Study Details | Pathways to Work

24976.03-Study of Acceleratin

Study quality:

Moderate

Reason for the rating: This study received a moderate study quality rating because it is a quasi-experimental design that establishes that the program and comparison groups are similar at baseline and adjusts impact estimates to account for any minor differences in the groups.

Program: Accelerating Opportunity (AO)

Characteristics of study participants:

At least a high school diploma or equivalent

Services provided:

Integrated education and training, Job placement, Job search assistance

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for impact review: Version 2.0

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:

Quasi-experimental design

Study group formation:

This study of Accelerating Opportunity (AO) included English-speaking students who enrolled in an AO initiative program in Kentucky. To be eligible to participate in AO, students had to score at the 6th- to 12th-grade level on a math, reading, or writing test. Program participants were recruited from students in adult education and students served by local community-based organizations, YouthBuild programs, and workforce offices. AO participants were matched to a comparison group of students enrolled in other adult education, developmental education, and career and technical education courses at the same colleges offering AO using propensity score matching. Participants were matched to be similar on demographic characteristics, local area unemployment rate, semester of enrollment, occupational area of study, test scores before entry, employment history, earnings history, and the predicted probability of college enrollment (for adult education students only). In the Kentucky study, there were 19,903 total participants, 1,356 in the program group and 18,547 in the comparison group.

Time period of study:

The study ran from January 2012 to March 2016. Study enrollment ran from January 2012 to December 2014. Data collection occurred from January 2012 to March 2016, with outcomes measured with administrative data over a three-year follow-up period.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase education and training

Study funded by:

The study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the Kresge Foundation, the Open Society Foundations, the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the University of Phoenix Foundation.

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	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Quarterly earnings	Quarter 6	Moderate	2,344.00	2,215.00	-129.00	2015 dollars	19,903
Increase long-term earnings	Quarterly earnings	Quarter 12	Moderate	2,952.00	3,063.00	111.00	2015 dollars	19,903
Increase education and training	Any credential earned	Semesters 2-10	Moderate	14.30	33.60	19.30	percentage points	19,903
Increase education and training	Number of credentials earned	Semesters 2-10	Moderate	0.90	1.70	0.80	count	19,903

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

The study sample was composed of English-speaking students with low income who were in adult education programs or being served by community-based organizations and had scored at the 6th- to 12th-grade level on a math, reading, or writing test. Most participants had a high school diploma or equivalent (92 percent) and were White, not Hispanic (83 percent). The majority of participants were female (55 percent).

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

Age

Mean age

30 years

Sex

Female	55%
Male	45%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	12%
White, not Hispanic	83%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	3%
Unknown, not reported, or other	2%

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

Had low incomes

100%

Education

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

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

Jobs for the Future implemented the Accelerating Opportunity initiative with the National Council for Workforce Education, the National College Transition Network, and the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges in Washington State. Educational services were provided at local colleges. By the end of the third year of implementation, all 16 community colleges in Kentucky were participating.

Program history:

Accelerating Opportunity (AO) was a new pilot that connected adults with credentials and skills to improve their earnings. The AO initiative effort was led by states and funded by grants through several foundations.

Program services:

AO offered career and technical education (CTE) courses to students with low income in order to provide credentials designed to enhance their educational and employment outcomes. To be eligible, students had to speak English; be enrolled in adult, developmental, or CTE education programs; and have scored at the 6th- to 12th-grade level on a math, reading, or writing test. Participants were offered career pathways culminating in one or more credentials in high-demand fields, including health care and manufacturing. Instructional courses were delivered at local colleges using team teaching of basic skills, CTE, and basic skills instruction delivered using meaningful content. AO also provided academic services, such as tutoring and academic advising, and supportive services, such as transportation and child care assistance, to students.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Students enrolled in adult education, developmental education, or CTE courses comprised the comparison group. Comparison group members were enrolled in a for-credit course at a college with an AO initiative program but were not enrolled in the AO program during the study period.

Service receipt duration:

The program was delivered over one academic year (approximately nine months) or less.

Program funding:

The program was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the Kresge Foundation, the Open Society Foundations, the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, the Robert W. Woodruff Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the University of Phoenix Foundation.

Study publications

Anderson, Theresa, Daniel Kuehn, Lauren Eyster, Burt S. Barnow, and Robert I. Lerman (2017). New evidence on integrated career pathways: Final impact report for accelerating opportunity, Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/91436/ao_final_impacts.pdf

Anderson, Theresa, Lauren Eyster, Robert I. Lerman, Carol Clymer, Maureen Conway, and Marcela Montes (2014). The first year of accelerating opportunity: Implementation findings from the states and colleges, Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED559305.pdf

Anderson, Theresa, Lauren Eyster, Robert I. Lerman, Maureen Conway, Ranita Jain, and Marcela Montes (2016). Implementation of accelerating opportunity: Lessons for the field, Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/80626/2000791-implementation-of-accelerating-opportunity-lessons-for-the-field.pdf

Eyster, Lauren, Theresa Anderson, Robert I. Lerman, Daniel Kuehn, Burt S. Barnow, Maureen Conway, Ranita Jain, and Marcela Montes (2018). Findings from the accelerating opportunity evaluation: Building the evidence on integrated career pathways, Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Available at https://www.urban.org/research/publication/findings-accelerating-opportunity-evaluation

Kuehn, Daniel, Theresa Anderson, Robert I. Lerman, Lauren Eyster, Burt S. Barnow, and Amanda Briggs (2017). A cost-benefit analysis of accelerating opportunity, Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Available at https://www.urban.org/research/publication/cost-benefit-analysis-accelerating-opportunity

Spaulding, Shayne, and Ananda Martin-Caughey (2015). Accelerating opportunity: A portrait of students and their program experiences from the 2014 student survey, Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/43721/2000133-accelerating-opportunity_1.pdf

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 Accelerating Opportunity (AO)—Kentucky