Page images

Since the post-training period was one of rising unemployinent,

it is reasonable to assume that noarly all of the labor force

participation and employment stability gains were contributions of

the BIDTA participation.

In fact, just maintaining the same employ

ment levels would have been an achievement and the actual gain over

what would otherwise have happened may be even greater than shown. However, despite the rising unemployment, 1969, 1970 and 1971

were periods of upward wage trends.

It is problematical what the

impact of inflation was on the lower levels of the wage structure

represented by the post-training jobs. The average percentage wage

increase for the Institutional enrollees vas twenty-one porcent

compared to twenty percent for OJT. An average of 20 months clapsed betweon the micipoints of the pre- and post-training periods. Overall

national wage levels having increased an average of seven percent

per year, twelve percent is not an unlikely figure to attribute to

general wage increases for the 20-month period.

That being the case, fifty-two percent of the wage increases for Institutional

trainees and firty-five percent of the 'wage increases .

for OJT enrollees may be attributable to general wage trends which mighi

have occurred in the absence of the program.

However, most of the

annual income increase resulted from labor force participation and

employment stability impacts. Deducting the estimated contribution for general wage trends would still leave the annual income ircrease

attributable to Institutional training at $1621 and that from OJT at



The increased labor force participation which is the most inportant source of income gain is also the source of a possible uplare!

76-736 O - 72 - pt, 3 - 13

bi.2s, given the age distribution among enrollees produced by high

levels of youth unemployment.

Many of those not working or seeking

work or working sporadically before enrolling in MDTA may have been

[blocks in formation]

ing out the income gains and the source of the gains by age provides

some insight into the influence of the aging process.

All age groups

gained from each influence but the 19-21 age group gained most fron

increased labor force participation (with the exception of the 15 and

[blocks in formation]

Interesting aberations are the gains of the older group from

labor force participation after Institutional training and waye

improvements after OJT.

The aging process is a contributor but

apparently not the most important explanatory variable in the total

income gain.

Costs of the Income Gains

No data was gathered on the costs

incurred in training the enrollecs in the samplc, precluding a valid

cost benefit analysis.

Ilowever, an approximation can be reached by

comparing the income gains of the enrollees to the average per trainee

expenditures of the total ADTA program (Table 3).

[blocks in formation]

These are only the federal budgetary costs. Excluded are costs to state and local government not subsidized from ID'TA budgets. Also excluded are personal costs to the cnrollees such as foregone earnings and out-of-pocket costs incident to training. However, with the

average annual pre-training income of Institutional cnrollces at

$2570 and the average training period of about four months, foregone

earnings would have anounted to only $823.

Institutional training

stipends of between $15 and $50 a week, approximately those that

OJT enrollees,

prevail, should have compensated for any income loss. of course, received pay while training.

[blocks in formation]

Includes part-time and other training in addition to Institutional and OJT.

Includes stipends constituting over one-làlf of total costs.

[blocks in formation]






$20,198 $16,647





$ 8,964

$15,918 $13, 120




$ 9,953

$ 8, 203

$13,795 $11,369

Because of the possible lack of congruence between the benefits

to a sample enrolled during one year and the costs occurring to the

entire program over its whole life, it would not be wise to attributo an undue validity to this benefit-cost relationship. At the same tine the general magnitudes of the relationships are not without significance.

Costs for any particular enrollce are a one-time phenomenon, whereas

income gains are a flow res vry:ng persistently for some undetermined

period of time.

To achieve

*id comparison, it is necessary to

derive a current value for the expected future incone strean by discount

ing the annual income gain by the opportunity cost of the rate of

return to be expected from alternative uses of the same funds and estinating the number of years one expects the incremental incorno to

« PreviousContinue »