- Log in to post comments
Subgroups
From August 2013 to July 2015, researchers recruited, determined eligibility, and randomly assigned 2,168 participants to the study. Study participants were first recruited by Workforce Investment Board (WIB) centers, community colleges, or both. After recruitment, participants received information about the ACE program and the study and went through assessments to determine their eligibility. Although the populations served varied depending on the intervention sites, eligible participants generally needed to possess basic skills, including language proficiency, that would allow them to benefit from the training, and they needed to have no significant personal factors that present barriers to benefiting from the training. Eligible and interested participants then met with a job coach to complete a skills assessment and identify career interests and training needs. After giving written consent to participate in the study, researchers randomly assigned participants to the intervention group or the comparison group. Researchers gave each participant a random number generated from statistical software and used those numbers to determine the outcome of random assignment. Researchers assigned participants to the intervention and comparison groups in nine sites. This study reports outcomes for 1,513 participants in Austin, TX and in six counties in Maryland.
The intervention was studied over five years (2012–2017).
The U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration
Study characteristics were reported for participants across all nine sites, though outcomes were reported for a subset of seven of the sites. Study participants were mostly African American females between the ages of 21 and 40. Most participants had a high school diploma and were unemployed.
Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs)
The program was a pilot.
The ACE model aimed to improve employment outcomes for workers with low skills through partnerships between WIBs and community colleges at nine separate locations. ACE primarily offered occupational training services within the workforce system to help workers with low skills build a career. The types of occupational training services varied based on labor market demands at each intervention site. In addition to offering occupational skills and job readiness training leading to a credential valued by local employers, ACE offered learning assessments at program intake; integrated adult education and basic skills training; student support services, including individual case management and additional academic supports when necessary; and transition services, including job search and placement.
The comparison condition aimed to approximate the typical experiences of a WIB customer without the ACE program. Participants assigned to the comparison condition had access to services at the WIB but could not enroll in ACE-funded programs. Comparison group participants could access other GED, adult education, or job training programs. They could also receive job search and placement help at the WIB, as well as other support services, such as social services referrals. The comparison condition did not include career navigator services or integrated adult basic education and skills training.
None
12 months
The program was funded by a $12 million Workforce Innovation Fund grant.
The study took place at WIBs in Texas, Georgia, Connecticut, and Maryland.
Benefits received from an employer