A Comparative Analysis of Performance Measurement in Youth Workforce Programs.

Kyle Farmbry, Ph.D, Rutgers University - Newark Marc Fudge, Rutgers University – Newark

Along with job training, one of the primary goals of all workforce development programs is to develop methods that will improve the economic conditions of financially and educationally disadvantaged citizens. This paper will comparatively analyze best practiced performance measures of youth workforce programs in the United States along with those in the United Kingdom. Our aim is to examine programs that successfully deliver effective employment and training programs, educational preparation, and develop sustainable employment opportunities.

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 is the most recent comprehensive federal legislation aimed at employment training, education and job-skill development for Americans. We believe the issues that have beset programs like the WIA are not unique to the United States and there may be similarities with the Youth Training Scheme (YTS) in Great Britain.

Previous research has discussed the difficulties making cross-country comparisons in similar areas of study. (Bynner & Chilsom, 1998) When comparing youth programs in different countries it is paramount to conceptualize the cultural and policy implications that exist in each. These differences help shape youth programs and our understanding of these variations also allow us to effectively compare the impact of youth programs while understanding that differences exist and by placing the overall effect of the programs in a proper context for careful study.

Through an inspection of various government reports and program data, this paper will examine the impact the national governments have had on youth workforce development and strategies for determining programmatic success.

Additionally, findings from this study will yield important results and provide public officials with information that will allow them to utilize best practices to improve the economic conditions within local communities.

Finally, mindful of cultural and policy differences, we will measure the performance of current youth workforce programs in both countries, what are the inhibiting factors impeding success, and strategies that may be implemented for improved outcomes.

References:

Ammons, D. (1985) Common barriers to productivity improvement in local government. Public Productivity Review, 9(4) 293-310

Briggs Jr., V. (1987). Youth employment and training programs: A review and a reply. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 41(1) 137-140.

Bynner, J., Chisholm, L. (1998) Comparative youth transition research: methods, meanings, and research relations. European Sociological Review. 14(20) pp. 131-150.

Bynner, J. and Heinz, W.R. (1991) Matching samples and analysing their differences in a cross-national study of labour market entry in England and West Germany. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 32, pp. 137-153.

Center for Labor Market Studies (2007). The Projected Summer 2007 Job Outlook for the Nation’s Teens and the Implications of Summer Employment for Job’s for America’s Graduates’ Programs. Alexandria, Va.

City of Los Angeles. Infrastructure Academy Press Release. Retireved on January 7, 2009. (http://infrastructureacademy.org/documents/Mayors%20Press%20Release.pdf)

Edelman, P., Holzer, H., Offner, P. (2006). Reconnecting Disadvantaged Young Men. Washington, DC, Urban Institute Press.

Entwisle, D., Alexander, K., Olson, L. (2000). Early work histories of urban youth. American Sociological Review, 65(2) 279-297.

Gregg, P. (2001). The effect of youth unemployment on adult Unemployment in the NCDS. The Economic Journal, 111(475) 626-653.

Green, A. (1990) Education and State Formation-The Rise of Education Systems in England, France and the USA. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

Grogger, J. (1998). Market wages and youth crime. Journal of Labor Economics, 16 (4) 756-791

Holzer, H. Nightingale, D. (2007). Reshaping the American Workforce in a Changing Economy. Washington, DC, Urban Institute Press.

Holzer, M., Lee, S. (2004) Public Productivity Handbook, 2nd Edition. New York. Marcel-Dekker, Inc.

Ihlanfeldt, K., Sjoquist, D. (1990). Job accessibility and racial differences in youth employment rates. The American Economic Review, 80(1) 267-276.

Immergluck, D. (1998). Neighborhood economic development and local working: The effect on nearby jobs on where residents work. Economic Geography, 74(2) 170-187.

Improvement and Development Agency for Local Government. (2008) Getting better all of the time: An independent assessment of local government improvement and it’s future prospects.

Kaplan, J. (2008) U.S. Department of Labor Funds Additional YouthBuild Projects. Department of Labor - News Release. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20080957.htm

Kaestner, R. (1996). The effect of government-mandated benefits on youth employment. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 50(1) 122-142.

Kelly, J., Swindell, R. (2002) A multiple indicator approach to municipal service evaluation: correlating performance measurement and citizen satisfaction across jurisdictions. Public Administration Review, 62(5) 610-621.

Lynch, L. (1993) The economics of youth training in the United States. The Economic Journal, 103(420) 1292-1302

Morisi, T. (2008). Youth enrollment and employment during the school year. Monthly Labor Review, 131(2) 51-62

Neumark, D. (2002). Youth labor markets in the United States: Shopping around vs. staying put. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(3) 462-482.

Pabilonia, S. (1997). Evidence on youth employment, earnings, and parental transfers in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997. The Journal of Human Resources, 36(4) 795-822.

Przeworski, A. (1987) Methods of cross-national research 1970-1983: an overview. In Dierkes, M., Weiler, H. N., and Antal, A. B. (eds), Comparative Policy Research Learning from Experience. Saxon House, Aldershoot. pp. 31-49

Raphael, S. (1998). Inter and intra-ethnic comparisons of the central city-suburban youth employment differential: Evidence from the Oakland Metropolitan Area. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51(3) 505-524.

Rausch, J. (1993). Economic development, urban underemployment, and income inequality. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 26(4) 901-918.

Rosen, E. (1993) Improving Public Sector Productivity: Concepts and Practice. Newbury Park, Sage Publications, Inc.

United States Congress. (1973) Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973, Conference Report. Report No. 93-636. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office.

United States Department of Labor. (1974) MDTA: The Origins of the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office.

United States Department of Labor. (2000) Workforce Investment Act. Report No. 156. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office.

United States Department of Labor. 2008 Award Winning YouthBuild Grants. Retrieved January 7, 2009. http://www.federalgrantswire.com/youth-opportunity-grants.html

United States General Accounting Office. (1979). Job Corps Should Strengthen Eligibility Requirements and Fully Disclose Performance. Report No. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office..

United States General Accounting Office (1998) Job Cops: Links with Labor Market Improved but Vocational Training Performance Overstated. Report No. 99-15 Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office.

United States General Accounting Office (2001) Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns Over Requirements. Report No. 07-72. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office.

United States General Accounting Office. (2002) Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness. Report No. 02-275. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office.

United States General Accounting Office (2002) Labor Market Information: Trends and Issues of Funding of State Programs. Report No. 03-336. Washington, DC. Government Printing Office.

United States General Accounting Office (2002) Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development. Report No. 03-413. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office.

United States General Accounting Office (2003) Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and Performance Measures for Major Programs. Report No. 03-589 Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office.

United States General Accounting Office (2003) Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. Report No. 03-636 Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office.

United States Government Accounting Office (2005) Youth Opportunity Grants: Lessons Can be Learned from Program, but Labor Needs to Make Data Available. Report No. 06-53. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office.

United States Government Accounting Office (2007) Youthbuild Program: Analysis of Outcome Data Needed to Determine Long-Term Benefits. Report No. 07-82. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office.

United States House of Representatives. (1982) JTPA Conference Summary Report: A Bill to Provide for a Job Training Program, and for other purposes. Report No. 97-889. Washington, D.C. Thomas Document Reproduction.

Van Ryzin (2007) Pieces of a puzzle: Linking government performance, citizen satisfaction, and trust. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(4) 521-535

Wirtz, W. (1965) Manpower Research and Training: Report of the Secretary of Labor. U.S. Department of Labor. Washington, D.C.