Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
- The objective of the study was to examine the implementation of Bridges to Pathways, which provided academic, employment, and social-emotional development services for justice-involved young men.
- The authors conducted an implementation evaluation using qualitative and quantitative data, which included a survey, participant and program participation data, interviews, service and worksite observation, and study documentation.
- The authors found that program attendance was a challenge and that academic, social-emotional, and employment programming was not implemented as planned. Program staff focused on keeping participants engaged and addressing barriers to participation. In addition, instead of offering services as a cohort, participants tended to receive individualized services.
- The study used multiple data sources and the authors obtained rich details on how the program was implemented. However, qualitative analysis methods and quality assurance procedures were not described.
- The embedded impact study was reviewed by CLEAR in August 2022.
Intervention Examined
Bridges to Pathways
Features of the Intervention
- Type of organization: Local government
- Location/setting: Chicago, IL
- Population served and scale: Justice-involved men aged 17-21 disconnected from work and school; 289 participants
- Industry focus: Not included
- Intervention activities: Training and education, social-emotional development services
- Organizational partnerships: Community-based organizations; employers
- Cost: Not included
- Fidelity: Not included
Chicago's Department of Family and Support Services (DFSS) implemented Bridges to Pathways (Bridges) in 2013 as part of the City's larger effort to reduce violence by providing programming for young adults. Funded by the City of Chicago and the U.S. Department of Health and Humans Services, the program targeted 17 to 21-year-old male Chicago residents with a history of incarceration and no high school degree or job. The first six months of the program included coursework toward a high school diploma or GED, employment skills training, a subsidized internship, group cognitive-behavioral workshops, mentoring, and case management. Participants earned $10 a day as a stipend. This phase was followed by three months of follow-up. The program was provided by Chicago community-based organizations, in partnership with employers, between May 2013 and December 2016.
Features of the Study
The study sites were the two community-based Chicago organizations implementing Bridges: Central States SER (SER) and SGA Youth and Family Services (SGA). The sample included 480 justice-involved men aged 17-21 who did not have a high school degree and were unemployed. Baseline data on the sample were collected by study staff from participants between June 2015 and July 2016. Interviews were conducted with staff (executive staff, program managers, mentors, academic instructors, and SEL instructors) and DFSS. Services were observed and included high school classes, GED instruction, social emotional learning workshops, and employment skills training classes. Participants' worksites were observed, and employers were interviewed. Program participation data and pay and stipend records were reviewed. Sixteen participants were interviewed, and two participant focus groups were conducted. A survey of program staff was also conducted to understand how program staff spent their time. Documentation from research staff who monitored the program and provided technical assistance was also utilized.
Findings
Intervention activities/services:
- The study found that lack of program attendance contributed to a change from a cohort-based program to more individualized programing.
- The study found that because engagement was an issue, staff focused on mentoring and case management to address engagement.
- The study found that mentoring and case management activities took up close to a quarter (24.2%) of staff time and implementing the program and planning program services accounted for 33.7% of staff time.
- The study found that Bridges was unable to attain the accreditation needed to provide a high school diploma, so only a GED was offered.
- The study found that the GED program was not provided in a systematized fashion.
- The study found that instead of the Bridges online academic curriculum, a book-based curricula and staff’s own content were used.
- The study found that staff altered the social-emotional programming to make it more engaging. Participants did not finish the social-emotional development program.
- The study found that only 26% of program participants started an internship.
- The study found that few program participants obtained a GED or gained employment.
Implementation challenges and solutions
- The study found that recruitment was a challenge. In response, staff broadened their recruitment methods.
- The study found that attendance was a challenge. In response, mentors and other program staff developed relationships with participants and would contact or visit participants who stopped attending the program.
- The study found that the program sites were not able to gain the accreditation needed to provide high school diplomas, so only GED programming was offered.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
No information was provided on data collection quality assurance procedures.