Modicamore, D., Lamb, Y., Taylor, J., Takyi-Laryea, A., Karageorge, K., & Ferroggiaro, E. (2017). Fairfax, VA: ICF International.
Reviewed: August 2020
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).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a Vocational, Technical, or Professional Certificate or License |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
53.50 |
35.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earnings 1 Year After Program Completion |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Connecticut;
|
14125.19 |
12578.79 |
No |
-- | |
|
Earnings 1 Year After Program Completion |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Maryland and Texas;
|
12897.00 |
11601.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Earnings 1 Year After Program Completion |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Georgia;
|
5783.50 |
7154.60 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Employed in First Year After Program Completion |
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
62.60 |
51.90 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 71% | |
| Other or unknown | 13% | |
| White | 15% |
| Hispanic | 11% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 89% |
The study took place at nine sites, including six sites in Maryland (Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Montgomery County, Prince George's County, and the Upper Shore), one site in Connecticut (New Haven), one site in Georgia (Atlanta), and one site in Texas (Austin).
The 2,168 study participants were 71.3% African-American, 15.4% White, 1.2% Native American, 2.5% Asian, 0.5% Native Hawaiian, and 9.1% other. Moreover, 11% of study participants were Hispanic, and 70.5% of study participants were female. Almost two-thirds of study participants (64.9%) were unemployed at baseline, 34.5% were employed, and 0.6% were not in the labor force. On average, study participants were 35.5 years of age. Almost half of study participants (48.2%) had a high school diploma or GED, 18.0% had less than a high school diploma, 28.8% had some college or an Associate's degree, and 5.0% had a Bachelor's degree or higher.
Accelerating Connections to Employment (ACE) is based in part on Washington State's Integrated Basic Education Skills and Training (I-BEST) model. Like I-BEST, ACE provides integrated basic skills and occupational skills training, with at least 50% of total training hours using a co-teaching model. ACE also engages employers, industry partners, and Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) to assess labor market demands, determine basic skills requirements, and design programs that prepare job seekers for high-demand occupations. ACE also provides a career navigator to students. Initially, the ACE career navigator was involved in all aspects of recruitment, onboarding, job readiness training, and job placement. Later, sites added a job developer position, which afforded career navigators more time to focus on forming strong relationships with participants and guiding them through the training program.
Control group members had access to alternative services at the WIB. As with any non-ACE WIB customer, control group members generally had to navigate these alternative services on their own.
The ACE model is supported by a the WIB-community college partnership. Technical assistance was provided by program partners, most especially The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Jobs for the Future (JFF) and The National Association of Workforce Development Professionals (NAWDP) supported implementation in Baltimore County.
Reviewed: March 2020
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a Vocational, Technical, or Professional Certificate or License |
Accelerating Connections to Employment (ACE) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
53.50 |
35.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earnings 1 Year After Program Completion |
Accelerating Connections to Employment (ACE) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Connecticut;
|
14125.19 |
12578.79 |
No |
-- | |
|
Earnings 1 Year After Program Completion |
Accelerating Connections to Employment (ACE) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Maryland and Texas;
|
12897.00 |
11601.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Earnings 1 Year After Program Completion |
Accelerating Connections to Employment (ACE) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Georgia;
|
5783.50 |
7154.60 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Employed in First Year After Program Completion |
Accelerating Connections to Employment (ACE) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
62.60 |
51.90 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 3% | |
| Black | 71% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| Other or unknown | 9% | |
| Pacific Islander | 1% | |
| White | 15% |
| Hispanic | 11% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 89% |
The study took place at nine sites, including six sites in Maryland (Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Montgomery County, Prince George's County, and the Upper Shore), one site in Connecticut (New Haven), one site in Georgia (Atlanta), and one site in Texas (Austin).
The 2,168 study participants were 71.3% African-American, 15.4% White, 1.2% Native American, 2.5% Asian, 0.5% Native Hawaiian, and 9.1% other. Moreover, 11% of study participants were Hispanic, and 70.5% of study participants were female. Almost two-thirds of study participants (64.9%) were unemployed at baseline, 34.5% were employed, and 0.6% were not in the labor force. On average, study participants were 35.5 years of age. Almost half of study participants (48.2%) had a high school diploma or GED, 18.0% had less than a high school diploma, 28.8% had some college or an Associate's degree, and 5.0% had a Bachelor's degree or higher.
Accelerating Connections to Employment (ACE) is based in part on Washington State's I-BEST model. Like I-BEST, ACE provides integrated basic skills and occupational skills training, with at least 50% of total training hours using a co-teaching model. ACE also engages employers, industry partners, and WIBs to assess labor market demands, determine basic skills requirements, and design programs that prepare job seekers for high-demand occupations. ACE also provides a career navigator to students. Initially, the ACE career navigator was involved in all aspects of recruitment, onboarding, job readiness training, and job placement. Later, sites added a job developer position, which afforded career navigators more time to focus on forming strong relationships with participants and guiding them through the training program.
Control group members had access to alternative services at the WIB. As with any non-ACE WIB customer, control group members generally had to navigate these alternative services on their own.
The ACE model is supported by a the WIB-community college partnership. Technical assistance was provided by program partners, most especially The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Jobs for the Future (JFF) and The National Association of Workforce Development Professionals (NAWDP) supported implementation in Baltimore County.
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.
Evidence Tier
The Department of Education’s evidence tiers. For more information, please see the WWC Glossary entry for evidence tiers.
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube