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 implementation study guidelines.
Citation
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the implementation of the Year Up program which provided technical and professional skills to unemployed low-income young adults who graduated from high school or have a GED. The study was conducted at eight Year Up offices in the United States.
- The study authors conducted an implementation evaluation using site visit observations, interviews, surveys, and administrative data.
- The study found that the eight Year Up sites fully implemented the Year Up intervention components and improved the training, support, and job services available to young adults.
- The study does not provide details of the analytic, fidelity, and quality assurance methods used.
- The embedded impact study was reviewed by CLEAR in April 2024 and can be found here: Still bridging the opportunity divide for low-income youth: Year Up’s longer-term impacts (Fein, Dastrup, & Burnett, 2021).
Intervention Examined
Year Up
Features of the Intervention
- Type of organization: Community Training Program
- Location/setting: Multi-site
- Population served and scale: Youth; Disconnected Youth; Low Income; 1,669 young adults were served by the program
- Industry Focus: Information Technology
- Intervention Activities: Internships; Training; Social Services; Stipends
- Organizational Partnerships: Employers and Colleges
- Cost: Year Up average cost per student: $28,290; Year Up average revenue per student: $28,487
- Fidelity: Not included
Year Up was created in 2000 to help disconnected urban youth develop technical and professional skills to meet employer needs for entry-level workers. Year Up targeted young adults (aged 18–24) from low-income backgrounds who had either graduated from high school or earned a GED but were not working or in school full-time and were interested in entering the information technology field. Year Up was implemented in eight offices across nine urban areas in the United States. Each Year Up office partnered with a college in its respective city and partnered with employers in the city to provide work experience to Year Up students.
Year Up operated in two six-month phases that included a learning and development phase where students attended classes to learn occupation specific and general skills. During the learning and development phase, students could earn college credits. The internship was the second phase and allowed students to work in entry-level roles for local employers. Participants 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
Study authors conducted two rounds of site visits. The first round included all sites, while the second round was conducted in four Year Up offices (Bay Area, Boston, Chicago, and Washington, DC) to get a representation of different geographic areas and different labor markets across the United States. Study authors collected implementation data through interviews with national and local staff, the program’s partners (college and employer), and program participants; observations of program activities during site visits; and online surveys with Year Up staff and program participants. Additionally, the study used administrative data from the Year Up management information system and program documents.
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
Intervention Activities/Services
- The study found that all eight Year Up offices implemented the Year Up intervention components as designed.
- All eight of the Year Up offices met their student recruitment targets and during a stepped-up initiative to increase Year Up enrollment, offices increased participant recruitment by 50%.
- The study found that 96% of students enrolled in Year Up started the learning and development phase activities, of which 85% completed this phase. Of the students that completed the learning and development phase, 84.1% of the students started the internship phase of the program.
- The study also found that employers preferred to teach Year Up students’ strong basic skills rather than teaching skills to obtain a certificate. By focusing on basic skills development, employers expressed comfort hiring Year Up students because they knew their work from their internship and trusted the Year Up program. Sometimes, employers created new entry-level positions for Year Up students.
Implementation Challenges and Solutions
- The study found that the national Year Up office often intervened in local operations, believing that local offices were not implementing the Year Up program as designed. The local offices prioritized the specific needs of their students and communities. To bridge this gap, the national office required its staff to spend six months working at a local office during their first two years of employment to enhance understanding of local needs and improve collaboration. Additionally, a performance measure called FM-RADIO was introduced to evaluate the effectiveness of local implementation plans, helping to identify whether deviations from the original program design were beneficial or problematic.
- Year Up often had trouble retaining staff members due to burnout. The national Year Up office launched an improved the Year Up benefits package for staff, created a wellness initiative, strengthened career paths through the organization for career growth, and reduced the expected case workload for staff.
Cost/ROI
- The average cost of Year Up was $28,290 per student, of which 56% were for personnel costs, 24% for student stipends, 20% were for program fundraising and administration costs, and 11% were for national office costs.
- The average revenue that Year Up received per student was $28,487, of which 60% was from employer payments to students during internships, 22% from grants given by foundations, 17% from donations by private companies and individuals, and 2% from public funds.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
Study authors assessed fidelity and found that the study achieved high implementation fidelity; however, study authors did not provide a detailed description of how fidelity was assessed. While the assessment of the implementation of Year Up primarily relied upon site visits and interviews with Year Up staff, study authors did not provide a detailed description of the analysis and quality assurance methods of the site visits and interviews.