Study Details | Pathways to Work

6762.04-WorkAdvance Model -

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: Towards Employment WorkAdvance Program

Services provided:

Case management, Employment retention services, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work readiness activities (Employment coaching, Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

WorkAdvance focused on recruiting individuals age 18 or older who were legally allowed to work in the United States, had a monthly family income less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and earned less than $15 per hour, if employed. Individuals were enrolled in the study after completing an intensive screening process lasting up to seven days, with requirements varying at each site. After being deemed eligible for WorkAdvance, individuals completed consent forms, provided baseline information, and were randomly assigned to the WorkAdvance group or the comparison group. Random assignment occurred from June 2011 to June 2013. This study considers the effect of the Towards Employment WorkAdvance Program, one of four programs implementing the WorkAdvance model within the WorkAdvance Demonstration. Other studies reported separately in the Pathways Clearinghouse consider the effects of the other three programs. The study authors also reported on the effects of WorkAdvance using a pooled sample of participants from across all four programs. The Pathways Clearinghouse did not consider results for the pooled sample because the study authors indicated these results were exploratory.

Time period of study:

Individuals were randomly assigned from June 2011 to June 2013 and followed through the end of 2018.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase very long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment, Increase very long-term employment, Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Decrease very long-term benefit receipt, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Job characteristics; life satisfaction; financial hardship; family formation; health insurance; housing

Study funded by:

The Social Innovation Fund, Corporation for National and Community Service, funded the 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	9,483.00	9,495.00	12.00	2012 dollars	698
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 5	High	16,368.00	17,213.00	845.00	2014 dollars	698
Increase long-term earnings	Quarterly earnings	Quarter 20	High	4,341.00	4,636.00	295.00	2017 dollars	697
Increase long-term earnings	Weekly earnings	Year 2	High	360.00	379.00	19.00	2014 dollars	562
Increase very long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Quarter 22–25	High	18,338.00	19,742.00	1,404.00	2018 dollars	698
Increase short-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 1	High	42.40	38.10	-4.30	percentage points	698
Increase short-term employment	Employed six or more consecutive months	Quarters 1–6	High	66.40	62.10	-4.30	percentage points	562
Increase short-term employment	Percentage of months employed	Quarters 1–6	High	66.40	62.10	-4.30	percentage points	562
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	Month 24	High	58.20	64.50	6.30	percentage points	562
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 20	High	71.60	74.50	2.90	percentage points	697
Increase very long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 25	High	71.00	70.00	-1.00	percentage points	698
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, monthly	Month 24	High	6.00	3.70	-2.30	percentage points	562
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, monthly	Month 24	High	47.10	43.30	-3.80	percentage points	562
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received public health insurance, monthly	Month 24	High	45.00	44.40	-0.60	percentage points	562
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received SSI/SSDI, monthly	Month 24	High	10.50	12.40	1.90	percentage points	562
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Amount of unemployment insurance benefits, annual	Quarter 22–25	High	116.00	155.00	39.00	percentage points	698
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Received unemployment insurance, annual	Quarter 22–25	High	4.70	5.60	0.90	percentage points	698
Increase education and training	Obtained a degree or credential	Month 24	High	25.50	51.20	25.70	percentage points	562

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 majority of study participants were female (59 percent) and single (84 percent), and the average age was 35. Seventy-one percent of participants were Black or African American, 18 percent were non-Hispanic White, and 5 percent were Hispanic or Latino. Almost all participants had a GED certificate/high school diploma or some postsecondary education (37 percent and 57 percent, respectively). About 25 percent of participants had been previously convicted of a crime. Twenty-seven percent were currently employed, 55 percent received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, and 11 percent received unemployment insurance benefits.

Age

Mean age

35 years

Sex

Female	59%
Male	41%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	71%
White, not Hispanic	18%
Another race	6%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	5%

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	16%
Parents	52%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	27%
Were unemployed	73%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	4%
Had low incomes	100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	57%
Had a high school diploma or GED	94%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	6%

Specific employment barriers

Were involved with the justice system	25%
Were formerly incarcerated	12%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Towards Employment, a community-based organization in northeast Ohio.

Program history:

WorkAdvance was launched in 2011 and did not exist before this study. Towards Employment was founded in 1976.

Intervention services:

The WorkAdvance program uses a dual-customer approach to provide training and employment services meeting the needs of low-skilled workers and local employers. The WorkAdvance model includes five key elements: (1) intensive screening before enrollment; (2) pre-employment and work-readiness services, including career coaching, supportive services, and labor market information, all tailored to a specific vocational sector; (3) occupational skills training focused on current job openings; (4) job development and placement; and (5) provision of follow-up retention services in collaboration with employers. Four sites implemented the WorkAdvance model for this demonstration, with each choosing one or more occupations of focus and implementing the model in a different way. In particular, the length, breadth, and depth of many services differed. This review focuses on the Towards Employment site, a community-based organization in northeast Ohio that implemented the WorkAdvance model with an emphasis on the health care and manufacturing sectors. Towards Employment began the WorkAdvance demonstration by offering a placement-first approach in which some participants skipped occupational skills training to seek immediate employment. In fall 2012, it switched to a mostly training-first approach. Pre-employment services were delivered in 10 sessions of 6 hours each, and occupational skills training lasted 2 to 17 weeks.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Individuals in the comparison group completed the WorkAdvance screening but could not receive other WorkAdvance services. They also remained eligible for other services in their communities.

Service receipt duration:

Pre-employment services were delivered in 10 sessions of 6 hours each, and the occupational skills training program lasted 2 to 17 weeks. Follow-up services were provided weekly during the first 30 days of a participant's employment, bimonthly through 90 days, monthly until 90 days, and quarterly thereafter, with no duration specified.

Intervention funding:

A Social Innovation Fund grant to the Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City and the Center for Economic Opportunity funded WorkAdvance. Matching funds for WorkAdvance were provided by Bloomberg Philanthropies, Open Society Foundations, The Rockefeller Foundation, Altman Foundation, Common Bond Foundation, Ford Foundation, The Fund for Our Economic Future, George Kaiser Family Foundation, The Ira W. DeCamp Foundation, JPMorgan Chase Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, Robin Hood Foundation, Surdna Foundation, Tiger Foundation, Tulsa Area United Way, Tulsa Community Foundation, and The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, Inc.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $6,743 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $1,663 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $5,080 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

Schaberg, Kelsey and David Greenberg. (2020). Long-Term Effects of a Sectoral Advancement Strategy Costs, Benefits, and Impacts from the WorkAdvance Demonstration. MDRC. Available at: https://www.mdrc.org/publication/long-term-effects-sectoral-advancement-strategy.

Hendra, Richard, David H. Greenberg, Gayle Hamilton, Ari Oppenheim, Alexandra Pennington, Kelsey Schaberg, and Betsy L. Tessler (2016). Encouraging evidence on a sector-focused advancement strategy: Two-year impacts from the WorkAdvance demonstration, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/2016_Workadvance_Final_Web.pdf

Schaberg, Kelsey (2017). Can sector strategies promote longer-term effects? Three-year impacts from the WorkAdvance demonstration, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/WorkAdvance_3-Year_Brief.pdf

Tessler, Betsy L. (2013). WorkAdvance: Testing a new approach to increase employment advancement for low-skilled adults, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/workadvance

Tessler, Betsy L., Michael Bangser, Alexandra Pennington, Kelsey Schaberg, and Hannah Dalporto (2014). Meeting the needs of workers and employers: Implementation of a sector-focused career advancement model for low-skilled adults, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/WorkAdvance_CEO_SIF_2014_FR.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 Towards Employment WorkAdvance Program