Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
- The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Bridges to Career Opportunities (BCO) program on employment.
- The study used a nonexperimental design to compare employment outcomes of BCO participants to a matched comparison group. Using administrative data, the authors conducted statistical models to compare the outcomes of treatment and comparison group members.
- The study found that the BCO intervention had significantly improved participants’ employment status relative to the comparison group.
- This study received a moderate causal evidence rating. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the Bridges to Career Opportunities (BCO) program, but other factors might also have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Bridges to Career Opportunities (BCO)
Features of the Intervention
The Bridges to Career Opportunities (BCO) program builds upon another established program, Financial Opportunity Centers (FOC). FOCs were developed to support people with low incomes, stabilize their finances and obtain good jobs. They offer employment services, financial coaching, and access to income support. However, FOC participants still had gaps in basic skills. The BCO program was established to build on the FOC model by providing instruction in basic skills using curriculum tailored to occupations in industries of growth in each region.
The BCO program is a multi-component intervention designed to help underemployed or unemployed adults advance in a career and obtain a living wage. The BCO program has four components of services: the bridge component which provides contextualized basic skills education, career planning, and occupational skills training; financial coaching and education; income support services; and employment services.
Features of the Study
The study used a nonexperimental comparison group design to evaluate employment outcomes for BCO participants. A purposeful sample of seven of the BCO treatment group sites were selected from the larger sample of implementation study sites. Comparison group sites were also purposefully selected and consisted of sites implementing the FOC model. The authors used a matching procedure to ensure that the treatment and comparison group participants were comparable at program entry based upon demographic characteristics, education, employment, and financial well-being. There were 1,133 eligible participants from the treatment sites and 1,217 eligible participants from the comparison group sites. The study sample was predominantly female (70%), over half were Black/African American non-Hispanic (55%), and the majority had a high school diploma or above (87%). Only participants with non-missing baseline and outcome data were included in the final analytic sample, which resulted in 673 treatment group participants and 566 comparison group participants.
Study participants were enrolled in either BCO or FOC services during the same time period from April 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018, and were required to be enrolled in an eligible training course during the specified time period. The treatment group participants all received both the FOC services as well as BCO bridge services. The comparison group participants received only the FOC services. Using administrative data, the authors conducted statistical models to compare the employment outcomes of treatment and comparison group members. Variables used for matching and included baseline levels of education, employment, credit score range, gender, age, and race/ethnicity.
Findings
Employment
- The study found that BCO participants were significantly more likely to have obtained or advanced in a job than FOC participants (19 percentage points).
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The authors purposefully selected sites in cities with similar labor markets. Therefore, the study results may not generalize to other settings.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is moderate because it was based on a well-implemented nonexperimental design. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the BCO program, but other factors might also have contributed.