New evidence on integrated career pathways: Final impact report for Accelerating Opportunity.
Anderson, T., Kuehn, D., Eyster, L., Barnow, B., & Lerman, R. I. (2017). Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/91436/ao_final_impacts.pdf .
-
examining8,451Students, gradePS
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2023
- Publication (findings for Accelerating Opportunity)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earnings |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
12 Months |
Illinois;
|
2030.00 |
1815.00 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Earnings |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Louisiana;
|
2077.00 |
1884.00 |
Yes |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earnings |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Illinois;
|
1192.00 |
1376.00 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Earnings |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Illinois;
|
1619.00 |
1682.00 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Earnings |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Louisiana;
|
1887.00 |
1721.00 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earnings |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Illinois;
|
1157.00 |
1303.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Earnings |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Louisiana;
|
1737.00 |
1532.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Employment |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Louisiana;
|
57.90 |
53.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Employment |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
12 Months |
Illinois;
|
55.70 |
52.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Employment |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Louisiana;
|
58.10 |
51.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Employment |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Illinois;
|
49.50 |
50.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Employment |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Illinois;
|
44.60 |
46.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Employment |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Louisiana;
|
54.90 |
48.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Employment |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Illinois;
|
41.20 |
44.10 |
Yes |
|
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: 59%
Male: 41% -
- 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
Illinois, Louisiana
-
Race Black 45% Other or unknown 20% White 35% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 13% Not Hispanic or Latino 87%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in four states; however, the findings that meet WWC standards involved only two states. Within these two states, the study took place in 25 community colleges or technical schools.
Study sample
The initial sample from the analyses of the two states that met standards, which were Illinois and Louisiana, consisted of 8,451 learners. These learners either participated in the AO program or were enrolled in one of three recruitment sources in participating states: adult education, career and technical education, or developmental education. The weighted analytic sample is 59 percent female, 35 percent White, 45 percent Black, and 13 percent Hispanic. Twenty-one percent of the learners (weighted percentage) received a Pell grant.
Intervention Group
Learners in the treatment group participated in an integrated education and training (IET) co-teaching model based on the Integrated Basic Education and Skills Trainig (I-BEST) program called Accelerating Opportunity (AO). AO provided funding to community and technical colleges to develop accessible career pathways in high-demand occupations. Career pathways are sequenced programs that allow learners to obtain one credential that can lead to others meaningful to the field. The AO pathway sequence typically includes 12 credits and is designed to be completed in one year or less. The model includes instruction that integrates basic skills with career and technical education, and it provides wraparound and career navigation services.
Comparison Group
The learners in the comparison group continued their existing instructional practices, which could include being enrolled in developmental education or career and technical education programs. The study did not include additional details on the comparison condition.
Support for implementation
The study does not provide specific information about support for implementation.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Anderson, Theresa; Eyster, Lauren; Lerman, Robert I.; O'Brien, Carolyn; Conway, Maureen; Jain, Ranita; Montes, Marcela. (2015). The Second Year of Accelerating Opportunity: Implementation Findings from the States and Colleges. Urban Institute.
-
Anderson, Theresa; Eyster, Lauren; Lerman, Robert I.; Clymer, Carol; Conway, Maureen; Montes, Marcela. (2014). The First Year of Accelerating Opportunity: Implementation Findings from the States and Colleges. Urban Institute.
-
Anderson, Theresa; Eyster, Lauren; Lerman, Robert I.; Conway, Maureen; Jain, Ranita; Montes, Marcela. (2016). Implementation of Accelerating Opportunity: Lessons for the Field. Research Report. Urban Institute.
-
Eyster, Lauren; Barnow, Burt; Anderson, Theresa; Conway, Maureen; Lerman, Robert I.; Jain, Ranita; Kuehn, Daniel; Montes, Marcela. (2018). Findings from the Accelerating Opportunity Evaluation: Building the Evidence on Integrated Career Pathways. Research Summary. Urban Institute.
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) Intervention Report - Postsecondary Career and Technical Education (CTE) Interventions
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2020
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned more than 12 credits |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Aggregated sample;
|
45.67 |
46.88 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earned more than 12 credits |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kentucky;
|
54.70 |
39.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned more than 12 credits |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Illinois;
|
36.90 |
28.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned more than 12 credits |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kansas;
|
53.60 |
65.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Total number of credits earned |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Illinois;
|
10.30 |
11.20 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Total number of credits earned |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kansas;
|
22.20 |
26.00 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Total number of credits earned |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kentucky;
|
18.80 |
14.40 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Received credentials from a college |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Aggregated sample;
|
52.57 |
32.99 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Received credentials from a college |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kentucky;
|
33.60 |
14.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Received credentials from a college |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kansas;
|
81.40 |
68.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Received credentials from a college |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Illinois;
|
42.20 |
31.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of credentials earned through college |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Illinois;
|
0.40 |
0.30 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Number of credentials earned through college |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kansas;
|
2.10 |
1.50 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Number of credentials earned through college |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kentucky;
|
1.70 |
0.90 |
Yes |
-- | ||
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: 56%
Male: 44% -
- 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
Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana
-
Race Black 19% Other or unknown 19% White 62% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 11% Not Hispanic or Latino 89%
Study Details
Setting
The intervention was delivered in community college and adult education settings in four states: Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana.
Study sample
The analytic sample is 56 percent female, 62 percent White, 19 percent Black, and 11 percent Hispanic. Thirty-six percent of the analytic sample was eligible to receive a Pell grant.
Intervention Group
Accelerating Opportunity is based on the I-BEST model and is designed to help low-skilled students earn occupational credentials, obtain employment, and sustain careers. Community and technical colleges that were in the intervention condition developed or modified existing programs that offered career pathways for in-demand jobs. A major component of Accelerating Opportunity was integrated instruction, where both basic skills and CTE instructors taught the same class with at least 25 percent overlap. Students also received additional services, including tutoring, academic advising, college navigation, job search assistance, job placement, and case management. Accelerating Opportunity programs partnered with Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) to connect students to employment.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition entailed standard, business-as-usual instruction and support. The comparison group students were drawn from the same recruitment sources—including adult education, developmental education, or CTE—as the intervention group, but they did not have the opportunity to participate in Accelerating Opportunity.
Support for implementation
No additional implementation details were reported.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Anderson, T., Kuehn, D., Eyster, L., Barnow, B., & Lerman, R. I. (2017). New evidence on integrated career pathways: Final impact report for Accelerating Opportunity. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/91436/ao_final_impacts.pdf.
-
Anderson, Theresa; Kuehn, Daniel; Eyster, Lauren; Barnow, Burt; Lerman, Robert I. (2017). New Evidence on Integrated Career Pathways: Final Impact Report for Accelerating Opportunity. Research Report. Urban Institute.
-
Kuehn, D., Anderson, T., Lerman, R., Eyster, L., Barnow, B., & Briggs, A. (2017). A cost-benefit analysis of Accelerating Opportunity. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved from https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/94876/ao-cba-report.pdf.
-
Spaulding, Shayne; Martin-Caughey, Ananda. (2015). Accelerating Opportunity: A Portrait of Students and Their Program Experiences from the 2014 Student Survey. Urban Institute.
-
Anderson, Theresa; Eyster, Lauren; Lerman, Robert I.; O'Brien, Carolyn; Conway, Maureen; Jain, Ranita; Montes, Marcela. (2015). The Second Year of Accelerating Opportunity: Implementation Findings from the States and Colleges. Urban Institute.
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2020
- Practice Guide (findings for Accelerating Opportunity)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned more than 12 credits |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Aggregated sample;
|
45.67 |
46.88 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earned more than 12 credits |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kentucky;
|
57.84 |
39.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned more than 12 credits |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Illinois;
|
39.01 |
28.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned more than 12 credits |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kansas;
|
50.94 |
65.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Total number of credits earned |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Illinois;
|
10.70 |
11.20 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Total number of credits earned |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kansas;
|
22.20 |
26.00 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Total number of credits earned |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kentucky;
|
18.80 |
14.40 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Received credentials from a college |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Aggregated sample;
|
52.57 |
32.99 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Received credentials from a college |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kentucky;
|
38.46 |
14.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Received credentials from a college |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kansas;
|
87.64 |
68.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Received credentials from a college |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Illinois;
|
42.77 |
31.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of credentials earned through college |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Illinois;
|
0.40 |
0.30 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Number of credentials earned through college |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kansas;
|
2.10 |
1.50 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Number of credentials earned through college |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Kentucky;
|
1.70 |
0.90 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Average quarterly earnings |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Illinois;
|
2030.00 |
1815.00 |
Yes |
-- | |
|
Average quarterly earnings |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Louisiana;
|
2077.00 |
1884.00 |
Yes |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percent Employed |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Louisiana;
|
57.90 |
53.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Percent Employed |
Accelerating Opportunity vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Illinois;
|
55.70 |
52.40 |
Yes |
|
|
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: 56%
Male: 44% -
- 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
Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana
-
Race Black 19% Other or unknown 19% White 62% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 11% Not Hispanic or Latino 89%
Study Details
Setting
The intervention was delivered in community college and adult education settings in four states: Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana.
Study sample
The analytic sample is 56 percent female, 62 percent White, 19 percent Black, and 11 percent Hispanic. Thirty-six percent of the analytic sample is eligible to receive a Pell grant.
Intervention Group
Accelerating Opportunity (AO) is based on the I-BEST model. Community and technical colleges that were in the AO intervention condition developed or modified existing programs that offered career pathways for in-demand jobs. A major component of AO was integrated instruction, where both basic skills and CTE instructors taught the same class with at least 25 percent overlap. Students also received additional services, including advising, navigational, and financial supports, to help them progress through the program.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was Business as Usual. The comparison group students were drawn from the same recruitment sources (adult education, developmental education, or CTE) as the intervention group, but they did not have the opportunity to participate in AO.
Support for implementation
None specified.
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) Intervention Report - Postsecondary Career and Technical Education (CTE) Interventions
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2020
- The study is ineligible for review because it is not the primary source for the study (View primary source).
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST).
Findings
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.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).