Print

The LARCA program provided case management, training, employment services, and supportive services to youth with low income who were at risk of dropping out or who had already dropped out of high school to facilitate their educational advancement and employment.

Skip to:  Effectiveness Ratings   |  Studies of this Intervention

The LARCA program provided case management, training, employment services, and supportive services to youth with low income who were at risk of dropping out or who had already dropped out of high school to facilitate their educational advancement and employment.

LARCA provided participating youth with case managers who developed and monitored individualized plans identifying services that could improve youth’s life skills and work-readiness. These plans included educational services that helped individuals achieve secondary diplomas or equivalents, financial literacy training, supportive services, vocational training (specifically, construction, green technology, and health care training), and employment services (including work-readiness training, paid work experiences, and employment search and placement services). The LARCA program provided all of these services to participants directly, or in-house. Providers also connected youth to local postsecondary institutions and private vocational programs in various sectors. LARCA participants could receive program services for 12 to 34 months, depending on the date of program enrollment. Follow-up services were available for at least 6 additional months. Program participants were youth with low income between the ages of 16 and 24 who had dropped out of high school or were assessed to be at a high risk of dropping out because of chronic absenteeism and below-grade-level performance. LARCA also required participants to be eligible to work in the United States and to be living in Los Angeles County, the location in which the program was administered.

Year evaluation began: 2013
Implementing organization(s): The EWDD oversaw the LARCA program. Services were provided by the Coalition for Responsible Community Development, Los Angeles Conservation Corps, Youth Opportunity Movement-Boyle Heights, Youth Opportunity Movement-Watts, Youth Policy Institute-San Fernando Valley, and Youth Policy Institute-Pico Union.
Populations and employment barriers: Less than high school diploma or GED, Young adults (aged 16-24)
Intervention services: Case management, Education, Supportive services, Training, Financial education, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Work experience, Work readiness activities, Job search assistance, Job development/job placement
Setting(s): Urban only

Effectiveness Rating and Effect By Outcome Domain

Back to top
View Table Help Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below? View the "Table Help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $-1,067 per year -0.05 1992
Long-term Not supported unfavorable $-2,740 per year -0.13 1247
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term Supported This intervention was assessed as supported for this domain, meaning it achieved one or more statistically significant, favorable effects. However, the intervention has an average effect size that is unfavorable because the average includes all effects in this domain - both statistically significant and favorable effects and statistically insignificant but unfavorable effects. * -1% (in percentage points) -0.02 1992
Long-term Not supported unfavorable -4% (in percentage points) -0.10 1247
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Not supported unfavorable $272 per year 0.10 1992
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $-28 per year -0.01 1247
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods Supported favorable 3% (in percentage points) 0.05 2078
* This intervention was assessed as supported for this domain, meaning it achieved one or more statistically significant, favorable effects. However, the intervention has an average effect size that is unfavorable because the average includes all effects in this domain - both statistically significant and favorable effects and statistically insignificant but unfavorable effects.

Effectiveness rating key:

  • Well-supported Well-supported   
  • Supported  Supported   
  • Not supported  Not supported   
  • Mixed support  Mixed support   
  • Insufficient evidence  Insufficient evidence   
  • No evidence  No evidence
Effectiveness rating terms?

Studies of this Intervention

Back to top
Study Quality Rating Study Counts per Rating
High High 1