Skip to sections below

Share this intervention

PrintEmail

Summary

PTH offered occupational training in health care–related fields to individuals with low incomes interested in a career in health care.

PTH provided five pathways to earn stackable credentials in the health care industry through a career pathways model and offered intensive advising, supportive services, and work-readiness activities, including workshops to prepare for the job search and job search assistance. Participants could also receive scholarships for tuition and books of up to $3,500 (or $6,500 for certain more expensive programs such as Licensed Practical Nurse, Medical Office Specialist, and Medical Records Technician) at the community college that operated PTH. The PTH credential programs lasted between 1 and 24 months, in addition to 10 weeks of optional remedial coursework. The program focused on individuals with low incomes (as defined by the program; before the study, participants had an average annual income of about $17,000) who were eligible to work and interested in a career in health care. The program was implemented in Pima County, AZ.

PTH was part of the Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education study which also evaluated the following career pathways programs: Bridge to Employment in the Healthcare Industry, Carreras en Salud, Health Careers for All, Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training, Patient Care Pathway Program, Valley Initiative for Development and Advancement, Workforce Training Academy Connect, and Year Up.

24989.02-Pathways for Advanci
Populations and employment barriers:

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below?
View the "Table help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

View table help

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

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $-962 per year -0.046 1217
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 1% (in percentage points) 0.033 1040
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term Not supported unfavorable $239 per year 0.087 1040
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods Little evidence to assess support favorable 3% (in percentage points) 0.055 1040
* This intervention was assessed as supported for this domain, meaning it achieved one or more statistically significant, favorable effects. However, the intervention has an average effect size that is unfavorable because the average includes all effects in this domain - both statistically significant and favorable effects and statistically insignificant but unfavorable effects.

Effectiveness rating key:

  • Well-supported Well-supported   
  • Supported  Supported   
  • Not supported  Not supported   
  • Mixed support  Mixed support   
  • Insufficient evidence  Insufficient evidence   
  • No evidence  No evidence
Effectiveness rating terms?

Studies of this intervention

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

Implementation details

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
12%
White, not Hispanic
27%
Unknown, not reported, or other
8%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
56%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

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

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

Back to top