 0.015 0.12)400, 0.1364ma 0.1080000

Slird.ficantly diffwaL emu taro at the 808 lava at: statistical cootidata M for a caatail WO. 00 Sisaticantly attlirma frca zaro at tan 93 1441 sr statistical cosieleare (93 ar a cos-tail WO. sigatiaargly detente fro tor, at tas 95% lava ct stittSLICSI 01.70145100 (W.5% tcr a cra-tall tot). 0000 Sitaltioubly ditturaat /ma taro at tan 93 lama ct statistical =Mum for a cra-tall WSW.

tEST Ps%111.1

145 17j n.15

M-'041= 7 M'YEFSIMAL 7P1r: 7 Rea= I 7-4S 944..CM), A. 01 CAnOCRIES are =COM PELITARY SEEDDR:

Job Effects .1cb Caw Efra./..1 Ccra-Ufects Jcb cave mats 24 to Wets 30 to 36 1-teeziAar 42 tanrIS 42 to 4 Faiths 7aria 151 iffAr renalsatice Teresnatisn After 'leadaatice A.'mazs 1. Carla anew" 0.123600 0.11311" 0.088 0.061 2. Prcgra =reams 0.180000 0.113310** 0.157"0 0.1604*** 3. Porlal ampletars 0.076044 0.065 0.03 0.030 4. billy drapcura'-' 0.101 0.0414" 0.055 0.009

S.?ierall, aresaug zero fcr early ropazts 3.0710454 0.7400 0.066" 0.05700 ammingelm.*crapcuts 0.1260000 0.124004 0.11000 0.030" 3 7ailiLeS la-E!1 UT CE1131Elf 1. Orval maws 0.046 0.065 0.1694440 0.1a7 .--- 2. Program azgleters 0.15649". 0.16940** 0.22300" 0.23604 3. ParciA. mailman 0.042 0.06000 0.057 0.100

4, lefty drams.' .. -0.035 -0.039 0.2130 0.114 5. aural. ararglar zero far arty dropouts 0.050 0.081100* 0.064444 O. KA nal 6. 74raLl. arcludlagtarty*cauts 0.100044 0.135444 0.140044 0.1661* C. MILES IIITER CHEMEN 1. CaraLL teahrirk 4.1250440 -0.1138" -R.12, .0.162 2. Prqrs etaketsra .0.032 -0.016 -0.015 -0.00 3. Nrttal aseeetas .0.101910 -0.0998 -0.0910" ..0433are 44Early*capita 4.20949" -0.2764,0* ..0.230ae -0 Alin" 5. Overall. =matt' sea far arty Crawls .0.0112 -0.0M -0.033* .0.057d" 6. Omen. ealmensi emir aquae -0.0370 4.05444 -0.091 D.avEREL

1. Caron twasbark 0.08101110 0.07502" 0.06600* 0.0400 2. Algae =pietas 0.190 0.160,04 0.1414004 0.1390060 3. Par cLa aabletare 0.051 0.053 War W16 4. Italy dropouts 0.047 0.02 0.035 -0.016 5. Canal. among zeo far arty dropouts 0.0626060 0.me 0:054~ 0.047100* 6. aura l. eelaflai melt *vitae.' chimariee 0.1074.00 0.0901* 0.075

4 Slorificaily afire= Ms zese at the SO% Ira ct statistical =tido= a floc a cratail tat/. slioneelely offrrest rrca zero a the got last ct star-taloa cooticieree961 fa a ca-tail. tat). Slolftantly 011icrist Ms zero at the96%level ct statistical. meta= W.9Iora cra.tail. test). 1000 5101ficantly aftarait fret ma at tar .. 995)ffled ct statistical =Mace 99.51 for a criwall.tact

146 ' 1174 a

7a312. 14.16

X= .2.7167..Y.A177S: , leCUSIDG 101=ff=IR: -= 7 5.11.-:" ;NJ :::=X N67701...CGRA

Jab rays Effects Job C4rpo Etruct.sJca Cava MantaJab Carps effects 0 to b ttatbs 6 to 12 'balm 12 to 18 Miithe 18 to 2a Maths

_A. ALM 1. awe:torn 4.015 1.1.09518 0.121Pos 0.10490 2. Medea a =Unser dna Vera -0.002 0.0914" 0. 117Togge 0.0814° 3. monis pri-orrougm =mai status -0.010 0.1008110 0,129.. 0.1C9 ccrdrol ttr uttasseed dltrereera -0.08011111 0.022 0.052ge 0.03146 !. tsr.ltr.lre s.1.1 advt--els. est apt ter t3 -0.09211001 0.003 0.031" 0:COn -.rem a-.3* pro-era nt agutyailet y. 4, thttrig all carrels, estatitto tits -0.09110m . 0.003 0,0314 0.005 :reel

4a,1,1 71....1J):11 111111.. 1. Baraitark -0.017 0.035 .1211 0.07111 2. Mars a =thaw Una deal -0.011>" G.034 0.120110 0.069 3. daing pv-errellaant enrital status -0.010 0.042 0.132 0.081 br.J.Lcting anted far taztool cliffirtrico .0.021:fiC 0.031 rhiarow u.inoe 5. br.kualrg coitrois, =opt tar tga0 -0.018 0.027 0.1180 0.065** trez1 tre-erelkant aa/csisaut 6. Exclullge all ccattalei. angle fcr tap 0.029 0.120ne 0.067 ttere C- mous (am =Dm 1. &town -5.131100* -0,1 1efaeai -0.018 -0.0834 2. halite a nadlarr tar. treed .0.138 .0.14Teass -0.015 -0.08:11* 3. Maze pveaviimia rltal status -0.10200 -0.114ma 0.015 -0.050 n. trAtinte march ter auteersel differstre -0.C634 -0.0771m a.one -0.012 5. baud:LAI all a:onto,=two -0.0590 - -0.0151 (Losses -0.011 (maandmooTrollant 6. Eitoltattne au acted^ wow. rm. Me -0.05to -0.073 0.05900 -0.009 trial D. MULL 1. Parclaarie -0.018 0.070 0.113d 0.0811s 2. Mille a =War tam trail -0.018 0.067 0.10346 0.0613P 3. MMus ace-archlard anrital status -G.011 0.077.00 0.121 cusposa Easkulite central ter urntenreed ettrarooco -0.068 0.021 0.CGT" 0.036"" 5. ter-WU; ill ccatscla, a=gtlme -0.0f1 owe 0.006 0.052460° 0.016 trans aro pro-orroLlamt 6. ihr..ttittrit; all antrai.s, Mast ter Cab -0.0700m 0.007 0.051"" 0.017 trial Sleeflaatly afferent !ran taro at On Let Wei te statlAtail. artidras (93; tar araao-tail SlatIfiamly different Etta zav at Us 903 levol. ta statist:Lag. mealtime OS ttr a an-tall teat/. &sail:witty Olfteroot ins zero at the 951 lad at statistioti =Mem (W.91 far a ans-cstl taath 4800 SlatIllamtly =Twin Ma we at the 996 level of statistical =Claim (99.55 Oar a am-tail tom). .

. .

141 7 i e., 7.2LE.71.17 =1:".lra' 7witcaprr WM= AM:"..Z.VE ...7s=.1:=3C, 2 teLLT,1121 TaX.4 Ere 'WM

JCC goo Lavaerectsoat Corps wefts.ca.C.a-ps atoms 24 to Oita.= ,v01,0 35 !taro V to 42 toccata 42 to ass Pisa= Varfahla inns, _mar TaatinatIceAter Tarninatlein Amite,r larmstatioa_ L. MILES 1. lartammst. 0.1arese 0.113**** 0.0880* 0.061* 2. Maim a rorgio=, time tram 0.109008 0.105**** 0.09tte 0.0506" 3. MUM Pro-.%. olJame =rim/ status U.13***0 0.1113Nee 0.093see 026520 4. &awns* =trot ttiasbameenl dattumem 0.04/110* .0.04180 0.016 .0.012 5.r..luatog all xastrols. masot f(r tams 0.0320e 0.019 0:015 0.003 ,:rarzi pre-ssroLlasa molommot d, / 6. Drakr.irng 'all castrola,eaceptter time, 0.032** 0.019 0.015 0.003 trod 8.FThiiim_liTiscur alimmx 1. flmiftric 0.01$ 0.065* 0.1690as* 2. Addy a sonisemr tans crud 0.043 0.064e 0.1758 0.161esee pre-soliamm marital scams 0.0,53 0.47/30 0.177i*** 0 . 154ee 4. elate.itig CCRCral fcr =burnt diagram 0.012 0.061tee 0.165**e 5. Enatillai all=rata.swat ltr Oar 0.0474 0.0638" 0.187*.s. 0.168'*** meal pre-erollama espicemmt 6. Itelteing ail sands, axe% fcr Use 0.049°6 cLasis 0.1820am 0.166" alma FEiviimilrai 1. arammis .0.isosse. - -04338°0 .0.1271060 .0.1620000 2. Aldan a =lima tim tram .0.1324. _ma. .0.16508 3. sadism presrolJamca earItal status -0.0484 .o.icoso ..0.0910. -0.129eme

4. EatiatUsgcastroL for onotmeeed arta.= -o.C62* -0.096911 .0.491esse 5. EacialirgaLl'amard" -0.432* .o.r.61 -0.09300 .0.0740.10 anal modpre-sproLimmte=cortcalb 6. battling ail Mazola. menet ft: time -0.051e -0.C600 -C.0520 -0.09300** tress D. =NALL 1. 9mcbmrks 0.081 0.075Hes 0.06We 0.040*. 2. WU" a raalsomr clam *lad c.073sess ox09198 0.0/30* 0.C62re 3. Mingpre-msolimma marital status 0.080010 0.0841 0.078mee 0.05000 4. Etaludits =wet fcr mamma (liftmen= . °misses o.0320 iteergi -0.001 5.bus:10Ai allco:orals,azotoillstame 0.02/see 0.011 0.03000 0.012

6. Walingallcaltras, mamptlerUse o.ozrI 0.016 &mess 0.013 trixxt

Sigoitioinaly ditteremt from zero at Uma led of statistical =rim= c9,1 for a ons-tall test). Siardttaacly dithrset =ears at tre 905lm of statistical ccatiorce (95% for a cms-tail test). ea* siosticipay armrest rms zero at the 95% anal of statistical canal= (91.55 fora sos-tail test). imme Slacuticmaly atter= fro§ zero at tee 95% limei or 'tat/atlas/ amelamtm (99.55 far a con -oli meet).

Prcir rliart , 7%1 r

14a 176 7 "ABLE :Z2.7:7:7771:rEPPL0YMEN7 IST:n775 70 z.71-2r,v7:7E VEC:YZCA7:011S, ISCLPD:NC M.TLITAPT SEET0R: 7177h Z.CE:PROG.EAtt LEAP

Job Corps Effects '18 to 54 Booths After Termination a. HAL I. Benchmark 0.101 2. Adding a nonlinear time trend 0.144 3. Adding pre-enrollment marital status 0.100,00 a. Excluding control 'tor unobserved difference 0.02B 5. Excluding CA controls, except for time =rend and pre-enrollaent employment 0.071000e 6. Excluding all controls, except for time trend 0.071"" B. FEMALES WITHOUT CHILDREN I. Benchmark 0.083 2. Adding a nonlinear time trend 0.103 3. Adding pre-enrollment marital status ' 0.090 4. Excluding control for unobserved difference .0.075" 5. exeUding all controls, except for time uend'and pre-enrollment employment 0.120 k 6. Excluding all controls, except for Owl trend 0.122

I. Benchmark 4-0.154oiee 2. Adding a nonlinear time trend .6.199seee 3. Adding pre-enrollment marital status -0.1610**0 A. Excluding control for unobserved difference -0.123 5. Excluding all controls, except for time trend and pre-enrollment employment -12.122 6. Excluding all controls, except for time .-trend -0.1200." 15. OVERALL- ' I. Benchmark 0.054** 2. Adding a nonlinear time tilend 0.086 3. Adding pre-enrollment ssriti. status 0.063 4. Excluding control for unobserved diff recce 0.013 5. Excluding all control, except for time trend and pre-enrollment employment 0.050 6. Excluding all controls, except for time trend 0.0500

Significantly Wilma Ms tata at tialeotlevel of statistical coalsbote fcr a am-tail teet). sunsticsour ammo Ma taro at the 505 lave/ of statistical ccaridatact (9311 far a =mail test). Sbgzifiamotly differamt true urn at the 95% lava of statistical =Maas {97.3 fa, a tn.-tail test). el* Sigraficestly different Ma zero at the 991 lama ae statistical tenVeistne(93.5% Ar an-aail Met).

i7 BEcT CePY AvAll"15 1

149 ; FIGURE IV.t

ESTIMATES OF TIME PAINS OF VET INCREASES IM PERCENT OF TIME EMPICOVED: CIVILIAN MALES

Percent of Time Employed

.0'. " ...... /.`. 10 ...... -- qr. . 1%. %. %. ...- a - . . o' ./... .,.-''1 _ ..../ . ... 4 1"" *," '. % %. /N,.... / ...... I A -..../ ' ...... - -.. \ ... /\. / ./. ./ / . %. i . Months Out of l's I 1 1 \ 4... 1 s 1 36 35 Job Corps "11. J 11 15 It 31 34 17 )0 '313 %.43 0. "2'4 .'" si 51

Nil

-, Program Completers Partial Completer* Early Dropout:, -101 (relative to not parliolpatIng)

01.- 1.1s FIOVAE IV.2

ESTIMATES OF TINE PITHS OF NET INCREASES IN PERCENT OF TINE EMPLOYED; CIVILIAA FEMALES WITHOUT CHILDREN

Percent of Ilse Deployed

401

641

Jul

10% i; e. .4 t. ... -.., . f"..... to :-.... ""- " ...... 4...... /--. .. ,.. 1 .._ i . - ...../ A '''''''' ... .., ...' ... / ./ i oe Months Oul ot JobCorpm I.] Y /14 41 .77 4S Oe k .ve

j -to. ,N I /

!V I 179

Program Completerm Partial Complettre Early Dropouts -40% ireletlett to not pArtIolpatIng) PICNIC IV.;

ESTIMATES OP TIME PATHS OF NET INCREASES IN PERCFJIT OP TIME EMPLOYED: teMALES Milli CHILDRER

Percent of Time Employed

40%

Months Out Of iis s 4 Ili % JOb COrpil ... % ,...21_212.------4° .% -1 . %. / . I. is. i i ,4 ...... ' ..ae .- II... V'''. N./. - --. .., 4id° r% ! \

i s Program Completore Partial Completera i _ _ _ _. Early Dropouts -40% (relative to mot participating`

180 FIGURE IV.4

ESTIMATES Of TIME PATHS Of NET INCNEASO IN PERCENT OF TIME EMPLOYED, INCLUDING MILITARY bETOk: MILES

Percent of Time Employed

,...... N ...... I..

.44pk .' / ...... 3 ...... --/ N...... ,,m, ,.. " -- .... i ..... * " / '... / i / 'tin./ " =0/. . N. ... / / / .N. '. 4/:). i / '.. /... N. / ...k. / Months Out of I. Job Corps II 1% 13 21 24 21 111 11 lb .19 4,1 4S 4 ',1

181

Progran Conpletera Partial Compicteta _ Early Dropouts (refitfire'to not participating) FIOUIE IV.5

ESTIMATES OP TINE PAINS OP NET INCREASES IN PERCENT OF TI MPLOIED, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR: FEMALES WITHOUT CBI EN

Percent of Ti.. tap!Oy ed

404

It*

Jut

% 104 i IP. ....3 I e ". ,. , %.°. . f---)t--"--.... . / N., i % _ e . "------./." I

, N .i. . $ o , Months Dutof ,i,. i 1 i i t 1 1 ,k V t; A2 21 'ale ,...,30 33 sla 39 42 4S Job Corps I " %, 48 I ''..k. I \ " I .i \ i I ! \i -IRA 1 N , N i V .V !I 4

Program Completers partial Compltters - .- Early Dropouts -41111'V" (relative to not NabtlolontIng)

182 . 1

FIGURE IV.6

ESTIMATES OP TIME PATES OF NET INCREASES IN PERCENT OF TIME EMPLOYED, INCLUDING MILITARY SECTOR AND CONTROLLING FOR NONLINEAR TIME TRENDS: MALES

Percent or Time Eeployed

40%

Z. 46. ...4..1°. .. ' I _i 0'. ....-..... / / s. 141 --. N. .° ...... _, -..._ N- ..... -...... /'-$-.. /ITS..4, ...... >,''S1 ...... // *.- . /--/ --....0. i / ...... , I I N. ie .. . Months Out or 4,1 14 12 IS Job Corp. l2 l Ii 2l 24 22 4

- lot

Alt 183

90%

Program Complaters Prrtial Compritaca Early Dropouts (relative to not pertIolpetIng) V. IMPACT OF JCB CORPS ON INVESTMENTS IN HUMAN CAPITAL

(*. The objective of Job Corps is to increase both the future and

short-term employability of participants--in essence, to increase future

employment and earnings by increasing productivity. Current activities

that lead to,future increases in productivity, employment, and earnings are

defined in the economics literature as "investments in human capital."

Work experience is ore type of activity that norcally leads to increased

productivity and, hence, to increased employment and. earnings in the .

future. therefore, the short-term increases in employment and earnings

for former Corpsmembers discussed in the previous chapter also indicate

positivi effects on future employment and earni.gs--and, thus,lpositive

effects on investments in human capita1.1/ In this section we examine the

impacts of JO') Corps on the postprogram education, training, and other

activities of former Corpsmembers--activities that could also potentially

lead to future gains in employment and earnings among Corpsmembers.

A. EDUCATION AND TRAINING':

As discUsied in Chapter II, the a pricri basis for expecting

increased postprogram investments in human capital for Gorpsmemberi in

terms of education and training is more ambiguous than for employment and

for other forms of investments in human capital, for at least two reasons.

First, Job Corps prrides education'and training, which reduces both the

need for and the returns to some forms of postprogram education and

A3 discussed further below, military service (which we found to 44. 1 increased substantially by Job Corps) is alio a traditional way for low- tncome youths to obtain work experience and skills training thatwill lead to future gains in employment and earnings.

am, 156 .`184

4 :4 A. 11

training (i.e., the Job Corps program is a substitute for some forms of

education and training). Second, increased employability in the short-term

provides incentives to engage in work activities that are alternatives to

further education and training. Even for education or training that

supplements or complements the Job Corps program, the increased postprogram

employment and earnings of Corpsmembers raise the opportunity costs to

attending school or training.

The postprogram findings for the effects of Job Corps on education

and training are summarized in Table V.1 and are detailed with more refined

I estimates in Tables V.2 through V.7 and Tables V.10 throughV.15.1/ Overall, they show (1) a very large and statistically significant increase

in the probability of having a high school diploma or iquiva_ nt degree,

(2) a moderate-size and marginally significant increase in college

attendance, (3) a moderate-size and statistically significant decrease in

high school attendance, and (4) a very small and marginally significant

increase in enrollments in vocational and technical schools. As shown in

the detailed tables (Tables V.6, V.7, V.14, and V.15), the postprog. am

training effects are almost nil -- generally small, erratic, and

statistically insignificant. The only consistently significant estimated

Job Corps effect on training is a very small reduction in WIN training

(probably due to reductions in welfare dependence).

'Thedetailed tables include (1) separate breakdowns for civilians (Tables V.2 thrlugh V.9), with military observations included (Tables V.10 through V.15); t:i background information on what Corpsmemberst postprogram behavior would have been in the absence of their participation in Job Corps (Tables V.2, V.3, V.10, and V.11); (3) estimated effects of Job Corp on education (Tables V.4, V.5, V.12, .and V.13); (4) estimated effects of Job Corps on training (Tables V.6, V.7, V.14, and V.15); and (5) other estimated effects of Job Corps on investments in human capital (Tables V.8 and V.9). 1

=1.2 V . 1

'3,`v a F nt.r.1 r.:1:72CS 2TAC'S 0 Haw :::+11TA4. MI Caine= 01 al nallt...7.ED UTZ

Emenutad Emtlitatad . flatinitad mad Job Gwyn greats Job Cori groats Job O pi EITacto Job Cargo F1fitata , For First Year Per Sexed Yaw 13bri Year Re Porta Yaw

1.Pro :malty cl Mai mcgall =link cry 0.239 'Lass N.A. 0.2T5

2.weans 7.n mild.. ;Wiliam 049 0.55 0.65 1.04

3.awls! to cella.. atilliaae saal astitary 0.16 0.29 0.34 0.65

4. *as to 1214a -1.51 -0.68 -0.60 5. Ikon to blab aaool. cLylllato ad military -1.22 -0.99 -0.55 5. Nolo to vccatacEm1 cr tailzdnal scace. a:Wallas 0.34 0.57 0.23 0.21 7. MNs LO remattaail cr tembainal ma tat4 civilian mil malts? 0.31 0.52 0.13 0.16

8.Woks to am scao*, driLias -1.14 -0.34 -0.00 0.55 9. ANN to any alma. abIllami sad IELLItay -1.09 -4.42 -0.311 0.13 10. Vale at anion Nagai pm:Um* otrillatm -1.01 -1.0T -1.M -1.09 t 1.teals me anion MU* wallas, civilian@ sal aLLita, -0.56 -t .ar -1.Z -1.12

153 186 The estimates of what Corpsmembers' activities would have been during the,postprogram period in the absence of Job Corps (Tables V.2, V.3,

V.10, and V.11) show that very little time would have been spent in education and training activities. We estimate that Corpsmembers would have had (1) only approximately a 5 percent probability of having a high school diploma or equivalent degree, which was relatively constant over

_Am, (2) a slight increase in college attendance over time,but'only from a little less than one-half week per year to nearly three-quarters of a week per year, (3) a decrease in high school attendance over time, from nearly three weeks per year to under two-thirds of a week per year, and (4) a negligible amount of total training time for all programs (approximately one week per year), which was relatively constant but declining slightly over time.

Overall, in the postprogram"puicd the estimated effects in Table

V.1 show approximately a 25 percentage-point increase in the probability

that Corpsmembers have a high school diploma, a General Educational

Development (GED) degree, or an eclivalent degree. Asi.can be seen by compat.ing this estimate to the base in Tables V.2 and V.3, the percentage

increase is extremely large--a fivefold increase in the probability of

having a high school or equivalent degree (from approximately 5 percent to

25 percent).

The large increase in high school, GED, and equivalent degrees

among Corpsmembers more than explains the approximately one-week-per--lar

average reduction in high school. attendance (a small but still nearly two,

thirds dec.,ease). College attendance shows a marginally significant and

growing increase of up to one week per yearamong Corpsmembers by the end of our postprogram observation period. However, even this modest increase

represents nearly a doubling of college attendance. Therefore, the.

education effects appear to indicate some clear increases in higher

educational attainment (more high school degrees and greater college

attendance) and, hence, human-capital investments among COrpsmembers.

Furthermore, this provides additional evidence that the short-term gains in

employment and earnings are not likely to fade out rapidly.

As shown in the detailed tables (Tables V.4, V.5, V.12, and V.13),

the estimates of increased investments in human capital among Corpsmembers

in the form:of higher.levels of education are largest for females

without children (larger than for either males or 'females with children).

In'addition, these estimated Job Corps effects on higher levels of

education are larger for males than for females with children (in terms of

college attendande) but smaller for males than for females with children

(in terms of receiving a high school or equivalent degree). Furthermore,

the detailed tables also show that the training effects are mostly nil

(small, changeable, andstatistically insignificant) across all three

groups, except that females without children account for almost all of the

reduction in WI ?' training--a moderate-size and highly significant effect

for them.

In summary, Job Corps-induced increases in human-capital invest-

ments are evidenced by estimates of large increases in high school or

equivalent degrees and moderate-size increases in college attendance.'

Job Calm leads to decreases in enrollments in lower leveli of education

and in WIN training programs among former participants during the a postprogram period.

160 188 B. OTHER INVESTMENTS IN HUMAN CAPITAL

Table's V.8 and 7.9 ;resent the findings for the Job Corps effects

on other types of investments in human capital. Corpsmemberat had better

health, showed greater geographical mobility in general and for employment

in particular, and were much more likely to have enlisted in the military.

The estimated overall reductions in serious health problems for

Corpsmembers are, on average, just over one week per year and are

marginally significant. However, the health gains are much larger (over-

three weeks per year) and highly significant for females without children- -

compared to one-half to one week of reductions that are statistically

insignificant for males. The females-with-children group,shows a large and

statistically significant increase in serious health prOblems initially,

which, however, declines rapidly over time. (Furthermore, it appears to be

attributable, at least in part, to some early birth-related illnesses when,

after some Job Corps-induced delays, childbirth began to become more

prevalent among former Corpswcmen).

The increases in geographical mobility for Corpsmembers are

evidenced by ,s for job opportunities, education or training,. and

otherwise. The. overall it c estimates are substantial--altogether, by

the end of our observation period, nearly 70 additional moves for job

opportunities for each 100 Corpsmembers. This added job mobility for

Corpsmemberi appears to occur throughout'the postprogram period, which

accounts for its very substantial amount by the end of.the period.

Perthermore, the mobility effects are probably somewhat understated because y - -of the higher nonresponse rates for Corpsmembers relative to the comparison

group, most 'of which is attributable to moves. iy ; Finally, Tables V.8 and V.9"repeat the estimates of large and

161 _18:i 4

0 statistically significant Job Corps impacts on military 6ervice (nearly a

150 percent increase by the end of the four-year observation period-- approximately from 2.8 percent to 6.8 percent). These impacts can be' viewed as investments in human capital, since increasing the ability of disadvantaged youths to pass military entrance exams, and the conyomitant increases in military service, clan be expected to lead to future increases

in earnings for these youths. While the gain in military service,as also

reported above as an employment effect, it does have human-capital

implications, since.(1) entering the military (i.e., passing the Armed

Forces Qualifying Examination) indicates the attainment of a certain level

of human-lcapital development, and (2) participation in the military offers

additional huma zaPital development through vocational skills training and

job experience. As already noted above, the increases in civilian

employment should also produce some long -run human-capital benefits througt

job experience.

162 190 :MI v.2

r=1.A= lr 2:Fr9104ENStor.A174: 7.tAZ1:NG C1* PA271=PA1S1 INzoCORPS. MR Cra-ZINS: 77.= i4D .SEXIM 0.-S"."=11e4. MAAS

Job Corp Moro opt, Cain how Job cans mews Job Corps-Mem 0 to 6 Mesa 6 to 12 Mantra 12 tolaItntdo 113 to 24 Moths 21111121.11--ALICE-20011=111-alldt-T1130=2111-8=-2011.0&1211--grar.10130=1211_ s. !4IL 1, 11:421:oality of Wig; OW 4211301 OA= or b,,r tie of .1.0tarnor 0.051 0.00j2 2. In 33.1.1.op (fraction of Um) 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.004 3. In rat o:noiL (lima= of =al 0.0% 0.010 0.035 0.032 4. lt F4r 7$114.1 ragfOR (f act of 'anal 1.028 0.027 0.024 0.024 -3. L1141:=5 dr_12,11T ;.5roointliey rawriff=r400l.41.olost .0.032 0.043 2.:1:1 collage (frictliin ct UAW 0.021 0.020 0.010 0.023 3- :o 14411 agent Efrobtloo of tini) 0.1%2 .0.016 0.030 0.= 4. :11 any xatmas jrCITO11(nigtiCIP CC WOO 0.009 0.03T 0.012 0.013 cLEEPALm inm-cP2ustEN 1. 2ratols.U.ty of tort=o2bx11 OtoLoiw gas ce 0.102 0.053 2. In (frwotion of 0.034 0.0w. b.030 3. LIM. w:bool (frictlow te Mao) tt.032 0.029 0.020 0.013 4. In am-raining mown (frobtlal of Um) 0.019 0.013 0.014 0.012

X -OVERALL Protwoatxtsoltw of har im orCED by off it 0.04/ 0.090 2w to galley (from= of Maw) 0408 0.008 0.005 0.010 3, 7is litgla mixt (freottal tf Um) 0.091 0.016 0.033 0.021 4. in erg =WW1 magma (frostIon of 12") 0.022 0.021 0.021 0.021

43.

16? 7,2:2 1.3

M.1C:47.21;:2) ".1-= ?A.47,721.= .71 ..;CB =S. E0ft

2amaii__ALLQ.ob Capa Mmes .oVm _sears .obtoCarps Fasts .0rv

'. Pro01011Aty of twin; 11141s achual 01010ra r .., m 79by tia at =moo . .0.041 2. In collo, (fricticis ct ttge) 0.064 0.01, ball 0.034 3. :a tosb =ca. (flat of r.-'10) 0.025 0.022 0.019 t, 0.016 4.In any trearam mogul (fraction of too) 0.022 0.022 0.020 0.020 ... MINUS 4T2371r CHUMEN

4 . ?r30401.1.111 at torirg PA* Mat clam ilU er MD 10 two itaartior > 0.03 el 2. la calap (Mottos 0.02) J.025 0.040 013. ? ) 3. 11 des actiaol. (trlect.co at um.) 0.015 0.012 j-0.5 0.00 .

4.Ina12Y 04114 pray= Unction ct' tin) 0.022 0.011 0.033 C.i..011102AILLGES41111 ..--a," - Proteedlity a' lirl=estival &plan cr gSD by Claa EY 0.03 8 s. 2. 12'011140 (trectice of We) 0.029 0.031 0.032 0432 3.I. two atcal (friattca attlas) 0.1X6 04:013 0.1X6 0.003 : 4. InIIIItre101.0" prcerm (tractioo d Ws) 0.010 0.009 0.004 0.001 cFAILL 1. crprotaNtut Lap =sepal elacor 0.043 2. ,112 collage (tructicia at dam) 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.015 3. In MO Maxi (freatIce al' clim) 0.021 0.019 0.015 0.012 4. 10 am' *tads" maps Mutt= ct dna) 0.029 0.021 0.016 0.015

PSTe, PrilY '4.1rUS.

154 192 t, TALE 1.4 r27k= X :CATS :.,7;.= 2; MCA:7UL rzz: KZ:PCM11 M

Job FM= Job Gros Etrects Jab c rWrens Jab CCM UreCtS 0 t o _Matta 6 to 12 Mahn 12 to 18 Months 18 to 24 Moths

1. ?mambo-icy of amrsaz high ace001 diploma cr amo by Caro of irzernaks 0.129.00. 0.16980m 2. :0 my xnaM (frection of Moe) -0.04280* -0.014. -0,019 O :a =Lege Urea:ton of ttmee) 0.005 .0.011 0,006 :0 02.0 atra 'fraction of time) .0.013eeee -0.9218*8 -0.0231100. -0.025806° 3 Znvccaracesicrt4=41. snag IMO frection ot Moe) 0.001 00:08 0.0:6 0.003 o otter Wont Unction at Mao) -0.01300 -0.009 -0.0106 -0.0:6 A. ?MUM MEW CELELMEti 1. Protability at Voytgagwormoi or ZD 0/ Moe at .0.51800°, 0.514e000 2. In any aoront Meant= at toe) -0.C968 0.034 0.00 0.066 o In=an/frootIca at time) -0.0003 0,018 0.018 0.02E o man easel (fsactia0 at Moe) 4.0zy -0 a3D 42.024000 -0.021 o :a metioral. or Mclitaa scrod (tleaMcn of Mae) 0.009 0.03,0 0.029000 0.046 o :o °air =boa (*loam of Mao) -0.001 0.0130 0.012 0.02130080 C. FDIEM crin_MHBV 1. frotembillty at bolnruir=010001. 01.01011 or 01:D by Mao at' 0 .3030000 0.4200100 2. In arr orma (fraction of doe) -0.040 43.00°. -0.019 -0.007 o In call. (h'tt= at' Moe) -0.021 43.017 .0.029 -0.001 o :a hi* earmaltrectlan of time) 4.0528080 4.01900 4.01500 .0.039 o Ia voattlaal or wetted arm/ (tract= of Mae) -0.0299 0.005 -0.013 o Sa maw action (AvatSce at' Moe) 0.0000 0.003 0.035 cameo, 0. _CNERALL 1. Prsbentlity of tartugMemanoal Oininot or qED o/ tom of 0.2590008 0.2650680 y2. Ia arr mewl (frlatlen of doe) Imnaneeee -0.004 -0.071 -0.003 o to mune (friction of wee) 0.003 0.012 0.011 :0.010 o Is dies school (tract:Lon at' time) -0.037.00° -0.021100" -0.023seee .0.023esee o Ia rxmacknel cr LIMMOICal. 0:1=x80 (!?act IOR of thee) 0.003 0.0100 0.01100 0.01100 . . at 0Ia ober =ma (frac:Woof thee) -0.008 -0.003 -0.004 0.03a

Sizzaticeaty afferent from zero az nes &X lava at etatLeaca amelammo 9312 for a 00.-tail test), es agoificenzly afferent. Mauro az tae90%lama of stattslcak =Mom SS% for a oas-tell test). ageStrolfloantly afferent fruiter* azvd. 95%level at statisdal. =Mena9r.5%far a one-tilt ant).) 8°°° Sigaficentlyamen=fro' zero az'Che 991 level of etaMsetca =Meg= 99.55 0m. z cre-ull tea).

1,92 BEST COPYANLABLE

165 -.',131.E 7.5

.1"Pa...73 ElSC=7:21. A1Z Mara FSTPGRal

CI .co -arts =acts Job car w erect, Job carp! ffTacts Zo9 arps .'-^reeta 24 to 30 ttacawai____ArarigcsiarggLAEzsxtiatuaAcigcsuamn_ittir_twacatjacLo35 to 112tixtba ktatha 42 to 48 mnths

A. mLiS 1. hntabiLity ofsitors2 dial= s oy .Iles of 0.1916666 2 In am, =hod. (freeman of chew -0.L3:0, -0.020 -3.002 -0.001

o =Ulna (fractionof use, :..039 1.0:206 C.0I2

n`-gh omrool :fraction -1.:22460 -0.019m -0.016m -0.3thm yomcionai *- oechnicni concoi fractiut -0.302 :009 0:n otter sopa (fraction of =an) -0.009 0.034 -0.003 -0.4.01 3. MOUS 'In303r CimEEN . Proasta.10.ty of /wire =mai clitiona or GED by Una of trzarriao 0.9)6+68. 2: act idol fraction of tan) 0.060966 0.09900" moose 0.103ese o coaLage (friction of CIAO 0.033sw 0.0sesesa tr07206" 0.arress

o ciloxil (fraction of Mae) -0.0Uf -0.009 0.031 0.005 o IA voctional. tse) echnical anoon. (friction ofV.or 0.032m 0.0340m 0.010 o In otter *Snot (friction of thin) 0.009 0.021666 0.008 0.009 FRIILM 1. Probabilltf ofWag hich soixol ctiaomi or GED ty =warintarrint 0.420"" 2. Ia afar cnochl, (fraction attram) -0.034 0.025 .030 -0.014 o In calla. (friction of dna) -0.014 -0.011 -0.014 4.011 o in otalradmi. (traction of Was) 0.0216666 04346666 -0.003 -0.003 o In wooacloal cr tactmlnal noon. (hoodoo of Mao) 43.0144 43.050 40.0136 0.009

o Idother =boot(12 ead= cf Wm) 0.024060 0.0426666 0.0:6 0.013 k

-1 1 II 1. Protettlity or torir=2:tool. cr cm ty Mai of 0.2156666 a 2. In as agnal, (friction of din) -0.010 0.001 0.008 0.013 o In oallega (friction of thin) 0.009 0.0166 0.021'" 0.019 o Ia MO school (fraction of tin) -0.015666 -0.011' -0.0120* -0.0110 a In vocational cr tachnical. =book Uric= of Wel 0.CrIS 0.003 0.002 4 0.006 o Lt She: iciaxt1 (fraction of timi) -0.002 0.0:6 0.00009 0.003 , ' Sigoilloactly cliffirenttral.20413 at this ex level of statLIO:boalccefichroi'975 fdr aacs-tall tosti- O0 Slipticantly different trail ammo et the 931 Istax at satttstical =alarms 0% far a one-catitaat__!- 49314inificlonly diffract Mc tiro attoss951 Lien of statLatiott czarina= c1J-5% for 4 tre-tall tail 46.8statfuseelydifferent frail aro at this 991lorancf atm:Laical =Mend, 99.5% for aone -tailtent

166 4 "ABLE 7.6

SmIge2CS 32PS/ZAPAC:5 la TRA:=1). FCR 7.711=ANS: MT 4 =ND =MUM *ZEARS

Job..ave Effects Van carpi anew Jab Gorge -Create Jab-carte Ent= ziraw.c,artic:awmaccLigur2AgaratuaAttarzersiougaL0 to 5 Man 6 to 12 Moths 12 to 15 Arsartaximago_Mmitha 18 to 24 *mug A. %LES 1.:40 any =swim ;mum (franc Ion af Una) -0.009 -0.006 -0.008 -3.013 La an Teintras 1, n-aiticet of'ins) .0.01160 4.CM -0.010 -0.004 o mon =mat (fraction ct 3032 -3.301 3.0)1 3.301 1 t a in 7:32z.-43fractiot toe) 4.:10" .6.00, -0.00160 .0.0018 t 'Aim weir s% (fracticc of =A1) 0.302 3:032 L002 Io other trazoirg (fraction a Woo) -0.0034 0.301 0.00002 0.001 2. 'teintrg allownener ter SIX Mahe in loran &alai ' -0.a -12,22 -18.62 -13.24 B. mteLcM:II7H07192=01 1. :A any trent:tin thorn ;fraction ct 1'110) 0.036 0.020488 0.016' 0.00006

o IA CC weir:log (frantic° ct Uri) 0.003 0.0156 0.006 - 0.001 o :A rich training (fractito ct tten) 0.002 0.004 -0.001 -0.001 o :A QM trutotts ('frection af ton) -0.000800 .0.000808 -0.000606 -0.009000 o In teliCII training (trW1= af tine) 0.003 clas 0.003 0.003 o In othlr, treiniss (fraction of tam) 0.0050 0.0130 0.0146000 0.004 2. Trainliat 811 ono tee" alx=mhoit current Jailors 16.52 20.113 4.69 8.32 . FoiLE11032r121035EN 1, la arnonedolag Fromm ifrantton a We) 0.014 0.0291 0.004 0.004 oIn Cla *Weft (ftictiOn'a time) -0.0111 0.010 C.005 -0.001

o i6Mee thnumult(fructloa of Wen) 0.005e1.1 0.001 -0.001 -0.001 oInlet trid4641(frerttemaf Mae) -0.00I 0.032 -0.001 0.003 0 Iota= aroma (Ormmulle shoe) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 oIn other traththe Wootton of shoo) 0.022011 0.0178888 0.001 0.003

2. 11,41.616g&Llama= per six ninths in - currentdalors 6.92 9.57 -1.18 10.93

t,..17.16any tro :dem grown (frazthan a Wm) -0.00e 0.004 -0.002 .0.002 In Cat (reaming (fraction of tine) -0.05f -0.001 .0.035 4.003 oIn path training (fraction a( Wen) 0.002 0.001 0.0304 0.00003 o InVDTthalami (friction a t=oe) .0 prim .0.002000 .0.033600° -0.002000 o Ia unit= thninitit (Madre of ohm) 0.0020040 0.0026000 0.02000 0.0016 oIn *tine training (moue a Um) 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.002

r. 2. Trolasag dogloom., par 1 amens in acmellars 4.58 -2.76 -12.10 -6.54

3igatficenity alitrent fru' ma et the SOS lent a stationtcal confiderne905 ftr a tera-tell thet) es Stedflrontly different fro* tere at the M lewd of seatlsttcal. condom 555 t a cen -MU Wet .1 44 Steeticantly =want flan zero at the 95% lora of stattstical =Varna 97.3% rte a aos.tall tan). 1440 stegerlosoray afferent from um At the 550 long afatadaticel. =Memo99.5%for a oretatl Wet/. '

4 167 1 9 1151.8 7.7 =Y.= X s:M :Cm 7.TA= 7 7=r-1G. niR a7".LV,I42 71:E: AND Xtreal ecz..tAIA.V4 SUS

Job Gwp Effects Job Gorp-UTeots .lab Cabe erects Job Carpe 2rfacw 24 to 42 ftiOwjamtiongtmucia_ttaMsIQ to *6 tbrans

A, MILES 1. 21 any trelatze prterm (fraction of this) -0.006 -0.010 -0.007 4.009 .4 Is, 0 ::1aTi truant* (friction of Una) -0.0:18 i 4.010* 4408 -0.010 o In Awn Winning Micmac of e) 0.00:04 ' -0.0001 -0.0002 -0.0001 o In WIN =oleos (thatica of ties) -3.00106 -0.4:010* -3.0314 -0.00154 oInum=:motors (fraction of time) -0.006 -3.031 -0.001 -0.0003 o Is other aairtng (faction ct tam) 3.001& 0.302 a403 3403 2. Training aLlancrse rar au mon In =rot azilers -9.55 -12.89 -12.5* -29.344 3.yeen.oniremurCEBIEREN

1. In aor bmstimLngtrtgrek(friction ct thee) 0.010 0.12164 0.030000 o a CEM treisug (fracttcn ct tom) 0.0144 0.0.7/9 0.0324 o In man training (fraction ct Una) -0.002 .0.003 --0.001 1°17221 o In WIN Wnlatal (fracace ct tun) -0.009ms -0 .039851 -0.010888, -0.010468* o In mica trignirg (trial= ct tuna) 0.033 9.02 0.001 0.001 o Ia atm trebling (friction of thee) 9.002 .0.001 0.0114 0.0388

2. Training allaarces per sin mauls in \ currentOstlers 42.68144 113.50ese 108.044, 74.60~ C. rlEMPLES*TM UELERER 1.In any truism prism (foal= or elm) 0.0)8 9.021 0.013 0.016 o In czi tracing Madam ct time) 0.001 0.019 0.013 0.010 o Ia mats tree:Lai (*mica of tame) -0.001 -0.031 -0.001 -0.001 o Ia 14311 training (81W= of thin) 0.003 4.032 -0.033 -0.001 o Ia orlon tridents (frecticn of tins) 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0. o Ia otter Unman ct Ws) 0.005' 0.003 9.033 0.0055 2.lutnisgallaancen per oaths in arrantclailsw z 12.69 20.80 4.18 6.36 D. CNIMALL

1.In any trots:Lae awn (friction of Wm) -0.001 .0.001 0.002 -0.0004 o In 00 truLtang (frectlin of um) -0.003 0.001 9.031 -0.002

o In ytuth trelltiag (frect:Lcc ct time) -0.0004 -0.001 -0.0004 -0.0004 o In VS truism (fraction ct tins) .0.002 -0.0338400 -0.0034440 -0.002med

o In Waal training (faction of thee) .-0.0001 -0.0002 -0.001 -0.0:)1 o a ottw mane= (friclacm of thee) 0.004 0.032 0.003 OA* 2. T1.191143 aLlonemesper six matte in arrestciaLlms 3.12 8.50 LOS -8.34

Stesificnr-ty differ= era two at the 23 :weld 'etatinticel csairiscs 93 ice a arse-tai l toot). Sigattlemsly daffirees ma zero at the 93 L. of sentinticel cceridaroa. WI ice a ccs-toll %et). SInalflaently different fro zero at the 0%wellat' statiationi oaficleers as -tail left agoltirmgray differ= ems caro at the 391 age or poet coarauz. 99.9157. 0 for ttr_ a a toe -tait Ofttan

168

196 "az 1.8

ail-AZ-MXtZ ?.fmccaatl 1-1,155

Stricua health problems Dr atvillans ;Itaction %AO -0.011 -0.009 -0.010 -0.014 2. laallative owe§ to irterrity data tar 1:x1.1.taga 0 Al.:: axes wows atlas 0 For ,:ob occarraut.ft o For 'Swat= ar 3. Probability to etlitzry drita irtarvivar week o-caus 9. rethi.M man- =won 1. Swims bmith problem tar civilian§ .-a-aation of %AO) .0.0% -0.050.000 43.C611800 .0.06311e1 2. 0.aulaclve mrea to1.1211.61data fir ate/limo o wean woes cities 0.33". 0.233 o Par jab oportuoitlas 0.1S5im o For aluaatlai or training 0.090 0.098 3. Frobabtkir saitaelms intarvias walk 0.018 0.0303 C. 7BILES1117WatIMEN 1. Seri= Nal* mass for civilian§ 4 (fraction at bias) 0.062"11 0.0(151111 0.0381" 0.012 2. I:Maar:iv, sons to istardiai date far

o AllADMaortas algae O Par jab owarazitias o Fa. educattcs a trmlatag 3. Pmemim lay in sLttsy during irberriss mit 0.0 0.0 0. OPERILL 1.Sri= health problem farcSvtLL (fteatIon at' 1:111e) -0.022 -0.017* -0.0191 -0.02200 2. anulative Tawas to Warder data for

o All swot across cities 0.2131o 0.2TON o Pear jab oreartuoittes 0.1811 0.1491 o Far elmehLan cr training 0.059160 0.030 3. Prcteta 3.th9 10lital7 chric, =slim wait 0019ms 0.039

algolficsorly ditramot from zav at the 80% level ct statlatAcal cocatdoso SOI for a car.1:411 tan). se Stgottionotly dIffereat from zee at the 90 lava af stattalloal exalderce a ata-taa. Cesh). sobSignuicretly differentAsa zee at the 995 larel at' atatisnlcal =Mu= f .5% f a avreall ten), 18" Stagatlamatly afferent from zoo as ate 99% link Ig =Waal marlanza .5% fci" a ma-tall tan).

," 16919- BEST COPY !PH AgtF MU. V.9 4 ..:03 Ws "PACTS 34 "r74 1.-u4112471. HILITAia =VICE: 7., r..;47.4f7.4+

slob Ccr; Ertect3 Job 4teats Job CrWhets Job Corp Effects

Variable Aitrb°Ursa/fair=4,,riastdaatanAt :Taredretinn Allf2tar=tico A- 'SUS 1. Setae death "bless far civilises f.freetico of tame) -0.022* -0.019 -0.015 2. aamaistire mama to umerview data far =Ulan" o ALL axes warm anti* 0.5314 o For :co oPP:rtmitias 0 . tk3:1 o For samatten or tratraz.1 4,015 3.Protetalty otLtlary ctelng =seam wok 9.r WEBEIN _BSI 1. Sricus health xcbleee tom` tractice of Um) .0.043aat -0.0T3 -0.0f3 comma 0 2. astaaLtri ammo to Interview ads fa- cam.L.tato o 41.1. zees was cities 1.02144 oFbr jab opparomitles 0.248 I. adnoatace cr training 0.1155 3 ProteniLttyin el.luary *rims Interviewmeet 0.006 Z. ritti..M ,ifTH OHIILffie 1. *las math pteaLems rm. civil(treaties . et rim) 0.012 0.01? 0..016 0.010 2. Cuedative mom to intertios ate ter cavii.tant a All mono woo atlas 0.201 o Fbr jes opcorencinlwo 6.1 it o Fbr ello!tice cr trodalcie 0.092* 3. FrintactettlIty ed.11twy Wring reloaweek 0.0 OiniZILL 1. Solon n=1.th weans fitr driLtims ('.Y acao) at Use) -0.02300 -0.0244 y -0.0224 -0.02040 2.Caulatdte nom to =ammo data tar

Signiticiet11 different frcs two Us 80% leval of neatdatiasl. =MN= 9X ter a as-teil test). . * Sagelficertly different frcs tooit at Ca 90% Wel at' statue:Lail =fide= $ ar ame -tailtast). as Stgalltenety dittoes* from two at tho 95% level of statistical =Mom N.% fcr a cas4111 test). 4000 SianniMarly carrot ft= ma it the 9% level of'statIstiail. croficbcow 59.5% fcr a MAUI tent).'

198 170 VV.

".BLE V.10

=:u- A=I =VS/HIM' 3llta7:01 711.42+12E z.r.: :Cr virr.:man :.v 403 0210S, zai.vcic AND SEC ND POSTPRCGRAN MARS

Job Carps Mess Joto carp, Mows Jo° Qr gm Mons Jab Cam Mans 0 to 6 Meths 6 to 12 Maths 12 to 14 WO* le to 24 Mattis t- 44_ - A..ISLES . 1. In *allege (that= or doe) . 0.07T 0.038 0.007 0.010 . 2. :olzunt scbool. (frtoclen or *fir) 0.040 0.040 0.030 0.03 3. :A, arr training ;rya Manion or ties) .0.026 . 0.025 0.024 0.024 3. 2 ... ..a ,ohkeigi..40-etio.n4 tLmi, ..).0.21, p.021 . 0.019 /Lop ...... : - 0.1741 2, in bi.fil MARVA ftrancton et dna) ...0.0* 0.0214 0.02t .. ...3.In am =Ram wzgrai UMW!: or tine? 0.610s. 0.039 0.013 0.015 C. FLAMM WI =LAM P

1. In waft! ((raceicn,of UM) 0.034 p.025 . 0.030 . 0.021 2, In W. J. (bend= of tine) 0.032 0.029 0.020 0.012 3. la atriltdre "Iris (frintlal or Use) 0.019 0.013 0.014 0.012 D. OVERALL 1In=W. (tracRts:;11 of 1:120) 0.011 0.012 0.011 0.014. 1 2. In bulb Mixt ftractlon at Cho) 0.015 0.010 0.028 0.0211. 3.Inmg Volga' program (frond= at CIAO 0.022 0.023 0.021 0.021

r .1=17.11

157: 4 J.= 3.0 a' RSmucar_oi .tAD "'A= :4.0) 1= NC": :71.7Z-MA= 7.4 7..74. MUM! :21:r2BCCs..M '22.9

1. In aoilnyk (friction of time) 0.011 0.012 0.011 0.013 ' 2. In MO soboni (!?action of Won) 0.022 0.020 0.047 pAls 3. En any train % ;maws tilmoman a(' ;um) 0.022 0.023 0.021 0.021

3.FM= MB= MiCIMEN

:n **Liege (tract:an ne tog) 3.021 0.027 0.039 a

2. Zn hien %tog (triad= of time) 0.012 0.008 0.001 o.co:$

3. loan, alcUtUVIProlron (froctIlanar tins) 0.021 0.023 0.012 0.010 3,;, Iti:

1. En *allow (Prentice" of tine) 0.029' 0.031 0.032 0.032

2. In ht. sabot (fraction of tbno) 0.207 0.006 0.406 0.004

3. In any training proem (fmaccion of Moo) 0.010 0.009 0.0011 0.002

D. OVERALL

1. In mato (frnaclociaf tins) 0.015 "- 0.017 0.019 0.020

2. En trop sabot (f4ill:14one 06) 0.018 0.016 0.013 0.010

3. In nny training true (Aiwa= of tun) 0.028 0.021 0.017 0.016

200 1.72 TABU 1102

T-:-=-1c= 7 :CB Cr-PPF. 242AC-I.]lEt C.473.4. ryjn =HD P3SMCCRAM MARS

-Kb Corps Effectsyap Cats Effects Job Corps Effects Jab Carps Effects 0 to Wachs 6 to 12 Issas 12 to 18 Moths 18 to 24 :baths

A. MALES_ .0.039e 40.014 -0.0214 .0.03044 1. Is ay ,moot (fraction of Wm) - 2. .:4 calla. ((Victim at Um) 0.-03:06 1.005 0.005 -, .0.001 3.:4 slab tided. (fraction of time) -0.025444* .0.016444 4.0181e .b.o215 e. .:o vookticoei a ractracal soca :rylctica of time) - 0.001 3.007 t.005 0.002 5. In other scirial (traw= at time) 4.01300 -:...",1C4 ..."...:11# -c..zer B. REIALleitlallECWEIEMBOr , 1. Wear seam ((Victim at Um) 4.036 0.031 0.035 0.064444 8, is milase ((Viatica ar tun) -0.001 0.016 0.016 0.025 3. In ra13 *cat (fraction at time) -0.04"" :0.017 -0.0220, 4.018 a. IC rcesticral cr tactitical salmi (fraction at tine) 0.009 - 0.019D 0-021144 0.0erleas 5. Zi cutter salmi (tram= of two) 0.008 0.02044 0.007 0.009 I C. FRULES WM CREWMEN 1- 14 cif/ sca.31 (traction at tan) -0.0404 -0.066'" -0.019 -0.077 2. Ia aillap (trectica of time) -0.021 -0.017 .0439 -0.001 3. Iss tit xiail (tricsim at bar) -0.032 -0.01944 -0.01504 4409 a. Ia mamma cur tichatit emit 4. .1. (triatim at Me) -042540. -0.02.514 0.006 14.013 5. Is cuter rs/ (!action at Um) 0.3*"" 0.003 .0.035 0.02:344 6'),;L' I

1. In ear actccht (friattoi at time) .0.038m4.4. -0.004 ' -0.008 2. Is college (fraction at Use) 4.001 0.007 0;004 3. ;11 121.0 xbail (Victim at taw) .0.031ss 460160s -0.0194444 4. In v0446102341a tap:Mica2=0t alictica at ties) 0.003 0439 0.01044 0.01044 S. Misr mica (iVictici at Ur) .0.008 .0.0011 :0435 0.003

Signitialotly different frca meat the 80% leak ct statistical ccatitemoe ME ter a coasted test). -- " Significently dIttareat rem lira at the 90% level ct statistical ccofIdetice tar ssties -tailtait). rqf 4 Sisniflosnar different /ryazeroat the555Len/ of statistical astideesie .gt Ow a crss.tailtest . s I," StagnaittlY 'different fro aro a; the 996 lesel at statistical mottle= .5 [ton a com.tail. tan - -

BEST CePY

201.

0 173 .

ZABLE. 7.13 . _ 7.:7.= 7 JOI CMS .11,AC= 31 =CC= l'i.a.1.1= ."2...7311Y =CR: i . 3=2Z 333? !WM XStriCGRRI MR5

-.- Jab Wass Jds Carpi Effects .41 Carps Etrects Job c =eats 24 to Metal 'g) to 35 hails 16 On 42 Marls - 112LOSSMasao i Attar AmerTeisinatian =or teraistrjaafter TermizatArn A NIES . 91. ,,, !: In ate =col (fraottas or tits) N -0.035100 -0.017,1 -0.011 -0.011 i 2. In =Lisp (fraction or time) - 0.031 0.001 0.009 0.033 3. In sag sixes (ttectina of tam) k -0.0190e -0.0170 . -0.014.0 -0.014** 4.Invccaticral cr technical =red. fractien of Lima) -0.033 -o.cce 0.002 0.007 I .:.c other scrag (fro;tic at time) ' - 0.010* -0.006 . -0.005 -0.003 3. FEMAI13 SIE3112Yr 1:101331 I. In apt school Magda: or two) 0.680 chossaam. ' 0.0erea 0.097". 2. In caps. (tract= of ties) char 0.0500800 0.0568,se 0.0728 3. In gip ma al (regattas of Um) -0.0311 -0.036 0.003 0.008 4.In vccaticnal or tectadcal. Nasal (frantic* of Moe) 0.030" 0.010 ' 0.006 3. inothirsarat (reactias or time) 44.0332 0.012* O.011 0.0288004 il3pILE3 WEN 1, intea"Soca (temotica or tlaa) -0.0:4 0.065 4.0300 2.in ces134. (f scuts of ties) -0.014 = -0.011 4.014 -0.011 oe" 3. la SO mem/ Meats= al taw) 0.021444 0.034eiee -0.003 -0.003 4. In vcaatiaul er tactmicalaersal, itrasticaartisg3 - .. -0.0110 -0.016' -0.013* -0.L09 5.Inanis acizol (fractaai cc' Otas) 0.024888 0.0112888 0.016 0.013

I, /a sat Wax& Mantic* or tin) 3 41. 0.001 0.001 0.004 2. In callow Mead= of tar) 0 004 0.039 0.014" 3. In alga ackool(nocedan or time) - 0.009' -0.031* 4. In eccattcal cr ignianaa/ actool___--11-: Mastics or Lisa) 04011 0.0O2 S. Ls or4bor gazol (fractica ortzle) -0.003 , 0.034. 6.031 it

6 SlArdricsmen,N different fresareaat tba 805 lestatstat.atical. confidwoa itr aam -felt test). gg StIsSfieant27 different try. taro at Ma 9C6 loot or statistical. ossfidenog Ay a au-tail Wit/. 411 significantly different frog zero at tbg 95$ legel at statistical melds= .5ftraC11104.30.tent). -,.. gam Sionficantly different fro. zeroathy995iffai at satiating/ =Mese .511 itr a ons-cal. ram). ft .... _ ,. .: %,,i, - ..: * ,-,

.1. .. l . if; tql; __--, . . A .

I:S.. 3 202

a 4 I

ABLE74 it =1..43 :33 ,XRFS :s? se ;,1= za.rztrc , 0 FLIST AND SE= FaMCGR.24 'ZLRS

Job Cale =seta yob Cons Effects vab Corte Effects..ob Carps Meats 0 Orb Miens 6 co 12 highs 12 to 18 Pinta' 18 to 24 titeths 4-- . f 4 1-

101.13 1. In any traudog warm (fraction of tire') -0.036 -0.005 -0.009 -9.005 tt t.rais.Ing (fraction of tam) a -0.0104 -0.006 -0.0094 L0.005 o palm training (fraction of time) 0.001 0.0004 0.001 0.0003 0.'21 'MI tinning (fraction of time} -0.031* -0.001 -0.03144 .0.031 o 1s mice *awning (fractup of mai) 0.001 0.3003 0.001 -0.0334

Inwar trairdrei(fracttce of time) 0.0004 0.001 0.001 2. Training allamicla pr zit maim is currant dollars 2.36 -10.25 A7.23 -120

3.Girl= Math;noble= (A,16:nboo af Wm) -o.009 -0.008 -0.011 4.orf 8.__FREUEs/EMU OEM= . . . I. In atm training orrsrme (Nalco of time) 0.005 0.0264. 0.015 -0..032 o in CETA tnining (fraction at taw) 0.001 ,0.013 0.034 -0.001

o In math traitIM (fraction of Lim) . 0.032 . 0.003 -0.001 -0.001. o Ia1i3N training ((recital of Uzi) -0.038404. -0.008444 43.008444 -0.009044 i o In mato training (*Matt= of LIM) .0.003 0.003 0.033 0.003 0 ja other t-ainIng (fractlal of am)" 0-005 0.0134444 0.0144a44 0.004 2. Mroirdng a/lawmen per six months in / cirrus dollars 15.18 19.77' 4.01 7.71 3.Selairimate wagon (fraction of tow .0,040. .0.0g3ema .0.067400! -0.1:6340" i .1141M C. pa:1M IIITH=man- 1. b ern training program (fraction of time) 0.014 0.02944 0.013 o In CFA trainstg (fraction of born) -0.011 0.010 0.005 -071" o In mob trams Urn:tun of ttao : 0.0:54 0.031 o la la tridgling (trial= of use) 41.001 0-002 -0.001 0.003 o In or= weaning (ftsca am of tame) 0.0 0.0 \- 0.0 0.0 o In

o In CC11 training (traction of Ulm) . -0.001 i.0002 -0.005 6 -0.(04 o in man training (dictum of taw) 0.002 0.001 0.0003 -0.0001 can AM trimming (fraction of time) -0.003444 -0.00e04 .0.01904" -o.ocesse

oInunion training (l'ou'r at% time) 0.001 0.031 - 0401 `"b.cixt o I0 mbar tridents (fraction of Mr) .0.002 0.0054 0.003 .0.032 . Training &Daewoo per sill sorbs in currant dollars 6.04 -1.66 -11.28 -6.41

3.Swims amine trailers (fraction of Um). -0.02140 -0.016* q .0.01940 -0.0220* $

Significantly clUtrant from zoo at tea ea lamaofetatistical arifidenza 90%fara cnertaa best). tcSignifitantly differentfrozero atthe901 level of statistical fcr a altptail test). 111111tleaaltantly alffantat Imo tort at oar S5S Levalofstatistical bonds= 97.51 for a One-tall coati. "Sinaficantly afferent:fromzero atthe991 level of statistical confidence 99.5 03 a wisest ono -

203 'S 4 =MIES z',;(2,-*--es "Jsezz meN.74- fIED ICURIli KISTACGRAK =ARS

rt.. carps WrOdta job. Effeats Jab -trfects woo Effect* 24 toi.30 ttotnta 20 to 42 to lemons

. aref tralinEy proves (tIvet.ta3 of Una) .0.4707 -0.011 -3.009 -0.1".61 ' o ..tn ZIA 0VA/4 .tlacr-ttn at Urn) 7:4.= -0.009 -0,010, 0 Zn pun traittUY, (.1t-act.ltn of Ilne) -0.00003 -0.0001 W21 .ratart.-4f*nctiori 0fthoel -0..4144 -;.;014 -1.,:0144 +.:a) fl-aca cf -.toe) -3.302 -0.002 0 in cow Itratt.lon (frectun of Una) 0.0)4 0.002 0.034 v.= 2. Ivaliataterstenoulii Far akt maths in arms 9.61 S -1359, -1325 -30.rOr 3. Soria* neiltAt "dam (frectiaa of tine) -0.0224 -0.019 -0.0190 -0.01$ a. iL "yr In acti rtinual Program (hydra= ar Um) 0.008 0.0Pr 0.02600 0.022 o =I Wotan' (frames or thus) 0.012 0.1:Th 0.02810 0.019 0 la Valtb craisdrts(tract:Ica at tlis) -0.002 -0.003 .0.001 oIn VS training (imam of Mae) -0.009, .10.007 ,p09lbea -0.610mosa a o In alias trenaing (frectico of 115) 0.003 0.032 0.001 0.001 o In tabor training (fraction of Wow) 0.002 .0.001 - 0.004 0.00r 2.%moue &llama Sil month* In arrant 1 41.177 7941040 103.94 4.690. 3. Sanaa baalac Torcelss (fraction at time) .0.044. -0.07046P .0.074 4 Mo*

1. 111 at, tralclal Wasps (rraatisis of tlor) 0.008 0.021 0.013 0.016 o In CUR training (fractlat at tize). . 0.019 0.013 0.010 .0.0)1 .0.001 -0.001 70 yvAittli 0MM:a (freocico of UM) 4.61 It ti3 1:ro41ninv (fraction of Um) 0.033 -0.03; -0.033 -0.001 b In mica ins (fraoticn oc tin). 0:0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o In nia- trelatag'((rectite tau) 0.039 0.003 0.003 0.0250 2. 'DManZaLlonizas per mix =Om in tamp& dollar. 12.69 20.80 4.18 6.36 3. Sly141813 icoblas (fraoclas of use) 0.012 0.017 0.016 0.010

1. In MY tritnize progr(ftsction aY tag) -0.033 4,032 -0.CC011 0,InAen, trtiAtre (frectina of pm) -0,003 -0.0003 0.0002 -0473 o is oat (factIte or um) -0401 -0.001-- -0.00? -0.03? o Isf931 .tralnics (traatta, of tine) -0.002 4.03316" -0.003016. -0.07346, o In mien training (frectice af tam) -0.001 -0.0319 -0.001 o In otter trelmat (tracts= at cuss) 0.003 0.003 0.073 2. Wrapsallansass per Vs away Sa armpitclailars " 2.76 7J5 6.01 :9.74 &rico posit* monlo (Meows at gas) -0.02300 -3.02404 -0.021s

*iamb' ctrforsIbt :aro at Mo 809 level or statinattal.ranfideace (936 far a cns.calltaut . Icantly Wrenn the cam at 'as 901 16%1 of adulation/ tonflearof t73$ for cas-t aee sjoaticarmireaftErent rim tam at ;As 939 lend, at tietloak o:oficerne 97.5% ter a cos-caarTik. 140 Suguicsatly =Went nal.see*at ada 999 :awedatscar azarlooreck VA..% rce a cre-cail ant). .

176 201 VI. IMPACT OF JOB CORPS ON PUBLIC-TRANSFER DEPENDENCE

The increased employment and earnings of former Corpsmembers is

expected to reduce their postprogram dependence on public transfers.

Because of increased earnings after leaving Job Corps, former Corpsmembers

are expected to receive fewer public transfers -- including AFDC, General

Assistance, Food Stamps, public housing, Unemployment Insurance, and

Workerdi Compensationthan 'they would have-received otherwise duripg the

postprogram period. In addition, Corpsmembers receive much less of such

transfers while they are in the Job Corps program (see Mallar at al.,

1978), which is also, expected to reduce their future use of such programs

by breaking the link with any preprogram dependencies that had or would

have developed.

The patpro&am findings for the effects of Job Corps on public

transfers are summarized in Table VI.1 and are detailed with more refined

estimates in Tables VI.2 through VI.13 3./ Ovei'ali, they show (1) a-very

large and statistically significant reduction in the receipt of cash'

welfare (both AFDC and General Assistance); (2) a very large and

statistically significant reductai in the receipt of Food Stamps; (3) a

Moderate-size but insignificant effect on public housing (an increase in

the first two postprogram years and then a decrease in the 'third and foUrth

1 postprOgram years); (4) a very large and statistically significant

1/The detailld tables include (1).separate breakdownsfor civilians (Tables VI.2 through VI.7), and with military observations included (Tables through VI.13);, (2) background inf rmation on what Corpsmembers'Corpsmember postprogram behavior would have been in t absence of their participation in Job Corps (Tables VI.2, V1.3, VI.8 -iifnd VI.9); (3) estimated effects of Job Corps on welfare assistance (Tables VI.4, VI.5, VI.1O, and VI.11);jand (4) estimated effects of Job Corps on public transfers other than we are assistance (Tables VI.6, VI.7, VI.12, and VI.13).

177 205 TALE v/.1

z...-4042; :r !itrs rmcms armuu. :*,ISCts at RM.= 73ANIUM. S. PM =MOSER 131 ILVS

EitUratei Estimate/ EIM.I.setad Es/am/ Jab tbrps Mesta Job One Effects Jab tbrps Mots Job Cbrp0 Maces Fir Fine Tar for Semi Teo . For 'Mir/ Tor fte Forth leer

Ass remise/ ate sab weilaret c....41,111.1sce -2.94 -1.81 -2.31 -1.46 2. Adam maim/ am -asb wears. accl zt:6;.rary -2.56 .1.91 -2.37 -1.51 3. Waal ressvel AMC. z.v1I.Lans .1.85 -0.99 -1'.38 -0.68

.wells memo ARC. fr-viliess 11 sali.tarf .1.90 .1.04 -1.140 -3.75 5. Weis mails/ GI a' Mbar. civillam -0.94 -1.01 -0.78 6. Weis reslyad GI c otblr. cdvillass at0 military -0.91 0.99 -0.78 7. Weds ressisse Rod Stscs, my/Llama -1.48 -0.24 -t.74 -0.52 8.weals realms lbs1 Mame. Waists aal saltarte -1.51 -2.21 -1.a 9. *aka Lew to sublia airiLlacs 0.66 1.14 -OAT -0.70 10. v e i n l i v e d t o t eals Musts& 0.villast as/ abiltery 0.78 0.56 43.73 -0.56 II. *sae received flamplomme Issrewts. Psalms -1.0r -0365 -0.75 -0.70 12. Weis resolved Clamaloysse Issrears, asiltea am si.u.tay _1.04 -0.65 -0.75 -0.75 13.Weals rsailval1halers' CiMasstiOn eisiLtse 0.07 0.23 0.318 0.35 14.Vase, cloavel waleiamplastIma, stritias atd salter/ 0.05 0.21 0.29 0.38

20c

178 reduction in the receipt Of Unemployment Insu-ance (CI); (5) a very small but marginally significant increase in the receipt of Workers'

Compensation (which is probably attributable to the increased employment of

Corpsmembers); and (6) mixed and insignificant effects on the receipt of training allowances (which are consistent with the estimated nulljeffects on training reported in Chapter V). Altogether, these findings provide strong support for the hypothesized reductions in public-transfer dependence.

The estimates of what Corpsmembers would have done during the postprogram Period had they notparticipatedin Job Corps show a large degree of dependence on public transfers. As shown in Tables VI.2, Y/.3,

VI.8, and VI.9, we estimate that on average (approximately): (1) 8 to 9 percent of the time, Corpsmembers would have been receiving cash welfare

(four weeks per year), (2) 20 percent of the time, Corpsmembers would have

been receiving Food Stamps (ten weeks per year), (3) 7 to 8 percent of the

time, Corpsmembers would have been living in publid housing (four weeks per year), and (4) 3 percent of the time, Corpsmembers would have been receiving Unemployment Insurance (one to two weeks per year).

Overall, in the postprogram period the estimated effects shown in

Table VI.1 amount to (approximately): (1) a 50 percent reduction in the receipt of cash welfare (both AFDC and General Assistance), (2) a 10

percent reduction in the receipt of Food StamPs, and (3) a 50 percent reduction in the receipt of Unemployment Insurance. The only increase in public transfers occurs for Workers' Compensation; it is very small, only marginally significant, and probably attributable to the increased employment of Corpsmembers (so that they have a higher probability of job-

207 179

a related injury, even if they hold better jobs).

These estimated effects. of Job Corps on former participants'

receipt of public transfers are relatively constant over time, and differ

very little according to whether or not military observations are

included The estimated reductions in cash welfare assistance (see Tables

VI.4, VI.5, VI.10, and VI.11) are strongest for females without children,

weakest for females with children, and intermediate for males.The

estimated reductions in Food Stamps (see Tables VIA, VI.5, VI.10, and

.VI.11) are strongest for females without children, weakest for males, and

intermediate for females with children. Finally, the estimated reductions

in Unemployment Insurandk (see Tables VI.6, VI.7, VI.12, and VI.13) are

strongest for males, weakest forifemales with children, and intermediate

for females without children.

-40

180 "NE VI.2 ==k7--, --aslaSERS. MEE:fr ?2LI:C 714:=S F.;.011.7.=PArre. :a3 :4X =ID KtriA.CC,114 Y..=A"RS

Job Ccrpi Amu_ .kb Carpi Wens Jet, Carp Mom Job arm Him 0 to 6 Italia 6 to 12 NNW= 12 -to 10 !tads 18 to 24 Minas

A. Main 1. Amami am cams welfare Mecum of time) 0.043 0.041 0.037 0.036 2. AK:siva:I Food Stops (fraction cf Ma) 0.144 0.133 0.131 0.135 3. Llama la palLio bpairs (Viatica at tios) .052 0.050 0.048 0.092 ?roe vetth41141C91r4R1 Zrauraire :1*'frac:Ica of _:me} 0.010 0.034 0.031 0.037 CM:1=i 1. asooivoa arp omit milfora (Mott= ct time) 0.179 0.187 0.180 0.176 2. IIKSIVICI Fans amp (fraction of tin) 0.264 0.270 0.254 0.240 3. Lived is ta41.10 lainito. (11.44tUn at Mr) 0.109 0.110 0.109 0.104 4. hicalx40 014101t4inat Inatome f tractica af tan) 0.011 0.014 0.015 0.017 C. FatALES iiI3H =ME 1. Fikaaval air one tail*. (real= of Circa) 0.433 0.445 0.362 0.316 2. alosaval Foal Stara (!"atom or UM) 0.425 0.47 0.480 0.492 3. Livia io pabLia tomb* ()wn= a tiro) 0JUN 0.107 0.122 0.144 4. Aziataud flomploptoot Immo, (fru:Ma of tin) 0.1:00 .i 0.000 0.000 0.000

1. Ii0oved tiff COO MILAN% (treCta,Ca a time) 0.089 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2. 114:611ft kw Stamps (fracttai or tilt) 0.183 0.184 0.186 0.1139 3. Livid la molls tottlas (flctint or Ms) 0.069 0.065 0.057 0.071 4. &COMM! 011MILOMIL laliers; (frootiat of tlow) 0.024 0.0if 0.005 0.030

181 209

.14

"." ME VV. SZ`tri .912406,11M LM:M Z ..77r. N: W 'uarz, irai :11=1= Atr.=-Z: ;:pi SIVZ

cpr PAM Pr WOW qop Wwn Meow Op =Ur) cioal-1 gE att gazit aer loa for MON Tigam,04.7 u=991111k4 ar4y ournirpoma, Arm uoplosoomm r rKrrogv an WOO *Amon t12720104) P (10;2 ItE0"0 EE0"0 air) gzcro 'Z Mm% ro)4 okinS P11,12084) (rurs 1£L0 I£V0 SEO e111"0 't man UT Drltrd SAVO; LV) 11:I$ Jo Was On) 1193'0 h900 IWO ponvool Tioiderilmin 0111041104 o:rr20O4 j, roan 9E0'0 6E0% - aro Len SirirrMr 1121717101:111LEM

"4 wpm Abe woo 'wpm ammo) JD (am ktvo 031°0 091'0 111'0 7 pursati Kw alms unwr.u) Jo NIX:1 Oro 95r° 0Ero ate° E Won In onvIrd 114111X1 tli37n4) JD (gola COr0 WrO LOO 0310 "It reitrow wirknewo warm tioll0Lt;) jo (0111 0 CEO 0 MC' 00'0 ZZ0*0 n =own Iwo 1201211:1110 , "1 Foonsolli an 0no saX1101 1t} ml .10 (son , two 9010 Ofro Otto 'z ;wow 904 guns amnia) JD OM 950 et6-0 1190 .1F.5.0 "C Purl Wr WM/ laiwo74 trertgaq) P Marl 551'0 091'0 I916 kr° 'If eammite pooloolill Intimnita 2000 WO ' WO SCOT TOS1360 1 oftwolv aft UM *Anon ammo) JD (Seet 030'0 060*0 190"0 Slim WPM Psba Want Jpenwav) min 961.0 0 Mr 1OZ*0 91r0 E ;wn vriardw; Imam tur30.4) .7) (901 tiro 0000 i110'0 1600 1/ somizioal pooloomil iii=lin 62010 afro OF.00 Ur°

ra :MAE =M= CF .3:1175 ZRAC75 01 Sta...7f MK= 7.1114..t. ..7.7=g;s: MST. wmtz

on act,.001) acts 0 toPAM, 6 to 2 Booths 12 to 8 14intba 16 to a Matta

k-141123 t.. fissiveal arg crate watts" (fraction ct rim) -0.030a0 -0.030ma -0.021aa 4.oae o arnivas NM Musics of 1:110). -0.003 -0.003 0.012 0.032 e Becairal Gi c othr Matti= of Um) -0.026aaaa -0.026~ .3.023060 -0.023060 2. Ammo Foga Stow (fraction of *Jam) 0.005 0.007 0.029 0.021

3.Livid to piailc rousing (Croctisi of tiffs) 0.030 0.0410* 0.040 0438a 3- AEMILIMAIIIKIIT TECLIREN 1. Iscsonal cariyaLfas -0.1313m -0,14ana -0.1300,36 -0.1211044a 61fI0ca4vai RIC (fraction of time) .0.12emse -0.1120401 -0.11700081 4.109.sea o failicavad GA or odor (fractios of Ur) -0.01641 -OA" -0.017* 2. fimosi.voi Rod Amu Mica= ca. 1:10) -0.1190" -0.1090 -0.0135ala -0.0%0441

3.Livid to RIAU* tanlat (tkictlas at tar) -0.029 -0.030 -0.03541 -0.030 _c. maim is:mammas 1. amorived are omit waltare ffractics of UNE 4,4assos 0.019 0.056- 0.032 olasairld SRC (fraotics of time) 4.140.8 0.009 0.071301 0.016 o Racaind GA or othr (fracttan d Ors) 0.015 0.037 0.014 0.0264, 2. Becaftwai hos Stoma (fraction of Ma) -0.0813* -0.027 0.0241 -0.035 3. Lived Is patio basins (traction of Um) -0.035 0.017 0.019 -0.003 D. CIVERNS 1. Assivadiat nab welfare - (fraction of Cm) -0.052sno 4.0gras -0.035s0s 4.0361m81 o lisairld ARC (trictIoa of Sirs) -0.01110081 ..0.0300000 -0r31e0a0a -0.02)000 o lisairad GA a. caw (fractloo of Ors) -0.024am -0.0241im81 -0.019110" -0.01700081

2. llocarrad Riad Stops (freaks of Ora) -47.032N, -0.0048 -0.0003 . -0.009 3: tired 10 mile canon (Sinai= of =a) 0-012 0.021 0.001 0.0;3)

sisrificarety diffarant fres ore at tba MS loot of statistical. ostickoc.90.5 ta a oar-call tart). al Signitioneelit ilffareas fp= tar* at Its 906 um& cc statistical. zoficiaxa 551 ter a crs.ta.11 taut). Ift $14101flaata1Y curforant elm WO at Ma 955 local of Stittiallial canficlass 91 a ftr a crirtaLl toot). um SiveLfloantly different Mai sr* at Its 996 Leal Of atatlatical. ocaficiosia 99.31 Ai* a cos-tail test).

211 183 11,

721.Eirt.5 tAM 7F J1TPA ...74C7ALSFS...4,x1.5.CtriNCE. CIVTLIAF4S:

Job a"fects Job CtirEffects Job Coma Effects J42 Effects 24 to 0 Watts AN: to 42 Month* 42 to 48 MIMS Tarta After 011100=101 Mar Termenatien Aft latudisatirin

A. mem Poce 1V11 ai cob welfare (fractiert tun) -0.624111 4.0211*** -0.013 o asoslvid AFTC ((notice of UAW 4.001 -0.001 0.0311 0,034 o agoolvid GA or caw (traffic° ce tame) -0.020 -0.023011. 0.017000 -0.017eee 2. Accolved Foda Stops (frootica or time) -0.003 0.008 0.010 pdalic hozdri (fraction of Um) 0.010 0.004 0.010 0.005 _A-0311=2..=CUT-7=Mi 1. ibotivod comb voltam :flaCtla UMW -0.10Fieee -0.1 .0.1orses 43,190.44

o Remised MC (fractico of tame) -0.099**** 4.109.0" -0.131 OS" -0.13811414 o Reolivid GA or ether (emetics of tame) -0.012 -0.016 4.015 43.017 . 2. Awn:Lind Foca Stud, (fractiondtin) -0.108seee ..078" -4.1101080 43.00444 3. Li1 in didllo WWII araotieo of 1100 -0.0101e -0.065see 4.065.00 4.016*

C_ acCLATAGi 1. todyiaLtam -0.0/1* 4:016 0.015 0.031

o ilecornd AFDC (friction of tame) 4.071* .-006 0.021 0.037 o Roosivej GA a other (tlectioi at' teas) 0.001 -0.005 -0.004 2. Ascaltywl Faso Stints (tractiat cf time) 4.039 -0431 4415 3. Livid In coddle bauirig (fraction or tam) -0.023 4.052 -0.06Tow -0.071181 D. WEILL 1. Ficolved am U maim (friction of UM) -0.0161104 -0.010100 -0.02 008, -0.020*** 0 1111001100 MC (frOCLUII cf 1:1m) 4.02111*** -0.0:3080 -0.01110 4.012 o Ilsomivid GA or ctbd ((ethos af tam) -0.019098i 4432)8000 4.015110* -0.0154e* 2, ftIllavw1 pore Stang Mastics of tam) -0.025**** 4.039* .011 .009 3. Lived in taabila taming (fraerlan cf tame) -0.0011 -0.010 -0.013 -0.010

A * Slealtintsly Oittertea, tray taro at On e% 1r111A of statistical. ccatiams I. a =Wag tact). ** Slegstflearaly differ= fro 7.4,0 at The 905 led ce stattstica/ =rids= (955 fir a calsit tut). gm Sideiflomotty diffirvot fro' zero at tie951level or stAtintical todridoem (91.91 far acas-tail test). SkilarldWardiff4rencrimzero at the 995 levy/of statistical oididlas(99.5$ f4ra owtali Owe).

184

1 7,2/2 =IA-m a as =us .12.V.IS 2/ =7: 7 C":1-.111. 12.111-:c 7,241,36. FC11=7-6: MST AND =MD SOSMICCRIS1 =ES

JobUrps areata JO Caret Effects Job cc rps ErTecte JaD Corm Eflacts 0 to 6 Maths 6 to 12 liras 12 to le Mints 10 to 24 Mitts '/ariata. titer Termirstics t .1 _ h 1 t A-111(13 t.Anted tbmplogame (ftactiCe or tile) 4.026.4440 -0.0261400 -0.02).** .0.01801,1 2. Stowed Sealers, Companiatics (rractica or tams) 0.0003 0.185 0.006 0.0014 3 traeengallciadasats par six maths in =Taoliasm -0.27 -12.22 18.62 .03.24 n. nainEs_iiffncur Qualm 1. Raogived Onmplant /manna Mantles or Ur) -04090 43.0109 -0.Ce6 0.002 2. Stewed natant Cementite (freesia or Ur) -0402 4.002 -0.001 0.0003 3. Ikeicdrgailaments par sLa amen la arrasnt doLlar 16.52 23.034 14.69 8.32 c.-FEmiurajw =Mr' 1. Receivel DomolopiwtIrtor000 (frocticoor tliW 0.012 0.007 0.017, 0.013e 2. Elecaiven *Mrs, Garenistiat atomics or tins) -0.0302 43.030e 0.00O1 43.0003 3. Trot/toggum=parsLx ameba incurrantcells,' 6.92 9.P -Lift 10.93 D. OVERALL 1. Asoailma lemplammt Intereen (fraottai or tier) -0.0i0e990 4.02tassa . .0.e1rt ema -0.011* 2. %ode* Velars' Economics Mucci= orLima 4400 0.003 0.01311 0.0090 3. tra1cdsti ailairsee parsix scuds ln arrant mass 4.57 -2.76 -12.10 _ -6.54 .

SIgnirioncir ttiffmant fro we at tbs 00% Ian/ or staustioil catialors fee a mo-441. too). ooSt dIfferst Ms am at tea 90/ Um/ cf statistics/ mad.= ftr a cre-ou. WSW. Is SledeitialLty digramot rpm ere at tbs 95/ last/ cf at/tiniest ccorldfficas .5% hr a cematall test). tartSigitricsntly Wren= free taro at On 955 Lea of statLItical axelarcs (.5% itr ate -tell test).

213 .

l'ABLE 71.7 tal S.P.M 141A-7.3 V= :2:71715, 771:11 =77 .7413: .2C6112CCR:b: :VAS

21 an cap Erre=act afecta ..cb rain afecta Jaa C.orm weevil to ju Moths to fixiths to 42 Pti 42 co 48 PixtOs 1.15= Beceivid Limp lomat laszlori (nocalte ct Zino) -0.018 -0.02080 -0.011* -0.024* 2. ascsived *rims*Capeorgica Wealth e tam) 04)23* 0.01211 0.0090* 0.011*'' 3. Mwatri log alloomegpr stz ammo ia =rent aoLLare / -9.55 -12.84 -12.54 -29.26 9.3001.ES 'EDE= =UM ff t 1. Seco bid (.10tm/camk tranwiras o. Maxim a ta) -0.017 -0.011 -0.011 2. 40:0041 cthiettstits ;frectioe or was) -0.002 -0.002 4.002 0.0:02 3. treIssUts els meta lo thereat 42.68 83.90H 108.01 711.59 C. to COMM 1. lbotteall amp loymat Inseam I trractico of claol 0.008 0.004 0.003 0.005 2. Real lied *env' OZIPLIELICII (trazticaatMs) -0.001 -0.001 -0.0001 -0.001 3. Tre Wye alloairpee Pt' sit =the le arrest dbLlere 12.69 20.80 4.18 6.36 D. avEluiLL_ 1. amedies teseekierst lemaista (Mews at Weal -0.012 ..1,017eiee -0.009' -0.018 2. Reoaval Warfare* Ccstantatial IttectIo1 tIst) 0.005' 0.008 0.006 0.018 3.'NOWalltesroee pg. els scathe 'NOWadoLlara 3.12 8.50 LOS -8.34

31410.nagay clittersat frta we at tbe 805 Iseel or etatiativa cceridorgo far a am-tall, tast). le Sled:U=4 different true zso at the 908 Ifisel at statistics/ carlthots tar a Chlb.tail test). WM Ziatatkagsly clifTerent ircre zero at the 995 lava et statist:loll cctifiderm .95 tar a cne-te1.1 test). I". S.1aniticantly dittervet hem zero at za sql Iowa et etattstical. matte= 45 far a cne.taLL test).

At.

1 4

-t 186

we -'le 6

7211.8tri. JF an XS= V.4.cEt r.AD 7= :47pA17:--etnm .:03 S. =saw!WM& SEC7CR: i79.67 AD =OMKea 'Km<

ott Naos 0 to 6 Months 6 to 1 Mans 12 to 1Mato 18 to 2 Months

1. asonvoi sin mai stattars (fraauca ar tar) 0.041 0.039 0.036 0.035. 2. koetvoi Fax1 Stars :tract:at ct Use) 0.138 . 0.127 0.128 0.133 3. Ltved PAU@ *AWN nacttal Um, 3.02 0.047 0.047 0.04 4.Poce.vool 7411101ontrat *Dwaine ,:tactics of Ma) a.029 0.033 3.032 0..036

JEEMILESAMCIILMIZEIEN . 1. Flocitind can watt** (traction of taw 0.180 0.1e8 0.181 0.176 2. Asosi.voi Faxias)! Stars (ftacticoct t 0.2611 0.272 0.258 0.244 3. Wand Is nattio analog (fraction of tint) 0.109 0.111 0.110 0.103 4.%akivei ChanplopmeInarstos (tractiat at tan) 0.011 0.014 0.015 0.017 3'f 'filta./k: 1. Filoamfai orbarta* (franic%t srtint) P.432 0.44 0.381 0.316 2. Notnved Food Stags (Motion of tam) 0.425 0.527 0.480 0.4W 3. t La piaLtc asuatts . (tmcion ct tins) e.icw, OJCI, 0.12;1 0.144 f" 4. A101111;1al:MUrt, (fractlas ,-0.018 -0.007 -0.005 -0.0O2 IL OVERALL 1. (47=Gi L. t alo 0.0811 0.091 0.093 0.093 2. Sonoma Feta Stags (fractIcaa taw 0.179 0.181 0.183 0.189

3"4r111/11:31414 0.069 0.066 0.057 0.071 4.(tsarina 'Jamaican'sIngram (fractica ct tins) o4z3 cs.ciaS aa5 0.029 c.

215 1.87 1

Alb

TALE 111.9 Y= =213013167S Eil=1 ?ACC 72,1:VEn MAE %cr PA! ."M .'N JC13 3:165. TIELLER2C MILITARY =MR: 7.4A-C10 :t4221 RZTFKr.LX

Antrro=1titasrains ivreriers ttecorspos Huts Tar ialsln_ Attar TermlnettAnAttar Terminal= A&A. T After Iletedrettee o A. RUES i. ftootvod atv mob lailfare Mcrae of tan) 0.033 0.032 0.030 0.028 2. twelve:1 Fox Stage - Lfroctiat af tkoo} 0.135 0.1t0 0.190 0.114 3. Loot in ogilic baiting (fractIon at Van) 0.058 0.065 0.065 0.012 4. %owed thunfloprot .sc=an of -Inn) 0.635 0.038 3.036 0.0111 ili-MailLa VLIZIEOLIT CEZIEREff e. 1.%owed ant am welfare (rractica.ar Um) 0.177, 0.4/ 0.168 0.178 2. likeivon Fax Stags inIctloo of me) 0.2119 0.257 0231 0.2110 3. avon In RAM lxuArg Unction CC time 0.099 0.099 0.055 0.010 u. aleatinnl thwiloymx Imam= CfrocLioa of Lin) 0.019 0.021 0.021 0.022 C. EOM= WON MUM 1. bodiedWScrib iodise Myatt= of Mel 0.281 0.2* .0.230 0.210 2. Flocoavoo Foxl narge Mimi= of Wm) 0.28 0.512 0.510 0,531 3. Won prkilat Main Mecum ,t1si/ 0.154 0.160 -0.161 0.175 u.Notelmen thmployrsoc karma (memo cif Um) 0.001 0.003 0.008

.Roolivod my 411s7 eaflet .-1 (fraction of Iro)- 0.0137 0.089 0.081 cams 2. Roma ltal Stagn (frootlai of taw) . 0.200 0.209, 0.210 .. 0.220 3. Woo An gibl.lc twat% 7 e (fraction of tips). 0.016 0.083 0.084 0.091 4. iscormallomplafolle kiwi= ... (frociton of Laol t 0.029 0.031 0.029 6433

21c

188 *v.

;ABLE VI. 1 0 =At= 7 .:C8 =RES 11,Acm 3S mE:Fr 7 P21.:C %WARY iio=-R: :4.t MX21C r.,F5ECCR;e! MaS

1. Ammanartcar veltat(erectica ot tar) -0.02911 -0.029," -0.021) .oarso o Received NFLC Merlon of tone) -0.003 -0.003 0.031 0.622 o Received GA or a kw Mitten ot tine) -0.0268" -0.0268" -0.02201 .=mow 2. Imbed kat State (erection at time) 0.448 0.004 0.023 0.015 3. ivict is ;Mlle Wenn (fatties et ter) 0.028 0.037 0.040* 0.032 3 xHIPLES_WEDEUr CHIMER a 1. Seeived sw orb welfare (erection ot time) -0.139" 4.127si .0.131 .0.123 . o Recalved ARC (ftectice ct ties) .0.130" .0.1134484 .0.118em .0.:111 o Posered CA Oar (t eat= at tea) -0.016* -0.03)** .0.0192 .0.017 2. Received Food Stara (frecticet of tea) .011214444 .0.110 .0.0932 .0.103464. 3. Lind in patio basing'(traitica at' ter) -0.029 -0.031 .0.0380 -0.031" C. MU= CHECI3E17 1. *MINN NVout welts" Minion ct ter) -OAS" 0.019 0.096" 0.032

o ReensedMC(Masai d 1:16) .0.144 0.009 oxr , 0.018 o Received NR or raw itractiet of ter) 0.015 ' 0.007 0.014 0.028" 2. Nerved tad Star (traction of tine) .0.0813s -0.027 -0.024 -0.035 3. Livid la public tcuria, (freargai cr ryes) -0.035 0.017 - 0.019 -0.003 _1:13330ILL 1. 14441,1441 atir awe weltire (glectiai d tise1 -0.061*" .0.053eme -0.035 -0.03te" o Received AFDC (traction of tar) -0.0e8" .0.033e -0.01ra .0.021" I o Ream* GA or War itreatia of .0.0239666 -0.023"" -0.018884 -0.017", 2. Reseiviel tor arts (fraction ct Uzi) .0Z30 -0.028 -0.0111 3. Lived in patio train (tlectica d tir)4 0.011 0.019 0.021 0.016°

Sleatioarotlidiftarent tete zee at the 801 level at statistical ceridwee 905 etr a tra.tail ter). __16. Siviticerly &freest Crag WO at the 904 level of statistical critidexa a 084011 vast). Stscriticamly cuntryet rm. my at the 9% 'mai ct statistical =fide= . % tcr a cm-tali test). em Sieniticently dittwent trce zero at the 90 liar ct' star mend.= .81 tcr a en 4011 teen).

411

4.. V

217

189 ME 71.11 . ,. . =YAMS a' ,.CB 745 21FACS 1d a=:" 7 M.:C 'fc-17.1 CE, DI=C4 $12-.7,1EY Sie:131: tcr-FD ;a rX201 PCSMCCor,E r...g..-n ,

;eh caw. EgrectaJc carp nractsJob Qna Weets ota,iarpm &tra4 cts "IX16 1101.21 1. %raveda17aler.3.fre (Medal cit trio) 43.024990 ' -0.024999 4.014 -0.010 o a9eeive9 AMC Macao of rani)' -04001 -0.0O2 40.1:03 0.003 o frattvel Ge otbr (triettat at am) .0.023asee 43.022999e .6.0114e, 4.017900 2.ag19,090 Rol OAPs (tvettete at tgav) -0.013 -0.038 -0.009 -0.J.09 3. Lira In pialla haring (frietiat tar) 0.0041 -0.033 0.002 -0.0O3 8.714ALMAaearr=.1110% Z. 1. RortvId.We. <2111 rata,. (Croatia% at tire) 4.1100000 ..4,izsese -0.1115.999 .1 Sti o 11asIval ATM (frvialcr of tar) -0.10ieses -0.1119999 .0.13zmws -0.1104,90 o Asaelead G1 a emir (treattas at tar) -0.012 -0.0179 -0.015 2. bastrld Fad Steep (fraatias at tr.) .0.1160.40 4.087999 -C1.1194or .-0.103999 3. U.vad In pal* taring tfractico of tin?) .0.015 43.06599% -0.1*Am -0.0456 C. z_111.3:510:01 CEIECRER

1. Rvarval ;it/ cart iartara (fIrat41 of tar) -0.0t111 -096 Q.015 0.031 o s'a'wed AFDC (frecalat qt tar) 43.0719 -0.042 0.021 0.03T a h'a'lved G1 a, otter (tractlas at timer 0.001 -0.005 -0:034 -0.034 2. Aralved Rot Stye(fractiop at Lim) -0.039 -0.058 -0,C01 4.015 .3. L.1,4111 in PAU* 104101.0% (freetlao at time) 4.023 4.042 441900 4.0711199 CERAM 1. freavad are car waltire WW2= at tar) 43.01161999 .p.oseasee -0.0299999 4.009999 o lacatval 4113C'itraatiao.at 4.00099911 -0.0:0999 4.0159 43.01114 o 01 a- arta- (tractlen am) 43.0194m9 4.01911999 .4.015909 43.0159;9 2. MaliRot Stowe &rotten at tr.) 43.0310 1.43.049999 -0.024 4.024 3 Lived is pope bargee (trealca at thie) 43.009 -0.019 -0.018 4.019

Sigiolticaetly attiarre trap tarr at the MI Irak at statliticel ccatlaree (a 11r a ar.tall rat). Significantly alttaralt trail zero at the 901 level. at statlatlaal ortliatin far a crsotall. test). apotly altteroat trva zero at am 95% at atatistIcel centideana, gra itr a ta-tall art). ease =sly atffeeire firs zero at the 991 levelas ateats-lam). caeldeire99.91t a tailtom.

zoo O

TABLE TI.I2 Th'74-432S CF 431 =1.5 3,2105 Qtr r CF ROILIC 'MOSS. 1.42.1=G StM.67,1Ki .icat. Lz.F1:

vob cams tire= Job Corp 10Tactaski) Cave Itffects Jot) Carp, Ma= 0 to 6 Matta 6 to 12 11:arla 12 to 18 tisers 113 to 24 Witte o... t- .. IL man

1. alasivad trampLoyesit karma MIL (frontal of ;err) 402541". 4.025mo 4.0190440 -0.018000 2. %taint Waists' Ccatanatical 1.ftioticas of tan) 0.00039 0.005 0.006 0.0060 3. 'ftslnis-s allows= sut motto .to cutrant oollara 2.36 .10.26 --17.23 -12.fr 3. Mg.IILIESIMECLUDEILMEN t. As:mired Onwpcoymes,Iosuratoo ::rocacacC1101) -0.0090 -0.0104 -0.006 0.002 Z. floaived acrlara, OzaparstLat (tract= ct Uri -0.032 -0.032 -0.001 0.0:02 3. IlldrArig aLtaislcso pr sin motto In oars= *Oast 1548 19.775 4.01 7.71 C. MILES WITH gym= 1. aloatvet Ormacymot bona* (Inmate ct on) 0.012 0.007 0.0174 0.013 2. llioatvol licriaral Capareattca (mattaoa of tan) AA= 4.a3ce 0.0004 -0.023 3. Troinlf. al.losboso ;or its weft In arrote 4o1.1a,* 6.92 947 -1.18 10.93 n. 011ENAL 1. funatvel llemplajonot lonroscs (coccus of Mr) -0.0212204, -0.0202042 -0.014002 a. Aocntvon *limo Garoatttel (tract= of Um) -0.001 0.003 0.001 0.0111 3. Tralnits aLteinimos Dr tbs =the In wrote Milos 6.01 -1.66 -11.25 -6.111

SIstrinatly cb.fttrolt Ms me at tar 80% Iasi sr otstist(cat contidsoo ( ftr a crittall teat). 2* Slogritontly dIthrost Film taro at tbil 91:11 lint of statistacat tinfldonso ( fcr a ObrIall Wet). Ns Suparitomis aufamet Ms we ot tbo 991 Perol of mustiest tonflOrsto (.5 ftr a Cretall Wm). we Slankflanclr affirm& fro aro at tat 991 /Mal of atatiattcla oatticlitto (.5 ite a awtall Wan.

219

191 TALE7L i3 =MIES JCB SAM 20.C= 31 MIN CF C.11-M 113LIt. 7s,z0E2S, Dr.= TM= X57.128Z.191 7..Affi

LNILE 1. Faceind Unian lament Imre= :tractlaa at time) -0.0113ww -0.020814 .0.01300 -0.026I

2.; was:MLitt at Um) 0.007 0.0116** 0.008' 0.010,44 3.2.aistrg allasersis par six months itarrant Chtl.lara -9.61 -13.59 -13.85 -30.00"

. tataived Unangloyont lasiranie .rractian ot time) -0.001 -0.017 -0.012 -4.012 2. Altadvas *same )gym (Mottos at tla0) -0.002 01.002 -8.002 0.0001 3. 2V-tang alloamixas par Isis samba La cisme Coils. it .101011 79.230 100.910. 66.69 C._ Ev1tALES iffai Campfler 1. Ricalai (bawls/mg karma, nut= at Use) 0.008 0.04 0.003 0.005 2. Sicalvad Warisrst Castmeatiosi (tract= d tins) -0.001 -0.001 -0.0001 -0.001 3. Training Alcamo, par *is mod* ns currant Sailors 12.64 20.80 4.10 6.36 D.ENEltalL 1. ha:lama taisplcasas Immo) (Autism at Usti -0.012'" .017 -0.010" -0419006* 2. hativad Worst (emetics at Use))gym =MO 0.08f 0.00611 0.001" 3. Training allannas for lit =We la arrant &Liars 2.76 7.25 0.07 -9-74

Sistitiontly ditTema fro taro at tto 805 lost at statistical csatidras Or a cas-tall tan). Sigaiticantly glittering tram pro at Ma 9011 lsol, at Statistical atairldran ( tow a surtall tacit) Ito 51scitiontly citteramt trio zee at tin 955 issel at statistical canticlapas (.5% ter a crs.1:41.1. Steralelezly =slot fra zero at 93% laved ar atatistatal emazialaa t99.9I fkr a aell.tail Ust).

192 VII. IMPACT OF JOB CORPS ON CRIMINALITY

The increased legitimate opportunities for former Corpsmembers to be employed and to obtain higher earnings is expected to increase-their incentives not to engage in illegal activities. As the employability of

Corpsmembers becomes grelt,er, legitimate activities should become increasingly more attractive relative to illegal activities. Thus, we expected to find-reduced criminality - -fewer crimes, fewer arrests, fewer convictions, and less time in jail--among Corpsmemberscuringthe postprogram time period. In addition, a very substantial drop in criminal behavior was observed among Corpsmembers while they were in Job Corps (see

Wier et al., 1978), and this in-program effect was expected to carry over into the postprogram time period (in addition to the employment-related effects from vocational training and education services, the general counseling and center living in the Job Corps program are expected to promote moreregular'life-styles and, hence, reduoe the criminality of

Corpsmembers).

The postprogram findings for the effects of Job Corps on criminality are erratic and difficult to summarize; therefore, we present only the detailed tables in this chapter and briefly discuss their implications.11 Anaggregation over the entire postprogram observation

liThe detailedtables include (1) separate b'reakdowns for civilians (Tables VII.1 through VII.6), and with military observations included (Tables VII.7 through VII.12); (2) background information on what Corpamemberst criminal behavior would have been during the postprogram period in the absence of.their participation in Job Corps (Tables VII.1, VII.2, VII.7, and VII.8); (3) estimated effects of Job Corps on aggregate measures of criminality (Tables VII-3, VII.4, VII.9, and VITA()); and (4) estimated effects of Job Corps on the number of arrests by arrest charge for civilians (Tables VII.5 and VIL6), and with military observations included (Tables VII.11 and VII.12).

193 221 period shows that the teltal estimated effect of Job Corps on arrests or

being in Jail is approximately zero--with estimated reductions in arrests in the first and third postprogram years being offset almost exactly by estimated increases in the second and fourth postprogram years. However,

we find a substantial estimated shift from more to less serious categories

of arrest charges for Corpsmembers--fewer arrests for murder, robbery, and

larceny, which are offset by more arrests for burglary, other personal.

crimes (minor personal crimes, such as threats), and other miscellaneous

crimes (primarily for traffic offenses, drunkenness, and disturbing the

peace, in that order). For the most part, the crime estimates show a

'reduction in thefts, as expected, but offsetting increases elsewhere that

relate primarily to traffic offenses.

The estimates of what Corpsmembers would have done during the 110 postprogram period in the absence of Job Corps (see Tables VII.1, VII.2,

WII.7, and VII.8) show the familiar pattern for severely disadvantaged

youths--very high crime rates that decline as the youths become older.We

obtained estimates of sample means beginning at 6 reported arrests per 100

youths in the first six-month period and declining to 4 reported arrests

per 100 youths in the fourth six-Month period.

The estimated effects of Job Corps on aggregate measures of crime

are presented in Tables VII.3 and VITA for civilians and in Tables-VI/.9

and VII.10 when military observations are included. These aggregate

measures show .(1) no overall reductions in arrests, (2), a reduction in

theft arrests, and (3) no effects for being in jail:The pattern of Job

Corps effects on arrests over time. shows a decrease in the first

pstprogram year (inexplicably smaller than we have found before), an

increase in the second postprogram year, a decrease in the third gad postprogram year, and an increase in the fourth postprogram which,

altogether, add up to a zero effect on total postprogram arrests.

Estimates based on disaggregations of reported arrests by major

categories of arrest charges (with the most serious charge being used for

cases of multiple arrest charges) show a substantial shift from more to

less serious crimes for Corpsmembers. There are estimated effects of fewer

arrests for murder, robbery, and larceny, and more arrests for burglary,

other personal crimes, and other miscellaneous crimes.In fact, the

estimated increases in crimes appear to relate primarily to traffic

offenses in the other-miscellaneous category. Overall, there is a

significant reduction in thefts, which was expected. However, we did not

anticipate the offsetting increase in arrests for traffic offenses, which,

speculatively, may be due to the fact that Corpamembers are driving more

because of their increased earnings and because they received drivers

training at Job Corps centers (intended to increase their job mobility).

Thus, these disaggregated effecta show Substantial benefits for

society (see further in Chapter VIII), because crimes of murder, robbery,

and larceny are much more costly to society than are traffic offenses.

Together with the extremely large crime reductions during the in-program

period, tbisshift'trom more to leas serious crime leads to a substantial

benefit to society in the benefit-cost analysis.

Finally, in previous reports we found small but statistically

significant reductions in the use of drug / alcohol treatment programs among

Corpamembera during the early postprogram period. In the subsequent

postprogram period for the third follow-up survey (our last two- and -one-

half years of observation) the incidence of drug/alcohol treatment was so

low among our observed youths that the effects could not reasonably be

estimated

195 223 :12LE VII.1 77:111..LIES CF =SOWS' CTOWAL7 MAD scr PARISZTAIED AB OMF5. a.72.:41CS; .2.1t yam KS17:1=1.2c tELOIS

Jab Or pa Mows JO Carps Hans Job carps Maws Jab carps Was 0 to 6 Maras 6 to 12 !treks 12 to 13 Maths 18 to 24 Marsha t- t, - A. HUES 1. Total maw of masts rar slat aortas 0.083 0.077 0.071- 0.063 2. *Am tsoft arrests tor 'Ix =Us 0.039 0.039 0.034 0.033 3. Pramealer In jail Caring atm task o.031 0.016 u. Fraalca af WAS in JAI It a* af .1411 ail tat army seek 0.028 0.028 0.025N4 0.027 R. :MOLES Jt r 1. :VAL ranter at wrists ma* atz mon* 0.020 0.023 0.021 0.022 2. Naar of theft srraata tor sin roads 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 3. itanibattp In jag. Orin sorry milk 0.0 0.0 u. frictlan of am la Jailalt ar arta' =row wok 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 C. FEMMES MOH_OKILDHOU 1. Taal *Mar of wrests tor Az mans 0.021 0.021 0.018 0.021 2. OBOE, a' Mitt ammo tor slat =Ms. 0.022 0.02) 0.018 0.019 3. litabseaterIn jail dicta' szwf wok 0.0 0.0 b. Preatlai a' tins >a AL It cut cf Ulm army beak 0.014 0.007 0.022 0.002 D. DED111. 1. AraiMgr ac &sesta par sts sartla 0.0611 0.060 0.055 0.051 2. Naar of Cheri arrests tor ax =Ms 0.027 0.028 0.025 0.025 3. Praab1LOT In Jadl Om, sew mak 0.011 11. Imam af Ma In jail If a *stag new wok 0.021 0.020 0.017 0.019

196 -.ftr.%...4AITs 7 a:81,,e2sn Mt! T.131.2 41.2m-rt 11Cr PARM=A-, Ja3 CMS, tt8 C4112-7=0 7..t. ;423 2,17;1,1. KSMICCeole 'rn 24Jbo to Plinths XIJOb to 34 Months carps mat After Tereinttien36 to 42 Altar Italie GinS 42., to Cale Wore1Tarrinatine Minns Variable1. Nat mar of amnia per six mutts Mar 0.057 1._HILES Altar Tosiinatirn 0.029 0.0280.052 0.0260-0i6 4.3.2. lebrPrdietall0Fromm et then et In time meta jell inOrin per jig armyWri.Ifsa.% at mewlof leekmar welt rdl 0.0280.030 00.021 0.019 0.0210.048 1. total astir of imams ter Am webs a. Nal;LES ZIZECEIT CEZIMON 0.02 0.022 0.021 C.C22 4.3.2. PrabobilltfWoeNatio of at nett failme Jell ammo OirimeIn jail per servedU' neingUm at minim ar)1444 jag Wag Mit 0.0040.000 0.0.1)0.000 0.0130.001 0.0000.00.0002 3.2.1. limeele1310Tote/nater milerof teen 111ar Arrestsweft jell artper ngpe 42.4 eageraix moth.Icons mak Fueizs 110130.0100.019 rEa3SEN- 0.0190.021 0.0170.018 0.00.0190.0n 1.4. Total,frontal runimr at Use ar wane in jail per driftif at afaim, jell is* lux smonts 0.0460.003 D. OHM. 0.000.0)2 -0.001 0.042 -0.001 0.039 4.3.2: MewPrciantUty of theft inArrests jell drift perUlm,hiatus mix sure.mats wok tton In jell if at saw, mit 0.0190.023 0.0110.023 0.0120.02 0.0130.0330.021

197 225 .c z,:ddic :t 'MIX ::."1:1:= t :=7"C) SICE7 7.`.1.MEIS31

004 MO) MUM MT M=3 rAAZZI 401, npa =KM 0100.3.23_=03 0 ca 9 MAI 9 *I Zi =Mom Zi et strsAt el *I 14 Influcli o . I $ Z Sal*. 't TrAt main) JD moss Act no winsa 0- 607 9070 S10'0 .xporg p wow woos* asS rto ago* 0- 600' scam- 11000- ZIO'0- 'E JIACTIODTAI aT lnr *swop Away mon 0- 2C0' 270 't jounaosm Dows TforaT it Ito JD 17Dr lias.ro = ilort 930' 90n v070- M'ITrZT; IIINTIM 'I. Ma eipalu p swum ad no maxi 0- LC' ot wv61.0-0- (IWO- 200.0 'Z MI111 Jo 3.42 voivIait viz szpoes 500'0 eXPO son 8000 E AUTRINIcad ut tlr arrAP AMEN S010 071 Dar40143 .P4 NM ft Tint 7,4 P tfst Prow Amara marl oo.403'0 DoosEta0 BSOVO 600'0 izarnigmam-srmai I 1124 qua p mous Ad no emu foostIr010 £60.0- A910"0- 8030- 't awn p En u Wawa Ad IV to ono080'0 9W0- 4.910"0- 2000.0- E.-£ Arra/wpm ar IT 921" ISAMS MIK 0-0 0'0 unaDmel )4 von al TPIc lre p ratr *Iwo i&AZO 3plgt I.0 mote foosIJY0.0 omoZIO*0 osoo0I00 a -mono

1 Ten mem p raohil ad rair mo m - 00.0 6 ..ouro- 0O'0Z 110'0 'Z X411 p yaws X awe COTO 600'0- t Ad tC0'0- 900'8 £ Arm/gaud ur nor Snag. ismr. MIK SE00*0- 610'0 41 Pcnivolma ours ins JI lop )4 llic IlaTal) Maas span £00'0- 900'0 &IVO- 0- Coo'

. linatura eaz x ata sea so6 Au Tria-wa4 as imensame sus yaw p rorurnes mamma t 'lam ErancadSTS ITAAJX VW Chly2 111 04 lwar P WPM= IDIRPTXD 196 At i Tlea'or 0.112 N. Atimoolnzam Imams; Mu Gan vf ocil loot )4 rownwas aotorplme WS akt- 1 Tist-su4 'tom ogee trwoognsft aosakup) tau oaa is owl 166 law jo plisse =spy= S66 Joj s lioaAw lion

aZz

T 86

4 VILE VII.4 MVAPZE3 CF CCRPS DIPAMS 0/131L1. =COL= P a4.1.81S: VZi0 :CM MI-ACCAZI =RS 'It. =acts .vda itructa Friactil Udi Cam Effects t4rtto j.,o limbs to le Netts 112 to aa Maths lens Tanainatten Attar tentiiigim. 16LitS 1. Tata dater of arrest pm. edx =Ms 4.007 '0.001 0.006 0.030 2. twee. at theft siesta ow sit seas -0.0179 -0.010 -0.010 0.0029 3. Praballin during =WY *wok 0.011 A. alssace 10 Jail It eta at Id] drag away week 4.0169 \' -0.005 0.002 -0.012 . . a.znia.a 44.1767 =in . - 1. Total meter of wrest par alt exert -03.033" -0.019" 4421" 4.01 2. heard thin covets pm. eels smelt 0.0001 0.0004 -0.001 -04002 3. Fret faint la Jail elladni Wow sale 0.0 a. Practice et tee In jail it aut ofJodi dates rosy NM 0.0310 0.000 0405* 04059 c._EEMILMAIM =LIM 1. 5:otaLmagratweviitspirsit at 4.019" -0.015' 4413 2. Raw ettartarmlet ;sr et soft -0.019 4.0195o5 4101", -0.01108 3. PatebiLi In jell drirg *a weak 0.0 1. Frintlal ct Elm It at et Al itsBrigsok 0.003** -0.022 0.001 0.001 _09101eu.

' 1. Tsai rester of wean wr six meta -0.011" -0.001 4401 0.018 2..8.313 at theftwenspirUsMae 4:011$29 -0.009 -0.029 .-0.0007 3. rectabillti 111 Jail arias war "Ilk 0.010 I.Frectles er taw In lea It tut of Al twit; saw wale -0.0108 -4.003 0.022 4.01:1

SIgnificastly Wes& t'rea two at tte 831 last et statistical settkas far a are-tail taet). " SIgnficeway altteremt t'rea zero at tin 901 Weal af statisitatt sondem l'Cr a craptall test). SIgatliaratly differm tree stero at els 931 last af statistical. eeetielm .55 AT a 218-tati tdetl. 1 aglifiarall differs& fen we at We 91s Iasi af sotto:dog antielmee .S Ow a taa-tal.t sal.

199 227

I 06bb 11b1312. 6 6 b0.0 oo klykikkbg6666o6oC aoo o6o Co IQ !qb b bb 0 o otopp66ob I 0006opo o b§bObb SI tbe,10106Wan" 1111%Idirld # TALE 71:C:7 ."1°..019M.IV ..seer/L-71._!41, Tr= StT latirC.CT2A7M .703 CCRPS. KLEMM aL'1M: 70. MD =ID II 11R MARS

Job Carps Motu Jam Corps Maui Jab corm. Mara Job Carp Mans 0 to 6 lambs 6 Co 12 Moths 12 Co 18 Maris 18 Co 2 Meths t

1. Total alias, of amuse' per stxlcutbs 0.076 cora, 0.065 0.056 2. Muter ct taunt wrists per stag:aft 0.036 0.036 0.032 0.031 3. Prcesalsty lc Jill Oxtrgss-asy seek 0.031 . 0.016 L.:factita of tlus in Intl It tut of \ mr;ng arm/ weak 0.035 0.026 - 0.023 0.02f. a-FauLm '1=arcimam 1 i, Total new at wrists per Ms mods 0.020 0.072 0.021 0.021 2. Ulm et Mort wrists per atx Maas 0.000 040 . r 040 0.000 3.FrOmbilleris Jail tirlogPaWusik 0.0 0.0 S. FractIal d Um In Jail It cut tie Jail :. curinggamy wok 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 _C 11240.11310EffaCELMEN 1. Tatar tutorofarming tsr aix =be 0.021 0.021 sy10 0.02) 2. NUscir ct Mott Armes Fur six maths 0.022 0.019 -4:015 0.019 3. hmtutalmf In jai Arica arm, sass 0.0 0.0 4. &mice at Mis in jail It as crjal at As arms uric 0.0111 0.007 0.002 0.002

t. Total Mbar et armies tar Ms MIAs 0.059 0.0% 0.051 0.014 2. Maw ct Mott errata ps Mx imam 0.023 o.616 0.0211 0.023 S 3. Prelsesttly 3a Jail Orin urns salt 0.022 0.011 k. Framtca at tioliin JAL it at d Jail Orb* army uric 0.019. 0.019 0.016 0.017

230

202 .

. a k.

TIGIE M.8 a 0"...AM 7 =uoimew 1c84102.11- 7.u1rl ,:Vt?Alr=1:=PM:9) COM 1,1=0.13 4:1-1740cr strwar ;Ix Fanii...2cSTA1CGI.e ah $ fintoccrVirttagli =tfaus iatiern cbtrzs= irtrenfrAs 30 Vinland& tour &alaim__A _mimti=__AEAr Tanonmettar Tovianatien

1. Toed cuter at awn 'par ma =no 0.0513 0.049 0.0419 0.0411 :To 2. Saw at tart arena per sLn mans. 0.b2e 0.021 0.017 0.025 3. trania/Ity 10 last arks arm lank 0.046 4. Erica= at Una In Jail It cut cit 1411 la."--4 army reek 0.026 0.019 0.018 0.69 3 M., 1i:11111' apirsma 1.* Mr.ai :MO at wrests pm. six matte 0.021 0.421 0.021 0.021 2. Mawr ct theft arunn pr 41.4 arra . 0.000 0.000 04004 0.0001 3. Preketd.tur is NIL *mini arvar (ask 0.0 a. fraction at Uri In J411 It as ct Xi *r im wow wok -0.003 .0.004 -0.004 -0.005 . , C. FEMALES 10:TH 1. Total, raw ct Bruits pr sla Ertl* 0.019 0.021 0.019 0.0;2 2. Muer ce thin wawa pr 21.4 mann 0.018 0.019 0.018 0.019 3. Prcestegict 01 3411 erlag saw Mat 0.0 4. Pruett= at lase In Jail It ag d .9411 44111,WPMlank 0.003 a 0.000 0.000 0.000 D.mum 1 1. Total. agar at invite pr Om untas 0.06 0 341 0.040 oxfir 2. lifter at mat snots pis 811 oaths 0.021 0.021 ' 0.015 0.021 3. PechtiLL114' *1 Jailotatis army laic . 0.033 , 4 3 . ? M U M at tlm,111 Jail It as ct Jail dying amws lank 0.018 0.013 .0.012 0.012

203231 VAS Vr1.9 ==-'1= '7 :371 2.fACZ Cll MAL 1:711V1,11.."2. INCLUD:20 MILZAICI SELICIR: MIT AV SECCO PZ-ZACGRA1 MVO-

IL HIM 1. ;eta camai. srasta gar alz maths -0.003 4.01 0.009 0.016 0 2. %Ow at Cott wafts tar alz EMU .0.0002 -0.01 -0.034 -0.011 3. Amex allay tai jel4 dada' wog wok 4.002 0.0Z/ Y. Frac-clam at time la Jall if 4ast d Jan =nos sunny Amok .0.071.1 0.006 4.0011 -0.006 S.fEr v..wrrrr MUREX 1. dotal *Mar at aweata' pr atx r;a1tba .0.0111I -0.016000 -0409 0.002 2. Naar or Daft atesta"pr,stx motto 0.073 0.003 0.005 0.072 3- Prctobility La jolt daring sty" wok 0.005 0.0 4. litsitital ar Ur la jell if est air 401 *rug army wok 0.00504, 0.001110 040300 -0.0041 C.JEERK.ERA:121 OILLIZIER 1. total =tar at irrupts pr altameba 0.0111 -0.013 -0.016* 4.002 2. tinter at theft. anima gar alz war 0.0400040 -0.016 4.416" -0.0000 3. Pettelzi3 t7 La MI (balm saw took 9-0 0.0 I. Matt=ct ttmjolt If as at Jett airinrnag au wok 4.0140440 -0.47/01180 0.0124000 0.0140040 4. _OVERALL 1. Ittal aLatar cfarabFar ads molts xis -0.0013 0.003 0.012 2. M/Waa, d, daft awaits Far alz =tbs. 0.072 .0.072 -0.073 " 4.001 3. Pr obabllitr 3a Jett *alas maw wok -0.0013 0.019 Y. Fraud= at time laJail If atom jaIJ. *alas maw tookto 0.006 .0.001 -0.M2

SlealfIciatly Affirm fro sea at do 41011 lawd. Or-RAIIISAA di* axdldras fir i ammtall tast). 411 Slaalticsatly arrows fraa zavo at do 9011 Joni arattatUal coarldrom La coo-lalt tsar) ma Sigalficutly clIffeaat fro zero at as 933 statist:Loa =flame .1 tlY a cab4Cal. OM St ea I cliffiraat frt. aira at do gig land at stallsticat coarldraa .fcr a alb.CaLi tot).

204 V/3.10 EsmnsisOF JOBamrsMGM CH 0/191.011,wan= tciasic nu= szaatt 7..C2M 2it F0221Ksammain 'rens

-.seta ato tualas*42 to Matta 'Variabla Attar taraanatiaaAttar 1111.ingejiL L HIM 1. Total antler at amens per six lambs -0.036 0.0:6 0.004 o.0 2. Au at elutt armies ,prat au amis. -0.0164 .0.010 -0.010 0.0003 3. Praha , nit" In jaa dein weft, wok 0.014 4. Fticstco at tlast-la Jail it as et .141.1 data arm tisk -0.0194 -0.034 0.001 4.011 a MULES u.:EurcEa...ami_ 1. Taal etaaer at wrests tes-als socatla 4.01944 .o.otre -0.021" .3.011 2. Harr at test% arrant, par Jaz maths 0.0003 0.001 4).0004 -0.030:7 3. tratatality fo ,lea dialag arm lank 0.0 4. Pt data at toIn Ja;11 It oil et 3611 Ulm WM, wilt 0.0044 0.004* 0.0)44 0.005' c. ama.103 WOE CE11.111111 1. Total aabr at aroma pr atz =as .o.orta -0.0150 -0.013 2.. after ct ban myna poor -stlx aloft -0.019" -0.0191" .0.0144e -0.0144* 3. trotabalta fo ,lea arias we teak 0.0 4.notatlea at tar ft cat at jai/ cum" sugar mak 0.003" -0.002 0.001 0.001 D. CNENILL 1. :tag maw at arrant, Or rays Wahl -0.010 -0.002 4.003 0.014 2. agar at Matt meets pr =mato -0.01344 -0.009 -0.009* 3. itabalality fo jail area= arm wok 0.010 4. ?natio at waneta It cat at jail ariasairog -0.033 0.0:02 -0.02t

31.2etIcsaar dittaaat few aura at au 802 14441 at StIlMaittall madman ter a cartati. tart). SlosItimpay dinars& tr. are at tat 31:6 Log ct Saltitstical =Maws tcr a tag tog) sole Slaaltlautly silltarot few aro at taw 9911 Log ct statistical axtitarma .S fa. 3 cosotsil tar4. 4486 algattleaatly Ottes* fro awa at tee 5% lama et seallattaal madam %fa. a col.taLl WC).

205 233

Pkiikkbkobblaolao6 boobbboo kYk111411 I - VIII. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS

Benefit-cost analysis attempts to resolve a problem that faces policy analysts in evaluating public programs--that is, how to systematically compare the wide range of program effects with the coats of the various resources necessary to operate a program.With respect to Job

Corps, the difficulty of this problem is illustrated by the diverie set of effects measured in the evaluation: employment and earnings, the use of alternative and supplemental training and education prOgrams, dependence on welfare and other transfer programs, and anti-social behavior (criminal activity and drug/alcohol abu.e). In addition to these program effects,

Job Corp uses a wide array of resources, including many different types of personnel, materials, land, buildings, vehicles, and supplies.

In this chapter we use a benefit cost analysis to organize our findings on the various effects and costa of the Job Corps program in order to facilitate using these findings to assess and formulate publicpolicyY

Our discussion begins with an overview of the benefit-cost metbodology used and then examines each of the benefit and cost components separately.

These components are then aggregated and the overall results are examined, particularly with respect to the sensitivity of the overall findings to changes in the most speculative of the valuation assumptions and

'This chapter summarizes the benefit4ost techniquesthat were used and their results. The basic methodology used is the same as in our twd earlier benefit-cost evaluations of Job Corps and is presented in more detail in Technical Report Q, "A Comparative Evaluation of the Benefits and Costs'of Job Corps after Forty -Eight Months of Postprogram Observation.'

208 236 estimates. The chapter concludes with a summary of the findings from our

'benefit-cost analysis.

The overall conclusion is that Job Corps is a worthwhile public

investment. Our benchmark estimate (based on the assumptions and estimates

with which we are most comfortable) is that measured benefits to society

exceed costs by over $2,300 per Corpamember in 1977 dollars, or, equiva-

lently, by approximately 45 percent.1/ Furthermore, the overall finding of

positive net social benefits is obtained under a wide range of alternative

assumptions and estimates, and the additional follow -up data allow more

confidence to be placed in this overall finding than previously.With the

longer postprogram observation period, we rely less on relatively imprecise

extrapolation procedures, and, in fact, we estimate that social benefit

exceed costs during the time frame now covered by the interviews.

The information obtained from organizing all of the estimated

program effects into a systematic comparison of the benefits and costs is

much more powerful than "an be summarized by a few aggregate numbers on the

estimated net economic benefits to society. We have been careful in this

chapter to provide adeqUate detail to ensure that., informed policymakers can

form their own judgments and value the estimated effects in alternative

ways.

A. BENEFIT-COST METHODOLOGY

Benefit-cost analysis attempts to provide an appropriate framework

within which program effects and their costs oan be compared. The usual

'Toobtain rough estimates of the 1982 dollar values, the numbers ipthis chapter can be multiplied by 1.457, reflecting the estimated increase in the GNP price deflator between 1977 and 1982.This implies that the difference in value between social benefits and costs is approximately $3,3p0 per Corpsmember in 1982 dollars.

209 23 7 approach entails estimating constant dollar values (dollar values denominated at a particular point in'time, so as not to be biased by inflation) for each benefit and cost and then aggregating those values' through standard accounting procedures. By measuring the benefits and coats of a program in common units such as constant dollars, the worth of a program can readily be assessed for measured effects.

An appropriate procedure for comparing benefits and coats is to calculate the program'snet present values --a term that refers to the difference between total benefits and total costs when dollar values accruing in different time periods have been adjusted to 'present- value" units for a base time period.1/To control partially for program size, we divide all dollar values by the number of Corpamemberal so that all figures reflect benefits or costs per Corpimember. Thus, the resulting criterion used to judge the program is whether the program's net present value per

Corpsmember is greater than zero. If it is, the program is judged. to be worthwhile from the perspective of measured enoncmin efficiency; otherwise, the program is judged to be undesirable unless the value of unmeasured benefits exceeds the value of unmeasured &ate byat least the measured shortfall.

While the net present value criterion is easy to state, a high degree of uncertainty often surrounds its estimation, making it difficult to apply. Sometimes, in fact, equally plausible estimates of a program's net present value can,lie on opposite aidei of zero, making it

1/Indiscounting to present value units, we adjust the value of estimated benefits or costs that accrue in different time periods to reflect their worth in the base time period (see Gramlich, 1981, for a detailed discussion of discounting and other benefit-cost' principles). The specific discounting assumptions that we use are outlined below in Section 8.7 of this chapter. 210 238 impossible to apply the net present value rule directly and, thus, impossible to use this rule in a simple way to judge the worth of a program.

This uncertainty stems from four sources: the estimates-of program effects, the estimates of the *shadow prices* used to value these effects,1/unmeasured effects, and the accounting assumptions.Of these four areas, the uncertaintysurroundkngthe estimated effects is best unaerstood, because the estimated effects are obtained from statistical computations that also provide estimates of their error variances. Less is known about the accuracy of the shadow prices. These prices are generally estimated on the basis of published data for which measures of error or- uncertainty are often unavailable. With unmeasured effects we can only document the existence and expected direction of bias from omitting known effects (see further below). Finally, many of the accounting assumptions used in the analysis amproximatt reality, with the magnitude of the approximation error often being impossible to determine.

Because of the error associated with any single estimate of net present value, such of the usefulness of benefit-cost analysis is due to its comprehensiveness in drawing together measures of the various program effects and oosts. The general patterns that emerge from the attempts to assign relative values are often more useful than any specific estimate of net present value. For that reason, the analysis in this chapter does not focus on a single net present value estimate but rather, on a set of

'Theterm shadow oriel. is used to refer to the estimated-value per unit of effects.

211 233 estimates. This set includes (1) a benchmark estimate, incorporating the assumptions and estimates with which we feel most comfortahle, and (2)' never.' estimates based on sensitivity tests, each illustrating the effect

of changing one or more of the assumptions used in the benchmark

calculations while holding all others constant. When equally plausible

estimates are available, we adopt a conservative convention for our

benchmark estimatethat is, we use the value that yields lower estimated

benefits.

The conclusions of our benefit-cost analysis are based on all these

estimates. Thus, they do not rely on a single set of uncertain assumptions

am estimates but, rather, on a range of possible assumptions and

estimates. By examining the different assumptions, the underlying outcome

estimates, and the techniques used to value outcomes, we Walleye that

reasonable judgments can be made about the relative value of a program's

benefits and costs.

Most benefit-cost evaluations adopt the perspective of society as a

whole. They focus on "economic efficiency " --that is, on a program's effect

on the total value of the goods and services available to society.Is the

value of those goods and services greater as a result of the program under

study, or would the value have been greater had the resources used for the

program been devoted to alternative use : In essence, this analytical

focus assumes that a dollar of benefit or cost to one person is equal to a

dollar of benefit or cost to another person.

While an evaluation from the perspective of society as a whole i3

moat useful, it i3 clear that all groups in society do not share equally in

the benefits and costs of a program, and that distributional effects can be

important and, indeed, are often part of a program's objectives. Thus, it 240 212 is useful to consider the effect of a program on the distribution of resources, as well as its effect on the total.amount of resources. For example, one objective of Job Corpa is to transfer resources to Corps- members.

In order to address both the economic efficiency of the Job Corps program and its important distributional consequences, we will compute estimates for three key perspectives: society as a whole, Corpsmembers, annon- Corpsmembers (generaltanpayers),I/ One analytically useful feature of.using these three perspectives is that the sum of the net present values calculated from the Corpmmember and notkorpsmember perspectives ars computed so as to equal the social net present value.

This adding.up property pertains because Corpsmembers and non-Corpsmembers constitute mutually exclusive groups that, when combined, include all members of society (i.e., mutually exclusive and exhaustive). Therefore, transfers of income between these two groups (e.g., reduced welfare transfers or Job Corps stipends) cancel out from the social perspective, because the benefit to one group is equal to the cost to theother.21

Benefits or costa that accrue to one group and that are not offset by corresponding costs or benefits to the other group (e.g., increased work output) do not cancel out from the social perspective and cause a change in the amount of resources available to society.

I/Theterm non-Corosmember is used consistently throughout this benefit-cost discussion to refer to all members'a.society other than those who enroll in Job Corps. It should be pointed out that this'term does not refer specifically to that group ornonCorpsmembers interviewed in our study as a comparison group, although these individuals of course constitute a very small fraction of the-total nonpCorpsmember. group.

2/Thisassumes that a dollar of benefit or cost to one person is equal to a dollar of benefit or cost to anyone else.

213 2 4 1 The examination of net present value from the three perspectives enables the analysis to estimate the redistribution of resources between non- Corpsmembers and Corpsmembers. However, the value of such a redistribution is not quantified, since we do not haire a practical

4 technique for doing so: Furthermore, the analysis masks any redistributions within these two broad groups. For example, a person using public facilities renovatedor built by Corpsmembers, or someone who is not a crime victim as a result of Job Corps, receives a disproportionate share of the benefitsthat accrueto non-Corpsmembers. These aspects of the effects of Job Corps on the distribution of resources should be kept in mind when interpreting the beneftt-cost findings.

Table VIII.l.presents the components of our benefit-cost analysis of Job Corps and the relationships among the Corpsmesber, non-Corpsmember, ana social perspectives. The table lists the principal components of the benefit-cost analysis, suggests whether a component is, on average, a benefit, a cost, or neither from each of the three perspectives, and indicates the data sources used to measure and value each component.4/ The separate benefit-cost components listed in Table VIII.1 are the subject of the next two sections.

Finally, before proceeding, it is important to comment upon the comprehensiveness of the approach adopted in our evaluation. In general, we attempt to value el/ of the major resources saved or used as a result of

'Whether the effecton a component is a net benefit or cost is sometimes problematic. Table VIII.1 reflects prior judgments about the social value of components from the perspective of society as a whole. The treatment of all components in the final net present value calculations is, of course, determined by the estimates of the actual Job Corps effects.

214 242 TABLE vrrio

COMPONENTS OF THE JOB CORPS BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

Perspectival/ Data Social Non-CorpasesPer CerpsemehaoScareoLoi

BENEFITS

1. Output Produced by Coipenenbers o In-program output . . 3,P -o ,Increased postprogran output . 0 I,P o Increased pestprogres tat peyeenta 0 - I,P

2. Reduced Dependence oe Transfer Program .% o Seduced public transfers 0 . - I,P . ) o Reduced administrative costs . . 0 I,P o Increased dtility fp...a mimed welfare dependence . N

3. Reduced Crisham Activity o Reduced criminal justice system costs . 0 I,P o Reduced personal injury and property damage . 0 I,P o Reduced stolen property . + LP o Reduced psychological costs . -. 4. $

4. Reduced DrWatcolsol Abuse O o Reducedibmg/aloChel treatment costs + . 0 I,P o Increased utility frog reduced drug/alochal dependence . . N

S. Reduced Dtiiisstioa of Alterhative Services_ , o Reamed costs of tratuLmind education progress other than Joh Corps « . 0 I,P o Reduced training allceamare AO t . - I,P ,

6. Other Sesefits

o Increased utility from redlitriliution . . . $ o Increased utility from improved well-being of of Corpenembers . -if

COSTS .

1. Program Operating Expenditures

o Center operating expenditures, excluding . transfers to Corpamembere - - 0 A o Teamsters to Corpsiembers 0 - . A o Ceotral administrative oasts . . 0 A,3

2. Opportunity Cost of Corpssenher Labor During the Program

o Foregone output - 0 I,P , o Forgone tax payments 0 - . Iilo z 3. Onbudgeted Expenditures Other than Corpemember Labor 'lc o Resourcecosts - - 0 S,P o Teamsters to Corpenembers 0 . ft 3,P

l/Tho'columns indicate whether the net impact ofa particular it is a set benefit Co), a net cost (), OP neither (0), -In oddities to the value to society as a whole, the estimates are calculated from the non-Corpemember sad Corpeumber perspectives in order to indicate redistributiooel effects, In doing so, Corpasembers are treated menontaxpayers (except for tbeir OVA taxes) to simplify the exposition, and non-Corpemembers encompass everyoni in society other than Coresmembers,

"The codes of datasources are: 3 s special study; r s interview; P s published data source; A a Jon Corps financial accounting system; N s not measured,

2,5243 -the program. When market'values are notobserved directly, we estimate

implicit shadow prices whenever possible. However, insome cases, we will.

be unable to estimate reliable shadow prices.'In addition, wewill some

times be unable to value the magnitude of Job C pa effects, such as the . utiiit7 to society.of reduced welfare transfers Au. to individuals' prefer-

ences for reduced welfare dependence (increasedhlf-esteem of Corprembers

and reduced social fears among non-Corpsmembere)..11',In cases like these," :..

wewill provide a qualitative discussion' of. the unmeasured benefit or: ci]value, so that readers can form their own judgments about its w k th.

B. BENEFIT COMPONENTS

Five major benefit componeqta are measured and valued. Ali !of them .0 ".-.'. . . ._, are expected to derive, t least in part, from the inoreased eapIoygbility . J ". , " -....1__. of Corpsmembers. Improved.job opportunities should lead to beneflta from -". '..st .a increisesin the production of goods and services and from reanCtions in : s (1) welfare dependence, (2) criminal activities; (3),drug aWalcohol

abuse, and (4) the of alternative training and educabkon aerticea. use rf?

Our estimates for each of these five benefit components are briefly

discussed below. tI 0

1. Output Produced pv Corpsmembers at Centeri and in Pomtdromrgig kualgatant

The increase in goods and services petidnded by Corpsmembers

1 constitutes a major benefit of the program. Or analytical purposes, it is

%."

1/Oneway to interpret quantitative benkfit-ooat findings whensoot, benefits and °oats are pot measured is thet-kk;emasured costs exceed measured benefits, society must-value tote di ence between unmeasured benefits and oosts by at least the amount of., hi'measured shortfall in net present value in order for the program bli'Oonsidered a worthwhile economic investment.

0 4

or useful to distinguish between goods and services that Corpsmembers produce

while:they are enrolled in Job Corps and those that they produce after they

leave the program. Thia distinction is 'convenient because, different

techniques are neoessary to value chknges in postprogram versus in-program

output, and the different outputs hive different distributional

consequences. Output produced by Corpsmembers after they leave the program

is produced in the regular,labor market, and we can estimate its value

on the basis of their earnings. Indeed, employer payments represent the

values that we attach to Job Corps effects on postprogram employment and

earnings.

In contrast, the output produced by Corpsmembers while they are

enrolled in Job Cores is produced under nonmarket circumstances, and

Corpsmembers are not paid for that output (their Job Corps stipends, or

"pay allowances," are determined on a different basis and bear no

relationship to in-program output). Furthermore, non-Corpsmembers benefit

from postprogram employment effects through taxes on earnings, but they

benefit from in-program output differently from one work activity to

.another. To value in-program output, we had.toundertake erste - sampling and study of Job Corps work activities.1/

IllarSiErillabLUBILThe in-Program output pruced by Corps-

melbersin connection with their, vocational` training p °vides benefits

to Corpsmembers, to non-Corpsmembers; and to society as a whole. These

outputs include goods produced in work projects (for instance, the addition

tbuilt for a hdspital in rural Colorado by Corpsmembers who were receiving

Fdr more details on the estimated values of in-Program output and the techniques used.to obtain these estimates, see Technical Reports t and Q.

6 224 5 on-the-job training in various construction trades) and services provided

in 'work-experience-programa (for inatance, .the nursing assistance provided

by Corpsmembers at a county boar. zal in OuthrieWalaboma as they were

obtaining work experience in nursing). The value of these goods and

4 services was, estimated on the basin of twenty-two Special studies of

ranaomly chosen work projects and work-experience programs at eleven Job

Corps centers.

The recipients of this Corpamember-produced output might be

either the nonCorpamembei commwity or the Job Corps centers themselves.

In the firit case (community- serving ou4put), the entire value of the

output produced is considered to be a benefit to non-Corpsmembers In .the

second case (center- serving output), the output benefits both Corpsmembers

and non/Corpsmembers. Corpsmembers benefit from center-servingoutput

because they consume some of the output they produce (e.g.,'housing

'aervicea provrded in dormitories built or rehabilitated with Corpamember

labor, part of which is included ea a capitalizid cost in the Job Corps

yi financial data); non- Corpsmembers beilefit when the capital stock available

to society increases ea a result of Corpsmember labor In-thece activities. 0 The vallie of the goods and aervicea.produced by Corpsmembers in

community- and center - serving projects is estimated by the.price that

alternative suppliers would have changed to provide those same goods and

aervices.2' Atterestimates are made for the value of center-serving output

1/As general members of society, Corpamembera also benefit from community-serving output. For the most part, howevCr, we will use the approximate (and computationally convenient) assumption that Only non-Corpimehoera benefit from such output. ..

2/Thevalue of all materials and labor inputa Provided bj Job Corp are subtracted from the alternative Cupplier'a price. In many cases, 'this net value o? Corpsmembers' output was quite close to the alternative supplier's labor cost:

218 .2 4 6 used by Job corps and the amount transferred to Corpsmembers, the net benefits per Cornememher veer of service, for in-program output are estimated to be $1,364 for non,.Corpsmembers, $175 for Corpsmembers, and, thus, $1,539 for society as a whole. Because the average Corpsmember remains in the program approximately half a year (5.9 months in fiscal

1977), the average social benefit per .Cornsmember is$757.11 On average,

Corpsmembers receive $86 of this benefit, while the remaining $671 accrues to non- Corpsmembers.

These values are based on the prices charged by alternative suppliers and indicate the value of the resources that would be required to produce the in-program output of Corpsmembers. However, these prices do not directly measure the value that society places on the output. While,

only imprecise estimates of this demand value can be made, tests presented . in Technical Report E suggest that, under reasonable assumptions, the de- mana value will be between 103 and 62 percent of the supply-price estimate .21

Thus, using supply price as a measure of the value of in.-program output appears to provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the demand. value

(although probably high by a small amount).

111 The increase in the value

of output produced by Corpsmembers after they leave the program is estimated by the increase in their gross compensation (i.e., earnings Ars

1/Thatis, (5.9/12) x $1,539 a $757.

2/Essentially, thevalue can be greater than 100 percent of the supply price when people other than the recipient obtain benefits (externalities to other people or external benefits), and the value can be less than 100 percent ofsthe supply price when recipients value it less than it costs an alternative supplier to produce it (i.e., demand price is less than supply price).'

219 24 $/ fringe benefits) .1/ The use of gr compensation as a measure of output produced is based on the as tion that labor markets function in a competitive manner (although, in any case, gross compensation is the correct measure from the Corpsmember perspective, since that is what they receive). This assumes that employers pay total compensation to their workers that reflects the value of the output produced by the workers, which,should generally be correct for competitive markets. The increase in output produced by Corpsmembers is then estimated by the difference between their gross compensation and the amount they would have received had they not entered theprogram.2/

The earnings component of gross compensation was estimated from the interview data and includes both civilian and estimated military earnings

(see Chapter IV). The nonwage components--retirement, health, and insurance benefits, the employer's share of FICA payroll taxes, and payments into Unemployment Insurance and Workers' Compensation funds--can be estimated on the basis of secondary data (e.g., Social Security statutes ana U.S. DepartmentOf Labor estimates of fringe-benefit rates): For workers like the Corpsmembers, the value of nonwage items is estimated to equal, approximately, 15 percent of wages. Thus, increased total compensation (the social benefit derived from the increase in output) is

This assumes that Corpsmembers do not displace other workers who subsequently become unemployed (see Technical Report Q for more discussion on this topic).

2/See the discussion in Chapter III for details on the econometric procedures used to obtain the estimates of Job Corps effects.Chapters IV through VII present the resulting impact estimates that are valued in this chapter. The estimates used in the benefit-cost analysis include youths in military jobs.

220 248 estimated to be 1.15 times the estimated increase in Corpsmembers' earnings.

Table VIII.2 provides estimates of the value of increases in postprogram output (earnings and fringe benefits).The estimated present value of increased postprogram output (gross compensation) is approximately

$1,930 per Corpsmember during our poatprogram observation period. .As discussed in Chapter IV, these estimates might be on the low side (approximately $100 per year too low for earnings), because they do not account for nonlinearities in the time trends for the economy.Here, however, in lice with our conservative approach, and in order to use a consistent basis for all estimates, we use the lower estimate, which has the same linear time- trend assumption as all of our other estimates (some of which could not be computed, except at great expense, with nonlinear time trends for the unaerlying economy). insmAisummutilatatAnistemmatiaLjaum. As the incomes of

Corpsmembers rise, they pay more taxes. Such an increase in tax payments is a cost to Corpsmembera, but is an offsetting benefit to non-Corpsmembers'

(i.e., all other taxpayers); hence, it does not enter the social perspective.1/ However,It does represent a transfer of resources from

Corpsmeaners to non-Corpsmembera.

To estimate taxes paid, we used an estimate of the change in

Corpsmembers' taxable income and an eatimatcof the overall tax rate applicable to that income for low-income households.This tax rate was

1/As is the case with all transfers, changes in the resource costs of making the transfer should be included in the social perspective. With respect to tax payments, however, the change in administrative costs is probably very small and is treated as zero.

221 9A A'`11.../ T1614 VE11.2

ESE114.1131 VILLIE INCTMED kernanki an= RID TAXES KR 031119013ER (1917 DCLLABS) .

.7141E-813C-UileariLataten.

1.Erniang:3W 2 $652 07 $405 $1.,681 t' 2. hinge benefits (0.15 x earnings) 39 98 85 61 252 3.ftetprcgram cutiut (earnimptrims benefits) 301 793 6 466 1 033

4.Taxable Incone 161 683 537 1105 1,581

5.Itre moots (0.23 x taxable intake) 37 157 124 93 %5

OM /cc an explanation and justificalks If these asthmatics cronceres, _see the text (far sore details, me Technical brat Q). 0 AfTnepaetircgraa sumasts we disommted to the lorceres wird (fiscal lir) at a 5 pwcent reel. Waal rats. The asters in this °duns ise we waist, then can be cbtaintd Ma the ;receding far calms, became they are bleed on amps refined, six- troth treskiciam frue Tables V.10 mar 17.11 in Chapter 1$ and because they name leas roaming arcs*. lialbese re themummy estissites fcr civilian and saitary j in 1477 dollars true Table V.1 In Chapter V. As toted in the discussion in Chapter IV, these estimates are Trcbably Szodst lot (co the ceder' ct $100 par year) became we do irk take accoxit of ronlielerities in the time trends far Alerrdro adds from Jcb CcrPs *WI wake the Met and forth postrcgtaas yews especial/ la& Samar, set use these estimates to keep the* co tbe aim basis as other estimated affecta, samekt skids wculd isms been very difficult to caopte bed controls fcr =lbw time Verde in the mousy been included.

SiTaxable JACOBS IS defined as in the warm fcr the tax rat (Penton ard ("Mar 19745and inchties earnings plus fringe threats plus public treaders plus training allomnas.

.0"

222 250

t. estimated by Pdchman and Okner (1974) to be approximately 23 percent of

total taxable income, defined to include earnings, fringe benefits, public

transfers, 'raining allowances, etc.1/ The major components of this tax

rate are payroll, sales, and'excise taxes. These taxes are difficult to

avoid, especially those levied on consumption. Thus, even though

Corpsmembers might face low tax rates on earnings and might in fact avoid

paying some payroll and income taxes, their total tax burden (as a

percentage of income) is not significantly different from the tax burden of

most taxpayers (although the coiposition of taxes does vary considerably by

income level).

The change in taxable income (as defined by Pechman and Okner,

1974) was calculated from estimates of the changes in gross compensation,

transfer payments, and training allowances. Table V111.2 provides the

resulting estimates, along with the estimates of the changes in tax

payments. Because there were estim;41d declines in the receipt of public

transfers and training allowances, the changes in *taxable* income are

smaller than the changes in gross compensation. Altogether, Corpsmembers

received an average of approximately $1,600 more in income during the first

four:postprogram years than they would have had they not entered Job Corps;

they also paid approximately $365 more in taxes per Corpsmember during that

period.

This discussion draws'on the results of Pechman and Okner (1974). Their data show that the combined effect of all taxes is equivalent to a proportional tax of approximately 23 percent of income.These data are ratner old (1966) and contain some inaccuracies when applied to populations of low-income youths. However; they are the best estimates currently available--particularly because they are comprehensive in covering all major taxes and are able to incorporate the effects of tax avoidance.

223251 2. Reduced Dependence on Public Transfers

As reported earlier (see Millar et al., 1978), Corpsmembers reduce

their use of public transfers while they are in the Job Corps program.In addition, as discussed in Chapter VI, associated with the postprogram

increases in employment and earnings, we find that Job Corps substantially reduced Corpsmemberepostprogram dependence on public assistance and

Unemployment Insurance. This will cause a decline both'in transfers to

Corpsmembers and in the level'of resources necessary to administer those programs. Aside from the unmeasured utility from reduced welfare dependence, the reductions in public transfers represent a cost to

Corpsmembers and a corresponding benefit to non-Corpsmeibers, who otherwise would have had to pay for them. Therefore, these transfers net out from the social perspective. In contrast, the associated administrative cost savings are a benefit to non-Corpseembers and do not represent a cost to

Corpsmembers; hence, the administrative savings are a benefit to society.

jigiamesLiriaaaraa. Seven transfer programs were examined as part of tne analysis: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid,

General Assistance, Food Stamps, public housing, Unemployment Insurance, ana Workers' Coepensition. Transfers were estimated on the basis of the estimated differences in the number of months during which the transfers were received (see Chapter VI) and the average benefit levels of the programs. Average benefit levels were estimated on the basis of published data, except in the cases of Unemployment Insurance and Workers' Compen- sation, for which we used the average benefit reported by the youths in our sample (a smaller amount than the average benefit levels of.the,program).

For AFDC, Medicaid, General Assistance, Food Stamps, and public

224 252 housing, separate estimates were made for Corpsmembers with children living with them and for those withoutchildren.11 Cases in which dhildrenwere present were valued using the average benefit amount per case.For

Corpsmembers without children, the average. benefit per recipient was used.

Table VIII.3 provides the resulting estimates and the value of these estimated effects of Job Corps. The largest values of reductions were for the cash welfare programs (AFDC and General Assistance) and for the receipt of Unemployment Insurance. The discounted value of the net reduction in all seven types of transfers is just over $500 per Gorpsmember.

BastusuAdatattratimUltata. With the decline in transfers, the amount of resources necessary to administer the programs also deClines. As mentioned' this resource saving is a benefit to non-Corpamembers and to society as a whole. The savings are estimated on the basis of the estimated changes in months of program use and the average costs per month of processinca case in each program. Table VIII.4 presents the estimated benefits, which total approximately $100 per Corpamember in present-value terms during the observation period'.

Magegegvaljagneats.,. In addition to the reduced transfer payments and reduced administrative costs of welfare, benefits also accrue directly to both Corpamembors and non-Corpamembers to the extent that individuals

'prefer not to depend on welfare. Corpsmembers are expected to benefit

1/For females, separate impactestimates were corpUted for women with children and for those without children.However, this distinction was not necessary for males. For benefit-cost purposes, we have assumed that the traction of males with children equals the corresponding fraction for females; we have apportioned the Job Corps effects for males accordingly. This procedure differs slightlY from that used in our previous benefit-cost analyses of Job Corps and is-described more fully in Technical Report Q. ; TABLE VIZI.3

ESTIMATED VALUE OF BENEFITS PER CORFSMEMBER FROM REDUCED PUBLIC TRANSFERS (1977 DOLLARS)

Estimated Estimated Total In-Program Pastan:1gram Period Value Per Discoumted Ironer... Programa' Period /ear 1 Year 2 Saar 3 Year 11_ _Month Vale

1. apnea

o With ohildree 0.111 0.019 -0.051 0.076 -0.065 $239 $ 23

o Without °hilt:rep 0,222 0.417 '0.287 0.249 0.233 76 99

2. itediosidW 0.569 0.476 0.127 0.493 0.030 27 43

3. General AssistXsorli

o With childree 0.016 0.016 0.031 0.03 0.06 152 29

o Without children 0.036 0.255 0.179 0.155 0.100 116 77

4. Food Stamtisli 1.965 0.371 0.096 0.610 0.394 25 OS

5. Pulgio Rounined , 0 With children 0.144 -0.030 -0.090 0.042 0.126 61 to

o Without children 0.683 -0.144 -0.126 0.120 0.102 32 19

6. Onemployneat Insuranos 0.240 0.150 0.174 0.174 275 183

7. Workers compensation (VC) -4.012 -0.046 -0.066 -0.076 474 -8$

8. CI and Weti .$29.30111 21

Total Beeefits

//The eatimated reductions for the inprograe periodwere computed for earlier roPurte (for sure details, see Toohnioal Report 0). For the postprogrsm period, the estimated redactions for public assistance programs (rows 1through 5) are based es. the sisnoeth breakdowns from Tables VI.10 and VI.11 in Chapter TX, and the estimated redeotioes for Unemployment Insurance and Vorkeri CheneatiOn are based os the aix-moath breekraowes tram Tables 71.12 and VI.13 is Chapter PI.

1/The postpregrae.aeounts are discountedto the in-progroa period (fiscal 1977) at a 5 Peroent real annual rate. The numbers in this column are acre accurate than cam be obtained from the 'reclean( six columns, because they are based oe more refined, six.moetb breakdowns of estimated reductioes and because they have less-rounding error.

'The estimated values of these transfers differ substantially according to.wbetherer not the reeiniente have children living withthin. Therefore. the estimated months of reduction are calculated separately by the prosaic* or almonds of children-the °with children° estimates include female* With caildren plus toe relevant portions of the estimated male streets, and the °without children" estimates include females without children plus the relevant portion of the estimated mals.effoote.

'The estimated value of Medicaidtransfers is based on recipients of AFDC (for sere details. see Eocumeal Report 0). Vs assume one recipient for the AFDC effects 00 Corpemembers without children app the AFDC program average per use (family) of 3.13 recipients for the AFDC ofteots'on Corpmenbers with children (females with children plus the relevant portions of the estimated eels effects).

f/The estimated value of Food Steeps transfers is baseddu reciPiesta. We assume:one recipient for the effects on Corosmembers without children end the program overage per case (household) of 3.00 recipients for the effects on Corpsesabors with children (females with children Plus the relevant portions ..of the estimated male effects). 'For the in-program period we nese dote only on the aggregate of UI and WC.The estimate is Celled on the *espied youths* reports of the total =punt of UI and WC received (for sore details, see 'Nautical Report 0). 226 254 TABLE 7II;.4

ESTIMATED 441.0E OF BENEFITS PER CORPSMEMBER FROM REDUCED ACMINISTRATI71 COSTS OF TRANSFER P2CGRAMS (1977 DOLLARS)

Estisated Estleatod Total Is- Program Postoroarma Period Value Per Discord Transfer_Programill _Period_ TaariIsar_2__ .Year_3____tear 4 Month Yalu

1. AFDC 0.333 0.436 0.236 0.327 0.168 428 4 39

2. Medicate" 0.969 0.476 °Art 0.493 0.030 3 5

3. Seneral Assistance 0.053 0.273 0.210 0.226 0.178 17 15.

4. Food Stamps 0.347 0.124 0.514 0.290 9 24

S. Public lousing 0.822 -0.174 .0.216 0.162 0.226 13 10

6. UneePloymeut Insurance" 0.1411 0.240 0.150 0.174 0.174 30 24

7..%los her s 0 Caspensation" -0.012 -0.048 .0.066 -0.078 54 .10 Total Benefits MM. 4111.1M

J/Tbe estimated reduotioss for the isprogram periodwere comPuted for earlier reports (for more ..tails. see Teohnical Report 0). For the postprograe period, the *attested reductions for nubile assistance programs (rows i through 5) are based on the six -south breakdowns free Tables 71.10 and 41.11

Is Chapter TI, and the estimated reductious for Unemployment Insuranoe and Markers' Compensation are ' based oe the slimeonth breakdowns from Tables TX.12 and 41.13 is Chapter

//Me postprograe amounts are discounted to the in-program period (ftsoal 1977)ate 5 portent real annual rata. The numbers in this column are nor* accurate than can be obtained tree the preceding sis *alums, Moanse they are based on sore refined, six loath breakdowsa of estimated reduction' and because they have less rowodiag error.

A/Tbe estimated value of the administrativecost of Medicaid Whined on recipients Of AFDC (for acre details. use ?ethnical Report 0).We assume one recipient for the AFDC streets on Corpsnenbers without children and the AFDC Program average Per case (family) of 3.13 reellente For the AFDC streets on Corpansebers with children (tamales with obildres blue the relevant portions of the estkeeted male effects).

'Vibe estimated value of the administrativeoast of Food Stamps is based on oases of receipt. Therutorer; the estisated menthe of reduction can be Calculated directly from the overall Job Corp* effects free ?ably! V1.10 and TI.11 is Chapter TI similar to the other entries is this table, except for Medicaid (see above). The differbooea between oases (households) and individual recipients explain the die:wisdom for estimated maths or reduction in Food Stamps tor this table compared to the *arise in Tabie TIII.3.

''For the in-program periodwe he data only on the aggregate or 0/ and VC.We use the estimated administrative cost value for DI becalm, by far, the greatest portion or these youths receive 0/ compared to v0. (ibis is slightly conservative in the sense of UhderwalUids benefits, slues the value for 01 is less than that for VC.) "di

PEST CAtili ;malt Aqlr

227 A

. from increased'indipendence and self-esteem and reduced stigma. Non

Corpamembers are expected to benefit to the extent that they would prefer

thit the resources be used to give Corpsmembers an opportunity to increase

their .human capital and earnings !ram Job Corps participation, rather than

used to provide public transfers to Corpsmembers. These changes in well-

being are intangible and could not be estimated accurately for this

analysis.

3. lesareaLCriminaliattyititail

Four benefits from the decliae in criminal activities among

Corpsmembers relate to reductions in (1) the resources used in the criminal

justice system, (2) the personal injury and property damage that accompany

victimization, (3) the value of stolen property, and (4) the fear and

anxiety associated with crime.The resource savings associated with 'the

first two items are benefits to society and to non-Corpsmembers. The

reduced value of stolen property will be a benefit to non-Corpsmembers, but

part of its value should be viewed as a cost to Corpsmembers, who no longer

receive that theft income. The social benefit of a reduction in stolen

property (the difference between the non-Corpsmember benefit and the

Corpsmember cost) relates to the decreased social resources attributable to

fencing (which U302 resources), damage to stolen property, and the loss ca.

legal titles. Reductions in the fear and anxiety associated with crime are

not valued directly, but will be noted.

-1113ynecessity, this section is a brief summary of the crime- evaluation procedures used. Technical Report Q contains a more complete discussion of the procedures and their justifications.

221256 4.

% II

.AP

The methOd used to valuethe crime- reduction benefits focuses on , tne effect of changes in arrests among nine crime categories (see Table

VIII.5). The estimates from Chapter VII of Job Corps-induced reductions in arrests are adjusted upward by 70 percept to correct for underreporting in

the interview self-reports. These estimated reductions in arrests were

then valued by multiplying them by shadow prices equal to the cost. savings per arrest Thii disaggregation of arrests was made according to most serious charge and enables us to value changes in both the mix ofaerest charges and the overall level'of arrests. Table VIII.5 presents the shadow prices applicable to the social perspective. BaStallid-WILIIIIII-4111111a. Processing persona

through the criminal justice systemipolice, prosecution, courts, and

corrections) is expensive.Court time alone is estimated to cost $15 per minute; thus, even the simple process of entering'a plea cost close to

$450 in 1977,2/, The shadow prices in the table reflect the probability and

cost of an arrested perrxt passing through each stage of the systempolice

custody, arraignment, detention, trial, and incarceration.

1/Schore,Maynard, and Piliavin (1979) found Oat arrests were' underreported by between 41 and 48 percent when interview questions (essentially the same as those used in this analysis) were compared to official court records. Most of*this underreporting stemmed from the underreporting of multiple arrests and not from the failure to report any arrest. Thus, the self- reports must be multiplied by 1.7 to obtain an estimate of the actual number of arrests. Per further details, see Technical Report Q.

"These estimatesare based on computations made by Greenwood et al. (1973); tneir estimates have been adjusted to 1977 dollars,

257 229 TABLE VIII.5

ESTIMATES OF AVERAGE SOCIAL COST OF CRIME PER ARREST, BY ARREST ,CHARGE (1977 DOLLARS)

Criminal Justice Personal Injury and ., Stolen PropertK, Total Estimated Arrest Charge System Costs Property Damage Coate' Resource Costar' Cost Per Arrest

1'. Murder $24,767 $100,518 $0 $125,305

2. Felonious assault 2,732 489 0 3,221

3. Robbery 12,087 569 497 13,1.35

4., Burglary 5,895 537 2,317 8,749

5. Larceny and motor f, : vehicle theft 2,618 408 1,268 4 294

3 6. Drug law violation 2,590 0 0 2,590,

7. Other personal crimes 756 94 . 0 850 4

8. Other miacellaneous

crimes 919 0 . 0 919

9. Unspecified crimes 2,048 171 348 12,567

4.1.1MIM.11

1/The "druglaw vio lation" and *other miscellaneous crimes', categories contain primarily "victimless" crimes, and irvalue ofzero is assumed in these categories for personal injury and property damage costa.

"Stolen-property resource costa (associated with fencing, loss of legal title, and property damage), estimated only for theft crimes, are estimated to be 65 percent of the average property stolen per arrest (see the text and Technical Report Q for more details).

SiThe "unspecified- crimes" category containsarrests for which the arrest charge was either not recorded or undecipherable..Costs for this crime category are estimated to be the weighted average of the costs of the otherategoriea.

258 0

StearadattZalliu_allara-ild.215122Elit-DNMASN: Another major' benefit associated with reduced criminal activity is the decrease In victimization. The victimization benefits included in this analysis Are the resource savings from reductions in the amount of personal injury

property damage. Using data collected as part of the National Crime Panel

Survey program, we estimated (1) the average 'value of property damage from

criminal acts, (2) the average value of the medical care needed by victims of personal crimes, (3) the average output lost when iiictims lole time from work while they are recovering from personal crimes,/and (k) the average. 11 costs of administering the insurance used to compensate victims. . The average coat- per - victimization figures were multiplied by the ratio of victimizations to arrests in order to estimate the average cost per arrest.

ieshiresLIamsALItakinjzsmerAz Estikates for the value associated with the reduction in stolen property were obtained from victimization data in a manner similar to that used to estimate the coat of

'reductions in property damage and personal injury, with one major differ:- ence: part of the value of stolen iroperty represents a transfer from. victim to thief. The remaining part of the value of stolen property is the social cost associated with fencing the goods,.with atdeclIne'ln the value of the goods because they cannot be sold with a legal title, or with a decline in value because of damage. The relative magnitudes of these

11Wewould like to thank Wesley G. Skogan for his help.in obtaining, the necessary estimates from the victimization-incident data that were. gathered as part of the National Crime Panel program.Technical RepOrt Q presents a detailed breakdown and Analysis of the average costs of victimizations by crime category.

250.

231 c r ai , : I.

components were eetimeted'on'the basis of =a study-which found ilhhlt thieves r.

were able-to realize only 35 percent of the value to victims when they,

converted stolen goodi intocash.11

Non-Corpamembera are assumed to benefit from the estimated

Corpsmember reductions in stolen property in ire amount time]. to the full

dollar value of the reductions. However, 35 percent of the_dollar value ,

of these reductions in stolen property is estimated (from above) to

.represent a loss of income to Corpsmembers, and thus, 65 percent of the

;Slue of these reductions is assumed to represent a benefit to

society.

11figunest2syaanloginAlSsatu 'The values presented above capture

only part of the costs of criminal victimizations. In particular, they

fail to capture completely the emotional benefits that individuals derive

from reductions in crime. These benefits are undoubtedly important.

However, because there is no accurate way to directly estimate their

magnitude, they have not been counted in the numerical estimates. This

exclusion will bias our benefit-cost estimates downward, and that must be

.kept in mind when interpieting.the results.

2310Vthig....earsIALARIIRMAiiRSLAS2Se2=821311011222J11GrillEs_

Table VIII.6 presents the estimates of the Job Corps-induced changes in

'arrests for the nine Arrest types'adjusied for underreporting. The

measured shadow prices to society (i.e., the average social costs from

Table VIII.5) of the different arrest types have been entered in the next-

to-last column. The final column provides the total discounted value of I the crime benefits generated during:the in-program period and the first

four postprogram years.

liUS. Dg Enforcement Administration, Heroin-Related Crimes (1977)., The percent estimate takes into account that stolen cash ' and other 1 id assets need not be fenced. 232 f 260 TABLE VIII.6

ESTIMATED VALUE OF SOCIAL BENEFITS PER CORPSHEMBER FROM REDUCED CRIMINAL, ACTIVITIES (1977 DOLLARS)

Estimated Estimated Estimated geductipn in dumber ofArrentsill Sopial Total In-Program PostnroaramPeriod Value Per Diaooun d

1. Murder 0.002 0.004 0.002 0.003 0.002 $125,305 $1,460 2. Felonious assault 0.005 0.000- -0.012' 0.002 0.008 .3,221 8 3. Robbery 0.002 0.010 0.010 0.003 003 13,135 349 4. Burglary 0.052 -0.014 -0.003. -0.002 -0.012 8,749 214 5. Larceny and motor vehicle theft 0.059 0.015 0.020 0.040 0.041 4,294 720 6. Drug law violation 0.026 .005 -0.006 -o.dio -0.015 2,590 10 7. Other personal crimes 0.019 .003 - 0.007 -0.004 -0.002 850 9 8. Other miscellaneous crimes 0.050 0.002 -0.027 -0.014 -0.037 919 -15 9. Unspecified °Fines° -0.003 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.005. 2,567 _W.

Total Benefits .82.8.1119.

Estimates of the Job Corps-induoed reductions in arrests per Corpssember fres Taea VII.11 and VII.12 in Chapter VII have been multiplied by 1.7 to oorreot for underreporting of srsts.in the interviews. This procedure and its justifioation are described in Teohnical Report O. For an analysis of underreporting of arrests in survey data such as ours, also see Schore, Maynard, and Piliavin (1979).

1/In thosecases where there was more than one arrest charge, only the 'most serious charge was used.

'Thepoetprogram amounts are discounted to the in-program period (fiscal 1977) at a 5 percent real annual rate. The numbers in this column are more accurate than can be obtained from the preoediqg six columns, because they are based on more refined, six-month breakdowns of estimated reductions and because they have less rounding error.

11/The "unspecified crimes* category contains arrests for whith the arrest charge Was either not reoorded or undecipherable. Costs for this orime oategory are estimated to be the weighted average of the costs for the other categories. 261 GI The estimates indicate that a large reduction in arrests occurs

while Corpsmembers are in Job Corps, particularly in burglary and larceny

arrests. As discussed in Chapter VII, after Corpsmembers leave the

program, the pattern of changes in arrests becomes more erratic. 'During

the first four postprogram years, Substantial reductions in larceny and

consistent reductions in murder and robbery arrests occur. At the sang

time, increases in arrests for burglary'and traffic offenses are observed.

The net results appear to be a large value of reduced crime during the

program, and an erratic but beneficial pattern during the postprogram

period, with some shift to less.serious crimes.The total discounted value

of the social benefits from reductions in arrests during the observation

period (the in-program period plus the first four poitprogram years) is

just over $2,800 per CorpsmemberY When the redistributional aspects of

stolen property are taken into account, we estimate a $2,975 per- v.. Cbrpsmember benefit to non-Corpsmembers and an average net cost of

approximately 4160 to Corpsmembers.

Approximately one-half of these savings are derived from

reductions in murder arrests. While none of the estimates of annual

reductions in murder arrests is large (they range from reductions of 2 to 4

arrests per 1.400 Corpsmembers) the high average cost of both this crime

am adjudicating these arrests implies substantial cost savings. Most of

the remaining benefits from reduced crimes relate to the

reductions in robbery and larceny both during' and after

participation and reductions in burglary during the program.

Detailed estimates of the components of the social benefit and tne non-Corpsmember and Corpsmember benefits are presented in Technical Report Q.

234 262 0

4, Reduced Drug and Alcohol Abuse

The principal estimated benefit of the reduction in drug and

alcohol abuse is from the in-program and early postprograi decrease in.

'treatment (see Millar et al., 1980). The types of drug-alcohol treatments

included in the estimates are residential and nonresidential drug

detoxification (principally heroin), residential and nonresidential "drug-

free" treatment, alcohol detoxification, and education and counseling

services. The resource savings associated with the reduction 111

alcohol treatments will benefit both nom4orpsmembers and society as a

whole. The emotional benefits from reduced drug and alcohol abuse, while

unmeasured in this report, will also accrue to both Corp-members and non

Corpamembers.

In general, Corpsmembers participate very little in drug- or

alcohol-treatment programs, especially as they become. older. The largest

effect was observeewhile they were enrolled in Job Corps. During the

postprogram period, the decreases in treatment use were all very small (a

difference of less than one -half day in treatment per year), since, for

the most part, they would not have been involved in drug treatment in any

case. The present value of the resources saved because of these reductions

is estimated to be approximately $31 per Corp-member for both the in-

Program period and the first four years of the postprogram'period

(ipProximately $22 of this benefit accrues Miring the piogram).1/

1/As notedin Chapter VII, because the use of.drug treatment was almost nonexistent for either Corpsmembers or comparison youtfis, it was not estimated for the new data, which cover the third and fourth postprogram years. In the benefit-cost analysis, we have used a value of zero for drug- and alcohol-abuse benefits during those years.

A-t,,,

26j 235 4,

5. Use of Alternative Training and Education Programs

Decisions by Corpamembers to enter into training and schooling outside Job Corps will generate benefits and costs to both Corpsmembers and non-Corpsmembers. To the extent that Job Corps influences these decisions,

the resulting changes in benefits and costs must be included in the benefit- cost analysis. While the in-program effects are clearly in the direction of reduced participation in alternative education and training, as reported" in Chapter V the postprogram effects are somewhatoffsetting»-reductions in high school (an alternative program) but increases in'college (a supplemental program). The effect of Job Corps on resource use in education and training can be captured by using estimates of the effect of

Job Corps on Corpssemberst use of these programs and the average-coat data

for the affected programs.

Fully capturing changes in the earnings and other benefits generated by these alternative programs is more problematic. Ideally, the impact estimates for earnings and other effects would include these changes directly, since they are measured in relation to what Corpamembers would

have done in the absence of Job Corps. This is a reasonable assumption for

some types of education and training that.were alternatives to Job Corps

(i.e., high school education and CETA training) and that were obtained.

primarily during or shortly after the time Corpsmembers were in the

program. However for supplemental higher education, such as college, which is increased later, the benefits will occur primarily after our

observation period. In reality, not all of the effects from alternative

education and training will have been observed during the period Covered by

our interview data, especially for the additional higher education. Thus,

236 264 So. by inciuding all of these changes as resource costs, we probably bias'our net present vape estimates downward.1

Table VIII.T presents the estimated value of changes in Corps- members, use of education and training programs; these include the

traditional school programs -- college, high school, vocational and technical

school, and other schooling (mostly adult education programs) --and three

geneial categories of employment and training-programsthe Work Incentive

Program (WIN),. CETA and other non-WIN programs, and Public Service

Employment (primarily CETA).The largest reduction in costs occurs in. the

use of high School *which is due; in part, to the fact that many Corps-

members.earn a GED degreewhile in Job Corps. Alsotsmall reductions

occur in the use of employment and training programs, especially during the

in-program and early postprogram periods. The increase in the use of

college and vocational education proems increases costs, which, as noted

above, might lead to future benefits. The net result is a resource

savings of approximately $250 per Corpsmember during the observation

period.

In addition to the changes in resource use for the various

education and'training programs, there will also be a transfer due to

changes in training allowances paid to Corpsmembers.Deflating the

estimates from Chapter V to 1977 dollars, we estimate that Corpsmembtrs

received an average of $27 less in training allowances from alternative t?, programb because of their participation in Job Corps.Over 80 percent of

t) 4.

1/Technical Report Q diScusses this situation in more.detail.

237

v. TABLE VIII.?

ESTIMATED VALUE OF SOCIAL BENEFITS PER CORPSNEMBER FROM REDUCED UTILIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE TRAINING AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS (1977 DOLLARS)

Estimated' Months of Reduction Estimated . Pestnroaram Period Estimated Total

In- Program . 'Value Per Diseounkcd Alternative ProsramA/ Period Year 1_ Year 2 Tear A Year 4 Month Value"

1. College 0.065 -0.036 -0.066 -0.078 -0.150 8368 -$82

2. High school 0.548 0.282 0.228 , 0.126 0.060 199 237

3. Vocational or technical school . 0.092 -0.072 -0.120 -0.030 -0.036 228 -33

4. Other school 0.163 0.072 0.012 -0.006 0.000 265 64

5. CETA andelated train'-7' 0.123 -4.068 0.014 0.017 0.005 164 15 e 6. WIN trai 1ng 0.000 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.036 320 36

7. Public service employment (PSE) 0.208 0.090 -0.114 -0.078 0.138 61 --LI

Total Benefits 1251

A/The estimated reductions for the in-program periodwere computed for an earlier report (for - more details, see Technical Report C).' For the postprogram period, the estimated reductions for education programs (Rows 1 through 4) are based on the six-month breakdowns from Tables Y.12 and V.13 in Chapter V, the estimatedreductions for training programs (Rows 5 and 6) are based on the six-month breakdowns from Tables V.14 and V.15 in Chapter V, and the estimated reductions for PSE (Row 7) are based on the six-month breakdowns from Tables IV.12 and IV.13 in Chapter IV.

1/Thepostprogram amounts are discounted to the in-program period (fiscal 1977) at a 5 percent 'real annual rate. The numbers in this column are more accurate than can be obtained from the preceding six columns, because they are based on more refined, six-month breakdowns of estimated reductions and because they have less rounding error.

'"This entry includes the joint impact of all the training effects listed under CETAtraining, youth training, union training, and other training in Tables V.14 and V.15 of Chapter V. '266 this'reduction is estimated to have occurred while tbey were enrolled in

Job Corps.

6. Other Benefit&

In addition to the benefit components discussed above,there are two benefits that cannot be directly measured and valued; however, some indirect evidence on them does exist. One important benefit that\cannot be measured directly is the utility that Corpsmembers and non-Corpsmeibers derive from the income redistribution per se that is implicit in the Job

Corps program. The other benefit is the improved personal Well-being of participants beyond what they derive from both increased earnings and the' value of Job Corps expenditures for room, board, medical and dental services, etc. In particular, it is likely that the full value of observed improvements in the health status of Corpsmembers and their basic education are not fully captured in this analysis.

7. Benefits After the Observation Period

To this point, the discussion of benefits has focused on the time period over which the Corpsmembers, were observed --the in-program period plus the four years after they left Job Co^ps. lowever, there is strong reason to believe that at least some of the benefits discussed will con- . tinue afterthis period. This is particularly true of the earnings gains and of those effects closely related to increased earnings -- increased taxeti4id reduced public transfers.'

The existence of 'these future benefits creates a difficult problem for the benefit... -cost analysis: in order to provide an accurate assessment, it is necessary to estimate the value of all benefits and costs, not just those that accrue during the period covered.by the interviews.

267 2'39 While the extrapolations required for a full assessment are important, they are much more inaccurate than the estimates of benefits and costs for the observation period. Estimates offuture benefits are imprecise not only because of questions about the appropriateness of the valuation methods, out also because of the lack of direct observations upon which to estimate the effects. Future benefits and costs must be estimated on the basis of trends observed to occur during the observation period, or on the basis of long-run studies of other groups--both of which are subject to substantial error and serious controversy when applied to Job Corps.

The importance of such extrapolation to the overall benefit-cost estimates will be assessed in the sensitivity tests.

The central hypothesis of the extrapolation procedure adopted is that all benefits observed during a base time period will persist into the future, and that their magnitude will decline continuously over time.1'

Thus, for example, an observed increase in earnings. per year during the base period would be assumed to continue for future periods, with the size of the benefit becoming progressively smaller in each succeeding year

The base period we have adopted is the last b months of the observation period (which coven, postprogram months 43 to 48).The time horizon over which benefits are assumed to persist is assumed to be the expected worklife of the average Corpsmember (43 years after enrolling in

Job Corps7,7up to approximately age 62). The rate at which earnings, taxes, and transfer-program benefits are assumed to decay is the same as was

1'Techmical Report Qpresents a more detailed explanation and justification of the extrapolation procedures and issues covered in this section.

240 268 used throughout the evaluation (approximately 14 percent per year), based

on a study which found that earnings differentials for adult training

had declined by one-half after fiveyears.1/ The evidence from our study

is that this decay rate is very conservative, and the alternative of no

decay might be more plausible (se* the sensitivity tests below). However,

because our observation period has increased, the particular decay rate

matters less, since future years are subject to heavier discounting when

calculating present values. For crime and alternative-program use

(drug/alconol abuse had already declined to zero), a much higher decay rate

was used, both because participation in these activities generally declines

rapidly with age and because we observed some substantial declines over our

-observationperiod.2/

-14 study of Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA)programs by Ashenfelter (1978) provides this evidence on the future Magnitude of the earnings effect. He found that the earnings gains for adult men who had participated in MDTA employment and training programs had declined by approximately 50 percent after five years, while the gains for adult women did not fade out. If we assume a decline for Job Corps similar to the larger magnitude that Ashenfel ter found for Males, on a continuous basis it would imply a rate of decline of just under 1k percent per year.. In the absence of better information, Ashenfelter's decay rate for adult males has been adopted for both males and females. This probably overstates the decay rates for Corpamembers for three reasons: (1) Corpsmembers are young am are still oenefitting from increased investments in human capital, (2) Ashenfelter'S estimated decay rate for males is much larger than he found for females, and (3) we find little evidence of such a deoay rate over the Mat four postprogram years.

2"Specifically, it was assumed that these effects decay at a continuous rate that reduces them to 25 percent after one year and to 1 pervent after three years. This assumption (a decay rate of 140 percent per year) is very conservative and probably understates the crime benefits (see the sensitivity tests below).

26J 241 In addition to the extrapolation of effects into the future, two other issues regarding benefits and costs over time had to be addressed.

The first was to correct for the effect^of inflation on dollar-denamina-. ted benefits and costs. This was done by measuring all 4ems in terms of fiscal 1977 collars. This time period corresponds approximately to the period when our sample of Corpsmembers were in Job Corps. As discussed in the next section, cost data were derived from fiscal 1977 records and require no special adjustment. For benefits that were not denominated in dollars, shadow prices measured in fiscal 1977 dollars were used.For postprogram earnings and training allowances (the only benefits estimated using dollar-denominated data from the interviews), the estimates were deflated to 1977 dollars on the basis of the changes in the implicit price deflators for the gross national product.17

The second adjuitment was to account for the fact that benefits or

p. costs generated in the future will not be worth as much as the same benefits or costs generated at'present. This adjustment :process of dia- counting to present values converts the observed extrapolated streams of benefits and costs into equivalent present-value dollar amounts. We use a real (i.e., net of inflation) discount rate of 5 percent per year. (With an inflation rate of 10 percent per year, this would correspond to an annual nominal interest rate of 15percent.)

Table VIII.8 presents the extrapolated values for the various benefits am costs from the social perspective. The largest effect of

1/This procedure is explainedmore fully and justified in Technical Report Q.

2/Formore discussion, see Technical Report Q.

242270 TABLE VE7.8

ESTIMATEDTom1JJE aF SIXIAL. BEM= PER CORPMSER (1977 ICILARS)

iNtimatecLDisocunted Present V CtaervaticeExtrapolatice Total Benefit alltanat Pe-led Pic Benefits

'1. Caput Proclaced bj Cacemanbers o lb-crcgrae output $ 757 $ 0 $ 757 o Increased pmstwqran output. 1 ,933 1 ,3113 3,276 o Increased pcetpr:grae tax ps mesut. 0 . 0 0

2. Relaxed Dependence cn ItaXer PIT S'S= o Reduced public transf 0 0 0 o Reduced aordnistrative coats 108 64 172 o bustled utility hue reduoed %voltam dependence + + +

3. Reduced CrieineL Activities o Total. awned reckactiaztrasotroeU58 2,81,9 100 2,919 o Radioed mycbalcgical + +

4. Reduced AWAlocnol Abuse o Reixed dr.$7,/alcabol treaters* 035ta 31 0 31 o imareased utility recbeed drug/ alcohol + + +

5. Reduced Utilizatica of AltertatiVe Services o Reduced meta at training and education preemie ctber then 4:1=1? 251 .1 244 oDeducedtraining all 0 0 0

6: Other Benefits o Increased utility trueredistributicard o Inervesed utility hut *roved well-being of Orpsoaders ..111t. .11.1.111It ..111t.

Total Estimated Benefits

1132:Details may not sum exactly to totals because et roman&

Alta postprogree anointsare disocixted to the in -program period (fiscal igt7)St a 5 percent reel annual rate.

-Witco don act enterthe social perspective (i.e., =elusively transfers between Corpse tubers and non-Ccrpmesthers).

'Item is not observed andcannot be estimated for the analysis.

243 2 71 extrapolation relates to earnings, for which the extrapolation increases the value of the benefit by approximately 70 percent. The smaller numbers for crime...reduction benefits and the We of alternative education and training programs reflect (1) tbe smaller Job Corps effects obaerved during postprogram months 43 to 48 for these benefits and (2) tbe bisbep fade-out rate assumed for them. The estimated total value of all tbe benefits is almost $7,400 per Corpsmember'(in 1977 dollars).

C. COSTb

Table VIII.9 provides the breakdown of program costs by category ana analytical perspective. There are three baiic cost categories: program operating expenditures, tbe opportunity cost of Corpsmember labor, ana the nonbudgeted costa otber tban for Corpsmember labor. The total social cost of Job Corps (i.e., excluding all transfers) is estimated to be

007u per Corpsmember, while the cost topod-Corpsmesbers is $5,736 per

Corpsiember enrolled. The difference is the net value of the transfers provided to Corpsmembers X$665'per Corpsmember).

1. jiroaram Oneratinz Expenditures,

The breakdown of program operating expenditures into three components-- center operating expenditures (excluding Corpemember transfers),

Corpsmesper transfers, and the central administrative costs -reflects the - different nature and sources of Job Corps expenditures. Center operating expenditures are costs to non-Corimmembers and to society. These expenditures and figures were obtained from the Job Corps Financial

Reporting System.' The Corpsmember transfers were also obtained from the

Job Corps Financial Reporting System, but they are not social oosts;

244 `."72 0 TABLE VIM 9

9.241Ala OF ESZIIVIIIED VALNE,OF COMB-PER 03RP31213ER, & ANALYTICAL EIMENIECELYE (FISCAL 177)

* 1- ,' "--

1. Prague Cperating Expenditures o Center operating acparslitures, =Luang transfers to , Commoners 42796 'i2,7% $ 0 o IIansfers to Ohs '' 0.' . ,1,208 -1,208 o Central actoirtitrative costa; , 1,3117 ,1,34/ 0

2.Cowl:unity Cost of Caysseeter Leta. Wring the Prtgroe o Foregne catgut 881 . 0 881 o Femme tax payments 0 153 -153

3. Iktudgetad Egerg litures Other `- than Corceessebar Latta- o Betairee costs ai6 0 o Transfers to Ccrposeotere Ibtal Costa JIM!.

i/Calszoriber benefitsfrau transfers are sham here as ragitise

245 . instead, they represent a transfer of resources from non-Corpsmimbers to

Corpsmecoers.1/Finally, data on the central administrative-expenditures were provided by the Office of Management and Budget. These expenditures represent costs to both non-Corpsmembers and society as a whole.

2. Ophortunitv Cost of Corpsmember Labor

Youths who participate in Job Corps forego employment opportunities that otherwise they would have taken. The Wages they would have earned are a cost to thee of participating in Job Corps. This "opportunity cost" of

Corpsmember labor is not balanced by corresponding benefits to non-Corps- , members and thus enters the social benefit-Cost calculation as acost.2/

Another way to view this cost is that, from society's point of view, the decision to enroll a Person in Job Corps Implies that the output that person would have 'produced in the absence of the program must now be foregone. The loss of this output is a net cost to sooiety; the value of this foregone output is measured by the foregone earnings. As was the case in estimating the increase in output prodyced, the estimate of foregone 61

liThese transfersare expenditures for items that many Corpsmembers would have consumed in the absence of Job Corps (e.g., food, clothing, and housing) and, hence, can be assumed to be valued near the supply price.

61/However, if the labormarkets are in disequilibriaa (i.e., if disadvantaged youths are unemployed in the labor market), non-Corpsmembers receive benefits by replacing Coepsmembers on jobs; thus, social costs are reduced. While replacement isobwlously an important factor given the labor markets that Corpamembers leave when they enter the program, we have no basis currently to estimate either the magnitude or value of replacement activities. Furthermore, we have no way to measure displacement during the postprogram period or to compare its value to that for replacement.

246 274.

O 15

earnings includes the amount of fringe benefits in order to meast:re the

total value of tne lost output. We also estimate the fraction of this

foregone output bOrne by non- Corpsmembers in the film of reduced tax

payments (reduced taxes offset part of the lost earnings for Corpsmembers).

3. Nonbudgeted Costa Other than_for Corcimember Labor

The opportunity cost of Corpsmember labor described above is

an unbudgeted item. In addition, there are other types 'of expenditures

whose coats do not appear in the Job Corps financial accounts: governm.

went- surplus goods, for which the centers pay only transportation charges;

meal costa reimbursed by the National School Lunch program;' medical

supplies and services provided by state and local agencies; and other

resources acquired at below-market prices. The use of these resources is a

cost to non-Corpsmembers and to society. However, the use of many of these

items represents a transfer to Corpsmembers and, hence, does not enter the

social perspective. The opportunity coat of these resources was estimated

on the basis of special studies conducted at thirteen Job Corps centers

(see Technical Report F for more details). 1

D. OVERALL FINDINGS FOR NET PRESENT VALUE

Once the various effects'a Job Corp have been valued, calculating

the net present, vAlue is straightforward. Table VIII.10 presents the

values or the various benefit and cost components with their assoqiated net

.present values from the three perspectives., As can he seen, the program

yields net benefits to society and to Corpsmembers under our benchmark

assumptions. From the social perspective, the increases in output and the . o

1 247 :ABLE VIII.10

ESTIMATED NET PRESENT VALUES PER CONMEMBER UNDER 111E BENCNNARE ASSUMPTIONSA/ (1977 DOLLARS)

Perened iv.

BENEFITS

1, Output Produced by Corpamembers o In-nrograa output 757 673 4 83 o Increased postprogrem output 3,2766 0 3;276 o Increased postprograa tax payment's 596 -596

2, ;..doted Dependence on Transfer Programs o Reduced transfer payments 0 791 -791 oReduced idsinlatretive costs 172 172 0 o Increased utility from reduced welters dependence * . 4.

3. Reduced Criminal Activity o Reduced criminal Vette* sylitem costs 1,253 1,253 0 o Reduced personal imjury and property damage 1,366 1,366 0 o Reduced stolen property 300 462 .162 o Reduced psychological costs 4. . *

C. Reduced Drug/Alcohol Abuse o Reduced drug/alcohol Westmont costs 0 31 .-..31 o Increased utility Prom reduced drug/alcohol . dependence _

5. Reduced Btiliastion of AltePnative &undoes o Reduced costs of training and .donation programs other than Job Corps 244 244 0 o Reduced training antivenins 0 33 -33 6,- Other Benefits o Increased utility from redistribition * * 4. o Increased utility from improved veil-being of of Corpomembers .1Atr =1.1111/1 Total Benefits =it liabaL i1d777 COSTS

1. 'Pores Operating Eipenditures o Center operating eapenditurel, excluding transfers to Corpmmembers $2,796 42,718 4 0 oTransfers to Corpammabers 0 1,200 -I,208 o Contra). administrative costa 1,347 1 .341 0

2. Opportunity Cost of Corpamember Labor During the Program o Foregone output 881 0 881 oforetops* tax payments 0 153 -153 3. Onbudgeted Expenditures ?tier than Corpemember Labor o tesource costa 46 46 0 oTransfers to Corpemembers --I lei xlil Total Costa 25A70 AUX .Mug latazusai_Was(loostitsminus Costa) ALLIEL :ALM la..1.42. lianitarSaitaaLtsP lak 1.21. 1.39.

11/30, the txt,for s review of the assumptions, estimationprocedures, ant their implications foi the values presented in this table.

h/The numerators for the benefit -coat ration include all of the benefitslisted in this table aseither positive benefits or negative costs; and the denominator includes all of the costs listed in this table as either positive costs or negative benefits.

2 48 276 BEST COPY AMA'S crime-related benefits constitute the bulk of the benefits. The largest

social costs are for the resources necessary to operate the Program. The

net present value for society is estimated to be $2,327 per Corpsmember in-

1977.

Corpsmembers benefit primarily from the increase in 'their post-

program earnings avid from the program's transfer (shown as negative costs)

in tne form of room and board. Their major costs are the foregone earnings

while they are in the program, as well as the reductions in the.transfer .

payments that accompany their increases in earnings. The net present value

from the Corpsmember perspective is estimatedto be $2,442, on average.

don-Corpsmembers, who bear both the costs of program operation and the

costs of tne transfers to Corpsmembers, incur an estimated net cost of '

$115.1/.They do receive substantial benefits from reductions in COrps-

members' criminal activities, but these are not.suffitient to outweigh

their share of program cost. Thus, Job Corps is estimated to be a, socially

efficient use of resources and to lead to a net of resources

from non-Corpsmembers to Corpsmembers.

The overall benchmark numbers are essentially unchanged from the

benchmark estimates reported in the S_ecoreiFollow-[ivleport.V Thecurrent

1/Of course, because there are many more non-Corpsmembers than Corpsmembers, the net cost to non- Corpsmembers will be quite small, on average (iuch smaller than the $115 per Corpsmember).However, some non-Corpsmembers (e.g., recipients of the value of output and additional victims of crimes in the abrince of Job Corps) might benefit substantially.

21Mallaret al. (1978), Mallar et al. (1980), Technical Report D, and Technical Report K present the earlier results. Technical Report Q provides a more detailed comparison of the results in the three studies.

2 7 249

V1. 4,

benchmark estimate of social net present value is only 2.9'pereent greater than the earlier estimate of $2,271 per Corpamember. However, both estimates are substantially greater than our initial net present value estimate of 1251, which was calculated after only seven months of postprogram Observation. The changes reflect the reduced reliance on conservative extrapolation procedures and the substantial earnings gains that persist over time. In addition, two aspects of the current benchmark estimate reflect important changes in the estimates of the separate benefits and costs compared to the second follow -up: (1) the current estimates indicate that benefits exceed costs without extrapolating past the period of direct observation, and (2) the estimated increase in value of output produced (both in Job Corps and in postprogram employment) is slightly lower and the estimated value of crime reductions is substantially higher, which leads to the slightly higher overall estimate.

The data used in this report provide two years of observation beyond that available in the lacsingLIAUsai12111122a, The new data indicate that the substantial postprogram earnings gains estimated earlier persist to a large degree for at least two more years. Thus, we now observe earnings gains (including fringe benefits) of ow $1400.without any extrapolation. In addition, the large benefits from reductions in arrests total approximately 12,800 from the social perspective before

extrapolation. When-,these two benefits are combined with the other observed benefits (Including the value of output produced, by Corpsmembers while they are in Job Corps), they are wotth almost $5,900 per Corps-', member. The average social cost of Job Corps 'was approximately,$5,100, so- the net present value without any extrapolation is approximately $800.

250 278 Because this positive net present value estimate is based on direct

observations ratner than on extrapolation, we feel that more confidence can

be placed in the positive overall finding than in the previous studies

(i.e., the statement that benefits exceed costs does not rely on relatively

imprecise extrapolation beyond the period of direct observation).In

addition, an analysis of the time pattern of observed effects suggests that

the average social investment per CorOimember enrolled in Job Corpsi's paid

back in approximately three years.

The new estimates of Job Corps' effects made for this report show a

shift in the relative magnitudes of the earnings and crime-relited

benefits. Increased output produced by Corpsmembers accounts for 55

percent of the total benefits in the current benchmarIc estimate. This can

be compared to a 63 percent share in the Sarang1212sftilaJana benchmark.

An opposite shift in the estimate of crime-related benefitslfrom 29

percent to 40 percent) nes left the overall social net present value

estimate essentially unchanged, although the crime benefits are now

relatively more important than in the previous estimate.

Despite the differencea in the three reports, the major policy

conclusion from.all of them is the same- -Job Corps Is a socially desirable

investment. The additional follow-up data have allowed more precise

estimates of net present value to be made but have left the basic finding

unchanged. The current analysis confirms the overall finding of the .Second.

Follow Do 3eport, and provides a tar greater level of confidence in the

results.

P As mentioned earlier, substantial uncertainty surrounds any sihgle

estimate of net present value. To better understand the extent of this

270. 251

1/ A

uncertainty, net present value estimates are made.under a variety of

alternative assumptions. Each alternative illustrates the effect of

changing one assumption or estimate while maintaining the other benchmark'

assumptions and estimates. Table VIII.11 presents the benchmark net

present value estimates and seven alternative estimates1/

An examination of these alternative estimates (and some others

reported in Technical Report Q) indicates that, while the point estimates

'of"net present value are sensitive to changes in assumptions, the overall

'finding, of economic efficiency remains under widely different sets of ,

assumptions. Assumptions would have to be changed so as to eliminate

virtually all the earnings-related benefits or the reduced crime benefits .

before the social conclusion would bechanged.V On average, Corpsmembers

wall receive a net benefit from Job Corps under almost any set-f assump-

tions. However, the tests indicate that the negative net present value

estimated for non-Corpsmembers could become positive, ir earnings gaini

faded out more slowly than assumed, or if more persistent long-run benefits'

occurred for crime.

The firit three sets of alternative assumptions in Table VIII.11

concern the rate at which the 'fob Corps effects fade out over time. The

first alternative has already been discussed and assumes that no effects

. Only brief summaries of the sensitivity tests are given here. More details and discussions of tests not presented here are provided in Technical Report Q. Stir

2/If all or the effects were changed in the same direction, the overall estimates would obviously change considerably (see Technical Report Q).

252 280 TABLE VIII.11 . ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATES OF NET PRESENT VALUE PER CORPSMEMBER (1977 DOLLARS)

Perspective Alternative Assumptions Social, Non-Cornsmember cortsmember

1. Benchmark assumption"l $2,327 -$115 $2,442

2. Effects are zero after the E47 -792 1,618 first 48 postprogram months (our observation period)

3. Earnings and transfer effects do not fade out but other 5,653 1,238 A4,415 effects do fade out at the benchmark rate

4. Crime, drug, and alternative program effects fade out at the same rate as earnings effects 3,203 869 2,334 (14 percent per year)

5. Three percent annual real 2,801 125 2,676 discount rate

6. Ten percent annual real 1,438 181 2 019 discount rate

7. No underreporting of arrests 1,125 -1,384 2,509,,,

8. Reduced crime benefits are zero 464 -2,035 2,498 after the in-program period

"The benchmarkassumptions are as follows: earnings, tax, and transfer effects fade out at a real rate of 14 percent per year; all other effects fade out at a real rate of 140 percent per year (which assumes that these other effe4t3 fade out to 25 percent of their base amount after one year and 1 percent after three years); the real discount rate is 5 percent per annum; the expected worklife of a Corpsmember is forty-three years after leaving Job Corps (i.e., until age 62). (For a more complete disCussion of these and other assumptions, see Chapter V of Technical Report Q.)

-28/ 253 exist other than those already observed by the end of the observation

period (four years after leaving Job Corps). These estimates indicate that

benefits exceed costs without extrapolation. FurthertOre, these benefits

indicate a real (i.e., net of inflation) internal rate of.return for Job

Corps of almost 18 percent per year. The second alternative assumption is 4 tnat the earnings and corresponding .tax and transfer effects do not fade

out, wniie the other. effeots (reduced criminal activity, drug- and alcohol-

treatment use, and education- and training-program use) fade out at the

rapid benchmark rate. In this instw.e, the social, Corpamember, and non

Corpsmemoer net present values are all positive, with the total social

benefits outweighing social costs in 1977 dollars by ovir 45,600 per

Corlismemper.

The third alternative illustrates the effect of lowering the rate

at which effects on crime, drug treatment, and alternative education-and

training-program use fade out. If these effects fade out at the lower rate

assumed for earnings and transfers (14 percent per year), the estimated net

present value would be greater than with the benchmark assumptions, and

would be positive from all three perspectives. The social net present

value would increase by 38 percent, to 83,203 per Corpsmember. Increasing

the rate at-which these effects are assumed to fade out has little effect

on.net present value because the future value of the estimated effects is

small under the benchmark assumptions of an extremely rapid fade-out rate

(approximately 140 percent per year).11

The next two alternative estimates pertain to the discount rate.

I "For example,one year after the end of the observation period the value of these effects would be redutid by 75 percent under the benchmark fade -out assumptions. After two years, the value would be reduced by-95 percent; after three years, the value would be reduced by 99 percent.

%.* 254 282 The appropriate a.fscount rate to use when evaluating government training and education programs is always a controversial issue because, while its choice is very important for the evaluation and is'well established theoretically, there has never been a completely satisfactory way to estimate social discount rates. Imperfections in the markets for capital, the existence of risk'and uncertainty and inflation, and the fact that many tax-incidence questions are still unresolved have made it impossible to determine an appropriate single discount rate to evaluate government investments. Consequently, we have adopted a 5 percent per annum real rate

(i.e., net of Inflation) as our benchmarkY This number is in the range of discount rates used by other Studies. Because of the somewhat arbitrary nature of this assumption, we test the sensitivity of the findings to variations in this assumption.

To undertake this test, we calculated net present value estimates using real discount rates of 3 and 10 percent per annum. As can be seen, the social net present value changes in the opposite direction from the discount rate. Lower discount rates increase the present value of social benefits, out leave social costs

"increasing the discount rate from the 5 percent benchmark rate to 10 percent decreases the social net present value by almost $900 per

Corpsmember, although social net present value remains positive, $1,438.

Torfurther documentation, see Technical Report Q.

8 255 3

The at tuc sensitivity tests presented it. Table VIII.11 concern the estimation of the crime-reduction benefits. In particular, they examine the estimation of the reduction in arrests and the relative importance of the in-program and postprogram crime-reduction benefits. The benchmark procedure adjusts the interview arrest data to account for. unaerreporting. However, thestimate of underreporting is subject to some uncertainty and might not be entirely appropriate for the sample of youths enrolled in Job Corps (although larger underreporting is also plausible).11

The effect of this adjustment is illustrated by estimating net present value using the unadjusted self-reported data on arrests. The resulting net present value estimates exhibit the same pattern es the benchmark values, but the social net present value estimate is 50 percent smaller

(net present value from the Corpamember perspective rises because of a reduction in the estimate of foregone theft income).

The large in-program reduction in all types of arrests create social benefits that exceed $1,000 per Corpamember. Thee. effects-appear to be due to the intensive supervision provided by Job Corps, the legitimate alternatives provided to Corpsmembers while enrolled, and the lack of criminal opportunities at most Job Corps centers .2/ These bedefits are substantial, and we have strong confidence in our estimates of their value.

1/The underreporting estimatewas made by examining official records and interview data that used questions and survey techniques similar to those used in the JobOrps interviews. However, the interview data used in the validation study were for a sam'ple of slightly older ex- offenderi and ex-addicts.' Thua, while the results are the best'available for our purposes, they have a large potential for error.

2//a many eases where Corpamembers do commit crimes while enrolled in Job Corps, the costs of those crimes are included in center operating costs. To avoid double ,counting, the corresponding savings to the regular criminal just:ce system must, be included as a benefit.

4 256 284 rxring the postprogram period, the crime-reduction effects of Job Corps are

more erratic, with the benefits being generated as much byte shift in types

of crime as by reductions, in the overall level of crime. With less

confidence in the postprogram estimates of crime effects, it is useful to

assess their importance in the benefit-cost findings.The list row of

Table VIII.11 presents estimates of the net present value under the

assumption that postprogram crime benefits are zero.For the social and

non-Corpamember perspectives, this alternative assumption leadi tosizable

reductions in net present value. However, the resulting social estimate,

$464.per Corpsmember, is still positive which supports the finding of,

econceic efficiency even under this extreme assumption.

Finally, the assumption that the estimated increase in a

Corpsmember's total earned compensation kearnings plus fringe benefits)

represents a gain in social output should be examined.This assumption is

customary in benefit -oost analysis, but, under alternative assumptions,

earnings increases eight not represent ne* gains to society.The key

determinants of whether the earnings increase are sooial benefits are the

labor-market .xt in which Job Corps operates and the indirect program

effects tnat can arise in t semarketsJi

For Corpsmembers, any increase in their earnings is clearly a

benefit. However, if their earnings and employment gains affect other

workers, an increase in the total output produced might not occur at all

1/;ndirect labor=marketeffects, which are potentially complicAted and far-reaching, are dpcussed in.more detail in Technical Report Q, Kemper (1980), Johnson 01979). and, Hall t1979).

- 257 1 4

or might be magnified. One possible indirect labor-market effect is that

Corpsmembers displace other workers. In- the extreme, Job Corgi training might simply shuffle workers among a fixed number of jobs,with'no,net increase is output; in essence, the Job Corpsexperienceliould enable

Corpsmembers to move to the -front cif the job queue. In this case, torpsmembers would have higher earnings, but this gain would be. at the expense of non-Corpsmembers who-are displaced.

'The other extreme is that Job Corps training might allow

Corpsmembers to move from markets with an excess supply of labor to markets with an excess demand for labor. Withdrawing from an excess-supply $ market to participate in a program will not affect.total output, since any laborWiihdrawnwo id be replaced immediately by a previously unemployed worker.' From the perspective of society as a whole, the opportunity cost of Corpsmemberlabor during the progxamis zero in this case. When the

Corpsmember becomes employed in the excess- demand market, the social value would now equal the full amount of the Corpsmember's earning,* rather than

just'the gain in earnings. Thus, the costs are reduced and the benefits increase, such that the net social pretent value increases substantially.

Measuring the extent and direction of possible indirect labor-i market "effects is beyond the scope of this research effort. All employment

program evaluation's face decisions that pertain to these labor-market

effects; these decisions are all the more difficult because of the lack of

evidence on the magnitude of these_types of effects.We believe that the

benchmark assumption--that Job Corps increases the productivity of

Corpsmembers, and, thus, that the increase in their gross compensation

286

' 258, t 'a

represents a social gain--is the moat reasonable that can beoade in the

absence cf specific information about indirect labor-market effects.

'How'ever, the benchmark net present' value estimates gust be interpreted in

relation Co the possibility of indirect labor-market effects.

E.ZUMMANY,AND CONCLUSIONS

The principal issue analyzed in this chapter is ithether the

inveatment,in the,.Job Corps program is economically efficient in the sense

that it provides greater value to society than the value of resources.us,d

by Job Corps. Specifically, does society have more goods and services at

its disVosaltbecauseof the investment in Job Corps?The: findings of this

analysis, suggest that public investment in.Job Corps is ecopoiically .. e. efficient.. Our benchmark estimate indidates that the social value of

benefits in fiscal 1977 exceeds costs by over$2,300 per Corpaqember, or by

approximately 45-percent of costs. In addition, the program is found to be

efficient under a, wide range of alternative assumptions and estimates.

Because over 40,000 youths enrolled in Job Corps duripg_fiscal 1977, our

benchmark estimate indieaigez that the net social benefit exceeds $90

million for that year.

we estimate that over 50 percent of the social benefits are

generated by increases in thevalue of output produced by Corpsmembers

while they are inJobCorps and ffter they leave. Another.40,percent of

the social benefits are attributable to reductions in criminal actiwitkes

among Corpsmembers--particularlylarceny and robbery. These benefits from

redUctiOns in crime include reductions in personal injury, property damage,

stolen property, and criminal justice system costs and include substantial

reductions in crime while the'Corpsmembers are in Job Corps. The bulk of

the social costs are incurred from operating the program.

259 \I

While the analysis of social benefits and costs abstracts tram the

fact that members of society share disproportionately in the benefits and

coats, the equity effects of the program are important. As 6a result, we

ilsO analyzed the benefits and costar investments in Job Corp? from the

perspectives of both Corpsmembers ind all other members.of,soptety (i.e.,

non-Corpsiem6ers). Our benchmark diitribUtiOnal estimates iildloate that,

on average, Corpamembers receive a net benefit of $2,442.from 'Participating,

in Job Corps. We estimate that non- Corpamembersas a group incur a. nee,

cost of $115 per Corpsmember (or a few cents per-non-Corpsmember). 1 Approximately 70 percent of the benefits to Corpsmembers 4 accounted Vor by their increased earnings. The other major-benefits mike

the transfers they receive while theyare in Job` Corps. The major costs

: borne by Corpsmabers are the reduction in their transfer income and the

earnings they roreg0 while enrolled in Job Corps.

Non-Corpamembers receive over 0,600 per Corpsmember in benefits,

primarily from reductions in Corpsmembere criminal activities the use

of transfer programs. However, non-Corpsmembers incur almost all of the

costs for operating and administering the program, including a large

transfer to Corpamembers while they are enrolled in Job Corps.

Consequently, measured costa slightly exceed measured benefits from the non-

Corpsmember perspective.

. kstimating the present value of benefits and costa required numer-

ous assumptions and approximations. Alternative Ilsnefit-cost estimates

calculated for a wide range of assumptions confirm that Job Corps is an 1 economically efficient program. They suggest that social benefits will

exceed coats for Uob Corps, as long as displacement in the labor markets 4

2c.O' s. 288 that Corpsmembers enter is not severe and as long as the observed crime

reductions are at least minimally valued.

The benefit-cost results presented in this report are based on the

additional data from the third follow-up survey. These updated results are . very similar to those estimated in the ,Second Follow-0c Report (the social

net present value estimates are within 3 percent of each other). However,

because the more recent data indicate that social benefits exceed social

"...., costs without extrapolating benefits beyond the period covered by interview

data, we feel that more confidence Can be placed in the overall finding

that Job Corps,ls economically efficient. In fact, the new data suggest

that the social investment in Job Corps is paid back in approximately three years. They also indicate that the internal rate of return for social

investments in Job Corps is almost 18 percent per year (net of inflation),

eveir if no further benefits occur after the four-year period covered by our

data.

261 IX. GENERALIZABILITY OF THE FINDINGS

One goal of our evaluation was to provide a general statement about the overall effectiveness of Job Corps as an employment and training program for disadvantaged yduths. The statement was to be made on the basis of information obtained on the differences between a random sample of

. , Corpsmembers and a carefully selected comparison group. However, several issues that pertain to this strategy could possibly affect our ability to generalize the findings from the evaluation sample to the Job Corps population as it was in 1977 when the sample was drawn, as well as to potential Job Corps populations of the future:

`4' 13 our sample of Corpsmembers similar to the Job Corps population in 1977, to later Job Corps populations, and to more general populations of disadvantaged youths that might be of interest (at least similar enough to facilitte correct statistical inference*?

Has the Job Corps program changed in any major substantive ways since 19771

Has the social and economic background against which the Job Corps evaluation sample was observed changed in any ways that are likely to influence our estimates. of the effectiveness of Job Corps?

To what degree, are our estimates biased by our having used a comparison sample rather than a "true" control' group, or by other peculiarities of the snalyticei approach?

And, finally, wha, is the overall quality of the data used in the evaluation?

Each of these important questions will be discussed in turn in the

,. :1/44 remainder of this chapter.

2f)0 262 _ i)

A. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE SAMPLE

In previous reports we compared the percentage distributions for

several demographic characteristics of our Job Corps evaluation sample to

1 those for the Job Corps populations in 1977 and la prior and subsequent

1 years.liWe found that the evaluation sample is', on average, similar to

1 the 1977, prior, and subseqBent populations of Corpsmambers in terms of

sex, age, race/ethnicity, and educational background. Our sample shpuld be

very similar to the Job Corps population in 1977, since ours is a random

, sample of nearly one-third of this. population. Compared to prior and

subsequent years, as the 1980 Emolovment and.:Training Report of the

President concluded (pp. 37-38): ra" Characteristics of Job Corps enrollees have remained relatively constant over the years. In any 1 year, about 70 'percent of tje enrollees are male, and an equal Proportion represent racial minorities:- In addition, between 85 and 90 percent have not completed high school and about 50 percent read at a 6th-grade level or below (including 20 percent who are functionally illiterate).

It is reasonable to question further whether future generations r of Corpsmembers will be affected by the Job Corps program in ways similar

to our evaluation sample- -that is, can we expect future enrollees to

exhibit increased employability and earnings, and to derive the other

benefits that were found for oer evaluation sample?Because our

observations show no evidence that contradicts the underlying theory of the

traditional economic models of behavior testedrin our analysis, we have

1/See Rerachsky and Mallar (1978)and Mallar et al. (1980).

29i 263 ts

no reason to believe'tbat the behavior of future JobCorps participants

. will contradict this theory and thus, as compared with our evaluation a /sample, be affected in any qualitatively different way by the program. Of

course, it isunlikely that thu exactor nearly identical numericai

estimates of the effectiveness Job Corpewould be replicatid.

B. PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES

In 1977, the Job Corps program was mandated to double in size--from

22,000 program slots to 44,000._,However, after achieving over 86 percent

of this expansion (up to 41,000 slots in fiscal 1981), plans are. now being

considered to scale baclthe program and reduce the amount orprogram slots

to the earlier number of 22,000. The expansion 'entailed adding centers in

high-poverty, high-unemployment areas, and encouraging the enrollment of

women (especially those with children), Hispanics and American Indians,

handicapped individuals, and other target groups. However, as noted above,

the overall-demographic composition op; Job Corps changed very little

between fiscal'1977 and the present.

The education and training components of the program have been

enhanced somewhat by an expansion 'Of Job Corps opportunities--more

positions in junior colleges and, for individuals who had previously failed

to meet military admissions requirements, specialized preparation for

military service. In addition, effOrts have been mace to strengthen the

I/ ties between Job Corps and, other employment programs. It would be

difficult to imagine that any of these changes would havenegative effeCt

on ehe ability of Job Corps to improve employment opportunities for. e disadvantaged youths. In sum, the essence of the Job Corps program has not

changed since 1977, although some improvements have bien made that would

264

P:92 probably strengthen some of our overall findings onthe beneficial impacts' ' or Job Corps.

C. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGES

In terms of the'social and economic context against which the

program was set, the employment rate foAN ouths in the regular labor market

(i.e., other than special government proams for unemployed youths) has

not improved since the sample period, might even have become worse, and

does not look promising for the immedlite future. 'Economic fluctuations no

doubt affect Job Corps impacts, and this could be studied furthet using the

wira differences in edarmic conditions over time and across sites in our

samples. However, to some extent, this isa separate issue and one over

which Job Corps exercises no control. Generally, fiscal 1977 was

relatively typical of the recent labor experiences of disadvantaged p. youths. In addition, relatively constant Job Corps effects occur across

the four years of our postprogram obseTatioa. period, despite large

cyclical fluctuations intheanderlying economy and labor markets.

Furthermore., many more alternative employment and training programs

for disadvantaged youths existed between 1978 and 1980 than in 1977.

However, our analysis has shown that Job Corps had a larger impact on

?ming* than did other training' programs available to our sample, and that

it was an efficient social investment. (See Technical Report M for

. comparisons or Job Corps With other programs, and Chapter. VIII for tne most

up-to-date and comprehensive results for the benefit-cost' analysis.) We

conclude that, although the Job Corps program,has continued to grow and

change and the economy and the general plight of disadvantaged youths might

have become worse, our estimates of the benefits of Job corps participation

293. 265

o 41

can be generalized, at least in broadoimplicatiOns, to potential future

generations of Corpsdembers, and fright in fact be somewhat understated for

them due to program improvements.

D. THE VALIDITY OF THE COMPARISON SAMPLE STRATEGY

In a perfectly controlled experiment, individuals,,are randomly

'assigned either to a group that receives a treatment or to.a'control group

that receives no treatment. This randomization ensures that the between-

group differences measuredafter treatment can be-attributed to the treat.'

sent and.not to unobserveddifference* between the groups.. However,

randomization was not possible for the evaluation of am ongoing program in

the context of. Job Corps. Therefore, instead of using a true control

group, we selected a comparimin sample that matched our participant sample

as closely as possible.

A two-stage process was used to select comparison»group members.

,In the first.stage, fifteen areas of the country were chosen on the basis

of their similarity to the areas in which Corpsmembera lived, but in which

Job Corps (WA not recruitrextensively., In the second *stage, 100 youths at

IP each site were then selectdd from school drop-out and elAoyment-service

lists, to yield a sample of 70 percent young, recent dropouts, and.30 percent older dropouts who had been out of school longer (the assigned / selection probabilities ensured comparability in terms of educational

levels, age, race/ethnicity, etc.).

Regression analysis was used to Control for differences between the

participant and comparison samples with respect to various demographic and

_socioeconomic characteristics, suOh as, age, sex, race/ethnicity, education,

prior health, prior drug use, criminal history, and prior employment. I.

266 29 ).. vs .

Othereconometric techniques were used to control for unmeasured preprogram..

traitsCsuch as moti vation and innate employability. (See Chaptee III for

a more detailed discussion of the econometric methodology used in the

evaluation.)

Even though we were able control for inherent differences

between participants' and comparison group members with respect to both

, '-measurediling_mnseebOAd preprOgram charelt4gistics; we .were forced to make .

a second departure from the controlled experimental design.While partici-

pants were receiving the Job Corps *treatment," comparison-group members

were not treatment-free (many other employment and training programs were

,potentially available to them).. However, as mentioned earlier, we found

4 that participation in other education and training.mograms was not

substantial, and that Job Corps had a significantly larger impact on

earnings than other training programs available to our sample. Therefore,

we conclude that the comparison sample provided an adequate, although

somewhat nebulous, standard against which the effectiveness of Job Corps

could be measured.

a E. DATA, QUALITY

When analysis data are culled from survey interviews, data quality

always boils down to two questions. First, are the results biased by our

inability to interview certain individuals, either because they could not

be located or refused to be interviewed?Second, given that we are able to

interview an individual, howaccurate are the responses recorded for him

A or her?

An investigation into the,probleas associated with nonresponse to

Job Corps evaluation interviews showed that oveAll response rates were

Ai;

267 relatively high. Altogether, nearly 90 percent of the sample responded to

at least one follow-up interview and were thus available for t analysis

of postprogram behavior. Even though the response rate for Cor smembers 't was*as such as 15 percentage points lower than it was for comparison-group

members (e.g.; at second follow-up, when we did not attempt in-person

interviews for half of the Corpsmembers who could not be interviewed by

telephone). vie dic not find that nonresponsa led to biased estimates of the

A impadt of Job Corps on employment, earnings, or frequency of arrests. (For

details onthis investigation; see Technical Report L, "An Analysis of

Nonresponse to Job Corps Evaluation Interviews.") If anything, nonresponse A, adjustments tend to Show slightly larger impacts, han we have presented. s. It should also be noted that the second and third follow-up

interviews were administered to some individusla in person and to some by

telephone, whereas the baseline and first follol-up interviews were all

administered in person. Due to budget restrictions, the sample eligible

for second and third follow-up interviews were first attempted by

telephone. Then, for most of the sample,1" if a telephone interview could

not be completed, additional attempts were rade to interview them in per-

son. Previous studies that'compare the quality of data tram telephone

interviews with those from in-person interviews have found minimal

differences for the type of data that we collected. No substadt,

differences have been found in individuals' cooperation for theseYtwo modes Q- 0 liinthe second follow-up, in-peron attempts were scheduled for only one-half of the Job Corps group; however, in the third follow-up, in-person attempts were scheduled for everyone except those (15 percent). who lived in remote locations (see Technical Report P).

268 of interview, and the two different modes'do not appear to affect the

accuracy,or reliability of reporting to any great extent for the type of

data we.collected (see Groves, 1977; Rogers, 1976; and Colombotos, 1969).1/

Not surprisingly, we found that a combined telephone and in-person . , approach resulted. in suUstantially higher responie rates (an average of

approximately 25 percentage points more) than for a telephone contact only

/ .(see Technical Reports L and P).Furthermore, as mentioned above, nonres-

posse did not seem to lead to biased estimates of program'impacts.Final- , nonresponse was verrlow (almost, nonexistent, except for some

recall problems at 3e.seline). With the follow-up interviews, for example,

almost every data field was fully complete, ddipite both the large number

of questions`and the existence of several date items that served only as

interviewer checks.

- F. OVERALL

While the exact estimates and single.,numbers do not generalize very

well, we are relatively confident about the broad'Jemplications,ofour

findings for disadvantaged youths in general and for J ob Corps in I particular. The evaluation has largely been successful within its narrow

rrof objectives (including the development of innovative procedures for

fc&mearison-group methodologies). Furthermore, useful data have been

pkovided for additional reaearthon the difficult employment problems faced

by disadvantaged Youths.

0 1/The data quality appears similar for, our surveys, but' this. direct evidence is.somewhat doubtful, since respondents were not assigned randomly to telephone gland. in-person interviews.

0 269 lo

t, X. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Information 'obtained'in the baseline survey through th second

1 1

'follow-pp interviews indicated that the Job Corps program was successful in . .. c the sport run atachievihgitsprimary objective-to improve the economic

prospectsiof Corpsmembers--and that, on average, it appeared to be a I worthwhile investment of public funds. Or course, these two primary

findinga (especially the latter) were severely constrained by the

short length of that previous postprogram observation period (between 1i2

and 24 months, -with an average per Corpamember of'approximately 18 months)

and, hence, by the necessity of relying on imprecise extrapolation pro-

cedures tp judge the economic success of the program.

Thus, prior to the third follow-up, relatively little empirical . evidence exilted on the locgevity of the economic impact of the Job Corps

program on participants and its overall economic effect upon society.For

example, it was thought that(theeffects might deBline over time (as they ------:-/ had for some previous adult employment and education programs) or, in 4

t...contrast, grow further over time -- especially for a program such as Job . ltorps, whigh, by causing its part1olpanta to increase postprogrm- . /.. , . investments .n human Capital, could lead to future increases in eararigs. i:I.

. , Furthermore, the weak empirical evidence precluded a reliable, precise

projection of its. benefits into the future, and we could not place much

confidence in -the-results of the benefitgcoat findings.

Thus, the value of the third follow -up is obvious:occurring

nearly two,and a half years ago after the second follow-up survey, it

significantly extends the postprogrim observation period,,thereby-yielding.

0 298 270 t *.

Y a

a sufficient sample, a sufficient time period.of obsecviiion, ando.hence,

suffiCient information/data to ottain.more policy - relevant and reliable

empirical estimates of the effect of Jot Corps on participants..

With is wealth of information, numerous Findings have been

discussed in this report. These findings were based on estipates made-Of

the.difference between thd postprograw behavior of Corpsmembers,and what

their-behavior would have been had ihey'not participated in,Job Corps

(which includes alternative education, training, and work experience that

they for,' in favor of participating 141 the program), and included a

variety of impacts - -some significantsome insignificant. ,However, 4 throughout, they have been reported in detail to ensure that informed

policymakers can form their owjudgments and interpret the information in

alternative ways., The purpose .of this chapter is to summarize' our

discussion and to break down our evaluation into several areas that can be

thought of as highlighting the contents of the report: the longevity or

persistence of effects; the consistency of findings with the hypothesized:

A"effects of the program;. the most noteworthy effects; tht.clifferentiai

impacts of the program; the Sensitivity Of impact estimates to Alternative

econometric specificatiogs; and the timing, distribution, and findings of°

the benefit-cost analysis.

A. -LWEVITT OF EFFECTS

. . The positive overall impadts "generally persist tj2roughout the four

years of the postprogram observation pokod. The trend over theOrour-year .

, 0,, period (as shown in Figures 1 and' 2, and Table 1) appears to indicate

AMM increase in program benefits during the first. few months (eNDeciallY for

employment and earningi during the period of transition from center life to

299. 271 4

ea 1 1

4 re-entering the regular labor market), and then relatively stable effects

,throughout the rest of the',ebur-year period.

However; the evidence is mixed as to,whether the program effects

were growing.or shrinkingtowIrd the end of the observation period. Viten

. . only civllian jobs are considered and a simple limier time, trend is

...... assrmed fOr the economy in general; the empirical estimates shows

.. . . substantial shrinkage o'r the employmentend earnings effects fon the fourth aor . 4 postprograd year., However, when military jobs arewincluded (as we believe

. 'b. . they should be) and better account is taken of the tire trends in the

economy, the employment affects are relatively constant. for the fourth

postprogram year, and the earnings effects $bow a sizable (21 percent) , s . growth. 'Furthermore, for Maiee--the largest FrOup of COrpsmembers (70

, oi P ' .

percept or all Corpsmembers)--we have adequate o-nervations-to extend our .

analysis turtb :r, from itt to-51 postprogrmemonths: We find a significant

upturn in the estimated effectsrfor males withrespect to both employment

' and earnings during that time,period. ,ThroUgh month US,* the estimated

7 'effects for females without childrenare similar on,average to males, but

PO, are more erratic; the estimated effects for females with children, the

: . smallest grO0p, are much lower and more erratic than males.) In light of

. . allthis, we believe that the most prudent conclusion about the longevity . of Job Corps effects is that they persist at a relatively stable rate from

approximately three months.aftei termination until the end of the four-year

observation period; beyond that point, our abiltti"to-extrapolate is very

. limited.

. 272t-/ 0.0 .-"

2 ' ' \L

B. CONSISTENCY OF FINDINGS WITH HYPOTHESIZED CFFECTS

The estimated effects of Job Corps on former participants'

poetprogram behavior are generally consistent with hypothesized economic

impacts and the primary goal of the program--to improve the economic

prospects of Corpamembers. During the four postprogram years, we find that

Job Corps is at. least moderately successful in achieving its desired

effects of (1) increasing employment and earnings, (2) improving future

labor-market opportunities through work experience, military service, .

higher education and training, better health, and geographic mobility, (3)

reducing dependence on welfare assistance and other public Lransfers, and

(4) reducing criminality.

C. NOTEWORTHY EFFECTS

In terms of statistical significance and size, some of the most

",---iimportantimpacts of Job Corps on the behavior of former participants

(on a per-Corpamember basis and including military jebti)tgp (1) an

increase in employment of nearly four weeks per year, (2) an increase in

earnings of over $600 per-year, (3) a very substantial increase in the

probability of obtaining a high school diploma or its equivalent, (4)

higher college attendance, (5) a decrease in high school attendance

associated with more high school degrees, (6) better health, with a

reduction in serious filth problems of over one week per year on average,

(7) a reduction in the receipt of financial welfare assistance amounting to

over two weeks per year on average, and (8) a reduction in the receipt of

Unemployment Insurance of.nearly one week per year. The crime effects are

erratic over the pcetprogram peri6d, yet, on average, exhibit little over-

all decline (after a large decline during the program) but a shift from

more to less serious crimes (fewer thefts and'more traffic offenses).

30173

1 4

D. DIFFERENTIAL IMPACTS

Differential impacts among Corpsmembirs are found to be associated with sex and child responsibility. Relatively larger impacts for males are found for the. probability of being in the military service (more than doubled by the end of our observation period) and the receipt of Unemploy- ment Insurance, while relatiVely larger impacts for females who have no children present are found for education, health, and the receipt of welfare. The estimated Job Corps impacts for females who have children living with them are generally much less positive than for either males or females without children. This can possibly be attributed to delays in childbirth among Corpswomen, so that they are more likely to be faced temporarily with labor-market constraints from pregnancy (which also increases their reporting of health problems) and from having Eery young children during the period of postprogram observation.

Differential impacts are also found among categories of program completion. A substantial, positive correlation is found between the estimated Job Corps impacts and the proportion of the Job Corps program comtleted. Program completers consistently benefit the most, Particularly in terms of employment, earnings, and welfare dependence (more than double

the overall impacts). Early program dropouts are found to benefit little or not at all. Furthermore, these differential impacts by completion category seem to be attributable in part to the effect of remaining in the program longer and completing the program, which indicates the-potintial for additional benefits to the program from increasing participants' lengths of stay and obtaining more completions.

274 .302 E. ROBUSTNESS OF IMPACT ESTIMATES

In checking the sensitivity of our findings to alternative econometric specifications, we find that (1) adding controls for differences in marital status (even pre-enrollment values) makes the estimates consistently more favorable for Job Corps among all three major sex and child-responsibility groups (males, females with children, and females without children present), (2) adding controls for differences' n the age composition of children makes the findidts much more positive for females with children, and (3) not controlling for differences between-the

Job Corps andcomparisongroups makes the findings much less favorable for males, much more favorable for females with children, and barely chinos the findings at all for females without children.

F. BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE PROGRAM

Alternative benefit-cost estimates have been made for a wide range of assumptions. A sensitivity analysia based on this range of alternatives generally confirms that Job Corps is an economically efficient program. As long as displacement in the labor markets that Corpsmembers enter is not severe and the observed crime reductions are minimally valued; Job Corps is estimated to provide net economic benefits to society.

1. Tigiagstrligggata

The estimated timing of benefits suggests that the average social investment per Corpsmember is paid back in approximately three years. With the estimated benefits for the first four postprogram years, Job Corps has an internal rate of return of approximately 18 percent under the assumption that no further benefita occur after that point.

303 275 2. The Distribution_ of Benefits

In assessing the distribution ofbenefits and coats, we find a net transfer from non-Corpsmembers as a group (everyone in society other than

Corpamembera) to Carpsmembers. The primary economic benefits to

Corpemembera are derived from increased earnings (approximately 70 percent of the benefits) and transfers received while they are enrolled in Job

Corpi. The primary economic benefits Lo non-Corpsmembera are derived from reductions in Corpamemberst criminal activities, Corpsmemberst reduced-uae of transfer programa, and increaaed tax payments.

3. Numerical Findings

The flndinge gleaned from a,comprehensive evaluation of the Job

Corps program suggest that the program is a worthwhile public investment.

Our benchmark estimate is that benefits to society exceed costs by over

$2,300 per Corpsmember.(in fiscal 1977 dollars), or, equivalently, by,' approximately 45 percent of coats. Thus, Job Corps is an economically efficient use of public resources in the sense that the program provides a greater value to society than the value of the resources it consumes.

Because over 40,000 youths enrolled in Job Corps during fiscal 1977, our benchmark estimate of the net aociaL benefit for the entire program exceeds

$90-million for that year.

We estimate that over 50 percent of the social benefits are derived fromthe increaaed value of output produced by Corpamembera. Another 40 percent of the social benefits are attributable to reductions in criminal activities among Corpamembers, particularly murder, larceny, and robbery

(including substantial reductions of these and burglary crimes during the program).

276 304 J

The benefit-cost findings based on the additional data from the

third follow-up interview are very close to those estimated in the econcl

I9119w-Un Report (the social net present value estimates are now higher,

but by less than 3 percent). However, because benefits are now estimated

to exceed costs without extrapolating benefits into the future, we feel

that more confidence can be placed in the overall finding that Job Corps is

an economically efficient investment.

G. SUMMATION

While the estimates presented above-are not exact, and while any

single number will not generalize very well, after a careful analysis we

are relatively confident about the broad implications of our findings for

disadvahtaged youths in general and for the Job Corps program in

particular.

30t;LO

277 REFERENCES

Anhenfelter, Orley. "Estimating the Effect of Training Programs on Earnings."glaisiuggrawituansLataturjau60, 1978.

Avery, Robert S. "'Regression Program AVETRAN." Carnegie-Mellon University- Working Paper no. 15-75-76, September 1975.

Barnow, Burt S., Glen G. Cain, and Arthur S. Goldberger. *Issues in the Analysis of Selection nee.* Paper presented at the 1978 Meetings of the Econometrics Society, Chicago, Illinois, August 1978.

Borus, Michael E., John P. Brenner, and Sidney Rosen.. *A Benefit-Cost' Analysis of the Neighborhood Youth Corps: The Out.of-Sehool*Program in'Indiana." Jour al oLHuman Resourceaj. Spring 19;0.

Cain, Glen G. "Benefit-Cost Estimates for Job Corps.*Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper no. 9-68, Madison, Wisconsin, 1968.

Colombotos, J. "Personal Versus TelephontInterviews: Effects on Responses.* Public Health Renorts.September 1969.

Employment and Training Renorter. Reference File Supplements, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, January 3, 1979, and January 30, 1979.

Freeman, Richard B. and David A. Wise. The Youth_ Labor Market Problem: najaramsaust,AsConseeuepces. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.

Goldstein, Jon H. "The Effectiveness of Manpower Training Programs: A Review of Research on the Impact on the Poor."Paper no3 of ItailigkAn..2111Wajliallusu_Subcommittee on Fiical Policy, Joint Econorio'Committee of the Congress of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.

Gramlich, Edward M. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Government Programs. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1981.

Greenwood, P., et al.frsigizatisinaAdjarEtimijahnsivatAajim Angeles Count?: A Policy Pemective. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, 1973.Waihington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1973.

Groves, Robert. *An Experimental Comparison of National Telephone and Personal Interview Surveys.'In the American Statistical Association 1Q77 Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section. 1977.

306 Hi-ift3, LOUIS, and associates. mvev x-Job Corpsmen New York: -Louis Harris Associates, April " 9.

Heckman, James J. "Sample Bias as a Specification Ernor." Leonometrica. 47, January 1979.

Kemper, Peter, David Long, auld Craig Thornton. "The Supported Work 1 Evaluation: Final Benefit-Cost Analysis."Princeton: Mathamatica Policy Research, Inc., 1979.

Kerachsky, Stuart,.and. Charles Mallar. "Optimal Design of Yrograi Evaluations." In Papers and Proceed)nas of the American Statistical Aasoalation Social Statistics Section, 1977.

Kerachsky, Stuart, and'Charles Mallar. "Evaluation of the Economic Impact of the Job Corps Program: Interim Report."Princeton: MPR, 1977.

KePachsky, Stuart, and Charles Mallar. "Evaluation of the Economic Impact of the Job Corps Program Special Report: ,An Examination of Job Corps Participation." Princeton: Mathematics Policy Research, Inc., 1978. (Reprinted in ti 1 1 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Officeof Youth Programs, 1979.)

Kershaw, David, Charles Mallar, and Charles Metcalf."Evaluation of the Economic Impact othe Job Corps Program: Technical, Study Design.*

Princeton: MPR, 1976. ,

LevitanSar A., and Benjamin Johnston. TheJob Corns:A Social ajiarjasaLthaLlioziga, Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.

Maddala,es. "The Use of Variance Components Models in Pooling Cross - Section and Time Series Data."Econometrica. 39, March 1971.

Maddala, G.S., and Lung -Fei Lee. "Recursive Models with Qualitative Endogenous4Variables." Annals of Economia and Social Measurement. 5, 1976.

Mallar, Charles. "Alternative Econometric Procedures for Program Evaluations: Illustrations from an Evaluation of Job Corps."In the American Statistical. Association 12131rassagiagasiLtataaalalasaal .Economic Statistics 1979.

Mallr,.Charleset al. "Evaluation of the Economic Impact of the Job "orps Program: first Follow-up Report." Princeton:MPR, 1978. (Reprinted in Assessments of the Job Corps Performance and Impacts. Washington, D,C.: U.S: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administra- tion, Office of Youth Programs, 1979.)

3a7 279

11%;

4 1

Mallar, Charles et al. "Evaluation of the Economic Impact of the Job Corps Program: Second Follow-up Report." Princeton: KPH, 190. (Reprint- ed as The Lasting Impacts of Job Corps Participation. Washington, D.C.:- U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administrate Lion, Office of Youth Programs, 1980.)

Manpower Demonstration Researoh Corporation. Summary of the Operating ExatrizzacansLaratiataraL_HisblistaLaLlIcairsLinicAL-thit liatismaLlansatesLifarILLtagnatzatam New York: Manpower Demonstration Research-Corporation, 1979.

Maynard, Sbedea. "Supported Work: Impacts for Young School Dropouts." Princbtos: MPR, 1979.

Natidhal Gommission for Manpower Policy. mictuumajszkrttathl

,1 I 2x! -11 ! Cz 4 1 .1 Policy* AnLAssessment of CETA.,Washington, D.C. * National Com4ssion for Manpower Policy, Report No. 7, May 1978.

Nerlove,1MarcL. "Further Evidence on the Estimation of Dynamic Economic Re4tions froma Time Series of Cross Sections." Econometrics. 39, Marph 1971a. ,

NerlOveiMarc L. "A Note on Error 'Components Models." ..ponometrica. 39, March 1971b. . . i Pechman; Joseph A., and Benjamim A. Okner. Who Bears the Tax Burden? W 4ington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1974.

kab.1114 Gerald D. ,- the_it - ,,o rolects in Cincinnati and Detroit. Special Reference to Summer-Summe ,Cilly_iulgLX119jamg_facgiaggiu Philadelphia: National Analysts, lino., February 1969.

. i Rogers, T.F.'n/hterviews by Telephone and In Person: Oualityof Responses and Field Performance." Public opinion Ouarterlv. XI, 1976.

Schore, Jennifer, Rebecca Maynard, and Irving Piliavin. !The Accuracy of. 'Self - Reported Arrest Data." Princeton: .Mathematica Policy Research, ,Inc., 1979.

Somers, Gerald G., and Ernst W. Stromsdorfer. ACost- Effeotiveness Study of the In-School and Summer Halschborhood- Youth Corps. Madison, Wisconsin: Industrial Relations Research Institute, University of Wisconsin, July 1970.

U.S. Department of Labor.inaatmentaaticatniaiLangar_sfthe. President. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, 1977-1981.

U.S. Department of Labor. .The Expansion and Enrichment of the Job Corps. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1978.

280 308

4,. I

U.S. Department of Libor. Job Corms in Brill'. FY-77 Washington, D.C.: O.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1978 (and other years).

U.S. Department of Labor.rjuipmemAggaga_a_thlinidslenta. Washington; D.C.: U.S. Department of Lhbor, 1971.

U.S. Department of Labor. I Planning_Charter for the Job Corps. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1978.

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Heroin-Related_ Crimes. Washington, D.C.: Drug Enforcement Administration, 1977.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 112kSaiinaaMialLiargrzastlianEllailallita

I =.. 11 Report to the Congress of the United States by theComptroller General, Washington, D.C., July 9, 1979. 0 Wallace, T. Dudley, and Ashig Hussain. "The Use of Error Components Models in Combining Cross Section with Time Series Data." ponometrica 37, January 1969.

Woltman, Harry R., and William W. u..1.ton. *Evaluating the War oh Poverty: The Feasibility of Benefit-Cost Analysis for Manpower Programs." Prepared for the General Accounting Office. Bethesda, Maryland: Resource Management Corporation, March' 1968.

281 309