Study Details | Pathways to Work

2970-Study of Job Corps

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: Job Corps

Population and employment barriers:

Young adults (aged 16-24)

Services provided:

Education, Health services (Physical health services, Substance use disorder treatment and mental health services), Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work readiness activities (Job search assistance)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

To be eligible for Job Corps, potential participants had to be legal U.S. residents ages 16 to 24 and had to be living in households receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children or households with income below the poverty level. In addition, potential participants had to demonstrate the capacity and aspirations necessary to benefit from Job Corps, be free of serious behavioral and medical problems, and have arranged for adequate child care (if applicable). 80,883 youth who applied to Job Corps for the first time from November 1994 to December 1995, and who were found eligible for Job Corps by February 1996, were randomly assigned to the intervention and comparison groups. Job Corps staff implemented the random assignment. About 7 percent of eligible applicants (5,977 youth) were assigned to the comparison group. All of these youth were included in the research sample. About 13 percent of the youth in the intervention group (9,409 youth) were randomly selected to participate in the study. The remaining 65,497 youth who applied and were eligible were randomly assigned to a nonresearch group, meaning they were neither in the comparison nor the intervention group but could still receive program services. The study authors used several data sources, including three surveys, Social Security data, administrative tax data, and unemployment insurance records for 22 randomly selected states.

Time period of study:

People enrolled in the study from November 1994 to February 1996. Follow-up occurred for up to 20 years.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase very long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment, Increase very long-term employment, Decrease short-term benefit receipt, Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Decrease very long-term benefit receipt, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Physical health, mental health, substance abuse, criminal justice, family formation, housing, nutrition, financial assets, parenting and co-parenting, couple relationships, and child well-being

Study funded by:

The U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, funded the study.

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	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	About one year (1996)	High	-178.00	1995 dollars	15,138
Increase short-term earnings	Quarterly earnings	Quarter 5	High	-116.00	1995 dollars	11,313
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings (from Social Security Earnings records)	About five years (2000)	High	-10.00	1995 dollars	15,138
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings (from Unemployment Insurance records)	About five years (2000)	High	-194.20	1995 dollars	7,468
Increase long-term earnings	Quarterly earnings	Quarter 16	High	236.00	1995 dollars	11,313
Increase very long-term earnings	Annual earnings	About seven years (2001)	High	-134.60	1995 dollars	7,468
Increase very long-term earnings	Annual earnings	About 20 years (2015)	High	284.00	2015 dollars	15,127
Increase very long-term earnings	Annual earnings	About 10 years (2004)	High	-17.00	1995 dollars	15,138
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual	About one year (1996)	High	10.40	Percentage points	15,138
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 5	High	-4.40	Percentage points	11,610
Increase short-term employment	Percentage of weeks employed, quarterly	Quarter 5	High	-4.50	Percentage points	11,383
Increase long-term employment	Employed at follow-up	48 months	High	3.00	Percentage points	11,313
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual (from Social Security Earnings records)	About five years (2000)	High	0.70	Percentage points	15,138
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual (from Unemployment Insurance records)	Quarter 20	High	-1.90	Percentage points	7,468
Increase long-term employment	Percentage of weeks employed, follow-up period	Years 1–4	High	-1.70	Percentage points	11,313
Increase very long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	About seven years (2001)	High	-2.70	Percentage points	7,468
Increase very long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	About 10 years (2004)	High	0.60	Percentage points	15,138
Increase very long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	About 20 years (2015)	High	-0.10	Percentage points	15,127
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 1	High	-28.30	1995 dollars	9,934
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 1	High	-23.80	1995 dollars	10,619
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Lived in public housing at time of survey	12 months	High	-0.90	Percentage points	11,165
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Year 1	High	-0.40	Percentage points	11,526
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 1	High	-2.70	Percentage points	11,640
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received General Assistance, annual	Year 1	High	-0.10	Percentage points	11,530
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Medicaid coverage at time of survey	12 months	High	-1.30	Percentage points	11,165
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received SSI/SSA, annual	Year 1	High	-1.60	Percentage points	11,641
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of SSI/SSA benefits received, follow-up period	Years 1-4	High	-226.40	1996 dollars	11,313
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of AFDC/TANF benefits, annual	Year 4	High	-16.60	1998 dollars	11,313
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of Food Stamps/SNAP benefits, annual	Year 4	High	-9.80	1998 dollars	11,313
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Amount of General Assistance received, follow-up period	Years 1-4	High	-26.00	1996 dollars	11,313
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Lived in public housing at time of survey	48 months	High	-0.50	Percentage points	11,313
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	Year 4	High	-0.40	Percentage points	11,313
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	Year 4	High	-0.50	Percentage points	11,313
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received General Assistance, annual	Year 4	High	-0.10	Percentage points	11,313
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received Medicaid coverage at time of survey	48 months	High	-1.10	Percentage points	11,313
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received other public health assistance program at time of survey	48 months	High	-0.10	Percentage points	11,313
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received SSI/SSA, annual	Year 4	High	-0.70	Percentage points	11,313
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Received SSDI benefits, annual	About 20 years (2015)	High	-0.50	Percentage points	15,127
Increase education and training	Received a college degree (two-year or four-year)	48 months	High	-0.20	Percentage points	11,313
Increase education and training	Received a GED certificate	48 months	High	15.00	Percentage points	11,313
Increase education and training	Received a high school diploma	48 months	High	-2.20	Percentage points	11,313
Increase education and training	Received a vocational, technical, or trade certificate	48 months	High	22.30	Percentage points	11,313

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 youth were legal U.S. residents ages 16 to 24 and were living in households that received Aid to Families with Dependent Children or had income below the poverty level. Slightly more than half of sample members (59 percent) were male. On average, sample members were 19 years old. Slightly more than three-quarters (77 percent) lacked a high school diploma or equivalent certificate. About half (47 percent) were Black, not Hispanic; 27 percent were White, not Hispanic; and 18 percent were Hispanic.

Age

Mean age	19 years
Young adults	100%

Sex

Female	41%
Male	59%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	47%
White, not Hispanic	27%
Asian	2%
American Indian or Alaska Native	4%
Unknown, not reported, or other	2%
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

Had low incomes

100%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	23%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	77%

Specific employment barriers

Were involved with the justice system

27%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Job Corps Centers were operated by various organizations under contract with the U.S. Department of Labor.

Program history:

The Job Corps program has been serving eligible youth since 1964.

Intervention services:

Job Corps offered intensive academic and nonacademic classroom instruction (including soft skills training) and vocational training. The program also offered health care, education, counseling, job placement services (including job search assistance and job development), and services to support the transition to work. Most participants resided at Job Corps Centers while participating in training and education, although some students continued to live at home. On average, study participants stayed in the program for eight months.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

People in the comparison group were not allowed to enroll in Job Corps for three years, but they could enroll in other programs available in their communities. (A small fraction of comparison group members, 1.4 percent, did enroll in Job Corps before the three years had passed.)

Service receipt duration:

The average period of participation per enrollee was eight months. About 28 percent of all enrollees participated for fewer than three months, and nearly one-quarter participated for more than a year.

Intervention funding:

U.S. Department of Labor

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $24,364 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $0 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $24,364 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

McConnell, Sheena, and Steven Glazerman (2001). National Job Corps study: The benefits and costs of Job Corps, Washington, DC: Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/opr/fulltext/01-jcbenefit.pdf.

Schochet, Peter (2018). National Job Corps study: 20-year follow-up study using tax data, Washington, DC: Chief Evaluation Office, U.S. Department of Labor. Available at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/legacy/files/Job-Corps-IRS-Report.pdf.

Schochet, Peter (2021). Long‐run labor market effects of the Job Corps program: Evidence from a nationally representative experiment, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 40(1): 128-157.

Schochet, Peter Z., John Burghardt, and Steven Glazerman (2001). National Job Corps study: The impacts of Job Corps on participants’ employment and related outcomes, Washington, DC: Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. Available at https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/-/media/publications/pdfs/01-jcimpacts.pdf.

Schochet, Peter, John Burghardt, and Sheena McConnell (2006). National Job Corps study and longer-term follow-up study: Impact and benefit-cost findings using survey and summary earnings records data, Washington, DC: Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/National%20Job%20Corps%20Study%20and%20Longer%20Term%20Follow-Up%20Study%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf.

Schochet, Peter, John Burghardt, and Sheena McConnell (2008). Does Job Corps work? Impact findings from the National Job Corps study, American Economic Review 98(5): 1864-86. Available at https://web.archive.org/web/20170809233710id_/http://www1.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/dbjerk/teaching/undergrad_poverty/Econ%20197%20-%20Readings/Schochet%20Burghardt%20McConnel%20-%20Does%20Job%20Corp%20Work.pdf

Schochet, Peter, John Burghardt, and Steven Glazerman (2000). National Job Corps study: The short-term impacts of Job Corps on participants' employment and related outcomes, Washington, DC: Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. Available at https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/-/media/publications/pdfs/01-jcimpacts.pdf.

Schochet, Peter, Sheena McConnell, and John Burghardt (2003). National Job Corps study: Findings using administrative earnings records data, Washington, DC: Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498081.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.