Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the implementation of the Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Program which provides career coaching and welfare enrollment support for low-income workers.
- The study authors conducted an implementation evaluation using survey data, and interviews or focus groups with program staff and participants.
- The study found that the program was implemented largely as intended, with staffing and funding being two major challenges at some of the program sites.
- The authors provide limited information about their data collection methods and analytic approach.
- The embedded impact study was reviewed by CLEAR in February 2017.
Intervention Examined
The Work Advancement and Support Center (WASC) Program
Features of the Intervention
- Type of organization: WIA One-Stop Career Centers
- Location/setting: Multi-site in the United States
- Population served and scale: Low-income and/or dislocated workers; 2,683 participants
- Industry focus: Not included
- Intervention Activities: Career coaching for job advancement and retention; support for identifying and enrolling in additional public benefits; training referrals
- Organizational partnerships: Not included
- Cost: Not included
- Fidelity: Not included
The WASC program was conceived in response to the large population of working poor in the country, who are not typically served by existing welfare and unemployment programs. Through American Job Centers in three locations, the WASC program provided participants with coaching support to advance their careers and raise their earnings, alongside assistance determining eligibility and completing applications for available work supports like food stamps and subsidized childcare. Funding sources varied over time and from site to site with key funders including the U.S Department of Labor and an assortment of philanthropic foundations.
Features of the Study
The WASC Program was evaluated in Dayton Ohio, San Diego California, and Bridgeport Connecticut. It ran for 3 years, serving a total of 2,683 participants, the majority of which in all three locations being non-white women. Many of these women were single mothers and worked less than full-time for wages under $10 and had been in their jobs for less than a year at the time of recruitment. All participants were low-income workers and eligibility requirements changed overtime in response to recruiting difficulties. The authors did not provide details on the site selection process in this study. The researchers used baseline and 12-month surveys, along with interviews and focus groups with program staff and participants to evaluate the program. The authors performed a qualitative analysis but did not provide additional details on their analytic or data collection methods.
Findings
Intervention activities/services
- The study found that staff were sufficiently trained and managed so that they were able to deliver key aspects of the WASC program such as completing career advancement plans with customers, using a calculator to determine eligibility and benefits of work supports like food stamps, and motivating clients through coaching.
- The study found that recruiting and engaging participants was a challenge but, once in the program, customers benefited from coaching and the information provided by the program staff which led to greater engagement in career advancement activities such as training and greater awareness of available funding for working people like SNAP benefits.
Implementation challenges and solutions
- The study found that staff and funding were a challenge, with the latter being more pronounced in San Diego and the former being more pronounced in Bridgeport.
- The study found that recruitment was also a challenge and that the time spent recruiting often detracted from the time spent performing the intended activities of the WASC program.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
Given the limited information provided by the authors about data collection and analysis methods, it is difficult to determine the generalizability of the evaluation.