Policy Challenge
Path 2 Copy Created with Sketch.
Program Type
Path 2 Copy Created with Sketch.
3
5
9
Adult Earnings
Technical skills in-classroom and OJT training (eAE)
6
0
Evaluation Effect Average Age Observations Experimental Evaluation Country Intervention
Das 2017 4 14-18 2,946 Yes Bangladesh Technical and soft-skills in-classroom training and on-the job training on specific trades
Skemer 2017 3 16-24 2,127 Yes United States Job-readiness, personal development activities, internship and follow-up
Acero 2009 2 23 1,372 Yes Chile Technical in-classroom training and on-the-job instruction
Butler 2012 i -1 29 1,217 Yes United States Job search and job-readiness instruction and/or preparation for General Exam
Bloom 1990 i -2 44.5 705 Yes United States Job-search assistance or in-classroom training or on-the-job training
Bloom 1990 iii 0 44.5 636 Yes United States Job search assistance and training
Bloom 1990 ii 0 44.5 530 Yes United States Job search assistance plus in-classroom and on-the-job training
Soares 2017 8 18-35 507 Yes Brazil Secondary-level vocational education courses and on-the-job training
Rosas 2017 23 15-35 419 Yes Sierra Leone Literacy/numeracy classes, job skills in-classroom and on-the-job training

Graph of Effects

This graph shows the effects of [Number of Evaluations] evaluations of [Program Type] programs. The first evaluation, [Evaluation name 1], estimated an effect of [Estimated effect Eval. 1] points (graphed with the top grey circle). Because this is an estimate, there is uncertainty about what the true effect is. But we know that the true effect will probably lie between a low value of [True effect lie between – Low value, Eval. 1] and a high value of [True effect lie between – High value, Eval. 1] (graphed with the top horizontal line). We can combine the estimates from all the evaluations and compute an average effect of [Estimated effect, Average] (graphed with the black circle). There is also uncertainty about where the true average effect is. But we know that the true average effect probably lies between [True effect lie between – Low value, Average] and [True effect lie between – High value, Average] points (graphed with the bottom horizontal line).
Evaluation Effects Low Value High Value Weight in Average Effect (%)
Acero 2009 2 -6 9 18
Bloom 1990 i -2 -15 11 6
Bloom 1990 ii 0 -14 15 5
Bloom 1990 iii 0 -13 13 6
Butler 2012 i -1 -11 9 11
Das 2017 4 -3 10 27
Rosas 2017 23 7 39 4
Skemer 2017 3 -4 10 18
Soares 2017 8 -7 23 5
Overall