Skip to sections below

Share this program

PrintEmail

Summary

Guided Customer Choice provided mandatory vocational counseling activities and paid $3,000 to $5,000 in training costs to improve training participation for dislocated workers and adults eligible for the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). This evaluation directly compared Guided Customer Choice with a separate program, Maximum Customer Choice, to better understand which of the two programs might be more effective; the distinctive feature of Guided Customer Choice was mandatory counseling.

Guided Customer Choice was designed to broadly represent the approach that most local areas were implementing on their own under WIA. Participants in Guided Customer Choice had to complete six mandatory counseling activities to select a training program and then had to assess whether they had enough resources to complete the training. Counselors were directed to help participants make an informed decision about training. However, counselors did not direct participants toward particular occupations, and participants could independently select their training program. Participants received an individual training account (ITA) in the amount of $3,000 to $5,000, depending on the program site. 

Program participants were dislocated workers and adults, 18 years or older, who were eligible to receive training funded by WIA. The program was implemented in eight sites: Atlanta, GA; Bridgeport, CT; Charlotte, NC; Jacksonville, FL; Maricopa County, AZ; North Cook County, IL; northeast GA; and Phoenix, AZ.

Comparing the effectiveness of Guided Customer Choice to the effectiveness of Maximum Customer Choice indicated the effect of being referred to a set of services that included those unique to Guided Customer Choice; the comparison indicated how much better the offer of Guided Customer Choice met participants’ needs than the offer of Maximum Customer Choice. Participants in Guided Customer Choice had mandatory counseling. In contrast, participants in Maximum Customer Choice could choose whether to receive counseling. The study that compared Guided Customer Choice with Maximum Customer Choice also evaluated Structured Customer Choice.

3021.03R-Study of Guided Cust
Populations and employment barriers: At least a high school diploma or equivalent, Unemployed

Implementation at a glance

Primary service
Tuition assistance/financial aid
Program services
Employment coaching, Job readiness, Tuition assistance/financial aid
Review services terms
Setting(s)
Tested in multiple settings
Year evaluation began
2001
Implementing organization(s)Local workforce agencies; multiple public and private training organizations

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

View table definitions

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2024 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $3,463 per year 0.095 5288
Long-term Cannot assess support
Very long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $-255 per year -0.007 5274
Increase employment Short-term Not supported unfavorable -1% (in percentage points) -0.023 5288
Long-term Cannot assess support
Very long-term Little evidence to assess support 0% (in percentage points) 0.000 2158
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Supported favorable $-292 per year -0.085 5293
Long-term Cannot assess support
Very long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $-107 per year -0.031 2159
Increase education and training All measurement periods Not supported unfavorable -6% (in percentage points) -0.121 2159

Effectiveness ratings

  • Well- supported
  • Supported
  • Mixed support
  • Not supported
  • Insufficient evidence
  • Cannot assess support

Studies of this program

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1
Back to top

Program cost

No cost information available.

Cost results

Estimate (in 2024 dollars) Quality of cost analysis that produced the estimate
Total program cost, per participant $3,089
Good quality
Net benefit to participants, per participant $589
Outstanding quality

Cost information

How much did the program cost per participant? 

The average total program cost per participant was $3,089 in 2024 dollars. This figure is based on cost information for this program reported in one cost study reviewed by Pathways to Work (for details, see the FAQ). This study received a rating of Good quality for the cost analysis.

How much did the program cost relative to the benefits it generated? 

A cost-benefit analysis was conducted in the cost study reviewed, receiving a rating of Outstanding quality. The net benefit to participants was $589 per participant in 2024 dollars. This means that the net program benefit to participants (difference in benefits between the program and comparison group) was $589 more than the net cost of the program to participants. The estimate is expressed as the net present value, which accounts for differences in the timing of when benefits and costs occurred. In addition, the net benefit to government was $1,361 per participant in 2024 dollars. The net benefit to society was $1,950 per participant in 2024 dollars.

Cost information is not directly comparable across programs due to differences in the categories of costs reported and program length. Cost information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Back to top

Implementation details

Dates covered by study

The study ran from December 2001 to June 2010. Study enrollment ran from December 2001 to March 2004. Data collection occurred from December 2001 to June 2010. Outcomes were collected from 15-month and seven-year follow-up surveys among a randomly selected sample of study participants and from administrative data for all participants over a seven-year follow-up period.

Organizations implementing program

Local workforce agencies provided services and funding for training. Individuals could obtain training from multiple public and private locations.

Populations served

The study sample was composed of adult and dislocated workers with low income. Most participants had at least a high school diploma or equivalent (95 percent) and were unemployed (90 percent). The majority of participants were female (55 percent) and parents (54 percent). Over a third (36 percent) of participants had a postsecondary credential.

Description of services implemented

Guided Customer Choice aimed to provide a balance of both participant choice and counselor guidance relative to the Structured Customer Choice and Maximum Customer Choice programs.

  • Fixed ITA award. The maximum amount of the ITA was set based on the local area, set below the amounts of Structured Customer Choice, and could only be used to pay for direct training costs and training-related expenses. Participants could use up to the maximum amount, which was communicated at the outset before a training provider was chosen. The local workforce board retained any unused funds if the cost of training was below the maximum amount.
  • Required Counseling Activities. Participation in weekly counseling sessions was required. Participants had to complete six sessions. Session content included training options in the selected occupation and discussion of the feasibility of the training option selection. Counselors approved program selections on the basis of the program being on an employment and training program list and the participant having completed the counseling requirements.

Service intensity

The typical participant received 29 weeks of services in a training program. Participants received ITA approval on average about nine weeks after determination of their WIA training eligibility.

Comparison conditions

Dislocated workers and adults (18 years and older) eligible for WIA training who were assigned to the Maximum Customer Choice group did not automatically receive counseling from counselors in local workforce agencies, but they could request counseling to guide them to appropriate training selections given their skills and experience. They received a fixed ITA established for their area ($3,000 to $5,000). Participants were not required to participate in any additional activities.

Partnerships

The study did not indicate any partners were involved in implementing the program.

Staffing

Trained employment counselors employed by local workforce agencies delivered the employment counseling services. Counselors completed a two-day training session and received a training manual.

Fidelity measures

The study did not discuss any tools to measure fidelity to the program model.

Funding source

This program was funded through federal Workforce Investment Act funds.

The information contained here reflects how the program was implemented at the time of the evaluation.

Local context

The program was implemented in eight sites by the following organizations: (1) Employment and Training Division of the Human Services Department in the City of Phoenix; (2) Workforce Development Division of the Human Services Department of Maricopa County in the Phoenix, AZ metropolitan area; (3) The Workplace Inc. (Southwestern Connecticut’s Workforce Development Board) in Bridgeport, CT; (4) WorkSource/First Coast Workforce Development, Inc. (Region VIII Workforce Development Board); (5) Atlanta Regional Commission/Atlanta Regional Workforce Board in Atlanta, GA; (6) Northeast Georgia Regional Development Center/Northeast Georgia Workforce Board serving 12 rural counties in Northeast Georgia; (7) Workforce Development, Inc. in North Cook County, IL; and (8) Charlotte-Mecklenburg Workforce Development Board in Charlotte, NC.

State(s) where implemented

AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Canada

Pathways to Work refers to programs by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some program names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.