Share this program

Summary

JOBSTART aimed to improve employment and educational outcomes for youth who had not finished high school by offering training, supportive services, and job search assistance.

Thirteen JOBSTART sites provided youth with instruction in basic academic skills, occupational skills training, supportive services, and job search assistance. Basic academic skills instruction was individualized and commonly focused on developing skills needed to pass a GED examination. Occupational skills training was classroom based. Youth could choose from various occupational skills courses that generally prepared participants for jobs requiring moderate or higher skills. All sites offered child care and transportation assistance, and many offered additional services such as life skills training and small, regular cash payments to offset the costs of participating. Job search assistance was also available at all sites. Some sites offered paid or unpaid work experience, job development and placement services, and financial incentives for meeting program milestones. On average, youth spent 415 hours participating in program activities over 6.8 months, with most of this time in education and occupational training.

Eligible participants were youth ages 17 to 21 who had dropped out of high school and did not have a GED or high school diploma, read below the eighth-grade level on a standardized test, were classified as economically disadvantaged, and were eligible for public workforce services.

JOBSTART operated in 13 cities: Buffalo, NY; Atlanta, GA; New York, NY; Hartford, CT; San Jose, CA; Chicago, IL; Pittsburgh, PA; Monterey Park, CA; Dallas, TX; Denver, CO; Los Angeles, CA; Phoenix, AZ; and Corpus Christi, TX. A local organization in each city operated the program. These organizations included adult vocational schools, community-based organizations, Job Corps centers, and a community college.

JOBSTART was modeled after Job Corps but without residential support or financial compensation, and with less extensive supportive services.

Populations and employment barriers: At least a high school diploma or equivalent, Young adults (age 16-24)

Implementation at a glance

Primary service
Program services
Basic skills/bridge programs, Integrated education and training, Job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, Paid work experience/internships, Performance- or behavior-based financial incentives, Stipends, Transportation assistance, Unpaid work experience/internships
Setting(s)
Urban only
Year evaluation began
1985
Implementing organization(s)Allentown Youth Services Consortium, Atlanta Job Corps, Basic Skills Academy, Capitol Region Education Council, Center for Employment Training, Chicago Commons Association’s Industrial and Business Training Programs, Connelley Skill Learning Center, East Los Angeles Skills Center, El Centro Community College Job Training Center, Emily Griffith Opportunity School, Los Angeles Job Corps, Phoenix Job Corps, and SER/Jobs for Progress

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

View table definitions

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

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2024 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Little evidence to assess support $0 per year 0.000 0
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $2,114 per year 0.058 1941
Very long-term Cannot assess support
Increase employment Short-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable -1% (in percentage points) -0.022 1941
Long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable -1% (in percentage points) -0.016 1941
Very long-term Cannot assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $62 per year 0.018 1878
Long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $24 per year 0.007 1878
Very long-term Cannot assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods Supported favorable 6% (in percentage points) 0.121 1941

Effectiveness ratings

  • Well- supported
  • Supported
  • Mixed support
  • Not supported
  • Insufficient evidence
  • Cannot assess support

Studies of this program

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1

Program cost

No cost information available.

Cost results

Estimate (in 2024 dollars) Quality of cost analysis that produced the estimate
Total program cost, per participant $11,043
Good quality
Net benefit to participants, per participant $617
Good quality

Cost information

How much did the program cost per participant?

The average total program cost per participant was $11,403 in 2024 dollars. This figure is based on cost information for this program reported in one cost study reviewed by Pathways to Work (for details, see the FAQ). This study received a rating of Good quality for the cost analysis.

How much did the program cost relative to the benefits it generated?

A cost-benefit analysis was conducted in the cost study reviewed, receiving a rating of Good quality. The net benefit to participants was $617 per participant in 2024 dollars. This means that the net program benefit to participants (difference in benefits between the program and comparison group) was $617 more than the net cost of the program to participants. The estimate is expressed as the net present value, which accounts for differences in the timing of when benefits and costs occurred. In addition, the net benefit to society was -$10,407 per participant in 2024 dollars. The net benefit to taxpayers was -$11,208 per participant in 2024 dollars.

Cost information is not directly comparable across programs due to differences in the categories of costs reported and program length. Cost information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Implementation details

Local context

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
44%
White, not Hispanic
9%
Unknown, not reported, or other
3%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
44%

Pathways to Work refers to programs by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some program names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.