This article examines a number of French cases of unemployed adult training programme evaluation. In France, as in many countries, experimental policies are not the norm, for many reasons. Therefore, no experimental database exists for evaluation purposes and data are not available (comparisons with a reference group, for example). However, adequate results from a Non-Experimental Gross Outcome approach (NEGO) do exist. This article examines the qualities, reliability and the limits of results published in reports for three regional official authorities: the regional office of the Department of Labour; the regional council; and the Ille-et-Vilaine council in Brittany (France). This leads on to a discussion of the nonexperimental gross outcome approach.
Baslé, M. (1998) ‘Evaluation du dispositif de formation individualisée Chèque-Force’: Rapport de synthèse de l'Evaluation’, Report for the Regional Committee for the Evaluation of Public Policy, Rennes.
2.
Bjorklund, A. and H. Regner (1996) ‘Experimental Evaluation of European Labour Market Policy’, in G. Schmid, J. O'Reilly and K. Schomann (eds) International Handbook of Labour Market Policy and Evaluation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
3.
Bloch, S. and T. Bates (1995) Employability.London: Kogan Page.
4.
Bonnal, L. , D. FougËre and A. Serandon (1997) ‘Evaluating the Impact of French Employment Policies on Individual Labour Market Histories’, Review of Economic Studies64: 683–713.
5.
Burtless, G. (1995) ‘The Case for Randomized Field Trials in Economic and Policy Research’, Journal of Economic Perspectives9(2): 63–84.
6.
CEREQ-Bretagne (1998); ‘Les actions d'insertion et de formation en Bretagne. La situation d'un groupe de bénéficiaires 4 ans après’, Rapport à la Direction Régionale du Travail, de l'Emploi et de la Formation Professionnelle de Bretagne, by Faria De Oliveira, Rennes.
7.
Checcaglini, A. (1998) ‘Evaluation des actions de formation mises enuvre pour les béné-ficiaires du RMI en Ille-et-Vilaine’, Etude pour le Conseil Général d'Ille-et-Vilaine.
8.
Chelimsky, E. and W. R. Shadish (eds) (1997) Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
9.
Cook, Thomas D. , Harris Cooper and David S. Cordray (1992) Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Case Book.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
10.
Eberwein, C. , J. C. Ham, R. J. Lalonde and R. J. Nber (1997) ‘The Impact of Being Offered and Receiving Classroom Training on the Employment Histories of Disadvantaged Women: Evidence from Experimental Data’, Review of Economic Studies64: 655–682.
11.
Floc'hlay, B. (1995) ‘Evaluation de l'action collective publique: questions de méthode et application au cas d'une politique publique européenne’, thËse pour le doctorat es sciences économiques, Université de Rennes.
12.
FougËre, D. and T. Kamionka (1992) ‘Individual Labour Market Transitions’, in L. Matyas and P. Sevestre (eds) The Econometrics of Panel Data. Handbook of Theory and Applications, pp. 470–508. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
13.
Friedlander, D. , D. H. Greenberg and P. K. Robins (1997) ‘Evaluating Government Training Programmes for the Economically Disadvantaged’, Journal of Economic LiteratureXXXV (December): 1809–1855.
14.
Gritz, R. M. (1993) ‘The Impact of Training on the Frequency and Duration of Employment’, Journal of Econometrics57: 21–51.
15.
Ham, T. and R. Lalonde (1990) ‘Using Social Experiments to Estimate the Effect of Training on Transition Rates’, in J. Hartog, G. Ridder and J. Theeuves (eds) Panel Data and Labor Market Studies, pp. 157–172. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publications.
16.
Heckman, J. J. (1997) ‘Making the Most out of Programme Evaluations and Social Experiments: Accounting For Heterogeneity in Programme Impacts’, Review of Economic Studies64: 487–535.
17.
Heckman, J. J. and J. A. Smith (1996) ‘Experimental and Non-Experimental Evaluation’, in G. Schmid, J. O'Reilly and K. Schomann (eds) International Handbook of Labour Market Policy and Evaluation.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
18.
Heckman, J. J. , H. Ichimura and P. E. Todd (1997) ‘Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme’, Review of Economic Studies64: 605–654.
19.
Hey, J. D. (ed.) (1994) Experimental Economics. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
20.
Lalonde, Robert J. (1995) ‘The Promise of Public Sector-Sponsored Training Programmes’, Journal of Economic Perspectives9: 149–168.
21.
Mader, L. (1993) ‘La législation expérimentale en Suisse’, in C. A. Morand (ed.) Evaluation législative et lois expérimentales. Marseille: Presses Universitaires d'Aix-Marseille.
22.
Manski, C. F. (1997) ‘The Mixing Problem in Programme Evaluation’, Review of Economic Studies64: 537–553.
23.
Mathematica Policy Research (1994) ‘Evaluation of the Impact of the Job Corps Programme on Participants’Post Programme Labor Market and Related Behavior’, Study design report. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Publications.
Perez, C. (1998) ‘L'évaluation des programmes d'emploi et de formation aux Etats-Unis’, in Conseil Scientifique de l'Evaluation L'évaluation en développement, 1997. Rapport annuel sur l'évolution des pratiques d'évaluation des politiques publiques, pp. 109–51. Paris: La Documentation FranÁaise.
26.
Pollitt, C. (1998) ‘Evaluation in Europe: Boom or Bubble?’, Evaluation4(2): 214–224.
27.
Ridder, G. (1986) ‘An Event History Approach to the Evaluation of Training. Recruitment and Employment Programmes’, Journal of Applied Econometrics1: 109–126.
28.
Rosenthal, R. (1991) Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
29.
Rossi, P. H. and H. E. Freeman (1993) Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 5th edn.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
30.
Schmid, G. , G. O'Reilly and K. Shomann (eds) (1996) International Handbook of Labour Market Policy and Evaluation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
31.
Stankiewicz, F. (1998) Travail, compétences et adaptabilité. Paris: L'Harmattan.
32.
US Department of Labor (1993) ‘ The National JTPA Study, Title II A: Impact on Earnings and Employment at 18 months’, research and evaluation report.
