Skip to main content

Evaluation of the Connecticut Health and Life Sciences Career Initiative. Final report. (Mokher & Pearson 2016)

Review Guidelines

Absence of conflict of interest.

Citation

Mokher, C., & Pearson, J. (2016) Evaluation of the Connecticut Health and Life Sciences Career Initiative. Final report. Alexandria, VA: CNA Corporation.

Highlights

  • The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Health and Life Sciences Career Initiative (HL-SCI) program on education outcomes.
  • Using school records, the authors conducted a nonexperimental design to compare education outcomes of HL-SCI participants to a comparison group of non-participants.
  • The study found no significant relationships between participation in HL-SCI and college persistence, credential completion, and credit accumulation.
  • The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not ensure that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention and did not include sufficient controls. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the HCI-SCI program; other factors are likely to have contributed.

Intervention Examined

The HL-SCI program

Features of the Intervention

The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) program provided $1.9 billion in grants to community colleges to improve skills and support employment in high-demand industries, notably manufacturing, health care, information technology, energy, and transportation. Through four rounds of funding, DOL awarded 256 TAACCCT grants to approximately 800 educational institutions across the United States and its territories.

Through TAACCCT, the Connecticut Health and Life Sciences Career Initiative (HL-SCI) provided funds for the state’s community colleges to develop new certificates and degree programs and to revise previously existing programs. These redesigned programs intended to provide more flexibility and choice for community college students, especially for nontraditional students enrolled in a health or life sciences program at a Connecticut community college. Benefits included access to online and hybrid courses, online booster modules providing students additional course instruction and support, more opportunities to receive college credit for previous work completed in a related field (including coursework or prior training or knowledge), and opportunities for job placement and internships after completion.

Features of the Study

The nonexperimental study was conducted at five community colleges in Connecticut. The authors compared the outcomes of participants who attended before and after the HL-SCI program was implemented, using matching to account for differences in student characteristics, program characteristics, and college attended. Study participants included 1,836 students in the treatment group and 5,464 students in the historic comparison group. Using data gathered from basic student records across the five community colleges, the authors conducted analyses to examine the differences in education outcomes between the groups. Outcomes included students’ rates of college persistence, credential completion, and credential accumulation one and two years after program participation.

Study Sites

  • Capital Community College in Hartford, Connecticut
  • Gateway Community College in New Haven, Connecticut
  • Manchester Community College in Manchester, Connecticut
  • Middlesex Community College in Middleton, Connecticut
  • Norwalk Community College in Norwalk, Connecticut

Findings

Education and skills gain

  • The study found no significant relationships between HL-SCI program participation and college persistence, credential completion, or credit accumulation.

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

The authors used matching to ensure that students in the research groups were similar in terms of baseline demographic characteristics. However, the authors did not account for differences in students’ financial statuses, nor did they control for education outcomes at baseline. Existing differences between the groups could have contributed to the estimated effects. Additionally, the authors used a cohort from previous enrollment years as the comparison group. Because the outcome data on the two groups were collected from participants at different times, the estimated effects could be due to time-varying factors (such as overall changes at the community colleges) and not the intervention. Therefore, the study is not eligible for a moderate causal evidence rating, the highest rating available for nonexperimental designs.

Causal Evidence Rating

The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not ensure that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention and did not include sufficient controls. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the HL-SCI grant; other factors are likely to have contributed.

Reviewed by CLEAR

May 2020

Topic Area