Jastrzab, J. (1997). Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
Reviewed: September 2010
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Service and Conservation Corps.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ever earned a high school diploma or GED |
Service and Conservation Corps vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Survey respondents;
|
0.57 |
0.59 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 5% | |
| Black | 51% | |
| Native American | 2% | |
| Other or unknown | 2% | |
| White | 14% |
| Hispanic | 26% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 74% |
The study was conducted in four sites: California Conservation Corps–Santa Clara District, City Volunteer Corps in New York City, Greater Miami Service Corps in Florida, and Washington State Service Corps.
The study used a randomized controlled trial design to examine the effect of Service and Conservation Corps in four sites located in four states. The criteria for selecting sites included program size (70 or more participants), the absence of recruiting problems, at least one year in operation, and only one study site per state (to maximize geographic diversity). From August 1993 through May 1994, the four sites that met these criteria and agreed to participate in the study randomly assigned 1,642 program applicants to either a treatment group that was allowed to enroll in the program (1,378 youth) or to a control group that was not (264 youth). Although the combination of overall and differential rates of student attrition exceeds WWC standards for this topic area, the study statistically controls for differences between the analytic groups in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, and several measures of degree of disadvantage or school performance.The analysis sample consisted of 383 youths in the treatment group and 243 youths in the control group. The combination of overall and differential rates of student attrition associated with this analysis sample exceeds WWC standards for this topic area.The average age of sampled youth was 20, with about two-thirds between 17 and 19 years of age. Slightly less than half of the study participants were African-American, about three-fifths were male, and half had not yet received a high school diploma or GED.
Service and Conservation Corps programs provide young people with a combination of work experience and education while participating in community service. Youth ages are typically 17 to 26. Most are disadvantaged economically or educationally. Corps members usually work in teams of 8 to 15 on service projects in their communities; many of the programs require participants to wear uniforms or at least t-shirts with the Service and Conservation Corps logo. Most programs are not residential. A few programs, including several sites of the California Conservation Corps, do provide participants with temporary lodging. Programs range in size from comparatively small corps serving 20 participants to programs with several hundred corps members. Participation is typically full time and intended to last between 6 and 12 months, although the average participant stays in the program for about 4 or 5 months. Participants generally spend 80% of their time in community service; the rest of the time is allocated to education and other personal or profes-sional developmental activities. During their enrollment in Service and Conservation Corps, participants are paid a stipend, generally equivalent to or less than the minimum wage. Those who complete the programs often are eligible for post-program educational stipends or small cash awards. Through case management, participants are linked to a wide array of educational and supportive services, including counseling and education. The study reported youths’ outcomes 15 months after program application.
The control group did not receive Service and Conservation Corps services, but could receive other services available in the community. The program effects presented in this study are treatment on treated (TOT) impacts. In other words, the impacts adjust for “no-shows” and “crossovers” in the analysis sample and are based on enrolled treatment group members.
The relevant study outcome included in this review is whether youths reported ever having earned a high school diploma or GED. This outcome is based on student follow-up interviews conducted 15 months after program application. For a more detailed description of this outcome measure, see Appendix A2. The study also examined a number of other outcomes that are not within the scope of the Dropout Prevention review protocol, including employment, earnings, and measures of civic engagement.
The program’s educational component often is offered through partnerships with local charter schools or community colleges. No information is available about the training of the staff.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Jastrzab, J., Masker, J., Blomquist, J., & Orr, L. (1996). Impacts of service: Final report on the evaluation of American Conservation and Youth Service Corps. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube