Tuning In to Local Labor Markets: Findings from the Sectoral Employment Impact Study

“P/PV used an experimental research design to bring as much rigor as possible to the following question: Do mature sector-focused programs result in significant labor market gains for low-income, disadvantaged workers and job seekers? More specifically, we strived to determine whether such programs raise the earnings of program participants and whether participants were more likely to find employment and work more consistently. We also wanted to explore whether program participants obtained higher-quality jobs. For example, were participants more likely to earn higher wages? Did participants find jobs with better access to benefits? Further, we set out to explore whether specific groups of people, such as welfare recipients or young adults, benefit from participation. We also sought to understand the programmatic, contextual and individual factors that contribute to these outcomes” (p.i–ii). (Abstractor: Author)

“Key findings: 1. Participants in sector-focused programs earned significantly more than control group members, with most of the earnings gains occurring in the second year. Participants in sector-focused training earned 18 percent—about $4,500—more than controls over the 24-month study period” (p.iv). 2. “Participants in sector-focused programs were significantly more likely to work and, in the second year, worked more consistently than control group members…. During the second year, program participants were significantly more likely than controls to work all 12 months (52 percent versus 41 percent)—an indication that sector-focused training programs helped participants find steadier employment” (p.iv). 3. “Program participants were significantly more likely to work in jobs with higher wages…. The likelihood of ever working a job that paid at least $11 an hour was 14 percentage points higher for program participants (59 percent) than controls (45 percent) over the entire study period and 13 percentage points higher (55 percent for program participants and 42 percent for controls) in the second year” (p.iv). For example, "heathcare-track participants, particularly those who pursued Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and Certified Medical Assistant (CMA) certificates and construction-track participants landed jobs paying the highest wages (p. 25). Additionally, "female WRTP participants earned $7,159 (or 30 percent) more than female controls over the course of the study. African American participants earned $4,594 (or 18 percent) more than their control group counterparts.... Formerly incarcerated participants earned in excess of $8,000 (or 44 percent) more than formerly incarcerated controls" (p.26). 4. “Program participants were significantly more likely to work in jobs that offered benefits.... By the beginning of the second year, and continuing through the end of the study period, the likelihood that program participants were working in jobs that offered benefits was between 50 and 60 percent, as compared with controls, whose likelihood ranged between 40 and 50 percent over the same period” (p.iv). 5. “ For each subgroup analyzed, program participants had significant earnings gains as compared to their counterpart controls” (p.v). Common programmatic elements: 1. “Strong organizational capacity—with the ability to adapt” (p.vi). 2. “A strong link to local employers that results in an understanding of the target occupation and connections to jobs” (p.vi). 3. “Job readiness, basic skills and hands-on technical skills training offered through the lens of a specific occupation or sector” (p.vi). 4. “Recruitment, screening and intake processes that result in a good match between the applicant, the program and the target occupation” (p.vi). 5. “Individualized services to support training completion and success on the job” (p.vi).(Abstractor: Author)

• Last Updated:
• Created:
• Resource Publication Date: 2010
• Author(s): Maguire, Sheila; Freely, Joshua; Clymer, Carol; Conway, Maureen; Schwartz, Deena
• Organizational Author(s): Public/Private Ventures
• Funding Source: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
• Resource Availability: Publicly available
• Posted by: Melissa Mack
• Posted in: Workforce System Strategies