Study Details | Pathways to Work

28471-Study of Acceleratin

Study quality:

Moderate

Reason for the rating: This study received a moderate study quality rating because it is a high-attrition randomized controlled trial that establishes that the intervention and comparison groups are similar at baseline and adjusts impact estimates to account for any minor differences in the groups.

Intervention: Accelerating Connections to Employment (ACE)

Population and employment barriers:

Educational attainment (At least a high school diploma or equivalent)

Services provided:

Employment coaching, Integrated education and training, Job development, Job placement, Job readiness, Job search assistance, Paid work experience/internships, Unpaid work experience/internships

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

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.

Time period of study:

The intervention was studied over five years (2012–2017).

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings

Other outcome domains examined:

Benefits received from an employer

Study funded by:

The U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration

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	Impact	Units	Findings	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Total earnings during follow-up period	4 quarters after program end	Moderate	1,735.93	2016 dollars		1,513

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

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.

Age

Young adults	22%
Adults (age 25+)	78%

Sex

Female	71%
Male	29%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	72%
White, not Hispanic	15%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	11%

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.

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	34%
Had a high school diploma or GED	81%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	19%
Postsecondary credential	5%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs)

Program history:

The program was a pilot.

Intervention services:

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.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

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.

Service receipt duration:

12 months

Intervention funding:

The program was funded by a $12 million Workforce Innovation Fund grant.

Study publications

Modicamore, Dominic, Yvette Lamb, Jeffrey Taylor, Ama Takyi-Laryea, Kathy Karageorge, and Enzo Ferroggiaro. (2017). Accelerating Connections to Employment. Vol. I. Final evaluation report. Fairfax, VA: ICF International. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED618503.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 Accelerating Connections to Employment (ACE)