Skip to sections below

Share this intervention

PrintEmail

  • 0.55,2.00
  • 0.55,2.00

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 occupational sector; (3) occupational skills training focused on current job openings; (4) job development and placement; and (5) provision of follow-up retention and advancement services in collaboration with employers. It is a versatile model that organizations implement in various ways.

Towards Employment, a community-based organization in northeast Ohio, implemented the WorkAdvance model with an emphasis on the health care and manufacturing sectors. Towards Employment began implementing WorkAdvance by offering a placement-first approach, which included intensive screening and work-readiness services, but 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, Towards Employment switched to a training-first approach in which participants attended training before job placement occurred.

Towards Employment delivered preemployment services in 10 sessions of 6 hours each, and occupational skills training lasted 2 to 17 weeks. Coaches met with participants in groups and one-on-one up to three times per week during the job search process. Supportive services included assistance with transportation and legal issues as well as referrals for assistance with housing, mental health, and substance abuse issues. Towards Employment focused on recruiting people age 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. Towards Employment WorkAdvance was 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: Madison Strategies Group in Tulsa, OK; St. Nick’s Alliance in Brooklyn, NY; and Per Scholas in the Bronx, New York City.

6762.04-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 $21 per year 0.001 698
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $1,318 per year 0.063 698
Very long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $1,632 per year 0.078 698
Increase employment Short-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable -4% (in percentage points) -0.097 698
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 4% (in percentage points) 0.097 697
Very long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable -1% (in percentage points) -0.022 698
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $-94 per year -0.034 562
Very long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $124 per year 0.045 698
Increase education and training All measurement periods Supported favorable 27% (in percentage points) 0.547 562
* 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

Dates covered by study

The Towards Employment WorkAdvance intervention began in 2011 and ended in 2014. The site enrolled study participants from October 2011 to June 2013. Participants received WorkAdvance services for up to 2 years after enrollment and completed a follow-up survey about 18 to 24 months after random assignment. Evaluators examined outcomes until 2018.

Organizations implementing intervention

The community-based organization Towards Employment, which provides employment services for people with low incomes in Greater Cleveland, OH, implemented the Towards Employment WorkAdvance intervention.

Populations served

The study population encompassed unemployed or working adults who earned below $15 per hour and had a family income below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.

Participants of Towards Employment WorkAdvance were mostly single (73 percent). Most were Black or African American, not Hispanic (71 percent). A little more than half were women (59 percent). Sample members were an average age of 35. About half (52 percent) of participants had at least one child. Ninety-four percent of participants had their high school diploma or GED. Twenty-seven percent of participants were employed at enrollment and, among those, 43 percent were employed full time and earned an average hourly wage of $9.46. Thirty-seven percent of participants were previously incarcerated or convicted of a crime. More than half of participants (55 percent) received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.

Description of services implemented

The Towards Employment WorkAdvance intervention offered a sector-focused program to help people with low incomes obtain, train, and advance in careers in the manufacturing and health care industries. Towards Employment adapted the standard WorkAdvance services to meet local industry needs and employer requirements while focusing on participants’ long-term career advancement and upward mobility.

During intake, staff thoroughly screened applicants to evaluate their motivation to be in the program and their likelihood of completion, assess their reading and math literacy skills to ensure participants were prepared and qualified for the training and potential occupations, and determine whether they met income eligibility requirements. Applicants at Towards Employment also completed a drug test, criminal background check, and a sector screening questionnaire. Staff refined the screening process based on employer feedback to seek out applicants who were interested in a career in manufacturing. Once accepted into the program, participants received the following core services:

  • Work-readiness activities and soft-skills training. Participants completed sector-specific orientations and received coaching to help them develop goals and maintain progress toward their career advancement objectives. Towards Employment staff also assisted participants with developing a résumé and cover letter and addressed transportation barriers. Participants also received training in interview skills and soft skills. Staff also showed them examples of performance reviews to help them understand how employers would evaluate their work once they had found a job.
  • Occupational or sectoral training. Participants could receive hands-on occupational skills training and obtain credentials in manufacturing and health care. Participants attended off-site occupational skills training at technical schools or community colleges. Based on participants’ work schedules, Towards Employment staff grouped participants in the training program into cohorts. Participants attended classes on either a full-time or part-time schedule; classes were offered during the evenings, on weekdays, and on weekends.
  • Job development and job placement. After participants completed training and certification, job developers helped them identify and secure positions in the health care and manufacturing sectors that participants had prepared for during earlier program activities.
  • Employment retention and advancement services. Participants received services to help them maintain and advance in their jobs, which occurred both during training and post-employment, such as coaching on creating advancement goals, instruction on how to negotiate for higher wages, and case management to tackle barriers to retention. Staff developed a follow-up plan to maintain communication with participants and provided them with feedback from employers on their performance.

The initial screening helped Towards Employment identify applicants they believed were most committed and determined to be in the program. Furthermore, staff dedicated substantial time to building rapport with participant by providing coaching and barrier-focused case management. Staff also strategically approached engaging participants and employers by carefully timing their interventions and remaining attuned to employers’ recommendations and feedback. Towards Employment developed relationships with community colleges and private technical schools involved in the intervention, as well as with industry intermediary groups that helped Towards Employment understand the manufacturing industry and connect participants to manufacturing jobs. These partners also helped Towards Employment connect participants with services that were already available in the community. Employers engaged in the WorkAdvance program by providing counseling on curricula and sector trends, serving as guest speakers in career-readiness classes, participating in mock interviews, and hosting visits for participants to their workplace.

Towards Employment changed some program components during implementation. Initially, the intervention focused on placing participants into employment first, then offered them occupational skills training. During the initial implementation, staff also offered career-readiness services for two weeks before participants started their job search. This approach resulted in fewer participants starting or completing the training program than in other WorkAdvance programs that used a training-first model. Towards Employment then changed to a training-first model, which provided career services simultaneously with occupational skills training. The organization gradually changed the occupational skills training courses by replacing the health care patient navigator training programs with more welding occupational training, to respond to industry and employer needs. Moreover, Towards Employment initially contracted intermediary organizations to build relationships with employers and connect WorkAdvance participants with employment opportunities; however, Towards Employment later replaced these intermediaries with partnerships with local hospitals.

Challenges. Towards Employment faced challenges to designing and implementing training and services for both the health care and manufacturing sectors. Implementing services took more time than anticipated, and Towards Employment staff needed considerable technical assistance from MDRC, a non-profit organization, to implement the program successfully. Towards Employment did not have experience operating sector programs that helped place participants into positions above entry level. In addition, program staff were not familiar with the manufacturing sector and experienced a steep learning curve when designing and executing the program. Furthermore, in early 2012, the priorities of Towards Employment’s health care industry association partner changed, which led to its contract being terminated. In fall 2012, Towards Employment added a different health care industry association as a partner, but that relationship also ended.

Staff also had to acclimate to providing services to participants post-employment and needed significant technical assistance in learning how to provide advancement services. Therefore, program participants who enrolled earlier in the study received less robust services than those who joined later. Some participants encountered issues leading them to discontinue the program, such as an unexpected need for more income, work schedule changes, and mental health challenges. In addition, some participants faced significant employment barriers, including unstable housing, pending legal matters and criminal convictions, and long-term unemployment.

Service intensity

The occupational skills training ranged from 2 to 17 weeks based on the occupation type, and the work-readiness activities included 10 sessions for 6 hours each. During the initial 30-day follow-up period after a participant obtained a job, career coaches checked in weekly. For ongoing follow-up, career coaches contacted participants twice per month for 90 days, then monthly for 180 days, and quarterly thereafter.

According to the data collected over three months from April to July 2014, participants who engaged in an advancement coaching meeting attended about three coaching meetings, on average, with staff. Most coaching was conducted by phone.

Participants received up to two years of WorkAdvance program services and follow-up services.

Comparison conditions

The comparison group was not eligible for WorkAdvance services. Comparable services were available in the community, such as targeted sector training from community colleges and other community providers.

Partnerships

The WorkAdvance Managing Collaborative was a key stakeholder for Towards Employment. The collaborative included the following partners:

  • The New York City Center for Economic Opportunity managed the contracts with the WorkAdvance providers, including Towards Employment; helped raise matching funds required for the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) (funding described further under “Funding sources”); operated the SIF network where the providers could share best practices with each other; and monitored the project’s performance.
  • MDRC provided technical assistance to Towards Employment while implementing the WorkAdvance model, monitored the program’s performance, and led the evaluation.

Staffing

Towards Employment subcontracted many of the services it rendered to participants, including two part-time job developers, one for each sector, to help connect participants to job leads.

The on-site staff at Towards Employment consisted of the following:

  • The full-time project director, a part-time (10 percent) executive director, and one full-time program manager who coordinated the project.
  • A part-time outreach specialist who, with the assistance of other staff members, recruited participants.
  • A full-time program assistant, a part-time work-readiness manager, and one full-time career-readiness trainer who were responsible for the intake, career-readiness instruction, and support to other staff.
  • Four full-time career coaches (two per sector) who managed the relationships between participants and employers.
  • A part-time legal services specialist and a part-time case manager.

The study authors did not include information on the degrees or certification requirements of Towards Employment staff.

Fidelity measures

The study did not discuss any tools to measure fidelity to the intervention model.

Funding source

The WorkAdvance program received funding from various private foundations. The federal SIF matched the private dollars. SIF is part of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and it uses public and private resources to fund programs and provide technical assistance to support their evaluation efforts.

Cost information

The average cost per participant was $6,743 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

The intervention took place in northeast Ohio in the area around Cleveland. The region’s overall economy was steady during the study; however, the region’s labor market was still facing challenges from deindustrialization and the decline in its manufacturing sector that occurred decades earlier.

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
71%
White, not Hispanic
18%
Another race
6%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
5%

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