Share this intervention

  • 0.39,1.00
  • -0.07,2.00

Summary

Bridges offered educational services and subsidized internships to help Chicago male youth with previous justice system involvement earn a GED and find employment.

The Bridges program offered a multi-phase program focused on four main service areas: academic enrichment, socio-emotional learning (SEL), workforce readiness training, and mentorship and case management services. Participants began the program by attending a group orientation session and taking the Test of Adult Basic Education and an online financial training. Following the financial training, participants began the first of three phases of Bridges services. Per the planned model, Phase 1 services lasted five weeks and consisted of online instruction toward a high school diploma or GED, SEL workshops, individual counseling, and soft-skills and employment-readiness training. In Phase 2, which lasted 12 weeks, participants spent 33 hours per week working in subsidized internships and working toward their academic goals. In Phase 3, which lasted eight weeks, participants earned their GED, completed their counseling, and were assisted in obtaining employment. Bridges provided six months of services and three months of follow-up. Bridges served male-identifying youth between the ages of 17 and 21 who did not have a high school diploma and who had been incarcerated at least once in their lives. This program operated in Chicago, IL, from 2013 to 2016; a redesigned Bridges program launched in 2017 that incorporated lessons learned from this pilot.

Populations and employment barriers: Less than high school diploma or GED, Male, Former incarceration, Justice system involvement, Young adults (aged 16-24)

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

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

View table help

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 favorable $21 per year 0.001 251
Long-term Not supported unfavorable $-1,527 per year -0.073 251
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Supported favorable 16% (in percentage points) 0.387 251
Long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable -1% (in percentage points) -0.022 251
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods Little evidence to assess support favorable 4% (in percentage points) 0.070 228

Studies of this intervention

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1

Implementation details

Dates covered by study

The evaluation focused on Bridges’ implementation between June 2015 and July 2016 and followed participants for two years after enrollment.

Organizations implementing intervention

The Chicago Department of Family and Support Services (DFSS) oversaw and managed Bridges. DFSS selected two community-based organizations to operate the program, both of which had experience offering service components similar to Bridges and working with young adults from low-income and high-risk communities. Each organization operated two program sites. The two organizations were:

  • Central States SER, a nonprofit promoting education and employment as tools for upward mobility
  • SGA Youth and Family Services, a nonprofit known for integrating mental and emotional health services into their programs and social services

Populations served

The study served youth in Chicago between ages 17 and 21 who identified as male, did not have a high school credential, and had been incarcerated at least one time. The program did not require additional screenings or eligibility criteria so they could more easily recruit highly disconnected and hard-to-reach individuals. The model intended to only recruit from the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice, but providers were not able to enroll enough participants from this source alone. Providers started recruiting participants from probation offices, the Cook County Jail, reporting centers that offered reentry services and resources for individuals under parole, and other community service organizations, as well as by word-of-mouth referrals.

The average age of participants in the full study sample was 18. Just more than half (51 percent) reported having no previous work experience. About 95 percent of the sample had been arrested at least once, and nearly 73 percent had been arrested four or more times. Nearly three-quarters of the sample were Black, not Hispanic (74 percent), and 22 percent were Hispanic. About 3 percent of the sample were American Indian, Asian, or multiracial, and less than 1 percent were White, not Hispanic.

Description of services implemented

Bridges had three goals: to help participants attain a high school credential, to help them obtain unsubsidized employment, and to reduce their involvement in the criminal justice system. To that end, the program offered four core services: academic enrichment, SEL, workforce-readiness training, and mentorship and case management.
In the time between random assignment and program start, which could be up to two months, Bridges sought to engage participants in pre-program activities to create an attachment to the program. Such activities included a group orientation during which participants received program rules and expectations and met their program instructors. They also met their mentors, program staff who provided emotional support and served as role models for participants, as they often had similar backgrounds as people in the program. Mentors also provided case management for participants, and in this pre-program period, they completed client intake forms detailing participants’ employment interests, work and education history, barriers to employment, justice system and gang involvement, and supportive services needs. Participants also took the Test of Adult Basic Education and completed online financial education training before program start.

Once the Bridges program started, participants engaged in the following activities in the four core service areas.

Academic enrichment activities included:

  • Education. Bridges intended for participants to take self-paced, online courses to work toward a high school credential, whether a diploma or a GED. Bridges also offered classroom instruction and individual tutoring. Bridges planned to use an online education platform also used by the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice, so participants could continue any work they had started while incarcerated. However, neither instructors nor participants liked the online platform, and some participants did not have computers to access the platform at home. Instead, academic instructors used other book-based curricula and developed their own teaching materials.
  • Financial literacy. Participants were encouraged to engage in online financial education training before their cohort start date as part of the pre-program activities, and they were encouraged to complete the course during the first phase of the program.

SEL activities included:

  • Mental health services. Bridges offered SEL workshops focused on anger management, conflict resolution, decision making, and addressing thought patterns believed to be linked to criminal behaviors. The program used two curricula specifically designed for populations involved with the justice system. One, a cognitive-behavioral curriculum called Thinking for a Change, was developed by the National Institute of Corrections and promotes problem-solving skills, social skills, and self-reflection to help individuals develop pro-social behaviors. The second curriculum was centered on a service learning project, seeking to develop soft skills like collaboration and accountability. SEL instructors also offered individual counseling as needed, and an on-call psychologist could assist with challenging cases.

Workforce-readiness activities included:

  • Employability skills workshops. Participants developed résumés, practiced interview skills, and engaged in job search during these workshops facilitated by mentors. The workshops also focused on soft skills and workplace norms, like punctuality, dependability, and respect for authority.
  • Subsidized internship. Mentors placed people who completed employability skills training in 12-week internships with local organizations that aligned with their career goals. Participants worked at their internships in addition to their academic and SEL activities for about 10 to 12 hours a week from Monday to Thursday. Bridges paid the internship wages, equal to Chicago’s minimum wage the year of program launch (2013) of $8.25 an hour. Although Chicago’s minimum wage increased during the study period, programs like Bridges offering government-subsidized temporary employment for youth were exempt from the wage increase.

Mentorship and case management activities included:

  • Case management and supportive services. Bridges’ mentors provided case management, transportation, individualized service plans, and coordination with justice agencies to assist program participants. Bridges aimed to have program staff members with similar backgrounds to program participants so they could more easily establish rapport and serve as role models. Bridges also provided breakfast and lunch.
  • Enrichment activities. Bridges organized weekly activities that included college tours, movies, or basketball tournaments.
  • Stipend. Bridges paid participants an incentive of $10 each day they attended the program for the first 5 weeks of the program until participants began their subsidized internships. One provider paid stipend checks biweekly, and the other did not have a regular schedule for disbursing payments.

Upon exiting the program, participants could receive up to 13 weeks of follow-up services to address any employment, education, or other needs.

Bridges evolved during the study period to respond to emerging challenges. The main challenge was low and unsteady attendance among participants. Bridges intended to follow a cohort model, in which groups of 10 to 12 participants would engage in program services and move together through the program phases (outlined in the “Service intensity” section). However, because of these attendance challenges, instructors shifted toward individualized services since participants were not meeting benchmarks or moving through lessons as a cohort. Eventually, the program dropped the cohort structure. Although program services were still offered in group settings, participants moved through activities and phases at their own pace. If participants stopped attending program services, program staff would try to visit participants at home to build trust and rapport and to understand why participants were not showing up. They would bring participants work packets or, if possible, help them access the online curricula at home. Although home visits were central to developing relationships, staff noted they were not a substitute for program services.

Bridges also shifted its focus from earning a high school diploma to earning a GED because the program was not accredited and could not confer credentials. Further, as just a small number of participants reached the program’s goals of earning a high school credential and an unsubsidized job, the program staff started emphasizing the shorter-term role Bridges could play in preparing participants for success in other programs where they could continue working toward longer-term goals.

Service intensity

Bridges was designed as a three-phase program lasting for six months, with new cohorts launching every two months. As planned, Phase 1 lasted five weeks, and participants would begin their education activities (six hours per week), start SEL workshops and individual counseling if needed (four hours per week), and engage in employability skills training (four hours per week). Phase 2 lasted 12 weeks, and participants would continue education activities (6 hours per week), add the service learning project to their SEL workshops (4 hours per week), and start subsidized internships (10 to 12 hours per week). Phase 3, the final phase, was eight weeks long. During this phase, participants earned their high school credential, completed counseling, and obtained unsubsidized employment. Participants could receive follow-up services for 13 weeks to address any needs after the program ended.

The program struggled with participant attendance and engagement. One-third of people assigned to the program group never engaged with Bridges services. Those who did attend program activities did so for an average of 30 days over 13 weeks, which is about 2 out of 5 program days. Participants tended to have unpredictable attendance, and the stipend was not an effective incentive. Only 55 percent of program participants received any amount of the stipend, and some participants said the low stipend amount was a deterrent to participating. Just one-fourth of participants began internships, and even fewer completed them. Few participants reached the final phase. In addition, the six-month time frame ended up being too short for most participants to attain a high school credential or unsubsidized employment.

The study notes numerous barriers to participation, including family obligations, child care duties, financial responsibilities, legal obligations, and housing instability. Mentors sought to alleviate some of these barriers by helping participants secure child care and housing or develop a transportation plan. Sometimes mentors gave participants rides in their personal cars to the program, particularly when a participant had to travel through gang-controlled territory to get to the program. Bridges’ official attendance policy required participants to attend at least twice a week to remain in the program, but providers rarely exited participants, instead allowing them to return at any point if they wanted.

Comparison conditions

People in the comparison group did not participate in Bridges, but they could receive other services available in the community, including other services offered by the providers implementing Bridges.

Partnerships

The study did not discuss any partners involved with implementing the Bridges intervention.

Staffing

Across the four program sites, staff included four mentors (one per location); two each of academic instructors, SEL instructors, and program directors (one per provider); and one program coordinator.

  • Mentors provided mentorship and case management and led employability skills training workshops. They also developed internship opportunities with local employers and monitored participants’ attendance and performance in those internships. The Bridges model emphasized mentors having similar backgrounds and experience navigating similar challenges as program participants. Mentors had professional backgrounds in case management, violence prevention, and youth services.
  • Academic instructors facilitated academic workshops, coordinated GED testing, and administered Adult Basic Education tests. Academic instructors were not required to have teaching certifications, but most had experience working in a classroom. Each site had at least one full-time instructor and additional part-time instructors.
  • SEL instructors facilitated SEL workshops, provided individual counseling, and created and monitored individual service plan goals. Instructors for both Bridges providers were employed by SGA, as it already had the infrastructure to support SEL instructors, including clinical supervisors and on-call psychologists. All SEL instructors were required to have a master’s degree in social work or a related field and prior experience providing counseling. Each site had at least one full-time instructor and additional part-time instructors.
  • A program director for each provider oversaw operations across their two program sites. Program directors split their time between Bridges and providers’ other programs. SGA Youth and Family Services also had a program coordinator to oversee Bridges’ daily operations, support staff, and mentor participants.

Fidelity measures

The study did not discuss any tools to measure fidelity to the intervention model.

Funding source

The City of Chicago DFSS funded Bridges. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also supported Bridges and funded the program evaluation as part of the Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration grant. DFSS funds the current iteration of Bridges that relaunched in 2017.

Cost information

The study did not discuss a cost per participant or a comparison of costs and benefits.

Local context

Bridges operated in four sites in Chicago, IL, in neighborhoods where 40 to 60 percent of residents lived below the poverty line. In 2015, the first year of this evaluation, the unemployment rate for African American men between ages 20 and 24 in Illinois was about 3 times higher (17.5 percent) than the statewide unemployment rate (5.9 percent). Hispanic men in the same age range had an unemployment rate of 15.4 percent. The neighborhoods also experienced high rates of gun violence and gang activity. In 2016, Chicago experienced a 58 percent increase in homicides and a 43 percent rise in nonfatal shootings from the previous year.

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
74%
White, not Hispanic
1%
Unknown, not reported, or other
3%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
22%

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.