Study Details | Pathways to Work

26582-Breaking Barriers

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: Breaking Barriers

Population and employment barriers:

Specific employment barriers (Disability(ies))

Services provided:

Case management, Employment retention services, Work and work-based learning (Individual Placement and Support), Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Individuals were recruited for the study if they (1) were at least 18 years old, (2) were a resident of San Diego County in California, (3) had a self-identified mental or physical disability, (4) had low income, (5) were not working or were underemployed, and (6) were a participant of California's TANF program, California's vocational rehabilitation service agency, or a San Diego County behavioral health service program. Eligible individuals who consented to enroll in the study were randomly assigned to the intervention or comparison condition. In total, 528 individuals were randomly assigned to the intervention group, and 533 individuals were randomly assigned to the comparison group. Evaluators completed analyses at the individual level, excluding any veterans who received Breaking Barriers services from the analysis to comply with federal funding requirements. Analysis also excluded sample members who reported that their English-speaking abilities were limited at the time of study enrollment.

Time period of study:

The study enrolled individuals in January 2017 and through November 2017. Follow-up occurred 15 months after random assignment, on average.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase short-term employment

Other outcome domains examined:

Physical health status; mental health status

Study funded by:

The study was also funded by the grant from the U.S. Department of Labor and satisfied program funding requirements to conduct an evaluation.

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 1-15	High	10,973.00	11,335.80	362.87	2018 dollars	648
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	Month 15	High	57.00	60.90	3.90	percentage points	648
Increase short-term employment	Months employed	Months 1-15	High	6.20	6.70	0.50	months	648

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

The full research sample that was randomly assigned were mostly between the ages of 24 and 59 and spoke English as their primary language. About half were female. Common self-identified disabilities included mental health disorders (86 percent), substance use (34 percent), musculoskeletal injury/connective disorder (21 percent), and developmental/learning (18 percent). Most research sample members had a high school diploma or GED certificate (61 percent). Less than half had been employed in the past year (42 percent), though most had some employment history (92 percent). Few were receiving TANF benefits (28 percent) or SSI/SSDI (22 percent). The research sample was 40 percent White, non-Hispanic; 35 percent Hispanic; 15 percent Black, non-Hispanic; and 10 percent Other.

Age

Mean age

40 years

Sex

Female	54%
Male	46%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	15%
White, not Hispanic	40%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	35%

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

18%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	21%
Had a high school diploma or GED	81%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	19%

Specific employment barriers

Had a disability	100%
Had a mental illness	86%
Had a substance abuse disorder	34%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Breaking Barriers was designed and overseen by the San Diego Workforce Partnership, the county workforce investment board, which contracted with American Job Centers to provide services. Three job centers were operated by nationwide private providers and one was operated by a local school district.

Program history:

The intervention started a year prior to the study, in January 2016, and operated through June 2018.

Intervention services:

Breaking Barriers provided Individual Placement and Support (IPS) services within American Job Centers to eligible individuals with low income who had a self-identified disability. IPS services included career counseling, job search assistance, job development, personalized benefits counseling, referrals to supportive services, and follow-along support after individuals found a job. Employment specialists who provided IPS services maintained small caseloads in order to provide participants with individualized support.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

The individuals assigned to the comparison condition received a list of other publicly available resources in the community

Service receipt duration:

On average, participants were active in the program for almost 10 months.

Intervention funding:

Breaking Barriers was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Workforce Innovation Fund.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $3,730 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $2,069 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $1,661 per person. This represents how much more it cost to provide intervention services compared to comparison services.

These figures are based on cost information reported by study authors. The Pathways Clearinghouse converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2018 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. This information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Study publications

Freedman, Lily, Sam Elkin, and Megan Millenky (2019). Breaking Barriers: Implementing Individual Placement and Support in a Workforce Setting. New York, NY: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/breaking-barriers.

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 Breaking Barriers