The comparison group was not eligible for WorkAdvance services. Comparable services were available in the community, such as targeted sector training from community colleges and other community providers.
The total program cost per participant in the Towards Employment intervention over the three years from 2011 to 2014 was $6,443 (2013–2014 dollars), which included management costs, services, and occupational skills training costs. The study also estimated costs from the second year of operations as $5,262 per participant. The second-year costs were lower because they no longer included start-up costs from the first year, and several program participants completed the occupational skills training and moved on to lower-cost post-employment services.
A separate cost-benefit analysis examined costs and benefits to the participant, the government, and society. (These figures are presented in terms of 2018 dollars.)
- The participant. The Towards Employment intervention resulted in a net financial gain of $5,505 to the participant; this means that the sum of benefits from earnings, fringe benefits, and housing assistance was estimated to be $5,505 higher than participants’ work-related expenditures, the value of the time that they would otherwise have available outside of work, the decrease in their welfare and unemployment insurance payments, and the increase in their tax payments.
- The government. The Towards Employment intervention resulted in a net financial gain of $265 per participant to the government; this means that the sum of net gains in tax payments and reductions in welfare and unemployment insurance payments was estimated to be $265 higher than the sum of net increases paid by the government in housing assistance and employment and training costs.
- Society. The Towards Employment intervention resulted in a net financial gain of $5,820 per participant to society as a whole; this means that the sum of the net increase in earnings and fringe benefits participants received, the decrease in costs to the government for public assistance participants no longer received, and the decrease in deadweight loss because of taxation or transfer payments (that is, costs from inefficiencies that occur when taxes or transfer payments affect individuals' economic decisions), was estimated to be $5,820 higher than the losses. The losses included the sum in the net increase to the government in work-related expenditures, provision of employment and training, and the value to participants of the time they would otherwise have available outside of work.
The Towards Employment WorkAdvance intervention began in 2011 and ended in 2014. The site enrolled study participants from October 2011 to June 2013. Participants received WorkAdvance services for up to 2 years after enrollment and completed a follow-up survey about 18 to 24 months after random assignment. Evaluators examined outcomes until 2018.
The Towards Employment WorkAdvance intervention offered a sector-focused program to help people with low incomes obtain, train, and advance in careers in the manufacturing and health care industries. Towards Employment adapted the standard WorkAdvance services to meet local industry needs and employer requirements while focusing on participants’ long-term career advancement and upward mobility.
During intake, staff thoroughly screened applicants to evaluate their motivation to be in the program and their likelihood of completion, assess their reading and math literacy skills to ensure participants were prepared and qualified for the training and potential occupations, and determine whether they met income eligibility requirements. Applicants at Towards Employment also completed a drug test, criminal background check, and a sector screening questionnaire. Staff refined the screening process based on employer feedback to seek out applicants who were interested in a career in manufacturing. Once accepted into the program, participants received the following core services:
- Work-readiness activities and soft-skills training. Participants completed sector-specific orientations and received coaching to help them develop goals and maintain progress toward their career advancement objectives. Towards Employment staff also assisted participants with developing a résumé and cover letter and addressed transportation barriers. Participants also received training in interview skills and soft skills. Staff also showed them examples of performance reviews to help them understand how employers would evaluate their work once they had found a job.
- Occupational or sectoral training. Participants could receive hands-on occupational skills training and obtain credentials in manufacturing and health care. Participants attended off-site occupational skills training at technical schools or community colleges. Based on participants’ work schedules, Towards Employment staff grouped participants in the training program into cohorts. Participants attended classes on either a full-time or part-time schedule; classes were offered during the evenings, on weekdays, and on weekends.
- Job development and job placement. After participants completed training and certification, job developers helped them identify and secure positions in the health care and manufacturing sectors that participants had prepared for during earlier program activities.
- Employment retention and advancement services. Participants received services to help them maintain and advance in their jobs, which occurred both during training and post-employment, such as coaching on creating advancement goals, instruction on how to negotiate for higher wages, and case management to tackle barriers to retention. Staff developed a follow-up plan to maintain communication with participants and provided them with feedback from employers on their performance.
The initial screening helped Towards Employment identify applicants they believed were most committed and determined to be in the program. Furthermore, staff dedicated substantial time to building rapport with participant by providing coaching and barrier-focused case management. Staff also strategically approached engaging participants and employers by carefully timing their interventions and remaining attuned to employers’ recommendations and feedback. Towards Employment developed relationships with community colleges and private technical schools involved in the intervention, as well as with industry intermediary groups that helped Towards Employment understand the manufacturing industry and connect participants to manufacturing jobs. These partners also helped Towards Employment connect participants with services that were already available in the community. Employers engaged in the WorkAdvance program by providing counseling on curricula and sector trends, serving as guest speakers in career-readiness classes, participating in mock interviews, and hosting visits for participants to their workplace.
Towards Employment changed some program components during implementation. Initially, the intervention focused on placing participants into employment first, then offered them occupational skills training. During the initial implementation, staff also offered career-readiness services for two weeks before participants started their job search. This approach resulted in fewer participants starting or completing the training program than in other WorkAdvance programs that used a training-first model. Towards Employment then changed to a training-first model, which provided career services simultaneously with occupational skills training. The organization gradually changed the occupational skills training courses by replacing the health care patient navigator training programs with more welding occupational training, to respond to industry and employer needs. Moreover, Towards Employment initially contracted intermediary organizations to build relationships with employers and connect WorkAdvance participants with employment opportunities; however, Towards Employment later replaced these intermediaries with partnerships with local hospitals.
Challenges. Towards Employment faced challenges to designing and implementing training and services for both the health care and manufacturing sectors. Implementing services took more time than anticipated, and Towards Employment staff needed considerable technical assistance from MDRC, a non-profit organization, to implement the program successfully. Towards Employment did not have experience operating sector programs that helped place participants into positions above entry level. In addition, program staff were not familiar with the manufacturing sector and experienced a steep learning curve when designing and executing the program. Furthermore, in early 2012, the priorities of Towards Employment’s health care industry association partner changed, which led to its contract being terminated. In fall 2012, Towards Employment added a different health care industry association as a partner, but that relationship also ended.
Staff also had to acclimate to providing services to participants post-employment and needed significant technical assistance in learning how to provide advancement services. Therefore, program participants who enrolled earlier in the study received less robust services than those who joined later. Some participants encountered issues leading them to discontinue the program, such as an unexpected need for more income, work schedule changes, and mental health challenges. In addition, some participants faced significant employment barriers, including unstable housing, pending legal matters and criminal convictions, and long-term unemployment.
The study did not discuss any tools to measure fidelity to the intervention model.
The WorkAdvance program received funding from various private foundations. The federal SIF matched the private dollars. SIF is part of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and it uses public and private resources to fund programs and provide technical assistance to support their evaluation efforts.
The intervention took place in northeast Ohio in the area around Cleveland. The region’s overall economy was steady during the study; however, the region’s labor market was still facing challenges from deindustrialization and the decline in its manufacturing sector that occurred decades earlier.
The community-based organization Towards Employment, which provides employment services for people with low incomes in Greater Cleveland, OH, implemented the Towards Employment WorkAdvance intervention.
The WorkAdvance Managing Collaborative was a key stakeholder for Towards Employment. The collaborative included the following partners:
- The New York City Center for Economic Opportunity managed the contracts with the WorkAdvance providers, including Towards Employment; helped raise matching funds required for the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) (funding described further under “Funding sources”); operated the SIF network where the providers could share best practices with each other; and monitored the project’s performance.
- MDRC provided technical assistance to Towards Employment while implementing the WorkAdvance model, monitored the program’s performance, and led the evaluation.
The study population encompassed unemployed or working adults who earned below $15 per hour and had a family income below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
Participants of Towards Employment WorkAdvance were mostly single (73 percent). Most were Black or African American, not Hispanic (71 percent). A little more than half were women (59 percent). Sample members were an average age of 35. About half (52 percent) of participants had at least one child. Ninety-four percent of participants had their high school diploma or GED. Twenty-seven percent of participants were employed at enrollment and, among those, 43 percent were employed full time and earned an average hourly wage of $9.46. Thirty-seven percent of participants were previously incarcerated or convicted of a crime. More than half of participants (55 percent) received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.
The occupational skills training ranged from 2 to 17 weeks based on the occupation type, and the work-readiness activities included 10 sessions for 6 hours each. During the initial 30-day follow-up period after a participant obtained a job, career coaches checked in weekly. For ongoing follow-up, career coaches contacted participants twice per month for 90 days, then monthly for 180 days, and quarterly thereafter.
According to the data collected over three months from April to July 2014, participants who engaged in an advancement coaching meeting attended about three coaching meetings, on average, with staff. Most coaching was conducted by phone.
Participants received up to two years of WorkAdvance program services and follow-up services.
Towards Employment subcontracted many of the services it rendered to participants, including two part-time job developers, one for each sector, to help connect participants to job leads.
The on-site staff at Towards Employment consisted of the following:
- The full-time project director, a part-time (10 percent) executive director, and one full-time program manager who coordinated the project.
- A part-time outreach specialist who, with the assistance of other staff members, recruited participants.
- A full-time program assistant, a part-time work-readiness manager, and one full-time career-readiness trainer who were responsible for the intake, career-readiness instruction, and support to other staff.
- Four full-time career coaches (two per sector) who managed the relationships between participants and employers.
- A part-time legal services specialist and a part-time case manager.
The study authors did not include information on the degrees or certification requirements of Towards Employment staff.