Study Details | Pathways to Work

101035-Study of Bridges to

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition, suggesting the findings can be attributed to the program.

Program: Bridges to Success

Services provided:

Case management, Performance- or behavior-based financial incentives

Setting: Urban only

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for review: Version 2.0

Learn about our protocol

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Participants were recruited from high-poverty neighborhoods in Rochester, NY, through door-to-door visits and agency referrals. Study participants were randomly assigned to an program group that could access the Bridges to Success (BtS) program or a comparison group that could not. For the first study cohort (those enrolled between January 2017 and April 2018), participants were randomly assigned to each group with 50 percent probability, stratified by time of enrollment. For the second study cohort (those enrolled between February 2020 and July 2020), participants were randomly assigned with two-thirds probability of being assigned to the program group and one-third probability of being assigned to the comparison group, with no stratification. A total of 430 participants were randomly assigned, with 237 participants assigned to the program group and 193 participants assigned to the comparison group.

Time period of study:

The study ran from 2017 to 2023. Study enrollment occurred in two cohorts from January 2017 to April 2018 and from February to July 2020. Study data collection occurred from January 2017 to July 2023, with outcomes measured at a one-year follow-up survey and over a three-year follow-up period in unemployment insurance administrative data.

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Housing, family relationships, health, social networks, finances

Study funded by:

The study was funded by J-PAL North America, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Arnold Ventures, and the Wilson Sheehan Lab for Economic Opportunities.

Results

View table definitions

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Average quarterly earnings, UI data	Quarters 3, 4, 5	High	83.00	2021 dollars	356
Increase long-term earnings	Average quarterly earnings, UI data	Quarters 11 to 13	High	38.00	2023 dollars	356
Increase short-term employment	Employed, quarterly, UI data	Quarter 4	High	6.00	percentage points	356
Increase long-term employment	Employed, quarterly, UI data	Quarter 12	High	8.00	percentage points	356
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual, administrative data	Year 1	High	15.00	2019 dollars	273
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of food stamps/SNAP benefits, annual, administrative data	Year 1	High	44.00	2019 dollars	273
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual, administrative data	Year 1	High	2.00	percentage points	273
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received food stamps/SNAP, annual, administrative data	Year 1	High	6.00	percentage points	273

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.

Means are not displayed when not reported or not aligned with the impact estimates. For example, if the impact estimate is regression-adjusted but only unadjusted means are reported in the study, the unadjusted means are not displayed as they are not aligned with the adjusted impact estimate.

Impact estimates are not shown when the estimate units cannot be converted to natural units.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the program. 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 program, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the program 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

Study participants were working age U.S. citizens who had household incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty line and were living in Rochester, NY. Initially, the program also required that participants lived in a designated set of high-poverty neighborhoods in the city and had evidence of a high school diploma or equivalent, but these requirements were dropped early in the study period. Study participants had low average earnings ($1,192 per quarter) at study enrollment, with 34 percent of participants currently working. The majority of study participants were female (77 percent), Black (64 percent), and had children (60 percent). About one-third (32 percent) did not have a high school degree or equivalent. Participants' average age was 37 years old.

Age

Mean age

37 years

Sex

Female	77%
Male	23%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	64%
White	9%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	26%
Another race	27%

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

60%

Employment and public benefit status

Were employed

34%

Education

Had a high school diploma or GED	68%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	32%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

The Catholic Family Center; Action for a Better Community; Community Place of Greater Rochester

Program history:

Bridges to Success (BtS) was part of pilot adult mentoring programs that did not exist prior to the study.

Program services:

BtS was an intensive adult mentoring and comprehensive case management program in Rochester, NY. Participants were assigned a mentor for a two-year period who identified participants' short- and long-term goals, created step-by-step plans for progress, and provided cash incentives for completing planned steps.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

The comparison group had access to temporary services through referrals to meet immediate needs but were not offered BtS services.

Service receipt duration:

Services were delivered for up to two years.

Program funding:

The program was funded by The City of Rochester, NY, and the Rochester-Monroe Anti-Poverty Initiative.

Study publications

Espinosa, Javier, William N. Evans, David C. Phillips, and Tim Spilde (2024). How do holistic wrap-around anti-poverty programs affect employment and individualized outcomes? NBER Working Paper 32911. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3386/w32911

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

Pathways to Work refers to programs by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some program names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Study of Bridges to Success