Study Details | Pathways to Work

24989.04-Study of Bridge to E

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: Bridge to Employment in the Healthcare Industry (BTH)

Services provided:

Case management, Employment coaching, Job readiness, Job search assistance, Post-employment participant follow-up, Stipends

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for impact review: Version 1.0

Learn about our protocol

Cost: This study includes cost information reviewed by Pathways to Work (under the cost standards in Methods and Standards Protocol Version 2.0).

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Participants were eligible for the study if they were at least 18 years of age, received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families assistance at the time of random assignment or met the study's definition of having a low income, held their high school diploma or GED, were eligible to work in the United States, and were residents of San Diego County. Participants were also required to achieve a minimum score on a basic skills exam. A total of 1,007 eligible people were randomly assigned to the program condition (507) or to the comparison condition (500) from July 2012 to October 2013.

Time period of study:

Random assignment occurred from July 2012 to October 2013, and follow-up occurred 18 months and 3 years after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase long-term earnings, Decrease long-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

Psychosocial skills, life stressors, child outcomes, parental engagement, and family economic well-being

Study funded by:

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

Results

View table definitions

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Program group mean	Impact	Units	Findings	Sample size
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Quarters 10–13	High	17,847.00	19,103.00	1,256.00	2016 dollars		974
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received any public assistance benefits, latest elapsed follow-up month	38 months	Moderate	62.80	63.90	1.10	Percentage points		658

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

About one-third (32 percent) of the research sample was age 24 or younger, another one-third (32 percent) was ages 25 to 34, and one-third (36 percent) was 35 years of age or older. Most participants were female (84 percent). Nearly half of the sample (47 percent) was Hispanic, about one-fifth (22 percent) was Black, and about one-fifth (20 percent) was White. Only 4 percent lacked a high school diploma or the equivalent certification, and most (60 percent) had at least some postsecondary education.

Characteristics may sum to greater than 100 percent due to rounding.

Age

Young adults (age 16-24)	32%
Adults (age 25+)	68%

Sex

Female

84%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	22%
White, not Hispanic	20%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	47%
Unknown, not reported, or other	15%

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.

Employment and public benefit status

Were employed	38%
Were unemployed	62%
Had low incomes	100%

Education

Had some postsecondary education	60%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	4%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

Three community-based organizations (Comprehensive Training Services, Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee, and North County Lifeline) implemented the program.

Program history:

Bridge to Employment was established in 2010 through a Health Profession Opportunity Grant. It began offering services about two years before the start of randomization into the Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education study in July 2012. The program ended in September 2015 when its Health Profession Opportunity Grant ended.

Program services:

Bridge to Employment in the Healthcare Industry participants were residents of San Diego County with low incomes who were interested in occupations in the health care field. Participants first met with a counselor who helped them select a training program that was a strong fit. Training programs could be any accredited training program in San Diego County within three occupational health care groups: patient care, technical, or administrative. The counselor also identified any participation barriers participants might face and connected them to appropriate supportive services (worth up to $1,000), such as transportation or child care assistance. Participants received Individual Training Accounts, which were funds to cover the cost of the training. The program offered up to $7,000 in funding for most training programs, but up to $10,000 was offered for certain fields. Finally, the program provided employment services and job search assistance after participants completed their training programs.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

People in the comparison condition could access training programs offered in the community. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipients in the comparison group also received case management, certain supportive services, and employment services.

Service receipt duration:

People received services for an average of 4.9 months.

Program funding:

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

Study publications

Farrell, Mary, and Martinson, Karin (2017). The San Diego County Bridge to Employment in the Healthcare Industry Program: Implementation and early impact report, OPRE Report #2017-41, 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/bridge_to_employment_implementation_and_early_impact_report_final_pdf.pdf.

Farrell, Mary, Randall Juras, David Judkins, and Samuel Dastrup (2020). The San Diego Workforce Partnership's Bridge to Employment in the Healthcare Industry Program: Three-year impact report, OPRE Report #2020-105, 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/sdwp_3_year_impact_report_08_2020_508docx.pdf.

Gardiner, Karin, 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.

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 Bridge to Employment in the Healthcare Industry (BTH)