Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
III. Methodology for Identifying Innovative Approaches and Programs
As discussed above, the primary goal of this project is to identify innovative approaches and programmatic examples of these approaches that warrant further research. A secondary goal is to provide policymakers and practitioners with a framework for conceptualizing and sorting through the wide range of employment strategies that have developed over time. HHS expressed interest that this study not be overly rigid in the types of approaches and programs that are identified, but that the determination of what is “innovative” be guided by established criteria. Thus, as described below, a set of criteria were established to identify the approaches and programs included in this report.
In terms of identifying innovative approaches—defined as a type of intervention—particular approaches were included if they met one or more of four established criteria. This ensured that a relatively broad set of approaches was included. Specifically, we included approaches that (1) address at least one (and preferably more than one) of the causes of low earnings among low-wage workers (discussed above); (2) provide an untested intervention, but one that is grounded in research to date; (3) address specific policy interests of federal or state policymakers and/or program operators; and (4) have some potential for being adapted in other states and localities (known as generalizability). A more detailed explanation of these criteria is provided in appendix C.
A more operational set of criteria were developed to identify innovative programs within each of the approaches. By programs, we mean specific interventions, initiatives, or even program components that operationalize a particular approach identified above. Again, because HHS is interested in being relatively inclusive when canvassing programs, the programs identified met more than one, but not necessarily all, of the established criteria. Specifically, we used the following criteria to identify innovative programs: (1) strong program design and services; (2) relatively mature programs that are operating at “steady state” implementation or for relatively long periods of time; (3) programs that operated on at least a moderate scale; and (4) evidence of positive results or outcomes, particularly economic outcomes. While programs included are meant to provide strong examples of a particular approach, this report does not provide a universal listing of all the innovative programs in a particular area.
To identify both the approaches and programs to be included in this project, the Urban Institute research team reviewed past and current research on employment programs and used a multipronged approach to identify new and untested models and programs. An extensive consultative process with a wide range of experts that included federal, state, and local public officials and program administrators, researchers, advocacy groups, and academics was conducted. The expertise of more than 35 individuals from 27 organizations was tapped through this consultative process. Appendix D provides a complete list of organizations contacted for this project. Through the reviews and consultations, a range of approaches and programs were identified, which we then explored further through additional phone interviews, Internet searches, and reviews of research reports and program documents.
Overall, we profile 12 innovative approaches and 51 programs in this study. For the vast majority of the programs identified, we also conducted phone interviews with a program manager to gain a more in-depth understanding of the program design and services, to determine the programs the criteria established to determine innovativeness. Appendix E details the study criteria met by each the programs included in this project.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |