Submitted by user on
Study Name
Maximum Customer Choice (as compared with Structured Customer Choice)
Study Sharepoint ID
3021.02R
Evaluation name
Individual Training Account (ITA) Experiment
Strength of Evidence Tag
Reason for the Rating

This study received a low study quality rating because it did not use a method for addressing missing data that is known to limit bias.

This study received a low study quality rating because it did not use a method for addressing missing data that is known to limit bias.

Settings in which the intervention was studied
Count age
0
Count Young Adults
0
Count Hard-to-employ
0
Count Disability
0
Count chronically ill
0
Count mentally ill
0
Count substance dependent
0
Count formerly incarcerated
0
Count Justice involved
0
Count limited work history
0
Count homeless
0
Count immigrants
0
Count refugees
0
Count veterans
0
Count female
0
Count Male
0
Count Any postsecondary education
0
Count With a high school diploma or GED
0
Count No high school diploma or GED
0
Count Married
0
Count Parents
0
Count Single Parents
0
Count Non-Custodial Parents
0
Count Employed
0
Count Self employed
0
Count Unemployed
0
Count Disconnected/discouraged workers
0
Count general low-income population
0
Count Very low income (as classified by the authors)
0
Count welfare population
0
Count long-term welfare recipients
0
Count Asian
0
Count Black or African American
0
Count Hispanic or Latino of any race
0
Count American Indian or Alaska Native
0
Count Pacific islander
0
Count White
0
Count More than one race
0
Count Unknown race
0
Percent female
56.00
Percent Any postsecondary education
34.00
Percent No high school diploma or GED
6.00
Percent With a high school diploma or GED
95.00
Percent Married
41.00
Percent Parents
54.00
Percent Employed
9.00
Percent general low-income population
100.00
Percent Black or African American
39.00
Percent Hispanic or Latino of any race
10.00
Percent White not Hispanic
45.00
Percent Unknown or not reported
8.00
Mean age
41.00
Group formation formatted

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.) They were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the Maximum Customer Choice group (considered the treatment group in this review), the Structured Customer Choice group (considered in other reviews on this site), or the Guided Customer Choice group (considered the comparison group in this review). For this study, researchers randomly selected a sample of cases for a follow-up survey that was conducted seven years, on average, after random assignment. The survey sample included 1,590 cases in the Maximum Customer Choice group (which had a 67.8 percent response rate), 1,612 cases in the Structured Customer Choice group (which had a 68.6 percent response rate), and 1,598 cases in the Guided Customer Choice group (which had a 67.7 percent response rate).

Study timing formatted

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).

Study funding formatted

The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Implementing organization formatted

Local workforce agencies provided services and funding for training. Individuals could obtain training from multiple public and private locations.

Treatment condition formatted

Dislocated workers and adults (18 years and older) eligible for WIA training who were assigned to the Maximum Customer Choice group did not automatically receive counseling (from counselors in local workforce agencies) but could request it to guide them to appropriate training selections given their skills and experience. They received a fixed Individual Training Account (ITA) established for their area ($3,000 to $5,000). Customers were not required to participate in any additional activities, but counseling was available if requested.

Comparison condition formatted

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.

Mandatory services formatted

None

Timing of study formatted

About 73 percent of Structured Customer Choice sample members and 77 percent of Maximum 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 they participated in their selected training program for an average of 31 weeks. Those in the Maximum 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.

Setting details formatted

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.

Earliest publication year
2006
Most recent publication year
2011
Manuscripts
Check edits flag
No