Study Details | Pathways to Work

25335-Green Jobs and Healt

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 Prosperity

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 August 2011 to April 2012, evaluators recruited adults with low incomes and low educational and basic skill levels from high-poverty areas for the study. After program staff determined eligibility, individuals completed the informed consent and baseline information forms. Program staff then randomly assigned individuals to either the intervention or comparison group with a 2:1 ratio. In total, 186 individuals were assigned to the intervention group, and 91 individuals were assigned to the comparison group.

Time period of study:

Random assignment occurred from August 2011 to April 2012. The study examines impacts 18 months after random assignment, from March 2013 to June 2014.

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:

Participation in education/training; receipt of supports such as advising, financial assistance, and life skills preparation; factors that affect ability to work; job characteristics; financial circumstances

Study funded by:

The study was funded by federal funds from the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration under contracts GS10F0086K/DOLF091A21626 and GSOOF252CA.

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	Total earnings over follow-up period	Months 1-18	High	18,005.20	23,243.30	5,238.10	2014 dollars	189
Increase long-term earnings	Total earnings over follow-up period	Months 1-33	High	30,896.00	30,986.00	90.00	2015 dollars	238
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	56.30	66.00	9.70	percentage points	274
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 11	High	62.70	63.80	1.10	percentage points	238
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of TANF received last month	Month 18	High	2.31	6.43	4.12	2014 dollars	185

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

About two-thirds of study participants were male (68.2 percent). About half were White (56 percent), and about one-third were Black (35.8). Fifty-two percent of participants were age 40 or older. About 40 percent had a high school diploma or less (39.7 percent), and most were not working at random assignment (75.6 percent). One-quarter of participants had a felony conviction (25.4 percent), and two-thirds were receiving public benefits (66.4 percent).

Age

Mean age

40 years

Sex

Female	32%
Male	68%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	36%
White, not Hispanic	56%
Asian	2%
American Indian or Alaska Native	2%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	1%
More than one race	4%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	14%

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

25%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	24%
Were unemployed	76%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	66%
Had low incomes	100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	60%
Had a high school diploma or GED	27%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	13%

Specific employment barriers

Had a disability	13%
Were formerly incarcerated	25%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Grand Rapids Community College (GRCC), School of Workforce Development

Program history:

The Pathways to Prosperity program was part of the larger Pathways Out of Poverty grant initiative, which funded 55 training programs in green occupations across the U.S. GRCC operated Pathways to Prosperity from January 2010 to July 2012.

Intervention services:

GRCC's Pathways to Prosperity program served adults with low incomes and low educational and basic skill levels in high-poverty areas in Kent County, MI. The program targeted economically disadvantaged populations, specifically individuals who were unemployed, had dropped out of high school, or were formerly involved in the criminal justice system. Pathways to Prosperity focused on providing vocational training for jobs in green industries, including an eight-week Career Prep class and occupational training programs. In addition to training courses and certificates, the program offered academic and personal advising, financial support, supportive services, and employment assistance to adults in the intervention group. GRCC staff provided advising and employment assistance, along with assistance finding necessary support services such as transportation and childcare. Staff provided transportation assistance through gas cards and bus passes, as well as other types of assistance for items like work uniforms or tools on an as-needed basis. Participants attended 3.3 months of training, on average, and the most commonly attended activity was the Career Prep class.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Individuals in the comparison group could not access services offered by Pathways to Prosperity but could access other services offered in the community.

Service receipt duration:

The average length of time that participants received services through the program was 3.3 months.

Intervention funding:

GRCC received the U.S. Department of Labor's Pathways Out of Poverty grant to implement its Pathways to Prosperity program.

Study publications

Martinson, Karin, Julie Williams, Karen Needels, Laura Peck, Shawn Moulton, Nora Paxton, Annalisa Mastri, Elizabeth Copson, Hiren Nisar, Alison Comfort, and Melanie Brown-Lyons (2016). The green jobs and health care impact evaluation: Findings from the impact study of four training programs for unemployed and disadvantaged workers, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Available at https://www.mathematica.org/download-media?MediaItemId=%7B8752C692-8C8B-4757-A6AF-8E515B1A1C56%7D

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 Prosperity