This study was conducted by staff from Abt Associates, which co-administers CLEAR. The review of this study was conducted by ICF, which co-administers CLEAR and is trained in applying the CLEAR causal evidence guidelines.
Citation
Highlights
- The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Year Up program on employment, earnings, education, and public benefits receipt outcomes.
- The study used a randomized controlled trial to assign participants to the Year Up program or the control group. The primary data sources were an 18-month follow-up survey, the National Directory of New Hires, and the National Student Clearinghouse. The authors used statistical models to compare the outcomes between treatment and control group members.
- The study found that treatment group participants were significantly more likely to attain a certificate, have higher earnings, and were less likely to receive public benefits compared to control group participants.
- This study receives a high evidence rating for employment and earnings outcomes. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the Year Up program, and not to other factors. This study receives a moderate evidence rating for education and public benefits receipt outcomes. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the Year Up program, but other factors might also have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Year Up
Features of the Intervention
Year Up is a youth training and education program. It is a component of the Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education (PACE) project that was launched in 2007 as part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services efforts to support young people with academic and economic challenges. The program is intended to provide young, motivated individuals with an opportunity to develop job skills and experience as they enter adulthood. Year Up’s core aspects include social services, stipends, and placement in an internship. Year Up was implemented in nine urban areas across the United States with limited variation. The first half of the yearlong program was primarily classroom learning focused on technical skills and soft skills for the workplace. The second half of the year was a full-time internship in the financial service or information technology (IT) field with a weekly check-in at the local Year Up site. Implementation was guided and assisted by a national office located in Boston. The program served individuals aged 18–24 with a high school credential. Selection for the program was competitive and participants had to meet ongoing expectations to maintain benefits and enrollment. In return, they received a stipend of up to $8,870 during the 12-month program period, social services, and mentorship/guidance opportunities. Additionally, alumni could receive services for four months after completion.
Features of the Study
The study used a randomized controlled trial to examine the impact of the Year Up program on employment, earnings, education, and public benefits receipt outcomes. After eligibility screening and baseline assessments, participants were randomly assigned to the treatment or control group. The sample was comprised of 2,544 individuals, with 1,669 in the treatment group (received Year Up services) and 875 in the control group. Control group members were prohibited from entering Year Up for three years, but they could receive similar services in the community from a list of service providers. Over half of the study participants were between the ages of 21 and 24 (57%), male (59%), Black, non-Hispanic (54%), and the highest degree earned was a high school degree or GED (52%).
Data were obtained from the National Directly of New Hires (NDNH), the National Student Clearinghouse, and a survey conducted 18 months after program exit. NDNH data, accessed in April 2018, were used for employment and earnings outcomes. The NDNH data spanned two quarters before random assignment to three years (12 quarters) after assignment. Education and public benefits receipt outcomes were obtained from the survey. The authors used statistical models to compare the outcomes of treatment and control group members.
Study Sites
- Atlanta, GA
- Boston, MA
- Chicago, IL
- New York, NY
- Providence, RI
- San Francisco-San Jose Bay area in CA
- Seattle, WA
- Washington, DC
Findings
Employment
- The study did not find significant differences in employment rates between the groups at 18 months, but treatment group participants had small but significantly higher employment rates 5-10 quarters after random assignment.
Earnings and wages
- The study found that average earnings in quarters 6 and 7 after random assignment were significantly higher for treatment group members ($5,454) than control group members ($3,559). Earnings in quarters 8 through 11 were also significantly higher for treatment ($24,422) than control ($17,400) group members.
Education and skill gains
- The study found that significantly more treatment participants (37%), compared to control participants (16%), received an industry certification or license 18 months after random assignment.
Public benefits receipt
- The study found that receipt of cash or in-kind supports 18 months after random assignment was significantly lower for treatment group members (50%) compared to control group members (55%).
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
Although the study was a randomized controlled trial, the study had high attrition for the 18-month survey that provided the data for the education and public benefits receipt outcomes. However, the authors accounted for baseline differences between the treatment and control groups, so the study is eligible for a moderate evidence rating for these outcomes.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is high for the employment and earnings outcomes because it was based on a well-implemented randomized controlled trial. This means we are confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the Year Up program, and not to other factors. For the education and public benefits receipt outcomes, the quality of causal evidence presented in this report is moderate because the study had high attrition, but the authors ensured that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the Year Up program, but other factors might also have contributed.