INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete >
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning”
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

University.
M iadnlm s
International
3 0 0 N. Z EE B ROAO, ANN A R B O R . Ml 4 8 1 0 6
18 B E D F O R D ROW, LONDON WC1R 4 E J , E N G L A N D

8101087

C a m p , D o n a l d B e n ja m in

A STUDY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
ACT CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM IN RELATION TO CLIENT
CHARACTERISTICS AND OPINIONS FOR THE LIVINGSTON COUNTY
AND THUMB AREA REGIONS OF MICHIGAN

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

PH.D.

300 N. Zeeb Rood, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

Copyright 1980
by
Camp, Donald Benjamin
All Rights Reserved

1980

A STUDY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACT CLASSROOM
TRAINING PROGRAM IN RELATION TO CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS AND OPINIONS
FOR THE LIVINGSTON COUNTY AND THUMB AREA REGIONS OF MICHIGAN

by
Donald B. Camp

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1980

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACT CLASSROOM
TRAINING PROGRAM IN RELATION TO CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS AND OPINIONS
FOR THE LIVINGSTON COUNTY AND THUMB AREA REGIONS OF MICHIGAN

By

Donald B . Camp

Purpose of the Study
The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 was enacted
to provide the impetus for the delivery of increased job training
and employment opportunities for the unemployed and economically
disadvantaged.

One of the provisions of Title I of the CETA legislation

is that of the Classroom Training program of institutionalized training.
While CETA comprehensive program evaluations have been undertaken
in Michigan, no evaluation studies on individual programs have been
carried out, particularly at the local level.
From the foregoing, the principal purpose of this independent
study has been to evaluate socio-demographic characteristics and
socio-economic factors of Classroom Training applicants and participants,
with the intention of determining a measure of program effectiveness in
terms of client perceived "success" parameters.

These include respondent

perceptions of the value of CETA institutionalized training, adequacy
of CETA career guidance and counseling services, and client satisfaction
with their CETA Classroom Training program.

Donald B. Camp

Population. Sample and Methodology
The population for the study comprised approximately 256 participants
of the CETA Classroom Training program in the Michigan Balance of State
(BOS) regions of Livingston County and the Thumb area during the fiscal
year, 1977.
A proportionate sample of 120 individuals was randomly selected,
together with a control group of 124 nonparticipating applicants for
CETA institutionalized training for the same fiscal period.

An over­

all response rate of 65 percent was achieved.
A pilot study was initially undertaken, resulting in a response
rate of 62 percent.

Data Collection and Analysis
Current data were collected by means of a mailed questionnaire,
with a telephone follow-up procedure to collect data from nonrespondents
to a mailed instrument.

A portion of the data, involving pertinent

information obtained from clients at the time of application for
training, was retrieved from the Manpower Services Evaluation System
(MSES) Master File.
A Chi-Square statistical test was utilized to determine the
relationship between respondent socio-economic-demographic factors
and participation in or termination from the CETA Classroom Training
program.

A .05 level of significance was selected.

Summary of Findings
Based on the obtained data, the following findings were obtained:
1.

A fairly equal distribution of male and female clientele apply

Donald B. Camp

for and participate in CETA institutionalized training.
The majority of CETA Classroom Training program clientele have
Grade 12 standing or better, have a median age of 25 years
and are almost totally of white ethnic origin.
Eighty-nine percent of individuals eligible for CETA Classroom
Training were unemployed on application.
Positive termination from CETA institutionalized training has
no definite advantage in the short run, in terms of wage
improvement.
More than 50 percent of training program recipients indicated
satisfaction with their CETA training program.
Positive termination from CETA Classroom Training is no
incentive to pursue further education and/or training improvement.
Following participation in CETA institutionalized training,
between 20 and 25 percent of CETA clients were placed in
unsubsidized employment.
Eighty-four percent of participants in CETA Classroom Training
perceived their training as of value in preparation for job
entry.
Of those clients positively terminating from CETA institutionalized
training, two-thirds perceived CETA guidance services as
adequate or better.
terminations.

This compares to 77 percent for nonpositive

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to acknowledge the guidance and encouragement
accorded by Dr. Billie Rader as dissertation director and guidance
committee chairman.
To Dr. George Ferns, Dr. David Heenan, and Dr. Louis Romano, who
served on the dissertation committee, appreciation is expressed for
their constructive cricitism.
The researcher also wishes to express thanks to Mr. Robert Pendelton, Director of the Michigan Bureau of Employment and Training, and his
staff for their cooperation during the research procedures.
Gratitude is expressed to Margaret Roiter for her fine work in
typing the manuscript.
To my family and friends appreciation is extended for their encour­
agement and interest during the period of study.
Lastly, to my wife Lisa, who shared in the frustrations and the
travail of my pursuit of higher education, a special "Thank You".

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF T A B L E S .......................................................iv

Chapter
1

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .................................
1
Introduction ..........................................
1
Statement of the Problem .............................
8
Operational Definition of the Variables ...............
9
Socio-Demographic Characteristics .....................
11
Socio-Economic Success Factors .......................
12
Hypotheses ................................. . . . . .
12
Need for the S t u d y .............................
13
Purpose of the Study
.................................. 17
Basic Assumptions of the S t u d y ......................... 19
Delimitations of the S t u d y ..............................19
Limitations of the S t u d y ................................20
Definition of T e r m s ...................................... 21
S u m m a r y .................................................. 25

2

REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E .................................... 26
Historical Development
...............................
26
Manpower Training Evaluation Literature ...............
32
S u m m a r y .................................................. 45

3

RESEARCH P R O C E D U R E S ........................................ 46
P o p u l a t i o n ............
46
Sample and Sample M e t h o d o l o g y ........................... 47
Instrumentation.......................................... 48
Pilot S t u d y .............................................. 50
Data Coll e c t i o n .........................
50
Analysis of D a t a ........................................ 52
S u m m a r y ...........................................
53

4

F I N D I N G S .....................................................54
Over-view of Chapter F o u r ................................54
Survey P r o f i l e ..............
55
Socio-Demographic Characteristics . . . . . ..........
55
S e x ...................................................59
A g e .................................................. 60
E d u c a t i o n ..................
62
E t h n i c i t y ............................................ 63

ii

Chapter
4

Spanish American Origin ............................. 65
Migrant and Seasonal Farm Worker Status ............ 66
Veteran Status......................................... 68
Handicapped........................................... 68
Offender............................ .. .............. 69
Labor Force Status on Application forTraining . . . 70
Socio-Economic Characteristics ......................... 72
Wage Improvement in Present Employment ............ 73
Training Satisfaction ............................... 75
Continuing Education and/or TrainingImprovement
. . 77
Unsubsidized Employment...................................78
Is Employment CETA F u n d e d ? .......................... 79
Is Employment Public Service Subsidized?
.......... 80
Value of CETA Classroom Training
................ . 8 3
Adequacy of Career Guidance ..................... . . . 85
Survey of Chapter F o u r ...................................87

5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 91
Introduction . . . . . ................................. 91
S u m m a r y ................................................. 91
91
O b j e c t i v e s .....................................
Data Collection Procedure ........................... 92
F i n d i n g s ............................................. 93
C o n c l u s i o n s ............................................. 99
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ........................................ 102
Implications............................................ 103
R e f l e c t i o n s ............................................ 105
S u m m a r y ................................................ 106

BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................107

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Region C o d e s .............................................. 110
APPENDIX B
Map of Balance of State C o n s o r t i a ....................... Ill
APPENDIX C
Letter of Transmittal...................................... 112
APPENDIX D
Questionnaire

113

LIST OF TABLES

Table
I
II
III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

Page
RESPONSE BY C O U N T Y ..........................................56
PROFILE OF CETA CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM CLIENTS . . . .
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEX OF RESPONDENT AND CLASSROOM
TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS ................................

57

60

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE OF RESPONDENT AND CLASSROOM
TRAINING PROGRAM S T A T U S ................................. 61
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATION AND CLASSROOM
TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS ................................

63

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ETHNICITY AND CLASSROOM
TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS ................................

64

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPANISH AMERICAN ORIGIN AND
CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS ...................... 65
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CATEGORY OF MIGRANT FARM
WORKER AND CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS .........

67

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CATEGORY OF SEASONAL FARM
WORKER AND CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS .........

67

X

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VETERAN CATEGORY AND
CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS ...................... 68

XI

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HANDICAPPED CATEGORY AND
CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS ...................... 69

XII

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFENDER CATEGORY AND
CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS ...................... 70

XIII

XIV

XV

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LABOR FORCE STATUS ON APPLICATION
AND TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS ............................

72

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WAGE IMPROVEMENT IN JOB AND
TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS ................................

74

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRAINING SATISFACTION AND
TERMINATION STATUS....................................... 76

lv

V

Table

Page

XVI

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTINUING EDUCATION
AND/OR TRAINING IMPROVEMENT AND TRAINING
PROGRAM STATUS....................................... 78

XVII

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CETA FUNDED EMPLOYMENT AND
TRAINING PROGRAM S T A T U S ............................ 80

XVIII

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC SERVICE SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT AND CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS. . 82

XIX

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTIONS OF THE VALUE OF
CETA CLASSROOM TRAINING IN OBTAINING SATISFACTORY
JOB PLACEMENT AND TERMINATION STATUS................. 84

XX

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLIENT PERCEPTION OF ADEQUACY
OF CAREER GUIDANCE AND JOB COUNSELING AND
CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS .................

87

CHAPTER ONE
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction
Federal and state legislators are demonstrating increasing
concern for the needs of unemployed and under-employed persons.
The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) of 1973 was
enacted to provide job training and increased employment opportunities
for economically disadvantaged, unemployed and under-employed
individuals.
Research suggests that while a number of evaluation studies on
CETA programs have been undertaken, principally of a comprehensive
program nature, a need exists for evaluation research on individual
CETA programs, particularly at the local level.
Based on this derived need, the problem in this study was to,
firstly, determine success factors and effectiveness measures
appropriate to the CETA Classroom Training Program that are not
influenced to a large extent by factors of program cost-effectiveness,
job placement rates and wage improvement ratios, and secondly, to
attempt to evaluate a measure of the socio-economic effectiveness
of the Classroom Training program, including counseling services,
in a limited area of the Michigan Balance of State (BOS) consortia.
The need for manpower training programs is almost universally
recognized.

Furing the fiscal year, 1977, approximately 74,000 youth

2

in Michigan, for example, were discouraged in their efforts to find
employment in either the private or public sectors (Michigan Conference
on Youth, 1977).

The economic and social losses resulting from such

inability to successfully compete for meaningful and rewarding employment
on the part of young people has been a source of grave concern for those
charged with the task of alleviating this social problem.
To ensure maximum employment and training opportunities in each
region, a flexible and decentralized arrangement of federal, state and
local programs have been initiated under the Act.

Five amendments to

the Act have improved CETA services and expanded funding provisions.
The Youth Employment and Demonstration Act of 1977 provided four new
youth programs and associated experimental activities, now under the
CETA umbrella.

The initial appropriation for YEDPA was $1 billion, of

which $19.9 million was allocated to Michigan Prime Sponsors.
The fiscal year, 1978, Department of Labor-HEW appropriations bill
for employment and training programs under the Comprehensive Employment
and Training Act totalled approximately $3.4 billion nationally.
includes $1.88 billion for Title I training programs.

This

Michigan's share

of the $1.88 billion Title I availability was $71,389,572.
An increasing concern for the needs of the unemployed and under­
employed is reflected by the legislation.

These needs include the

reduction of unemployment, reduction of poverty, increased job satisfaction
and productivity, reduced welfare costs, and the ethical and moral aspects
of being a member of the labor force.

The seriousness of the unemployment

problem, especially among youth, is motivating legislators and manpower
development authorities to seek demonstration of more effective ways to
train and skill-equip the unemployed and move them into the labor force.

3

Under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, prime sponsors and
local education authorities (LEA's) have the major responsibility for
preparing disadvantaged youth for the world of work, principally within
the present employment and training delivery system.

This requires the

teaching of basic skills as well as providing appropriate training and
work opportunities for unskilled and unemployed youth.

According to

Higgins (1978), more than half of the unemployed in the nation today is
under 24 years of age.
In planning its manpower development programs, CETA has focused its
efforts, through legislation, on the chronically unemployed, under-employed
and economically disadvantaged, with the objectives of developing, firstly,
a sufficiency of job-entry occupational skill coupled with a measure of
economic self-sufficiency and personal fulfillment on the part of the
target group, and secondly, a labor force adequately prepared to meet the
manpower needs of a region that is reflecting a change in both employment
and economy.
CETA is designed to provide job training and employment opportunities
through the provisions of various Titles.^

The specific purpose of Title I

is to deliver through state and local governments, comprehensive manpower
services such as recruitment, testing, and placement services; classroom

^CETA Titles are as follows:
Title I: Classroom and on-the-job training; work experience programs;
support services.
Title II: Programs of transitional public service employment.
Title III: Supervised training and job placement programs for special
groups.
Title IV: The Job Corps.
Title V: Establishes a National Commission for Manpower Policy.
Title VI: Emergency public employment programs to augment the number
of subsidized jobs available under Title II.
Title VII: General provisions and regulations applicable to all Titles.

4

and on-the-job training; work experience programs; supportive service
needed for persons to participate in employment or training programs;
and transitional public employment programs, all of which are for the
unemployed, under-employed, and the economically disadvantaged.
To aid the accomplishment of these objectives, CETA legislation has
provided the Classroom Training program, under Title I.

It may be

appropriate at this point to describe and define this program.

According

to Pressley and McGraw (1978), classroom training, in CETA terms, may
be defined as:
. . .the occupational skills training that results
from the interaction between a group of students
and teachers in a classroom setting other than a
work site. Classroom training may be conducted in
a conventional vocational-technical school, in a
community college, or in a skills center designed
specifically for training disadvantaged workers.
It may be a multi-occupational type facility or a
classroom oriented toward a single occupation.
It
may provide special supportive services to the
trainees or refer them individually to a regular
course for nondisadvantaged students. But class­
room training differs from on-the-job training and
work experience programs in that trainees are away
from the job site during the classroom training
period.
As CETA services developed and expanded in response to legislation,
there has been an associated need for evaluation of its programs and
activities.
Problems have emerged in evaluation efforts to meet this need in
recent years.

Part of the problem in evaluation in manpower training

derives from the past situation in developing a variety of delivery
systems and programs in manpower training.

The programs were delivered

independently of one another and without the benefit of over-all
objectives defining and unifying the efforts.

5

According to Ulman (1976, 99) duplication and local-level overlapping
of services has occurred, with competition among delivery agencies of the
federal government and sometimes inefficiently small program offerings.
A dearth of manpower effectiveness studies in the late 1960's is
underscored in a study by Greenleigh Associates (1968) where it is stated:
The meagerness of the present evaluation effort
is widely acknowledged.
It is conceded to be a
serious weakness, and the need for extensive and
critical evaluation of training programs is
expressed at all levels.
Even at the local
level. . .the lack of information based on good
evaluation was handicapping the best development
of programs.
Swanson (1978), in addressing issues in education, including
the problem of and the need for evaluating efficiency in vocational
education and manpower training, suggested that the complexity of
the situation being evaluated should first be considered.

He

stated (p. 90):
Simple solutions to complex problems are reserved
for those who need voter appeal. Knowledge about
vocational education as well as academic education
is deficient. . .It is appalling to realize that
there are, perhaps, fewer persons engaged full
time in educational research than in any of
society's major endeavors. Meanwhile, the social
costs continue to rise.
The Michigan Department of Labor, through its Bureau of Employment
and Training, has made provisions for an ongoing evaluation service
for Michigan Prime Sponsor CETA programs.

At least three evaluation

or performance reports have been produced by the Bureau of Employment
and Training to date.

The CETA Performance Report for the Michigan

Balance of State and the Manpower Services Evaluation Series, Report
No. 1, were both published on February 23, 1977; the 1977 Michigan

6

CETA Activity Report was issued on November 30, 1977.
The Bureau of Employment and Training, to provide information on
Michigan's employment and training programs, issues quarterly CETA
Activity Reports containing statistical and narrative data covering
prime sponsor activity during the previous quarter of the fiscal year.
Statistical detail is obtained from quarterly prime sponsor reports.
Research for and development of these reports have been facilitated
by the data retrieval and evaluative computing capability of a central
computer system.

This capability is known as the Manpower Services

Evaluation System (MSES).

The encoding and storage of a comprehensive

profile of program activities and client characteristics, together with
the speedy retrieval and cross tabulation capability of the system,
has enabled CETA program assessors and performance evaluators to more
effectively analyze and process data.
An evaluation problem of more direct concern to CETA programs is
enunciated in a 1977 Michigan Employment and Training Service Council
Report to the Governor.

It was suggested that effective evaluation of

Title I could only take place after a sufficient lapse of time between
the implementation of revised comprehensive legislation applicable to
CETA service delivery systems, and the execution of Title I legislation
by local prime sponsors.
The Council stated that a period of performance of less than five
years in duration would not allow for the full impact of CETA legislation
and, thus, effective evaluation of program performance.

Informed decisions

on whether Title I should be eliminated, retained or modified could only
then be effectively determined.

7

The Council complained of periodic new legislation modifying and
redirecting CETA effort, including the imposition of additional rules
and operational guidelines, resulting in the weakening of the ability
of prime sponsors to effectively administer Title I.
Furthermore, according to the Council Report, the mandatory
designation of categorical programs, target groups, specific services
and the allocation of grants to numerous administrative agencies
resulting from this new legislation, has drastically affected the
local control features expressly provided for in Title I.

The Council

recommended, among others, the following action to the Governor:
Expansion of employment and training activities
and resources under Title I for a period of time
sufficient to assess prime sponsor performance,
and conclusively establish whether the concept
of decentralized employment and training
administration represents the best way to
significantly reduce unemployment and under­
employment .
It was seen that an effective evaluation policy should be
directed at the definition and identification of both good and bad
program performance, to allow for corrective action.
Such a policy should measure the impact of the programs on
eligible recipients appropriate to the status of their employment
condition, rather than a preoccupation with operational processes
and planning guidelines.

Program evaluation is dependent, to a large

measure, on the continuity and uniformity of operations relative
to the character of performance data.
Postulating the existence of these difficulties to program
evaluation effectiveness, the Council further recommended the following
action:

8

Introduction of an effective evaluation policy
in place of the current federal practice which
emphasizes the evaluation of process, planning
intent and frequent revision of data reporting
requirements.

Statement of the Problem
While comprehensive program evaluation studies have been carried
out on CETA program delivery, including at least two in Michigan,
research suggests that no evaluation studies have been carried out on
individual CETA programs, particularly at the local level.
Recent (1977) Performance Reports of the Michigan Manpower Services
Evaluation Series (MSES), recommend the provision of evaluative studies
for individual CETA programs to determine program effectiveness.
Mr. Robert Pendelton, Director of the Michigan Bureau of Employment
and Training, reiterated this need for CETA individual program
effectiveness studies to the researcher.
This need for evaluation of CETA programs and of specific
individual programs in particular, is the principal motivating factor
for this study.

It is hoped that an independent study will be useful

and meaningful both to manpower training specialists and others
interested in institutionalized training.
Deriving from this need, the problem in this study was to:
1.

Evaluate to a degree the socio-economic effectiveness of
the Classroom Training program, including counseling services,
in a geographical sector of the Michigan Balance of State (BOS)
consortia, consisting of Livingston County and the Thumb Area
regions.

2.

Determine success factors or effectiveness measures appropriate

9

to the Classroom Training program that are not entirely
dependent on factors of program cost-effectiveness, job
placement rates and wage improvement ratios.
The following research questions were formulated:
1.

Is there a significant relationship between the socio­
demographic characteristics of CETA Classroom Training
participants and eligible applicants for training who do
not actually enroll in Classroom Training?

2.

Is there a significant relationship in socio-demographic
characteristics between participants who are classed as
either Positive Terminations or Negative (Non-Positive)
Terminations from Classroom Training?

3.

Is there a significant relationship of socio-economic
success factors between participants and nonentered
applicants to Classroom Training?

4.

Is there a significant relationship between Positive
Terminations and Non-Positive Terminations, with respect
to perceptions of the value of CETA Classroom Training in
obtaining satisfactory job placement?

5.

Is there a significant relationship in the perceptions of
adequacy of career guidance and job counseling between
participants in CETA Classroom Training and nonentered
applicants?

Operational Definition of the Variables
The design of this study employed 15 dependent variables and
four independent variables.

10

The dependent variables Involved soclo-deroographlc characteristics
and socio-economic success factors, selected to bear most appropriately
on the research questions to be tested.
1.

They were:

Sex of CETA clients applying for and participating In the
Classroom Training program.

2.

Age of respondents.

3.

Educational level, In terms of highest grade of school completed.

4.

Ethnicity.

5.

Seasonal and/or Migrant Farm Worker status.

6.

Veteran status.

7.

Handicapped.

8.

Offender.

9.

Labor Force status of respondent on application for CETA
institutionalized training.

10.

Wage improvement following CETA institutionalized training.

11.

Respondent perceptions of satisfaction with CETA Classroom
Training.

12.

Continuing Education and Training Improvement.

13.

The obtaining of unsubsidized employment.

14.

Respondent perceptions of the value of CETA institutionalized
training in preparing people for job skills.

15.

Client perceptions of the adequacy of career guidance and
job counseling services associated with the CETA Classroom
Training program.

The four independent variables were:
1.

Participation in the CETA Classroom Training program,
consisting of client enrollment in institutionalized training

11

In the regions constituting the research area during the
fiscal period covered in the study.
2.

Positive Termination from CETA Classroom Training.

3.

Non-Positive (or Negative) Termination from CETA Classroom
Training.

4.

Nonentered applicants for CETA institutionalized training,
consisting of CETA clients eligible for but who did not
actually enroll or participate in the Classroom Training
program.

The various socio-demographic characteristics and socio-economic
factors employed in the research, as variables, together with their
categorical divisions, are tabulated for clarification:

Socio-Demographic Characteristics:
Sex

Male
Female

Age

Under 22
22 - 34
35 - 55
Over 55

Education

Less than Grade 9
Grades 9 - 1 1
High School Graduation or Equivalent
Post High School

Family Income

AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)
Public Assistance, Other
Economically Disadvantaged
Employment
Other

Ethnicity

White (Includes Spanish-Amerlcan)
Black
American Indian
Other

(Socio-Demographic Characteristics Tabulation Continued on next page)

12

Socio-Demographic Characteristics (Continued)
Migrant or Seasonal Farm Family Member
Veteran
Handicapped
Offender
T
Labor rorce

Unemployed
.
_ ..
,
Under-Employed

Socio-Economic Success Factors:

Employment

Subsidized
CETA Funded
Unsubsidized

Wage or Salary Improvement
Training Satisfaction
Continuing Education and/or Job Skill Improvement

Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were tested to determine if
relationship exists between the independent variables and the
various socio-economic-demographic characteristics and factors
utilized in the research study, for the purpose of deriving an
effectiveness construct as well as alternative success factors
appropriate to CETA institutionalized training:
Ho(l)

There is no significant relationship between the socio­
demographic characteristics of nonentered applicants for
CETA Classroom Training and Classroom Training participants.

H0 (2)

There is no significant relationship in socio-demographic
characteristics between Positive Terminations and NonPositive Terminations from Classroom Training.

13

H o (3)

There Is no significant relationship of socio-economic
success factors between Positive Terminations, NonPositive Terminations, and nonentered applicants to
Classroom Training.

H0 (4)

There is no significant relationship in obtaining
unsubsidized employment between Positive Terminations
and both Non-Positive Terminations and nonentered
applicants to Classroom Training.

Ho(5)

There is no significant relationship between Positive
Terminations and Non-Positive Terminations, with respect
to perceptions of the value of CETA Classroom Training in
obtaining satisfactory job placement.

H o (6)

There is no significant relationship in the perceptions
of adequacy of career guidance and job counseling between
Positive Terminations, Non-Positive Terminations, and
nonentered applicants to CETA training.

Need for the Study
That there is a demonstrated need for research into the effectiveness
of the delivery of Title 1 programs is supported by the several CETA
reports discussed in this study.

The 1977 Report to the Governor by the

Michigan Employment and Training Services Council included a strong
recommendation to this effect.

The Report (1977, 86) urged:

The introduction of an effective evaluation
policy in place of the current federal practice
which emphasizes the evaluation of process,
planning intent and frequent revision of data
reporting requirements.

14

There have been at least two over-all CETA program evaluation
studies completed In Michigan In addition to several research studies
on the effectiveness of CETA Title I delivery systems outside of the
State of Michigan.

Seemingly, there is a need for independent

evaluative research on Title I programs, including the Classroom
Training program on a regional basis.
The MSES Report No. 1 (1977) pointed out the limitations under
which that study evaluated success probability factors in CETA program
activity for Michigan Balance of State.

The study recommended that

future reports on CETA performance include analysis of single programs,
client placement determination, and the inclusion of a control group
for statistical comparison.

A discussion with Mr. Robert Pendelton,

Director of the Michigan Bureau of Employment and Training, centered
on the need for continuing evaluative study of CETA performance
including study of the effectiveness of individual programs within
Title I.
It is in the above context that the research proposal was
formulated.

The determination of an appropriate control group

approach was an important objective of the study, following research
of pertinent comparison group methodologies.
In the past, cost-effectiveness examination was the predominant
methodology of evaluation in manpower training programs.

In the

future, an evaluation approach involving positive social and humanistic
characteristics may be, in the long run, a most important avenue
toward effectiveness accountability.

Improved social attitudes

and development may be the principal and over-riding redeeming

15

factors In manpower training and retraining programs, including the
CETA programs.
Pressley (1978, 6) in discussing the qualitative advantages in
CETA institutionalized training, suggests that Classroom Training
participants not only acquire necessary occupational skills but also
develop personal disciplines and habits that carry over into the work
setting.

Participants receive both skills training and personal

guidance and other necessary supportive services.
There is a need to show that, although economic benefits may
not be initially higher for clients positively terminating from the
CETA institutionalized training program, the fact that they have
marketable skills as a result of training is, in itself, a potential
economic benefit.

Furthermore, benefits that may accrue include

improvement in self-image, less alienation from the world of work,
better health including mental health, improved reading and computational
skills and better family relationships (Glennan, 1969).
A valid measure of institutionalized training is the percentage
of clients who are placed in unsubsidized employment at the end of
training.

Consideration must also be given to alternative avenues

of positive termination from Classroom Training, such as enrollment
in more advanced levels of education and training, as well as the
possible pursuit of self-employment.
Satisfaction with institutionalized training is, to a large
measure, an important evaluative criteria need.

Clients who are

satisfied with their training program will tend to be so in terms
of present job satisfaction, potential employment opportunity as a

16

result of training and the enhanced realization of job permanence
as a result of skilled status.
Calling attention to the inadequacy of evaluation based mainly
on cost-benefit analysis in CETA programs, Frank Reilly (1974, 50),
stated:
There are inherent dangefs in over-reliance on
cost-benefit analysis as a means of evaluating
manpower training programs. A major ingredient
that is lacking in the evaluative data being
gathered under CETA programming is the effect
of concomitant benefits that are realized
through manpower training efforts. There are
many concomitant benefits which do not appear
on the professional evaluators' graphs and
tables or on the cost benefit analysts' charts
and measurement devices. The major benefit
overlooked in the rush to put a price tag on
every stage of the program is "human dignity";
the actual and honest experience of unemployed,
disadvantaged, and minority individuals moving
off the welfare rolls onto the employment rolls.
The benefits that this movement creates are
highly important to the evaluation of a program's
effectiveness.
There is, then, an apparent need to show that client satisfaction
with the institutionalized training program provided under the aegis
of CETA might be socially and economically effective for the client,
while at the same time it cannot be shown as cost-effective in terms
of a favorable cost-benefit ratio, or even a break-even point.

The

completion of a training, retraining or an educational plan is in
itself a measure of positive attitudinal qualities that, to a potential
employer, might be a firm indication of a potential application
to employment and warranting investment in further training on-the-job.
There is a concomitant need for the establishment of comparative
assessment techniques, principally in terms of the difference between

17

comparative and experimental group outcomes.

This need has been

suggested and reiterated in a number of CETA reports.

Borus and

Buntz (1972, 234) indicated that many evaluators of manpower programs
realized that the use of control groups is a necessary condition to
measure the effects of a manpower training program on the participants.
The deficiency of control group methodology in CETA evaluation
studies because of seeming impossibility of achieving identical
control group pairing is alluded to by Ulman (1978, 102).
Finally, the perceptions of CETA clients in the Classroom Training
program, regarding the adequacy of CETA guidance and counseling
services, and of the value of the program in preparing people for
jobs, seemingly has received little attention to date.

The study

has attempted, therefore, to research selected aspects of applicant
and participant perceptions of the CETA institutionalized training
program, in addition to other effectiveness factors.

Purpose of the Study
The growth and complexity of CETA manpower development programs,
and its relative newness, has resulted in a restricted data base,
particularly with respect to specific program sectors.

There is a

demonstrated need for research and evaluation activity, including
independent research within sectors of program activity, including
Title I Classroom Training.
The over-all purpose of the study is that of determining a
methodology of assessing the socio-economic effectiveness of the
CETA institutionalized training program, other than a predominantly
cost-benefit methodology.

There appears to be a need for demonstrating

18

psychological or humanistic evaluative criteria alternatives to
cost-benefit and cost-effective ratios.
Four areas of need are primarily researched in the study.

They

are as follows:
1.

An evaluation of the relationship between a number of
socio-demographic and economic characteristics of CETA
training program recipients and their termination status
from institutionalized training.

2.

Client perceptions of the adequacy of CETA training, and
training services including guidance and job counseling,
in obtaining unsubsidized employment.

3.

The evaluation of continuing education and training
improvement of CETA clients associated with the Classroom
Training program.

4.

The designation of a viable comparison group methodology.

The ancillary intent of this descriptive research is to determine
the present status of CETA institutionalized training program
effectiveness in the Michigan Balance of State regions under study;
to provide useful information for manpower development officials,
counselors, state and local agencies associated with manpower training,
and vocational educators; provide a stepping-stone toward a more
humanistic approach to evaluation and achievement assessment in manpower
training; to provide a basis for the further development of CETA
institutionalized training; to identify areas or sectors of CETA
institutionalized training appearing to warrant particular development
consideration; and to provide a basis for further research effort.

19

The study has delineated possible alternative success parameters
to those generally utilized In manpower training evaluation studies.

Basic Assumptions of the Study
The following assumptions were considered appropriate to this
study:
1.

That CETA clients applying for and participating in the
Classroom Training program, were adequately informed about
and experienced in training program activities to enable
them to respond fully to the survey instrument.

2.

That terminology in the study reflects the generally
accepted meaning within the manpower training milieu.
Where Department of Labor or other manpower authority
terminology differs from that utilized in the study, a
clarification will be done within the "Definition of
Terms" section of the study.

3.

It is assumed that relevant data from the data base stored
in the MSES Master File and made accessible through On-Line
Information Retrieval are reasonably accurate.

This will be

socio-economic and demographic information relating to
CETA Classroom Training applicants and participants involved
in the study and appropriate to the fiscal year, 1977.

Delimitations of the Study
The study was contained within the following delimitations:
1.

The study was restricted to the counties of Livingston,
Tuscola, Huron and Sanilac, making up the regions of

20

1A and 7A in the Michigan Balance of State consortia.
2.

The study was concerned only with the CETA Classroom
Training program in the above regions and restricted to
fiscal year, 1977.

3.

The study was limited to 15 socio-economic-demographic
characteristics and training program perceptions.

No

attempt was made to include or identify all possible
perceptions and characteristics.

Limitations of the Study
Regional variations in employment opportunities and wage rates
should result in variations in CETA regional performances.

Furthermore,

regional differences in the type of training program, and setting,
may also be reflected in client attitudes, perceptions and performance
ratings.
Regional economic conditions in terms of local unemployment factors
and the economic base of the region, should, if at all possible, be
taken into account when evaluating regional program performance.
However, the conclusions reached on this question in the CETA
Performance Report (1977) is revealing and is quoted herewith:
Regional Unemployment in Relation to Regional Outcome:
In order to gauge regional performance, the economic
conditions under which those efforts were carried out
must be taken into account. One such economic factor
is the condition of employment experienced at the local
level.
MESC monthly labor force, employment, and unemployment
data for each region was used to calculate regional
unemployment rates for the fifteen months fiscal year
1976 period. Regional unemployment rates were then

21

examined in relation to:
1.

each region's unsubsidized employment
effort in each Balance of State program
activity, and

2.

each region's cost per person served in
each program activity.

Although statistical methods were not employed, it
appears that there is an absence of any systematic
relationship between the unemployment problems faced
by various regions and:
1.

unsubsidized employment

2.

cost per person

For the above reasons, no attempt has been made in the study
to develop an index of regional unemployment against regional
economic conditions.

No attempt has been made to evaluate cost-

effectiveness in a dollars and cents ratio.
The study was limited to participants and applicants to CETA
institutionalized training in four counties of the Michigan Balance
of State consortia.

The findings are limited to this regional sector.

Evaluative data are restricted to applicants and participants
of the CETA institutionalized training program.

The perceptions and

attitudes of educators, administrators, counselors and employers,
with respect to evaluation of CETA institutionalized training, are
not sampled or assessed in this study.

Definition of Terms
Manpower training terminology utilized in the study will conform
to generally accepted meanings employed in the manpower training
milieu.

Relevant Department of Labor CETA terminology and MSES

22

operational standards will be defined.
1.

American Indian:

A person who is a member of a tribe, band

or other organized group of Indians, including those tribes,
bands, or groups terminated since 1940 and those recognized
now or in the future by the State in which they reside, or
who is a descendant of any such member; or is considered
by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian for any
purpose; or is an Eskimo, or Aleut or other Alaskan native.
2.

Spanish American:

A member of a group which includes Mexican

Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and other Latin Americans as
determined by observation; and anyone else having a Spanish
surname.
3.

Migrant Farm Worker:

A person or dependent of a person

who occasionally or habitually leaves his established place
of residence (or has no permanent residence) to accept
seasonal or temporary employment in another locality where
he resides during the period of employment.
4.

Seasonal Farm Worker:

A person or dependent of a person who

is employed in seasonal farm work either occasionally or
habitually without leaving his established place of residence.
5.

Limited English Speaking;

One whose native language is not

English and whose limited ability to communicate in English
is a job handicap.
6.

Classroom Training:

Includes vocational education and

services, provided through nonfinancial agreements between
the prime sponsor and the State of Michigan Vocational

23

Education Institutions as part of the Special Grant to
Governors.

Participants for whom the prime sponsor pays

any portion of his/her training allowances or services
should also be reported in classroom training.
7.

On-the-Job Training; Includes training, conducted in a
work environment, designed to enable individuals to learn
a bona fide skill and/or qualify for a specific occupation
through demonstration and practice.

The training, which

can be provided by private profit motivated employers as
well as public and private nonprofit agencies, should be
in preparation for the client's transition into permanent
unsubsidized employment.

On-the-job training can be

provided to clients at the entry level of employment or
used as a means of upgrading under-employed workers into
occupations requiring higher skill levels.
8.

Positive Terminations:

CETA participants who are placed

either directly, indirectly or through self-placement in
unsubsidized employment or who complete the program training
objectives.
9.

"Other Positive" Terminationsi

CETA participants who have

withdrawn to enter an academic or vocational school, entered
the military, entered another manpower program, or completed
the program objectives not involving entrance in unsubsidized
employment.
10.

Negative (or Non-Positive) Terminations:

CETA participants

terminated for excess absenteeism, moved from area, or did not

24

complete the program objectives for other reasons, including
health/pregnancy, family care responsibilities, transportation
problems, refused to continue, and administrative separation.
11.

Economically Disadvantaged:
family

A person who is a member of a

A) which receives cash welfare payments, or

B) whose

income in relation to a family size does not exceed the most
recently established poverty levels.
12.

Gross WaRes or Salary:

Represents the total money earnings

received for work performed as an employee.

It covers the

amount paid before deductions for income taxes, social
security taxes, bond purchases, union dues, etc.
13.

Handicapped:

An applicant who has a physical, mental or

emotional impairment, a chronic condition which could limit
work activities, or is a disabled veteran.
14.

Offender:

A person who is or has been confined to any type

of correctional institution or assigned to a community-based
facility, or has been subject to any stage of judicial,
correctional, or probationary process where manpower training
and services may be beneficial as determined by the Secretary
of Labor.
15.

Public Service Employee:
provided by government.

A CETA enrollee performing work
It excludes building and highway

construction (except that which is normally performed by
the prime sponsor or eligible applicant) and other work which
inures primarily to the benefit of a private profit making
organization.

25

16.

School Dropout;

A client who has left school prior to

obtaining a high school diploma.
17.

Under-employed:

Participants working part-time who are

seeking full-time employment and whose income is below
poverty level.

Also, persons working full-time whose

salary, relative to family size, is below poverty level.
18.

Unsubsidized Employment:

A) Employment not financed from

funds provided under CETA,
19.

B) Jobs in the private sector.

Work Experience: Experience obtained in a short-term and/or
part-time work assignment with a public employer or private
nonprofit employing agency.

Work experience is designed

to enhance employability of individuals who
worked, or

1) have never

2) have not recently worked in the competitive

labor market for an extended period of time.

Summary
In Chapter One a brief over-view of the CETA manpower training
program objectives is offered, particularly as the objectives relate
to the Classroom Training area of responsibility and the derived need
for evaluation studies of individual Title I programs.

A statement

of the research problem in terms of program evaluation needs,
definitions of the study variables, and articulation of the socio­
economic-demographic characteristics are developed.

The basic

assumptions of the study, its limitations and purposes are also
covered in this section.

CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of this chapter is to review selected areas of
the literature considered to be pertinent and important to the
development of this study.
Two principal areas of review are pursued:
1.

The historical development of CETA institutionalized
training, and

2.

Descriptive and research literature concerned with the
evaluation or assessment of institutionalized training
programs, within the context of manpower training and
development.

Historical Development
The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 can be
viewed in historical perspective against a background of federal
involvement in the development of employment and training programs
and the evolvement of manpower training policies over several decades.
These training programs emerged as an important process to conserve
and develop human resources and to protect and help individuals as
they adjust to the hazards of changing economic conditions.
The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973, with the
Amendments of December 31, 1974j October 1, 1976; June 15, 1977;
and August 5, 1977, form the basic reference legislation.

26

The

27

purpose of the Act through its various entitlements, is to assure
opportunities for employment and training to unemployed, under­
employed and disadvantaged individuals.

The Act, in effect, has

absorbed, amended and extended the provisions of the Manpower
Development and Training Act of 1962, Title I of the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964, and the Emergency Employment Act of 1971.
The Statement of Purpose of the Act is revealing:
Sec. 2. It is the purpose of this Act to provide
job training and employment opportunities for
economically disadvantaged, unemployed and under­
employed persons, and to assure that training
and other services lead to maximum employment
opportunities and enhance self-sufficiency by
establishing a flexible and decentralized system
of Federal, State, and local programs.
The particular entitlements appropriate to Classroom Training (CRT)
and related services is Title I - Comprehensive Manpower Services.
Section 101, in part, states:
Such program shall include the development and
creation of job opportunities and the training,
education, and other services needed to enable
individuals to secure and retain employment at
their maximum capacity.
Referring to assessment and counseling needs of potential clients,
Section 101 further states in appropriate subsections:
(2) assessment of the individual's needs, interests,
and potential in the labor market and referral to
appropriate employment, training, or other opportunities.
(3) orientation, counseling, education, and
institutional skill training to prepare the
individual to enter the labor market or to
qualify for more productive job opportunities.
Thus the functional literacy needs and the educational upgrading,
institutional skill training, counseling and assessment needs of the

28

CETA client are the appropriate mandate of this portion of the Act.
Possibly, it is fitting at this time to look briefly at the
historical precedents to the federal training of manpower that have
evolved into the present CETA activities, for the training and
retraining programs of the federal government have evolved progressively
through amendments to earlier legislation and by absorption into
new legislation.
This legislation offered a number of training, employment and
related services, designed to help unemployed, under-employed and
disadvantaged individuals secure and continue in unsubsidized
employment.

The enactments identified various target groups and

designed programs to best serve them.

This includes individuals

experiencing structural unemployment, youth, older workers, minorities
and the economically disadvantaged.
The legislation, dating back to the 1930's, established a network
of public employment offices, set minimum standards of wages and hours
of work and provided unemployment insurance support.

The Employment

Act of 1946 became landmark legislation in that federal responsibility
to promote maximum employment was implemented (Mirengoff, 1978, 1).
Groom (1961), suggests that the Railroad Unemployment Insurance
Act of 1937 is probably the first utilization of federal funds for
retraining activities.

Section 362 of the Act authorized the Railroad

Retirement Board (with limited success) "to encourage and assist
in the adoption of practical methods of vocational training, retraining,
and vocational guidance; to promote the re-employment of unemployed
employees" (Groom, 1961, 940).

29

The early philosophy of the federal retraining programs centered
on equipping unemployed and under-employed adult workers with new
job skills, frequently in the light of constant technological
change in business and industry that resulted in both job redundancy
and a demand for new and updated technical skills.

This view of

federal manpower training programs is relected by Hardin and Borus
who also drew an interesting distinction between manpower retraining
programs and "vocational education" programs.

According to Hardin,

Retraining courses are arranged in response to
a need shown to be present at a particular time
and in a particular place. They are discontinued
automatically, unless specific authorization is
given to repeat them. They are designed mainly
for persons who have already ended their formal
education.
In contrast, the vocational education
program comprises a more or less permanent
curriculum which is designed to meet continuing
needs and which is discontinued only in response
to specific decisions.
It is oriented primarily
toward the needs of persons in the high school
age, and it forms an integral part of the
secondary education system, and more recently,
the junior college system.
Through the Area Redevelopment Act of 1961, the federal government
authorized funding to stimulate retraining programs in depressed areas
of the country designated for redevelopment.

Sections 16 and 17 of

ARA indicated that funds could be used for retraining programs in
designated redevelopment areas having "substantial and persistent
unemployment" and where there would be "a reasonable expectation of
employment" for trainees after course completion.

During its four

years of existence, from fiscal 1962 to 1965, approximately $6.5
million were appropriated annually for ARA, while less than 12,000
individuals were annually enrolled for retraining.

30

The ARA was superceded by and eventually absorbed into the
Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 (MDTA).

It had

the advantages of extended course periods of up to 52 weeks, training
in many more occupational areas, the extension of programs to most
communities including those with relatively low unemployment levels,
and the provision of special youth allowances for those young people
who did not qualify for the regular unemployment training allowances.
The 1968 amendments urged the development of manpower training
centers and extended the MDTA to 1972.
In summary, the principal manpower legislation of the last two
decades include the following:
Area Redevelopment Act (ARA) - 1961
Designed to reduce unemployment concentrated in
depressed areas by attracting industry and jobs
to those areas.
Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA) - 1962
Enacted to provide training to those who had become
unemployed through technological or other structural
changes in industry.
Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) - 1964
Established employment and training programs
(Neighborhood Youth Corps, Job Corps, etc.)
specifically targeted to the poor.
Cooperative Area Manpower Planning System (CAMPS) - 1967
An attempt to improve local area employment and
training programs through coordinated planning.
Concentrated Employment Program (CEP) - 1967
An attempt to provide intensive employment and
training services to areas of high unemployment.
Public Employment Program (PEP) - 1971
Provided transitional jobs for unemployed and under­
employed individuals in state and local agencies.

31

The cumulative effect of these separate programs, administered
by often competing private and public agencies, was confusion,
overlap and duplication rather than complemental coordination.
CETA legislation largely eliminated the various categorical
programs authorized under earlier legislation.

Through prime

sponsors at the local and state level, numbering about 500, the
Secretary of Labor now makes block grants to plan and operate
manpower programs to meet local needs (Hansen, 1976).
Decentralization, however, has its limitations in addition
to its accepted virtues.

Under CETA, planning is done through

manpower planning councils appointed by the chief elected official
from state and local representatives of management, unions, manpower
agencies and of the client population.

These local councils do

not have the power to achieve coordination of different programs
such as the Employment Services, the Work Incentive Programs, and
the vocational education and vocational rehabilitation authorities.
Their activities were not incorporated under CETA and they have
not coordinated their planning or delivery appreciably at either
federal, state or local levels with CETA authorities (Ulman, 1976, 101).
Critics of the decentralized approach to manpower planning
and program implementation suggest that state and local governments
are no more efficient than the federal government with regard
to administrative costs; local governments are more politically
oriented; local advisory councils lack experience and expertise;
and finally, local governments are unable to cope with unemployment
problems that are essentially federal by nature (Clague, 1976, 72).

32

Manpower Training Evaluation Literature
The 1966 Report of the Secretary of Labor on Manpower Research
and Training emphasized the need for evaluation activities and
stated (p. 7):
Regular evaluation of the Manpower program is
essential in order to know how the various segments
of the program are meeting goals set for them, to
detect new and changing manpower problems which may
require program adjustments and to ensure that both
the policy and operation of the total program are
responsible to the Nation's manpower needs.
Wright (1974), in a study involving the preliminary assessment of
the problems encountered in planning and implementing CETA local and
state programs in Michigan and five neighboring states, emphasized
that attention was being focused on the development of evaluation
criteria for existing training activities then sponsored under CETA.
Mangun, Snedeker, and Snedeker (1975) in discussing the requirement
for evaluation of CETA manpower training programs, suggest three
key questions:
1.

Did the program pursue the objectives established for it
by policy makers?

2.

Did it achieve those objectives?

3.

Were the benefits received on behalf of society greater
than the costs in terms of alternative uses of the same
resources?

At the local level these questions might be narrowed and rephrased to:
1.

Were the designated target groups served?

2.

Was the objective — usually some type of improvement in
employment and income experience — achieved?

3.

Could it have been done in any more effective way?

The performance evaluation experience for manpower training
programs is still an uncertain field with no concrete and widely

33

acceptable evaluation format (Hardin, 1969).

In this respect,

efforts to take differences between studies into account have had
limited success.

Defining measurement parameters for "success"

in CETA and other manpower training programs has been vague and has
predominantly depended on a cost-effectiveness rationale.

There is a

need for defining and postulating an acceptable "success" parameter
in CETA training program evaluation that encompasses value judgments
that are not entirely preoccupied or over-shadowed by program costs
and client earning ratios.
Borus and Buntz (1972) in reviewing the problems, issues and
techniques of evaluation in manpower training programs, suggest that
almost all evaluations of manpower programs have included changes in
the income of program participants as a major dependent variable, in
terms of some increase in earning of the poor, unemployed and under­
employed, and disadvantaged.

Pre-training and post-training increases

in earning is generally the major factor in such evaluation formulas.
Smith and Scott (1977) developed an income gain formula referred
to as "earnback".

This represents the ratio of the difference between

pre- and post-training income and the unit cost of training a participant
In a particular program.

The authors recognized that "earnback",

program completions, and job placements may be significant numerical
goals for a program but they may not be real goals, meaningful and
satisfying to clients or sponsors.

Cost-effective comparisons and

numerical positive completions and job placements may be politically
acceptable and quantitatively necessary but they do not embrace the
qualitative, socially satisfying aspects of client completions,
that may include such abstract success factors as morale and "good
citizenship".

34

Success factors cannot merely be in terms of increased earning
power and failure as decreased or lack of earning.

Other variables

which may be affected by training programs and which should be
evaluated are the effects on health, crime, community power structure
and political institutions, individual satisfaction, family life,
social participation, housing, race relations, and social behavior
(Borus and Buntz, 1972).
Numerical measurement of programs will probably always be the
ultimate evaluation decision factor, involving program cost-effectiveness,
client input numbers and socio-demographic characteristics, balanced
against output numbers and characteristics and tabulated in various
statistical permutations.
Smith and Scott (1977) address themselves to the problem and
issues involved with evaluating or defining "success" in manpower
training, by asking:
But what is a "good" positive termination rate,
or a "good" placement rate? Is a positive
termination rate of 80 percent "good"? Is a
placement rate of 27 percent, then, "bad"? The
answer is as obvious as the question is necessary:
It depends. It depends upon the hard truths of
the labor market, the intentions of the program,
the kinds of goals chosen, the problems of the
participants involved, the state of the local or
national economy at the time — on literally
dozens of considerations which, again, can only
be judged (and then tentatively) at the local
level where they can be understood in the context
of the programmatic whole.
Labor market conditions reflect a complex interaction of various
forces that makes any attempt at manpower training program accountability,
solely in terms of job placement or wage improvement, uncertain.

35

An aspect of cost-effectiveness evaluation meriting serious
consideration is that when a highly structured rating system is
developed and rationalized, involving weighted elements and formulas,
sophisticated monitoring techniques are generally required.

For

example, in the Lansing, Michigan, consortium, the effectiveness
rate in Title I is derived from a formula based on placement rate,
target group index and number of enrollees, a follow-up rate,
retention rate, and the post-program wage index.

According to

Mirengoff and Rindler (1978, 108):
These extremely complex formulas can be used
only with a very detailed management information
system. . . .Critics point out that the
structured approach requires good management
information, which is often missing; that it
places too much emphasis on placement; and
that it fosters "creaming".
The uncertainties and subjectiveness of utilizing purely
economic factors, including cost-benefit ratios, in evaluating
the effectiveness of CETA, Title I institutionalized training,
is shown in a study by Curtis et al

(1976, 135) in Florida.

The

researchers found that cost-benefit ratios were marginal, ranging
from slightly favourable to below the break-even point (less than
unity).

Two important conclusions or explanations were that the

CETA Classroom Training program itself is designed to try to reach
the most unprepared, untrained clients possible, and that the dismal
performance of the State's economy has an impact on levels of unemployment
and wage gain factors.

While the longitudinal aspects of the

program are not known at this time, according to the authors it
would be valuable to know the future impact of the training upon the

36

clients, two, five, or ten years from now.

If the client, as a result

of the training, is able to obtain and retain a satisfying job
throughout his lifetime, a positive long-term effect will accrue
to his family.

This suggests secondary and tertiary benefits

beyond a strictly cost-benefit assessment.
According to Glennan (1969), cost-effectiveness, in terms
of fiscal return, is an insufficient indicator of program outcome.
It is also extremely difficult to conceive of a feasible and
explicit set of weights to portray costs and benefits effectively.
The difficulty of arriving at an effective and acceptable
procedure for evaluating cost-effectiveness of training programs
has been further discussed by Swanson (1978), among others.

For

example, it is a fallacy to assume that on-the-job training in
industry, as against institutionalized classroom training, occurs
without cost to the public, or in costs rated in simple transfer
funding through CETA.

Over-all, the public pays the cost of training

that is financed by tax levies, tax shelters, tax credits, and tax
deductions.

Public institutionalized training, as utilized by CETA

for its Classroom Training program, relies mainly on tax levies,
while on-the-job training relies almost wholly on tax deductions.
The costs to the public of on-the-job training by industry are
substantial.

The confidentiality of income tax records and the

failure of cost-accounting in industry to identify training costs,
make it impossible to obtain a reliable estimate (Swanson, 1978, 88).
While private institutionalized training costs can be Identified,
public institutionalized training costs tend to be subjective and
indirect to a certain extent.

Cost-effectiveness does not generally

37

take into account hidden costs to the student and to involved social
welfare systems.
From the taxpayers' point of view, the primary benefit of a training
program is probably the satisfaction derived from having the welfare of
the poor improved.

Many may believe that the increased earnings of the

poor are accompanied by a decrease in welfare payments, decrease in cost
of social services, including a decrease in crime.

Many of the benefits

of training programs for the poor and disadvantaged are not easily
measurable in dollar terms.
Mangun et al (1975) discuss the ethical and social considerations
to be evaluated in manpower programs, and balanced against costeffectiveness factors of manpower training used, simply, to adjust
the supply and demand ratios of the labor force.

This supply and

demand consideration is embodied in the "Phillips' Curve*

philosophy

of balancing unemployment against inflation to correct cyclical
imbalances.
A different view of the value of manpower training during
cyclical fluctuations in employment is discussed by Newton (1971),
in regard to the Swedish policy of utilizing their manpower retraining
programs to counteract seasonal and cyclical fluctuations in employment.
The Swedish programs perform like a sponge, removing labor from the
market and placing it in training during periods of recession, then,
during periods of economic expansion, releasing labor with improved
skills.

Since the program volume of activity closely follows cyclical

^The "Phillips' Curve" is a conceptual device for articulating
the relationship between the unemployment rate and the corresponding
rate of inflation of wages and prices existing in a given economy.

38

swings in unemployment, the Swedish approach appears to be quite
successful.

However, there is much debate among economists as to the

merits of this policy (Training for Ontario’s Future, 1973).
In essence then, the success of a CETA training program should not
be evaluated only in terms of program cost-effectiveness, or wage gain
"earnback" factors.
consideration.

Other benefits to society should be taken into

Clients who are now removed from the welfare rolls,

offenders who are now "regained" by society, unemployed and under-employed
individuals who, after training, become either regular participants in
the labor force or await job placement, are each a unit of success and
a benefit to society.

It is difficult to tabulate such positive

contributions to society in a statistically acceptable format.
There remains, however, the problem of reconciling complex social
merits as factors of success in manpower training, possibly in conjunction
with generally accepted evaluation factors in manpower programs,
including cost-effectiveness.
A modification of the "earnback" approach to income gain calculation
would be to take the ratio of the unsubsidized income improvement of
clients positively terminating from a training program, and the unit cost
of that training program.

What this means is that the CETA client, by

virtue of eligibility for participation in a CETA training program, will
generally be in either a nonearning or a negative earning category.

In

a nonearning category, the client will receive no support benefits other
than that of participation in the training program plus ancillary services.
A negative earning category would have the participant receiving public
assistance or a training subsidy in addition to training services.

39

An obvious drawback of the "earnback" and similar approaches to
cost-effectiveness of manpower training programs is the temptation
to client selection personnel of selecting and enrolling only those
clients who are better educated, better motivated, healthier and
younger and who have not been employed in a well-paid job prior to
the training program.

With this "creaming" approach, the placement

outcomes will always look good in terms of income improvement (Smith
and Scott, 1977).

Thus, the socially disadvantaged and the economically

and health handicapped will not appeal to the program recruiter
conscious of the merits of "earnback" in program cost-effectiveness.
In past manpower studies, cost-effectiveness evaluation has been
the explicit modus operandi with adjunctive positive social development
factors a corollary.

It may be that in the long run, improved social

attitudes and development will be the essential and over-riding
redeeming factors in CETA manpower training and retraining programs.
It is true, of course, that cost-effectiveness analysis help
educators and administrators to seek other and less costly avenues of
delivery or more efficient and innovative processes for the same
dollar investment.

Quality and social merit considerations in training

programs are not so easy to analyze.
It is likely that the relatively short period following training
may not be enough to allow for and detect significant income improvement.
In the long run and after a number of years, improved income benefits
may accrue from the training investment.

But even if improved income

benefits do not immediately accrue from the education and training
investment, positive attitudinal effects may be a redeeming feature.

40

In other words, better social adjustment features do not necessarily
mean significantly better income levels.
There are the social benefits that accrue to society, the
community and the client as a result of withdrawal from the unemployed
or under-employed cohorts.

These nonmonetary benefits are important

considerations to be taken into account in evaluating the effectiveness
of manpower training programs.
The question might be asked, if positive completions from a CETA
institutionalized training program are presumably better equipped with
job entry skills, why do they not command a significantly higher wage
rate on the labor market?

Lewis (1976) asserts that employers can be

more selective in a loose labor market.

They can raise their hiring

criteria rather than contend for better qualified candidates by means
of higher wages.

Furthermore, graduates from the training program

might be considered as foregoing immediate unskilled or semi-skilled
employment opportunities that might arise, in favor of investment in
improved job-entry skills that may eventually lead to an improved
wage and long-term job advantages.
A purported justification for manpower training programs, in
addition to delivering job-entry skills, is that of enhancing the
future labor market potential of participants.
From this it appears that three principal benefits from
institutionalized training might be suggested (Lewis, 1976, 67).
These are:
1.

The development of job entry skills and attitudes
will help the trainee to find an appropriate job.

41

2.

Institutionalized training and education will
exemplify and reinforce a client's assortment
of job skills and attitudes.

3.

The obtaining of recognized skill training will
enable the client to find a more advantageous
job than would otherwise be the case.

This raises the question of what constitutes an "advantageous"
or "good" job.

One obvious criteria of acceptability would be

salary level or wage rate.

Other factors of acceptance would be

highly subjective of and individual preference with such abstract
qualities as work environment, degree of responsibility, the
challenge and variety of work, and job security.

Some individuals

may be more content with routine operations as opposed to a continually
changing and challenging skill milieu.

Some may not wish to contend

with the added problems and stress that are
added responsibility and higher

usually associated with

wages. A measuring

rod indicative of

"better jobs" cannot therefore be universally applied (Lewis at a l ,
1976, 78).
From this it is suggested that job satisfaction, obtaining from
a job training program, cannot be inferred solely in terms of wagegain or salary benefits.

The value parameters of youth in recent

years have seemingly shifted, including those relating to job satisfaction.
It may be that trainees are willing to forego immediate wage advantage
in an uncertain labor market, for job satisfaction, long-range job
security and future higher wage
Job satisfaction is highly
preferences.

gain.
variant

andsubject

to individual

Not everyone wishes to cope with the pressures and

problems greater degrees of responsibility associated with higher

42

wages and promotions.

The questions of work variety and job challenge,

job environment and worker relationships, routine work as against
constantly changing job functions and pressures are subjective attributes
of the work situation, with variant appeal to different individuals.
The desirability of utilizing a control group methodology in
manpower training evaluation was stressed by the Michigan Bureau
of Employment and Training in its evaluation Report No. 1 (February,
1977).

On the question of a viable comparison group methodology to

facilitate a research design appropriate to manpower training
evaluation, Borus and Buntz (1972, 238) suggested that a prevalent
control group approach is that of selecting individuals who apply
for a program, are eligible to enter the program, meet the entrance
requirements, but who for one reason or another do not choose to
participate.

A somewhat similar view is expressed by Hardin and

Borus (1971, 21) in that control group memberscould consist

of

individuals who had expressed an interest in training, who met the
basic eligibility requirements but who did not enroll in any training
for at least a year after the course.

Glennan (1969) stated that

a control group could be a group of individuals who are similar to
the trainees in all respects except for the receipt of training.
The almost identical view of Sewell (1971, 25) in the use of
control groups in manpower training program evaluation is that
control groups of nontrainees were basically comprised of individuals
who were in similar circumstances to trainees before training took
place.

This approach to comparison group methodology is criticized

by Ulman (1976) as deficient.

He suggested the virtual impossibility

43

of pairing off program participants with otherwise identical control
groups.
In summary, while the use of a control group approach in manpower
training program evaluation is almost universally agreed, there is no
concurrence on a control group methodology best suited for training
program evaluation.

The most prevalent or recommended comparison

group technique appears to be that of selecting people from the
cohort who apply for CETA training, are considered eligible, but
who do not actually enroll in Classroom Training.
With regard to specific Michigan Balance of State evaluation
studies, the Michigan Department of Labor, through the Bureau of
Employment and Training, published in February, 1977, its first annual
CETA Performance Report.

This report qualifies as the first comprehensive

profile on the status of CETA Balance of State performance.

Client

characteristics and their termination outcomes are tabulated in the
report.

Regional cost-effectiveness in each entitlement and program

area is described and given meaning.

Comparison and performance

tables support the factual and explanatory statements of CETA activity
in the Balance of State.
In addition to the CETA performance report referred to, the
Bureau of Employment and Training has published Report No. 1 (February,
1977) in the Manpower Services Evaluation Series.

This is the first

evaluative study of Michigan Balance of State CETA program performance
employing statistical techniques.

A multivariate analysis approach,

using multiple-regression techniques, attempted to evaluate program
effectiveness.

The objective of the study was to evaluate the

44

relationship between participant characteristics and participant program
success during the fiscal year, 1976.

Participant characteristics in

three CETA Title I programs (Classroom Training, On-The-Job Training,
and Work Experience) were analyzed to obtain the probability of
success, in terms of the participant's sex, age, educational level
and race.

Success for On-The-Job Training was defined as "unsubsidized

employment at termination", while for Classroom Training and Work
Experience, success pertains to employment or federally defined "Other
Positive" reason for participant termination.
No attempt was made to measure the effectiveness of program
performance in terms of placement wage determination and local labor
market conditions.

It was reported that the success factors or

effectiveness of individual programs was not within the scope of
the study.

The absence of control group comparison was recognized

by the MSES report and it recommended the establishment of such
control in future effectiveness studies.

The MSES study embodied the

Classroom Training sector of the CETA population pertinent to this
study, as well as other programs and titles.
are similar.

The population clientele

Therefore, the summary of findings of the MSES report bears

some relationship to the objectives of this study.

The findings of the

MSES study were:
Females and nonwhites may be better served by
participation in on-the-job training.
Older workers seem to be at a disadvantage in
the work experience program and may be better
served by either classroom training or on-thejob training.
Youth (under 22) are not very successful in
on-the-job training and are better served by
work experience, although classroom training
may also provide a successful outcome.

45

Participants with less than a high school education
are at a disadvantage in any program. Therefore
additional supportive services may be required to
obtain a successful completion.
Participants with at least one year of college are
successful regardless of program. It is possible,
then, that they would be successful regardless of
CETA.
Data for the Manpower Services Evaluation System, Report No. 1 (1977),
were essentially that of the comprehensive MSES data base stored in the
MSES Master File.

MSES is a computer system programmed to store, monitor

and assess area CETA performance.

Common CETA definitions, procedures

and techniques are programmed into the system to allow accurate and
fast information retrieval.

On-Line Data Maintenance is an input

routine for entering, updating and correcting client data and related
information in the Master File.

On-Line Information Retrieval allows

for immediate retrieval of training information, client characteristics
and funding data for comparison and cross tabulation analysis.

Summary
In Chapter Two the historical precedents to federal manpower
training programs were reviewed, culminating in the development of
CETA legislation.

This was followed by a survey of literature examining

the question of appropriate cost-benefit parameters and the difficulty
of developing effective and acceptable cost-effective evaluation
procedures.

Alternative success factors for CETA program evaluation

were researched, embracing possible social merit and positive social
adjustment features.

Finally, the question of appropriate control group

methodology suitable to manpower program evaluation studies was explored
and pertinent Michigan manpower evaluation studies were reviewed.

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH PROCEDURES

The research design for the study is presented in this chapter.
The elements discussed are as follows:

the population, the sample

and sampling methodology, the survey instrument, data collection,
the pilot study and the analysis of the data.

Population
The population for this study consisted of applicants and
participants of the CETA Classroom Training program in a selected
geographical area of the Michigan Balance of State consortia.
Clients were designated either as Positive Terminations, Non-Positive
Terminations, or Eligible but Non-Entered with respect to the
training program.
The selected geographical area consists of the two Michigan CETA
regions of Livingston County and the Thumb Area.

The three counties

of Sanilac, Huron and Tuscola constitute the Thumb Area region.
The research study is restricted to CETA clientele applying
for or participating in the Classroom Training program during the
period of fiscal year, 1977, covering a 12-month period ending
June 30, 1977.
For those participating in the Classroom Training program —
the experimental group —

the Livingston County region population

was approximately 60 in the fiscal year, 1977, and for the Thumb Area

46

47

region, approximately 250.

Thus the total population participating in

CETA institutionalized training relevant to the study is approximately
310.
The control group consists of CETA clients who have been assessed
as eligible for participation in the Classroom Training program during
the fiscal period covered by the study, but who never actually enrolled
in CETA institutionalized training.

The control group population

embraced approximately 400 individuals in the two research study
regions.

Sample and Sample Methodology
A proportionate random sampling technique was employed for
selecting representative sample units on a regional basis.

The

sampling technique was utilized for both the experimental group
and for the comparison group.
The total sample selected was 244, comprising an experimental
group of 120 participants and a control or comparison group of 124
nonparticipating applicants to the CETA institutionalized training
program.
A low response to a mailed questionnaire was expected, by virtue
of the nature of the population under study.
60 percent was felt probable.

A response of less than

CETA clientele tend toward a larger

than normal rate of transience, compounded by employment uncertainty
and other social dilemmas unquestionably facing them.

Concomitant

with this is a possible suspicion of government agencies and other
groups seeking information of a personal nature.

This suggests low

motivation to completion of or response to a research study request,

48

especially £or those clients classified as Non-Positive Terminations.
With the study covering the time period of fiscal year, 1977,
many individuals in the sample had likely changed residency and jobs
in the ensuing period, thus making it difficult to contact them.
By virtue of the expected low response to the mailed questionnaire,
a telephone follow-up technique was planned.

All nonrespondents to

the mailed questionnaire would be contacted by telephone in order to
obtain either a telephoned response or to arrange for a direct
interview response to the instrument.
The MSES computer Master File was used to draw the proportionate
random sample.

Names and addresses of the sample constituents were

retrieved.

Instrumentation
A portion of the obtained data was retrieved from the MSES
computer Master File.

This information involved pertinent data

obtained from clients at the time of their application for CETA
training.
The principal instrument for data collection was a questionnaire.
The questionnaire attempted to capture relevant post-training economic
and social data.

A copy of this survey instrument is contained in

Appendix D.
A review of literature produced a survey instrument by Lewis
et al (1976), a possible instrument format, and from which a suitable
questionnaire might be designed.
The instrument utilized in the Lewis study pertained to school
supervised work experience programs; it was not suitable per se for

49

this research study.

It did suggest a possible approach and format

for the instrument in this study.
The instrument was designed in consultation with research advisers
within the faculties of Education and Labor and Industrial Relations
at Michigan State University, and research personnel of the

Bureau

of Employment and Training, among others.
The first 30 questions on the questionnaire,
training and socio-economic intent, were designed

of mainly post­
to be completed

by both the experimental and the comparison groups.

The latter 14

questions relate to the derived perceptions of respondents of the
experimental cohort to various aspects of the CETA institutionalized
training program.
A modified Likert scale was developed to capture data in the
opinions and perceptions sector of the questionnaire.
The following categories of information derived from the research
instruments:
1.

socio-demographic data recorded when client applied for
CETA training,

2.

socio-economic data recorded when client applied for CETA
training,

3.

post-training period socio-economic data,

4.

perceptions and opinions of CETA clients pertaining to
job-finding activities and CETA guidance services, and

5.

perceptions and opinions involving training program
experience.

50

Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted, employing a randomly selected
sample of 28 subjects from the CETA population under study.

The

pilot survey was undertaken for the purpose of validating the
instrument, including that of evaluating the ability of respondents
to understand and complete the questionnaire.
Of the 28 mailed questionnaires constituting the pilot study,
each included a letter of transmittal and a stamped return envelope.
Seven undelivered mailed questionnaires were returned and of the
remaining 21 questionnaires, 13 were returned completed, resulting
in a response rate of 62 percent.

Following the pilot survey, certain

minor modifications to the instrument were undertaken to improve
the possibility of respondent understanding and completion of the
instrument.

Questionnaire items were reviewed at this time and the

format modified to ensure maximum utility.
As previously stated, it was recognized that those most likely
to not respond are representative of the sector of CETA clientele
from whom we most wish to obtain data.

The possibility of sampling

bias is, therefore, real.

Data Collection
A questionnaire, a letter of transmittal and a stamped return
envelope were mailed to each of 244 randomly selected individuals
constituting the sample, and made up of 120 training program
participants, the experimental category, and 124 nonparticipating
applicants for CETA training, the comparison category.
Of the experimental group, 11 undelivered mailed questionnaires

51

were returned and one training program participant was reported by a
parent as deceased during the training period.

Five control group

questionnaires were returned as undeliverable.
Three weeks after the mailing, a telephone follow-up procedure
was initiated for all nonrespondents to the mailed questionnaire.
For those CETA clients contacted by this procedure, completion of the
instrument by telephone was requested.
Two research assistants were employed and trained to ensure the
completion of the questionnaires during telephone interviewing of
respondents.

The researcher was always present during the telephone

interviewing process, to facilitate and supervise this research
procedure.
The strategy employed involved visitation to each county in turn
to undertake a regional telephone follow-up program on nonrespondents
to the mailed instrument.

Individuals who manifested reluctance to

participate in a telephone interview were encouraged to participate
in a direct interview at a time convenient to them.
advantage of this offer.

No one took

The telephone interview was completed

either at the initial contact or at a time more convenient to the
respondent.
A number of individuals were difficult to contact, either as a
result of shift work or by reason of employment requiring absence
from home for extended periods.
The telephone interviewing technique involved a brief introduction,
referring to the earlier mailed questionnaire.

It was then suggested

that the individual had been too busy to find time to complete the

52

instrument.

The potential respondent was then invited to complete

the questionnaire by telephone interview either at that time or at
a time more convenient.

Questions were read to the respondent and

clarified, interpreted or repeated as necessary.

The average time for

completion of the instrument by telephone interview was ten minutes.
A continued effort was made to telephone-trace and contact those
who were either not at home when telephoned or who had moved to a
new location.
With the above approach 68 individuals in the experimental group
and 80 in the control group responded, giving a response rate of
63 percent and 67 percent respectively.

Thus an over-all response

rate of 65 percent was achieved.
Of the 148 respondents, 92 did so by mail, constituting 62 percent
of the return.

Fifty-six responses, or 38 percent of the return,

were obtained by telephone interview.

Analysis of Data
Data resulting from both response to the questionnaire and
from retrieved information obtained from respondents on application
for CETA training were transferred to coding forms and, thence, to
IBM punched cards.

Following verification, these data were analyzed

at the computer facility at Memorial University of Newfoundland,
utilizing the IBM 870 type computer at Memorial University.
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was employed
to analyze data.

The SPSS subprogram FREQUENCIES, CONDESCRIPTIVE and

CROSSTABS were enlisted to provide appropriate descriptive and
statistical analysis.

53

The Chi-Square statistical test of relationship was utilized in
contingency tabulation, in addition to the over-all application of
frequency analysis.

A .05 level of significance was established.

Summary
Chapter Three has described the design, development and
implementation of the research survey.

The population is depicted

and the sample, sampling methodology, instrument design and the
data collection strategy are outlined.

The procedures for both the

pilot study and for the analysis of research data are also presented.

CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS

In this chapter, the results of data analysis captured through
the application of the survey instrument, a questionnaire, in addition
to the related socio-demographic information retrieved from the
Manpower Services Evaluation System data bank, are presented.

Over-View of Chapter Four
The findings are manifested in two main sections.

The first

section is concerned with the socio-demographic characteristics of
respondents, involving termination status and whether or not respondents
participated in the Classroom Training program.

The analysis of possible

relationship between variables is the basis on which the findings
are promulgated.
The second section comprises suggested socio-economic success
factors in terms of employment status, wage-gain, and continuing
education and training improvement.

The related questions of participant

satisfaction with CETA Classroom Training and respondent perceptions
of the adequacy of CETA career guidance, are also covered in this latter
section as sub-sections or sectors of socio-economic success factors.
Descriptive data in terms of frequency counts and percentage
relationships are embodied in the analysis.

An attempt has been made

to directly relate the findings of the chapter to the research problem
promulgated at the beginning of this study and further articulated

54

55

by the hypotheses.

Survey Profile
From a sample of 244 manpower training applicants and participants
for the CETA Classroom Training program, data resulted from 148
respondents, consisting of 68 Classroom Training participants, the
experimental group, and 80 nonparticipating applicants, the control
group.
A total of 72 variables were tested, covering both socio-demographic
and socio-economic characteristics.

In addition to the over-all

application of frequency analysis, the Chi-Square statistical test of
relationship was utilized in contingency tabulation bearing directly
on the hypotheses.

A .05 level of significance was selected.

A significant relationship was found in only two hypotheses.
One, (H06), involves perceptions of adequacy of career guidance and
counseling on the part of respondents.

The second significant

relationship is concerned with the obtaining of unsubsidized employment
as stated by hypothesis (H04).

Nonsignificant relationships are

reported in the findings, including the appropriate crosstabulation
tables.

SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

As indicated earlier, this section examines the response and
retrieved data of a sample of applicants and participants of the CETA
Classroom Training program for the fiscal year, 1977, in terms of
socio-demographic factors.

These factors consist of sex, age, level of

education, ethnicity, labor force status including migrant farm worker,

56

whether or not the client is handicapped, a veteran or an offender.
Response to the survey instrument totalled 148, consisting of
68 respondents (46.0 percent) in the experimental group and 80 (54.0
percent) from the comparison or control group.

On the basis of a

research sample of 244, a response of 148 represents an over-all
response rate of 65 percent.

The two CETA regions of Livingston

County and the Thumb Area of Michigan constituted the Classroom Training
program population for this study.

The three counties making up the

Thumb Area are Sanilac, Huron and Tuscola counties.
Numerically, the largest response was from Sanilac County, with
43, or 28.9 percent of the total response.

The smallest return was

from Livingston County, with 31, or 20.8 percent of the total response.
Table I tabulates the percent returns for the two regions, including
relevant response in the categories of experimental and control.

TABLE I
RESPONSE BY COUNTY

Experimental
Response Percent

Control
Response Percent

County

Region

Livingston

1A

15

48.4

16

51.6

31

Sanilac

7A

24

55.8

19

44.2

42

Huron

7A

13

38.2

21

61.8

34

Tuscola

7A

17

41.5

24

58.5

41

Total
Percent

68
46.0

80
54.0

Total

148
100.0

57

Table II expresses a profile summary of the characteristics of
respondents, in terms of frequency count and percentage relationship,
for the data captured in the study from both applicants and participants
of the CETA Classroom Training program.

TABLE II
PROFILE OF CETA CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM CLIENTS
(N. = 148)

Variable

Frequency

Group
Experimental
Control

Percent

TOTAL

68
80
148

45.9
54.1
100.0

TOTAL

71
77
148

48.0
52.0
100.0

TOTAL

33
86
29
148

22.3
58.1
19.6
100.0

TOTAL

17
26
98
7
148

11.5
17.6
66.2
4.7
100.0

TOTAL

146
2
0
0
148

98.6
1.4
0.0
0.0
100.0

Sex
Male
Female

Age
18 - 21
22 - 34
35 - 55

Education
Less than Grade 10
10 - 11
Grade 12
13 and Over
3

Ethnic Group
White
American Indian
Black
Other

^Spanish American has been used as a separate category.

58

Table II, Continued

Variable

Frequency

Spanish American
Yes
No

Percent

TOTAL

11
137
148

7.4
92.6
100.0

TOTAL

1
147
148

0.7
99.3
100.0

TOTAL

3
145
148

2.0
98.0
100.0

TOTAL

18
130
148

12.2
87.8
100.0

TOTAL

9
139
148

6.1
93.9
100.0

TOTAL

9
139
148

6.1
93.9
100.0

Labor Force Status on Application
Employed
16
132
Unemployed
TOTAL
148

10.8
89.2
100.0

Migrant Farm Worker
Yes
No

Seasonal Farm Worker
Yes
No

Veteran
Yes
No

Handicapped
Yes
No

Offender
Yes
No

The first hypothesis is concerned with the relationship of the
independent variable of client status, in terms of participation
(experimental group) or nonparticipation (control group) in the
training program, with each of nine socio-demographic characteristics.

59

Eleven tests of relationship are associated with the total of nine
socio-demographic factors.

The Chi-Square analysis of relationship

was not significant in any of the eleven tests.
The second hypothesis involves the relationship of the independent
variable of Termination Status, in terms of either Positive or NonPositive Termination of participants in the Classroom Training program
and the same nine socio-demographic factors as for the first hypothesis.
Again, the investigations of relationship, using the Chi-Square test,
were not significant.
The findings for each of the socio-demographic characteristics
are as follows:

Sex
Considering only the experimental group, or those who participated
in the Classroom Training program, 51, or 75 percent, terminated
positively while 17, or 25 percent, are classed as Non-Positive
Terminations.
For those training program participants who terminated positively,
29 (57 percent) were female and 22 (A3 percent) male.

The ratio was

somewhat closer in the Non-Positive Termination category, with nine
female (53 percent) and eight male (47 percent).

For the Control

Group, there were 39 females (49 percent) and 41 males (51 percent).
Table III presents the two-way contingency tabulation.
In comparing the relationship of client status with the sex of
respondents, a fairly close division of gender is apparent.

Seventy-one

(48 percent) of respondents were male and 77 (52 percent) were female.
A crosstabulation analysis was done, employing the Chi-Square
statistical test for relationship.

The Chi-Square value was 0.8277 with

60

a resulting significance of 0.661.

Thus, no significant relationship

between sex and termination category was found.

TABLE III
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEX OF RESPONDEOT
AND CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

Sex

Frequency
Percent

Male

Female

Total
Percent

Control
Group

Total

22
14.9

8
5.4

41
27.7

71
48.0

29
19.6

9
6.1

39
26.4

77
52.0

51
34.5

17
11.5

80
54.1

148
100.0

CHI-SQUARE = 0.828
SIGNIFICANCE = 0.6611

Age
Testing for the presence or absence of relationship between
client status and the age of respondents, three age-group categories
were used as shown in Table IV.
A Chi-Square value of 4.123 resulted from the contingency tabulation,
with a significance factor of 0.389.

Thus no significant relationship

between age and termination category was found.
Respondents ranged in age from 18 years to 55 years.
age of the sample was 25 and the mode 23 years of age.

The median

Fifty-eight

point one (58.1) percent of the total respondents were in the 22 to 34

61

age group, while 22.3 percent were in the 18 to 21 years category.
The remaining 19.6 percent were aged 35 and over.
Over 40 percent of those nonpositively terminating from the
program were in the youngest age category, as against 20 percent
for both the Positive Termination sector and the Control Group.
In the highest age category, approximately 12 percent of
Non-Positive Terminations were reported in this group, compared to
a proportionately higher ratio of 21 percent for both the Control
and the Positive Termination groups.

TABLE IV
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE OF RESPONDEOT
AND CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

Age

Under 22

Frequency
Percent

Control
Group

Total

10
6.8

7
4.7

16
10.8

33
22.3

22 to 34

30
20.3

8
5.4

48
32.4

86
58.1

35 to 55

11
7.4

2
1.4

16
10.8

29
19.6

80
54.1

148
100.0

Total
Percent

CHI-SQUARE = 4.123
SIGNIFICANCE - 0.3896

51
34.5

17
11.5

62

Education
The crosstabulation test of relationship between the highest
educational grade reported by respondents on application for CETA
Classroom Training and their training program status is presented
in Table V.

Four categories of educational attainment are employed:

Grade 9 and lower; Grades 10 and 11; Grade 12; and Grades 13 and
higher.
The Chi-Square analysis of relationship was found to be 5.742
with the accompanying level of significance of 0.4527.

Thus, no

significant relationship between education and termination category
was found.
A higher proportion of Positive Terminations (approximately
16 percent) were in the lower educational grade category compared
to six percent for Non-Positive Terminations and ten percent of the
Control Group.

Ten percent of Positive Terminations and 21 percent

of the Control Group were found to be in this category.
Over-all, two-thirds of respondents had Grade 12, and 71 percent
had Grade 12 or better.

Seventeen point six (17.6) percent of

respondents reported an educational level of Grade 10 or 11 on
application, while only 11.5 percent of all respondents had less
than Grade 10 standing.

63

TABLE V
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATION AND
CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

Education

Control
Group

Total

8
5.4

1
0.7

8
5.4

17
11.5

5
3.4

4
2.7

17
11.5

26
17.6

Grade 12

36
24.3

12
8.1

50
33.8

98
66.2

Grade 13
and Above

2
1.4

0
0.0

5
3.4

7
4.7

51
34.5

17
11.5

80
54.1

148
100.0

Less than
Grade 10

Frequency
Percent

Grades
10 and 11

Total
Percent

CHI-SQUARE = 5.742
SIGNIFICANCE = 0.4527

Ethnicity
Two related dependent variables were employed to test for the
possibility of relationship between Ethnicity and Training Program
Status.

Following a test involving Ethnicity, in terms of racial

origin employing the categories of White, Black, American Indian,
and Other, a further comparison analysis was administered utilizing
the variable Spanish American derivation.

It may be noted that the

Department of Labor does not designate the category of "Spanish
American" as a choice of ethnic origin, but designates a separate
classification of whether or not an individual is of Spanish American
origin.

64

Table VI presents the test of relationship between ethnicity and
training program status.

Only two categories of ethnicity were found,

with two respondents (1.4 percent) Indicating American Indian origin and
the balance of 146 respondents (98.6 percent) designating their ethnic
background as White.

No respondents indicated ethnicity in the categories

of "Black" or "Other".
A Chi-Square analysis of relationship resulted in a value of 3.323,
and with a significance factor of 0.189.

Thus, no significant

relationship between ethnicity and termination category was found.
An American Indian respondent was found to be in each of the
Control Group and the Non-Positive Termination group respectively.
As previously stated, 98.6 percent of respondents indicated ethnicity
as White.

TABLE VI
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ETHNICITY AND
CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

Ethnicity

White

Frequency
Percent

American
Indian

Total
Percent

CHI-SQUARE - 3.323
SIGNIFICANCE ■ 0.1899

51
34.5

16
10.8

Control
Group

Total

79
53.4

146
98.6

0

1

1

0.0

0.7

0.7

2
1.4

51
34.5

17
11.5

80
54.1

148
100.0

65

Spanish American Origin
Comparing program status with the question of whether or not
respondent is of Spanish American origin, 11 respondents (7.4 percent)
indicated an affirmative answer.

This is shown in Table VII.

A Chi-Square test of relationship was not significant, with a
Chi-Square value of 0.6388 and a significance evaluation of 0.727.
Thus, no significant relationship between Spanish American Origin and
termination category was found.
Of the 11 Spanish American respondents, five (3.4 percent) were
in the category of Positive Termination, a similar number in the
Control Group category, and one (0.7 percent) reported Non-Positive
Termination status.

TABLE VII
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPANISH AMERICAN ORIGIN
AND CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

„
...
.
Spanish American
*

No

Termination
_
Positive Non-Positive

Frequency
Percent

Yes

Total
Percent

CHI-SQUARE = 0.638
SIGNIFICANCE = 0.7266

Control
Group

Total

46
31.1

16
10.8

75
50.7

137
92.6

5
3.4

1
0.7

5
3.4

11
7.4

51
34.5

17
11.5

80
54.1

148
100.0

66

Migrant and Seasonal Farm Worker Status
A separate contingency tabulation was undertaken for each
of the two variables, Migrant Farm Worker and Seasonal Farm Worker.
Table VIII tabulates the analysis of relationship between
Migrant Farm Worker and Program Status.
Table IX presents the crosstabulation analysis for the Seasonal
Farm Worker.
For the category of Migrant Farm Worker, a test of relationship
employing Chi-Square analysis resulted in a Chi-Square value of
0.8558 and a significance of 0.632.

Thus, no significant relationship

between migrant farm workers and termination category was found.
One respondent is recorded as a Migrant Farm Worker.

This

client, representing 0.7 percent of total response, is in the
Control Group.
In testing for relationship between Seasonal Farm Worker and
Program Status, three respondents (2.0 percent) were found to be
Seasonal Farm Workers.

Two were in the Control Group and one

terminated nonpositively.
A Chi-Square value of 2.418 had a significance factor of 0.299.
Thus, no significant relationship between seasonal farm workers and
termination category was found.

67

TABLE VIII

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CATEGORY OF MIGRANT
FARM WORKER AND CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

Migrant Farm Worker

Yes

Frequency
Percent

No

Total
Percent

Control
Group

Total

0
0.0

0
0.0

1
0.7

1
0.7

51
34.5

17
11.5

79
53.4

147
99.3

51
34.5

17
11.5

80
54.1

148
100.0

CHI-SQUARE = 0.856
SIGNIFICANCE = 0.6519

TABLE IX
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CATEGORY OF SEASONAL
FARM WORKER AND CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

Seasonal Farm Worker

Yes

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

Frequency
Percent

No

Total
Percent

CHI-SQUARE “ 2.418
SIGNIFICANCE «= 0.2986

Control
Group

Total

0
0.0

1
0.7

2
1.4

3
2.0

51
34.5

16
10.8

78
52.7

145
98.0

51
34.5

17
11.5

80
54.1

148
100.0

68

Veteran Status
Veteran status is compared with Training Program status with
respect to possible relationship, utilizing crosstabulation analysis.
The Chi-Square test of relationship is reported in Table X.
Chi-Square analysis derives a value of 0.4569 and a significance
factor of 0.796.
Eighteen respondents (12.2 percent) were veterans, with 11
(7.4 percent) in the Control Group, five (3.4 percent) having Positive
Termination, and two (1.4 percent) Non-Positive Termination status.

TABLE X
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VETERAN CATEGORY
AND CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

VeLcrall

Yes

Frequency
Percent

No

Total
Percent

Control
Group

iotai

5
3.4

2
1.4

11
7.4

18
12.2

46
31.1

15
10.1

69
46.6

130
87.8

51
34.5

17
11.5

80
54.1

148
100.0

CHI-SQUARE = 0.457
SIGNIFICANCE - 0.7958

Handicapped
In analyzing the relationship of Handicapped designation with
Program Status, nine respondents (6.1 percent) reported as being
handicapped.

69

A Chi-Square test of relationship resulted in a value of
4.562 and a significance factor of 0.1022.

Thus, no significant

relationship between being handicapped and termination category
was found.
Two handicapped respondents (1.4 percent) achieved Positive
Termination, three (2.0 percent) were rated as Non-Positive Terminations,
and four (2.7 percent) were in the Control Group.

Thus, of the five

CETA clients in the experimental group, 60 percent did not terminate
positively from their training program.
The analysis of relationship tabulation is presented in Table XI.

TABLE XI
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HANDICAPPED CATEGORY
AND CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

Handicapped

Yes

Frequency
Percent

No

Total
Percent

Control
Group

Total

2
1.4

3
2.0

4
2.7

9
6.1

49
33.1

14
9.5

76
51.4

139
93.9

51
34.5

17
11.5

80
54.1

148
100.0

CHI-SQUARE = 4.562
SIGNIFICANCE = 0.1022

Offender
No significant relationship was found between the dependent
variable Offender and Training Program Status.

A two-way contingency

70

table analysis of these two variables Is presented In Table XII.
A Chi-Square test of statistical significance resulted in a
Chi-Square value of 2.515, with a significance factor of 0.284.

No

significant relationship was found, therefore, between Offender and
program category.
Nine respondents, representing 6.1 percent of the total sample,
had been Offenders.

Seven (4.7 percent) were in the Control Group,

with one (0.7 percent) in each of Positive and Non-Positive Termination
categories.

TABLE XII
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFENDER CATEGORY
AND CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

Offender

Yes

Total
Percent

Total

1
0.7

1
0.7

7
4.7

9
6.1

50
33.8

16
10.8

73
49.3

139
93.9

51
34.5

17
11.5

80
54.0

148
100.0

Frequency
Percent

No

Control
Group

CHI-SQUARE = 2.5149
SIGNIFICANCE - 0.2844

Labor Force Status on Application for Training
The relationship between Training Program Status of respondents
and Labor Force Status on application for CETA Classroom Training in
terms of either employed or unemployed standing, and utilizing two-way

71

contingency table analysis, was not significant.

Table XIII reports

the findings.
The Chi-Square test of relationship resulted in a value of
2.1828, with the significance factor, resulting from the analysis,
equalling 0.336.

Therefore, no significant relationship between

Labor Force Status and Termination Program Status was in evidence.
One hundred thirty-two respondents (89.2 percent of the total
sample) reported themselves as unemployed on application for CETA
training.

Sixteen respondents (10.8 percent) were employed.

To be eligible for training, applicants are required to be
either unemployed or under-employed at the time of application,
with wages below the recognized poverty level.
The distribution of respondents who were employed on application,
in terms of CETA training program status, shows that the highest
proportion of any of the three categories of program status were
three respondents in the Non-Positive category, representing
approximately 18 percent of the Non-Positive Terminations and 2.0
percent of the total sample.

This compares to seven clients

(approximately 14 percent of Positive Terminations) who were employed,
or 4.7 percent of total sample.

For the Control Group, six respondents

were employed, constituting 8 percent of that group and representing
4.1 percent of the total sample.

72

TABLE XIII
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LABOR FORCE STATUS
ON APPLICATION AND TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

Labor Force Status

Employed

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

Frequency
Percent

Unemployed

Total
Percent

Control
Group

Total

7
4.7

3
2.0

6
4.1

16
10.8

44
29.7

14
9.5

74
50.0

132
89.2

51
34.4

17
11.5

80
54.1

148
100.0

CHI-SQUARE = 2.1828
SIGNIFICANCE = 0 . 3 3 6

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

The third hypothesis will be examined in this section.

It is

concerned with the relationship of socio-economic factors and CETA
client termination status.

Three socio-economic variables are each

compared to the independent variable of Termination Status, employing
two-way contingency tables to analyze relatedness.
economic characteristics used are:

The three socio­

Wage Improvement, Training

Satisfaction, and Continuing Education and/or Training Improvement.
No significant relationship was found, employing the Chi-Square test
of relationship, in any of the three tests.
Additionally, the remaining hypotheses that relate to success
factors associated with the CETA institutionalized training program,

73

H0 (5), and
H0 ( 4 )

HQ ( 6 ) ,

are presented in this section.

is concerned with the topic of obtaining unsubsidized

employment on the part of CETA Classroom Training Program clients.
Two areas of possible subsidization are analyzed:
employment and CETA funded employment.

Public Service

A significant relationship

was found, following the utilization of the Chi-Square test of
relationship, in the instance of Public Service Subsidized Employment.
H o (5) refers to the perceived value of CETA training by respondents
who participated in CETA institutionalized training.
H0 (6) involves respondent perceptions of the adequacy of CETA
guidance and counseling services.

A significant relationship was

found, following a Chi-Square analysis of possible relationship.
The findings for each of the socio-economic characteristics
follow:

Wage Improvement in Present Employment
The dependent variable Wage Improvement was tested for the
presence or absence of significant relationship between it and
respondent training program status.

Eighty-one respondents answered

either Yes or No to the question as to whether or not they received
a wage improvement in their present employment.
A Chi-Square value of 3.477 resulted from the contingency table
analysis, with a significance factor of 0.1757.

From this it is

evident that no significant relationship exists between the training
program status of respondents and the question of Wage Improvement
for those employed at the time of the survey.
Of the 81 respondents answering the question, 44 (54.3 percent)

74

indicated a wage improvement in their present employment, while 37
(45.7 percent) reported no wage improvement.
Of those giving an affirmative reply to this question, 29
(35.8 percent) were from the Control Group, 11 (13.6 percent) were
from the Positive Termination Group, and four (4.9 percent) were
Non-Positive Terminations.
Pertinent findings for this test of relationship is presented
in Table XIV.
Thus, a large proportion of Positive Terminations —
60 percent —

almost

did not receive a wage improvement in their current

job, compared to 50 percent for Non-Positive Terminations, and
37 percent of the Control Group.

TABLE XIV
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WAGE IMPROVEMENT
IN JOB AND TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

TT
_
^
Wage Improvement

Yes

Termination
Posltlve Non.Poaltlve

Frequency
Percent

No

Total
Percent

CHI-SQUARE - 3.477
SIGNIFICANCE - 0.1757

Control
Group

Total

11
13.6

4
4.9

29
35.8

44
54.3

16
19.8

4
4.9

17
21.0

37
45.7

27
33.3

8
9.9

46
56.8

81
100.0

75

Training Satisfaction
A crosstabulation analysis to test the relationship between
Program Termination Status and the dependent variable Training
Satisfaction was found to be not significant.
A modified Likert-type scale was employed to measure the
perceptions of respondents regarding satisfaction with their training
program.

The pertinent question was: "Over-all, how satisfied

are you with the training you received in the CETA Classroom Training
Program?"

In addition to five possible responses to the question,

ranging from Very Satisfied to Very Dissatisfied, the question
also allowed for the response of either No Opinion or No Training
Undertaken.

This latter choice was utilized as a check to ensure that

respondents to the question had, indeed, enrolled in the CETA
Classroom Training program.
The Chi-Square test of relationship resulted in a value of 2.149
with a significance factor of 0.905.

Therefore, no significant

relationship occurred between Termination Status and client Training
Satisfaction.

Table XV reports the findings appropriate to this analysis.

Of the 67 Classroom Training program recipients, 50 (74.6 percent)
were Positive Terminations and 17 (25.4 percent) Non-Positive Terminations.
Forty-one respondents (61.2 percent) indicated satisfaction or
better with respect to their particular training program, while nine
(13.4 percent) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

Fourteen

respondents who had undertaken the Classroom Training program (20.9
percent) recorded dissatisfaction with their training program.

Of

these, ten (14.9 percent) were Positive Terminations, representing
20 percent of that category, compared with four respondents (6.0 percent)

76

consisting of 23.6 percent of the Non-Positive Termination category
in this question.
Three recipients of training (4.5 percent) recorded No Opinion
regarding the question of training satisfaction.
Almost two-thirds of Positive Terminations (64.4 percent) indicated
satisfaction with their training program, as compared to slightly more
than half of Non-Positive Terminations (52.9 percent).

TABLE XV
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRAINING SATISFACTION
AND TERMINATION STATUS

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

Training Satisfaction

Total

18
26.9

5
7.5

23
34.3

14
20.9

4
6.0

18
26.9

6
9.0

3
4.5

9
13.4

7
10.4

2
3.0

9
13.4

Very Dissatisfied

3
4.5

2
3.0

5
7.5

No Opinion

2
3.0

1
1.5

3
4.5

50
74.6

17
25.4

67
100.0

Very Satisfied

Frequency
Percent

Satisfied

Neutral

Dissatisfied

Total
Percent

CHI-SQUARE - 2.1487
SIGNIFICANCE - 0.9055

77

Continuing Education and/or Training Improvement
The third dependent variable concerned with socio-economic
success in this study and associated with hypothesis H0 (3) is that
of Continuing Education and/or Training Improvement on the part of
respondents.
Question No. 23 on the survey instrument asked whether or not
the client was now attending an educational or training institution,
either full-time or part-time.
A crosstabulation analysis of Continuing Education and/or
Training Improvement in a test of relationship with Client Status,
showed no significant relationship employing the Chi-Square test
of relatedness.
The findings appear in Table XVI.

A Chi-Square value of

0.7297 was computed, giving a significance level of 0.9476.

Thus,

no significant relationship between Continuing Education and/or
Training Improvement and Client Status was found.
Based on a total sample of 148, only 13 respondents (8.8 percent)
were attending an educational or training institution full-time.
One hundred twenty-seven (85.8 percent) were not now attending an
institution, and eight (5.4 percent) were enrolled as part-time
students or trainees.
Fifty-one (34.5 percent) were Positive Terminations from the
Classroom Training Program, 17 (11.5 percent) Non-Positive Terminations
and 80 (54.1 percent) were in the Control Group.
Table XVI

shows that the ratios of distribution within each

category, relative to Continuing Education and/or Training Status,

78

are somewhat related across categories and to the over-all distribution.
The highest proportion of clients undertaking education or training in
any of the three categories of client status were in the Non-Positive
Termination group with 17.7 percent (three respondents).

This

compares to 13.7 percent (seven respondents) in the Positive Termination
category, and 13.8 percent (11 respondents) for the Control Group.

TABLE XVI
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTINUING
EDUCATION AND/OR TRAINING IMPROVEMENT
AND TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

Continuing Education and/or
Training Improvement

Part-time

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

Frequency
Percent

Full-time

Not Attending

Total
Percent

Control
Group

Total

2
1.4

1
0.7

5
3.4

8
5.4

5
3.4

2
1.4

6
4.1

13
8.8

44
29.7

14
9.5

69
46.6

127
85.8

51
34.5

17
11.5

80
54.1

148
100.0

CHI-SQUARE = 0.7297
SIGNIFICANCE = 0.9476

UNSUBSIDIZED EMPLOYMENT

This section of the chapter is concerned with the possible
relationship between the obtaining of unsubsidized employment and the

79

termination status of respondents, as stated by the fourth hypothesis.
Two employment-related variables are each compared to the
independent variable of client Termination Status.

A Chi-Square

analysis of possible relatedness was utilized with two-way contingency
tabulation.

The two employment-related variables are embodied

in the two questions:

"Is your employment a CETA Funded job?"

and, "Is this employment a Public Service subsidized job?"
A significant relationship was found in the latter employmentrelated variable, with respect to client status.

Is Employment CETA Funded?
Testing for the presence or absence of significant relationship
between client status and whether or not employment is CETA funded,
a Chi-Square statistical analysis was used in conjunction with a
crosstabulation approach.

Additionally, an alternative response

of "Don't Know" was offered to respondents, where client uncertainty
might exist.
The Chi-Square test resulted in a value of 5.405 with a
significance factor of 0.2482.

Therefore, no significant relationship

was in evidence between client status and whether or not employment
was CETA funded.

Table XVII reflects the pertinent findings.

Of the 85 respondents who reacted to this question, 72 (84.7 percent)
reported that their job was not CETA funded, nine (10.6 percent)
affirmed that their employment was CETA funded, and four (4.7 percent)
indicated that they did not know whether or not their employment was
so funded.
category.

All but one of the latter group were in the control

80

Of the nine respondents (10.6 percent) having CETA funded employment,
six (7.1 percent) were Positive Terminations and three (3.5 percent) were

ip the Control Group.
The eight respondents (9.4 percent) to the question who were in
the Non-Positive Termination category, were all employed in non-CETA
funded jobs.
Almost half of the respondents (48.2 percent) were in the Control
Group category and non-CETA funded employment.

TABLE XVII
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CETA FUNDED EMPLOYMENT
AND TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

_
. ,_ ,
CETA Funded Employment

r

J

Termination
_ ,
„
_ . .
Positive Non-Positive

Frequency
Percent

Yes

No

Don1t Know

Total
Percent

Control
Group

Total

6
7.1

0
0.0

3
3.5

9
10.6

23
27.1

8
9.4

41
48.2

72
84.7

1
1.2

0
0.0

3
3.5

4
4.7

30
35.4

8
9.4

47
55.2

85
100.0

CHI-SQUARE * 5.405
SIGNIFICANCE = 0.248

Is Employment Public Service Subsidized?
In analyzing the possible relationship between client status and
whether or not client employment is Public Service subsidized,

81

85 respondents were found to have answered this question of the 91
respondents who reported themselves as employed at the time the survey
Instrument was completed.

Of these, 29 (34.1 percent) were In the

Positive Termination category, eight (9.4 percent) in the Non-Positive
Termination category, and 48 (56.5 percent) from the Control Group.
Following a two-way contingency table analysis, a significant
relationship was found between the above variables, as presented in
Table XVIII.
A Chi-Square value of 11.932 was obtained, with a significance
factor of 0.017.

Thus, the null hypothesis that no significant

relationship exists between Positive Termination and both Non-Positive
Termination and the Control Group, with respect to obtaining unsubsidized
employment can be rejected.
Twelve respondents (14.1 percent) indicated their employment as
Public Service subsidized, while 64 (75.3 percent) responded negatively
to this question.

Of those indicating affirmatively, 9.4 percent were

Positive Terminations, while Non-Positive Terminations and the Control
Group each had 2.4 percent of respondents.
Sixty-four clients (75.3 percent) indicated non-Public Service
subsidized employment, while twelve (14.1 percent) gave an affirmative
answer to the question.

Nine (10.6 percent) did not know whether or

not their employment was Public Service subsidized.
Proportionally, the ratio of Public Service subsidized jobs to
training program termination status was the same —

both Positive

Terminations and Non-Positive Terminations were approximately 25 percent
of their categories, with eight respondents (9.4 percent) and two
(2.4 percent) respectively.

The larger Control Group had only two

82

respondents (2.4 percent) with Public Service subsidized jobs.
The 38 respondents from the Control Group (44.7 percent) who
reported Non-Public subsidized employment, represented about 80 percent
of the Control category, compared to 69 percent for the 20 respondents
(23.5 percent) who were Positive Terminations.

Six respondents (7.1

percent) of the Non-Positive Termination category reported their
employment as Non-Public Service subsidized.

TABLE XVIII
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC SERVICE SUBSIDIZED
EMPLOYMENT AND CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

Public Service
Subsidized
Employment

Yes

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

Frequency
Percent

No

Don't Know

Total
Percent

CHI-SQUARE = 11.932
SIGNIFICANCE = 0.0179

Control
Group

Total

8
9.4

2
2.4

2
2.4

12
14.1

20
23.5

6
7.1

38
44.7

64
75.3

1
1.2

0
0.0

8
9.4

9
10.6

29
34.1

8
9.4

48
56.5

85
100.0

83

VALUE OF CETA CLASSROOM TRAINING

This section is associated with the question of the usefulness or
value of the CETA Classroom Training program in preparing people for
job skills, as perceived by participants of the training program, both
Positive Terminations and Non-Positive Terminations.
A modified Likert-type scale was employed to register the
perceptions of respondents regarding this question.

No significant

relationship was found.
A choice of five possible ratings was presented to participants to
evaluate the CETA Classroom Training program, ranging from "of excellent
value", to "has no significant value".

The question also allowed for

the response of "no opinion".
A two-way contingency tabulation, employing Chi-Square analysis
of possible relationship, resulted in a Chi-Square value of 4.773
and a significance of 0.444.
Therefore, no significant relationship was found between client
termination status and their perceived evaluation of the CETA Classroom
Training program.

Table XIX presents the findings.

The 67 respondents of the sample who had enrolled in the Classroom
Training program consisted of 50 (74.6 percent) Positive Terminations
and 17 (25.4 percent) Non-Positive Terminations.
Forty participants (59.7 percent) evaluated the training program
as "above average" or better, while 56 (83.6 percent) evaluated it
as "average" or better.
Sixty-four percent of Positive Terminations rated the program as
"above average" or better, compared with 47 percent for Non-Positive
Terminations.

84

Five respondents (7.5 percent) rated the Classroom Training
program within the two categories below "average".

Of these, three

(5.5 percent) were Positive Terminations and two (3.0 percent)
Non-Positive Terminations.
Six participants (9.0 percent) registered "no opinion".
Five of these were in the Positive Terminations category.
Only one client (1.5 percent), a Positive Termination, rated
the training program as of "no significant value".

TABLE XIX
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTIONS OF THE VALUE
OF CETA CLASSROOM TRAINING IN OBTAINING
SATISFACTORY JOB PLACEMENT AND TERMINATION STATUS

Value of CETA
Classroom Training

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

Total

15
22.4

2
3.0

17
25.4

Above Average

17
25.4

6
9.0

23
34.3

Average

10
14.9

6
9.0

16
23.9

Less than Average

2
3.0

2
3.0

4
6.0

No Value

1
1.5

0
0.0

1
1.5

No Opinion

5
7.5

1
1.5

6
9.0

50
74.6

17
25.4

67
100.0

Excellent

Frequency
Percent

Total
Percent

CHI-SQUARE - 4.773
SIGNIFICANCE - 0.444

85

ADEQUACY OF CAREER GUIDANCE

The sixth hypothesis pertains to client perceptions of the
adequacy of career guidance and job counseling services associated
with the CETA Classroom Training program, by each of the three
categories of Positive Termination, Non-Positive Termination, and
the Control Group.

This final section of Chapter Four presents the

findings appropriate to this last hypothesis.
A two-way contingency table analysis was undertaken to investigate
the possible relationship between termination status and adequacy of
CETA career guidance services.

A Likert-type rating scale was employed.

Under this procedure, respondents had the choice between five possible
ratings, in addition to the allowed response of "No Opinion".

The

five categories of choice in rating adequacy of career guidance and
counseling services as experienced by respondents ranged from "much
less than adequate", to "much more than adequate".

The findings are

tabulated in Table XX.
A Chi-Square value of 30.289 resulted, with a significance factor
of .0008.

The null hypothesis that no significant relationship exists

in perceptions of adequacy of CETA Career Guidance between CETA client
categories in the Classroom Training program can, therefore, be rejected.
Of the 148 clients involved in the sample, 51 had Positive Termination
status, representing 34.5 percent of the sample, while only 17 (11.5
percent) had Non-Positive Termination.

A little more than half of the

sample (80 clients) were in the Control Group.
More than half of the respondents (51.3 percent) rated CETA guidance
services as adequate or better, while only 27 percent (40 respondents)
rated it less or much less than adequate.

A third of Positive Terminations

86

rated CETA guidance as less or much less than adequate, while only
17.6 percent of those who were Non-Positive Terminations, and 25 percent
of the Control Group did so.

In the Non-Positive group, 8.8 percent of

all respondents rated CETA guidance as adequate or better, compared with
21.6 percent for the Positive Termination group.

For the Control

category, 21 percent of all respondents perceived CETA career guidance
as adequate or better.
Thirty-two respondents (21.6 percent) registered "No Opinion"
regarding the evaluation of CETA guidance.
were in the Control Group.

Twenty-nine (19.6 percent)

87

TABLE XX
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLIENT PERCEPTION OF
ADEQUACY OF CAREER GUIDANCE AND JOB COUNSELING
AND CLASSROOM TRAINING PROGRAM STATUS

Adequacy of
CETA Guidance

Much More

Termination
Positive Non-Positive

Frequency
Percent

Control
Group

Total

3
2.0

1
0.7

0
0.0

4
2.7

5
3.4

1
0.7

5
3.4

11
7.4

Adequate

24
16.2

11
7.4

26
17.6

61
41.2

Less Than

13
8.8

3
2.0

12
8.1

28
18.9

Much Less Than

4
2.7

0
0.0

8
5.4

12
8.1

No Opinion

2
1.4

1
0.7

29
19.6

32
21.6

More Than

Total
Percent

51
34.5

17
11.5

80
54.1

148
100.0

CHI-SQUARE = 30.289
SIGNIFICANCE - 0.0008

SURVEY OF CHAPTER FOUR

Data resulted from the response of 148 respondents, consisting
of an experimental group of 68 training program participants and a
control group of 80 nonparticipating applicants for training.
Seventy-two dependent variables were tested consisting of both

88

socio-demographic and socio-economic factors and characteristics.
The Chi-Square statistical test of relationship was employed in a
crosstabulation analysis technique.

A .05 level of significance

was selected.
For the nine socio-demographic characteristics tested, the
following findings were derived:
Sex:

A fairly even distribution of male and female respondents

ensued.
Age:

A median age of 25 years was found, with 58 percent of

respondents recorded in the 22 to 34 age category.
Education:

More than 70 percent of respondents indicated

an educational level of Grade 12 or better.
Ethnicity:

Almost 99 percent of respondents indicated White

ethnicity.

No one of Black ethnic origin was recorded.

Two

respondents declared their origin as American Indian.
Spanish American:

On the related question of whether or not

respondent was of Spanish-American origin, 7.4 percent gave an
affirmative answer.
Migrant or Seasonal Farm Worker:

Two percent of respondents

were recorded as Seasonal Farm Workers, while one percent
professed Migrant Worker status.
Veteran:

Veteran status was recorded by 12 percent of respondents.

Handicapped:

Data indicated that nine respondents (6 percent)

were handicapped.
Offender:

Six percent of respondents were listed as having been

in the Offender category.

89

Labor Force Status on Application for Training:

Eleven percent

of respondents were employed and 89 percent registered In the
unemployed category.
Concerning socio-economic factors and their relationship to
client termination status, involving the dependent variables of Wage
Improvement, Training Satisfaction, Continuing Education and/or
Training Improvement, and the question of unsubsidized employment,
the principal factors emanating from the data are as follows:
Wage Improvement in Present Job:

Of the 54 percent of respondents

who affirmed a wage improvement in their present employment,
36 percent were in the Control Group and 14 percent were of
Positive Termination status.
Training Satisfaction:

Almost two-thirds of respondents

indicating Positive Termination status indicated satisfaction
with their training program, as compared to slightly more than
half of Non-Positive Terminations.
Continuing Education and/or Training Improvement:

Fourteen

percent of respondents indicated enrollment in an education
or training institution at the time of the survey.

Of these,

a slightly higher proportion were in the Non-Positive Termination
category.
Unsubsidized Employment:

On the question of unsubsidized employment,

11 percent of employed respondents reported their work as CETA
Funded, while 12 respondents (14.1 percent) indicated their
employment as Public Service subsidized.

A significant relationship

was found, at the .05 level, on this question.

90

Finally, respondent perceptions of both the value of the CETA
Classroom Training program and the adequacy of CETA Career Guidance
are discussed in relationship to termination status as follows:
Value of CETA Classroom Training:

On the question of the

perceived value of the CETA Classroom Training program in
preparing people for job skills, 84 percent evaluated their
training program as "average" or better, while 7.5 percent
rated it as "below average".
Adequacy of Career Guidance:

The final test of relationship

involved the question of adequacy of career guidance services.
A significant relationship was found between the independent
variable of client status and respondent perception of the
adequacy of Career Guidance.

More than half of the respondents

rated CETA guidance services as adequate or better, while
only 27 percent rated it less than adequate.

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction
A summary of the procedures, format and objectives followed
In the study, Including the data collection procedure, is assumed
in the earlier sections of the Chapter, followed by a resume of the
Findings resulting from the project.
The Conclusions and Recommendations emanating from the survey
results are followed by the research Implications and Reflections
on the study as a whole.

SUMMARY

Objectives
In view of the expanding nature of CETA programs and activities
in recent years, there is a demonstrative need for evaluation of these
programs and activities.

There is a particular need for evaluation

of individual CETA programs, such as Classroom Training, On-The-Job
Training, etc.

This need has been highlighted by recent (1977)

Performance Reports of the Michigan Manpower Services Evaluation Series,
wherein evaluative studies for individual programs have been recommended
to determine program effectiveness.
From the foregoing, a major objective of this study has been to
determine and evaluate the socio-demographic characteristics of Classroom

91

92

Training applicants and participants, in terms of socio-economic
effectiveness including client perceptions of CETA guidance and
counseling effectiveness, in a selected geographic area of the
Michigan Balance of State consortia.
two regions of the BOS consortia.
and 7A, totalling four counties.
County.

The selected area consists of

The regions under study are 1A
Region 1A consists of Livingston

Region 7A combines the Counties of Sanilac, Huron and

Tuscola, together generally known as the Thumb Area of Michigan.
The second major objective for the study is that of determining
and evaluating success factors appropriate to the CETA Classroom
Training program of institutionalized training including, but not
dominated by, factors of wage improvement and job placement.
A suggested measure of the effectiveness of the Classroom Training
program has been derived from the assessment of the perceptions of
CETA clients constituting the study sample, regarding the value of
CETA institutionalized training in obtaining satisfactory job
placement.
Similarly, respondent perceptions of the adequacy of CETA career
guidance and job counseling services infer a measure of success
relative to the Classroom Training program.

Data Collection Procedure
The population for the study were participants of the CETA
Classroom Training program in the Michigan Balance of State regions
of Livingston County and the Thumb Area, for the fiscal year, 1977.
A proportionate sample of 120 randomly selected participants in
the Classroom Training program was employed as the experimental group
and a comparison sample of 124 nonparticipating applicants for CETA

93

institutionalized training was also randomly selected.
A questionnaire was utilized to capture data to be used in the
study, in conjunction with existing pertinent data retrieved from the
MSES computer Master File.

For all nonrespondents to the mailed

questionnaire, a follow-up telephone procedure was employed.

From

this procedure, an over-all response rate of 65 percent was achieved,
with 148 completed questionnaires.
The first section of the data collecting instrument attempted to
capture mainly socio-economic data, while the second section was
concerned with training participant perceptions of the effectiveness
of the CETA Classroom Training Program.
Forty-four questions were employed in the questionnaire.

Thus,

the data presented in this descriptive study were compiled from both
response to the questionnaire and from pertinent socio-demographic
characteristics retrieved from the MSES Master File for the sample.
The information stored in the Master File was obtained in initial
CETA applicant interviews.

Findings
The research questions covered two main areas.

The first area

is concerned with socio-demographic characteristics of respondents,
while the second section or area involves socio-economic success
factors, in terms of employment status, wage-gain, and continuing
education and training improvement.

The effectiveness of CETA

institutionalized training, in terms of participant satisfaction with
training and respondent perceptions of the adequacy of CETA career
guidance, is also presented in the latter section.

94

Six hypotheses were tested, employing the Chi-Square statistical
test of relationship in conjunction with a crosstabulation treatment.
A .05 level of significance was selected.
Findings relative to the testing of the null hypotheses
pertaining to the specific research questions are summarized as
follows:

I.

Socio-Demographic Factors
The first two hypotheses, H0 (l) and H0 (2), refer to socio­

demographic characteristics of respondents, as dependent variables,
consisting of sex, age, level of education, ethnicity, labor force
status including migrant farm worker status, and whether or not
respondent is handicapped, a veteran or an offender.
The first hypothesis involves the dependent variable of Client
Status, consisting of participation (in experimental group) or
nonparticipation (in control or comparison group) in the training
program.
The second hypothesis is concerned with Termination Status as
the independent variable, consisting of Positive and Non-Positive
Termination from the Classroom Training Program.

The Control Group

is statistically tabulated with the experimental group for analysis
of relationship.
H0 (l):

There is no significant relationship between the

socio-demographic characteristics of nonentered applicants
for CETA Classroom Training and Classroom Training participants.
No significant relationship between the socio-demographic
characteristics of the control group and of the experimental
group of Classroom Training program participants was found.

95

H0 (2):

There is no significant relationship in socio­

demographic characteristics between Positive Terminations
and Non-Positive Terminations from Classroom Training.
No significant relationship between Positive
Termination and Non-Positive Termination from
CETA institutionalized training programs was
found.
Tabulations for the eleven tests of relationship associated
with the socio-demographic characteristics, appropriate to the two
hypotheses, are presented in Chapter Four.
A brief summary of findings associated with the eleven socio­
demographic factors follows:
Sex
A fairly even distribution of male to female respondents
in the over-all sample is evident. Forty-eight percent
of the sample is male, with the remaining 52 percent
female. A slightly higher ratio of females to males
participated in CETA institutionalized training, compared
to the Control Group. This increased ratio of females
is also reflected in the two termination categories of
institutionalized training.
Age
The median age of the sample was 25 years and the mode,
23 years of age. Approximately three-fifths of the sample
were in the 22 to 34 age group.
More than two-fifths of the respondents who terminated
nonpositively from the Classroom Training program were
in the youngest age category, compared to less than
one-fifth for Positive Terminations. A much smaller
proportion of Non-Positive Terminations (12 percent)
were in the highest age bracket, compared to 22 percent
of Positive Terminations.
Education
Seventy percent of the over-all sample reported Grade 12
standing or better on application for CETA institutionalized
training. Of these, 5 percent had better than Grade 12
standing, although only two respondents (1.4 percent)
enrolled in the CETA Classroom Training program. Of those
respondents having Grade 9 or less on enrollment, 75 percent
terminated positively from CETA Institutionalized training.

96

Ethnicity
Of a total of 148 respondents in the study, 146 (98.6 percent)
were of White ethnic origin. The remaining two respondents
(1.4 percent) were of American Indian origin.
Spanish American Origin
In the total sample of 148 respondents, 11 (7.4 percent)
indicated Spanish American origin. They were evenly
distributed between the control and experimental categories.
Migrant Farm Worker
One respondent (0.7 percent) is reported as of Migrant
Farm Worker status. The respondent is in the control
category.
Seasonal Farm Worker
Three Seasonal Farm Workers (2.0 percent) were reported
for the total sample of 148 respondents. Two were
recorded in the Control Group and one in the Non-Positive
Termination category.
Veteran Status
Eighteen respondents (12.2 percent) were veterans. Of
these, 11 were reported for the Control Group, five
for the Positive Termination group and two for the
Non-Positive Termination category.
Handicapped
Nine respondents (6.1 percent) reported as being handicapped.
Four are in the Control Group, three were rated as
Non-Positive Terminations and two handicapped respondents
achieved Positive Termination status.
Offender
Of the nine respondents (6.1 percent) having offender status,
there was one each in the two termination categories and
the remaining seven were in the Control Group.
Labor Force Status on Application
Of the 148 respondents constituting the study sample,
89.2 percent were reported as unemployed on application
for CETA Classroom Training. 92.5 percent of the Control
Group were unemployed at that time, compared with 85.3 percent
for the experimental group. In the experimental category,
18 percent of Non-Positive Terminations were employed on
application, against 14 percent for Positive Terminations.

97

II.

Socio-Economic Factors
The remaining four hypotheses, H0 (3) to H0 (6), reflect the

research questions pertaining to socio-economic success factors.
The third hypothesis is concerned with the characteristics of
Wage Improvement, Training Satisfaction and Continuing Education
and/or Training Improvement.
H0 (3):

There is no significant relationship of socio­

economic success factors between Positive Terminations,
Non-Positive Terminations, and nonentered applicants to
Classroom Training.
No significant relationship was found between Positive
Terminations from CETA institutionalized training,
Non-Positive Terminations, and the comparison group
with respect to three socio-economic success factors.
A brief summary of findings associated with the third hypothesis
follows:
Wage Improvement in Present Employment
Of the 81 individuals responding to the question of
Wage Improvement in Present Employment, 44 (54.3 percent)
answered affirmatively. Forty-one percent of Positive
Terminations, 50 percent of Non-Positive Terminations,
and 63 percent of the Control Group reported wage
improvement.
Training Satisfaction
More than 60 percent of training program recipients
indicated satisfaction with respect to their particular
training program, and approximately 20 percent recorded
dissatisfaction. Two-thirds of Positive Terminations
indicated satisfaction with their training, compared to
slightly over half of Non-Positive Terminations.
Continuing Education and/or Training Improvement
Twenty-one respondents (14.2 percent) recorded Continuing
Education and/or Training Improvement. While the ratio
of distribution within each of the three categories was
somewhat similar, with approximately 14 percent for both

98

the Positive Termination category and the Control Group,
the highest proportion of clients undertaking further
education and/or training improvement were in the
Non-Positive Termination category with approximately
18 percent.
The fourth hypothesis pertains to two sectors of possible
employment subsidization utilized in placement of CETA clientele.
They are:

CETA Funded employment and Public Service subsidized

placement respectively.
Hq ( 4 ) :

There is no significant relationship in obtaining

unsubsidized employment between Positive Terminations and
Non-Positive Terminations and nonentered applicants to
Classroom Training.
Findings associated with the two pertinent questions are
as follows:
Is Your Employment a CETA Funded Job?
No significant relationship was detected with respect to
placement of respondents into CETA Funded employment.
Of the 85 respondents who answered this question, nine
(10.6 percent) indicated affirmatively. Two-thirds of
these were in the Positive Termination category and
one-third in the Control Group. None were Non-Positive
Terminations. Thus, the findings indicate that 20 percent
of Positive Terminations had CETA Funded jobs, compared to
6.4 percent of the Control Group.
Is This Employment a Public Service Subsidized Job?
A significant relationship was found with respect to
placement of respondents into Public Service subsidized
employment. As far as terminations from CETA institutionalized
training are concerned, a somewhat similar ratio of
subsidized to unsubsidized job placement is reported
from both Positive Terminations and Non-Positive
Terminations, with approximately 25 percent placement
in Public Service subsidized employment. The Control
Group had only two respondents (2.4 percent) who
reported Public Service subsidized employment.

99

H0 (5):

There is no significant relationship between Positive

Terminations and Non-Positive Terminations, with respect to
perceptions of the value of CETA Classroom Training in obtaining
satisfactory job placement.
No significant relationship was found relative to the
hypothesis. Findings based on this research question
are summarized as follows:
Sixty percent of CETA institutionalized training
program participants evaluated their training
program as "above average" or better, while
84 percent evaluated it as "average" or better.
Two-thirds of Positive Terminations rated their
program as "above average" or better, compared
with less than half of Non-Positive Terminations.
Only five respondents (7.5 percent) rated their
training program within the two categories
below "average".
H0 (6):

There is no significant relationship in the perceptions

of adequacy of career guidance and job counseling between
Positive Terminations, Non-Positive Terminations, and
nonentered applicants to CETA Classroom Training.
A significant relationship was found in this test
involving perceptions of adequacy of career
guidance and job counseling on the part of
respondents. The null hypothesis can, therefore,
be rejected.
More than half of respondents rated CETA guidance
services as adequate or better, while only 27 percent
rated it less or much less than adequate. Two-thirds
of Positive Terminations rated CETA guidance services
as adequate or better, compared to 77 percent for
Non-Positive Terminations and only 39 percent of
the Control Group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data obtained in this research study and the resultant
findings, the following conclusions have been derived (time may alter
the conclusions):

100

1.

A fairly equal distribution of male and female clientele
apply for, and participate In, the CETA Institutionalized
training program within the Balance of State regions
appropriate to this study.

2.

The majority of CETA Classroom Training program clientele
are In the 21 to 34 age group, with a median age of 25
years.

Of those who terminate nonpositively, fewer are

in the higher age bracket and a larger proportion are in
the lower age category than for those who terminate
positively,
3.

The majority of CETA clients applying for institutionalized
training in the geographic regions appropriate to this
study have Grade 12 standing or better.

For those clients

having Grade 9 or less on enrollment, 75 percent are likely
to terminate positively from CETA institutionalized training.
4.

In the Balance of State regions under study, applicants for
CETA institutionalized training overwhelmingly are of White
ethnic origin.

A small percentage of American Indian and

Spanish American origins may also be found among applicants.
5.

Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers constitute only about
2 percent of applicants for CETA Classroom Training in the
regions under study.

6.

In the geographic regions covered by the study, about 12 percent
of applicants for CETA institutionalized training can be
expected to have veteran status.

7.

Handicapped individuals may expect to form approximately

101

6 percent of applicants for CETA Classroom Training in the
regional areas covered by the study.
8.

In the Balance of State regions composing the study area,
6 percent of applicants for CETA Classroom Training may have
Offender status.

Of those clients actually enrolled in the

training program, 3 percent may he expected to have Offender
status.
9.

It may be anticipated that approximately 89 percent of
individuals eligible for CETA Classroom Training in the
areas under study will be unemployed on application.

For

those who terminate nonpositively from CETA institutionalized
training, 18 percent will have been employed on application
for training.
10.

Positive Termination from CETA Classroom Training has no
definite advantage, leading to wage improvement in the CETA
regions under study.

11.

The majority of CETA Classroom Training participants in the
regions under study were satisfied with their training program.
About 21 percent were dissatisfied.

12.

In the geographic regions under study, Positive Termination
from CETA institutionalized training is no incentive to
pursue further education and/or training improvement.

To

a small extent, Non-Positive Terminations from this type of
training seek further education and/or training improvement.
13.

From participation in the CETA Classroom Training program,
it follows that 20 percent of Positive Terminations will

102

likely be placed in CETA-Funded employment and 25 percent
in Public Service subsidized jobs.

For Non-Positive

Terminations, subsidized placement is likely to be in
Public Service employment only, and to the extent of
25 percent of the category.
14.

All but a small percentage of CETA institutionalized training
participants perceived their training as of value in preparing
people for job entry skills.

15.

Two-thirds of Positive Terminations and three-quarters of
Non-Positive Terminations perceived CETA guidance and
counseling services as adequate or better.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are made:
1.

That further research be conducted, embracing each of the
Michigan Balance of State regions, utilizing the research
characteristics employed in this study.

2.

That further research be conducted for comparison purposes,
employing this study format, and using the entire Balance
of State as the population base.

3.

That further research be conducted into more narrow and
specific aspects of CETA institutionalized training, embraced
over-all in this study.

4.

That a follow-up study on a sample of CETA clients be
implemented four or five years after their participation
in CETA institutionalized training.

That a planned evaluation instrument be designed to gather
data in periodic follow-up program effectiveness studies
of a sample of CETA institutionalized training clients.
That research be done into the effectiveness of specific
training courses utilized in CETA Institutionalized training
programs.
That research be undertaken into the effectiveness of
guidance and counseling services employed in the CETA
Classroom Training program.
That CETA clients, not having the benefits of hands-on
career exploration exposure prior to application for training,
be exposed to a limited program of appropriate exploration
course, and associated vocational aptitude testing, prior
to commitment to a specific job-entry course of skill
training.
That further research be undertaken into other sectors of
institutionalized training not covered in this study, i.e.,
(1) a study of the schools and training institutions Involved
in the delivery of the CETA Classroom Training program, and
(2) an employer-based evaluation study of employees who
were former CETA clientele and specifically emanating from
the CETA Classroom Training program.

IMPLICATIONS

The absence of individuals having Black ethnic origin from
the sample is noteworthy.

While estimates of minority group

104

representation by the Michigan Employment Security Commission
(MESC) in 1974, for the 56 county Balance of State labor
force, indicated that Blacks represent 2 percent of the
labor force, and it is accepted generally that Blacks
constitute a relatively large proportion of the unemployed
and disadvantaged in the population, it would seem reasonable
to expect a few respondents of Black ethnicity in the sample.
Allowing for the limitations of sample size in the study,
the implication might be drawn either that those of Black
ethnicity are not interested in CETA institutionalized
training in the regions appropriate to the study, are given
preferential treatment in job placement situations in those
regions, or are being placed in training and retraining
programs other than the CETA Classroom Training program.
2.

According to MESC findings, 35 percent of all Balance of
State participants in CETA programs had less than high
school graduation, with specifically 39 percent for the
Classroom Training program.

In comparison, the findings

in this study indicate that 29 percent of the sample had
less than high school graduation, thus 71 percent of
applicants and participants of CETA institutionalized training
in the study regions were of Grade 12 standing or better.
This would seem to suggest that CETA candidates having Grade 12
standing might be considered as disadvantaged and in need
of institutionalized training.

REFLECTIONS

The study involved many variables in the areas of sociodemographic and socio-economic characteristics.

While it

would be easier to study fewer socio-economic-demographic
characteristics in evaluating an institutionalized training
program, in terms of success or effectiveness factors, fewer
variables would likely lead to an increasingly subjective
interpretation in the findings.

The related factors of

nonresearched socio characteristics that might strongly
influence and bear on the evaluation considerations might
then tend to be ignored.

On reflection, a simpler design

might have ensued.
The study instrument might have utilized fewer questions.
On the other hand, a great deal of useful study information
has been captured.

These additional questions could well

be designed into a further or related research project and
the existing captured data could be employed in further
evaluation studies.
It is hoped that the study will be of some value to the
CETA authorities and the Bureau of Employment and Training,
on the basis of an independent research into factors of
effectiveness of one particular program, the Classroom
Training program, on a regional level.

As a result of the

findings derived from the study, the Department of Labor
could revise or modify the Classroom Training program to
better facilitate CETA institutionalized training.

Furthermore,

106

CETA might consider the effectiveness factors suggested
In this study, as measures of client success, in addition
to the traditional cost-benefit parameters frequently
employed in manpower training program evaluation.
4.

The study has implications and potential usefulness,
in terms of manpower training program evaluation, to the
Newfoundland manpower and training and retraining context
with which the researcher has some association at this time.

Summary
An overview and summary of the objectives, data collection
procedure and the findings of the study have been articulated in
Chapter Five.
Conclusions derived from the findings of the study have been
postulated, followed by the attendant recommendations based on the
conclusions and the research experience.

The implications of or

the inferences drawn from the study have been stated and the ideas
or reflections resulting from the research experience have been
expressed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Robert, and Rozansky, Rosa D. The Impact of CETA on
Institutional Vocational Education; Case Studies and Final
Report, 1977. Washington D.C.: National Advisory Council
on Vocational Education, March, 1977.
Borus, Michael E . , and Buntz, Charles G. Problems and Issues
in the Evaluation of Manpower Programs. East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, School of Labor and
Industrial Relations, Research Reprint Series No. 129,
1971-72.
Claque, Ewan, and Kramer, Leo. Manpower Policies and Programs A Review, 1935-75. Kalamazoo, Michigan: The W. E. Upjohn
Institute for Employment Research, 1976.
Curtis, Thomas D . , et al. An Analysis of the Impact of CETA,
Title I. Classroom Training on Vocational and Technical
Education. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State Department
of Education, October, 1976.
Fishman, Betty G., and Fishman, Leo.
and Economic Growth. New York:
1969.

Employment, Unemployment,
Thomas Y. Crowell Company,

Gallaway, Lowell E. Manpower Economics.
D. Irwin, 1971.

Homewood, Illinois:

Richard

Glennan, Thomas K. Evaluating Federal Manpower Programs: Notes
and Observations. Santa Monica, California: The Rand
Corporation, September, 1969.
Goble, Frank G. Towards 100% Employment. An AMA Survey Report.
New York: American Management Consultants Incorporated, 1973.
Greenleigh Associates Incorporated. Opening the Doors: Job
Training Programs. A Report to the Committee on Administration
of Training Programs. New York: Greenleigh Associates Incorporated,
February, 1968.
Groom, Phyllis. "Retraining the Unemployed: II - Federal and State
Legislation on Retraining," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 84,
No. 9, September, 1961, p. 940.

108

Hansen, Niles M. Improving Access to Economic Opportunity.
University of Texas. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger
Publishing Company, 1976.
Hardin, Einar.
"Benefit-Cost Analyses of Occupational Training
Programs: A Comparison of Recent Studies: in G. G. Somers
and W. D. Woods, eds., Cost Benefit Analysis of Manpower
and Policies. Kingston, Ontario: Queens University, 1969,
pp. 97-118.
Hardin, Einar, and Borus, Michael E. The Economic Benefits and
Costs of Retraining. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath
& Co., 1971.
Higgins, Kitty.
"The Youth Employment Act: What Is It?" American
Vocational Journal, Vol. 53, No. 1, January, 1978, p. 42.
Lecht, Leonard A. Manpower Needs for National Goals in the 1970's.
New York: Fred Praeger, 1969.
Lewis, Morgan V., et al. School Supervised Work Experience Programs.
University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University,
1976.
Mangun, Garth, L . , Snedeker, David, and Snedeker, Bonnie. SelfEvaluation of CETA Manpower Programs: A Guide for Prime
Sponsors. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, November, 1975.
Michigan Department of Labor. Employment and Training Services
Council:
1977 Report to the Governor. Lansing, Michigan:
Bureau of Employment and Training, December, 1977.
Michigan Department of Labor. CETA Performance Report: An Assessment
of Program and Regional Performance in the Balance of State
for the Fiscal Year 1976. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department
of Labor, Bureau of Employment and Training, February, 1977.
Michigan Department of Labor.
1977 Michigan CETA Activity Report
for October 1, 1976 Through September 30, 1977. Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment
and Training, February, 1977.
Michigan Department of Labor. Manpower Services Evaluation Series:
Report No. 1. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Labor,
Bureau of Employment and Training, February, 1977.
Mirengoff, William, and Rindler, Lester. CETA: Manpower Programs
Under Local Control. Washington D.C.: Office of Publications,
National Academy of Science, 2101 Constitution Avenue, 1978.

109

Newton, Keith.
"A Countercyclical Training Program for Canada?"
Industrial Relations Quarterly Review. Vol. 26, No. 4, 1971,
pp. 865-89.
Pressley, Calvin, and McGraw, James.
Classroom Training - The CIC
Approach: CETA Program Models. Washington D.C.: Employment
and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 1978.
Reilly, Frank. "The Role of Evaluation Under the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act of 1973." Adherent, Vol. 1, No. 1,
October, 1974, p. 50.
Sewell, D. 0. Training the Poor: A Benefit-Cost Analysis of
Manpower Programs in the U. S. Antipoverty Program. Kingston,
Ontario: Hanson & Edgar, Ltd., 1971.
Smith, R. C., and Scott, Sam. How to Get Started on Evaluation: A
Field Report and Guide for CETA Prime Sponsors. Washington D. C.:
Office of Policy, Evaluation and Research, Employment and Training
Administration, U. S. Department of Labor, September, 1977.
Solow, Robert M.
"Macro-Policy and Full Employment." In Jobs for
Americans, The American Assembly, Columbia University. Edited
by E. Ginsberg.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Incorporated, 1976.
Swanson, Gordon I. "Vocational Education:
Kappan, October, 1978, p. 88.

Fact and Fancy."

Phi Delta

Training For O n t a r i o ^ Future: Report of the Task Force on Industrial
Training. Ministry of Colleges and Universities, Manpower Training
Branch, Government of Ontario, 1973, p. 45.
Ulman, Lloyd.
"Manpower Policies and Demand Management." In Jobs
for Americans. The American Assembly, Columbia University.
Edited by E. Ginsberg.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice Hall Incorporated, 1976.
U.S. Department of Labor. Comprehensive Employment and Training Act
of 1973. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Labor. Report of the Secretary of Labor on Manpower
Research and Training: Under the MDTA. Washington, D.C., 1966.
Wright, E. Earl, and Kobrak, Peter. CETA: The View From Kalamazoo.
The W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo,
Michigan, 1974, p. 196.

APPENDIX A

110

REGION CODES

PRIME SPONSOR:

Region Code

01 Balance of State

Region Covered

1A

Livingston County

03

Barry - Branch - St. Joseph Counties

04

Van Buren - Cass Counties

7A

Thumb Area

7B

Roscommon - Ogemaw - Iosco - Clare - Arenac Isabella - Midland - Gratiot Counties

8A

North Central Michigan

09

Northeast Michigan

10

Northwest Michigan

11

Eastern Upper Peninsula

12

Central Upper Peninsula

13

Western Upper Peninsula

APPENDIX B

Ill

BALANCE OF STATE
CONSORTIA

SCHOOlCRAFT

☆

muui Hu
t HQMNCV

O
REGIONS

POP.

COUNTIES

1 A
3

85.9
142.1
113.7
131.6
290.1

Livingston
Bariy, Branch, St. Joseph
Van Buren, Cass
Huron, Tuscola. Sanilac
Roscommon, Ogemaw,
Iosco, Clare. Arenac,
Isabella, Midland,
Gratiot, Gladwin
Mason, Lake, Osceola,
Newaygo. Mecosta
Cheboygan. Presque Isle,
Otsego. Montmorency,
Alpena, Crawford,
Oscoda, Alcona
Emmet. Charlevoix,
Antrim, Leelanau,
Benzie, Grand Traverse.
Kalkaska. Manistee.
Wexford. Missaukee
Luce, Chippewa.
Mackinac
Marquette, Alger,
Dickinson. Della.
Schoolcraft. Menominee
Houghton. Iron, Gogebic.
Baraga, Keenenaw,
Ontonogan

A
A
o

*
7 A #
7 B *
4

BA □

121.9

•

116.0

B

10

O

189.5

11

■

56.9

12

☆

181.0

★

92.8

13

— Population in Thousands

llltA M A U

fcAiKAlM C A4W »0AO |

“«kSSB,! o
O |o

OSCOOA

I

j

A lC O h *

i
I

'

M A N t i t f l , W fKPO IIO IM U S A U K IC

MASO N|

O

(A K f

i

MU*jN

Q

\ _
NfWAVCO i M IC O I'A

HAM U*

L M ID I AND

AAGMAW

G*ATtO

_! *k*? i
IT

C l* T O N

I ’ OAAiAM>

VAN M l h

JACitON

*
tlN A w lf

C l * l«

1 MACCM*

APPENDIX C

112

MICHIGAN STATE U N IVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824

DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM
ERICKSON HALL

1519 I Spartan Village
East Lansing, Michigan

48823

I am a Canadian doctoral candidate student at Michigan State University,
interested in the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA)
training programs.
One of the things I am doing is a research project which involves
asking questions about CETA training from those who applied for it.
I would like to get your views of the CETA Classroom Training Program,
although you may not have actually been in a Classroom Training course.
This project will aid me to better understand CETA adult training
methods and will help me to see ultimately how Canadian manpower
training programs might be improved.
Please help me by completing the attached questionnaire and returning
it to me in the envelope provided. This information will be completely
confidential, of course.
Thank you for taking the time to do this.
very much.
Sincerely yours,

Donald B . Camp

I appreciate your help

APPENDIX D

113

qUBSTIONHAIHE

CQN7E2ENTIAL: 70& HESEa HCH USE ONLY

- This questionnaire is part of a research study of the CETA training
program toeing done toy a Michigan State University doctoral candidate.
She purpose of the atruly is to try and ascertain how effective is
the CETA Classroom Training Program and how it might toe improved or changed.
Please complete the questionnaire even if you did not actually take
a CETA Classroom Training course.
Your comments will toe useful.
Your response will toe kept strictly confidential.
not toe revealed.

Identities will

Most questions can toe answered toy putting an *X“ or checkmark ( O
in the toox that toest reflects your own experience or attitude.
1.

Mere you employed when you applied for CETA training?
C Z Z H Yes

2.

d Z l No

Ifyes, (a) what was your weekly income toefore deductions?
(to) what was your weekly income after deductions?

•
______

(c) what was your hourly rate of pay? ____________
3.

Did you enroll in a CETA Classroom Training course?
I
the

I Yes 1

\ No (If no, go to No. 7)

4.

Vhat was

name of thecourse?

5.

How long was the training course to completion?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

6.

How long were you in the course? _____________

7.

Areyou employed at this

time? I
l

IYes I1Temporarily
laid-off
INo (If no, go to No. 18)

8.

If yes, what is your hourly wage rate? _ _ _ _ _ _

9.

Vhere in the State are you employed?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ city or township

10. What is your Joto title? ________________________

114

qUESSlQHSAlBE
11.

How many hours per weak do you work? __________

12.

If this le part-time work, the reason is:
1
I—
I

13*

14.

n household reeponslhilitiee
-I full-time employment not available
1 other, specify

How long have you had your present job?

weeks
months

Are you able to use your CETA trained skills in this job?
1--- 1 Yes 17~~lHo C H H Partly
I
I Did not take a CETA training course

13*

Is your employment a CETA funded job?

16.

Is this employment a public service subsidised job?
1

17.

IYes I

IHo I

I
I

1Tea 1
I Ho
1Do not know

1 Do not know

During your present employment, have you:
(a) received a wage improvement? I
(b) if yes, how much?

IYea 1

J Ho

Go now to Ho. 23
18.

Are you looking for employment? I

1 Yes t" 'r

19.

What was the last employment you had?

1 Ho (if no, go to Ho.

Job title or occupation _________________________
Hourly wage rate
I

IPart-time?

I

IFull-time?

20.

How long were you employed at your last job? _ _ months _ _ _ weeks

21.

What kind of job finding activities do you feel the most promising?

1■"■■■■■-) talking to friends and relatives
L_ _J want ads
I
I going directly to employment officesand employers
j
1 inquiring through CETA
1
I inquiring through Michigan Employment Security Commission
through a private agency
through a vocational instructor, school counselor, etc.
r
"i other, specify:

B

115
qUBSXXOINAXSB

22.

What are your activities or condition while not in the labor force?
I.
i
I

23.

Are you now attending an educational or training institution?
I,—
I

24.

I student
IT
I military service
i CETA enrollee
U = J household responsibilities
I pregnant
I
I given up looking for work
I
1 other, specify:

I Yes (full-time)
I Yes (part-time)

1 public high school l

I other, specify: _ _ _ _ _ _ _

What kind of educational or training program are you enrolled in?
I
I

27*

Igeneral IIvocational,
1other, specify:

specify:

Xnter the number of persons you provide S O fi or more of their
support.
(Do not include yourself)
What is the main source ofyour income?
I
I public assistance
L___j income from family
I
1 income from savings

28.

I private trade school

\ community college

I

26.

1 Ho (go to Ho. 26)

What type of institution is it?
II
l

25*

1

I.
|
I

I income from wages or salary
J unemployment compensation
1 Income from friends

Do you receive 5°^ or more of your support from other family
members?
I

1 Yes

I

I Ho

29*

What is your current weekly income?

30.

In your opinion, does CETA supply adequate career guidance and
counseling service for applicants to the various CETA programs?
I
1
1
I

before deductions
________ after deductions

■ |much more than adequate
Imore than adequate
)adequate
Ileas than adequate
much less than adequate
no opinion

e

Please use the back of this sheet if you wish to make any commsnts
you feel might be useful to the research project.

116

QUESTIOHHAIBE
31*

How adequately, in your estimation, did the teachers try to help
you to master the shills needed in your Classroom Training course?

|
| much more than adequate
1- ■ I more than adequate
L__ J adequate
1
j less than adequate
I
I much less than adequate
I
I no opinion

32.

How well planned, in your opinion, were the classroom training
sessions?
j
I very well planned
L _ _ J well planned
J
I at)out average planning
poorly planned
no apparent planning
1
1 no opinion

B

33*

How much did your teachers encourage you as an individual student?
|
j—
t___
I- „
I
I

34.

In your estimation, how hard, generally, did the majority of CETA
students in your class try to succeed?
t

B
1
i
I

33*

| very encouraging
I encouraging
I neither encouraging nor discouraging
I discouraging
| very discouraging
1 no opinion

Ithey tried hard
they tried with an above average amount of effort
they tried with an average amount of effort
Ithey did not try very much
Ithey did not try atall
1no opinion

How difficult did you find the course of study or the skill training?
!■ ■■ I
jHZ3
I
1
L_J
I.... I
i
t

very difficult
a little difficult
about average, neither difficult nor easy
a little easy
very easy
no opinion

117

QUESTIOMAIHE

36. What was the size of your skill training class?
I-

37.

1 ten or less
11 to 20
21 to 30
31 to 40
over to

In your experience, does CETA supply adequate guidance and counseling
service during enrollment in a training course?
II
I
l
l
I

38.

In your opinion, is CETA job search/placement service adequate
in its attempts to place clients?
1
62

39*

1 much more than adequate
more than adequate
adequate
1 less than adequate
much less than adequate
no opinion

How much did you, yourself, try to get the skill preparation
needed to get a job?
II

B
1
40.

Imuch more than adequate
Imore than adequate
Iadequate
Iless than adequate
Ino guidance or counseling given
Ino opinion

j

I tried hard
I I tried with anabove average amount of effort
I tried with an average amount of effort
I did not try very much
II I did not try at
all
I no opinion

What was the general method of instruction in your training course?
j- ■■■—j individualised instruction for each student
1 H regular group instruction
both individualized and group instruction used
other, specify:

B

118
QUSSTIOBHAIBE
41.

In your estimation, how useful or valuable is the CETA Classroom
Training Program in preparing people for Job skills?
I

S
a
42*

Over-all, how satisfied are you with the training you received in
the CETA Classroom Training Program?

H
43.

1 of excellent value
nore than average value
average value
less than average value
has no significant value
I
I no opinion

very satisfied
satisfied
neutral, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
somewhat dissatisfied
very dissatisfied
did not receive CETA Classroom Training
no opinion

What problems, if any, did you encounter in your Classroom Training
course? (check all that apply)
1
I
I

j lack of background skills
Idifficult course
.J boring course material or training
too much work required
standards for passing the course too high
I — j standards for passing the course too low
I
I poor attitude of teachers
I — j poor attitude of other students
I
1no outstanding problems
|
|other, specify: — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

B
44.

If you had taken a different skill training course, do you think
it might have proven more useful to you?
II
I
1 --'
1
I

j much more useful
ja little more useful
1about the same
j less useful
I much less useful
Ino opinion

Please use the back of this sheet if you wish to make any comments.