This paper reports only upon the tentative findings of a

recent follow-up survey of 5,169 of the total 220,000 individuals who were enrolled in MDTA projects during 1969. Though the largest study to date with the most representative sample, it will not still controversy, primarily because it had no control group. Posttraining employment and earnings are comparable only with pretraining experience and tempered by prevailing trends as an estimate of what would have happened to the individuals had they not had the MDTA opportunity.

The tentative findings have already generated some controversy among the restricted number who have reviewed them. None have faulted the basic methodology. Finding and interviewing over 80 percent of the selected sample more than a year after enrollment is reasonable assurance against bias. Income reported by individual respondents was checked against Social Security records, recording general agreement. Given the nature of the social security data, there is no reason to prefer one source over the other in the limited situations where the data disagree. The reason for the controversy seems to be primarily some reluctance to believe the actual outcome of MDTA training was as positive as the data reflect. Perhaps because of its "establishment" base, relying upon the joint efforts of the public employment service, the vocational education system and (for OJT) the employers, it seens difficult to believe that it could serve well the disadvantaged who are the prime targets of current manpower programs.

The following are the key findings of that study:

1. Annual income gains of participants averaged over $1800 for institutional trainces and over $1600 for those enrolled in

OJT.

2.

Income gains of disadvantaged enrollees were, on the

average, more than double those of the non-disadvantaged, even though the latter had higher pre- and post-training incomes.

3. After these substantial income improvements, the average Institutional enrollee was earning $3,400 per year, and the OJT enrollee was carning $3,800 per year following training. Both incomes hovered near the top range of poverty incomes depending upon family size and location. Therefore, the income climb for the typical en

rollee was from deep poverty level to its upper margins. Since the study had no control group, it was impossible to determine how much income gain occurred as a result of the MDTA participation rather than other forces. However, it was possible to estimate the extent to which the income gains were derived from a combination of increased labor force participation, improved employment stability and higher wages, that being the order of their importance. A substantial portion of the wage gains may be attributable to general wage trends. Since the post-training period was one of climbing unemployment, it is likely that the increase in labor force participation and employment stability are attributable to program participation.

4.

Institutional MDTA training served as a successful port of entry or reentry into the labor market for youth, women and others who had been out of the labor force.

5. Annual income gains varied by personal and household characteristics, but all groups gained substantially.

6.

Completers experienced approximately three times the annual income increases of those who dropped out of training, but even the latter profited substantially from the experience.

7. Typically, the greater the length of training the higher the expected annual income gain. This relationship was strongest for institutional enrollees.

The

8. The more skilled occupations tended to have the highest payoffs. Construction trades and health services led the field. extent to which MDTA programs provided a "port of entry" into the labor market gave female occupations an edge on income gains from increased labor force participation, while male occupations experienced the greatest wage gains.

9. Skill center training produced greater improvements in employment stability and wage rates than individual referral or class size projects. On the other hand, individual referrals produced the greatest increase in labor force participation.

MDTA's Impact on Annual Income A few words of explanation are necessary to understand the origin of the estimate that an enrollee gained on the average $1876 and $1614 per year as a result of enrollment in Institutional and OJT programs respectively.

One-third of the Institutional enrollees and ten percent of those in OJT held no jobs at all in the pre-training period. Among these were the more than one out of five who neither worked nor looked for work at any time during that period. Another seven percent looked for

work only sporadically, while only one out of twenty of this group were looking for work all or most of the time during the pre-training period. Therefore, the "no job" group as a whole reasonably approximates a condition of being out of the labor force. Among this group, two-thirds were female but there were no significant concentrations by age, race or education.

Annual incomes were estimated by combining average hourly wage rates when working with the proportion of available time worked during the year. For instance, a $2.00 an hour wage rate when employed only seventy-five percent of the time is the exact income equivalent

of a full-time job at $1.50. If either condition prevailed for a full working year of approximately 2,000 hours, the resulting annual income would be $3,000. Differences between those annual incomes for the preand post-training periods represent the best measure of program out

cones.

It is instructive to know the extent to which the estimated gains occurred from increased labor force participation, improved employment stability and higher wages.

Comparing the pre- and post-training incomes of only those who held at least one job in cach of the two periods results in an annual income gain of $841 for Institutional training and $921 for OJT. The latter figures represent a composite of improved employment stability and higher wages. Subtracting these gains from the total improvement in annual income leaves the remainder $1035 for Institutional training and $693 for OJT--as the portion of the gains in annual income occurring from the employment in the post-training period of those not employed in the pre-training period; that is, the impact of increased labor force participation. Whereas only sixtysix percent of the Institutional enrollees had at least one job in the pre-training period, ninety percent did so after training, despite generally rising unemployment. Comparable figures for OJT were ninety percent before training and ninety-six percent after.

The wage impact can be calculated by multiplying the proportion of available time worked during the pre-training period by the hourly wage gain--$0.37 for Institutional and $0.28 for OJT and multiplying by 2000 hours. The product estimates what annual income would have increased after deducting the labor force participation and hourly wage contributions, had the same average number of hours per year been worked but had been paid for at the higher rate. The result is $350 for Institutional and $416 for OJT. The remainder, $491 for

Institutional and $505 for OJT, can be attributed to improved employment stability--that is, reduced unemployment for those already in the labor force.