Study Details | Pathways to Work

24989.03-Study of Valley Init

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: Valley Initiative for Development and Advancement (VIDA)

Services provided:

Education, Financial education, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

For this study, VIDA recruited residents of Hidalgo, Starr, or Willacy counties in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas who were interested in high-demand occupations. Participants were required to have low incomes, be public assistance recipients, be underemployed, or be unemployed; be at least age 18; and be eligible to work in the United States. Participants were also required to have a high school diploma or general education diploma. After being deemed eligible and completing baseline and consent forms, the study randomly assigned 478 participants to the intervention group and 480 participants to the comparison group. Enrollment occurred from November 2011 to June 2014.

Time period of study:

Enrollment occurred from November 2011 to June 2014, and the study presents findings for Years 1 to 7 after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Psychosocial skills, life stressors, family structure, job quality, career knowledge and availability of career supports, health insurance coverage, home ownership, level of debt, signs of financial distress, parental engagement, child outcomes, childbearing (women only), and living arrangements

Study funded by:

The Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education evaluation was funded by the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation in ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

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	5,944.00	5,082.00	-862.00	2019 dollars	955
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 5	High	29,670.00	30,303.00	633.00	2019 dollars	955
Increase very long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 7	High	35,525.00	35,206.00	-319.00	2019 dollars	926
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	Quarter 6	High	60.80	54.50	-6.30	Percentage points	955
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	Quarter 20	High	80.20	80.00	-0.20	Percentage points	955
Increase very long-term employment	Currently employed	Quarter 27	High	78.70	80.50	1.80	Percentage points	926

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

All participants were residents of the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. More than 60 percent were ages 21 to 34, and about 70 percent were female. Nearly all were Hispanic (96 percent). All were required to have a high school diploma or equivalent certification, although about 1 percent lacked this credential. Most participants had some postsecondary education before the start of the study (73 percent), and about one-third of participants held a vocational or technical certificate or diploma (31 percent). In the year before random assignment, about two-thirds received benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (68 percent).

Sex

Female	71%
Male	29%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	1%
White, not Hispanic	3%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	96%

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.

Participant employment and public benefit status

Had low incomes

100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	73%
Had a high school diploma or GED	99%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	1%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

VIDA, a community-based organization, provided program services in partnership with local colleges and universities.

Program history:

VIDA has existed since 1995 and was formed by the local business community and faith-based leaders.

Intervention services:

The VIDA program analyzed local labor markets to understand which occupations were in high demand in the region. VIDA participants enrolled full time in educational programs related to these high-demand fields. Five partnering colleges or universities offered these programs. Educational programs included certificate programs, associate's degree programs, or the last two years of coursework to receive a bachelor's degree. Those who were not deemed college-ready participated in the College Prep Academy, a 16-week basic skills remediation program provided through a local college. Participants received intensive weekly counseling services in one-on-one or group settings. Counseling sessions focused on life skills, such as time management and budgeting, as well as skills to support success in participants' education programs. VIDA also offered a variety of supportive services, including financial aid; funding for books, tools, or uniforms needed for programming; connection to child care; transportation assistance; and emergency assistance.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Participants in the comparison group were unable to receive services from VIDA. They could receive other services provided in their communities, which included the same college programs VIDA offered. However, the coordination of services and the particular bundling of services VIDA provided was only offered to those in the intervention group.

Service receipt duration:

Services were provided for an average of 2.5 years.

Intervention funding:

Not available

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $10,757 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $47 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $10,710 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

Gardiner, Karen, and Randall Juras (2019). Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education (PACE): Cross-program implementation and impact study findings, OPRE Report #2019-32, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/pathways-advancing-careers-and-education-pace-cross-program-implementation-and-impact.

Judkins, David, Douglas Walton, Daniel Litwok, Gabriel Durham, and Samuel Dastrup (2021). Valley Initiative for Development and Advancement (VIDA): Appendices for three-year impact report, OPRE Report #2021-96, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/valley-initiative-development-and-advancement-vida-three-year-impact-report.

Judkins, David, Emily Roessel, and Gabriel Durham (2022). Appendices for PACE six-year impact reports, OPRE Report #2022-69, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/pace%20six-year%20impact%20report%20technical%20appendix%2003-2022.pdf

Rolston, Howard, and Douglas Walton (2022). Valley Initiative for Development and Advancement (VIDA): Six-year impact report, OPRE Report #2022-58, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/valley-initiative-development-advancement-vida-six-year-impact-report.

Rolston, Howard, Elizabeth Copson, and Karen Gardiner (2017). Valley Initiative for Development and Advancement: Implementation and early impact report, OPRE Report #2017-83, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/vida_implementation_and_early_impact_report_final_b508.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 Valley Initiative for Development and Advancement (VIDA)