Study Details | Pathways to Work

24989.02-Pathways for Advanci

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: Pathways to Healthcare (PTH)

Services provided:

Education, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work readiness activities (Job search assistance)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

From February 2012 to February 2014, the study team randomly assigned 1,217 program applicants to an intervention condition (609 people) or comparison condition (608 people). Applicants were eligible to participate if they lived in Pima County, were eligible to work, were interested in a career in health care, and had an income no more than 70 percent of the Department of Labor's Lower Living Standard Income Level.

Time period of study:

Participants were randomly assigned from February 2012 to February 2014. This study analyzes results about three years following random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase long-term earnings, Increase long-term employment, Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Psychosocial skills, life stressors, career progress, and financial status

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 long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Quarters 10–13	High	16,284.00	15,648.00	-636.00	2016 dollars	1,217
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	Year 3	High	62.30	63.90	1.60	Percentage points	1,040
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, follow-up period	Years 1–3	High	2.90	4.40	1.50	Percentage points	1,040
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received any Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, follow-up period	Years 1–3	High	30.40	31.60	1.20	Percentage points	1,040
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received any public assistance benefits, follow-up period	Years 1-3	High	52.90	60.30	7.40	Percentage points	1,040
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Medicaid, follow-up period	Years 1–3	High	25.60	32.60	7.00	Percentage points	1,040
Increase education and training	Received exam-based certification or license	Year 3	High	27.80	30.30	2.50	Percentage points	1,040

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

Most of the participants were female (83 percent), and more than half were younger than 35. More than half of the participants were Hispanic (56 percent), and about one-quarter were White, not Hispanic (27 percent). About one-third had a high school diploma or equivalent (35 percent), and more than half had at least some postsecondary experience (57 percent). Participants' average annual household income was $17,236. In the 12 months leading up to the study, 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	83%
Male	17%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	12%
White, not Hispanic	27%
Unknown, not reported, or other	8%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	56%

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	57%
Had a high school diploma or GED	92%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	8%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Pima Community College and the county workforce agency

Program history:

PTH was originally part of the Health Profession Opportunity Grants demonstration, which began in 2010. The program was founded to enhance existing programming and services.

Intervention services:

The PTH program offered occupational training in health care–related fields to people with low incomes who were interested in health care in Pima County, AZ. The program provided multiple pathways to earn credentials in the health care industry through a career pathways model. Those who were not yet prepared to enter occupational training could complete remedial coursework. Participants had access to intensive advising, scholarships for their training programs, and supportive services. The program also offered work readiness activities, including workshops to prepare for the job search and job search assistance.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Those in the comparison group could access available services in the community, some of which were comparable to those provided by PTH.

Service receipt duration:

Participants could enroll in programs that lasted 1 to 24 months. In addition, they could attend remedial coursework for about 10 weeks. On average, participants remained in the program for 11 months.

Intervention funding:

ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

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.

Gardiner, Karen, Howard Rolston, David Fein, and Sung-Woo Cho (2017). Pima Community College Pathways to Healthcare Program: Implementation and early impact report, OPRE Report #2017-10, 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/opre/pathways_to_healthcare_implementation_and_early_impact_report_final_4.pdf.

Litwock, Daniel, and Karen Gardiner (2020). Pima Community College's Pathways to Healthcare Program: Three-year impact report, OPRE Report #2020-43, 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/pima_three_year_report_march_2020.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 Pathways to Healthcare (PTH)