Study Details | Pathways to Work

90001-Year Up Professional

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 Professional Training Corps (PTC)

Population and employment barriers:

Educational attainment (High school diploma or GED), Young adults (aged 16-24)

Services provided:

Education, Soft skills training, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work and work-based learning (Work experience), Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement, Job search assistance)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The study team recruited three existing PTC sites with a history of strong program implementation and high enrollment. The three PTC sites recruited and enrolled eligible participants from mid-2017 to mid-2019 across four cohorts. At the time of application to the program, the study team explained that receipt of PTC program services would be determined by a random lottery before obtaining informed consent from study participants. Random assignment was conducted within each PTC program site and cohort via web-based lottery. Probabilities of assignment to the intervention group varied across cohorts, sites, and random assignment blocks as a result of recruitment challenges; ultimately, probabilities ranged from 50 to 83 percent. Of the 552 young adults who consented to participate in the lottery, 389 were randomly assigned to the intervention group, and 163 were randomly assigned to the comparison group. The authors reported outcomes for three quarters after random assignment for the first three study cohorts, and they reported outcomes for an additional two quarters after random assignment (for a total of five quarters) for the first two study cohorts.

Time period of study:

For the three cohorts included in this study review, enrollment occurred from August 2017 to September 2018. The study authors reported on outcomes for three quarters following random assignment for all three cohorts. The authors also reported outcomes for Quarters 4 and 5 following random assignment for the first two cohorts.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase short-term employment

Study funded by:

The study is funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Results

View table help Need more context or definitions for the table below? View the table help to get 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	Findings	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Quarterly earnings	Quarter 3	High	3,571.00	1,766.00	-1,805.00	2018 dollars		411
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 3	High	74.20	54.20	-20.00	Percentage points		411

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

All study participants were young adults ages 18 to 24 with low incomes and at least a high school diploma or GED at study entry. Across all four cohorts included in the study, about 54 percent of the sample was male. In addition, 64 percent of the sample identified as Black or African American, 18 percent as Hispanic or Latino, and 18 percent as another race or ethnicity. Most participants (82 percent) displayed multiple risk factors (such as financial issues, housing issues, or a history of substance abuse). In the third quarter before random assignment, the average participant earned $2,635, and 63 percent were employed.

Age

Young adults

100%

Sex

Male

54%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	64%
Another race	18%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	18%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed

63%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	71%
Had a high school diploma or GED	100%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Year Up, in partnership with community college sites and local employers

Program history:

The PTC program adapted its well-established and longstanding core program Year Up to a community college setting. Year Up has provided skills training and internship placement services to young adults with low incomes since 2000. The PTC program originated in 2010, and by mid-2018, served about 2,000 participants across 15 community college sites.

Intervention services:

Year Up's PTC program provided skills training, internships, and other supports to young adults ages 18 to 24 who had low incomes and a high school diploma or equivalent certificate. Services were provided in partnership with community college campuses over one full year and were delivered in two phases. The first phase—the learning and development (L&D) phase—provided program participants with six months of full-time basic skills and technical training and coaching from instructors at partner colleges and local Year Up staff. L&D services included training in basic English language skills, soft skills, and technical skills; intensive coaching; monitoring; and group feedback from learning communities encompassing PTC staff and program peers. Program participants were required to be enrolled full time in courses at partner colleges during the L&D phase. The second phase paired participants with six-month, full-time internships in a high-demand job sector. PTC participants worked in internships 4.5 days per week and returned to program sites for a weekly half-day seminar to discuss their internship experiences. PTC participants received weekly stipends—about $50 during the L&D phase and $150 during the internship phase—conditional on meeting performance standards articulated in a contract signed at program entry. After the program, participants could receive ongoing job search and placement assistance.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Young adults assigned to the comparison condition were not allowed to receive PTC program services but could receive comparable skills training services and work experience elsewhere in the community, including at the community colleges where the Year Up PTC program was provided.

Service receipt duration:

PTC participants received most program services for 12 months. Follow-up services were available for an additional 12 months.

Intervention funding:

About 60 percent of Year Up's costs were covered by employers who paid the program in return for hosting program participants as interns. Thirty-eight percent of program costs were supported by private philanthropy, whereas 2 percent were funded through government agencies and grants.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $21,599 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $0 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $21,599 per person. This represents how much more it cost to provide intervention services compared to comparison services.

These figures are based on cost information reported by study authors. The Pathways Clearinghouse converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2018 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. This information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Study publications

Fein, David, Rebecca Maynard, Rebecca Baelen, Azim Shivji, and Phomdaen Souvanna (2020). To improve and to prove: A development and innovation study of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps, Rockville, MD: Abt Associates Inc. Available at https://www.abtassociates.com/files/insights/reports/2021/tip-report-1-21-21.pdf

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

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

Study of Year Up Professional Training Corps (PTC)