Since the post-training period was one of rising unemployment, it is reasonable to assume that noarly all of the labor force participation and employment stability gains were contributions of the MDTA 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 was twenty-one percent compared to twenty percent for OJT. An average of 20 months clapsed between the midpoints 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 fifty-five percent of the wage increases. for OJT enrollees may be attributable to general wage trends which might 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 increase attributable to Institutional training at $1621 and that from OJT at

$1,336.

The increased labor force participation which is the most important source of income gain is also the source of a possible upward

76-736 - 72 - pt. 3 13

bias, 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 youth just entering the labor force. The mere process of aging would be expected to add stability to their employment. For them, the

Break

added contribution of MDTA participation is not ascertainable. 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 from increased labor force participation (with the exception of the 45 and older group. (Table 2)

Interesting aberations are the gains of the older group from labor force participation after Institutional training and wage 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 enrollees in the sample, precluding a valid cost benefit analysis. However, an approximation can be reached by comparing the income gains of the enrollees to the average per trainee expenditures of the total MDTA program (Table 3).

Also

to state and local government not subsidized from MDTA budgets. excluded are personal costs to the enrollees such as foregone earnings and out-of-pocket costs incident to training. However, with the average annual pre-training income of Institutional enrollees at $2570 and the average training period of about four months, foregone earnings would have amounted to only $823. Institutional training stipends of between $45 and $50 a week, approximately those that prevail, should have compensated for any income loss. OJT enrollees, of course, received pay while training.

b/

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

Includes stipends constituting over one-half of total costs.

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 attribute an undue validity to this benefit-cost relationship. At the same time 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 rerurg persistently for some undetermined period of time. To achieve : walid comparison, it is necessary to derive a current value for the expected future income stream by discounting the annual income gain by the opportunity cost of the rate of return to be expected from alternative uses of the same funds and estimating the number of years one expects the incremental income to