State-Level Policies to Incentivize Workplace Learning: Impacts of California’s Incumbent Worker Training Program (Negoita et al., 2020)

Study Profile What's in a study profile?
Causal Study Rating:
Moderate Causal Evidence
Study Type:
Causal Impact Analysis
Outcome Findings:
Employment: Mod/high-Mixed impacts
Citation
Negoita, M., & Goger, A. (2020). State-Level Policies to Incentivize Workplace Learning: Impacts of California’s Incumbent Worker Training Program. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Find original publication

There is no conflict of interest.

Highlights

  • The study's objective was to examine the impact of the California Employment Training Panel (EPT) on employment.
  • The study used a nonexperimental design to compare the outcomes of EPT participants to a matched comparison group of non-participants. Using Dun and Bradstreet data and statistical models, the authors compared outcomes of the treatment and comparison groups.
  • The study found that, overall, companies that received ETP funds had significantly more employees than companies who did not. Companies with 19-100 employees that received EPT funds experienced significant workforce increases, while those with fewer than 18 employees experienced significant decreases relative to companies that did not receive funds.
  • This study receives a moderate evidence rating. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the California Employment Training Panel (EPT), but other factors might also have contributed.

Intervention Examined

California Employment Training Panel (EPT)

Features of the Intervention

The Employment Training Panel (ETP) aims to support businesses in increasing the skills of their current employees by providing reimbursements for approved training programs. Employers, either individually or in groups, can apply for ETP funding to cover costs associated with various training formats, including classroom, online, and on-the-job training. They may also collaborate with colleges or other training providers. Reimbursements are contingent upon meeting specific performance goals, such as the number of training hours completed and employee retention rates. An eight-member panel, which includes representatives from labor, business, and state government, along with an Executive Director, is responsible for approving training requests. The panel prioritizes training for certain industries and populations, including veterans, youth with disabilities, and regions experiencing high unemployment.

Features of the Study

This study used a nonexperimental design to compare the outcomes of companies who participated in the EPT program with similar companies who would be eligible for the program but did not participate. The study used a sample of companies provided by Dun and Bradstreet’s (D&B) database, including a random sample of companies that did (1,000 companies) and did not (3,000 companies) receive ETP funding across the state of California. Companies in the treatment group received ETP funding in the 2017-2018 program year, while companies in the comparison group did not receive ETP funding in the 2017-2018 program year. The treatment and comparison groups were matched on multiple company characteristics (e.g., pre-ETP size, industry, company age, region). The authors used statistical models to compare outcomes of the treatment and comparison groups.

Findings

Employment

  • The study found a positive, statistically significant relationship between ETP participation and employment, with companies in the treatment group having 22 percent more employees, on average, than the comparison group two years after receiving ETP funds.
  • When exploring outcomes by companies of varying sizes, the study found that companies with 19-50 employees and 51-100 employees that received EPT funds experienced significant increases in their workforce compared to similar companies that did not receive funding. However, companies with fewer than 18 employees that received EPT funds experienced significant decreases in their workforce compared to similar companies that did not receive funding. No significant differences were found for companies with more than 100 employees.
  • The study found no significant differences in the number of employees between the treatment and comparison group for companies in the construction, manufacturing, or retail and service industries.

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

The study authors note that the employment outcomes could be reported as either actual measurements or estimated figures based on D&B's proprietary methods, implying that the database may have included imputed employment outcomes. Also, the analysis was limited specifically to firm size as a proxy for employment. Other company-level outcomes, such as labor turnover, were not included in the D&B data.

Causal Evidence Rating

The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is moderate because it was based on a well-implemented nonexperimental design. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the California Employment Training Panel (EPT), but other factors might also have contributed.

Reviewed by CLEAR: May 2026

Research Guidelines

Review Protocol: Living Systematic Annual Search and Review Protocol

Review Guidelines: Causal Evidence Guidelines