Study Details | Pathways to Work

26541-Bridges to Pathways

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: Bridges to Pathways (Bridges)

Population and employment barriers:

Educational attainment (Less than high school diploma or GED), Sex (Male), Specific employment barriers (Former incarceration, Justice system involvement), Young adults (aged 16-24)

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Health services, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Work and work-based learning (Subsidized employment), Work readiness activities (Job search assistance)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

To be eligible for the Bridges program and enroll in the study, participants had to be 17 to 21 years old, identify as male, lack a high school credential, and report having been incarcerated at least once. After recruitment, the research team obtained informed consent, conducted a baseline survey, and randomly assigned participants. The research team enrolled a total of 480 participants in the study between June 2015 and July 2016. Assignment was stratified by provider; sixty percent of the sample was assigned to the intervention group, and 40 percent was assigned to the comparison group. Across the two organizations that provided services in four locations, 289 people were randomly assigned to the intervention group, and 191 people were randomly assigned to the comparison group. Evaluators conducted analysis at the individual level.

Time period of study:

The study enrolled participants between June 2015 and July 2016.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Support and mentoring; criminal justice; personal well-being.

Study funded by:

The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), funded the Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (STED) study. The Rockefeller Foundation also provided funding for the study. The Bridges evaluation is part of the STED study.

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	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	2,589.00	2,603.00	14.00	2016 dollars	251
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 2	High	4,676.00	3,092.00	-1,584.00	2016 dollars	251
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	Year 1	High	22.00	27.70	5.70	percentage points	228
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High	48.30	77.50	29.20	percentage points	251
Increase short-term employment	Number of quarters employed	Year 1	High	1.10	1.90	0.80	quarters	251
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 2	High	55.60	54.50	-1.10	percentage points	251
Increase long-term employment	Number of quarters employed	Year 2	High	1.40	1.20	-0.20	quarters	251
Increase education and training	Earned a certificate from a training program	Year 1	High	2.70	7.70	5.00	percentage points	228
Increase education and training	Received high school diploma or GED	Year 1	High	17.90	15.10	-2.80	percentage points	228

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

All participants identified as male, lacked a high school credential, and reported having been incarcerated at least once. On average, individuals were between 18 and 19 years old, and about one-quarter of study participants reported having children (26 percent). About three-quarters were Black (74 percent), and about one-fifth were Hispanic (22 percent). The average participant had completed the 10th grade, and about 95 percent of study participants had at least one arrest in the administrative records used for this study.

Age

Mean age	18 years
Young adults	100%

Sex

Male

100%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	74%
White, not Hispanic	1%
Unknown, not reported, or other	3%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	22%

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

Parents

26%

Participant education

Did not have a high school diploma or GED

100%

Specific employment barriers

Were involved with the justice system	100%
Were formerly incarcerated	100%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

The City of Chicago Department of Family and Support Services (DFSS), Office of Children and Youth Services, managed the Bridges program. DFSS selected two social services agencies, Central States SER and SGA Youth and Family Services, as vendors to operate Bridges.

Program history:

The Bridges pilot program launched in May 2013, and the program model was refined from May 2014 to May 2015. The program closed in December 2016, but a revamped version was launched in 2017.

Intervention services:

The Bridges program offered online instruction toward a high school diploma or GED, socio-emotional learning workshops, individual counseling, soft-skills and job-readiness training, subsidized internships, and case management services to men ages 17 to 21 who did not have a high school credential and had been incarcerated. After being enrolled in Bridges, participants were required to attend a group orientation session and participate in pre-program activities, including meeting program staff and taking the Test of Adult Basic Education and an online financial training. In Phase I of Bridges, the program was available for about five hours per day for five weeks to start academic enrichment, socio-emotional learning workshops, individual counseling, and soft-skills and employment-readiness training. In Phase II of Bridges, participants were able to spend a total of 33 hours per week at their subsidized internships and working toward their academic goals. In Phase III of Bridges, from week 18 to 25, participants were intended to earn their GED, complete their counseling, and obtain employment. After the program, participants could receive three months of additional support from program staff.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Participants in the comparison group were not offered services through Bridges, but they could access other services available in their community. These included other services at the agencies operating Bridges.

Service receipt duration:

Participants received services throughout 3 phases over the course of 25 weeks

Intervention funding:

DFSS and STED grants through HHS funded the Bridges program.

Study publications

Cummings, Danielle, and Dan Bloom. (2020). Can Subsidized Employment Programs Help Disadvantaged Job Seekers? A Synthesis of Findings from Evaluations of 13 Programs, OPRE Report #2020-23. 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.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/sted_final_synthesis_report_feb_2020.pdf

Wasserman, Kyla, Johanna Walter, Beata Luczywek, Hannah Wagner, and Cindy Redcross, C. (2019). Engaging Young Men Involved in Chicago’s Justice System: A Feasibility Study of the Bridges to Pathways Program, OPRE Report #2019-46, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED601141.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 Bridges to Pathways (Bridges)