Study Details | Pathways to Work

7730-Study of Youth Villa

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: YVLifeSet

Population and employment barriers:

Young adults (aged 16-24)

Services provided:

Case management, Soft skills training, Supportive services

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

From October 2010 to October 2012, youth in state custody (through the child protection system or the juvenile justice system) who were near their 18th birthday and interested in the program met with program staff, completed a consent form, and were randomly assigned to the YVLifeSet condition or a comparison condition. Applicants were eligible for the study if they had been in state custody for at least one year after age 14, or had been in state custody while age 17; did not have histories of severe violence, mental health problems, drug use, or developmental delays; and were deemed capable of living independently with support. A total of 1,322 people were randomly assigned to the intervention group (788) or the comparison group (534).

Time period of study:

The program was studied over two years.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

Housing, economic hardship, social support, health, safety, and recidivism

Study funded by:

The YVLifeSet evaluation was funded by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings (from 12-month survey)	One year	High	3,488.00	4,099.00	611.00	2012 dollars	1,114
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings (from Unemployment Insurance records)	One year	High	2,130.00	2,233.00	103.00	2012 dollars	1,322
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Two years	High	2,885.00	3,006.00	121.00	2013 dollars	1,322
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual (from 12-month survey)	One year	High	65.30	70.10	4.80	Percentage points	1,114
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, annual (from Unemployment Insurance records)	One year	High	59.30	64.10	4.80	Percentage points	1,322
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, annual	Two years	High	60.00	63.60	3.60	Percentage points	1,322
Increase long-term employment	Number of quarters employed	Two years	High	3.00	3.20	0.20	Quarters	1,322
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received AFDC/TANF, annual	One year	High	8.60	7.80	-0.80	Percentage points	1,114
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received Food Stamps/SNAP, annual	One year	High	51.40	57.40	6.00	Percentage points	1,114
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received public housing/rental assistance, annual	One year	High	7.10	8.80	1.70	Percentage points	1,114
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received SSI, annual	One year	High	6.90	8.90	2.00	Percentage points	1,114
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received WIC, annual	One year	High	16.20	17.00	0.80	Percentage points	1,114
Increase education and training	Received a high school diploma	One year	High	52.50	55.70	3.20	Percentage points	1,114

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

People involved in the study were ages 18 to 24, with most (71 percent) age 18 at the start of the study. About half (51 percent) were White, not Hispanic; 40 percent were still enrolled in high school; and 17 percent did not have a high school diploma or GED and were not enrolled in school.

Age

Young adults

100%

Sex

Female	48%
Male	52%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	37%
White, not Hispanic	51%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	6%

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.

Family status

Married

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	43%
Were unemployed	19%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	57%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	17%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Youth Villages

Program history:

YVLifeSet (originally called Youth Villages Transitional Living Program) was developed in 1999 by Youth Villages in Memphis, TN.

Intervention services:

Youth in state custody (through the child protection system or the juvenile justice system) received individualized case management, including weekly meetings with a transitional living specialist. Transitional living specialists used practices such as motivational interviewing and trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. Participants also received soft skills training, supportive services, and other services to encourage independent living, education, and work.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Participants randomly assigned to the comparison group could not receive YVLifeSet services but received a list of other resources in the community.

Service receipt duration:

Participants typically received services for 9 to 12 months.

Intervention funding:

Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, Day Foundation

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $11,825 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $0 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $11,825 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

Courtney, Mark, Erin Valentine, and Melanie Skemer (2019). Experimental evaluation of transitional living services for system-involved youth: Implications for policy and practice, Children & Youth Services Review 96: 396-408. Available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740918304663.

Skemer, Melanie, and Erin Valentine (2016). Striving for independence: Two-year impact findings from the Youth Villages Transitional Living Evaluation, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Youth%20Villages_2016_FR.pdf.

Valentine, Erin, Melanie Skemer, and Mark Courtney (2015). Becoming adults: One-year impact findings from the Youth Villages Transitional Living Evaluation, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Becoming_Adults_FR.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 Youth Villages LifeSet (YVLifeSet)