Study Details | Pathways to Work

6796-YouthBuild

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: YouthBuild

Population and employment barriers:

Young adults (aged 16-24)

Services provided:

Case management, Education, Employment retention services, Financial incentives, Health services, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work and work-based learning (On-the-job training, Work experience), Work readiness activities (Job search assistance)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The study focused on evaluating YouthBuild as implemented at 75 local programs. Programs were selected from those receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Labor or Corporation for National and Community Service. Random assignment and enrollment procedures differed across locations. Each program followed its standard selection processes to determine the eligible pool of applicants, such as administering basic skills tests and conducting interviews with applicants to assess their suitability for the program. Selected applicants were then invited to attend a Mental Toughness Orientation designed to further assess applicants’ motivation and willingness to change. The orientation’s length averaged 10 days, but its scope and intensity varied by program. Study participants were randomly assigned from August 2011 to January 2013. Though most programs randomly assigned 60 percent of eligible youth to the intervention and 40 percent to the comparison condition, some programs deviated from this ratio. Across programs, 69 percent of eligible youth were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 31 percent to the comparison group. The evaluation included three surveys administered 12, 30, and 48 months after random assignment. The study team attempted to survey all individuals in the intervention group, all individuals in the comparison group randomly assigned before March 2012, and a random subsample of individuals randomly assigned to the intervention group during or after March 2012.

Time period of study:

Study enrollment took place from August 2011 through January 2013, and individuals were followed for four years afterwards.

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, Decrease long-term benefit receipt, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Youth development, Health, Substance use, Criminal justice, Job characteristics, Housing, Family formation

Study funded by:

The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, with initial support provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service.

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	Year 1	High	2,408.00	2,093.00	-315.00	2012 dollars	3,878
Increase short-term earnings	Weekly earnings	12 months	High	90.20	92.30	2.10	2013 dollars	2,845
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 4	High	6,729.00	6,980.00	251.00	2015 dollars	3,878
Increase long-term earnings	Weekly earnings	48 months	High	174.10	206.70	32.60	2016 dollars	2,721
Increase short-term employment	Currently employed	12 months	High	31.70	33.20	1.50	percentage points	2,845
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High				percentage points	3,878
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	48 months	High	46.40	50.90	4.50	percentage points	2,721
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 16	High				percentage points	3,878
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Currently receives government benefits	12 months	High	70.30	72.00	1.70	percentage points	2,845
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Currently receives government benefits	48 months	High	56.20	56.80	0.60	percentage points	2,721
Increase education and training	Received a certificate	48 months	High	0.60	1.20	0.60	percentage points	3,929
Increase education and training	Received associate's degree	48 months	High	0.90	1.90	1.00	percentage points	2,721
Increase education and training	Received associate's degree	48 months	High	0.00	0.20	0.20	percentage points	3,929
Increase education and training	Received bachelor's degree	48 months	High	0.10	0.20	0.10	percentage points	2,721
Increase education and training	Received bachelor's degree	48 months	High	0.20	0.10	-0.10	percentage points	3,929
Increase education and training	Received high school diploma	48 months	High	22.10	20.10	-2.00	percentage points	2,721
Increase education and training	Received high school equivalency credential	48 months	High	23.50	34.50	11.00	percentage points	2,721
Increase education and training	Received master's degree	48 months	High	0.00	0.10	0.10	percentage points	3,929
Increase education and training	Received other degree	48 months	High	0.80	0.50	-0.30	percentage points	2,721
Increase education and training	Received school-based trade license or training certificate	48 months	High	3.40	5.30	1.90	percentage points	2,721

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 focused on examining program impacts on youth who were low income and considered disconnected. All individuals were between the ages of 16 to 24, and eligibility to participate, in most cases, was limited to those who had dropped out of high school; they were also required to meet at least one of the following criteria: be from a low-income or migrant family, be currently in or aging out of foster care, be an ex-offender, have a disability, or have an incarcerated parent. The majority of participants were male (64 percent) and African American (63 percent). Fifteen percent were Hispanic, and 15 percent were White. The average age was 20, and 30 percent were parents. The majority of participants had dropped out of high school after completing the 10th (26 percent) or 11th (35 percent) grade.

Age

Mean age	20 years
Young adults	100%

Sex

Female	36%
Male	64%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	63%
White	15%
Another race	6%
Unknown or not reported	1%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	15%

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

Parents

30%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Had low incomes

100%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	9%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	91%

Specific employment barriers

Had a disability	11%
Were experiencing homelessness	3%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

YouthBuild programs are locally operated by community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, educational institutions, or government agencies.

Program history:

The initial YouthBuild program began in the late 1970s as the East Harlem Youth Action Program. Organizations that participated in the evaluation varied based on their tenures in their communities and their tenures administering YouthBuild programs. Organizations had implemented YouthBuild programs for an average of 10 years.

Intervention services:

To reengage disconnected youth in employment and education, YouthBuild provides a combination of educational services designed to lead to a high school diploma or equivalent credential; vocational training in construction or another in-demand industry; youth development services focused on leadership training and community service; supportive services to help individuals participate in training and employment; case management; workforce preparation; life skills training; and counseling. The program offers youth a stipend or living allowance while participating in the program. YouthBuild programs are locally operated by community-based organizations, educational institutions, and government agencies. The YouthBuild program model provides local flexibility to adapt program components in response to community contexts.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

Youth assigned to the comparison group were given information on services available in the community. Youth in the comparison group were prohibited from enrolling in the YouthBuild program for two years after random assignment but were able to access similar services in their communities.

Service receipt duration:

Most programs were six to 12 months long, with an initial Mental Toughness Orientation lasting an average of 10 days.

Intervention funding:

U.S. Department of Labor; Corporation for National and Community Service.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $15,441 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $3,773 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $11,668 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

Miller, Cynthia, Danielle Cummings, Megan Millenky, Andrew Wiegand,and David Long (2018). Laying a foundation: Four-year results from the national YouthBuild evaluation, New York City, NY: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/YouthBuild_Final_508%20compliant.pdf.

Miller, Cynthia, Megan Millenky, Lisa Schwartz, Lisbeth Goble, and Jillian Stein (2016). Building a future: Interim impact findings from the YouthBuild evaluation, New York City, NY: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/YouthBuild_Interim_Report_2016_508.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 YouthBuild