- Log in to post comments
All customers who were eligible to receive training funded by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) during the study intake period were randomly assigned by study staff as their names were submitted by site staff on a rolling basis. (To be eligible for services, clients first had to consent to participate in the study.) Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the Guided Customer Choice group (considered the treatment group in this review), the Structured Customer Choice group (considered the comparison group in this review), or the Maximum Customer Choice group (considered in other reviews on this site). Researchers randomly selected a sample of cases for a follow-up survey that was conducted an average of seven years after random assignment. The survey sample included 1,598 cases in the Guided Customer Choice group (which had a 67.7 percent response rate), 1,612 cases in the Structured Customer Choice group (which had a 68.6 percent response rate), and 1,590 cases in the Maximum Customer Choice group (which had a 67.8 percent response rate).
Enrollment in the study sample took place from December 2001 to March 2004. The long-term follow-up survey was conducted between August 2009 and May 2010 (on average, seven years after random assignment).
The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Local workforce agencies provided services and funding for training. Individuals could obtain training from multiple public and private locations.
Dislocated workers and adults (18 years of age and older) eligible for WIA training assigned to the Guided Customer Choice group received mandatory weekly counseling that guided them to appropriate training selections given their skills and experience. Guided Customer Choice participants had to complete six mandatory counseling activities to select a training program and then had to assess whether they had enough resources to complete the training. Counseling sessions covered training options in the customer’s selected occupation and the feasibility of customer’s training selection Counseling was less intensive compared to counseling provided to the Structured Consumer Choice group (that is, counselors did not direct participants toward particular occupations, and participants had fewer mandatory counseling activities). Counselors could not reject client’ selection of training sessions under this group. Individuals in the Guided Customer Choice group also received a fixed individual training account (ITA) established for their area ($3,000 to $5,000). ITAs covered direct training costs and other training-related expenses.
Dislocated workers and adults (18 years of age and older) eligible for funding for training through WIA and assigned to the Structured Customer Choice group received intensive, mandatory weekly counseling. Counselors directed clients to training selections that maximized return on investment and could reject client selections that did not do so. Individuals in this group could also use an ITA to cover the full cost of training (up to $8,000). Counseling sessions covered high-return training, high-wage occupations that were in demand, training options in customer’s selected occupation, returns-to-training for prospective programs, and the feasibility of customer’s training selection.
None
Approximately 73 percent of Structured Customer Choice sample members and 71 percent of Guided Customer Choice sample members participated in a training program within three years after random assignment. Of those who entered a training program, members of the Structured Customer Choice group received counseling and arranged training for an average of 20 weeks after random assignment and then participated in their selected training program for an average of 31 weeks. Those in the Guided Customer Choice group who participated in training received counseling and arranged training for an average of 18 weeks after random assignment and then participated in training for an average of 29 weeks.
The evaluation was conducted in eight sites (Phoenix, AZ; Maricopa County, AZ; Bridgeport, CT; Jacksonville, FL; Atlanta, GA; northeast Georgia; North Cook County, IL; and Charlotte, NC). Regional workforce boards and human services departments provided program services.