Des Moines Area Community College Workforce Training Academy Connect Program: Implementation and Early Impact Report.
Hamadyk, J., & Zeidenberg, M. (2018). Abt Associates.
-
examining743Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2021
- Practice Guide (findings for Workforce Training Academy Connect (WTA Connect))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hours of occupational training |
Workforce Training Academy Connect (WTA Connect) vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
70.10 |
48.34 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned Credential - Any Source |
Workforce Training Academy Connect (WTA Connect) vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
20.40 |
14.40 |
No |
-- | |
|
Earned Credential - Any Source |
Workforce Training Academy Connect (WTA Connect) vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
20.38 |
14.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Working in a job paying $12/hour or more |
Workforce Training Academy Connect (WTA Connect) vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
23.27 |
22.53 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Employed in occupation at or above certain skill level |
Workforce Training Academy Connect (WTA Connect) vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
10.08 |
7.51 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 63%
Male: 37% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Iowa
-
Race Black 47% Other or unknown 7% White 34% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 15% Not Hispanic or Latino 85%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in Des Moines Area Community College (DMACC) located in Des Moines, Iowa. The intervention delivered basic skills remediation, proactive advising, and other supports to community college students who were denied access to the Workforce Training Academy. Components of the program were basic skills remediation, advising, non-academic supports (free tuition; transportation supports), and employment assistance. Coursework included occupational training courses designed to improve participants' job search, application, and retention skills (once hired).
Study sample
Participants are described as low-income and low-skilled adults with an interest in occupational training. The majority of participants were 25-years or older (not of traditional college age) with the largest proportion older than 35. About two-thirds were female. About half of participants identified as Black, Non-Hispanic, and one-third were White,Non Hispanic. More than half of the sample had an annual household income of less than $15,000. About two-thirds received SNAP or WIC benefits, and about two-thirds reported experiencing financial hardship in the past year. The majority of participants had a high school diploma or less. Almost two-thirds of participants were not working at the time of study enrollment, but the majority expected to work some hours in the following months.
Intervention Group
Treatment group had access to training (occupational certificate courses at lower skill level and no requirement to retake prerequisite assessments; self-paced online basic skills remediation courses); supports (proactive advising from achievement coach; instructional supports; free tuition for basic skills remediation courses; transportation supports; tools workshop including goal setting and self-efficacy skills instruction); and employment assistance (career planning session after enrollment in WTA Connect). Control group had access co comparable services within the same community college. Delivery: - Basic skills curriculum: Two 2 and 1/2-hour weekday evening sessions - Occupational Training: timing and number of sessions depended upon they occupation chosen and ranged from 60 to 235 hours (2.5 weeks to 16 weeks). - Advising was ongoing throughout enrollment. - Financial assistance was provided throughout enrollment including free tuition and transportation assistance. - Tools workshop: delivered in one to three 3-hour sessions and then reduced to a single session. - Employment assistance: delivered via a course called the Career Readiness Lab and met for 24 hours of class time; career planning session
Comparison Group
Comparison group had access to assessment (academic assessment and non-academic barriers assessment); training (enrollment in WTA, KeyTrain, or GED/HiSET test preparation); Supports (general college advising, general support services provided by community college partners; free tuition for occupational training); employment assistance (Career Readiness Lab; one-to-one employment coaching after occupational training).
Support for implementation
WTA Connect provided all components of the program (including supportive services, tuition for the basic skills courses and occupational training, and class materials such as books) free to participants. The program also provided transportation supports in the form of bus passes or gas cards. It also offered benefits screening to assess each participant’s eligibility for public benefits. Participants were also offered a Tools workshop on goal-setting and self-efficacy skills. In October 2012, program staff added the non-academic barriers assessment to the application process. (This was administered prior to random assignment, at the same time as the BIF and SAQ). Staff had reported at this time that more than 25 percent of intervention group members were unresponsive to staff outreach. The program staff and research team determined that some students had barriers preventing them from participating, such as work requirements, unmet childcare needs, and DMACC account holds. Program staff indicated that use of the assessment did not often result in screening out applicants, but staff would sometimes advise applicants to work on a barrier and reapply for the program. In 2014, staff also implemented a follow-up phone call to the assessment screening, to better understand applicants' barriers. Implementation was funded through private grants and state and federal funds.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).