Study Details | Pathways to Work

25024-Study of National Gu

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition, suggesting the findings can be attributed to the program.

Program: National Guard Youth ChalleNGe

Characteristics of study participants:

Less than a high school diploma or equivalent, Unemployed, Young adults (age 16-24)

Services provided:

Basic skills/bridge programs, Job placement

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for review: Version 1.0

Learn about our protocol

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The ChalleNGe program served disconnected youth (who had dropped out of school and were not employed) who were ages 16 to 18. Applicants were required to be drug-free and have no serious current or prior involvement with the criminal justice system. The study included 12 ChalleNGe program sites with stable staffing that typically received more applicants than they could serve. Most program sites served about 200 participants per year in two class cycles of 100 participants each. For each cycle that the 12 program sites operated from June 2005 to December 2006, the participating programs conducted recruitment and enrollment as usual. If a cycle included at least 25 percent more eligible applicants than there were slots available, the programs randomly assigned eligible individuals to an program group that was offered the ChalleNGe program services or a comparison group that was not offered services. Each of the 12 program sites conducted random assignment 0 to 3 times and contributed 0 to 3 cohorts of participants to the evaluation (10 programs contributed at least 1 cohort). In total, 2,320 youth were assigned to the program group and 754 to the comparison group. Participants in the first cycles received a survey nine months after random assignment. The study team also attempted to survey a random subsample of study participants about 21 and 36 months after random assignment.

Time period of study:

Individuals were randomly assigned between June 2005 and December 2006 and followed for three years thereafter.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase long-term earnings, Increase long-term employment, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Military activity; delinquency; criminal activity; physical health; mental health; substance use; living status; family formation; life skills; leadership; civic engagement; family relationships; self-efficacy

Study funded by:

Funding for the evaluation came from the U.S. Department of Defense and several private foundations (The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the MCJ Foundation, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation).

Results

View table definitions

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Program group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 3	High	11,248.00	13,515.00	2,267.00	2008 dollars	1,173
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	36 months	High	50.70	57.80	7.10	percentage points	1,173
Increase long-term employment	Number of months employed, annual	Year 3	High	7.20	8.10	0.90	months	1,173
Increase education and training	Earned a certificate from a training program	36 months	High	27.90	29.70	1.80	percentage points	1,173
Increase education and training	Earned any college credit	36 months	High	18.80	34.90	16.10	percentage points	1,173
Increase education and training	Earned college degree	36 months	High	0.00	0.90	0.90	percentage points	1,173
Increase education and training	Received a GED	36 months	High	34.50	56.90	22.40	percentage points	1,173
Increase education and training	Received a high school diploma	36 months	High	26.60	30.30	3.70	percentage points	1,173

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.

Means are not displayed when not reported or not aligned with the impact estimates. For example, if the impact estimate is regression-adjusted but only unadjusted means are reported in the study, the unadjusted means are not displayed as they are not aligned with the adjusted impact estimate.

Impact estimates are not shown when the estimate units cannot be converted to natural units.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the program. 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 program, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the program 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 ChalleNGe program served disconnected youth (who had dropped out of or were expelled from school and were not employed) who were ages 16 to 18. Applicants were required to be drug-free and have no serious current or prior involvement with the criminal justice system. The majority of study participants (84 percent) were male. Thirty-seven percent were age 16, 52 percent were age 17, and 11 percent were age 18. The racial and ethnic composition was 40 percent Black, 41 percent White, 14 percent Hispanic, and 4 percent of another racial or ethnic background. About one-quarter (23 percent) of study participants lived with both biological parents before random assignment, and 11 percent lived without a parental figure. About one-third (30 percent) lived in a household in which any member received public assistance. The typical participant had completed the 10th grade and received mostly Cs and Ds or mostly Ds and Fs before leaving school. Eighty-two percent had ever been suspended from school, 31 percent had been arrested, and 16 percent had been convicted of a crime.

Age

Young adults (age 16-24)

100%

Sex

Female	12%
Male	88%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	34%
White, not Hispanic	42%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	18%
Unknown, not reported, or other	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.

Employment and public benefit status

Were unemployed	100%
Public benefits recipients	26%

Education

Had a high school diploma or GED	1%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	93%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

The United States National Guard

Program history:

The program was developed by staff at the National Guard Bureau in the U.S. Department of Defense. A pilot program was launched in 1993, and funding became permanent in 1998.

Program services:

The National Guard Youth ChalleNGe program consists of three phases. The first phase (pre-ChalleNGe) is a two-week, intensive orientation and assessment period. After this initial period, individuals are formally enrolled in the program as "cadets" and move to Phase 2. Phase 2 consists of a 20-week education (focused on preparation for the GED exam) and positive youth development program. Phases 1 and 2 are residential, with participants residing on-site in a quasi-military environment. Participants who complete Phases 1 and 2 receive assistance from staff to search for and identify a placement in employment, education, or military service and engage in a one-year, post-residential phase. During this final phase, individuals participate in a structured mentoring program with mentors from their communities.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Individuals in the comparison group were not admitted to the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe program at the time of random assignment. A small number enrolled in the program at a later date.

Service receipt duration:

The program consists of 2 residential phases lasting a total of 22 weeks and a nonresidential phase lasting 1 year thereafter.

Program funding:

The program is jointly funded by federal and state National Guard funds.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $12,847 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $0 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $12,847 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 to Work converted that information to a single amount expressed in 2024 dollars; for details, see the FAQ. This information is not an official price tag or guarantee.

Study publications

Bloom, Dan, Alissa Gardenhire-Crooks, and Conrad Mandsager (2009). Reengaging high school dropouts: Early results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe program evaluation, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_491.pdf

Millenky, Megan, Dan Bloom, and Colleen Dillon (2010). Making the transition: Interim results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe evaluation, New York: MDRC. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514661.pdf

Millenky, Megan, Dan Bloom, Sara Muller-Ravett, and Joseph Broadus (2011). Staying on course: Three-year results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe evaluation, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/staying-course

Perez-Arce, Francisco, Louay Constant, David Loughran, and Lynn Karoly (2012). A cost-benefit analysis of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe program, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Available at https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2012/RAND_TR1193.pdf

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

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.

Study of National Guard Youth ChalleNGe