Study Details | Pathways to Work

24989.07-Pathways for Advanci

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Year Up

Population and employment barriers: Young adults (aged 16-24)

Services provided: Education, Sanctions, Supportive services, Training, Financial education, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Work experience, Job search assistance, Job development/job placement

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study Design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Youth who attended an information session and completed an application, drug screening, and a series of interviews were randomly assigned to the intervention or comparison conditions. Applicants were eligible for the study if they were between ages 18 to 24, had a high school credential, and were not employed or in school full time. Each of eight Year Up sites enrolled two cohorts of participants from January 2013 through August 2014. For every two applicants assigned to Year Up at each site, one was assigned to the comparison group; a total of 2,544 people were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (1,669) or the comparison group (875).

Time period of study:

Evaluators randomly assigned people into groups for the study between January 2013 and August 2014. The study reports impacts up to three years after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase long-term employment, Increase short-term employment

Other outcome domains examined:

Psycho-social skills, Family formation, Health insurance, Life challenges, Stress, Career progress

Study funded by:

The Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education evaluation was funded by the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation within ACF, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Results

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	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Quarterly earnings	Quarter 6	High	3,172.00	4,966.00	1794.00	2015 dollars	2,496
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 3	High	17,400.00	24,422.00	7022.00	2016 dollars	2,496
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	75.30	79.30	4.00	percentage points	2,496
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 12	High	81.80	81.30	-0.50	percentage points	2,496

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample Characteristics

The study included youth with low income who lived in metropolitan areas. The majority were male (59 percent), Black (54 percent), and ages 20 to 24 (56 percent). About half only had a high school diploma or equivalent (52 percent), and the other half had some college experience (48 percent), though only 3 percent had an associate’s or more advanced degree. The mean family income was $27,021. In the 12 months leading up to the study, one-third received the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. About half (48 percent) were not working at baseline, and most of the remainder (37 percent) worked fewer than 35 hours per week. Sixteen percent had experienced an arrest.

Age

Young adults

100%

Sex

Female	41%
Male	59%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	54%
White, not Hispanic	9%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	31%
Another race	11%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed

52%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	48%
Had a high school diploma or GED	99%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	1%

Specific employment barriers

Were involved with the justice system

16%

Intervention Implementation

Implementing organization:

Year Up and local colleges

Program history:

Year Up was founded in 2000, and the eight offices began implementing Year Up in 2001 through 2012.

Intervention services:

The Year Up program includes two phases: a 21-week learning and development phase and a 6-month internship phase. During the first phase, participants receive occupational training in information technology, quality assurance, financial operations, project management, or customer service, as well as courses in professional and business communications. Classes are six hours per day, four days per week and three hours per day, one day per week. During the second phase, participants work in internships for four and a half days per week and receive training for a half day each week. During both phases, participants receive weekly stipends. They can also receive employment assistance for four months after their internship, such as career counseling, job search assistance, and assistance developing a resume. The program uses a "high support, high expectations" philosophy, with frequent feedback during both phases, connections to other community supports, advising, and mentoring. Poor behavior can also result in reductions in stipends.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

Those in the comparison group could not participate in Year Up for three years after random assignment, but they were given a list of other available services in the community.

Service receipt duration:

Participants enrolled in 21 weeks of training and were placed in a six-month, full-time internship. Participants continued to receive employment assistance for up to four months after graduating.

Intervention funding:

Foundation grants, donations, government agencies, and employer payments for interns.

Study Publications

Fein, David, and Jill Hamadyk (2018). Bridging the opportunity divide for low-income youth: Implementation and early impacts of the Year Up program, OPRE Report ##2018-65, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.yearup.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Year-Up-PACE-Full-Report-2018.pdf.

Gardiner, Karen, and Randall Juras (2019). Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education (PACE): Cross-program implementation and impact study findings, OPRE Report #2019-32, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/pace_cross_program_implementation_and_impact_study_findings_final.pdf.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

Study of Year Up