Study Details | Pathways to Work

28287-Study of English for

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: English for Advancement (EfA)

Services provided:

Education, Employment retention services, Training, Work readiness activities (Employment coaching, Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Prospective participants attended an information session that described the study and the EfA program, and could schedule individual interviews for staff to assess their English skills and eligibility. Candidates were eligible for the program if they wanted to obtain employment or a better job, could attend the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes, and had a Social Security Card and authorization to work in the United States. As part of their screening, staff reviewed candidates' employment goals to assess candidates' alignment of goals with their previous experience, confirmed that candidates had childcare and transportation arrangements, and considered the likelihood that the program could increase candidates' earnings if they were currently employed. Staff collected consent and randomly assigned candidates who were deemed eligible to either the intervention or the comparison condition. In total, 790 individuals were randomly assigned, with 408 assigned to the intervention condition and 382 assigned to the comparison condition. Randomization was blocked by the six locations in the Greater Boston area. In the first several months of enrollment, participants were assigned evenly to the intervention or the comparison group but the program increased the ratio for later cohorts to enroll more people in the comparison condition. The authors accounted for this in their analysis.

Time period of study:

Individuals were enrolled in the study from September 2016 to December 2017 and were followed for two years.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment

Other outcome domains examined:

None

Study funded by:

Arnold Ventures

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	15,847.00	16,731.00	884.00	2017 dollars	790
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 2	High	17,859.00	20,480.00	2,621.00	2018 dollars	790
Increase short-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 1	High	55.40	59.70	4.30	percentage points	790
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	68.20	76.70	8.50	percentage points	790
Increase long-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 2	High	58.80	65.20	6.40	percentage points	790
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 8	High	67.40	74.50	7.10	percentage points	790

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 aimed to recruit adult immigrants with low to intermediate English skills. The majority of participants were female (73 percent), lived in the U.S for less than five years (57 percent), and had low or low-intermediate English skills (60 percent). Their average age was 40 years old. Forty-eight percent of participants reported employment as a source of income, 36 percent reported other household member's earnings as a source of income, and 25 percent reported SNAP as a source of income. Ninety percent of participants earned their highest degree outside of the U.S. Forty-four percent of participants had a high school diploma or equivalent and 17 percent had less than a high school education. Half of all participants had at least one child under 18 in their household. Eighty-six percent of participants were legal permanent residents or naturalized U.S citizens, while nine percent were refugee, asylee, or humanitarian parolees. Participants had been born in the Caribbean (41 percent), South or Central America (32 percent), Africa (14 percent), Asia (7 percent), or other regions (such as Europe, Middle East, and North America) (7 percent).

Age

Mean age

40 years

Sex

Female	73%
Male	27%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	13%
White, not Hispanic	5%
Asian	6%
Unknown or not reported	7%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	69%

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

Parents	51%
Single parents	19%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	48%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	2%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	31%
Had a high school diploma or GED	83%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	17%

Specific employment barriers

Had limited work histories	24%
Were immigrants	95%
Were refugees	9%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Jewish Vocational Service (JVS)

Program history:

JVS had previously administered EfA, but started offering it again at the start of the study. This was the first time EfA was offered as a Pay for Success Model through the Massachusetts Pathways to Economic Advancement Project.

Intervention services:

The English for Advancement (EfA) intervention provided vocational ESOL classes, work readiness activities, and job search assistance to individuals with low to intermediate English skills who were unemployed or had low-skill or part-time jobs. The vocational ESOL classes incorporated interviewing skills and professional communication and were offered for two or three days per week, for up to nine hours of class per week for 2 to 12 months. The classes were offered in two-month cycles. Participants were assessed at the beginning and end of each cycle to assess comprehension and progress toward goals. Participants worked with career coaches on work readiness activities as needed, such as setting employment goals, creating resumes, and preparing for interviews. Coaches also provided job search and job placement assistance by sharing job leads and teaching participants to search for jobs independently. Participants could meet with their career coach to receive employment retention and advancement assistance for up to two years.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Members of the comparison group did not receive EfA services, but were offered information around ESOL classes in the community they could attend.

Service receipt duration:

The study participants were expected to attend ESOL classes for between 2 and 12 months and to meet with a career coach for job retention and career progression support for up to 2 years. Participants attended ESOL classes for an average of 6 months and met with their career coaches for an average of 14 months.

Intervention funding:

Private sector investors coordinated through Social Finance, a financial intermediary

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $5,027 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $454 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $4,573 per person. This represents how much more it cost to provide intervention services compared to comparison services.

These figures are based on cost information reported by study authors. The Pathways Clearinghouse converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2018 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. This information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Study publications

Roder, Anne, and Mark Elliott. (2020). Stepping up: Interim findings on JVS Boston's English for Advancement show large earnings gains. New York, NY; Economic Mobility Corporation. Available at: https://economicmobilitycorp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SteppingUp.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 English for Advancement (EfA)