Bridge programs for hard-to-employ adults
Evidence Ratings
Scientifically Supported: Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
Some Evidence: Strategies with this rating are likely to work, but further research is needed to confirm effects. These strategies have been tested more than once and results trend positive overall.
Expert Opinion: Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
Insufficient Evidence: Strategies with this rating have limited research documenting effects. These strategies need further research, often with stronger designs, to confirm effects.
Mixed Evidence: Strategies with this rating have been tested more than once and results are inconsistent or trend negative; further research is needed to confirm effects.
Evidence of Ineffectiveness: Strategies with this rating are not good investments. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently negative and sometimes harmful results. Learn more about our methods
Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
Evidence Ratings
Scientifically Supported: Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
Some Evidence: Strategies with this rating are likely to work, but further research is needed to confirm effects. These strategies have been tested more than once and results trend positive overall.
Expert Opinion: Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
Insufficient Evidence: Strategies with this rating have limited research documenting effects. These strategies need further research, often with stronger designs, to confirm effects.
Mixed Evidence: Strategies with this rating have been tested more than once and results are inconsistent or trend negative; further research is needed to confirm effects.
Evidence of Ineffectiveness: Strategies with this rating are not good investments. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently negative and sometimes harmful results. Learn more about our methods
Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
Health factors shape the health of individuals and communities. Everything from our education to our environments impacts our health. Modifying these clinical, behavioral, social, economic, and environmental factors can influence how long and how well people live, now and in the future.
Bridge programs for low-skilled, unemployed adults are basic education and training programs that teach fundamental skills (e.g., reading, math, writing, English language, or soft skills) with industry-specific training. Bridge programs can include hands-on courses closely tied to in-demand jobs and may provide additional supports for low income and at-risk students. Programs can be implemented on their own but are most often included as the first step in career pathways programs or as an early component of sector-based workforce initiatives aimed at increasing participants’ skill levels enough to continue progressing in a career pathway1, 2. Programs are also called occupationally contextualized basic education programs.
What could this strategy improve?
Expected Benefits
Our evidence rating is based on the likelihood of achieving these outcomes:
Increased employment
Increased earnings
Increased academic achievement
Potential Benefits
Our evidence rating is not based on these outcomes, but these benefits may also be possible:
Increased industry credentials
What does the research say about effectiveness?
Bridge programs that combine basic education and skills training, particularly as a part of career pathways programs and sector-based workforce initiatives, are a suggested strategy to increase employment, earnings, and educational attainment via acquisition of industry credentials by hard-to-employ individuals1, 2, 3, including out of school youth4. However, additional evidence is needed to confirm effects.
Available evidence suggests that participation in bridge programs within career pathways can increase acquisition of industry credentials5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Overall, program participation may not increase employment or earnings in the first several years after enrollment6, 9, 11. However, an early study of Carreras en Salud, part of the Pathways for Advancing Career and Education (PACE) program, suggests structured health care training pathways that incorporate contextualized basic education may increase employment among participants in this sector within 18 months of enrollment7.
How could this strategy impact health disparities? This strategy is rated likely to decrease disparities.
Implementation Examples
Implementation Resources
CCRC-Wachen 2010 - Wachen J, Jenkins D, Noy MV, et al. How I-BEST works: Findings from a field study of Washington state’s integrated basic education and skills training program. New York: Community College Research Center (CCRC); 2010.
Footnotes
* Journal subscription may be required for access.
1 Couch 2018 - Couch KA, Ross MB, Vavrek J. Career Pathways and integrated instruction: A national program review of I-BEST implementations. Journal of Labor Research. 2018;(39):99-125.
2 Upjohn-King 2015 - King CT, Prince HJ. Chapter 8: Moving sectoral and career pathway programs from promise to scale. In: Van Horn C, Edwards T, Greene T eds. Transforming U.S. workforce development policies for the 21st century. Kalamazoo, Michigan: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. 2015:195-230.
3 Urban-Anderson 2015 - Anderson T, Conway M, Ester L, et al. The second year of accelerating opportunity: implementation findings from the states and colleges. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute; 2015.
4 MDRC-Hossain 2015 - Hossain F. Serving out-of-school youth under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (2014). New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC); 2015.
5 OPRE-Gardiner 2017 - Gardiner K, Rolston H, Fein D, Cho SW. Pima community college pathways to healthcare program: Implementation and early impact report. Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS); 2017.
6 OPRE-Hamadyk 2018 - Hamadyk J, Zeidenberg M. Des Moines area community college workforce training academy connect program: Implementation and early impact report. Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS); 2018.
7 OPRE-Martinson 2018a - Martinson K, Copson E, Gardiner K, Kitrosser D. Instituto del progreso Latino’s Carreras en Salud program: Implementation and early impact report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS); 2018.
8 OPRE-Martinson 2018b - Glosser A, Martinson K, Cho SW, Gardiner K. Washington state’s Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) program in three colleges: Implementation and early impact report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS); 2018.
9 Urban-Eyster 2018 - Eyster L, Anderson T, Lerman RI, et al. Findings from the accelerating opportunity evaluation. Urban Institute. 2018:1-25.
10 OPRE-Rolston 2017 - Rolston H, Copson E, Gardiner K. Valley initiative for development and advancement: Implementation and early impact report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS); 2017.
11 CCRC-Zeidenberg 2010 - Zeidenberg M, Cho SW, Jenkins D. Washington state’s integrated basic education and skills training program (I-BEST): New evidence of effectiveness. Community College Research Center (CCRC). 2010: Working Paper 20.
12 WA-I-BEST - Washington State Board for Community & Technical Colleges (SBCTC). Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST).
Related What Works for Health Strategies
To see citations and implementation resources for this strategy, visit:
countyhealthrankings.org/strategies-and-solutions/what-works-for-health/strategies/bridge-programs-for-hard-to-employ-adults
To see all strategies:
countyhealthrankings.org/whatworks