Study Details | Pathways to Work

3048.01-Work Advancement and

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration with Incentive Payments

Population and employment barriers:

Employment status and income level (Employed)

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Financial incentives, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work and work-based learning (On-the-job training)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The study randomly assigned study participants to the WASC group or to a comparison group. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be low-wage workers, or they had to have recently lost a job and been reemployed at a lower wage. Participants receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) were excluded from the study, and no more than 50 percent of participants in each site could be Food Stamp recipients. After an eligible individual consented to participate and filled out a baseline questionnaire, site staff submitted the individual's information online to the evaluators, and an algorithm created by the evaluator performed the random assignment. WASC was implemented in three locations (Dayton, OH; Bridgeport, CT; and San Diego, CA), and this review examines results for Dayton. Other reviews examine the other two locations. The research sample size was 1,184, with 595 in the WASC group and 589 in the comparison group. A study was administered to some participants 12 months after random assignment. To be eligible for the survey, participants had to speak English or Spanish, be randomly assigned between November 2005 and March 2007, and be enrolled from January 2006 through March 2007. Of the 1,184 participants, 1,093 met the eligibility criteria. Of those eligible, 616 were randomly selected to participate in the survey.

Time period of study:

The WASC Dayton study site enrolled clients from fall 2005 through March 2007. This study presents Year 1 through Year 4 impacts of the program on employment, earnings, and work supports receipt in Dayton, OH.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt, Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Physical health, Mental health

Study funded by:

Funding for the evaluation in this report came from the U.S. Department of Labor, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Earlier grants that supported this project were from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

Results

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

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	12,913.00	12,699.00	-244.00	2007 dollars	1,184
Increase short-term earnings	Weekly earnings	Year 1	High	261.00	286.00	25.00	2007 dollars	502
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings from UI-covered jobs	Year 4	High	14,030.00	14,970.00	940.00	2010 dollars	1,176
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	Month 12	High	81.10	83.10	2.00	percentage points	502
Increase short-term employment	Employed four consecutive quarters	Year 1	High	73.70	74.80	1.10	percentage points	1,184
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed in Quarter 5	Year 1	High	81.40	83.40	2.00	percentage points	1,184
Increase long-term employment	Employed four consecutive quarters in a UI-covered job	Year 4	High	57.50	59.50	2.00	percentage points	1,176
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed in a UI-covered job, annual	Year 4	High	78.10	80.90	2.80	percentage points	1,176
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps received, annual	Year 1	High	1,284.00	1,410.00	126.00	2007 dollars	1,184
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Average Food Stamp receipt in prior month	Year 1	High	100.00	95.00	-5.00	2007 dollars	502
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Ever received Food Stamps, annual	Year 1	High	53.90	59.40	5.50	percentage points	1,184
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps in prior month	Year 1	High	36.60	37.50	0.90	percentage points	502
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps received, annual	Year 4	High	1,516.00	1,514.00	-2.00	2010 dollars	1,176
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Ever received Food Stamps, annual	Year 4	High	48.00	47.60	-0.40	percentage points	1,176
Increase education and training	Obtained a license or certificate	Year 1	High	11.60	18.00	6.40	percentage points	498
Increase education and training	Obtained a license or certificate	Year 1	High	11.30	18.10	6.80	percentage points	1,184
Increase education and training	Obtained any degree or diploma	Year 1	High	4.70	7.30	2.60	percentage points	498
Increase education and training	Obtained any degree or diploma	Year 1	High	5.10	7.30	2.20	percentage points	1,184

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample characteristics

The study recruited low-wage workers, reemployed dislocated workers, or people who fit both criteria within certain income eligibility guidelines. A majority of eligible study participants earned less than $10 per hour and had a household income below 130 percent of the federal poverty level. The study also focused on a population that had a limited prior connection to the welfare system and thus was in most need of assistance with work supports. As a result, current recipients of TANF were not eligible for enrollment into the demonstration, and current recipients of Food Stamps made up a maximum of 50 percent of the WASC sample. In Dayton, 81 percent of participants were women, and more than a third of the sample was younger than 24. The WASC sample reflected a particular segment of the low-wage worker population that was more likely to be Black (68 percent), be single mothers (71 percent single and 63 percent mothers), work part-time (about two-thirds), and have some education beyond high school (more than 80 percent).

Age

Mean age

30 years

Sex

Female	81%
Male	19%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	68%
White	27%
Unknown, not reported, or other	4%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	1%

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.

Family status

Married	15%
Single parents	51%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed

100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	58%
Had a high school diploma or GED	90%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	10%

Specific employment barriers

Were immigrants

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

The Job Center (the local one-stop career center)

Program history:

The WASC expanded the mission of one-stop career centers to include low-wage workers and therefore was more comprehensive than the existing workforce development system. WASC was implemented in Dayton, OH; San Diego, CA; and Bridgeport, CT.

Intervention services:

The intervention group received services from the WASC program. The WASC delivered integrated, intensive retention and advancement services to incumbent workers. It provided information about and simplified access to financial work supports, such as the earned-income tax credit and child care subsidies. Services were offered at one-stop career centers, where workforce development and TANF staff worked together in the same unit as a team. Retention and advancement services included career coaching and access to training and education to stabilize individuals’ employment and help them find better-paying jobs. The WASC model in Dayton, OH, focused on providing access to and funding for vocational training and providing financial incentives for maintaining employment and participating in training.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

The comparison group received existing employment services with a focus on job placement (instead of advancement) for low-wage workers.

Service receipt duration:

The WASC services were available for two years to all participants.

Intervention funding:

Workforce Investment Act Governor’s Discretionary Funds; TANF funds; Funds from evaluator.

Study publications

Miller, Cynthia, Betsy L. Tessler, and Mark Van Dok (2009). Strategies to help low-wage workers advance: Implementation and early impacts of the Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) demonstration, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_516.pdf.

Miller, Cynthia, Betsy L. Tessler, and Mark Van Dok (2012). Strategies to help low-wage workers advance: Implementation and final impacts of the Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) demonstration, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_627.pdf.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

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.

Study of Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration with Incentive Payments—Dayton, OH