Skip to sections below

Share this intervention

PrintEmail

Summary

The WorkAdvance model aims to meet the needs of less-skilled workers and local employers by providing training and employment services in fields with high local demand.

The WorkAdvance model includes five key elements: (1) intensive screening before enrollment; (2) preemployment and work-readiness services, including career coaching, supportive services, and labor market information, all tailored to a specific vocational sector; (3) occupational skills training focused on current job openings; (4) job development and placement; and (5) provision of follow-up retention services in collaboration with employers. It is a versatile model that organizations implement in various ways.

Madison Strategies Group, a nonprofit provider in Tulsa, OK, implemented the WorkAdvance model with an emphasis on the transportation and manufacturing sectors. Madison Strategies Group first implemented the model by offering a placement-first approach, which included intensive screening and work-readiness services and which allowed participants who were able to qualify for a job in the targeted sector to skip occupational skills training and seek immediate employment. In fall 2012, Madison Strategies Group switched to a training-first approach in which participants attended training before job placement. Madison Strategies Group delivered preemployment services in 5 sessions of 6 hours each, and occupational skills training lasted 4 to 32 weeks. Preemployment coaching consisted of one-on-one meetings and weekly group meetings. Supportive services included transportation vouchers and referrals for help with work clothing, legal issues, or housing issues. WorkAdvance focused on recruiting individuals ages 18 or older who were legally allowed to work in the United States, had a monthly family income less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and earned less than $15 per hour, if employed.

WorkAdvance is a sector-based workforce development model whose design was informed by prior research on sector strategies and career advancement. Madison Strategies Group WorkAdvance is a specific version of the WorkAdvance model. Three other sites implemented the WorkAdvance model as part of the WorkAdvance Demonstration, each with differing length, breadth, and depth of services: St. Nick’s Alliance in Brooklyn, NY; Towards Employment in northeast Ohio; and Per Scholas in the Bronx, New York City.

6762.03-WorkAdvance Model -
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 Little evidence to assess support favorable $586 per year 0.028 697
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $1,799 per year 0.086 697
Very long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $816 per year 0.039 697
Increase employment Short-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 2% (in percentage points) 0.056 697
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 2% (in percentage points) 0.037 697
Very long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable 0% (in percentage points) -0.008 697
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $-72 per year -0.026 560
Very long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $-94 per year -0.034 697
Increase education and training All measurement periods No evidence to assess support
* 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

Cost information

The average cost per participant was $6,329 in 2018 dollars.

This figure is based on cost information reported by authors of the study or studies the Pathways Clearinghouse reviewed for this intervention. The Pathways Clearinghouse converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2018 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. Where there are multiple studies of an intervention rated high or moderate quality, the Pathways Clearinghouse computed the average of costs reported across those studies.

Cost information is not directly comparable across interventions due to differences in the categories of costs reported and the amount of time interventions lasted. Cost information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

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

Local context

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
28%
White, not Hispanic
39%
Another race
26%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
6%

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