Submitted by user on
Study Name
Rapid Employment Model (REM), 2007 cohort
Study Sharepoint ID
25447.02
Evaluation name
Evaluation of the Rapid Employment Model
Intervention (standard name)
Strength of Evidence Tag
Reason for the Rating

This study received a low study quality rating because it is a quasi-experimental design that does not demonstrate that the intervention and comparison groups were sufficiently similar before the intervention.

This study received a low study quality rating because it is a quasi-experimental design that does not demonstrate that the intervention and comparison groups were sufficiently similar before the intervention.

Settings in which the intervention was studied
Count age
0
Count Young Adults
0
Count Hard-to-employ
0
Count Disability
0
Count chronically ill
0
Count mentally ill
0
Count substance dependent
0
Count formerly incarcerated
0
Count Justice involved
0
Count limited work history
0
Count homeless
0
Count immigrants
0
Count refugees
0
Count veterans
0
Count female
0
Count Male
0
Count Any postsecondary education
0
Count With a high school diploma or GED
0
Count No high school diploma or GED
0
Count Married
0
Count Parents
0
Count Single Parents
0
Count Non-Custodial Parents
0
Count Employed
0
Count Self employed
0
Count Unemployed
0
Count Disconnected/discouraged workers
0
Count general low-income population
0
Count Very low income (as classified by the authors)
0
Count welfare population
0
Count long-term welfare recipients
0
Count Asian
0
Count Black or African American
0
Count Hispanic or Latino of any race
0
Count American Indian or Alaska Native
0
Count Pacific islander
0
Count White
0
Count More than one race
0
Count Unknown race
0
Count another race
0
Group formation formatted

Individuals in the intervention group were referred to REM from one of three programs: Project Re-Integration of Offenders, Choices (a workforce program for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipients), or Food Stamp Employment and Training. The comparison group was created by matching each intervention group member to the most similar comparison group member, with each comparison group member matched to no more than one intervention group member. Participants were exactly matched on the year they entered the program, county, and whether their earnings had recently dipped at least 20 percent. Researchers also used the following variables for matching: race and ethnicity, gender, age, percentage of time spent in workforce development services the year before entering the program, and measures of earnings and employment. This review analyzes the 2007 cohort. A review elsewhere on this site analyzes findings from the 2006 cohort for REM.

Study timing formatted

REM and its impacts were studied from January 2006 to March 2010. This review examines impacts for individuals that enrolled in the program in 2007.

Implementing organization formatted

Travis County, WorkSource—Greater Austin (the local workforce investment board, which operates three career centers), and local providers (four training providers: Austin Academy, Austin Community College, Construction Gateway, and Central Texas Nurse Network; and one job placement provider: Goodwill Industries).

Treatment condition formatted

REM combined short-term training with job placement services and incentive payments. All participants were offered occupational training in areas such as construction, truck driving, clerical work, or nursing for up to six weeks. Individuals with limited work histories completed pre-employment training that included job-readiness and employment skills. Participants worked with case managers to select their training. Participants could receive $100 in cash or gift cards for each week they attended all training sessions. They could also receive supportive services while participating in the trainings, though the type and availability of services varied by referral source and training provider. Supportive services included access to child care, work clothing, and transportation assistance. Training providers received $100 for every participant who was employed within three weeks of completing the training (if the wage was at least $9 per hour). Participants who were not employed within three weeks of completing training received job placement services from the local workforce investment board. If those services were unsuccessful, participants received intensive job placement services through Goodwill. Participants earned an additional $50 if they were hired and reported their employment to their training provider.

Comparison condition formatted

The comparison group could receive other workforce services available in the community, including Workforce Investment Act services such as job matching and resume development through the WorkInTexas program. Comparison group members did not participate in the trainings offered by REM.

Mandatory services formatted

None

Secondary domains examined

None

Earliest publication year
2007
Most recent publication year
2011
Manuscripts
Check edits flag
Yes
Editor comments

See group formation