Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Follow-up Study <br /> March, 1978 <br /> Page 4 <br /> was making $1,246 before training and $8,836 after. Data <br /> on average income before and after training is shown in <br /> Table 4. 1 figures include those working and those <br /> not; the' are based on extrapolations of actual cumulative <br /> earnings <br /> be termination and follow-up, This means <br /> that eve though a former participant was making $6,00 <br /> an hour t follow-up time, his annual income was figured <br /> at only 6,000 if he made $3,000 in the six months between <br /> termination and follow-up. <br /> For purposes of these calculations, estimates were made <br /> of total 'personal earnings since termination for persons <br /> who did not give us that information but who did tell us <br /> their current hourly wage and number of weeks employed <br /> since ter 'nation. To prevent overly-high estimates for <br /> persons w o had worked more than a year and who reported <br /> a current I wage of more than $4.00 per hour, an average <br /> hourly wap was computed using current wages and wages at <br /> time of termination. Thus these total earnings estimates <br /> were ]owe� than if only current wage rates had been used, <br /> Each program activity shows greater average post-training <br /> annual incomes and greater average earnings increases than <br /> those fou d in the previous follow-up. <br /> Average annual income for those 133 at work was <br /> again calculated on actual or estimated earnings since <br /> termination, <br /> PROGRAM A TIVITIES <br /> YouthhOutl,of-School/HRD-GED <br /> The time period covered by this follow-up was one during <br /> which this program activity was being changed from the old <br /> Out-of-Sc ool Program to the HRD-GED Program, The focus <br /> of the new program is on an older age group than the former <br /> program, but with a similar goal; to increase the partici- <br /> pants'employability through achieving a high school equivalency, <br /> In the tables and analyses of this report, no distinction <br /> was made between these two groups, because our office proce- <br /> dure has b en to treat them as one enrollment group, These <br /> Changes in objectives and in type of participants were <br /> gradual, t ereby making it more difficult to distinguish <br /> between th two groups for purposes of analysis. <br />