Study Details | Pathways to Work

24989.05-Study of Integrated

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: Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST)

Services provided:

Education, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work and work-based learning (Work experience), Work readiness activities

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Each of the three colleges implementing I-BEST recruited students with low levels of basic skills attainment for the study and program. Interested applicants first took the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System math and reading assessments to determine eligibility for I-BEST. The scores required on the assessments for eligibility for the program varied slightly across the three colleges but generally reflected reading and math abilities between the elementary and high school levels. Eligible people then met with program staff to enroll in the study. After completing a consent form and baseline surveys, program staff randomly assigned people to the intervention and comparison groups. Random assignment occurred from November 2011 to September 2014, with 315 people assigned to the intervention group and 317 to the comparison group.

Time period of study:

People were randomly assigned from November 2011 to September 2014, and the study presents findings for Years 1 to 6 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, and family structure

Study funded by:

The Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education (PACE) 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	7,951.00	7,107.00	-844.00	2019 dollars	620
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 5	High	18,507.00	18,241.00	-266.00	2019 dollars	620
Increase very long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 6	High	19,994.00	21,165.00	1,171.00	2019 dollars	620
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	Quarter 6	High	55.00	59.00	4.00	Percentage points	610
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	Quarter 20	High	62.30	69.80	7.50	Percentage points	610
Increase very long-term employment	Currently employed	Quarter 24	High	60.70	66.70	6.00	Percentage points	610

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

More than 60 percent of study participants were older than 25, and about 58 percent were female. About half were White, not Hispanic (55 percent), and about one-quarter were Hispanic (26 percent). Most participants had a high school diploma or less education (71 percent total). In the year before random assignment, about 60 percent received benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Sex

Female	58%
Male	43%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	8%
White, not Hispanic	55%
Another race	14%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	26%

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

Were employed	33%
Were unemployed	67%
Had low incomes	100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	29%
Had a high school diploma or GED	69%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	31%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Three community and technical colleges—Bellingham Technical College, Whatcom Community College, and Everett Community College—implemented the I-BEST program as part of the PACE evaluation.

Program history:

The Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) designed I-BEST in the 2004–2005 academic year as a pilot program at 10 community and technical colleges throughout the state. SBCTC expanded the program to all 34 public community and technical colleges in the state in 2005–2006 and 2006–2007.

Intervention services:

I-BEST offered occupational training courses to students with low skills in public community and technical colleges in Washington State. Each college's I-BEST program was a course with a structured career pathway and gave students the ability to gain college credits and credentials toward careers in high demand. I-BEST offered courses in a variety of areas, including the nursing, electrical, and clerical fields. Two courses included internships or clinical experience. Participants in the I-BEST intervention groups at the three colleges in the PACE evaluation could access additional financial supports for tuition and supportive services, as well as a dedicated advisor who provided academic supports and career planning.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

People in the comparison group could access occupational and educational supports through other programs in their communities and could take non-I-BEST courses at the three I-BEST colleges in the PACE evaluation.

Service receipt duration:

Across the three colleges, the length of the I-BEST program varied from one to three quarters.

Intervention funding:

Washington SBCTC and Open Society Foundations

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $5,687 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $62 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $5,625 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.

Glosser, Asaph, Karin Martinson, Sung-Woo Cho, and Karen Gardiner (2018). Washington state’s Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) program in three colleges: Implementation and early impact report, OPRE Report #2018-87, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED608003.pdf.

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

Martinson, Karin, and Asaph Glosser (2022). Washington state’s Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I‑BEST) program: Six-year impact report, OPRE Report #2022-64, 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/i-best-6-year-report-mar-2022.pdf

Martinson, Karin, Sung-Woo Cho, Asaph Glosser, Karen Loya, and Samuel Dastrup (2021). Washington state’s Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) program: Three-year impact report, OPRE Report #2021-102, 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/ibest-3-year-report-june-2021.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 Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST)