Short- and Long-Term Impacts of Five Employment Coaching Programs

• In Event: Employment Strategies for People Facing Complex Barriers: Evidence from Multiple Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

Employment coaching has gained increasing interest as a strategy to help adults with low incomes achieve economic security. Coaches work collaboratively with participants to set individualized goals and develop action steps, while allowing participants to retain autonomy. Despite this interest, rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of employment coaching remains limited. This presentation will feature experimental evidence on the short- and long-term effectiveness on five employment coaching programs implemented in a variety of contexts.

This study examines whether employment coaching programs improve outcomes for adults with low incomes. Specifically, it addresses the following questions:
1. Do coaching programs improve intermediate outcomes such as self-regulation and goal-setting skills?
2. Do coaching programs improve employment, earnings, and economic well-being?
3. How do impacts evolve over time?

The study draws on two randomized controlled trials: the Evaluation of Employment Coaching for TANF and Related Populations and the NextGen evaluation of the Work Success program. Work Success is a short-term, intensive coaching program delivered in employment centers that combines group and one-on-one coaching with job readiness workshops and peer support. The employment coaching evaluation included four programs serving TANF recipients and other adults with low incomes in diverse contexts, including a home-visiting model (FaDSS), a TANF agency coaching approach replacing case management (Goal4 It!), a nonprofit coaching model delivered by Master of Social Work interns (LIFT), and a program for public housing residents with an explicit focus on self-regulation (MyGoals).

In both studies, we randomly assigned eligible participants to either a program group that was offered coaching services or a control group that was not, but could access other community services. We estimated impacts as the difference in means of the outcomes of interest between the program and control groups. To help interpret findings, we also conducted Bayesian analysis which gives the probability that impacts fall in different ranges. We used data from baseline and follow-up surveys, administrative records on earnings and public assistance, and program data on service receipt.

Findings up to 24 months after study enrollment point to favorable impacts on service receipt and intermediate outcomes, but show mixed evidence on labor market outcomes. Overall, these findings suggest that employment coaching can improve key intermediate outcomes, especially while participants are engaged in services, but may need to be paired with more intensive employment supports to generate sustained impacts on earnings.

The long-term follow-up of employment coaching participants will estimate impacts on outcomes measured at least four years after study enrollment for three programs—these results are not currently available but will be available by the time of the conference. This evidence will be essential for understanding whether these programs can produce lasting impacts.

Author

• Nicardo McInnis, Mathematica
  Presenting Author