[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eve/wpaper/11-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Faut-il accompagner les jeunes des quartiers ségrégés dans leur première expérience professionnelle ? Une évaluation aléatoire

Author

Listed:
  • Yannick L’Horty

    (Université de Paris Est, ERUDITE, CEE et TEPP-CNRS)

  • Emmanuel Duguet

    (Université de Paris Est, ERUDITE, CEE et TEPP-CNRS)

  • Pascale Petit

    (Université d’Evry-Val d’Essonne, EPEE, CEE, et TEPP-CNRS)

Abstract
Dans les collèges qui relèvent de la géographie prioritaire de l’Education Nationale, les jeunes en classe de 3ème éprouvent davantage de difficulté pour effectuer leur stage obligatoire d’une semaine. Alors que la « séquence d’observation en entreprise » est un élément central du dispositif d’orientation et de découverte du monde professionnel, cette première rencontre des jeunes avec l’entreprise peut nourrir le sentiment d’échec et d’exclusion. Nous évaluons par une méthode aléatoire un dispositif d’accompagnement à la recherche de stage pour des collégiens qui résident dans des quartiers socialement défavorisés. Ce dispositif d’accompagnement n’a d’effet ni sur l’effectivité du stage, ni sur la qualité du stage, évaluée au travers de la satisfaction du jeune, alors qu’il s’agit des objectifs visés par le dispositif. En revanche, il influence les choix d’orientation des élèves, ce qui correspond à l’objectif du stage lui même. Les élèves accompagnés refusent moins fréquemment l’orientation vers des filières courtes et professionnalisées.

Suggested Citation

  • Yannick L’Horty & Emmanuel Duguet & Pascale Petit, 2011. "Faut-il accompagner les jeunes des quartiers ségrégés dans leur première expérience professionnelle ? Une évaluation aléatoire," Documents de recherche 11-04, Centre d'Études des Politiques Économiques (EPEE), Université d'Evry Val d'Essonne.
    • Handle: RePEc:eve:wpaper:11-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.univ-evry.fr/fileadmin/mediatheque/ueve-institutionnel/03_Recherche/laboratoires/Epee/wp/11-04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yannick L’Horty & Pascale Petit, 2011. "Evaluation aléatoire et expérimentations sociales," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(1), pages 13-48.
    2. Luc Behaghel & Bruno Crépon & Marc Gurgand, 2009. "Evaluation d'impact de l'accompagnement des demandeurs d'emploi par les Opérateurs Privés de Placement et le programme Cap Vers l'Entreprise," Working Papers halshs-00754917, HAL.
    3. Abhijit V. Banerjee & Esther Duflo, 2009. "The Experimental Approach to Development Economics," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 151-178, May.
    4. Gary Burtless, 1995. "The Case for Randomized Field Trials in Economic and Policy Research," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 63-84, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yannick L'Horty & Emmanuel Duguet & Pascale Petit, 2011. "Evaluer l’impact d’un micro-programme social : Une étude de cas expérimentale," TEPP Research Report 2011-09, TEPP.
    2. Yannick L’Horty & Emmanuel Duguet & Pascale Petit, 2012. "Une évaluation expérimentale d'un micro-programme social," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(1), pages 107-127.
    3. Emmanuel Duguet & Yannick L’Horty & Pascale Petit, 2011. "Faut-il accompagner les jeunes des quartiers ségrégés dans leur première expérience professionnelle ? Une évaluation expérimentale," Erudite Working Paper 2011-07, Erudite.
    4. Beliyou Haile & Carlo Azzarri & Cleo Roberts & David J. Spielman, 2017. "Targeting, bias, and expected impact of complex innovations on developing-country agriculture: evidence from Malawi," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 317-326, May.
    5. Ho, Thong Quoc & Nie, Zihan & Alpizar, Francisco & Carlsson, Fredrik & Nam, Pham Khanh, 2022. "Celebrity endorsement in promoting pro-environmental behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 68-86.
    6. Hasan Bakhshi & John Edwards & Stephen Roper & Judy Scully & Duncan Shaw & Lorraine Morley & Nicola Rathbone, 2013. "An Experimental Approach to Industrial Policy Evaluation: The case of Creative Credits," Research Papers 0004, Enterprise Research Centre.
    7. Emilie Bourdu & Olivier Bouba-Olga, 2012. "Évaluation d'impact d'un nouveau service public de formation professionnelle," Post-Print hal-00613021, HAL.
    8. Ashish Arora & Michelle Gittelman & Sarah Kaplan & John Lynch & Will Mitchell & Nicolaj Siggelkow & Aaron K. Chatterji & Michael Findley & Nathan M. Jensen & Stephan Meier & Daniel Nielson, 2016. "Field experiments in strategy research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 116-132, January.
    9. James J. Heckman, 1991. "Randomization and Social Policy Evaluation Revisited," NBER Technical Working Papers 0107, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Jeffrey Smith, 2000. "A Critical Survey of Empirical Methods for Evaluating Active Labor Market Policies," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 136(III), pages 247-268, September.
    11. Büttner, Thomas, 2008. "Ankündigungseffekt oder Maßnahmewirkung? Eine Evaluation von Trainingsmaßnahmen zur Überprüfung der Verfügbarkeit (Notification or participation : which treatment actually activates job-seekers? An ev," Zeitschrift für ArbeitsmarktForschung - Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 41(1), pages 25-40.
    12. Belot, Michèle & James, Jonathan, 2014. "A new perspective on the issue of selection bias in randomized controlled field experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(3), pages 326-328.
    13. Burt S. Barnow & Jeffrey Smith, 2015. "Employment and Training Programs," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, Volume 2, pages 127-234, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Pedro Carneiro & Sokbae Lee & Daniel Wilhelm, 2020. "Optimal data collection for randomized control trials," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 23(1), pages 1-31.
    15. Bruno Crépon & Marc Gurgand & Thierry Kamionka & Laurent Lequien, 2013. "Is Counseling Welfare Recipients Cost-Effective ? Lessons from a Random Experiment," Working Papers 2013-01, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    16. Su, Huei-Chun & Colander, David, 2021. "The Economist As Scientist, Engineer, Or Plumber?," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 297-312, June.
    17. Guizar-Mateos, Isai & Miranda, Mario J. & Gonzalez-Vega, Claudio, 2013. "The Role of Credit and Deposits in the Dynamics of Technology Decisions and Poverty Traps," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149860, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Stefano DellaVigna & Elizabeth Linos, 2022. "RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence From Two Nudge Units," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 81-116, January.
    19. Dorsett, Richard & Oswald, Andrew J., 2014. "Human Well-being and In-Work Benefits: A Randomized Controlled Trial," IZA Discussion Papers 7943, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Victor R. Fuchs & Alan B. Krueger & James M. Poterba, 1997. "Why do Economists Disagree About Policy?," NBER Working Papers 6151, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Accompagnement; expérimentation; évaluation de politiques publiques; randomisation; évaluation aléatoire; réseaux sociaux;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eve:wpaper:11-04. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Samuel Nosel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/epevrfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.