Study Details | Pathways to Work

3132-The Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) project - Cleveland

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: Cleveland Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA)

Population and employment barriers:

Employment status and income level (Employed)

Services provided:

Case management, Employment retention services, Soft skills training, Training

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The evaluation randomly assigned 44 employers and firms (as opposed to employees); half were assigned to the intervention group, and half were assigned to the comparison group from September 2002 to May 2004. Employers and firms in the nursing sector were targeted because of the high turnover rates in the long-term nursing industry. To be eligible for random assignment, employers and firms needed to have employed at least 15 workers earning less than $13 per hour and hired within the past six months. All 44 employers and firms were retained in the study. The unit of analysis was employees. After the evaluation identified firms (but before random assignment), the authors conducted research information sessions at each employer to invite employees to participate. A total of 697 employees consented to participate and were included in the study. The intervention group included 381 employees from 22 firms and the comparison group included 316 employees and 22 firms. Participants were eligible for the 12-month survey if they were 18 years or older at the time of random assignment, spoke English or Spanish, worked in the health care industry (two manufacturing firms were excluded from the survey), and were still working for their original random assignment employer. All 656 eligible participants were chosen to participate in the survey, and a total of 485 participants completed the survey (260 in the intervention condition and 225 in the comparison condition).

Time period of study:

Employers were recruited between early 2002 and mid-2004 and were randomly assigned to each condition in waves. Outcome data were collected two years after random assignment.

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:

The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation in ACF at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funded the study, with support from the U.S. Department of Labor.

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	15,018.00	15,335.00	317.00	2005 dollars	697
Increase short-term earnings	Weekly earnings	Year 1	High	273.00	259.00	-14.00	2005 dollars	485
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 3	High	14,146.00	13,777.00	-369.00	2007 dollars	697
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	12 months	High	77.60	71.70	-5.90	percentage points	485
Increase short-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 1	High	71.60	78.40	6.80	percentage points	697
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High	97.40	98.80	1.40	percentage points	697
Increase long-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 3	High	63.10	65.80	2.70	percentage points	697
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 3	High	86.30	86.20	-0.10	percentage points	697

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

Employers and firms were small to medium-sized (40 percent had 150 to 200 employees). Most employers and firms had a high turnover rate and offered an Employee Assistance Program; about a quarter of the employers were unionized. Most employees (82 percent) were female; about 56 percent were Black and non-Hispanic; about 73 percent had a high school diploma, GED, or higher; and the average wage was less than $9 per hour.

Sex

Female	82%
Male	18%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	56%
White, not Hispanic	34%
Another race	3%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	6%

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	22%
Parents	60%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed

100%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	74%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	26%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Towards Employment

Program history:

The Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) project was launched in 1999 and was expected to end in 2009. The Achieve program was piloted in 2001 with five employers before becoming part of the ERA evaluation.

Intervention services:

The Achieve program was designed to help low-wage employees retain jobs. Run by a community-based social services organization, the program delivered services in the workplace and consisted of three components: case management, weekly life-skills learning sessions, and training for supervisors. Staff met individually with clients to discuss workplace and housing problems as well as transportation and child care concerns. Weekly sessions and workshops addressed topics such as time management, goal setting, budgeting, and credit repair. The program also trained the supervisors of low-wage workers.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

Employers and their workers in the comparison condition did not have access to Achieve services but could have received other employment services available in the community.

Service receipt duration:

Services were offered to participating employers for one year.

Intervention funding:

Public- and private-sector funding.

Study publications

Hendra, Richard, Keri-Nicole Dillman, Gayle Hamilton, Erika Lundquist, Karin Martinson, Melissa Wavelet, Aaron Hill, and Sonya Williams (2010). The Employment Retention and Advancement project: How effective are different approaches aiming to increase employment retention and advancement? Final impacts for twelve models, 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/resource/the-employment-retention-and-advancement-project-how-effective-are.

Miller, Cynthia, Vanessa Martin, Gayle Hamilton, Lauren Cates, and Victoria Deitch (2008). The Employment Retention and Advancement project: Findings for the Cleveland Achieve model: Implementation and early impacts of an employer-based approach to encourage employment retention among low-wage workers, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/cleveland%20Achieve%20Model%20Full%20Report.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 Cleveland Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA)