Study Details | Pathways to Work

3048.02-Work Advancement and

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration

Population and employment barriers: Employed

Services provided: Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Supportive services, Training, Occupational or sectoral training, On-the-job training

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The study randomly assigned study participants to the WASC group or to a comparison group. To be eligible for the study, participants had to be low-wage workers, or they had to have recently lost a job and been reemployed at a lower wage. Participants receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) were excluded from the study, and no more than 50 percent of participants in each site could be Food Stamp recipients. After an eligible individual consented to participate and filled out a baseline questionnaire, site staff submitted the individual’s information online to the evaluators, and an algorithm created by the evaluator performed random assignment. WASC was implemented in three locations (Dayton, OH; Bridgeport, CT; and San Diego, CA), and this review examines results for San Diego. Other reviews on this site examine the other two locations. The research sample size was 971. There were 488 participants in the WASC group and 483 in the comparison group. A survey was administered to some participants 12 months after random assignment. To be eligible for the survey, participants had to speak English or Spanish and be randomly assigned between January 2006 and June 2006 or from September 2006 through October 2007. Of the 971 participants, 821 met these eligibility criteria. Of those eligible, 722 were selected to participate in the survey.

Time period of study:

Enrollment began in fall 2005 and continued through 2007. This report presents Year 1 through Year 4 impacts of the program on employment, earnings, and work supports receipt in San Diego, CA.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Increase long-term earnings, Increase long-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt, Increase short-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Physical health, Mental health

Study funded by:

Funding for the evaluation in this report came from the U.S. Department of Labor, the Ford Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Earlier grants that supported this project were from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

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	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High			-839.00	2007 dollars	971
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 4	High			39.00	2010 dollars	971
Increase short-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 1	High			-5.00	percentage points	971
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 1	High			0.10	percentage points	971
Increase long-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 4	High			-1.80	percentage points	971
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Year 4	High			-3.90	percentage points	971
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits received, annual	Year 1	High	466.00	622.00	156.00	2007 dollars	971
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 1	High	23.80	29.50	5.70	percentage points	971
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits received, annual	Year 3	High	700.00	1,020.00	320.00	2009 dollars	793
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 3	High	23.90	28.30	4.40	percentage points	793
Increase education and training	Received a license or certificate	Year 1	High			5.10	percentage points	793
Increase education and training	Received any degree or diploma	Year 1	High			-2.10	percentage points	793

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

The study recruited low-wage workers, reemployed dislocated workers, or people who fit both criteria within certain income eligibility guidelines. A majority of eligible study participants earned less than $10 per hour and had a household income below 130 percent of the federal poverty level. The study also focused on a population that had a limited prior connection to the welfare system and thus was in most need of assistance with work supports. As a result, current recipients of TANF were not eligible for enrollment into the demonstration, and current recipients of Food Stamps made up a maximum of 50 percent of the WASC sample. In San Diego, participants were, on average, 37 years old, and 73 percent of participants were women. More than two-thirds (about 70 percent) were Hispanic, and about half were single mothers and worked part time. In addition, the education levels of participants were particularly low in San Diego (relative to other WASC sites), which reflects the large number of non-U.S. citizens in the sample.

Age

Mean age

36 years

Sex

Female	73%
Male	27%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	11%
White, not Hispanic	9%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	71%
Asian	6%
Another race	3%

Family status

Married	35%
Single parents	42%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed

100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	52%
Had a high school diploma or GED	74%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	26%

Specific employment barriers

Were immigrants

51%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

South County Career Center (operated by Arbor Education and Training in Chula Vista, CA)

Program history:

WASC expanded the mission of one-stop career centers to include low-wage workers and therefore was more comprehensive than the existing workforce development system. Program operations in San Diego began in the fall of 2005.

Intervention services:

The intervention group received services from the WASC program. The WASC delivered integrated, intensive retention and advancement services to incumbent workers. It provided information about and simplified access to financial work supports, such as the earned-income tax credit and child care subsidies. Services were offered at one-stop career centers, where workforce development and TANF staff worked together in the same unit as a team. Retention and advancement services included career coaching and access to training and education to stabilize individuals' employment and help them find better-paying jobs. The WASC model in San Diego, CA, focused mostly on career coaching for advancement in the current job, with less emphasis on vocational training. The San Diego program offered inactive participants additional incentives (gas, grocery, or gift cards) to continue with the program.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

The comparison group received existing employment services with a focus on job placement instead of advancement for low-wage workers.

Service receipt duration:

WASC services were provided for two years to all participants.

Intervention funding:

Workforce Investment Act Adult Program formula funding; Funds from evaluator

Study publications

Miller, Cynthia, Betsy L. Tessler, and Mark Van Dok (2009). Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and early impacts of the Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) demonstration, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_516.pdf.

Miller, Cynthia, Betsy L. Tessler, and Mark Van Dok (2012). Strategies to help low wage workers advance: Implementation and final impacts of the Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) demonstration, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/strategies-help-low-wage-workers-advance.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

Study of Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Demonstration—San Diego, CA