Print

WorkAdvance provided intensive training and employment services to low-skilled workers to meet the needs of workers and local employers and improve employment outcomes.

Skip to:  Effectiveness Ratings   |  Studies of this Intervention

WorkAdvance provided intensive training and employment services to low-skilled workers to meet the needs of workers and local employers and improve employment outcomes.

The WorkAdvance model included five key elements: (1) intensive screening of worker-participants before enrollment; (2) preemployment and work-readiness services, including career coaching, supportive services, and provision of 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. Intensive screening lasted up to seven days, with requirements varying at each site. The screening ensured that worker-participants were interested in long-term employment in the relevant sector and had the basic skills needed to be successful (for example, literacy and math skills). The WorkAdvance preemployment services were also sector specific. Each program site chose one or more occupations of focus. Occupational skills training was designed to last between 4 and 32 weeks; the average individual who enrolled in WorkAdvance received 13 weeks of occupational training.  Job development staff were expected to have strong relationships with employers to help place participants into positions relevant to their new skill sets. Retention services included ongoing coaching and regular check-ins with employers on workers’ performance.

WorkAdvance focused on recruiting individuals ages 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. The study took place in four sites: Bronx, NY; Brooklyn, NY; Tulsa, OK; and Cleveland, OH.

Year evaluation began: 2011
Implementing organization(s): The study included four service providers: (1) Per Scholas, a nonprofit; (2) St. Nick's Alliance, a large social services agency; (3) Madison Strategies Group, a nonprofit arm of a for-profit workforce development agency; and (4) Towards Employment, an employment-focused organization.
Populations and employment barriers:
Intervention services: Case management, Employment retention services, Supportive services, Training, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Work readiness activities, Employment coaching, Job search assistance, Job development/job placement
Setting(s): Urban only

Effectiveness Rating and Effect By Outcome Domain

Back to top
View Table Help Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below? View the "Table Help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Little evidence to assess support 2564
Long-term Supported favorable $2,238 per year 0.11 2564
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Supported favorable 5% (in percentage points) 0.13 2564
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 3% (in percentage points) 0.07 2564
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $-55 per year -0.02 558
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods Supported favorable 27% (in percentage points) 0.55 558
* This intervention was assessed as supported for this domain, meaning it achieved one or more statistically significant, favorable effects. However, the intervention has an average effect size that is unfavorable because the average includes all effects in this domain - both statistically significant and favorable effects and statistically insignificant but unfavorable effects.

Effectiveness rating key:

  • Well-supported Well-supported   
  • Supported  Supported   
  • Not supported  Not supported   
  • Mixed support  Mixed support   
  • Insufficient evidence  Insufficient evidence   
  • No evidence  No evidence
Effectiveness rating terms?

Studies of this Intervention

Back to top
Study Quality Rating Study Counts per Rating
High High 1